Orson Scott Card rewrites Hamlet and makes it all the fault of evil gay people


Books

51 to 100 of 199 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Cartigan wrote:
[My not liking Shakespeare in general is unrelated to my point that there is no reason not to update the language.

The words Shakespeare used and the way he used them is a large part of what makes him a genius and why his plays have endured as they have. There is a beat to his writing. It is one of those things that you have to hear the lines from a talented performer to really get it.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think Shakespeare stinks. And I should know.


You know, if Card keeps up like he's going, he might start to catch up to Terry Goodkind (no, not really).


Caedwyr wrote:
You know, if Card keeps up like he's going, he might start to catch up to Terry Goodkind (no, not really).

Harsh. Terry is technically a far worse author than Card, even now, but he's also so bad that he's often quite unintentionally hilarious: he's way more entertaining than Card, that's for sure. And whilst he rams his Objectivist philosophy down the reader's throats repeatedly, he's relatively progressive in the areas Card objects to ('relatively' being the operative word here). For example, when the hero stews over the morality of homosexuality, he concludes it should be allowed on the basis that this means hot lesbians can hang out in his kingdom (!). Which may be simply sexist instead, but it does seem to be an advance on Card's position.

Goodkind is a frothing-at-the-mouth disciple of Ayn Rand who's fond of insulting his own readers and seems to have an inexplicable grudge against the nation of Canada, but compared to Card's homophobia (which he extends to funding anti-gay marriage groups with his income) or Simmons' increasingly surreal paranoia about Islam, his antics seem mild at worst.


My feeling is that the field of speculative fiction is studded with leftist writers. It may just be me, of course, but there is certainly no lack of them. It also seems to me that all political streaks are represented.

Dark Archive

Captain Marsh wrote:

And one of the biggest debates in conservative blogs was over the semantic political meanings of the new Battlestar Galactica series.

Are Muslims like Cylons? And if so, what do we do about it?

-Marsh

Wow. That's... the exact opposite of what I took away from season 3, where the cylons invade the independant human colony and act as oppressive custodial guardians because "we know what's best for you". If anything, it was analogous to the far-left view of Iraq with the cylons as the occupying American force, doing evil with the best of intentions

NOTE: this is not me making an opinion of right/wrong or left/right views, merely an observation, with no choosing of sides regarding the show's analogy's validity, and I have no intention of debating the point. I just thought it was interesting that one side would view the Cylons as Muslim, and the other might view the Cylons as American.


therealthom wrote:
In his defense as an author, Card has written several good books aside from the Ender line. Misery, the one about the singers (unfortunately I can't come up with the title), and the Folk on the Fringe compilation of short stories are all good.

Agreed for the most part.

And regarding "the one about the singers" - do you mean Songmaster?

-- C.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Captain Marsh wrote:


He differs from a lot of right-leaning geek writers, though, in that he tends to be far less libertarian when it comes to social issues like homosexuality.

Still, it's interesting just how many fantasy and science fiction authors swing conservative. Or at least have fierce veins of that in their cosmos-view.

One of Richard Nixon's favorite shows was Star Trek. Science Fiction especially the Hard Forward/Asimov/Heinlein variety has always had a strong right wing appeal to it with it's pro-military, pro-nuclear, generally "screw the rules I've got a laser-cannon" approach to the world. For that matter, gamers I've met tend to swing right more than left. And so do most libertarians.


It doesn't seem like anybody here has actually read this, so I'm going to take one for the team and see if my local library has Hamlet's Father this weekend. Or The Taming of the Shrew one.


Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
It doesn't seem like anybody here has actually read this, so I'm going to take one for the team and see if my local library has Hamlet's Father this weekend.

Careful! If you read it you might be infected by Teh Gay! That's OSC's evil plan! You're falling right into his clutches!

Liberty's Edge

Matthew Winn wrote:
Captain Marsh wrote:

And one of the biggest debates in conservative blogs was over the semantic political meanings of the new Battlestar Galactica series.

Are Muslims like Cylons? And if so, what do we do about it?

-Marsh

Wow. That's... the exact opposite of what I took away from season 3, where the cylons invade the independant human colony and act as oppressive custodial guardians because "we know what's best for you". If anything, it was analogous to the far-left view of Iraq with the cylons as the occupying American force, doing evil with the best of intentions

NOTE: this is not me making an opinion of right/wrong or left/right views, merely an observation, with no choosing of sides regarding the show's analogy's validity, and I have no intention of debating the point. I just thought it was interesting that one side would view the Cylons as Muslim, and the other might view the Cylons as American.

Actually, that twist prompted some seriously disappointed - I was going to say irate, but I don't really recall anger coming through, just betrayal - posts on a number of right-wing blogs, because up until then Marsh's description was the one that was getting the most play at that end of the political spectrum. I don't really recall many left-wing blogs talking about BSG much until that happened, though, and then it was mostly cackling over the right-wing's dismay.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought the Cylons represented our innate human desire to f*$! machines.

I was misled.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sebastian wrote:

I thought the Cylons represented our innate human desire to f*+* machines.

I was misled.

You damn robosexuals...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Callous Jack wrote:
Sebastian wrote:

I thought the Cylons represented our innate human desire to f*+* machines.

I was misled.

You damn robosexuals...

Some people live for motor oil splashed in their face.

The Exchange

Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:

It doesn't seem like anybody here has actually read this, so I'm going to take one for the team and see if my local library has Hamlet's Father this weekend. Or The Taming of the Shrew one.

Bravo. Goblins have gone a step up in my book.


Crimson Jester wrote:
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:

It doesn't seem like anybody here has actually read this, so I'm going to take one for the team and see if my local library has Hamlet's Father this weekend. Or The Taming of the Shrew one.

Bravo. Goblins have gone a step up in my book.

So now they're... what, three feet tall?

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Jade wrote:
Callous Jack wrote:
Sebastian wrote:

I thought the Cylons represented our innate human desire to f*+* machines.

I was misled.

You damn robosexuals...
Some people live for motor oil splashed in their face.

Hot ...sticky...um what?

There is no shame in this, just because the batteries run out!

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Jade wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:

It doesn't seem like anybody here has actually read this, so I'm going to take one for the team and see if my local library has Hamlet's Father this weekend. Or The Taming of the Shrew one.

Bravo. Goblins have gone a step up in my book.
So now they're... what, three feet tall?

Two and a half; But that is a jump up from six inches!


I'm six inches tall on my back!

(That's big for a goblin.)


Werthead wrote:

I think HOMECOMING was more insidious. The gay character in that was presented as a good person who attempted to combat his homosexual urges (Card believes, very firmly, that homosexuality is a choice made of free - if sometimes subconscious - will and rejects all neuroscientific evidence to the contrary) and eventually apparently succeeded, marrying a female character and finding solace in a conventional heterosexual marriage and relationship.

So Card did present a gay character there as laudable, but laudable only because he overcame and then rejected his homosexual identity. I'm not sure that's a great message to be sending out either.

I think that's rather hard on Card.

Zdorab did NOT reject his homosexual identity. It's true that he HOPED that impregnating Shedemei would... uh... "set him straight"...

<ducks>

...but it did nothing of the kind. The act of doing it with a woman revolted his every instinct, and he found it no less revolting after the deed than before.

It's true that he found meaning in his life in child-rearing, but that had nothing to do with combating urges.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not being familiar with Card's work (I believe I still have some signed comics by him in the basement, but those were Donna's) I can't comment one way or another on him. Do want to hit a couple points people have made.

First, I think it is possible to seperate the person from the work. I mean our hosts (on the whole) lean further left than I do (yes yes, I know that's not hard) but I don't hold it against their work.* So the people saying that OSC's quality has declined I hope are basing it on his work, not his politics colouring them.

Second, with the webisodes and Season 3 of BSG, I was one who was disappointed with the colonials for the suicide bombings. I'd like to think that I'd be one who fought against the cylons, but not by blowing up humans. I remember the fan outrage later in the season when Helo refused to use biologic warfare on the cylons. I seemed to be in the minority who felt he did the right thing.**

Third, I have to disagree with the argument that pro-traditional marriage = homophobia. It is possible to support the traditional definition of marriage and not be 'anti-gay'.

*

Spoiler:
I've complimented Sean's work on Erastil as a good example of someone able to write convincingly about something they don't believe, as an example.

**

Spoiler:
I don't know about the Cylons-as-Muslims thing. By the time season 4 had rolled around, the cylons were fractured. I'd have liked to see a few more 4s and 5s come around to the colonials way, as well as a 6 or two support Cavill. But the cylons weren't completely of free will, so I don't see the Cylon-Muslim connection.

Dark Archive

Matthew Morris wrote:

...stuff I agree with, followed by...

Third, I have to disagree with the argument that pro-traditional marriage = homophobia. It is possible to support the traditional definition of marriage and not be 'anti-gay'.

I have to disagree with your disagreement, based entirely on the fact that I have yet to hear a real objection that doesn't boil down to "God says so" or "It's icky".

That's all I'll say on it, because that's an argument for a different thread.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Matthew Winn wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:

...stuff I agree with, followed by...

Third, I have to disagree with the argument that pro-traditional marriage = homophobia. It is possible to support the traditional definition of marriage and not be 'anti-gay'.

I have to disagree with your disagreement, based entirely on the fact that I have yet to hear a real objection that doesn't boil down to "God says so" or "It's icky".

That's all I'll say on it, because that's an argument for a different thread.

Pop on over to Gay Patriot and stroll through the archives for what I'm talking about. Better place to discuss it anyway. ;-)


Yeah, there was a ton of outrage and angst in conservative circles when Galactica turned sort of, well, progressive.

Imagine if "24" had turned to be a polemic against the national security state and you get the idea.

On the other hand, the Right was THRILLED with LOTR.

I still see bin Laden and Saddam Hussein as Sauron and Sauruman metaphors floating around out there.

All those yellow-haired pure-of-heart types whacking their way through hordes of grunting dark-skins? Who can resist?

Of course they sort of plug their ears during Tolkien's environmental "the age of industry is the age of orcs" stuff...

The cool thing about the best conservative genre stuff (and I grudgingly include some of Card's best writing here) is that it is unpredictable and not generally dogmatic.

On the other hand, Card at his worst really does have an icky angry quality...

Marsh

The Exchange

Matthew Winn wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:

...stuff I agree with, followed by...

Third, I have to disagree with the argument that pro-traditional marriage = homophobia. It is possible to support the traditional definition of marriage and not be 'anti-gay'.

I have to disagree with your disagreement, based entirely on the fact that I have yet to hear a real objection that doesn't boil down to "God says so" or "It's icky".

That's all I'll say on it, because that's an argument for a different thread.

I have found that many who claim to say such, do so because they have not listened to anything else.

The Exchange

Captain Marsh wrote:

On the other hand, Card at his worst really does have an icky angry quality...

Marsh

Sort of like an old George Carlin?


EDITED FOR IMPROPER CLAUSE PLACEMENT

Tangenital Battlestar Galactica Rant

Spoiler:

I think that the idea that Battlestar had any serious politics behind it is ridiculous. Sure, they played with ideas: what if al-Qaeda sleeper cells were robots?; what if the Cylons treated humans like the USA treated Iraq?; what if after three seasons we revealed that three, [EDIT} well, maybe two characters you loved were really Cylon agents all along AND they were the replicants of the blah blah blah...AND what if Cara Thrace was some kind of angel...AND (I hate to troll, but) what if THE WORLD'S WORST PERFORMANCE OF "ALL ALONG THE WATCHTOWER" WAS SOME KIND OF F@!#ING MYSTICAL HYMN OF WORLD-SHAKING SONORITIES?!?........

[Ahem]

I thought the first two seasons were badass, but pretty quick into Season Three I just went WTF?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Captain Marsh wrote:

<...>

The cool thing about the best conservative genre stuff (and I grudgingly include some of Card's best writing here) is that it is unpredictable and not generally dogmatic.

On the other hand, Card at his worst really does have an icky angry quality...

Marsh

I'd say the same is true for any ideologue--good ones are good and not necessarily dogmatic (or if they are, it makes sense in context). I mean, you won't mistake China Mieville for anything other than what he is, politically, but lots of people across the political spectrum really like his stuff. Ditto for Ken MacLeod, Charlie Stross, Poul Anderson, Robert Heinlein, Ursula LeGuin, and any number of other authors. OTOH, folks like Tom Kratman, Leo Frankowski (at least later in life), and Sheri Tepper frequently rub even people who agree with them the wrong way.


Matthew Winn wrote:


Wow. That's... the exact opposite of what I took away from season 3, where the cylons invade the independant human colony and act as oppressive custodial guardians because "we know what's best for you". If anything, it was analogous to the far-left view of Iraq with the cylons as the occupying American force, doing evil with the best of intentions

NOTE: this is not me making an opinion of right/wrong or left/right views, merely an observation, with no choosing of sides regarding the show's analogy's validity, and I have no intention of debating the point. I just thought it was interesting that one side would view the Cylons as Muslim, and the other might view the Cylons as American.

I think the truth is that the writing team of BSG didn't really have a one-to-one correlation. Were they trying to make American viewers feel empathy with the innocent civilian populace of Iraq who'd been thrust into chaos unexpectedly? Were the Cylons the Americans and the Colonials the Muslims? Or the other way around?

At the end of the day, I think the producers used the iconography and news-familiar imagery of the Iraq War to make the story feel current and relevant, but it didn't really have anything at all to say about the actual war itself.

Quote:
I thought the first two seasons were badass, but pretty quick into Season Three I just went WTF?

Agreed. I think this is because they actually had 'a plan' for Seasons 1-2, basically getting them to the Presidential elections via the Pegasus showing up, and then New Caprica was a natural outgrowth of that. However, once they hit Season 3 they clearly had no clue what to do next. In particular, it's telling that at the start of S3 Ronald D. Moore was telling writers on the show (via the updated series bible) that the Final Five were Cylons who never left their homeworld and passed orders down to their minions, who were programmed not to think of them. Just a few months later he'd completely changed his mind and they were all familiar characters and were a totally different type of Cylon from a totally different lineage. It was inconsistent and incoherent.

Not to mention RDM having wanted to have used 'All Along the Watchtower' (which he has a lifelong obssession with) as the movement of a storyline when he was producing ROSWELL, and shoehorned it into BSG when he could. That's not exactly a good reason for bringing in such an oddball storyline.

The Exchange

Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:

Tangenital Battlestar Galactica Rant

** spoiler omitted **

[Ahem]

I thought the first two seasons were badass, but pretty quick into Season Three I just went WTF?

Good Rant, I agree. I think some of it was a left over from the first series.

Hated the end and season 3, but I think that should be for another thread.

Then again, we had a convo about shakie the spear here.


Back to Hamlet's Father, my library does not have a copy, which I guess isn't surprising since it's a new book.(?)

Further research reveals that I will NOT be reading his The Taming of the Shrew because: 1) it is a simple translation, not a retelling; and 2) there are no dirty, sexy, naughty bits. :(

But there is Kiss Me Kate with Kathryn and 10 Things I Hate About You with Julia. Meow, meow.

Waitaminnit! Cole Porter? And Heath Ledger? Shakespeare's gay!


Werthead wrote:

At the end of the day, I think the producers used the iconography and news-familiar imagery of the Iraq War to make the story feel current and relevant, but it didn't really have anything at all to say about the actual war itself.

I tried to say this and failed.


Don't get me wrong, though. It has tons of hot chicks. It's not gay like Shakespeare.


Card has removed the moral complexity

- what moral complexity? The guys father in law is guilty of murder. He not only had the motive and opportunity, he not only married hamlets mother before the body was cold, but hamlets dad's CAME BACK FROM THE DEAD in front of 20 people and said "Your stepdad killed me son, get revenge". They had more evidence on this guy than they had on OJ and he's still dithering around in whiney emo goth mode "whoa is me i'd rather die than make a decision this easy".

The play should have lasted 5 minutes.

act 1 scene 2

Hamlet: "Ok, guardsmen who know my dad really is back from the dead and that i did NOT cut of circulation to my brain with these too tight tights. Who's guarding the king tomorrow? Ok, Adehbert, Breheight. Excellent. Execute him for treason and there's large tracts of land in it for you. In fact, large tracts of land for everyone!

act 2 scene 2

The King: GERK!

The end.

Quote:
characterisation

The characterization is that everyone is holding onto the idiot ball. Hamlet is clinging to the idiot moon.

Quote:
and thematic development

I see dead person... i'll get off my kiester and do something!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Hamlet: "Ok, guardsmen who know my dad really is back from the dead and that i did NOT cut of circulation to my brain with these too tight tights. Who's guarding the king tomorrow? Ok, Adehbert, Breheight. Excellent. Execute him for treason and there's large tracts of land in it for you. In fact, large tracts of land for everyone!

The point has often been made that if Othello had Hamlet's personality, and vice versa, we'd have two fewer tragedies in the English language.


Crimson Jester wrote:
I have found that many who claim to say such, do so because they have not listened to anything else.

Careful. I've seen what pass for non-religious, non-ick-based arguments. The ones that aren't about religion or ick (just covered with a thin veil of misdirection) trend in one other major direction: "marriage is all about procreation." Which offends me, insasfar as I'm happily married but have no children -- a condition that many of my nearest friends also fall into.

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

I like OSC's early work, and the first Pastwatch book, that is about it. "A Planet Called Treason" is my favorite, even if it does use Orson's favorite plot device of Dues Ex Machina. That's right my favorite isn't "Ender's Game." Don't ask why, I really don't know.

I am also Mormon. I found it ironic when someone who was clearly pro-homosexuality posted about how disgusted they were that a book was written by a Mormon.

I, and just about every other Mormon I have talked to, do not agree with Mr. Card's ways of expressing his political and personal views. In fact, I really would like it if someone in power (or Card himself) would slap a statement on his work that said something to effect of "The views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the views of this man's religion."

Now, I haven't read Hamlet's Father, but I would hope that someone will and post about their thoughts on it in a constructive and non-biased way. I would not be surprised if it was the blunt statement against homosexuality that people are claiming it is, and I would agree that it is bad taste to write something like that.

Let me make the point clear: Card is Mormon, but not all Mormons like him or agree with him. In fact some believe he has done more damage then good.

Now on to Mormons and homosexuality, because that was brought up here and I want to clarify a couple things. Please, don't take what it said personally, I am not here to insult anyone, or even make them uncomfortable. Be respectful of me and what I post and I will respond nicely. Flame me and I might kindly address one or two points and then ignore you.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has stated in a document titled, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" that "Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan." If you want to see what the churches standing is on family, read that. It is pretty clear and to the point and addresses the world, not just the church.

The church does have a specific commandment against homosexuality, which shouldn't be surprising as, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God." The Bible is pretty clear about that sort of thing, but the LDS church does have official statements from modern leaders on the matter. The reasons for a church to have that stance is of course religious, God commanded it to be so. Why? I am not a theologian so I won't try and explain that. If you want, go to LDS.org and study what the leaders say about it.

The church also teaches that we (the members of the church) need to let others worship how, where, and what they may. Basically, let people live the way they choose to live. If that means homosexuality then fine, let them. Where does the basis of this belief come from? The Bible, where Joshua simply tells the people to worship how they may but his household will worship God.

"But wait! You have all these guys in suits pounding on my door!" Yeah, we do. They are there for two reasons. The first is to grow and develop their own beliefs. The second is to teach people who want to learn about Christ and his doctrine. The door knocking is because they are trying to find people to teach, and if it seems like they are shoving it down your throat I am sorry. The door knocking is known to be pretty useless as a find tool, but the constant rejection is good for personal development. Let me repeat, those guys are not there to shove religion in people's faces, it is to find and teach the people who are looking for what they are offering.

I have gay friends and I had gay mentors growing up. I like my gay friends, they are good people who I enjoy being around. They know my personal stances on homosexuality, but they also know I don't let those stances stand in the way of a good friendship. They made their choice on how to live and I won't try and change that. I will teach my children my views and beliefs, and if anyone asks me for advice related to homosexuality I will give them. I will not force my kids or anyone to live the way I do, however, as force and coercion isn't ever the answer.

I am also a writer, though not a published one. In my own writing I have gays, lesbians, and bi-sexuals. Some of them are big protagonists too, though I will admit that one of my main antagonists is bi, but mostly because the moral background they have allows them to do just about anything they want.

As for my personal view on gay marriage, I believe that more un-biased research needs to be done to find out the longer term effects of homosexuality in a marriage situation and in a family situation with children. I also want to know how the decision to allow gay marriage will affect the fertility rate. I doubt there will be something found that is horrible and evil, but I would feel more comfortable if there was at least some information stating facts on the topic that can be believed by all. We keep saying we are a progressive society, but emotions and religion seem to be the main reasons for the decisions on this topic. I chose to vote for Prop 8 in CA because there wasn't enough information (in my mind) to logically make the change that would allow gay marriage. My choice was not really affected by religion.

I think I covered all the topics brought up in this discussion. Did I miss anything?

Once again, I am trying my best to keep this civil and I am not trying to lash out at anyone. Please do me a favor and do the same.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Hamlet: "Ok, guardsmen who know my dad really is back from the dead and that i did NOT cut of circulation to my brain with these too tight tights. Who's guarding the king tomorrow? Ok, Adehbert, Breheight. Excellent. Execute him for treason and there's large tracts of land in it for you. In fact, large tracts of land for everyone!
The point has often been made that if Othello had Hamlet's personality, and vice versa, we'd have two fewer tragedies in the English language.

Speaking of Othello, an acquaintance once made the observation that the character of Iago could be replaced with Pikachu (they yellow electric rodent). Whenever either Pikachu or Iago says something (or makes noise indicating they are saying something) another person in the scene will immediately say "Iago/Pikachu, you don't say that <repeat what Iago/Pikachu supposedly said>".

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
I have found that many who claim to say such, do so because they have not listened to anything else.
Careful. I've seen what pass for non-religious, non-ick-based arguments. The ones that aren't about religion or ick (just covered with a thin veil of misdirection) trend in one other major direction: "marriage is all about procreation." Which offends me, insasfar as I'm happily married but have no children -- a condition that many of my nearest friends also fall into.

I agree that marriage isn't just about procreation, though I strongly believe that procreation should only be done within the bonds of marriage. Marriage is about commitment, dedication, and loyalty to someone you love very dearly. Having that bond of commitment helps in raising children right. The problem though is that people seem to be taking marriage less seriously then they did ten, twenty, fifty years ago.

Don't take that last sentence as a stance against gay marriage, it isn't meant to be. But look at the statistics of marriage and tell me that things are not ugly. Something like 75% divorce rate should be a sign that something is wrong. The rates of spousal abuse is also concerning. And while we are lightly on the topic of gay marriage, GLBT relationships are not immune to the problems either. The first gay couple in California to be married were divorced not long afterward.

I feel grateful that I just celebrated my third anniversary. The odds that we have beaten are pretty big ones.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

therealthom wrote:
So, did you read the book or are you going off on this rant based on a review?

I haven't read the book myself yet, but when the reviewer—who clearly has an axe to grind against the author's politics—suggests that Card has made Hamlet a one-dimensional character, that sets off my BS-meter. I've read nearly every novel Card has written, along with most of his novellas and short stories, and I think the one thing Card is *best* at is characterization.

I do have to say I'm not terribly interested in this book, though.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.
CalebTGordan wrote:

I chose to vote for Prop 8 in CA because there wasn't enough information (in my mind) to logically make the change that would allow gay marriage. My choice was not really affected by religion.

DISCLAIMER: I have one question, and it is an attempt to try and understand where you are coming from. Your stance is very contrary to my thoughts and opinions, so I am trying not to sound snarky, but I may not succeed. If I come off that way, I apologize.

In a democratic society based on civil rights, if you can admit that you don't have enough information to take a formal secular stance, isn't the de facto response to NOT deny someone rights and benefits? Isn't the burden of proof in the hands of those that wish to deny rights?


CalebTGordan wrote:
The problem though is that people seem to be taking marriage less seriously then they did ten, twenty, fifty years ago. I feel grateful that I just celebrated my third anniversary. The odds that we have beaten are pretty big ones.

Congratulations on your anniversary -- my 7th was last weekend. Every year is better than the one before.

Re: your other point, I saw any number of toxic, destructive marriages ten, twenty, thirty years ago (I'm not 50 yet) that scarred the children every bit as much as a divorce. I believe that a stable household, preferrably with more than one parent, is good for kids. I also believe that this means everyone -- gay, stright, or whatever -- should be making absolutely sure their partnership is compatible before tying the knot. I'd like to see divorce prevented by better pre-marriage screening, rather than by social/legal pressure that forces destructive marriages into pressure cookers.

P.S. Thank you for your initial post, by the way. I was very much hoping a practicing Mormon could offer some perspective on the issue -- especially insofar as Card's blog rants do not remind me in any way of any of the Mormons I know.

Dark Archive

CalebTGordan wrote:

I agree that marriage isn't just about procreation, though I strongly believe that procreation should only be done within the bonds of marriage. Marriage is about commitment, dedication, and loyalty to someone you love very dearly. Having that bond of commitment helps in raising children right. The problem though is that people seem to be taking marriage less seriously then they did ten, twenty, fifty years ago.

Don't take that last sentence as a stance against gay marriage, it isn't meant to be. But look at the statistics of marriage and tell me that things are not ugly. Something like 75% divorce rate should be a sign that something is wrong. The rates of spousal abuse is also concerning. And while we are lightly on the topic of gay marriage, GLBT relationships are not immune to the problems either. The first gay couple in California to be married were divorced not long afterward.

I will second the congrats on your anniversay. My 6th is in February, and (knock on wood) I wouldn't change it for the world.

re: marriage

* experts disagree on the exact divorce rate, but they do agree it's much closer to 50%, not 75%

* much of that number is inflated because of the people who get married (and divorced) numerous times. It's like saying the Average income is $200,000 a year. The number is inflated by a small percentage at the top

* The rates of spousal abuse have been alarming for a long time. The difference is, abused woman can now get a divorce, something that was denied them in 1950. I know, because they denied my grandmother. She was married for 50 years. Didn't make her happy. A higher divorce rate does not mean more marriages are failing, it can simply mean that now the people trapped in a loveless marriage have something they can do about it.

* the first gay couple to get married in California *wanted* a divorce, but were denied because California no longer acknowledged the marriage in the first place. Their belongings were hopelessly entangled.

* If my father had not divorced my mother, he couldn't have married my step-mother. I would have remained an only child trapped in a house with a loveless marriage. Instead, I was raised in a happy family with two half-siblings who may be the best people I have ever met.

The Exchange

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
I have found that many who claim to say such, do so because they have not listened to anything else.
Careful. I've seen what pass for non-religious, non-ick-based arguments. The ones that aren't about religion or ick (just covered with a thin veil of misdirection) trend in one other major direction: "marriage is all about procreation." Which offends me, insofar as I'm happily married but have no children -- a condition that many of my nearest friends also fall into.

Yes well, I think this is a discussion best not hashed out on an internet forum anyway. Too easy to take things out of context and get upset about something.

Dark Archive

Crimson Jester wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
I have found that many who claim to say such, do so because they have not listened to anything else.
Careful. I've seen what pass for non-religious, non-ick-based arguments. The ones that aren't about religion or ick (just covered with a thin veil of misdirection) trend in one other major direction: "marriage is all about procreation." Which offends me, insofar as I'm happily married but have no children -- a condition that many of my nearest friends also fall into.
Yes well, I think this is a discussion best not hashed out on an internet forum anyway. Too easy to take things out of context and get upset about something.

Agreed. I'll try my best to keep my mouth shut (figuratively speaking)


CalebTGordan wrote:
That's right my favorite isn't "Ender's Game." Don't ask why, I really don't know.

Well, I can tell you why Ender's Game isn't MY favorite. I thought all those games got pretty tiresome after a while.

I realize that there was a reason for the games. (I can't say the reason without giving the most major of spoilers, but those of you who have read the book know what I mean, I'm sure.) But I got a little bored with the book at times.


Vic Wertz wrote:
I haven't read the book myself yet, but when the reviewer—who clearly has an axe to grind against the author's politics—suggests that Card has made Hamlet a one-dimensional character, that sets off my BS-meter. I've read nearly every novel Card has written, along with most of his novellas and short stories, and I think the one thing Card is *best* at is characterization.

I agree that Card used to be excellent at characterisation (particularly in ENDER and SPEAKER FOR THE DEAD, though HOMECOMING had some good ones too and I enjoyed the ALVIN MAKER story in LEGENDS, the only part of that series I've read), but then I read (part of) EMPIRE, where the characterisation can be best described as 'non-existent'. If this was written in the same style, and it appears to have been written around the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if the problem was as advertised.


One of my Mormon friends recommended I NOT read OSC's Alvin the Maker because it was just a rehash of the BoM. A poor rehash in his opinion, but (to paraphrase) if not enough people have read it [the BoM], he looks like a creative writer. OSC passed through the halls of my University a little before we got there, so lots of the faculty knew and lauded him too, and he still felt this way.

Ender's game is on my list to read, and until then I have no other opinion on his writing. I am glad so many of you seem to like OSC, it moves him farther up my long list of books to read. :)

As an aside, BSG was popular in the 80's were I grew up because it was also based on the BoM (or parts of ?? :)

If I remember the old show's opening went something like... "

CalebTGordan wrote:
... In fact some believe...

...life down here, started out there..."

Funny it should be brought up here as well :)
may have to look up the quote and the accuracy of the claim now though.

Silver Crusade

Cartigan wrote:
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:

More to the point, I think we all know why so many teachers and professors make us read Shakespeare:

Because you can then fill up at least three days' lesson plans with showing movies!

In 6 years of English classes, I saw exactly one Shakespeare movie (Macbeth) and went to 1 Shakespeare festival as part of a class trip (and only because it was a private school did we go).

I went through school with the same English teacher for most of my 6 years. However, he never filled up class time with films! We saw a lot of live performances, but I cannot remember seeing to many films in his class. I think I saw the Mel Gibson version of Hamlet because sport was cancelled due to bad weather.

We had to read Shakespeare or act it out. I can never understand why people cannot connect with the plays, either on stage or reading it as a text.

As for my own teaching style, yes I do show a film adaptation of the play (usually for Hamlet). If you think about Julius Caesar, you're introducing a historical period and the play as well. So to help students visualise the play, helping them along with a film is not too bad. It also helps to get the less interested into the text as well.

I think it is rather cynical to say that teachers only teach Shakespeare so they can put on a DVD and forget about the class for a lesson. It is also a black mark on their professionalism as well.


CalebTGordan wrote:
As for my personal view on gay marriage, I believe that more un-biased research needs to be done to find out the longer term effects of homosexuality in a marriage situation and in a family situation with children.

What.

Quote:
I also want to know how the decision to allow gay marriage will affect the fertility rate.

Define. Are you implying that allowing homosexuals to marry will decrease the population? America is going to be destroyed by gay marriage!

You want to look at effects on the fertility rate? Look at education and wealth. The smarter a nation gets, the slower its rate of population growth. How's that factoid work out for you?

Quote:
We keep saying we are a progressive society, but emotions and religion seem to be the main reasons for the decisions on this topic.

That's a poor excuse.

Quote:
I chose to vote for Prop 8 in CA because there wasn't enough information (in my mind) to logically make the change that would allow gay marriage.

What.

Quote:
My choice was not really affected by religion.

It clearly was. Maybe not by your religion directly, but by the beliefs espoused by your religious leaders.

But that's enough on that topic.

51 to 100 of 199 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Books / Orson Scott Card rewrites Hamlet and makes it all the fault of evil gay people All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.