Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

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


Books

151 to 199 of 199 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

ericthetolle wrote:
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.

The Ghost Quartet- where the story originally appeared- can be searched here. In addition, on the metafilter thread, there's been confirmation that if anything, the review softpedals the story. And by the way- do you regard this as a hack job by an author with an axe to grind?

I also find it fascinating the degree of denial and defensiveness that the SF&F community engages in when there's negative publicity about a reactionary writer. It's always when a right-wing writer expresses something like violent islamaphobia or an admiration for Nazis that the community responds with "He's just making a clever point about <something unrelated to the topic>", or "But that's just his opinion, don't judge his writing". It seems to go in hand with the SF&F community's flirtation with reactionary philosophies.

I wasn't suggesting that the reviewer's statements of Card's politics are inaccurate (nor, for that matter, am I saying that they *aren't*; I don't follow Card's politics). I'm just saying that he clearly has issues with the author, and I therefore suspect that his review of the actual book may not be completely objective.


ericthetolle wrote:


The Ghost Quartet- where the story originally appeared- can be searched here.

So, this story is about 80 pages long. The book advertised on Amazon is 104 pages.

Is it safe to say that the Ghost Quartet version is pretty much the entirety of the book?

Osirion

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Werthead wrote:


Terry is...often quite unintentionally hilarious: .... homosexuality... should be allowed on the basis that this means hot lesbians can hang out in his kingdom
Goodkind is ... fond of insulting his own readers and seems to have an inexplicable grudge against the nation of Canada,

WOW I've got to give this guy another chance! Sounds great! 3 for 3!

Spoiler:
just kidding. But that does read as a phenomenally funny resume when I thought he was just a hack who stole Robert Jordan's ideas and worked some freaky bondage soft-core pr0n into his books

Qadira

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
Caustic and sarcastic are synonyms.

Actually, they aren't: caustic simply means harsh, and is derived from the chemical definition of caustic. So you can be caustic without being sarcastic.

I have nothing else to add here, since discussing a book no one actually on this thread has read seems slightly redundant.


I stand corrected.

Qadira

Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
Caustic and sarcastic are synonyms.

Some seem to think Opinions and Facts are as well.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Crimson Jester wrote:
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
Caustic and sarcastic are synonyms.
Some seem to think Opinions and Facts are as well.

Is that your opinion? :-)

Qadira

John Woodford wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
Caustic and sarcastic are synonyms.
Some seem to think Opinions and Facts are as well.

Is that your opinion? :-)

Why yes, it is. :-D

Qadira

underling wrote:
Robert Jordan's ideas

He had those?

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Crimson Jester wrote:
John Woodford wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
Caustic and sarcastic are synonyms.
Some seem to think Opinions and Facts are as well.

Is that your opinion? :-)

Why yes, it is. :-D

No, no--you should have prefaced that with "As a matter of fact,...."

Qadira

John Woodford wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
John Woodford wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
Caustic and sarcastic are synonyms.
Some seem to think Opinions and Facts are as well.

Is that your opinion? :-)

Why yes, it is. :-D
No, no--you should have prefaced that with "As a matter of fact,...."

Ah yes, I should have, very good point.


thejeff wrote:


I don't get this response.
It's not that I don't agree that this shouldn't be censored, it just that when I see some hate-filled drivel my first thought isn't "wow I'm glad the government didn't stop that", it's "Wow, this guy's an a$#+%+%."
(Nor, just to be clear, is it "The government should stop that")

I don't expect the government to stop this kind of thing. The US government hasn't stopped this kind of thing in my life time. Explicit sex, yes. Insulting minority groups or minority opinions, not a chance.

Has there been some secret campaign of government repression of anti-homosexuals that I'm completely unaware of?

So yeah, in theory I'd defend his right to publish this unto the death, until I see some actual threat to his right to do so, I'm going to point and laugh and call him a bigot.

Most people's (i.e. not people here) first reaction to seeing/hearing something they don't agree with is to call for it to be censored (even if they don't use that word). I think we are actually on the same page as I'd be laughing right along side you. Card is a bigot and everyone has the right to be a bigot just as everyone else has the right to call them such (or at least should).


So, I tried. I really did. I'm not saying I tried real hard, but I did try.

There is no copy of either of these books in the Interlibrary Loan system of southern New Hampshire. There is one copy of the anthology down in Boston somewhere, but I'm not driving to Boston for a book and if I did, it wouldn't be this one.

Oh well.


Evil Midnight Lurker wrote:
It's becoming increasingly obvious that Card is a self-loathing closeted homosexual. So deep in the closet that he can see Narnia.

It took me five minutes to stop laughing! Then thirty seconds later I started cackling again for another two minutes.

I have two tablets of stone and a chisel and am ready to take dictation.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

OMG.

I hope you are never on a Jury to convict someone of murder when the death penalty is on the line.

Normally, not enough information should have you make errors in people's FAVOUR, not the other way around. Sheesh.


Treantmonk wrote:


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.

OMG.

I hope you are never on a Jury to convict someone of murder when the death penalty is on the line.

Normally, not enough information should have you make errors in people's FAVOUR, not the other way around. Sheesh.

Well said TM. As usual, your reasoning is concise and accurate.


Treantmonk wrote:


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.

OMG.

I hope you are never on a Jury to convict someone of murder when the death penalty is on the line.

Normally, not enough information should have you make errors in people's FAVOUR, not the other way around. Sheesh.

It's definitely got a dark ages/crusaders feel. "Kill them all and let god sort them out" and whatnot.


LazarX wrote:
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.

That's ironic, because the Federation always struck me as being somewhat of a socialist state.


Sissyl wrote:

Fertility rates?

*drops jaw*

You guys are honestly worried that gay marriage is going to affect FERTILITY RATES? As in, birth rates?

Wow.

If you want the simplest assumption, assume that gay people do not have children. It's not absolutely true, but probably close enough. This does not likely change at all depending on how many of them are married. Those who want to marry are the ones who want to live together exclusively, and they will do so whether they are allowed to marry or not.

Another assumption: It is possible that some few bisexual people will actually choose to marry someone of the same sex, specifically because the law would allow them to, people who would otherwise marry someone of the opposite sex. Again, this concerns so few that it's likely best estimated as zero.

But a more serious question:

If fertility rates drop, isn't that cause for cheering? Taking the US as an example, the people cheered their heads off when you passed 200 M people. Recently, at 300 M people, not so much. A low birth rate is a GOOD thing. It is a sign of a healthy, educated society. You REALLY do not want to compete against India or China regarding population. We did go forth. We did multiply. The Earth is well populated by now.

...Can I hug you?


As long as you don't make any more trolly alignment threads. :-)


Sissyl wrote:
As long as you don't make any more trolly alignment threads. :-)

Yea, I think I'll behave from now on. I don't think anyone was enjoying the troll fighting, and it really isn't worth it.


Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
Werthead wrote:

Fantasy author Scott Lynch has applied the Card Formula to Henry V, with interesting results.

Hee hee!

The first Shakespeare I ever did in college was HV and it kind of blew my mind. I thought it was the most openly scathing and contemptuous thing about war and politics that had ever been written and wrote up a whole paper about that.

Then I went to the library and looked up what literary critics had said and I was like, WTF! That thing was meant seriously? I had to revise my paper a bit.

You got that from Henry V?

Henry V is my absolute favorite play by Shakespeare, with the Tempest in second and Romeo and Juliet third. The film by Brannagh is the best adaptation as far as I can see, as the other version was done as a World War II propaganda piece.

It's not anti-War as it is Anti-Conflict. Here we have a Judahite (a descendant of Pharez and Zarah) leading a bunch of Ephraimites and Manassehites against a superior army of Reubenites led by another Judahite (who is a descendant of Pharez and Zarah). It's a petty, family squabble.

But the English Army was against such terrible odds its a blessing that they won at all. Henry is the Protagonist, while the Dauphine acted as Antagonist. The Duke of Exeter is the King's Guardian -- helping to keep the King on the Right Path.

However, the play deals with deeper human themes. While Treason is harshly dealt with; you get the human element of war within Pistol, Nym, Bardolph and Boy. Through the trio, you see the worst that War had to offer. Bardolph stole from a Church, and he was slain for it (hung) for instance. Pistol was stealing from the dead, and was slain by a French blade in the Brannagh film.

My kinsman, Orson Scott Card, can't do a better job on any of Shakespeare's plays. To me, Shakespeare has his Master, and that is the riveting drama you read in the Bible through the E and J scribes (i'd say Moses is Shakespeare's Master, as Moses was better educated.)

Osirion

1 person marked this as a favorite.

[tangent]
Random thought about Orson Scott Card & Ender's Game, etc. after re-reading this thread;

Something I noticed a long time ago, when deciding that I liked Star Trek more than Star Wars, was that different science-fiction franchises go in different directions. In some, *anybody* can be a hero or ship captain or the protagonist of the story, even if they come from 'common' stock or grew up on farms or have no special chosen destiny or super-powers or genetic manipulation. In others, the story focuses on the person who is 'special' because of birth (or scientific tinkering), and that feels more exclusive to me. While I'm not 100% consistent in this, I find myself less drawn to the Luke Skywalkers, or the Ender Wiggins, than the Kirks and the Siskos and the heroic figures who aren't of special caste, inherently superior to the rest.

Ender, in the first book, comes across as a smart kid, and someone I could identify with, but by the later books, when even his less-clever siblings are manipulating society through internet posts, thanks to their genetically enhanced brains, the tenor of the story changed so much that I found myself appreciating the *first* book less. Suddenly it wasn't a kid beating all odds and overperforming, a plucky underdog story, and it felt more like a noblesse oblige 'more special than thou' kid not just being all superhuman and stuff, but being, by dint of 'noble birth', more suited to manage military affairs and tactics than hundreds of 'hoi polloi' who had risen up through the ranks of the armed forces through merely human levels of skill and guts and effort.

I felt like I'd been cheated. Speaker for the Dead and Xenocide went a step further, and portrayed Ender as being *more moral* than much of human society, as if the act of participating in the genocide of the bug-people had ennobled him, despite the first book having suggested that being soldiers had *not* taught any great lessons to or bettered the character of the rest of earth's military personel (who actually performed the strategies he directed). What could have been an understandable and relatable 'war changes people' theme, felt undercut by the 'special-ness' of Ender Wiggins, as if it wasn't 'soldiers' that deserved special respect for their service, just super-people like Ender, born special and operating on a higher level, like some sort of futuristic version of a better/prettier/smarter noble breed of humanity.

As a kid, it was easy to pump my fist and enjoy the stories of a kid and a kid's game, being so important to solving 'grown-up' problems.

As an adult, the story feels less like the harmless and goofy feelgood kiddie fare of 'The Last Starfighter' or 'Spy Kids' and more like 'Some pigs are more equal than other pigs.'
[/tangent]

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

One thing to note that in Revenge of the Jedi... Luke Skywalker's fight against Darth Vader and his Emperor was of pretty much no significance as to how the battle came out. In that case it was all on Han and Leia and all the other non-Force users of the movie to deliver the happy ending.

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Tales Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:

snip...

I wasn't suggesting that the reviewer's statements of Card's politics are inaccurate (nor, for that matter, am I saying that they *aren't*; I don't follow Card's politics). I'm just saying that he clearly has issues with the author, and I therefore suspect that his review of the actual book may not be completely objective.

Hmmm... I've just searched through the whole of reality and I must say: I have not been able to find a completely objective review.

just a thought.


LazarX wrote:
One thing to note that in Revenge of the Jedi... Luke Skywalker's fight against Darth Vader and his Emperor was of pretty much no significance as to how the battle came out. In that case it was all on Han and Leia and all the other non-Force users of the movie to deliver the happy ending.

I think someone pointed this out to Lucas. They retconned it in the novels that the Emperor was using the Force skill 'Battle Meditation' (which later plays a big role in the KNIGHTS OF THE OLD REPUBLIC computer game) to give the Imperial Fleet a huge boost against the Rebels, and as he got distracted by the Vader/Skywalker fight this allowed the Rebels to start winning the space battle and on the ground.

To put it mildly, I found this explanation unconvincing.


Quote:
That's ironic, because the Federation always struck me as being somewhat of a socialist state.

Somewhat socialist?! Somewhat?! Talk about euphemisms...

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
<Sissyl's long post>
...Can I hug you?

<insert obligatory male chauvinistic pig comment taking into account Kelsey's self-stated sexual orientation> ;)

Werthead wrote:

I think someone pointed this out to Lucas. They retconned it in the novels that the Emperor was using the Force skill 'Battle Meditation' (which later plays a big role in the KNIGHTS OF THE OLD REPUBLIC computer game) to give the Imperial Fleet a huge boost against the Rebels, and as he got distracted by the Vader/Skywalker fight this allowed the Rebels to start winning the space battle and on the ground.

To put it mildly, I found this explanation unconvincing.

Actually it was slightly suggested in the movie itself when Emperor states to Luke that he manipulated events to gather Rebel fleet here to destroy them once for all. I admit that prior to expanded universe I rather thought about something subtler than battle meditation or it's dark force equivalent (which I think appeared first time in Thrawn Trilogy).


Elton wrote:
You got that from Henry V?

I did, but I was much younger then.

Act I, Scene I, with the clerics plotting to prevent Henry from seizing their lands by embroiling him in a war with France still makes me wonder. Also, his speech where he threatens the folk of Harfleur (?).

As for Falstaff and the boys: they were framed! I usually prefer the Sancho Panzian characters to the royal sticks in the mud.

I have no idea what you're talking about in the third paragraph.

Cheliax

Set wrote:
noticed a long time ago, when deciding that I liked Star Trek more than Star Wars

"sniff" I could not read any further than that, the warm tears streaming down my face clouded my vision "sniff"


Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
Elton wrote:
You got that from Henry V?

I did, but I was much younger then.

Act I, Scene I, with the clerics plotting to prevent Henry from seizing their lands by embroiling him in a war with France still makes me wonder. Also, his speech where he threatens the folk of Harfleur (?).

As for Falstaff and the boys: they were framed! I usually prefer the Sancho Panzian characters to the royal sticks in the mud.

I have no idea what you're talking about in the third paragraph.

I was deconstructing the play. So, the Bishop of Canterbury is the Contagonist. He tempts the King into doing something. Apparently, it worked. :)

How do you know that Pistol was framed? It was in the heat of battle when he was slain. It was Bardolph that stole from the Church. ;)


They were all framed! Henry runs around killing and looting a whole country, but Bardolph gets hanged for nicking a teapot?!? That's bullshiznit!

Also, I thought I'd take this opportunity to sing my own accolades: I fulfilled my own vow to finish reading all the works commonly attributed to Shakespeare by the age of 35, and I did! Plays, sonnets, The Rape of Lucrece, all of them. Yay me!

Anyway, I am still unfamiliar with Pharez, Zarah and all that stuff.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
I fulfilled my own vow to finish reading all the works commonly attributed to Shakespeare by the age of 35, and I did! Plays, sonnets, The Rape of Lucrece, all of them. Yay me!

Congratulations, D.A.! Whoever Shakespeare may or may not have been in actuality (400+ years of time will do a real number on proper attribution), he was one of the greatest writers the English language has ever seen.

I, too, have read Shakespeare's compete canon (helped along by a couple of Shakespeare classes in college). Have you ever seen a performance of The Reduced Shakespeare Company? Great stuff!


Thank you and no, I haven't seen it. In fact, I have only seen one of his plays performed once--around the eighth grade, I think, they took us out to see Macbeth performed in the nearby city's theater. That's it. :(

I have gone to the theater less than a half dozen times in my life, which is funny because I've actually read a lot of plays: Shakespeare, Ibsen, Brecht, Chekhov, Shaw, ancient Greek crap, and if I think about it, it's a terrible shame that I've never experienced these works in the medium they were intended. But I am a very lazy (not to mention poor) person; I probably wouldn't have seen a quarter of the movies I have if it weren't for home video.

As for awesomeness of the English language, I have decided that my next project of equal loftiness (i.e., when I'm not reading Gord the Rogue books) is to take on the King James Bible. They say good things about it.


Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:

They were all framed! Henry runs around killing and looting a whole country, but Bardolph gets hanged for nicking a teapot?!? That's bullshiznit!

Also, I thought I'd take this opportunity to sing my own accolades: I fulfilled my own vow to finish reading all the works commonly attributed to Shakespeare by the age of 35, and I did! Plays, sonnets, The Rape of Lucrece, all of them. Yay me!

Anyway, I am still unfamiliar with Pharez, Zarah and all that stuff.

Judah's progeny. The Judah, the one that sold his brother Joseph into Egypt for 20 pieces of silver.

Judah had two sons by a Sumerian Princess -- Zarah and Pharez. They were both identical twins. When Zarah was of age, the famine got tough in the Land and he took his family and immigrated to modern day Istanbul and founded TROY. Pharez and his older brother Shelah went into Egypt with him.

Zarah founded most of the Monarchies of Europe including those of Celtic Britain.

PHAREZ became the founding family of the Davidian Monarchy. Many of the Pharezites were taken away along with the 10 Tribes of the Kingdom of Israel into Europe and (ahem) other places. Most Europeans (most of those in Western Europe) are descended from them and the other ten tribes.

SHELAH founded the Pharasee and Saducee sects in Jesus' Time. When the Khazars of both ASHKENAZ and TOGAMARAH (descended from Japheth) converted to Judaism, what was left of the Shelahites moved in.

All of the Monarchies today in Europe are either descended from Zarah (in the case of the English Monarchy) or Pharez.

Does this all make sense?


Elton wrote:
Does this all make sense?

Is this all stuff from the first scene? 'Cos it's been a long time since I've read Hank 5 and I don't recognize it.

If not, then no, it doesn't. Or rather, I could figure it out, but I don't know why you're saying it.


Set wrote:

[tangent]

Random thought about Orson Scott Card & Ender's Game, etc. after re-reading this thread...

I've never been able to figure out why I always felt like I liked the setting of Star Trek more than Star Wars. I could never put my finger on it.

Until now.

Thank you sir. Your points are spot on. I think that's why I always liked Han more than Luke too.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
Thank you and no, I haven't seen it. In fact, I have only seen one of his plays performed once--around the eighth grade, I think, they took us out to see Macbeth performed in the nearby city's theater. That's it. :(

Oh, you've got to fix that. :) Barring any knowledge of local theater productions in your area (I would agree that live performances are ideal), here are a few Shakespearean film versions that I have either seen or own, and that should be available on video or for streaming:

Romeo and Juliet (1968, Franco Ziffirelli, director)
Romeo and Juliet (1996, Baz Luhrmann, director, updates the setting but keeps the language)
Much Ado About Nothing (1993, Kenneth Branaugh, director, you'll need to ignore a hugely over-the-top performance by Micheal Keaton as Dogberry)
Twelfth Night (1996, Trevor Nunn, director)
Hamlet (1948, Sir Lawrence Olivier, director
Hamlet (1990, Franco Ziffirelli, director, not bad for Mel Gibson playing the title role)
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1999, Michael Hoffman, director)
Henry V (1989, Kenneth Branagh, director)
The Taming of the Shrew (1967, Franco Ziffirelli, director)
Julius Caesar (1953, w/Marlon Brando as Mark Antony)
Othello (1995, Oliver Parker, director)

There are many, many, more, obviously, but I found these enjoyable. Also, if you get the change, please watch "The Complete Works of William Shakespeare - Abridged" by The Reduced Shakespeare Company. If you have a working knowledge of Shakespeare, I think you will find it to be hilarious. Have fun!


Readerbreeder wrote:
Have fun!

Thank you. I've seen a lot of those, but I didn't realize there was a film of Julius Caesar. I'll check that out.

I would add The Chimes of Midnight, Throne of Blood, Kiss Me Kate, 10 Things I Hate About You and Rosencrantz and Guilderstern Are Dead. The latter, again, I haven't seen in the theater, just the film.

Taldor

Ian Mckellen does Richard III as well :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke5-SUDrHMU

And there is a playboy / polanski version of Macbeth..


Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
Elton wrote:
Does this all make sense?

Is this all stuff from the first scene? 'Cos it's been a long time since I've read Hank 5 and I don't recognize it.

If not, then no, it doesn't. Or rather, I could figure it out, but I don't know why you're saying it.

A little of that is in the bible. The rest is out there in books on the 12 Tribes.


Check out all the free advertisement for this book.

I didn't even know it existed. Thanks OP.

( and nice work. do you work for Card? )


All the free advertisement in the world and I stil can't find it at any local bookstores or libraries.


Bible was okay, but the ending was just too cliche for me.


Sissyl wrote:
Bible was okay, but the ending was just too cliche for me.

There should be law forbidding sons from finishing book series started by their fathers.


James Martin wrote:

EDIT: You know, the thing that bugs me the most about this is that it reflects a current trend in the creative culture: I Can Do it Better. That Shakespeare guy? Yes, he's okay, but I can do it better. Star Wars? I mean, it's alright, but it'd be so much better with more CGI! All those shows from your childhood? Let's remake them!

Let's create some new stuff. Stop mucking with the old stuff.

To be fair, this is more reflecting a trend in all storytelling ever than it is reflecting one limited to the current creative culture. Shakespeare did the same thing in his day, took stories that were already out there and retold them. He wasn't the one who made up King Lear, or Cleopatra, or their stories, he was the guy who came along and put his own take on tales that had already been told again and again by the time he got his hands on them.


In English 101 the first question the professor always asks is whether Hamlet's father's ghost is good or bad, so it's hardly an original question.
The amount of nude male on male wrestling in his novels (Ender's Game and Treason at least, and the prominence of homosexuality in Songmaster)
makes me wonder if Card is trying just too hard-if you know what I mean.


Magic Toenail wrote:
In English 101 the first question the professor always asks is whether Hamlet's father's ghost is good or bad, so it's hardly an original question.

Yeah, but I don't recall my professor bring pedophilia and homosexuality into it as proof of the evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Alright, I have read the book. Similarly to Comrade Anklebiter, the local library didn't have a copy. Fortunately however the Public Library here in KC is the shiznit & they have a solid inter-library loan program so they were able to bring in a copy for me.

To start with, Oh boy. I will not call the character of Hamlet 'one-dimensional'...
Unfortunately 'Two-dimensional at best' is not much of an improvement.

You know what, let me go back.

I have read & enjoyed not only Ender's Game, but also Hart's Hope, The folk of the Fringe & even his book on Science Fiction writing as well as several others. Given that being the case, I had hopes that the reviews I had read of this work might have been overly harsh.

Those hopes were dashed.

I will go no further without acknowledging, as any of you who have read many of my other posts may already have guessed, that I am rather liberal in my views. That said, I am honestly saddened, but not surprised to find this work among his later pieces. I didn't actually learn of Mr. Card's rather forceful anti-homosexual views until after learning of this book when it first was being publicized, but then, not being homosexual I have often been less active in paying attention to those who's viewpoints & activities are detrimental to members of that community as a whole.

Now I'm laughing at myself. My posts in question have been removed, appropriately so, but the term 'Mary Sue' is something of a Berserk Button for me. I have almost never encountered a circumstance in which I felt it's use signified anything more substantive than 'I don't like this character but I can't/won't explain why to you'...
For that reason, I will refrain from calling Hamlet in this version a "Mary Sue' character, but I really want to. Hamlet is described as perfect in very nearly every way, save one. I'll get to that later.* He is superior in armsmanship to any of his companions. His insight into the human heart & mind would be the envy of men far beyond his years, (& this is when he is still a child no less...), he loves all men & women without hindrance of their own true worth or worthiness. To be painfully blunt, he is the sort of terrifically ernest do-gooder character that makes people hate paladins. His only true character flaw being his rather complacent assumption that if he imagines something to be so, of course that is how it must be. I have been recorded as referring to this sort of thing as 'smartest person in the room syndrome'. Unfortunately, this does lead to the flaw of a lack of genuine empathy on his part & also a lack of empathy for him, as a character. I want to feel sympathy for him & the mistakes he has made & the end it leads him to, but instead I simply feel relief that I have finished the book in time to be able to return it to the library.
Hamlet's father is described as a fool & eventually a pedophile, having raped each of Hamlet's companions, Horatio, Rosentrantz, Guildenstern, the others when they were all boys & only prevented from doing such to Hamlet himself because of his mother's threats & imprecations; which causes Hamlet to believe that his father must like his friends more than he because he spends more time with them. No one bothers to explain why until it is too late. This molestation is explained as having caused all of them to 'become gay' although it isn't called that. In fact it is because one of the the companions finds himself almost repeating the same act which 'corrupted' him, that he proceeds to murder the King. Nope, not Claudius, one of the companions murders Hamlet's father, a fact that Hamlet himself only learns after he has concluded his bloody business.

*Hamlet's one 'flaw', is that he is very likely gay as well, without having been 'corrupted'. I say very likely, as it is never specifically spelled out, but he on more than one occasion goes to some length detailing how he has little interest sexually in women.

Qadira

1 person marked this as a favorite.

(Can't stop myself from posting this link, with the warning that male genitalia is explicitly referred by name over there, so if that bothers you don't follow the link!)

Anyho, Card's obsessive war against homosexuality is beginning to remind me of this.

I mean, like, seriously.

151 to 199 of 199 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gamer Life / 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.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.