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


Books

1 to 50 of 199 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Orson Scott Card, a noted SF author ('noted' in this cast for writing a half-decent children's book a quarter of a century ago and then cashing in on them ever since), has decided to rewrite HAMLET to make it more rubbish.

In the book, named HAMLET'S FATHER, Card has removed the moral complexity, characterisation and thematic development (not to mention the splendid use of language) from Shakespeare's play and replaced it with the notion that everything bad that happens in the play is down to Hamlet's father being gay. And that he also 'infected' Rosencranctz, Guildenstern, Horatio and Laertes with teh gay as well by molesting them as children. And at the end Hamlet's father threatens to take Hamlet's spirit to hell and do evil gay things to it for all eternity.

I may be wrong about this, but I think Orson Scott Card may be grinding an axe over the issue of homosexuality with this book.

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

Quote:

Westomoreland stared at the big army of the French. "The French army is so big," said Westmoreland. "I wish we had more guys."

"Who says we need more guys?" shouted King Henry as he rode up. "I've thought really hard about this. The less of us there are, the better it is for us!"

"I'm not sure it works that way, my liege," said Westmoreland.

"Really? I don't know," said Henry. "Sounds good to me. Maybe I'm sleepy! I spent all night wandering around the camp LARPing."

"Reinforcements would be really nice," said Westomoreland.

Excellent. Hopefully Scott can be convinced to write the full-length version.


My head hurts. I don't know what any body is trying to say, but all I know is I saw sparks fly out of my ears...It's like "wha did WHo say about WHAT+hamlet=argh pain and chaos!"


4 people marked this as a favorite.

While it's bad that this supposed "author" can publish hate like he does it's better than censorship.
I can only imagine what kind of person makes a living off of hacking up literary classics to make them modern or socially relevant.

When the politically correct version of Grimm's fairy tales were published they at least knew it was all tongue in cheek and satirical. I guess this guy didn't get the memo.

For me this one falls under " I may not agree with what you say but will defend unto the death your right to say it"


Hatred isn't the end of the world, really, all it will likely do is make Mr Card a more niche author. This would not be a bad thing. Allow me to seriously doubt that this reworking is going to be a smash hit.

Yeah... evil demonic gay stuff sure is evil and demonic. Ummm, and gay.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steven Tindall wrote:

While it's bad that this supposed "author" can publish hate like he does it's better than censorship.

I can only imagine what kind of person makes a living off of hacking up literary classics to make them modern or socially relevant.

When the politically correct version of Grimm's fairy tales were published they at least knew it was all tongue in cheek and satirical. I guess this guy didn't get the memo.

For me this one falls under " I may not agree with what you say but will defend unto the death your right to say it"

While I guess I agree, I'm not sure why censorship even comes up. Has anyone suggested it should be censored? Does the government routinely censor books like this?

If they do, then we should rally round. Until then, pointing and laughing is a more appropriate response.

I'd be completely opposed to the government banning this. I'd be perfectly happy if his publisher had passed on it. Why did they think this was a good idea?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32

Hoo boy. The subtitle of this book should be "Orson's Got Some Issues and Hasn't Actually Ever Met A Gay Person Before."

You know, Ender's Game was a great book. I wonder if he's out of ideas?

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.

Of course, in retrospect, I can rewrite this post so much better, only with VAMPIRES! Sparkly vampires!

And no, there's a difference between interpreting and rewriting. When you do a version of Romeo & Juliet ala Bax Lurhman, you reinterpret a classic. OSC is rewriting a classic to turn it into a big mess o' stupid.


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.

Never liked Shakespeare and sure the King's English is nice and all but it isn't going to attract a new generation.

Quote:
Star Wars? I mean, it's alright, but it'd be so much better with more CGI!

To be fair, this is being done by the guy who created those movies.

Star Wars simply a fluke to begin with - Lucas is a hack of a director.

Quote:
Of course, in retrospect, I can rewrite this post so much better, only with VAMPIRES! Sparkly vampires!

Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter.

Is Card a born-again Christian? This strikes me as something he would do to prove his "I hate gays and love America" bonafides.


Quote:
Is Card a born-again Christian?

No, he's a Mormon.

Quote:
I'd be perfectly happy if his publisher had passed on it. Why did they think this was a good idea?

For all of his increasingly frequent and bizarre antics and statements about sexuality, Card remains an extremely popular and high-selling author (well, for his ENDER books, his others don't seem to have done as well). Releasing an illustrated limited edition of this kind of work is SubPress' speciality.

However, the publishers have been taken aback by the degree of controversy over the book and are asking for more comments from people. I'm not sure why, since presumably contracts have been signed and they can't not publish it without suffering some kind of financial penalty.


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

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. I reread Ender's Game a couple years ago. It holds up well despite it being very 80's. I wouldn't dismiss it as a "children's book" and it is certainly one I wouldn't give to a young (less than 14 or so year old) child to read.

I've not paid any attention to Card in the last ten years or so. Now I will have to see what I can dig up. If he has been promoting a hate-based agenda I shall modify my opinion of the man.


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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cartigan wrote:
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.
Never liked Shakespeare and sure the King's English is nice and all but it isn't going to attract a new generation.

It isn't? So this is the generation where Shakespeare ceases to appeal? After 400 years?


James Martin wrote:

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!

Ironically, the story of Amleth was about three centuries old when Bill redid it as Hamlet.


So don't buy the book.

problem-solved!

when you have a problem always call for a kender!

Liberty's Edge

Cartigan wrote:

Is Card a born-again Christian? This strikes me as something he would do to prove his "I hate gays and love America" bonafides.

Card is Mormon, I believe, and is very conservative. He had/has a blog around someplace this exhibits his hate for all things not conservative: http://www.ornery.org/

I also haven't read anything by him in almost a decade. I last checked out Shadow Puppets from the library around then and decided it just wasn't that good anymore.


Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
James Martin wrote:

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!

Ironically, the story of Amleth was about three centuries old when Bill redid it as Hamlet.

There's some irony there, but there is also a difference between a genius using an old plot outline and someone doing a hack job on a literary classic.

Shakespeare's brilliance never really lay in plot. As you say, he took most of his plots from older sources. It lay in his language and in the depth he gave the characters.

Card deliberately simplified the language and apparently removed most of the character depth, keeping only the fairly uninspired plot and adding his anti-gay screed on top. Good plan.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

jhallum wrote:

Card is Mormon, I believe, and is very conservative. He had/has a blog around someplace this exhibits his hate for all things not conservative: http://www.ornery.org/

Wow. Them's some opinions that have no connection at all to reality.


thejeff wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
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.
Never liked Shakespeare and sure the King's English is nice and all but it isn't going to attract a new generation.

It isn't? So this is the generation where Shakespeare ceases to appeal? After 400 years?

Which is NOT what I said.

Do you often read Beowulf in Middle English?

Mormon, born-again, close enough.


thejeff wrote:


There's some irony there, but there is also a difference between a genius using an old plot outline and someone doing a hack job on a literary classic.

Shakespeare's brilliance never really lay in plot. As you say, he took most of his plots from older sources. It lay in his language and in the depth he gave the characters.

Card deliberately simplified the language and apparently removed most of the character depth, keeping only the fairly uninspired plot and adding his anti-gay screed on top. Good plan.

Yeah, now I've read the first article Werthead linked, and it sounds like I'd prefer Rosencrantz and Guilderstern Are Dead for my revisionist Hamlet.

As for Hamlet, the way he treated sweet Ophelia makes my blood boil! I'm glad he's getting buggered for eternity!

As for Shakespeare and Elizabethan English--and students, take note--I find that I knoweth it better when I am verily high.


Cartigan wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Never liked Shakespeare and sure the King's English is nice and all but it isn't going to attract a new generation.

It isn't? So this is the generation where Shakespeare ceases to appeal? After 400 years?

Which is NOT what I said.

Do you often read Beowulf in Middle English?

No I don't. Or in Old English which it was actually written in.

What's your point? Old English is a different language, basically gibberish to anyone who hasn't studied it. Middle English is closer and much of it can be puzzled out by anyone who reads modern English and is willing to work at it. I can read Chaucer with the occasional help of a dictionary. I know my pronunciation is all wrong.

Shakespeare wrote in English. It's a poetic style and he certainly uses what are now archaic terms and slang, but it is the same language that I'm writing in now, so I don't see what you mean.

Eventually, I'm sure the language will change enough that translation will be needed, but we're not there yet. Nor is Hamlet's Father a translation.

Again, why won't it attract a new generation? If it attracted the last one, what has changed?


thejeff wrote:


Again, why won't it attract a new generation? If it attracted the last one, what has changed?

Good stuff about the English language, but Cartigan also doesn't like Faulkner or The Great Gatsby, so make of that what you will. Also, just because Cartigan doesn't like it doesn't mean that Shakespeare's appeal has escaped anybody other than Cartigan.


Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:


Yeah, now I've read the first article Werthead linked, and it sounds like I'd prefer Rosencrantz and Guilderstern Are Dead for my revisionist Hamlet.

Rosencrantz and Guilderstern Are Dead is great. There's nothing wrong with doing an alternate take on a classic. Just be prepared to be pilloried if you do it badly.

Since Beowulf got mentioned, John Gardner's Grendel also needs a plug.

Silver Crusade

The best way to experience Shakespeare is to read the plays. Then you never have to worry about some crazy rewrite!

It is hard to get students into Shakespeare and most are glad to finish it. However, more than a few find the plays interesting and read further.

I find Hamlet is one of the easiest to teach. I think it is also the most commented on and criticised work in the English language outside the Bible. (I have no actual reference for that as piece of trivia came from my own English teacher in high school).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Steven Tindall wrote:
While it's bad that this supposed "author" can

If he was just a "supposed author" the problem would be a lot less. Orson Scott Card is a MAJOR author in the field. And that's what makes this book that much more disturbing.

The Exchange

Werthead wrote:


However, the publishers have been taken aback by the degree of controversy over the book and are asking for more comments from people. I'm not sure why, since presumably contracts have been signed and they can't not publish it without suffering some kind of financial penalty.

Publicity, the same thing this thread is doing. Don't like it, don't read it or talk about it. "No press is bad press."


Maybe I love it.


thejeff wrote:


No I don't. Or in Old English which it was actually written in.

What's your point?

If you can't understand my point, then I can't explain it to you. It's as simple as I can possibly make it.


Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Again, why won't it attract a new generation? If it attracted the last one, what has changed?

Good stuff about the English language, but Cartigan also doesn't like Faulkner or The Great Gatsby, so make of that what you will. Also, just because Cartigan doesn't like it doesn't mean that Shakespeare's appeal has escaped anybody other than Cartigan.

Faulkner is piss. And The Great Gatsby is droll. Oh look at all the rich people being self-righteous and self-pitying. Go drown yourself in your lake.

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


Crimson Jester wrote:
Werthead wrote:


However, the publishers have been taken aback by the degree of controversy over the book and are asking for more comments from people. I'm not sure why, since presumably contracts have been signed and they can't not publish it without suffering some kind of financial penalty.

Publicity, the same thing this thread is doing. Don't like it, don't read it or talk about it. "No press is bad press."

Maybe I'm paranoid, but reading the publisher's request for comments struck me similarly. Publicity gold-mine.

Also, looked up Card's website and the links to http://www.ornery.org/. Not at all what I would have expected from his books I've read.


Chubbs McGee wrote:
The best way to experience Shakespeare is to read the plays. Then you never have to worry about some crazy rewrite!

Which is why I don't like Shakespeare.

HE WROTE PLAYS. STOP MAKING PEOPLE READ THEM.
When Shakespeare starts writing odes, epics, and novels, then English teachers with a hardon for Shakespeare can make people read them. And since he's dead, that won't happen. I liked exactly one Shakespeare play, but not the acting out of it because it was some nonsense modern update in the clothing (but not the language - it was weird).


Cartigan wrote:
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Again, why won't it attract a new generation? If it attracted the last one, what has changed?

Good stuff about the English language, but Cartigan also doesn't like Faulkner or The Great Gatsby, so make of that what you will. Also, just because Cartigan doesn't like it doesn't mean that Shakespeare's appeal has escaped anybody other than Cartigan.

Faulkner is piss. And The Great Gatsby is droll. Oh look at all the rich people being self-righteous and self-pitying. Go drown yourself in your lake.

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

Oh, or H.G. Wells, either. He's a real hater, that one.

The Exchange

therealthom wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Werthead wrote:


However, the publishers have been taken aback by the degree of controversy over the book and are asking for more comments from people. I'm not sure why, since presumably contracts have been signed and they can't not publish it without suffering some kind of financial penalty.

Publicity, the same thing this thread is doing. Don't like it, don't read it or talk about it. "No press is bad press."

Maybe I'm paranoid, but reading the publisher's request for comments struck me similarly. Publicity gold-mine.

Also, looked up Card's website and the links to http://www.ornery.org/. Not at all what I would have expected from his books I've read.

If you want to read what OSC has written of his opinions, which you may find a bit different than what others may say is his opinion, you may want to check out Beliefnet He has more than one lively debate on the site. Not only on what his beliefs are, but what constitutes Christianity and why he feels the standard description of what a Christian is, well is incorrect.

I would also say from my view point, he is not a conservative, so much that he is like many, convinced he is right and most others are wrong.


Cartigan wrote:
Chubbs McGee wrote:
The best way to experience Shakespeare is to read the plays. Then you never have to worry about some crazy rewrite!

Which is why I don't like Shakespeare.

HE WROTE PLAYS. STOP MAKING PEOPLE READ THEM.
When Shakespeare starts writing odes, epics, and novels, then English teachers with a hardon for Shakespeare can make people read them. And since he's dead, that won't happen. I liked exactly one Shakespeare play, but not the acting out of it because it was some nonsense modern update in the clothing (but not the language - it was weird).

He wrote over 150 sonnets.

The Exchange

Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Again, why won't it attract a new generation? If it attracted the last one, what has changed?

Good stuff about the English language, but Cartigan also doesn't like Faulkner or The Great Gatsby, so make of that what you will. Also, just because Cartigan doesn't like it doesn't mean that Shakespeare's appeal has escaped anybody other than Cartigan.

Faulkner is piss. And The Great Gatsby is droll. Oh look at all the rich people being self-righteous and self-pitying. Go drown yourself in your lake.

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

Oh, or H.G. Wells, either. He's a real hater, that one.

I have some issues with the Bard, I would love to see the language cleaned up a bit and easier to understand. It seems more likely that Cartigan might not have had a good experience with the plays. But you know, there is no requirement that everyone has to love Shakespeare, just as not everyone likes Queen or Starwars. Doesn't stop me from wondering what is wrong with them though. ;)

The Exchange

Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Chubbs McGee wrote:
The best way to experience Shakespeare is to read the plays. Then you never have to worry about some crazy rewrite!

Which is why I don't like Shakespeare.

HE WROTE PLAYS. STOP MAKING PEOPLE READ THEM.
When Shakespeare starts writing odes, epics, and novels, then English teachers with a hardon for Shakespeare can make people read them. And since he's dead, that won't happen. I liked exactly one Shakespeare play, but not the acting out of it because it was some nonsense modern update in the clothing (but not the language - it was weird).

He wrote over 150 sonnets.

maybe that will help.


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!


Card's writing has become increasingly reactionary over the decades -- he's one of American culture's most popular far-right public intellectuals.

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.

As I've noted here before, even a supposedly apolitical writer like Tolkien espoused a remarkably monarchist world-view.

Sam and Gollum are Frodo's servants, his inferiors, and that patriarchal relationship is portrayed more or less uncritically.

Similarly, the idea of salvation for Gondor is the restoration of the true monarchy, with a strong father-like leader back on the throne.

After 9/11, Tolkien became a pop-icon on the right.

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


Captain Marsh wrote:


As I've noted here before, even a supposedly apolitical writer like Tolkien espoused a remarkably monarchist world-view....
Similarly, the idea of salvation for Gondor is the restoration of the true monarchy, with a strong father-like leader back on the throne.

As do most fantasy novels, even ones by left-leaning authors like Le Guin. After all, having your country run by an autonomous workers' commune just doesn't have the same D&D feel...


I'll admit that I haven't read Card in years, but back when I did read his books, I didn't see anything about evil gay people. On the contrary,
Zdorab in the "Homecoming" saga is portrayed as being exaggeratedly morally perfect. He's more of a "good guy" than the main hero.

This thread gives me the impression that Card has changed over the years.


Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Again, why won't it attract a new generation? If it attracted the last one, what has changed?

Good stuff about the English language, but Cartigan also doesn't like Faulkner or The Great Gatsby, so make of that what you will. Also, just because Cartigan doesn't like it doesn't mean that Shakespeare's appeal has escaped anybody other than Cartigan.

Faulkner is piss. And The Great Gatsby is droll. Oh look at all the rich people being self-righteous and self-pitying. Go drown yourself in your lake.

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

Oh, or H.G. Wells, either. He's a real hater, that one.

Wells is ok. I just don't like his formatting style particularly.

Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Chubbs McGee wrote:
The best way to experience Shakespeare is to read the plays. Then you never have to worry about some crazy rewrite!

Which is why I don't like Shakespeare.

HE WROTE PLAYS. STOP MAKING PEOPLE READ THEM.
When Shakespeare starts writing odes, epics, and novels, then English teachers with a hardon for Shakespeare can make people read them. And since he's dead, that won't happen. I liked exactly one Shakespeare play, but not the acting out of it because it was some nonsense modern update in the clothing (but not the language - it was weird).

He wrote over 150 sonnets.

Yeah, the Tales of Latent Homophobia are often studied in prudish schools. Not once did Shakespeare's Sonnets ever come up in a single English class.


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).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, your teachers must not have been union.

I have seen, in class:

Henry V (Branagh and Olivier)
Hamlet (Branagh and Gibson)
Romeo and Juliet (the old one)
King Lear (staged production with Olivier and John Hurt)
Much Ado About Nothing (twice)
The Chimes at Midnight (Henry IV, Pts. 1 & 2)
Richard III (Olivier)

In high school we also went to a production of Macbeth done up all 20th century and set in sub-Saharan Africa.

What Macbeth did you see? The Polanski one? That movie rocks!


Cartigan wrote:

Which is why I don't like Shakespeare.

HE WROTE PLAYS. STOP MAKING PEOPLE READ THEM.
When Shakespeare starts writing odes, epics, and novels, then English teachers with a hardon for Shakespeare can make people read them. And since he's dead, that won't happen. I liked exactly one Shakespeare play, but not the acting out of it because it was some nonsense modern update in the clothing (but not the language - it was weird).

So now your argument is that English teachers shouldn't teach Shakespeare because they are plays and thus not literature: should only be watched not just read?

Does this relate at all to the point I was missing before?

Or is it just that you don't like Shakespeare? Which is fine. You don't have to. Different tastes and all that. There are plenty of great writers I don't like.


Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
Well, your teachers must not have been union.

I think unions are illegal in my state. Or close enough to it. Though, they can show movies if they want. The usually just show them near the end of the year or when the teacher is out sick or something.

I saw 2 movies in one English class (The Crucible and something else) and like 3 movies in Spanish class. Most of which I slept through because I have no idea what the hell Shrek is saying in Spanish.


Books that plant both covers firmly on one side of an emotional/moral/ethical argument are interesting; if for no other reason than the tangential discussions and topical items that come up in relation to them.

I personally find "Hamlet's Father" to be such hate-fill rubbish that I can't really sum up my distaste for it in words. I am less concerned about the insult done to Bill Shakespeare's works though. His (or what we think of as his) writing will continue to be studied and circulate long after I've become a zombie chasing you through your home town's hardware store.

It is most certainly a book that I would be concerned to see my kids reading (more so if it were assigned at their school). But my feelings about this book are my own, and I can worry about controlling my interaction with it on a need-to basis.

There are plenty of books that I've read and enjoyed that are likely on someone else's "are you %&$^%&$ kidding me!?" list. So while I think it is brutish and thug-headed for Orson Scott Card to use his broad base of influence to spew forth hate-speach...it's not so much worse than Snooky assaulting the public's senses on the Shore.

I suspect if Card knew he was being lumped into the same group as Snooky...he would probably soil his special undergarments in rage :-) And that makes me feel pretty good this morning.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

I agree that Shakespeare's plays are best performed, since his minimalist stage directions and use of ambiguity allow for a different interpretation almost every time, I think it's also important that the plays be studied in English classes. Shakespeare's use of language is brilliant and influenced both literature and the English language for centuries to come.

In the study of English literature, it doesn't make much sense to ignore one of the people who was most influential on both the "English" and the "literature" part.

As to Card, this is pretty useful to know. I was about to submit a short story to a periodical with his name on it, and this tidbit helped convince me that I probably don't want to associate my work with his in any way.


Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Again, why won't it attract a new generation? If it attracted the last one, what has changed?

Good stuff about the English language, but Cartigan also doesn't like Faulkner or The Great Gatsby, so make of that what you will. Also, just because Cartigan doesn't like it doesn't mean that Shakespeare's appeal has escaped anybody other than Cartigan.

Faulkner is piss. And The Great Gatsby is droll. Oh look at all the rich people being self-righteous and self-pitying. Go drown yourself in your lake.

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

Oh, or H.G. Wells, either. He's a real hater, that one.

Wells is an interesting case. It's hard for us to understand that someone who was considered a progressive liberal in his time (not all that long ago) could have written some of the unbelievably racist stuff he wrote. Double-take racist.


My old boss convinced me to read an OSC book a couple years ago. Forget what it was called, but it involved an attempted coup of the US government by the far left.

I remember the main character was a military guy or something, but specifically remember when the book started to preach about this guy he knew he could trust because he was Mormon, and mormons are trustworthy.

I put down the book thinking 2 things. One, the part about Mormons makes it more clear than anything else that the book was fiction, and two, the author was definitely Mormon.

It gave me a rotten taste in my mouth. It was sad, because that boss normally had great taste in books (her son's name was "Ford"!)

Silver Crusade

Treantmonk wrote:

My old boss convinced me to read an OSC book a couple years ago. Forget what it was called, but it involved an attempted coup of the US government by the far left.

I remember the main character was a military guy or something, but specifically remember when the book started to preach about this guy he knew he could trust because he was Mormon, and mormons are trustworthy.

I put down the book thinking 2 things. One, the part about Mormons makes it more clear than anything else that the book was fiction, and two, the author was definitely Mormon.

It gave me a rotten taste in my mouth. It was sad, because that boss normally had great taste in books (her son's name was "Ford"!)

It happens. Card was a great writer before he got high enough level to cast protection from editors. He's hardly the first author to get screwier as time goes on.

The Exchange

uriel222 wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:

My old boss convinced me to read an OSC book a couple years ago. Forget what it was called, but it involved an attempted coup of the US government by the far left.

I remember the main character was a military guy or something, but specifically remember when the book started to preach about this guy he knew he could trust because he was Mormon, and mormons are trustworthy.

I put down the book thinking 2 things. One, the part about Mormons makes it more clear than anything else that the book was fiction, and two, the author was definitely Mormon.

It gave me a rotten taste in my mouth. It was sad, because that boss normally had great taste in books (her son's name was "Ford"!)

It happens. Card was a great writer before he got high enough level to cast protection from editors. He's hardly the first author to get screwier as time goes on.

Ain't [sic] that the truth. Stephen King I am looking at you.


Captain Marsh wrote:
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.

I don't think there's that many. John C. Wright, Orson Scott Card and Dan Simmons are the most notable (though Wright is extremely obscure compared to the other two). Terry Goodkind is fairly right-wing, but as an Objectivist on a somewhat different ideological axis. As a somewhat conservative Mormon, Brandon Sanderson may also count as right, but he's also avowedly refusing to put references to his religion in his books. The only real trace of his religious background is a refusal to put in sex and bad language, and he certainly doesn't use his newfound fame to espouse political viewpoints. I think he's even said he doesn't regard that as appropriate.

If we look at the big sellers and most prominent writers in the genre, we have fair lefties like LeGuin, very far lefties (albeit somewhat disillusioned) like China Mieville and modest leftists like George R.R. Martin. Robert Jordan appears to be been middle-of-the-road politically, conservative in some aspects but fairly open-minded in others (i.e. his numerous bisexual or lesbian characters).

Quote:
As I've noted here before, even a supposedly apolitical writer like Tolkien espoused a remarkably monarchist world-view.

Tolkien was a Catholic and a small-c conservative. He was very set in his ways and had strong beliefs, but he also had a strong realist streak. For example, he despised what roads and cars had done to the countryside but was not a Luddite, and in later years bought a car and came to enjoy using it to visit places he'd otherwise never see. He wouldn't get on a plane for love nor money, though, and in income tax forms informed the government he didn't want a penny of his money spent on Concorde :-)

Tolkien's attitude is best summed-up by the Scouring of the Shire: change is inevitable and though it can be resisted or slowed, and certainly the lost past can be mourned, nevertheless you have to carry on.

Quote:
Sam and Gollum are Frodo's servants, his inferiors, and that patriarchal relationship is portrayed more or less uncritically.

Indeed. The Sam-Frodo relationship has similarities to the relationship between the 'gentleman soldier' and his batman or servant, of the sort that Tolkien would have seen in the trenches of WWI.

Quote:
I'll admit that I haven't read Card in years, but back when I did read his books, I didn't see anything about evil gay people. On the contrary, Zdorab in the "Homecoming" saga is portrayed as being exaggeratedly morally perfect. He's more of a "good guy" than the main hero.

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.

Quote:
My old boss convinced me to read an OSC book a couple years ago. Forget what it was called, but it involved an attempted coup of the US government by the far left.

EMPIRE. Even by the low standards of contemporary, well-past-his-best OSC output, that was a very bad novel. It was strawmanning of the worst possible kind.

1 to 50 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.