I bring this up now because of a recent story that will likely matter even less to you. A comic book I’d be interested in reading has hit enough political controversy that it might not see light and will surely be delayed. The future author of the comic, Orson Scott Card, is a kooky Mormon who doesn’t support gay marriage and thinks global warming is a shame. So, does this alone mean his work should be censored?
 |
| Image via Wired.com; Chris Samnee, DC Comics |
Seriously, I’m asking you. The Superman title Card will author has lost an illustrator and some distribution due to the controversy. He’s written one of my favorite books, Ender’s Game, which as an upcoming movie that will likely suffer from his views in much the same way. On one hand, I’m happy that there is public consequences for stupid beliefs because it could shame others into not believing them. On the other hand, I’d rather folks dismiss beliefs because they realize they are stupid and not simply because they are unpopular. Then again, it could be said the measure of the stupidity of a belief is a measure of how poorly they reflect the culture...which is it’s own kind of popularity contest.
I think I’ve decided to separate the work from the man. I figure if I stop using and enjoying everything that socially conservative and evangelical people produce or support--my options will become very limited. After all, it’s not like these guys were Nazi’s.
P.S. Ironically, this was written while listening to Wagner.
P.P.S. When the product and the opinions of those in charge are intermingled, I see a greater conflict. The Boy Scouts, who advertise themselves as a ethical guide for young men, should not have policies highlighting bigotry or exclusionism. Likewise, churches, with whatever moral value they may hold, should never let pedophilia slide.
P.P.P.S. Are postscripts just for letters or are blogs okay?
I think the simple fact that someone has beliefs that I think are stupid is not enough for me to boycott them. However, once they start using the money to support causes I am against then a boycott is potentially in order.
ReplyDeleteCard donates large sums of money to anti-gay causes, that is why I won't buy any of his stuff, same with Chick-fil-A. The fact that they are Christians doesn't bother me, the fact that they support anti-gay groups does.
I would like to be able to separate the art from the artist, but once I know that buying their stuff will indirectly support something I disagree with it becomes difficult.
Yeah...
DeleteSo it's best to just not watch Ender's Game when it comes out...but, just hypothetically, would you say it is more unethical to pay for the movie or bit torrent it? ;-)
Good question, my first thought is that I sorta lean toward just paying for the movie rather than getting it on bit torrent. I would say if you want to boycott then do it fully.
DeleteNobody is censoring Card's work. He's welcome to write a fanfic and post it on the internet like everyone else.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem like there is a big difference between someone choosing not to buy something and censorship. I generally try to avoid supporting people with views I find abhorrent, but I think that's very different from censorship.
DeleteYeah...censorship wasn't the right word. Free market denial, maybe. It still might be censorship is DC decides to not move forward with it.
DeleteI always thought that Card's belief system predisposed him to writing great fiction. ;-)
ReplyDeleteOn a serious note, I think that you have the right idea to separate the man from his work. However, if the proceeds from his work are directly funding an organized attempt to disenfranchise people based on their biological makeup... I think that is worth making a stink about. Not his work, but his actions outside. If that means a boycott, so be it.
But a persons beliefs don't mean they can't be excellent artists.
How much proceeds need to go to something you disagree with before a boycott? I like some products and services advertised on ultra-conservative radio, do I need to boycott them too?
DeleteI have several "friends" on Facebook who are ultra conservative and evangelical and it simply amazes me how much stuff they can find to post to support their beliefs. All the rest who do not believe this malarkey post very little on what they believe. I think that speaks volumes. It also makes me hide the "preachers" and avoid the business's and causes they support.
ReplyDeleteYeah...the crazy is always the loudest.
DeleteOn the subject of boycotting...I rue the day I have to decide where I'm going to buy my chicken or get my cup of coffee based on the "morals" of fast food owners. They need to serve what they advertise...NOT their "religious" beliefs. I am adult enough to make up my own mind...I don't need food service folks to do that for me.
DeleteI believe each new post script requires an additional "P", not an additional "S": For instance, the term "post-post-script" makes more sense than "post-script-script".
ReplyDeleteJust FYI :-)
I think you're right in separating the work from the man. The money you spend on the comic is not going directly toward causes you disagree with, it's paying a person for producing goods that you enjoy consuming.
Good call on the post-post. I changed it.
DeleteI agree with kpharri. Chick-fil-a was apparently donating money directly to an anti-gay cause. To the best of my knowledge DC are not doing this and are not anti-gay at all. Boycotting DC for employing Card would seem a bit harsh.
DeleteAre people boycotting DC or just this particular comic book? Assuming it is the second, it feels similar to me. In the Chick-fil-a case, some of the money goes to the owner, and some of that money goes to anti-gay hate groups. In this case, if you buy the comic some of the money goes to Card and some of that money goes to anti-gay hate groups.
Delete