# Orson Scott Card buys a Kindle



## cjpatrick (Jan 4, 2009)

I don't know how many of you read Science Fiction or Orson Scott Card but he is one of my favorite authors and he wrote a small article/review on his recently purchased Kindle. You should check it out:

http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2009-03-08.shtml

After reading this it makes me think Amazon should consider sending all the top selling authors out there resistant to e-books a free Kindle so they can understand what it is all about.

Also, I think everyone should check out OSC's wonderful novel Ender's Game. It's a great place to start if you've not read any of his works before.


----------



## stevene9 (Nov 9, 2008)

cjpatrick said:


> Also, I think everyone should check out OSC's wonderful novel Ender's Game. It's a great place to start if you've not read any of his works before.


I would love to reread Ender's Game if it would ever come out for the Kindle.


----------



## cjpatrick (Jan 4, 2009)

It will. That's what part of the article is about. So just hold on tight.


----------



## SusanCassidy (Nov 9, 2008)

Apparently he doesn't know about the other sources of books (other than Amazon), which is a pity.


----------



## unrequited (Feb 26, 2009)

I already have every Ender's series book besides Ender in Exile on my kindle in txt format thanks to countless hours of sitting there transcribing it from hardcopy to digital format. I'd have easily have loved to purchase these from Amazon.com to save me the trouble. At least Orson Scott Card's on the right track, and hopefully he fast tracks his books onto Amazon.com (or at least the future releases).


----------



## Britt (Feb 8, 2009)

I have mixed feelings about Orson Scott Card, but I did enjoy Ender's Game.


----------



## cjpatrick (Jan 4, 2009)

What are the mixed feelings?


----------



## CS (Nov 3, 2008)

unrequited said:


> I already have every Ender's series book besides Ender in Exile on my kindle in txt format thanks to countless hours of sitting there transcribing it from hardcopy to digital format.


With all due respect, why on earth would you do this?!

It's probably still illegal (even though I don't necessarily think it should be) and I'm sure you could've just gotten them off the net. No, that's not legal either and I'm not advocating it - but it sure as hell beats transcribing every word.

At the very least, why not just wait for them to come to Kindle?  This announcement notwithstanding, Orson Scott Card's books were bound to arrive on Kindle sooner or later.


----------



## unrequited (Feb 26, 2009)

Ditto. He's a proud biggot of homosexuals ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_scott_card#Homosexuality ) which is strange for a sci-fi writer, and sometimes writes a little too much Mormonism into his works. Ender's Game is my favorite book of all time however, so I'm mixed about him as well, but very clear on the merits of his works (old and new... Empire and Exile were both amazing).


----------



## unrequited (Feb 26, 2009)

CS said:


> With all due respect, why on earth would you do this?!
> 
> It's probably still illegal (even though I don't necessarily think it should be) and I'm sure you could've just gotten them off the net.


I do what's necessary in order to enjoy the work I've purchased in the means I choose. Once I bought a hardcover book, I can do whatever I want with it personally including using it for toilet paper, or turning it into a papier-mâché statue of Genghis Khan. Thankfully fair use and common sense still rule the physical world. I know of no EULA's which bind me to any use contracts upon opening my book to page 1.

It's interesting in the article OSC states that he's worried about "his cut" of the profits, but if he sold it on hattrack.com in open txt/html/pdf/whatever format, his tens of thousands of fans would have made a hefty profit for him... even if he gave it away for FREE ala Coldplay & Nine Inch Nails' e-music "pay what you want" experiments. I guess he's backwards in his thinking when he's not writing about the future.


----------



## CegAbq (Mar 17, 2009)

Great article by OSC. I'll look forward to getting his books on my Kindle (which still doesn't have a name/nothing has called out to me yet).
He did point out one irritation that I've yet to figure out how to address: no ability to "flip" through pages. I was reading something last night and wanted to double-check something perhaps 10-15 "pages" back; no could do & it was too much hassle to page back to try to locate it. A small disappointment to the reading experience.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

A lot of my feelings have been captured here. I think OSC is a brilliant writer, but I really wish that was the extent of my knowledge of him.  It breaks my heart that the man who wrote Ender's Game, which seemed to be to be about the harm caused by bigotry, is a pretty major homophobe.


----------



## CS (Nov 3, 2008)

unrequited said:


> I do what's necessary in order to enjoy the work I've purchased in the means I choose. Once I bought a hardcover book, I can do whatever I want with it personally including using it for toilet paper, or turning it into a papier-mâché statue of Genghis Khan. Thankfully fair use and common sense still rule the physical world. I know of no EULA's which bind me to any use contracts upon opening my book to page 1.


Fair enough, man. It's your time, not mine. 

You must be the world's most dedicated Orson Scott Card fan. 



> It's interesting in the article OSC states that he's worried about "his cut" of the profits, but if he sold it on hattrack.com in open txt/html/pdf/whatever format, his tens of thousands of fans would have made a hefty profit for him... even if he gave it away for FREE ala Coldplay & Nine Inch Nails' e-music "pay what you want" experiments. I guess he's backwards in his thinking when he's not writing about the future.


I think a lot of authors have fallen into this ridiculous mindset. It's a shame, because not supporting e-books makes them dinosaurs in this day and age IMO. Yes, J.K. Rowling is a dinosaur.

Of course, all of these idiots will eventually have to cave. You can't ignore progress forever.


----------



## CegAbq (Mar 17, 2009)

unrequited said:


> Ditto. He's a proud biggot of homosexuals


On second thought, maybe I won't.


----------



## SimonStern2 (Feb 26, 2009)

And it's not just author's who don't get it.  Does anyone remember when Metallica brought suit against anyone who had downloaded any of their songs?  (Psst, those people are/WERE your FANS!)  I had purchased ALL of their albums up to that point, and wanted to download (rather than rip) some of my favorite tracks.  Fortunately, I never did.

Ender's Game was good, but the rest of the Ender series is, in a lot of ways, better.  For me, it's like the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  Ender's Game is more of a Juvenile, and the rest of the series breaks into some seriously bizzare realms.  Xenocide in particular REALLY made me think, and I liked that.  I have Ender in Exile on my "to-read" list.  It's on my Kindle, I just have other books in front of it.


----------



## cjpatrick (Jan 4, 2009)

Where are we getting the information that he is a proud biggot of homosexuals? He wrote an article talking about how he actually tries to go in and edit things on wikipedia to correct errors yet people will still change it. I understand the man is not perfect and I don't worship him by any means, but I'm not going to boycott his excellent books because I heard he was a homophobe. He is a Mormon, however, and it is fair to assume that he opposes homosexuality on moral standards, but I remember him writing an article about what's his name in Harry Potter being gay and he thought it was an insult for J.K. Rowling to say he was gay but leave it out of her writings just to avoid criticism. He doesn't outwardly protest or violate any homosexuals rights as far as I know of. He said that if someone is gay, it would be an insult to suppress that part of their nature in the books. He has written of homosexual characters and doesn't do it with discrimination.


----------



## Britt (Feb 8, 2009)

cjpatrick said:


> I understand the man is not perfect and I don't worship him by any means, but I'm not going to boycott his excellent books because I heard he was a homophobe.


No one said anything about boycotting his books. We're saying we like his books regardless of his character.


----------



## cjpatrick (Jan 4, 2009)

Well CegAbq is Member #2880  mentioned buying all his works on Kindle, then said 'maybe not' after reading that he was a proud biggot of homosexuals. That's what I was referring to. Sorry, I'm not accusing anyone of that, just making a statement.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

cjpatrick said:


> Where are we getting the information that he is a proud biggot of homosexuals? He wrote an article talking about how he actually tries to go in and edit things on wikipedia to correct errors yet people will still change it. I understand the man is not perfect and I don't worship him by any means, but I'm not going to boycott his excellent books because I heard he was a homophobe. He is a Mormon, however, and it is fair to assume that he opposes homosexuality on moral standards, but I remember him writing an article about what's his name in Harry Potter being gay and he thought it was an insult for J.K. Rowling to say he was gay but leave it out of her writings just to avoid criticism. He doesn't outwardly protest or violate any homosexuals rights as far as I know of. He said that if someone is gay, it would be an insult to suppress that part of their nature in the books. He has written of homosexual characters and doesn't do it with discrimination.


He makes no secret of his feelings. I understand that this isn't going to meet everyone's definition of homophobic or bigoted, but that's how a lot of people perceive it:

http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html

You have every right to buy books from whatever author suits your fancy. I think most readers also have a personal list of deal breakers though, with the list varying depending on the values or priorities of the individual. I haven't seen a discussion on OSC for years that didn't have people expressing discomfort based on this issue, and this is something that now follows him.


----------



## Britt (Feb 8, 2009)

cjpatrick said:


> Well CegAbq is Member #2880 mentioned buying all his works on Kindle, then said 'maybe not' after reading that he was a proud biggot of homosexuals. That's what I was referring to. Sorry, I'm not accusing anyone of that, just making a statement.


Ah, I overlooked that comment. No worries.


----------



## stevene9 (Nov 9, 2008)

unrequited said:


> I already have every Ender's series book besides Ender in Exile on my kindle in txt format thanks to countless hours of sitting there transcribing it from hardcopy to digital format.


Wow, and I had a tough time putting part of my address book on the K. My hat is off to you for your dedication because I would never do that for any book. Quite honestly I never knew about any of his other views, and I kind of wish I didn't now. I don't want to know what an author's politics are, or the politics of any hollywood stars.


----------



## CS (Nov 3, 2008)

Orson Scott Card IS a bigot. Period.

As for whether you still buy his books in light of that, it's entirely your choice.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

stevene9 said:


> Wow, and I had a tough time putting part of my address book on the K. My hat is off to you for your dedication because I would never do that for any book. Quite honestly I never knew about any of his other views, and I kind of wish I didn't now. I don't want to know what an author's politics are, or the politics of any hollywood stars.


It's tricky. I think famous people have the right to their beliefs and the same rights of free speech that we all enjoy. I'm never one to say that celebs should just shut up, although I see that opinion expressed a lot. However, anyone famous who does speak out does so at a little big extra financial risk.


----------



## cjpatrick (Jan 4, 2009)

I suppose to me, where I get confused is this. Mormonism is against homosexuality as most Christian sects are. So by saying "I don't like him because he has this view..." (which is a prevalent belief in his religion) is kind of like saying I don't like him because he is Mormon. Which seems to be not far away from saying "I don't like him because he is...black, gay, Muslim, etc." 


Now as a disclaimer, I'm not calling anyone here a bigot, as far as I know not a single person claimed to dislike anyone on the basis of anything. Everyone here has made that distinction between work and personal beliefs. I'm just commenting partly on the things I've seen and experienced in life and so on.


----------



## CegAbq (Mar 17, 2009)

Britt said:


> Ah, I overlooked that comment. No worries.


I did say "maybe" not. As others have said: it's a dilemma when an author/actor/any public figure one follows has viewpoints that may not match one's own. Many people I know love OSC's Ender series; one of my bookclubs discussed Enchanted. So, I'm not sure what I'll do when his Ender series is released for the Kindle.


----------



## CS (Nov 3, 2008)

cjpatrick said:


> I suppose to me, where I get confused is this. Mormonism is against homosexuality as most Christian sects are. So by saying "I don't like him because he has this view..." (which is a prevalent belief in his religion) is kind of like saying I don't like him because he is Mormon. Which seems to be not far away from saying "I don't like him because he is...black, gay, Muslim, etc."


Not true. There are Christians, Mormons, etc. who aren't against homosexuality. You can't paint every person with the same brush.


----------



## WalterK (Mar 2, 2009)

Re: transcribing to text. There are a few favorite works that I've considered starting for the express purpose of having them on my Kindle; but frankly I'm too lazy.

Re: OSC - I'm no fan of some of his views; but I am able to separate personal and professional aspects of artists and enjoy almost all of his works. In particular I really enjoyed the Alvin Maker series. (On a slightly lighter note - as a big film enthusiast I consider his opinions of *Citizen Kane* to be heretical.)


----------



## Britt (Feb 8, 2009)

CegAbq said:


> I did say "maybe" not.


I know, but I hadn't seen your post and after cjpatrick mentioned boycotting, I was confused because I didn't know where he was coming from. But then I read your post and realized that's what he was responding to.


----------



## stevene9 (Nov 9, 2008)

MichelleR said:


> It's tricky. I think famous people have the right to their beliefs and the same rights of free speech that we all enjoy. I'm never one to say that celebs should just shut up, although I see that opinion expressed a lot.


Of course they have a right to express their opinions, just as I have a right to say that I don't want to hear them.


----------



## cjpatrick (Jan 4, 2009)

I put your "maybe" in there  

True it's a risk, anyone can make any decision they want. Buy or don't buy for any reason, that's one of those beautiful rights that we have. I just hate to see bigot thrown around at someone as if it's a fact. I am a Christian and have absolutely no qualms with homosexuals. That's their choice. I just hate to see someone called a bigot based on belief and not so much based on their actions. Now, if anyone goes out and hurts or disenfranchises someone based on their sexuality or race or anything else...Well that's not very Christlike at all.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

cjpatrick:

Here is the difference.

Orson Scott Card says he doesn't think gay people should act on their desires and he supports legislation to stop gays from marrying.

Some people respond by not buying his books. They say nothing about his religion being banned or him not being allowed to marry the person of his choosing.

Nobody is suggesting legislation to curtail _his_ rights.

So, no, saying you don't want to support a writer for whatever reason is not the same as hating blacks or Mormons.

But that reminds me, until the 1970s the Mormon doctrine taught that blacks were inferior and unable to hold a position of power in the church:

[URL=http://www.lds-mormon.com/racism]http://www.lds-mormon.com/racism.shtml[/url]

Would it have been more noble to boycott Card if we were back in the sixties and he was writing about blacks in the same manner which he speaks of gays?


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

stevene9 said:


> Of course they have a right to express their opinions, just as I have a right to say that I don't want to hear them.


No disagreement there.


----------



## cjpatrick (Jan 4, 2009)

I make no mention of nobility. I just think it is strange to boycott someones works based on their religious beliefs. However, my original question was 'where is this coming from...' My goal in even responding to the bigotry comment was to keep people from being discouraged from buying his works based on a post calling him a bigot as if it were a fact. It is everyone's right to purchase as they see fit.  If someone sees his views and then deem they are bigotted in nature, and that bigotry keeps them from wanting to support that author, then by all means do not buy the story. However, I do not think "OSC is a bigot" is a fact, it is an opinion. I don't believe there is any clear cut test to determine if someone is a bigot. As a matter of fact, just calling someone a bigot probably paints a different picture in everyone one of our minds. I only encourage people to look for themselves, see if what he does is offensive to you, and make your decisions based on that. Also, I should note, I am not even trying to defend him on a personal level. I am, however, trying to defend his stories, I love them very much and think they are wonderful stories that have never come across as bigoted to me.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

cjpatrick said:


> I make no mention of nobility. I just think it is strange to boycott someones works based on their religious beliefs. However, my original question was 'where is this coming from...' My goal in even responding to the bigotry comment was to keep people from being discouraged from buying his works based on a post calling him a bigot as if it were a fact. It is everyone's right to purchase as they see fit. If someone sees his views and then deem they are bigotted in nature, and that bigotry keeps them from wanting to support that author, then by all means do not buy the story. However, I do not think "OSC is a bigot" is a fact, it is an opinion. I don't believe there is any clear cut test to determine if someone is a bigot. As a matter of fact, just calling someone a bigot probably paints a different picture in everyone one of our minds. I only encourage people to look for themselves, see if what he does is offensive to you, and make your decisions based on that. Also, I should note, I am not even trying to defend him on a personal level. I am, however, trying to defend his stories, I love them very much and think they are wonderful stories that have never come across as bigoted to me.


I don't think anyone should read the line "Orson Scott Card is a bigot" and automatically accept it, especially not if they're reading it in front of a device that allows the reader to research the validity of the claim. I would expect anyone reading the assertion to want to know more.

That being said, "I don't want to buy books from someone who has issues with gay people," is not the same as hating Mormons or wanting to abridge OSC's right to have issues with gay people. What it is about is each person having to make decisions about how to spend his or her money. It would be absurd for anyone to by a book by an author who offends them to the point that the enjoyment of the book would be greatly reduced.

It's utterly fine to not care about OSC's stance on homosexuality, or to care and still opt to buy his books, but making a decision not to purchase his stuff doesn't equate to religious persecution.

And I love his books very much, too.


----------



## cjpatrick (Jan 4, 2009)

I may have been a little off key with that line. The only thing I was trying to get across with it is this: Religious beliefs are not enough by themselves for me to consider someone a bigot. That to me is the equavilent of boycotting someone based on their race or sexual preference.

Anyhow, we all agree his books are pretty good, so I look forward their Kindle debuts!


----------



## CegAbq (Mar 17, 2009)

This has turned into a very interesting & engaging thread!


----------



## unrequited (Feb 26, 2009)

cjpatrick said:


> I may have been a little off key with that line. The only thing I was trying to get across with it is this: Religious beliefs are not enough by themselves for me to consider someone a bigot. That to me is the equavilent of boycotting someone based on their race or sexual preference.


Sorry, no. You don't get a pass just because somebody else tells you it's okay (whether it be a book, man, or institution). Mormonism is a mainstream religion, but if it were some sort of religion based upon the very discrimination of others (by race or sexual preference) it doesn't make it okay, and it certainly doesn't put it on the same level of discriminating against somebody for who they are (race / sexual preference).


----------



## Britt (Feb 8, 2009)

CegAbq said:


> This has turned into a very interesting & engaging thread!


Indeed, though I didn't mean to open this can of worms at all.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

cjpatrick said:


> I may have been a little off key with that line. The only thing I was trying to get across with it is this: Religious beliefs are not enough by themselves for me to consider someone a bigot. That to me is the equavilent of boycotting someone based on their race or sexual preference.
> 
> Anyhow, we all agree his books are pretty good, so I look forward their Kindle debuts!


I consider myself a very spiritual person and am open to all religions, but it cannot be denied that any time humans interpret religious scriptures there will be their interpretations and biases. Saying that there can be bigotry in religion is a fact. While religion also brings about doctrines of love, forgiveness, and tolerance, it can't be denied that this is not always the case.

The pope recently said that condoms help spread HIV. Would someone condemning his words be anti-Catholic?

In parts of the world women are still stoned to death for shaming their families. Is the condemnation of honor killings anti-Islam?

I fully accept that Card's beliefs have probably added to his many admirable qualities. I'd like to think Ender's Game is an example of this, actually. The fact that it bothers me on a deep level to see gays discriminated against is every bit as deeply-held of a belief as his beliefs. What do I do with that? How do I reconcile the two?

I appreciate that "bigot" is a strong word, and perhaps doesn't have the right nuances to properly define Card's stance. I understand that it's a principles stance, in the sense that he seems to come to it based on his religion rather than any deep dislike of gays. The end result, however, is that he wishes to deny people their rights and wants to see anti-gay laws stay on the books. 


> Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
> 
> The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.


It seems backward to me that for me to say I'm no longer completely comfortable supporting someone with that stance makes me the intolerant one.


----------



## cjpatrick (Jan 4, 2009)

Of course not, and that's why I've tried to emphasize "Religious beliefs are not enough *by themselves * for me to consider someone a bigot."

Alone. outside of separate actions. Any personal intervention or interpretation of that religion is very much subject to critiquing.


----------



## cjpatrick (Jan 4, 2009)

We can ask them to be tolerant of a stance *they find* very offensive (homosexuality), and when they don't we can call them intolerant and bigotted, but when we are asked to do the same of their views(anti-homosexuality) we find it so reprehensible?

Would we consider it a little bigotted or outrageous if someone came forth and said "Oh, he writes good books, but I'm not going to buy them because he is gay?

I suspect we would.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

cjpatrick said:


> Of course not, and that's why I've tried to emphasize "Religious beliefs are not enough *by themselves * for me to consider someone a bigot."
> 
> Alone. outside of separate actions. Any personal intervention or interpretation of that religion is very much subject to critiquing.


I might be more prone to support him again if he just had the belief without wanting to make legislation. My use of the word bigoted does include the fact that he actively wants to stop gays from marrying and wants to keep laws on the books for the purposes of intimidation or forcing people into the closet.



cjpatrick said:


> We can ask them to be tolerant of a stance *they find* very offensive (homosexuality), and when they don't we can call them intolerant and bigotted, but when we are asked to do the same of their views(anti-homosexuality) we find it so reprehensible?
> 
> Would we consider it a little bigotted or outrageous if someone came forth and said "Oh, he writes good books, but I'm not going to buy them because he is gay?
> 
> I suspect we would.


He doesn't have to be to be tolerant of gays as long as he does not break the law. If someone wanted to cause him harm, pass legislation to dissolve his marriage, do something to outlaw Mormonism, I would be first in line to fight for his rights. My only response to his views is to not give him part of my disposable income.

As to your other example, if someone is uncomfortable with an author being gay, of course he or she should not buy the person's book. Nobody should purchase a book they won't or can't enjoy. That goes for people who don't buy Card because he has the anti-gay thing, people who don't watch Ellen because she likes girls, and people who don't watch movies by Woody Allen because of the Soon-Yi thing.


----------



## pomlover2586 (Feb 14, 2009)

Wheres a MOD to lock a thread when needed?? LOL


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

pomlover2586 said:


> Wheres a MOD to lock a thread when needed?? LOL


I think we're being pretty civil actually. I don't have hard feelings over mods locking threads though, because I know they do what they feel is best.


----------



## bani (Apr 1, 2009)

I really don't get the controversy around osc.

IMO he's simply a hack writer. ender's game simply isn't that good. i remember being distinctly unimpressed when i read it, and that was many years before i ever found out he was a raving looney.

ender's game is simply exploitative cliche. consider when it was written (1985). right in the middle of the video games craze. it's pretty clear it's targeted at angsty teens obsessed with gaming. the kiddies think they "identify" with poor exploited ender -- "OMG ENDER IS ME!!1!! I LOEV THIS BOOK!1!!!eleventyone".

there are many other scifi authors who are much much much much better writers. why waste time with osc or obsessing over his lunacy? he's a terrible writer, stop lining his pockets.


----------



## Elijsha (Dec 10, 2008)

"Orson Scott Card says he doesn't think gay people should act on their desires and he supports legislation to stop gays from marrying."

That's his right as a American. Turning this into OSC bashing silly. Who researches Authors morals before reading their books. Not i!


----------



## cjpatrick (Jan 4, 2009)

Well, I agree with you they shouldn't have to. I just wish people could separate those things. Because whether or not I support homosexuality or Mormonism, Card's books are great and Ellen is hilarious. I agree with you on the legislation thing however, that definitely goes into the 'active' thing I was talking about. Personally, I think government should stay out of marriage altogether. Let hetero and **** unions be civil unions and leave any marriage or religious institutions to those institutions. All citizens should be equal in the U.S.  
It was fun having this discussion though, even if it probably no longer belongs in a Kindle forum.


----------



## cjpatrick (Jan 4, 2009)

It has been very civil. I also have no hard feelings about this discussion or any moderator actions. I enjoy my Kindleboards crowd, they are some of the few people I know that can give me a wonderful and intelligent conversation day in and day out.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Elijsha said:


> "Orson Scott Card says he doesn't think gay people should act on their desires and he supports legislation to stop gays from marrying."
> 
> That's his right as a American. Turning this into OSC bashing silly. Who researches Authors morals before reading their books. Not i!


Of course it's his right. Nowhere is that under dispute. Just as it is his right, one I would fight for him to retain, it is the right of others to debate the issue. It always surprises me when someone seems to say that the only way to acknowledge someone else's right is to surrender my own. If you think OSC has a right to his opinion then shut-up (paraphrasing) seems to not work for me on the logic level.

And trust me that I never actually went looking for his stance on the topic. The being a fan came first and the rest was stumbled upon. 



cjpatrick said:


> It has been very civil. I also have no hard feelings about this discussion or any moderator actions. I enjoy my Kindleboards crowd, they are some of the few people I know that can give me a wonderful and intelligent conversation day in and day out.


Agreed. No hard feelings. I appreciate the fact that you don't want to see someone treated unfairly. In fact, we're both saying that, aren't we? We're just coming to it from different angles.


----------



## Britt (Feb 8, 2009)

MichelleR said:


> And trust me that I never actually went looking for his stance on the topic. The being a fan came first and the rest was stumbled upon.


Same here.


----------



## unrequited (Feb 26, 2009)

Britt said:


> Same here.


Ditto. It just happens to be my favorite author that I'd never want to meet. > )


----------



## cjpatrick (Jan 4, 2009)

unrequited said:


> Ditto. It just happens to be my favorite author that I'd never want to meet. > )












Awww.....c'mon  He'll let you take pictures! (me on the left)

Forgive the cheap glasses, my good ones broke and 26 bucks was all I had...


----------



## jimbellow (Mar 13, 2009)

Ender's Game, best book ever


----------



## bani (Apr 1, 2009)

jimbellow said:


> Ender's Game, best book ever


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Mod jumping in:  This has been an interesting and extremely courteous discussion:  no personal attacks and respectful recognition of opposing views.  Gee, you'd think we had a bunch of adults here!   I see no reason to lock or delete anything. . . .you all are doing just fine.

On topic:  I've never read Card, have no knowledge of his work or his opinions except what I've read in this thread.

Carry on. . . . 

Ann


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

As long as his books do not promote bigotry, I am fine with reading them. Personally, I prefer the Shadow series to the Ender's Series. I was more fascinated by the kids and what happened to them when they returned to earth then I was Ender as an adult.

I was surprised to learn that OSC was a Mormon. I did not realize that until after I had finished the Ender's Series. Maybe I don't know enough about the Mormon faith, but his books did not strike me as having a huge religious bent. Then again, I can read The Chronicles of Narnia and ignore the religious symbology on those books. Maybe OSC's books are the same way, once you know it is there and you choose to look for it, you can find the references pretty easily.


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Mod jumping in: This has been an interesting and extremely courteous discussion: no personal attacks and respectful recognition of opposing views. Gee, you'd think we had a bunch of adults here!  I see no reason to lock or delete anything. . . .you all are doing just fine.
> 
> On topic: I've never read Card, have no knowledge of his work or his opinions except what I've read in this thread.
> 
> ...


I was going to put in my $.02 as well, but Ann said it perfectly.


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

To bring it back on the topic of books ... I enjoyed Ender's game but not the sequels so much. Loved the Alvin Maker series - it is an alternate history novel. IIRC the first title is Seventh Son


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

I would just like to point out that there is a category difference between being black and being gay. It bugs me when the two are equated. One is a behaviour and the other is a racial characteristic. I think that is why the bigot term can be "loaded" and a way to dismiss someone without actually dealing with the issue. If I don't like you because you're black then I am a bigot. If I like you, but do not agree that a behaviour you engage in is a good idea that does not make me a bigot. 

For example, if you are a Mormon (  ) and think that marrying 6 wives is ok, I may disagree with you. I don't hate you and I'm not a bigot. 

In several posts here, disagreeing with someone's sexual preference is equated with bigotry and intolerance. Yet we all must have some line we draw where someone's sexual preference is not condoned. (pedophilia, bestiality, rape) everyone has a line somewhere. So categorically, disagreeing with a sexual preference is not bigotry.


----------



## kevindorsey (Mar 4, 2009)

Kind of an eh review for me.  Probably another PR campaign for Amazon


----------



## LaraAmber (Feb 24, 2009)

Chad Winters said:


> I would just like to point out that there is a category difference between being black and being gay. It bugs me when the two are equated. One is a behaviour and the other is a racial characteristic. I think that is why the bigot term can be "loaded" and a way to dismiss someone without actually dealing with the issue. If I don't like you because you're black then I am a bigot. If I like you, but do not agree that a behaviour you engage in is a good idea that does not make me a bigot.


I respectfully disagree. Sure the act of having homosexual sex is a behavior, but I argue that saying homosexuality is a behavior not genetic, holds about as much water as saying being left handed is a behavior, not genetic, so it's okay to force left-handed people to write with their right hands, even if it does screw them up.

My having heterosexual sex with my husband is a behavior, but my desire to have sex is firmly grounded in genetics.

As for your second thought about drawing lines. Yes, we all draw a line somewhere when it comes to sex, how soon in a relationship, level of privacy, etc. The line between "consenting adults" and "non-consenting participant" (your examples: bestiality, pedophilia, rape) is the size of a state, and we're not talking Rhode Island. It's a giant black swath of a line the width of Texas. It has razorwire, anti-personnel mines, and a flaming moat with fireproof sharks with lasers on their head.

I do not consider someone a bigot for being against marriage and civil unions. I think they are wrong, but if they treat gay people with respect then I cut them some slack. It's the people who say horrible things, cheer hate crimes, etc. that deserve our complete and total revulsion.

Lara Amber


----------



## Zeronewbury (Feb 20, 2009)

I can forgive the cheap glasses, but the hat on backwards?  Or maybe I'm just intolerant.   

Being in Salt Lake City, OSC and the LDS Church are pretty inescapable.  We also have a State Legislator who said that Gays are worst than terrorists and are the 'biggest threat' to America today.

All of the hatred and bigotry just makes me sort of sad.  Why is it that haters have to be loudmouths as well?  Or are there just as many haters who say nothing?


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

Maybe OSC can help convince other ebook hold outs to make their works available. He tried the technology, he liked the technology, he gets why people want his books for the technology. That is what really matters to me. 

No matter what you think of his beliefs, he was an ebook holdout who has converted. He says he is using the technology and does not leave his house without his Kindle. Here is hoping he is able to change the minds of some of the other authors who are holding out.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

LaraAmber said:


> I respectfully disagree. Sure the act of having homosexual sex is a behavior, but I argue that saying homosexuality is a behavior not genetic, holds about as much water as saying being left handed is a behavior, not genetic, so it's okay to force left-handed people to write with their right hands, even if it does screw them up.
> 
> My having heterosexual sex with my husband is a behavior, but my desire to have sex is firmly grounded in genetics.
> 
> ...


I agree with your point on consent, (which is why I included polygamy)
I think the evidence for genetic basis of homosexuality is still pretty slim. The jury is still out.

In a Darwinian sense it makes little sense. There are some "Their minds light up different on PET scan" kinds of studies available but they don't prove much because what we think changes the way our brains light up. People definitely appear designed (evolutionarily or whatever) to be heterosexual (in a this is made to go there so this happens sort of thing)


----------



## LaraAmber (Feb 24, 2009)

But not everything that exists on a body needs to have an evolutionary advantage.  The way evolution works is the trait that doesn't get you killed gets passed along to the next generation.  There is no evolutionary advantage to my having red hair, but I do.  As long as being a carrier of the genes that makes a person gay doesn't get the carrier killed, the carrier can pass it along to the next generation, regardless of whether or not the carrier expresses the trait.  The whole white/grey moth example we're taught in elementary school, it wasn't the moths waking up one day and saying "hey with all this pollution on the trees, we should be grey moths and live" it was "oh frak, I'm a white moth" (crunch).  

Don't forget also that traits can sometimes be throw backs to previous genetic material that once was important.  Could homosexuality be a throw back to the genetic code that in other species is expressed as an actual gender change?  In some species when one gender vastly outnumbers the other, some members of the species physically change genders.  Could homosexuality be a shadow, a remnant of that still in our genetic code?  If homosexuality is only "behavior" explain its expression in other species?  I'm not talking about dominance behavior like when a male dog humps another male dog, but when species pair off.  The most common occurrence is in bird species.  In fact it again was in the paper only a month ago, they were trying to get a rare breed of ducks to mate, so they put in two males with the female hoping she would like one of them, instead the males paired off and ignored her!

Lara Amber


----------



## Zeronewbury (Feb 20, 2009)

Lara, I have to respectfully disagree with you.  Having red hair is a decided genetic advantage because it makes you extremely attractive to a superior set of males.  Okay, that means I like red hair.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

I think the Mormonism is most obvious is the Alvin Maker books. Also, in Lost Boys, which has nothing to do with the vampire movie.  

The first OSC book I read was called Homebody, I believe. I didn't read Ender's Game for a couple years. 

LaraAmber is very ably discussing the rest, so I shall go eat pizza and read my new-fangled book reader.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Tarma said:


> I disagree. As population increases and resources decrease, there is a definite advantage for a species to control it's numbers. How it gets passed would be a bit more of a problem, but a predisposition could be passed on, that would get triggered by other genes or environmental situations.
> 
> Re the red hair.... It may look nice, but the predisposition for skin cancer and collagen disorders is NOT helpful. Definitely a recessive. (Yes I have red hair.) It was probably helpful in northern/low sun climates for Vit D type purposes. Maybe the associated problems got attached to it later.
> 
> (I really enjoyed Ender's Game)


But natural selection almost always works on an individual basis not for the good of the species. Its the individuals offspring that matter.


----------



## CS (Nov 3, 2008)

Chad Winters said:


> I think the evidence for genetic basis of homosexuality is still pretty slim. The jury is still out.


I'm heterosexual and I can't control how I feel about the opposite sex. I am attracted to them, and that's that. I assume the same is true for you.

Why would anyone willingly choose to become homosexual and subject themselves to discrimination, less-than-equal rights, hate crimes, and a whole host of other issues?

Your stance doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, Chad.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

CS said:


> I'm heterosexual and I can't control how I feel about the opposite sex. I am attracted to them, and that's that. I assume the same is true for you.
> 
> Why would anyone willingly choose to become homosexual and subject themselves to discrimination, less-than-equal rights, hate crimes, and a whole host of other issues?
> 
> Your stance doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, Chad.


This isn't my soapbox by any means. I hold no animosity toward homosexuals (including those of my friends and family who are), 
I was just trying to think about it logically. The fact that heterosexuality is genetic (considering that it is the method of sexual reproduction in mammalian species) is indisputable. Science has not proven the same for homosexuality. One does not make the other true.

On the other hand, even if genes make you homosexual, I don't understand why this suddenly makes it untouchable in the moral sense. You can have a biological basis for depression or sickle cell anemia. It doesn't make it the way you should be... (that is not meant to sound harsh, just an example of a biological thing people would not choose )


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

I believe it is genetic, but it's irrelevant.

If someone is attracted to someone of the same sex and need them for happiness and fulfillment as much as a heterosexual needs a partner of the opposite sex, no matter how they got to that point, they should be allowed to pursue that happiness. If they would feel a loss of their partner as keenly as a straight person would mourn if they lost their life mate, then all the debate in the world over why is just a lot of noise. 

It's odd to me that we all know some odd and dubious straight couples, and we shrug and say it's not our business, but if the partners are the same sex many of us act as if we have every right to set up camp and take notes, expecting their rights to be with our permission and subject to our whims.

If Britney Spears hasn't destroyed the  institution of marriage, I don't think we have much to worry about with Portia and Ellen or Elton and David.


----------



## Britt (Feb 8, 2009)

MichelleR said:


> If Britney Spears hasn't destroyed the institution of marriage, I don't think we have much to worry about with Portia and Ellen or Elton and David.


Your comment about Portia and Ellen reminds me of something I came across on YouTube a week or so ago. I thought it was pretty funny.


----------



## Zeronewbury (Feb 20, 2009)

So whaddya think?  Are you folks going to solve this problem today, or should I check back in tomorrow?  Just askin'.

Because it is, after all, April 1, and you could skate away with a chuckle and a 'Just kidding.'


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

LOL !!


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

We could set a deadline, solve this issue by the end of the week. Or we could table this and fix the economy first.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

There's an economy?  I thought that thing died.

I think Tarma's comment fits the economy as well. As soon as we took the Darwinian model out of the free market economy its all over. Now we will be shoring up nonviable companies that should have gone away for decades.

Companies are like children: if you protect them from the consequences of their mistakes they just keep making bigger ones


----------



## cjpatrick (Jan 4, 2009)

Oh yeah, we're taking away a key element in the economy. Consequences. Once those are gone nobody will learn anything. Buy something you can't afford...? It's okay, the Government will fix it. We're selling off our freedom for a free handout. What's most amazing is the money we are taking is our own. How's that for a pretty good deal. We give the government our money, they offer it back to us...with strings.


----------



## Kind (Jan 28, 2009)

Zeronewbury said:


> Lara, I have to respectfully disagree with you. Having red hair is a decided genetic advantage because it makes you extremely attractive to a superior set of males. Okay, that means I like red hair.


Red hair with some freckles ... makes me weak at the knees. lol


----------



## Zeronewbury (Feb 20, 2009)

Head pokes out of tent.  Good Morning.  Manly scratch of the belly and back of the head.  Look around the dawning skies.  Hmm.  Sounds like the first robins of spring.  Nice.  Small wisp of smoke rising from the remains of yesterday's blaze.  Oh,  here's a cold twig with a charred end, I'll just use this to stir up these ashes.  A few embers.  Crouch down and blow on them until they have a slight glow.  Always seems a miracle that they survive the cold damp night.  Crack.  Bit of warmth radiates onto my lips.  Thread moves to the top and generates more attention.  My work here is finished.

Call me Wormwood.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Mod checking in here.  Good job folks, now back to looking for those pesky Easter Eggs!

Betsy


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Zeronewbury said:


> . . . Manly scratch of the belly and back of the head.
> 
> Call me Wormwood.


I'm having a little trouble reconciling "manly scratch of the belly" with what appears to be a pink My Little Pony avatar with a rainbow tail.

Maybe it's just me. . . . .

Ann
(recognizes that when zero changes his avatar, this post will make no sense. . . . .)


----------



## Zeronewbury (Feb 20, 2009)

What you can't see in the avatar, and here's the secret irony, is that it says "I'm so happy I'm


Spoiler



shitting


 rainbows!"

Here he is!










And I apologize to anyone whose tender sensibilities are offended thereby.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Zeronewbury said:


> What you can't see in the avatar, and here's the secret irony, is that it says "I'm so happy I'm
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Well... that did lose something in the shrinking didn't it? LOL!!


----------

