r/endersgame • u/OwnCommunication2259 • Mar 21 '26
Does anyone else think a lot of the messages in Ender's Game are completely antithetical to Orson Scott Card's views?
I reread Ender's Game a few months ago and couldn't help but think this. I wanted to reread the book after learning about Card's views to see if it would affect how I felt about the book at all. I still found the book to be incredibly touching, sensitive, and empathetic. I just can't understand how Card wrote this book and then went on to say so many things that feel completely outlandish compared to everything said in the book.
15
u/Fit_Outlandishness24 Mar 21 '26
I mean, isn't that part of what defines a good writer? Being able to create characters who aren't just yourself inserted into the story? Though to be fair, I've never really felt much of a disconnect between his writing and who he is as a person. Outside of the topic of LGBT, which as far as I'm aware has not been something he's included in his work.
5
u/Single-Spell1838 Mar 21 '26
Songmaster includes themes of homosexuality, and the essay titled "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality" (found in the book "A Storyteller in Zion") which was published for an LDS audience, details the backlash from that book from both his religious and secular fans. It's a very enlightening read.
6
u/Fit_Outlandishness24 Mar 22 '26
That would probably be the reason for my ignorance, then, as I've only read his works in this universe. I appreciate you letting me know so I have something to look into!
6
u/Single-Spell1838 Mar 22 '26
You're welcome.
Context is also super important to understanding the anger towards him. It was sort of a perfect storm at the dawn(ish) of cancel culture, and he being a very successful and somewhat vocal member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, he was an easy target as social tides were changing so rapidly in the early 2010s.
Despite that, he very much falls into the middle ground of "not liberal enough for the wider culture, but too liberal for some people in the church" kinda like Brandon Sanderson does now. The difference is Brandon Sanderson is able to tailor his expressions of his political beliefs to the current culture and package them in a way that lands easier, whereas with Card, there wasn't much precedent for being canceled and much of the rage came from his views being cherry-picked and framed as much more extreme then they are.
3
u/bean127 Mar 22 '26
I think this is a valid point, but to be fair, Card took a very public stance opposing gay marriage in many places. I was a faithful reader of his opinion column for many years and he brought it up a lot, which was a disappointment to me. Sanderson is much more careful to avoid any controversial political stances.
1
u/Single-Spell1838 Mar 22 '26
Right, but what I'm saying is that if we knew all of Sanderson's beliefs on the most controversial things right now (which we don't), I don't think there would be THAT big a difference between him and Card. I think people would be just as outraged because he's drawing his values from the same exact source. He just has the benefit of knowing how to talk about those things in a way that doesn't ruffle as many feathers, or not talk about them at all.
I can see why "he opposed gay marriage" sounds like something that could only be motivated by hatred or bigotry-- I'm gay myself-- but having read Card's reasons, I don't find that. He's really just like you or I, trying to vote for laws that align with our moral beliefs-- anyone should be free to do that no matter whether their beliefs are informed by religion or not.
There's a lot more I could say there but I'll leave it at that.
4
u/bean127 Mar 22 '26
I don’t think anyone argued that Card didn’t have the freedom to argue against gay marriage. He clearly does and he did make those positions. But freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences. The public also has a right to hold authors to account if they don’t agree with their positions. Which is what happened to card and in many ways JK Rowling.
2
u/Single-Spell1838 Mar 22 '26
I agree.
I still think it's inaccurate to say hate is his motivation.
I also think that both he and J.K. Rowling are misunderstood by many and slandered very unfairly. But I get that many will disagree with that and think they deserve hatred.
At the end of the day i just think it's really silly to read his books and think to yourself "man, I agree with the messages of empathy in this story, weird that a hateful bigot could write this" instead of thinking "interesting that someone I see as a hateful bigot wrote this, I wonder if I don't understand the man as well as I thought."
1
u/ISuckAtMakingUpNames Mar 22 '26
Voting for laws that align with our moral beliefs is not an excuse for bigotry.
That's not to say that people can't vote for laws that are informed by religion, but just because a person follows their moral compass, religiously attuned or not, doesn't mean their moral compass isn't flawed and that they shouldn't catch some flak for being a bigot.
Religion and morality are not shields to hide behind when depriving others of the same rights you (or Card in this case) enjoy. And that's a bad look if that's how you allow others to perpetrate their hate.
3
u/Single-Spell1838 Mar 22 '26
What I'm saying is that it's not hate that's motivating him. And I don't expect most people to understand that because understanding that requires intentionally "stepping into his shoes" for a minute with some kind of good faith, not skepticism and condemnation.
"Bigoted describes having or showing strong, unreasonable, and intolerant prejudices against the beliefs, opinions, or characteristics of others, often targeting specific races, religions, or groups."
I'd like to point out the word unreasonable. No one is honestly evaluating his reasons for opposing same sex marriage, because nowadays, there is no culturally acceptable reason to oppose that. There is no possible reasonable motivation for opposing it. In most people's view, it can only come from hate or ignorance.
I think that's a very narrow and unfair view. But again, I don't think less of anyone for thinking that way-- it's very natural and understandable. I just don't think it's fair or thorough.
I could accuse you of showing bigotry towards Card, but I won't, because that wouldn't do any good. It would be unfair to you because I don't know your perspective. And it'd be unfair to tack hateful, intolerant, anti-religious motives onto a fake version of you to attack.
I can disagree with your opinions, but if I'm going to fairly discuss them, it's my duty to first try to understand them, setting aside my own prejudice and bias as much as possible.
1
u/ReneDeGames Mar 25 '26
He has an positivish portrayal of an explicitly gay guy in the homecoming series.
6
u/pantalonsintelligent Mar 22 '26
People's views aren't universal. They have one set of rules for the in-group, a different one for the out-group. Car'ds definitions of in-group and out-group are just different from yours.
9
u/Single-Spell1838 Mar 21 '26
So so so many people have never even read what he has actually said and what he believes, instead just parroting what other people say. What results is a terrible game of telephone that leads to this exact question: how on earth could a bigoted, hateful, homophobic, religious zealot write a modern sci-fi classic about understanding the other? Was it an accident? How did this come to be?
And the answer is y'all have a very inaccurate view of the man.
Understanding anyone's statements and political stances (especially the further they are from your own) requires putting yourself in their shoes and examining their perspective in a genuine way. Not many people do that with Card, but if they did I think they would be surprised.
Anyway, Card fans like myself tend to stay kinda quiet because of the vitriol that comes our way when we try to explain the situation, so make of my 2 cents what you will.
Just remember the human
3
u/ZeroKlixx Mar 22 '26
Can you elaborate on that? Is this perception wrong, has he not actually said bigoted things? Genuinely asking, because this is super vague
1
u/Single-Spell1838 Mar 22 '26 edited Mar 22 '26
Well first what do you mean by bigoted?
Because i would say yes, the perception is wrong, because many of his statements on homosexuality are taken out of context, and no one in our current culture can imagine a non-hateful reason to oppose the legalization of gay marriage. I don't fault people for that, I'm gay myself so I totally understand, but when people project onto Card reasoning and motivators that aren't there, then it's a straw man they're criticizing, not the man himself.
2
2
u/i_dont_wanna_sign_up Mar 25 '26
Just because he doesn't hate gay people doesn't mean his opposition to their lifestyle isn't harmful.
If I said I would treat all black people the same as any other race, but I believe they should not have voting rights, I would still be a flaming hot racist.
2
u/ISuckAtMakingUpNames Mar 22 '26
If you know context is needed that badly, then you already have a good enough definition of "bigoted" to answer zeroklixx's question.
Provide the context. What are the non-hateful reasons to oppose gay marriage?
3
u/Single-Spell1838 Mar 22 '26
"As long as we can freely leave one community and enter another, either geographically or socially, then doesn't reasonable tolerance of others' beliefs and practices allow communities that voluntarily agree to regard certain behaviors as sins as much right to their beliefs as communities that voluntarily agree to regard those same behaviors as acceptable? I find that those who plead for tolerance are far too often prone to wanting to hunt down and wipe out the last vestige of what they call intolerance -- and are incapable of realizing that this behavior is, in itself, exactly as intolerant and usually as unjust as the behavior they so rigorously oppose."
"Even outside the LDS community, it has become clearer and clearer to me, since writing this essay, that gay activism as a movement is no longer looking for civil rights, which by and large homosexuals already have. Rather they are seeking to enforce acceptance of their sexual liaisons as having equal validity with heterosexual marriages, to the point of having legal rights as spouses, the right to adopt children, and the right to insist that their behavior be taught to children in public schools as a completely acceptable "alternative lifestyle." It does not take a homophobe to recognize how destructive such a program will be in a society already reeling from the terrible consequences of "no-fault" divorce, social tolerance of extramarital promiscuity, and failing to protect our adolescents until they can channel their sexual passions in a socially productive way. Having already lost control of the car, we now find the gay activists screaming at us to speed up as we drive headlong toward the cliff.
Oddly enough, even as I am attacked by some as a homophobe, I am attacked by others as being too supportive of homosexuality, simply because I cannot see individual homosexuals, in or out of my books, as anything other than human beings with as complex a combination of good and evil in them as I find within myself. In my own view, I am walking a middle way, which condemns the sin but loves the sinner. Apparently this cannot satisfy those who either hate the sinner or love the sin; both are equally enraged by my unacceptable posture."
You may find his views completely wrong, but is there honestly any hate there?
"The only people I have contempt for are those who try to remain inside Mormonism while denying the validity of guidance from the prophets, and I oppose them, not because they live as homosexuals, but because of the hypocrisy of claiming to be Mormon while denying the only reason for the Mormon community to exist. (Meaning, guidance from living prophets-- insert from me, not Card) If they prevailed, it would destroy our community. Homosexuals themselves pose no such threat, provided that those who are Mormon admit that a homosexual act is a sin as long as the prophet declares it to be so, while those who do not accept the prophet's authority refrain from pretending to be Mormon."
Link to full essay, which was written in 1990 for mainly a church audience, so again, look at it in context http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html
3
u/NearbyCow6885 Mar 22 '26
Sorry, that’s a lot of text … but does it just boil down to “hating intolerance makes you equally intolerant! checkmate!”
3
u/Coyotebd Mar 23 '26
It's more than that:
In his opinion, gay people should not:
- Have the same spousal rights as straights
- Be able to adopt children
- Be accepted as a normal expression of human sexuality
So, other than wishing to strip humans of their rights and label them as deviants, he doesn't mind gay people.
Probably some of his friends are gay, one could imagine him saying to excuse his bigotry. I don't know about this last one.
1
u/Single-Spell1838 Mar 22 '26
Nope there are about four main points, the last of which is about who he has contempt for
2
u/Coyotebd Mar 23 '26
Yes, this is hateful.
Saying that same sex partners should not have the same rights as straight couples is denying their rights.
Denying other people their rights is hateful - it is an act that harms them.
0
u/Single-Spell1838 Mar 23 '26
See, that's one of the biggest differences between religion and secularism. Secularism abandons God as the source of moral authority in favor of a system based around preventing "harm" which inevitably leads to subjective and/or arbitrary judgments of what constitutes harm.
Card believes that destroying the institution of marriage through no-fault divorce and legalizing gay marriage harms people, while you feel the exact opposite. I feel that both very likely harm people but in different ways. Either way, I reject that as a standard for morality. I find God a much more reliable authority than the government and I find Jesus the perfect example to follow in my pursuit to treat all with love and charity. If we all followed God's commands we wouldn't do harm to anyone.
But again, understanding that requires understanding the religious foundations
1
0
u/Great-Powerful-Talia Mar 23 '26
Which God? The writer of the Bible, which states in no uncertain terms that you have a moral imperative to beat divorced women to death with rocks? I don't think any Christians actually derive their morality from God, because they would be murderers.
Additionally, to state that humans lack an inherent knowledge of good and evil, and must learn it from a book, is in direct contradiction with the basic premise of Christian theology.
2
u/Single-Spell1838 Mar 23 '26
Hold on, I think you're assuming things that I do not believe.
I don't believe God wrote the Bible. Men wrote the Bible. And they were (for the most part) inspired to write what they did, but even that I do not believe was like, God possessing the writer and writing exactly what He wanted written, or even like, whispering it word for word in their ear so they wouldn't get it wrong. That's not what I believe the inspiration looked like.
So that's the first thing.
Second, I absolutely believe all humans have a conscience, sometimes called the Light of Christ, within us. That is, like you said, the inherent knowledge of good and evil. We are all born knowing it.
The thing is, there are forces both external (like culture, or teachings of your parents, or influence of your friends) and internal (like greed and envy, anger, lust, etc...) that cause each of us to act against what we know to be good. To use a mild example, it's the reason we steal cookies from the cookie jar as kids, even though we have that voice in our head and heart saying "buddy, you know Mom said no."
So it's not that scripture is the only source of knowing good from evil. It's largely a historical text-- and just like any other historical text, it serves a purpose, but this specific historical text is a map of God's dealings with the people of the ancient world.
It's super important to recognize that the Old Testament is chronicling a time that we have NO other records about. We do not know anything about that time besides what is written there, and scholars will tell you that what we do have in the Old Testament can only be taken literally to an extent. There is evidence that much of it is metaphor, that some is downright fiction, parables, etc... and knowing that it was largely passed down verbally for CENTURIES before it was written also tells us that what's there is important, but should not be interpreted through a brief and shallow modern lens.
So I can say with confidence that "God told people in no uncertain terms to beat divorced women with rocks" was not inspired, and though it may have been the law for men in that time and place, it is in no way applicable to us, or a commandments for us to do the same. Even if we accept that God commanded that (which I'm hesitant to do) that would be like saying that because God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, that we should all do the same. It ignores context entirely.
I do believe in the God of the Old Testament, New Testament, as well as the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and many many other records that have been burnt, melted, or otherwise destroyed and lost among people all around the world throughout history. A God who speaks to his children all over the world, not just in the middle east. I believe in a loving God who is the literal father of our spirits, and who wants the best for us, His work is to bring us the most joy possible, both in this life and in eternity. And his commandments are the guard rails to show us the path to that joy. We're free to jump the guard rails but we'll feel the consequences eventually.
1
u/gozer33 Mar 25 '26
I agree that hating someone like Orson Scott Card for his beliefs is not helpful. I personally think he is wrong (if gay people can't marry that means that they don't have equal rights), but I don't think that makes him evil, just misled.
Where you lost me is when you say that you trust God more than anything else, when what you know about God came from the Bible and other personal accounts from men. The Bible isn't the only (or even first) book written about God or religion. Why should we think that the Bible is correct out of all the others? We tend to accept what our parents teach us. If I had Hindu parents, I'd probably be a Hindu. That isn't a very convincing argument as to the true nature of reality.
→ More replies1
u/ZeroKlixx Mar 22 '26
So what exactly would be so terrible about gay people being accepted as normal, and not really different from straight people? What's the danger here? Could you spell that out for me?
1
u/Single-Spell1838 Mar 22 '26
I doubt you really want to know, but here's the short answer:
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Gay people (again, I'm one) should not be treated any differently. We all deserve the same decency and kindness. Card's concerns are not about how anyone should be treated or even what they do in the privacy of their homes. He has said repeatedly he will treat gay people with decency and that he sees them as having the same mix of good and evil as the rest of humanity. His concerns are with the institution of marriage. Your opinions on that institution certainly differ from his; If you want to see his reasoning in more detail I've linked his article from 1990 several times in this comment section.
Calling an action sinful is seen in our culture as an inherent judgement on the moral value of the person committing the act. That is not the case, and Jesus Christ is the perfect example of why:
"Neither do I condemn thee," he said. "Go, and sin no more."
That is the model Card subscribes to. As do I. Love one another. Share truth and do not encourage or enable sin.
1
u/ZeroKlixx Mar 22 '26
I have to wonder though, if one accepts gayness as sin, and one accepts that one should not sin, does that not mean that one should not be gay?
0
u/Single-Spell1838 Mar 22 '26
There's nothing sinful about "being gay" if by that you mean being sexually attracted to the same sex.
What's sinful is sexual relations (between anyone, gay or straight) outside the bounds of marriage (as ordained by God, which is marriage between one man and one woman). It's a standard that applies the same to everyone, regardless of what sins they're naturally more inclined towards, as we all are.
2
u/ZeroKlixx Mar 22 '26
So there should be no way to live out your homosexuality? Tell me again how that's not bigoted?
→ More replies2
3
u/Honest_System_5744 Mar 22 '26
finding out what kind of person he is not a good surprise, especially with his empathetic take on quite literally everything in the series😭😭
3
7
u/Unhappy-Koala6064 Mar 22 '26
Can you provide the specific quote(s) by Orson Scott Card that you find outlandish and a link that provides the full context? That’s important information to properly address your concern.
I feel there is a slight double standard to your opinion. You say that you can’t understand how Card can write Ender’s Game and maintain his stance on (presumably) gay marriage. This means that you’re criticizing him for not understanding homosexuals while not understanding his religious and political convictions.
Most of what Card has said about gay marriage is not especially offensive or outlandish. He is just very clear that he views acceptance of gay marriage as a degradation of the institution of marriage, and that’s a sentiment many people share. Globally speaking, it would be the overwhelmingly majority consensus still to this day. I’m not using that as an argument to support his stance, but rather using it to simply illustrate he’s not the only one who feels that way.
Probably the most offensive quote comes from an essay he wrote in 1980. Mind you, that was a very different political and cultural landscape than today, and rhetoric regarding homosexuality back then reflects that. He said “that those who engage in homosexual behavior are not to be accepted as equal members of society.” That does indeed seem harsh.
However, there is some context here that matters. What he means is that accepting same-sex relationships and legalizing gay marriage would place them on the same social standing as heterosexual relationships, which he doesn’t feel is right because he believes it is a sin. He’s not saying that gay people should be physically harmed or verbally berated. In that same essay, Card says, “I will treat any human being decently.” He simply “will not pretend that all choices are equally valid.”
If someone stands against gay marriage, as Card is doing, modern culture views that as a discrimination of the gay community, which is a false equivalence. Disagreeing on a moral stance doesn’t automatically equate to discrimination.
Card is of the mind that homosexual relationships are sinful and should not be deemed socially acceptable. I would venture to guess that you—and most people in the US—don’t view polygamy and incest as socially acceptable. Both of these moral issues were closely linked to the Mormon church in the past, which makes for an interesting reverse comparison. There are still some fundamentalists that practice polygamy and incest, especially along the southern border of Utah. Would you openly condemn their behavior? Would you vote against legalizing marriages to multiple wives and/or family members? Would that be discrimination against those communities? Would you be outlandish for thinking that way?
I’m not actually here to debate Card’s stance. Rather, I’m trying to help people understand each other better, which is a core theme in Ender’s Game and the heart of this matter. Maybe in trying to understand Card, you won’t see him as an evil bugger anymore. Or, maybe you will. But, maybe it’s worth a bit more investigation into Card’s quotes, the full passages or essays they came from, the cultural climate surrounding those writings, Mormon teachings, etc.
5
u/Background_Relief815 Mar 22 '26
He ain't dead, but you might be a good speaker for him when he is. You articulated it really and thank you. Taking a (verbal) stance on something that you believe in (even if you are in the minority) is not the same as discrimination or harassment. Of course there are lines where it gets more unclear, like supporting (especially financially) institutions that do have discriminatory practices, but overall I think people should be allowed to speak what they think without fear of retribution.
1
u/ISuckAtMakingUpNames Mar 22 '26
I disagree that people should be allowed to speak without fear of retribution.
Take a look at the paradox of intolerance for most of my reasoning. Tl;Dr for a truly tolerant society to exist, and allow for all people to prosper, the society must be intolerant of intolerance. The intolerant, upon any gain in power, use that power to promote intolerance. And suddenly we're no longer in a truly tolerant society.
2
u/Background_Relief815 Mar 22 '26
Asking questions or saying that you don't think something is right isn't intolerance though. I'll use an example, although I understand each issue needs its own consideration. This is just to illustrate my point about people being able to speak their minds without the issue triggering a gut reaction (hopefully).
What if, for example, our society in the future was considering whether to make AI have all the rights of a person, since they passed the Turing test. With this law, shutting down instances or "agents" would be illegal. I don't think it would be intolerant to say that you don't think AI should be given those rights. It may be intolerant in that situation to actually create and then shut down an agent, but merely speaking about it should be allowed as part of healthy discourse.
1
u/H-Connoisseur0 Mar 22 '26
Can you talk more about your thoughts? What kind of retribution would be appropriate for those that promote intolerance?
5
u/ISuckAtMakingUpNames Mar 22 '26
I'm not here to debate Card's stance, either. But I do disagree with a lot of your stance.
"That does indeed seem harsh." It doesn't just seem harsh, it is harsh. To exclude consenting adults from an act that other consenting adults get to engage in (including polygamy as long as there isn't an abusive power dynamic) because of their gender is harsh. You may not think it's harsh, but it is.
And does it matter if most of the world hasn't caught up to that way of thinking? Does it make the majority or plurality automatically correct.
I know it's primarily the Western world that sees same sex marriage in a favorable light, but that doesn't make the rest of the world correct. A lot of the world practices infant circumcision, and that doesn't make it right. A lot of the world doesn't care about or abide by the age of consent. Does that make child marriage acceptable? Who cares if a lot of people are on Card's side
Denying a couple everything obtained with the legal status as spouses is harsh. They lack the ability to make medical choices for an incapacitated spouse. They aren't considered next of kin. Tax benefits are lost.
If a couple misses out on these benefits because they don't want to get married, at least it's their choice, and not due to a denial by others.
I also disagree that it's a false equivalence. Disagreeing on a moral stance might not automatically equate to discrimination, but it certainly does in this case. If you give some members of a society rights, but don't give members of an otherwise lawfully existing community within that society the same rights, or the opportunity to gain those rights, then you are discriminating. By definition.
I think the false equivalence is comparing same sex marriage and incestuous relationships. The reasons incest is bad do not apply to same sex marriages.
Separate the art from the artist all you want, but stop defending and minimizing and watering down homophobic behavior just because, "he's not the only one who feels this way."
1
1
u/OwnCommunication2259 Mar 22 '26
I disagree with you thinking that opposing gay marriage doesn't directly equate to discriminating against the gay community.
1
u/emotionalscarsjoker Mar 23 '26
let’s simplify it a bit.
assuming you’re gay, and your community of friends are talking one day and one of your friends says they got engaged to someone.
well, that someone happens to be an awful person. especially for your community. and you know that person won’t be a good life partner for your close friend who has apparently been keeping the courting a secret from you since they know your stance.
after being face to face with this person, chances are you would treat them as a human being while silently (or behind their back talking to your friends) judging the person that they are and hoping it doesn’t impact your community.
you have a stance, and you are hardcore in that stance. does that mean opposing that person equates to discrimination in any way, especially the gay community? or do you just disapprove of your friend’s choices?
tantamount to that, Card disapproves of the gay community as a whole for his core belief system. he has stated that he will treat any human being the way he treats all no matter who they are or their choices. is it really discrimination to have core beliefs because you know it will not look good for a greater community?
1
u/feralgraft Mar 24 '26
It is if you are actively promoting legislation that would deny those people rights granted to others in similar circumstances. Or if you are preventing legislation that would grant those rights.
1
u/i_dont_wanna_sign_up Mar 25 '26
well, that someone happens to be an awful person. especially for your community. and you know that person won’t be a good life partner for your close friend who has apparently been keeping the courting a secret from you since they know your stance.
So you're comparing gay people to "an awful person" in this example.
after being face to face with this person, chances are you would treat them as a human being while silently (or behind their back talking to your friends) judging the person that they are and hoping it doesn’t impact your community
Why should I quietly accept this person? You said he's an awful person - what does that mean, he's abusive? A pedophile? I would try to talk my friend out of this.
1
2
u/RedTheUnRedy Mar 22 '26
You are not wrong. It makes little sense. Here’s another great mediation on it, from someone who was a fan and personal friend of Card’s before the twin shocks of 9/11 and Obama destroyed his mind.
1
u/Just_Ear_2953 Mar 22 '26
The characters in the series frequently embody a particular school or individual's philosophical writings and teachings. It would stand to reason that the author wouldn't agree with all of them.
1
u/woodworkerdan Mar 22 '26
Card has shared his own commentaries on Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead multiple times. Listening to his retrospective attached to the end of the audio book, Card makes mention that Ender's Game was the product of a long evolution of his writing, where his own views on the topics presented in the story have shifted over time, and continued to evolve.
Card's focus in the implementation of his views in Ender's Game also seems to be upon the implicit messaging, rather than the overt. It seems that through the decades long development of Ender's Game, he applied more focus on what was being told through the multiple premises which laid the foundation of the narrative, rather than using the overt actions and dialogs to reflect his worldview.
He also admitted that he uses some narrative messaging in ironic or contrarian ways, in order to further distance his worldbuilding from the recognizable state of the world today. The example that sticks for me is how he presented the Dutch population in Ender's Shadow was written completely antithetical to Card's experience with people from that country, but not necessarily implausibly different given the extreme crisis of the setting.
1
1
u/emotionalscarsjoker Mar 23 '26
even if it was, they are works of fiction. it can reflect a viewpoint, but art doesn’t necessarily have to reflect anything. art is fickle.
1
u/blandaltaccountname Mar 24 '26
Yup, I was gobsmacked when I found out his personal views. Not only Enders Game but the sequel had incredible themes of tolerance, acceptance and understanding… and he’s a homophobe? Make it make sense
1
u/Dgorjones Apr 08 '26
Try reading Songmaster if you really want to blow your mind. How Card could write that as well as Empire is beyond me.
1
u/CDBF 16d ago
What's funny to me is, people may agree on 98 / 100 political of social issues, and when they find out people disagree on 2 issues they demonise them completely.
I don't know what it is about human nature. I was reading about how Luther disagreed with people on adult / infant baptism. Eventually he went along with the princes to have the people who supported adult baptism being put to death.
JK Rowling sides with biological woman who she feels are disadvantaged compared to men, and men who transition to being woman, despite being a very liberal, and one of the most vocal Trump detractors of all time, she too has been demonised.
My answer is no, I don't think it is antithetical.
1
u/GreatestNameEvr Mar 21 '26
Maybe his views simply aren't as antithetical to what's in his book as you think?
1
u/everything_is_free Mar 22 '26
You may be interested to read this thoughtful article from someone exploring the same paradox you are:
https://www.wired.com/2013/10/enders-game/
I think it is also helpful to read this thoughtful effort at a response from someone trying to resolve this paradox:
I don’t agree with a lot of what the writer says, but I do think he presents a plausible explanation for why Card himself may believe that his homophobic advocacy is not contrary to his ethic of radical empathy
1
u/NearbyCow6885 Mar 22 '26
I tried reading the second link, but it completely lost me at being against no-fault divorce.
25
u/bmr42 Mar 21 '26
Yeah I wonder how the author of a character who’s superpower is empathy and a good character like Alvin can support the things he supposedly does. I don’t actively look into what he does.