Thanks to his political involvement many liberals are treating Orson Scott Card as a pariah.
I’m certain he doesn’t care. Many great writers have been men and women of uncertain, even unwelcome politics. Like all people they’re products of their environment.
This is especially true in science fiction, a subset of literature devoted to worlds far removed from our own time and space. I didn’t like Robert Heinlein’s politics, and I don’t discuss politics with Jerry Pournelle, either. But I enjoy both, immensely.
I also enjoy Card's work. I'm a fan, with eyes wide open to his faults and limits, but a fan nonetheless.
Card’s personal alliance with the Christian Right is seen as a personal betrayal by fans of his “Secular Humanist Revival Meeting.” But it’s very much in keeping with his own avowed Mormonism. His LDS faith is the anchor of his life, and it has become the anchor of his work as well.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that…or is there? I would argue there is. I would argue that his faith, and his specialization in sci-fi, have made Card into a childish writer. Not child-like, with its implication of wonder, but childish. His characters are flat, his situations all black-and-white. As a fan of his writing this saddens me.
Here is part of a speech he gives to the mother of the three main characters in his multi-book saga, Mrs. Wiggin. It’s from a 2000 book, Shadow of the Hegemon,” continuing the Ender Wiggin saga from the point of view of another character, Bean.
“Intellectual community,” said Mrs. Wiggin scornfully. “America’s intellectual community has never been very bright. Or honest. They’re all sheep, following whatever the intellectual fashion of the decade happens to be. Demanding that everyone follow their dicta in lockstep. Everyone has to be open-minded and tolerant of the things they believe, but God forbid they should ever concede, even for a moment, that someone who disagrees with them might have some fingerhold on truth.”
That’s a planet-sized chip on the shoulder she’s carrying. This woman could be one of the most complex character in all literature. Her children, as children, are the centers of the universe, yet at the center of their lives is a lie, a lack of faith she gave them because she and her husband disagreed on doctrine. And all she has in response is this black-and-white contempt for intellectuals? The colleges made me do it?
Women in Card’s world are cartoons, one-dimensional self-sacrificers, only shaping the action from behind the scenes, never stepping out from their traditional roles as nurturers. They might as well all be wearing chadors. Sex, and relations between the sexes, hardly exist in any of Card’s books. Even when they’re written on an adult level they are, in the end, all juveniles, peopled by juveniles and adults with juvenile attitudes.
This is common in sci-fi. So much goes into creating imaginary worlds, and the action within them, that there’s seldom any time or space left for creating fully-human, believable characters. There are some writers in the genre who give us humanity, but Card isn’t one of them. He’s never been one of them. Because of his religious obsession it’s very likely he’ll never be one of them.
That’s the tragedy here. And it’s a general failing that speaks to the failings of our time.
I find it in all politics, all movements, as well as all writers who base their work entirely on faith. It’s black-white, one-dimensional, one-way stuff. In the end it’s all the same, whether the writer is Christian, Muslim or Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or even animist.
Faith ends discussions, and when the intellectual world is dismissed as just another faith the whole world becomes mere juvenalia. When this decade’s Clash of Faith is over, my prayer is that humanity will start to grow up.
Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for over 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the "Interactive Age Daily" for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age, and dozens of other publications over the years.
1. Jesse Kopelman on June 20, 2005 03:54 PM writes...
Interesting point, as Card's best characters are children. Both Ender and Alvin became both less interesting and less realisticly portrayed as they aged. Beans seems to be having the same problems in the Shadow books. Well, I at least have to respect Card for trying to do adult characters and not just pumping out an endless stream of new children characters.
Permalink to Comment2. Michael Earl Laub on June 22, 2005 01:31 PM writes...
You, sir, are a moron.
Permalink to Comment3. Michael Earl Laub on June 22, 2005 01:38 PM writes...
Wa, Wa! He criticized intellectuals! How dare he! I am an intellectual he must be stupid. I'm going to over simplify him, and make the same old accusation about religions people, namely that they are chauvinist, that every book must explore the inner workings of some pervert to be considered “Adult”.
Permalink to Comment4. Nate on June 24, 2005 12:59 AM writes...
Michael Earl Laub, I think you have mischaracterized Dana's comment on Card. His post above exposes a complex opinion on a complex writer, and you have vastly over-simplified it in your response.
Dana is clearly not protesting the mere criticism of intellectuals in Card's work. He is protesting the demagoguery in which Card's character (in this instance) engages, and he laments the fact (in his view) that Card makes a habit of stereotyping his female characters.
Dana has also not made any kind of connection between chauvinism and religion. The connection is between lack of character development among religious writers, and the religious adherence of those writers. More significantly, I think he's illustrating the contrast in treatment of humans in art (and elsewhere I dare say) given by humanists (which Card kind of used to be) and religious types (which Card has kind of become).
Nowhere in the post does Dana say or imply that "every book must explore the inner workings of some pervert to be considered Adult".
Permalink to Comment5. mike on June 24, 2005 02:19 PM writes...
Re: "I would argue there is." Who is Daina to tell Mr. Card that there is something wrong with his personal life, and his belief. Is Daina open minded? Can people really live what ever life they want? Are people really free? Why doesn't Mr. Daina live and let live?
Re: "I would argue that his faith, and his specialization in sci-fi, have made Card into a childish writer. Not child-like, with its implication of wonder, but childish. His characters are flat, his situations all black-and-white. As a fan of his writing this saddens me."
How can he be a fan of his writing, if "His characters are flat, his situations all black-and-white. As a fan of his writing this saddens me." Can he not use the English Language any better than just saying "Wa Wa This saddens me"? None of Orson's characters are flat. Tell me one example of a flat character!
First he says that the characters are flat, and then he says that one of them "could be one of the most complex character in all literature." Well which is it?
"Her children, as children, are the centers of the universe, yet at the center of their lives is a lie, a lack of faith she gave them because she and her husband disagreed on doctrine."
This sounds like a complex character to me.
"And all she has in response is this black-and-white contempt for intellectuals? The colleges made me do it?" No. That was not all she had in response. She did a lot of other things in the book to respond to her situation than just that speech. Did you even read the book?
Re: "Women in Card’s world are cartoons, one-dimensional self-sacrificers, only shaping the action from behind the scenes, never stepping out from their traditional roles as nurturers."
What woman in any of Card's stories fits this description? Are you going to back up your accusation?
"They might as well all be wearing chadors. Sex, and relations between the sexes, hardly exist in any of Card’s books. Even when they’re written on an adult level they are, in the end, all juveniles, peopled by juveniles and adults with juvenile attitudes."
Your don't really sound like much of a fan! Which is it?
"There are some writers in the genre who give us humanity, but Card isn’t one of them. He’s never been one of them. Because of his religious obsession it’s very likely he’ll never be one of them."
Exactly how would card improve his writing if he was to dump his religion? I guess on Sunday's he might have time for writing...
Would more adult situations make his books better? Does that really need to be explored more in our culture? Anyways, I can think of lots of references to adult situations.
"Faith ends discussions, and when the intellectual world is dismissed as just another faith the whole world becomes mere juvenalia. When this decade’s Clash of Faith is over, my prayer is that humanity will start to grow up."
There are reasons to agree or disagree with every belief. Never try to make your intelectualism into a faith, where not one can question your reasons to agree or disagree with your beliefs. It's people like Dana that stop conversations, because no one is allowed to disagree with them.
Permalink to Comment6. Daniel on June 25, 2005 10:23 PM writes...
In many cases, Orson's characters can be flat...especially the females, yes. For specific examples, see Valentine and Petra (Petra especially in Shadow of the Giant)....I still really like the world he's created and enjoy his writing, but I think a little more character development would go a long way. Disagree if you like, that's what we're all here for.
Permalink to Comment7. mike on June 26, 2005 04:14 PM writes...
How are Petra Valentine flat? How would you describe them? What are their dominent features? How are these features oversimplifications?
Permalink to Comment8. Jesse Kopelman on June 27, 2005 05:07 PM writes...
Petra: she loves Bean, loves the idea of having his baby more, and gets kidnapped a lot. Not exactly the deepest character in all fiction. Vaentine: does she even have a personality? It took me 10 minutes to even remember who she was . . . Now, Ender's wife -- she was interesting. The girl from Path, too. It's not like Card can't do it.
Permalink to Comment9. John Counsel on July 1, 2005 04:18 PM writes...
I'm unclear as to whether Dana is distinguishing between Card's "faith" and "religious obsession" as generic or as specific to LDS teachings.
If to LDS teachings, is that specific to actual LDS teachings or to the "Rocky Mountain Mormon" cultural overlay? (They're very different things.)
Card seems to be uncomfortable with the latter, especially its political inferences. Personally, I find it difficult to decide whether his creative limitations derive from his LDS background or from other aspects of his conditioning and his personality.
I suspect it would be a mistake to discount any of these factors. Labels are so attractive -- but so risky.
Permalink to Comment