Links and Thoughts on OSC’s “Hamlet’s Father”
When the blogosphere began discussing Orson Scott Card’s rewrite of Shakespeare, Hamlet’s Father, I found myself with little to say that hadn’t already been brought up.
As you might imagine, I have Opinions. But I haven’t read the book, so I can’t speak to that in any honest fashion. But I did want to post some links, and to respond to some of Card’s own words on the matter.
#
The Links:
William Alexander’s review in Rain Taxi: “The extent of the novella’s failure is surprising… the revelation in his ‘revelatory new version’ turns out to be a nightmare of vitriolic homophobia.”
The Publishers Weekly review: “The writing and pacing have the feel of a draft for a longer and more introspective work that might have fleshed out Hamlet’s indecision and brooding; instead, the focus is primarily on linking homosexuality with the life-destroying horrors of pedophilia…”
Orson Scott Card’s response: “…there is no link whatsoever between homosexuality and pedophilia in this book. Hamlet’s father, in the book, is a pedophile, period. I don’t show him being even slightly attracted to adults of either sex. It is the reviewer, not me, who has asserted this link, which I would not and did not make. ”
Subterranean Press responds: “…as publisher of Subterranean Press, I am responsible for everything we publish, and that means being ready to hear any complaints and criticisms about what we publish. So write to us at subpress@gmail.com.”
The Offensiveness Grenade and Official Statements from Rose Fox at Genreville: including statements from Tor and from Marvin Kaye, who originally published Card’s story. From Tor, “We do not attempt to censor the political or religious beliefs of any of our authors, and make our acquisition decisions based on commercial potential.”
#
Jim’s Long-winded Thoughts:
Orson Scott Card speaks for Orson Scott Card. Card identifies as Mormon, and I’ve come across a few instances lately of people condemning an entire religion (The LDS church, Christianity in general, Islam, etc…) based on the statements or actions of an individual member. Don’t do that.
Like I said, I haven’t read Hamlet’s Father. I’m more interested in Card’s response to all this, in his own thoughts and his own words.
I appreciate that he makes such a strong distinction in his blog post between pedophilia and homosexuality. It’s rather disgusting when homosexuality is linked to abuse, and suggested to be caused by such. Props to him for that (but remember this point for later).
Card goes on to say, “I have been targeted as a ‘homophobe’ by the Inquisition of Political Correctness” and “I have become a target of vilification by the hate groups of the Left, I am increasingly reluctant to have any gay characters in my fiction.”
This gives me flashbacks to Racefail, to authors who said (paraphrased), “You criticized me, so I’m going to stop trying at all. It’s your fault I’ll be writing all-white fiction from now on!”
I wasn’t impressed with this rationalization then, and I ain’t impressed now. The writer is responsible for what he or she chooses to write about, and for what he or she chooses not to write about. Blaming the PC police for your choice to stop writing about gay characters strikes me as cowardly.
As for the claim that “haters” are making up evidence for Card’s attitudes against homosexuality…
“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.” –OSC, 1990
“The dark secret of homosexual society — the one that dares not speak its name — is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse.” –OSC, 2004
“That a few individuals suffer from tragic genetic mixups does not affect the differences between genetically distinct males and females … How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down.” –OSC, 2008
I don’t know what is or isn’t in Hamlet’s Father, but if your writings against homosexuality span two decades or more, there really isn’t any need or reason for people to make up evidence. Your words speak for themselves just fine.
I’m not writing this to attack Card’s religion (and will be freezing or zapping comments that attack the LDS church based on Card’s statements). And I’m not writing it to encourage name-calling and personal attacks on Card.
I’m writing it because I have a deep-rooted belief that bigotry is not okay. That when these issues arise, they should be talked about. They must be talked about. That when someone makes consistent and ongoing public statements in support of bigotry, these statements should be publicly challenged. That when that same person attempts to play the victim, it should be pointed out that he — along with so many others — is in fact a victim of his own words.
GodsGhost
September 12, 2011 @ 10:37 am
I have met OSC on a couple of occasions, and listened to him speak several times. He has definite opinions on homosexuality, and usually speaks his mind on them without apparent embarrassment. His response in this matter appears to refer to the content of homosexuality in his book, not on his expressed opinions outside of the book.
That having been said, without reading the book I wouldn’t be able to say whether or not his denial of a link holds up to examination. He may not have intended to make such a link, but no one, least of all an experienced writer like him, should be surprised if his strongly held opinions made it into the story’s subtext.
I absolutely agree on the matter of not tarring all Mormons with the same brush. I live in Utah, and even though I’m one of your militant atheists, my Mormon friends and I get along just fine. Most of them are as open minded as the next person, loving and caring and great neighbors, who say “heck” a lot. ^_^
Kathryn (UnravThreads)
September 12, 2011 @ 10:55 am
We’ve got a discussion about this going on SFFWorld, and it has been mentioned by another staff member that we should distance the author (Card) from the work (Hamlet’s Father), but in this case they’re clearly inseparable.
One thing I’ve heard mentioned about this, especially by SubTer Press, is that they’re surprised the outrage has only just come about, despite this story first being printed about three or four years ago. I don’t think that’s any excuse, and I think it’s personally shocking that this story has gone into print a number of times, let alone a $30 edition from a generally respected luxury publisher. It’s mostly flown under the radar due to Orson Scott Card’s diminished popularity, supposedly poorer writing (I think someone found a list of his awards, and the only two he’s had in about 15 years are lifetime achievements) and they fact they were in collections/anthologies, which aren’t hugely popular anyway.
If anything, I’m glad this story broke. If it stops just one person buying Orson Scott Card’s works, then I’m happy. He uses his money for things I find utterly despicable, and the less money he gets the better. He’s not just a bigot, he’s an active fighter for the removal of homosexuality from society. I think that’s utterly disgusting.
Jim C. Hines
September 12, 2011 @ 11:53 am
Separating author from work is a long-running source of struggle for me. (Have we chatted about this before?) I’m still not sure exactly where that boundary is for me, or how firm or permiable a boundary it should be.
In a case where an author’s personal beliefs begin to transform his (or her) work toward propaganda of a particular religious, political, or other belief, I do think that becomes a more valid point of discussion.
As for S.P. being surprised by this … all I can say is that I’m surprised by their surprise.
Kathryn (UnravThreads)
September 12, 2011 @ 11:58 am
I believe we have, Jim, in the recent Sanderson discussion.
It’d be an interesting blog post for you to do in the future 🙂
kimberlycreates
September 12, 2011 @ 12:22 pm
I’ve come across a few instances lately of people condemning an entire religion (The LDS church, Christianity in general, Islam, etc…) based on the statements or actions of an individual member. Don’t do that.
Thank you for this. I’m not your garden-variety LDS lady by any stretch of the imagination, but it still pains me when people like OSC lead people outside of the church to assume that we all think that way. Maybe I’m just more sensitive to it because I’m LDS, but I’ve seen it quite often and from some people I highly respect in the publishing community.
I’m surprised too that this story has been in print before but is only getting this attention now. Better late than never though.
Sadly, I don’t believe OSC will ever change his mind and will always see himself as a victim of the Left and the “Homosexual Agenda.” Old dogs, new tricks, and all that. Maybe it would be a good thing if he did just quit writing about homosexuality.
David Dyer-Bennet
September 12, 2011 @ 2:09 pm
Bigotry is not okay, I agree. Even when it makes me uncomfortable noticing I still have some (shock! horror!).
There are times when the difference between bigotry and rational conclusions becomes unclear. In particular, a philosophical or belief system, including religions, strongly shapes people’s perception of the world and their actions. On the one hand, any libertarian (a group I semi-associate with) is in the end responsible for his own actions and beliefs; but claiming to be a libertarian is actively claiming a set of beliefs (if not too clearly defined). To what extent is it fair to judge people by their professed adherence to some belief system? I have to say, a non-zero amount, anyway. (I don’t think this argument generalizes much past belief systems, though; those are both largely volitional, and quite directly connected to actual behavior.)
In practice it’s especially complicated for the alleged belief system “Christianity”. I say “alleged” because there seems to me to be a severe struggle over the entire direction of that belief system, from dominionist prosperity gospel to liberation theology, with strange offshoots every direction. (This obviously means that making much of any judgment about “Christians” as a class would be a form of bigotry.) Also we can very quickly reach “no true Scotsman” from here.
Jim C. Hines
September 12, 2011 @ 2:19 pm
“Even when it makes me uncomfortable noticing I still have some…”
Shock indeed! It’s like you’re human or something!
Christianity is messy. I was raised Christian, and I’m still baffled as to how I came away from that experience with such a different understanding than so many of the most politically active/noisy self-identified Christians in this country…
Josh Jasper
September 12, 2011 @ 2:26 pm
His response in this matter appears to refer to the content of homosexuality in his book, not on his expressed opinions outside of the book.
His book includes a pedophile who turns characters gay by molesting them. It’s disingenuous at best for him to pretend that there’s not an implication that this really is how that works in reality.
Daniela
September 12, 2011 @ 2:36 pm
Christianity is messy. I was raised Christian, and I’m still baffled as to how I came away from that experience with such a different understanding than so many of the most politically active/noisy self-identified Christians in this country…
I sometimes look at US-Christians (those I see in the media and by following links) and wonder if they and I were raised in the same religious belief-system. And the most influential priest I had was by today’s standards (in Germany) very conservative. He was very good in influencing me to start thinking and in the end leave the Catholic Church. 😉
It’s like two tins with the same lable but very different contents.
Josh Jasper
September 12, 2011 @ 2:45 pm
It’s important to note that Card’s idea of loving for or caring for, or just plain not hating homosexuals and bisexuals and presumably trans or other queer folk is defined by “curing” us out of existence. Which is sort of how the Spanish inqisition “loved” Jews.
Cat Faber
September 12, 2011 @ 7:11 pm
I don’t hold the Mormon church responsible for the actions of Orson Scott Card. I *do* hold the Mormon church responsible for the actions of the Mormon church.
And given the vigorous actions of the Mormon church with respect to Proposition 8 (California’s anti-gay marriage amendment), I think it’s pretty clear how the Mormon church feels about gay people. Individual Mormons may disagree with their church, of course, and if a lot of them do, I hope they get it under control soon.
To be clear, I do recognize that the Mormon church is certainly not the only religious institution with this attitude, and I disapprove of the others just as much.
Meg
September 12, 2011 @ 9:24 pm
He’s said this is “often” how it works in his essay on the “science” of homosexuality. It seems like this is how he has come to reconcile the circular illogic of his homophobia.
Michael Z. Williamson
September 13, 2011 @ 1:10 pm
The problem is one of orthodoxy. He has a belief that he is grounded in. He does not wish to surrender that belief. Therefore, his response is to rationalize it as normal.
I see this in politics of all kinds, where a group expresses their positions as middle of the road, typical American (or other), that everyone reasonable agrees to. Therefore, if you don’t agree, you are the extremist, not they.
I got around this by accepting that I am an extremist, providing the valuable service of defining the boundaries, and neither apologizing for disagreeing with the flock, nor trying to rationalize why they don’t like me being right. 😉 (And in case some readers missed it, I am not talking about gay issues, nor any particular issues.)
Nichole
September 14, 2011 @ 12:34 pm
As a former Mormon (I was born and raised LDS in Utah) and as a lesbian, my take on the matter is thus:
Religious folks who obsess over homosexuality and spend an inordinate amount of time and energy decrying the evils of “gay love” are projecting.
It’s really not about gays and lesbians, and it’s not so much about the religion. Lots of Mormons are ok with gays (like my mom and pop). It’s all about the person who’s projecting. That individual may have a bone or two in his closet that he’s scared to take a good look at. I’m just saying…
Seriously, has anyone here read “Songmaster?” Mr. Card has some issues surrounding man/man love and pedophilia. Issues. That book was downright creepy.
I can’t think of any reason I would want to read “Hamlet’s Father.” It sounds neither fun nor enlightening. Yawn.