The analogy isn’t perfect. But when I first read Homecoming, the conception of their child did not seem like a model the author could possibly believe in following.
I’m pretty sure I have no idea what you are talking about. If you wish me to understand you, please start over from the beginning and be very careful about clarity. (If you don’t care if I understand you I suppose that’s fine too.)
Well, we are getting pretty far afield. But I feel mildly curious as to why I didn’t get my point across before, so here goes.
Orson Scott Card wrote the scenario I described with the African-American character. I compared this to his Homecoming series in order to illustrate why my view of his writing in general has changed in the time since I read the two stories. Today I have no wish to read Card and cannot fully enjoy stories I enjoyed before. (Hence I did not recall Shedemei’s name.)
Immediately after reading the other series I would have rejected any claim that the DNA scene had a racist message. Clearly, the author constructed the scenario that made that scene possible in order to convey an anti-racist message. No reasonable person, I thought, would approve of the bigoted society (replete with legal violence and threats) that led to the events in question. It seemed to follow that no reasonable reader could take that scene as a model for society to follow.
I had exactly the same reaction when I read Homecoming for the first time. It seemed self-evident that Shedemei’s marriage etc could never happen without violence, and other oppression, of the sort that the gay character describes. “Therefore” (I might have said) the author plainly did not intend it as a model or as the One True Moral Path for gay people.
It turns out Card sees the matter differently. The link has him explicitly making a host of statements inconsistent with my previous impression, including an endorsement of legal violence to discourage 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 whoflagrantly violate society’s regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society. ” Emphasis added.) After discovering this I lost all trust in his thinking.
Okay. (The fact that I didn’t until just now remember the scene you describe in the Alvin series hindered understanding; I think mostly your inferences were presented out of order for my ease of understanding and that explains the rest.)
That understood, why does it matter what’s going on in the author’s head, as long as the book is good? Are you concerned that you will be propagandized by a laughable-if-present, subtle-if-intended-at-all attempt at a “utopian” society where gays are mistreated? I don’t think the society which persecuted the gay character was supposed to be presented as a generally good one at all (Card may have approved of some of its features, but there’s no independent textual evidence to suggest which ones. Notably, the culture views marriage as temporary, which is probably about as strongly against Card’s religious views as is homosexuality itself.) The gay character himself was handled well and was one of the most likeable people in the books once his initial obsequiousness was explained and toned down.
Most of the plot points went completely unmentioned. I doubt this will significantly affect the novelty of the books. (We didn’t even talk about, f’rinstance, the main character.)
What? I don’t think anybody’s DNA got changed. Shedemei marries a gay dude and he stays gay; he’s out to her but otherwise in the closet.
The analogy isn’t perfect. But when I first read Homecoming, the conception of their child did not seem like a model the author could possibly believe in following.
Why are you linking to a page about the Alvin books? Homecoming is a different series.
Buwah? I linked the source of the analogy, which as I implied earlier also comes from OSC.
I’m pretty sure I have no idea what you are talking about. If you wish me to understand you, please start over from the beginning and be very careful about clarity. (If you don’t care if I understand you I suppose that’s fine too.)
Well, we are getting pretty far afield. But I feel mildly curious as to why I didn’t get my point across before, so here goes.
Orson Scott Card wrote the scenario I described with the African-American character. I compared this to his Homecoming series in order to illustrate why my view of his writing in general has changed in the time since I read the two stories. Today I have no wish to read Card and cannot fully enjoy stories I enjoyed before. (Hence I did not recall Shedemei’s name.)
Immediately after reading the other series I would have rejected any claim that the DNA scene had a racist message. Clearly, the author constructed the scenario that made that scene possible in order to convey an anti-racist message. No reasonable person, I thought, would approve of the bigoted society (replete with legal violence and threats) that led to the events in question. It seemed to follow that no reasonable reader could take that scene as a model for society to follow.
I had exactly the same reaction when I read Homecoming for the first time. It seemed self-evident that Shedemei’s marriage etc could never happen without violence, and other oppression, of the sort that the gay character describes. “Therefore” (I might have said) the author plainly did not intend it as a model or as the One True Moral Path for gay people.
It turns out Card sees the matter differently. The link has him explicitly making a host of statements inconsistent with my previous impression, including an endorsement of legal violence to discourage 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 whoflagrantly violate society’s regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society. ” Emphasis added.) After discovering this I lost all trust in his thinking.
Okay. (The fact that I didn’t until just now remember the scene you describe in the Alvin series hindered understanding; I think mostly your inferences were presented out of order for my ease of understanding and that explains the rest.)
That understood, why does it matter what’s going on in the author’s head, as long as the book is good? Are you concerned that you will be propagandized by a laughable-if-present, subtle-if-intended-at-all attempt at a “utopian” society where gays are mistreated? I don’t think the society which persecuted the gay character was supposed to be presented as a generally good one at all (Card may have approved of some of its features, but there’s no independent textual evidence to suggest which ones. Notably, the culture views marriage as temporary, which is probably about as strongly against Card’s religious views as is homosexuality itself.) The gay character himself was handled well and was one of the most likeable people in the books once his initial obsequiousness was explained and toned down.
… Does this site allow the use of spoiler tags?
No. Do you think I should go back and ROT-13 something? I don’t have good instincts about that at all.
It’s okay, it’s just that you sort of spoiled the plots to me, but I guess I don’t mind that much.
Awesome. Now why are we getting downvoted?
Most of the plot points went completely unmentioned. I doubt this will significantly affect the novelty of the books. (We didn’t even talk about, f’rinstance, the main character.)