x
x
[Warning: Highly subjective and personalistic post]
"A devout and outspoken Mormon, Card is a board member of the National Organization for Marriage." (wiki link).NOM is an organization that embodies many things that are wrong with American society (I am not even trying to be objective, but this is my narrative after all so bear with me) as they are against civil liberties and rights that should be entitled to every person regardless of their sexual identity, gender, race, religion, etc. I feel really strongly about this topic, but this is not the issue that I want to discuss.
It was a shock to learn that the author of this book that I am reading (and enjoying) would be against something I thought so essential in my life. I felt insulted; but that was partially my own fault. I should have done more research about the author before I started reading the book. I feel conflicted, as it is a moral and spritual dillema for me; If I knew beforehand that he is an outspoken participant of this organization, I would have boycotted reading the book in the first place. How do I make it right in my mind right now? I am disturbed and feel wrong about this. How do I deal with the fact that this guy is a "gay-hater" (my personal subjectification) and I enjoy his sci-fi books?
It would have been clearer (easier) for me to have made this decision if Glenn Beck came out with Sci-fi books; I would definitely not go there! That's why it's easier to make this kind of decision with contemporary authors, and that is exactly why I don't read Paulo Coehlo's books among others. Problem is, Orson Scott Card is a contemporary author. BURNED doesn't even being to describe how bad this looks.
My mistake still makes me think about the product of artists and authors when we consume them. Obviously I don't see a problem when the product goes along the lines of a more liberal (as opposed to conservative) vision of the cosmos. In addition, thinking about art and its products reminded me of my short trip yesterday afternoon to the National Portrait Gallery in Chinatown, where I lingered on the President's Hall. Out of curiosity I went to this specific part of the museum trying to replicate a sublime experience such as the one I had last Sunday at the National Gallery of Art. I felt sad and scared, but no sublime. The portraits presented a group of white men who are regarded as the epitome of the American Republic; a climax that everyone thinks represents what it means to be American. I definitely didn't feel that way: I felt as a stranger looking at canvas in disdain. I felt sad because of the many catastrophes these men unleashed. But of course these men also had many great qualities, but so did many other monsters through history. Point is, no one is one-dimensional and these men definitely were not just brave, awesome and the founding fathers and leaders of the American dream the discursive narratives repeat; they also owned slaves, treated women as inferior human beings and did as they pleased with Native Americans and the emerging American Countries all over the continent. My gaze in the museum lingered on a imperialist perception of an neo-imperialist nation. I didn't feel represented by that. How can non-male, non-white people see these men and see empathy in their eyes? How can they see themselves as part of the result of their endeavors? How can people see them in such a romanticized manner? How can they insert themselves in this narrative?
And that was my lesson; a rude awakening. Being a victim of what I profess, I realized that these presidents, these artists and these contemporary authors are more than just anti-gay conservative bastards, or self-help suppliers to needy-emotional junkies. These people are also creative souls that can inspire me and make me joyous in other aspects of my life. This aspect of living in multiverses also reminds me on how people from different beliefs are crossing over into areas some people never thought they would go. Conservatives writing Sci-Fi; homos like me preying on sci-fi; Cher and Madonna resisting aging; Apple and Google fighting over control of the world; Gays wanting to get married, etc... Nothing is just something and authors, very much like humans are more than just one thing: they can be other things too and that is ok.
Orson Scott Card is an asshole, but I can still enjoy his book. It's ok, I can do this.
Other thoughts
- Is this why Elton John played at Rush Limbaugh's wedding? Because he knows Rush is not just a conservative prick?
- What's the difference of this and when I read The Chronicles of Narnia?
- Would I be disillusioned if I knew that Asimov was also a homo hater? What about other people like Darwin, Galileo, Pope John Paul II?
- Is this really important? Do I really need to know the artist's politics to enjoy it more? Less? Same?
2 comments:
So, first of all, I had no idea about Orson Scott Card before you mentioned it the other day. How creepy! Did you sense any kind of underlying agenda in his books? He definitely is sending messages, though I think I would have to read the book again to know exactly what those are. A super liberal friend of ours also loves these books. I'm curious now if he knows this about Card, and what he thinks.
Along these same lines, what do you think about J.K. Rowling? Everytime I start to hear something bad about her, I tune out or change the subject. I actually want to know as little as possible about her, her life, and whether she is good or evil. Would you rather know, or not know? Personally, I still don't want to know because I have no desire for the magic of Harry Potter to be lessened in my mind.
I totally understand what you mean with JK Rowling, the only difference is that I learned my lesson too late.
Lucky for me, all that I know about JK is awesome. She even made Dumbledore gay and all (even though she didn't explicitly wrote that in the book); she wrote his whole story characterizing him as a gay man, and I respect that. Because (while I don't know her personal politics) she made a statement to readers everywhere: A powerful man, compassionate, strong, brave and father figure (even as the headmaster/principal of a school) can be gay and that doesn't say shit about what he is except his choice in companionship.
From now on, I am going to be more careful about what I read and their authors though.
But again, I don't know why this happened because when I read Chronicles of Narnia, I knew what kind of person CS Lewis was. And now that I'm reading Xenocide, his christian agenda and making holy characters martyrs is becoming very clear...though I didn't see this in his other books.
Post a Comment