Hmm, a lot of talk lately about an older Orson Scott Card book. I do believe talk is good. However, some of that talk is about silencing ideas and opinions. I’m against that sort of talk, and here’s why.
I hate suppressing literature, even literature with some really vile and terrible ideas, because in a free and open society you have to be able to read the thoughts and ideas of various voices. The idea of the value of literature, and that certain literature must meet some criteria to be of value to society, raises some issues. What and whose values are we taking into consideration? By what standard are we judging these values? There was a time when a book like Ginsberg’s “Howl” would have never seen the light of day, in fact Howl was almost banned, and I’m sure the gatekeepers of “decency” have suppressed many such works throughout the years. Somewhere, in an alternative universe, there is a library of all the books that were banned that could have had a profound effect on our society.
So I often ask myself if it’s a good idea to chastise a publisher for daring to publish something that’s just outright offensive to my moral values? Would I rather those who don’t share my moral views be silenced? No, because I want their thinking made clear and out in the open. I want to know, as best I am able, how this person with a different viewpoint arrived at their particular place of reasoning or rationalizing.
However, what if this particular book is harming people? Really? What book has ever been the direct cause of harming people? What video game or movie has managed to massively change the minds of many people to the point that they acted out in a way that harmed someone? Well, the Bible, the Koran, the Communist Manifesto, The Road to Serfdom, etc., etc., someone might argue. I could probably point to many books and claim that they are the source for a lot of pain and hardship, because people read those books and attempted to live the ideas they presented. However, thousands of people read and live by the Bible, but they don’t bomb abortion clinics. I’ve read the Communist Manifesto and The Road to Serfdom and haven’t made one attempt to change a political or economic system–well, I’ve voted, but I’m not sure how much that actually counts. I’ve read Ender’s Game and haven’t managed to commit Xenocide. All of that to say, writing a monster manual probably isn’t necessary for making monsters–they exists, and the books just tend to align with a worldview that’s already in place, not create it.
Understand, I’m not trying to defend or apologize for Orson Scott Card’s works. I think the place he’s coming from is misguided and irrational. He lives in a closed community that believes reality operates in a way that it doesn’t. He seems to believe, like many Mormons whose works and opinions I’ve read, that homosexuality is not a state of being, but a practiced behavior. In other words, they believe it’s a choice. In their world, God’s will for every person on Earth is to engage in male female only sexual intercourse. That should be [by today's claims, not their history] between one man and one woman. That is the way they believe reality exists today, and those are the values they tend to defend as The Truth.
We as humans are in a constant conversation with reality. It’s far better when we do all the listening, because reality is regularly instructing us. I fall prey to the belief that I am the captain of my own ship and that I steer the wheel to my own destiny constantly, so I do have some sympathy for the misguided souls who try to take an even greater control over reality. They wish to instruct reality, despite reality’s obvious disagreements. There is an impossible goal of many humans to shape and form reality for all humans with the justification that it is for the greater good. It could be argued that if all humans followed a Conservative ideology, despite their own feelings and desires to the contrary, that we would would have a safe little society with very little variation where everyone knows their place. The inverse is also true that if everyone followed a Progressive ideology that we would have a more equal society with very little variation where everyone knows their place. This desire to simplify reality through ideology is such a temptation. We tool using animals almost can’t help ourselves, because we know that the best working tribe is one that gets along, and the more alike we think, the more we’ll get along, and the more we all get along, the more the tribe prospers. We’re very disappointed in the other members of the tribe who think differently. Sometimes that disappointment manifests as strong words, sometimes as violence, and sometimes as war.
I only say all of that to point out the obvious, that this is the animal that we are. We are a mixture of tribes and ideas sharing a single environment. Sometimes the shit from another tribe flows into our village. We all gather around and want desperately for that shit to no longer exists, but there’s a lot that can be learned about an animal by studying its shit.
Who are we as a tribe if we try to oppress ideas, even the oppressive ideas of a rather vocal majority? Who are we as a tribe if we allow those ideas to take root in our village? You see, I think the kind of shit that Orson Scott Card produces should be read and examined. I think this current conversation in the community is a good thing. It gives us a chance to solidify our understanding of where we are as a community of thinkers and creators. I don’t want works like his adding to the pain and suffering of a group of people who are treated as non-citizens, believe me that’s the last thing I want, but I also don’t want us to be ignorant of what these other villagers think and feel–and for those who are not experiencing the pain first hand, it’s also an opportunity to discover how people we align ourselves with think and feel. We often want to so easily label and be done with a thing, that we miss the opportunity to truly analyze the ideas and see where that person stepped off the path that we believe is the correct one–and to reaffirm with each other, what is the state of the path. Ignorance is never a value.
Speculative Literature is a conversation with many voices. The texture and complexity of these voices are reflections and echoes of our experiences and ideas. To silence one of these voices is a crime, but so is failing to address it. Orson Scott Card is a talented writer, a deft story teller, a good teacher of the craft, and a member of the community that makes up Speculative Fiction writers.
Is silencing his voice a good idea? Maybe it is. Maybe there’s a time when it’s best to just shut the mouths of those causing pain. Then again, maybe this is a test of our resolve, our compassion, our desire to expose the truth, and to reflect on our own ignorance. I don’t know. I’m far more into asking questions than arriving at simple answers.
Because I linked directly to Willow’s post on this subject, I want to directly say that I do hope greatly that “we can collectively drown out the poisonous bile spewed by Orson Scott Card with a wildly diverse chorus of love and acceptance, anger and hope and beautiful fantastic visions of queer liberation.” I took that quote directly from Willow’s site and agree with it 100%.
Additionally, some might read this as a strawman argument, because there hasn’t been a lot of talk about silencing OS Card. For one, I’m pretty sure that’s going to be impossible. The man just has too many readers. Additionally, there are a lot of conservative thinkers in the speculative fiction community who might agree with him, if not directly, then as an ally. But I do want to address the danger of silencing voices in the speculative fiction community. I would hope that would be something we don’t need to do. Additionally, I don’t want publishers getting skittish, feeling that they can’t publish something controversial for fear of community wide outrage. There are many forms of censorship, and I believe we should generally avoid those forms when possible.