What are Orson Scott Card's political beliefs?

And why should I care?

Because I'm impressed with his books.

During my struggle to keep my head above water over the past fifteen years, I have forgotten most of my history, civics and political science classes. I've found myself willing to question old beliefs, and then I find myself wanting to shield myself from the old beliefs. Weird.

I think I'm just tired of thinking. :)

From what little I saw, I think Orson Scott Card might be a neo-con. His books are so impressive I would have to take another look at whether left-wing "spin" caused me to defect from right to center to left.

And you know what? I think people are more important than their religious or political beliefs. I think my disappointment in my family might have played a role in my defections. It would take some major convincing to get me to believe in a god.

Still, I can't believe that W. has the best interests of the country in mind. I think he's spinning like crazy.

Sigh.

So much of what we believe depends upon the information we receive. How can we know anything?

and that many of his books are based on Mormon theology....especially the seventh son series on alternate American history.

but I've enjoyed some of his books. He does seem to imbue his characters with a sense of morality and often mentions religion. I can't think of anything that really stands out as a political message in his books. I think he's probably a religious man ( Mormon, maybe?). Religious people do tend to be more politically consevative than agnostics or atheists, but I don't think there's enough evidence to say he's a neocon.

to have any truth to it. Knowing that brings Card down a peg or two into the realm of us mere humans (if he is really Mormon). I don't know much about Mormonism, but it seems silly to me to believe that god would reveal himself/herself/itself to a small group of people who ended up living mostly in Utah. This is not meant as a personal attack on Mormons. Probably I can more easily dismiss the Mormon religion because I was taught they were all going to hell by my lovely fundamentalist parents. I pretty much debunked any bible-based religion when I debunked the bible.

Also another thought: of course he seems omniscient; he is writing in the omniscient viewpoint. Maybe it's just that these are the only books of political intrigue I've ever read that seemed plausible and/or intelligent to me.

I read in one of his afterwords that, as a child, he used to play a politically-enriched version of Risk in his mind. My interests have always lain elsewhere, so of course he's going to seem more intelligent than I am. It's quite probable he is more intelligent than I am. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong when I stand downwind from W. and smell a rat.

Perhaps his stable familial relationships led him to keep his religion and the heart of his politics even as the instability in my own family led me to abandon both. I don't think my ultimate decisions were based upon my family, however, because when I felt my religious and political beliefs shifting, I was frantic to hold onto anything that might unite my family. Only over the past few years have I come to the regrettable conclusion that my family is toxic, that they're not going to change and that I have to get the hell outta dodge if I want to have anything resembling a life.

I didn't used to think I'd ever have a good relationship with my family, either, because religion is such a large part of their lives. We get along pretty well now. If we discuss an issue that we think we're going to wind up on opposite sides of, we look for common ground. I was taught basically the same things about Mormons as you were when you were growing up. I think they're pretty silly, too, but I think that about all religions. The reason people are able to see the contradictons in Mormonism, however, is not because it has less validity than other more mainstream religions. Mormonism has only been around for 200 years or so. The church simply hasn't had as much time as the other denominations to smooth out the rough edges in their dogma.

This isn't rumor. This is fact. The evil creep told me he was a Mormon himself. I don't think he's particularly intelligent, except maybe in the sense that any sociopath is gifted at gaming other people and pulling the wool over their eyes for awhile. If you challenge even tentatively and politely, he totally freaks out, which suggests a fairly limited ability to cope in my humble opinion. He really did think he should be allowed to cheat on the Nebula awards and that no one should call him on it if he just awarded himself prize after prize, year after year. Don't think so.

If you enjoy his books, I suggest not going any further into learning about this person. You will be bitterly disappointed. We are talking major two-faced jerkhood.


sorry, if you want toxic, he's got it, i'll give him that!

Everything we know is based on perceptions. There is little that cannot be denied. There is little that is irrefutable.

So you are very much correct in questioning how it is possible to know anything, because the truth is more often than not distorted. Information is undeniably distorted. Since we as citizens are often unable to gain information empirically, we are forced to rely on sources like the news, the government, and the church, all of which lie regularly. You and I are not capable of visiting Iraq and seeing what it is really like. But we see pictures and stories on the news about casualties and bombings and uprisings and shortages. But the government says everything is fine, that the news is lying to you, and that the US is making great progress. Who do you believe? Who has more to gain by lying?

And then there is the matter of perception. I could examine the complexities of the universe and conclude that there must be something that conceived this and planned this (which I do not). You might look at it and see nothing of the kind. I might see winning the lottery on the day I got laid off as a miracle (which I would not). You might see it as simple luck. We all have different interpretations. We all percieve things differently. No two realities are exactly alike.

There isn't an easy answer to your question. Let's just say it might be possible to know something, and then again, it might not.

Here is a link to his website.

http://www.hatrack.com/osc/about.shtml

I have read some of the Alvin Maker series and liked those, but I never tried to analyze them through a political lens. Offhand I can't recall anything else of his I have read.

Give Charles de Lint's books a try if you haven't already. I would describe them as contempory urban fantasy. Redemption, second chances and the power of friendship are themes he returns to again and again. Very good stuff and very different from the bunch of tolkein knockoffs clogging the fantasy shelves at your local bookstore.

I love his books. He is a mormon and he states clearly that his books are based in the faith. I find them wonderful tales, fun to read and often insightful. I do not care what his religion or politics are unless he is out there spouting his mouth off trying to "make" you see things his way. I spent some time once on his boards, long before Bush* even thought about running and I thought he seemed quite compassionate and very intellegent. Maybe I was wrong, have not looked in a very long time. I still enjoy his books, particularly the Ender and Alvin Maker series. To clarify, I was once a mormon but never really spent much time thinking how his books fit with the religion. I simply enjoyed them.

I've no idea as to his political leanings, but I would guess he might be a Libertarian.

He tells some great tales. That's all that ought to really matter. IMHO, You can leave politics out of an art unless it is the subject of that art.

I know a few Repugs movie addicts that missed more than a few good movies because of the silly talk show banter about Clooney, Depp and others.

Just my ramblings.

I can still enjoy a movie or book knowing the politics of the artist.

The reason he seems prescient is because he is smart and knows how to weave a good tale. His books are so good I can't put them down until I'm finished. The Ender series is thoroughly compelling.

Sorry if I sound disjointed tonight, but my mind is fuzzy. :P

He read the Enders Games series back in high school because a friend recommended them and didn't like them much. He says they were strong on guilt and angst and "but now I know the One True Way," but that he can't remember anything about them that was clearly political.

Say, then, that he's culturally conservative but politically undefined.

At least, not so far. Card has given equal time to humanists and religionists of all stripes. Am I going to get to the end and discover they all found god? :puke: Ender's parents were religious, but he isn't. Bean was raised by a nun, but doesn't believe in god.

I don't think Card has finished the series, has he? If he pulls a fast one and makes the whole story into some huge Mormon tract, I'll be very disappointed.

Ender's Game puts the biological determinism up front and center. Nothing subtle or particularly undefined about it, actually.


got to be one of the top ten worst widely distributed novels ever!

He's a professor at UNC-G here in North Carolina and I recall visiting his website, hatrack.com, once.

Loved the Ender and Hatrack River series and IMO he is a better short story writer.
Got him to sign one of my books in Chapel Hill once.
Funny, it seems he's lost quite a bit of weight.
He was a big, burly man back then.

As an atheist, I recall being disturbed by the overtones of some of his writings.
I prefer my science fiction from *agnostics/atheists*, dammit.
lol

Anyway, the folks at Hatrack might know his political leanings.

//So much of what we believe depends upon the information we receive. How can we know anything?//
Let that be your mantra in your search for answers.
Being a Skeptic is the best thing you can do to achieve intellectual honesty.
Few things are as simple as history books want you to believe.
And only simple people are satisfied with simple answers.

Mojo

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/

Here's just one of the titles:

Sarandon, Garafolo, Mandela -- McCarthyism of the Left
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-02-03-1.html

He gets several points wrong. Sarandon & Garafolo both protested Clinton's military efforts.

...and a singularly unpleasant two-faced person to have to deal with.

If you enjoy someone's work, my advice is to avoid meeting or learning too much about that person's private life. For me, this is not a problem with Card, as I dislike what I've read of his work -- the cult of cruelty is not for me. I haven't found his work "impressive," I found it ugly and clumsy. But I haven't opened one of his tomes in many a year and doubt I will again. Perhaps I made a poor start by reading Ender's Game, the cheesy "it's all a video game war, wheeee!" novel, and some of his early short stories, which seemed to focus on cutting body parts off women and things of that nature.




i do not like cheaters, either, and to win a prize by arranging to yourself be the man who collects and counts the votes is quite unattractive in my book, if anyone recalls the Nebula scandal over "Ender's Game" and its follow-up in days gone by, ugh!

I liked the original Ender's Game series so many years back, but then I read another series of books he wrote, that started off as space science fiction then degenerated into a story about a prehistorical north american civilization and the whole thing just got more and more mormony as it went on. It became clear that he was not only a mormon but a Super Mormon, so I never read anything of his after that.

I only discovered his wingnut website a little while ago.

but he hates Clintons and the all the current Democrats. So I'm not sure what his definition of a 'democrat' is. He likes President Bush a lot, too.

He sounds just like your typical Republican to me. So I'm quite suprised that he is calling himself a Democrat.



That's all as far as I know from his political column on ornery.org:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/

(Here he calls himself a Democrat after bashing Democratic Party throughly: http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-06-16-1.html)

After I read Ender's Game, I remember thinking I probably wouldn't like the author because he thought too much about how to manipulate people. At least, that's what I'm recalling now. Interesting. I think it sparked a post on another forum about whether manipulation was, in and of itself, wrong. I'm still not sure of the correct answer.

I should look at that old post. :)

Maybe he's calling himself a Democrat so that when he praises Bush it won't look suspect? That seems too simple considering the layer upon layer of deceit he writes about in his Ender series.