Orson Scott Card reviews Serenity - Firefly&Serenity

Haven't we already linked to this?

This is a superb review. So many people review films by telling you what happens for the first 1/3 of the film and then telling you which bits they particularly liked, that it's really refreshing to read a spoiler-free review that actually involves some critical appreciation.

Additionally, the reviewer hits just the right tone in addressing those who have not seen Firefly:-

1. If you are already a Firefly fan then you're lucky and you've probably already seen this film.
2. If you aren't already a Firefly fan then it's not too late. You should still love this film.
3. If you don't love this film then it's your loss and it may just be because you don't understand it.

Jon | October 04, 20:24 CET

This was mentioned in an earlier thread.

Caroline | October 04, 20:31 CET

SPOILER TAGS!!! SPOILER TAGS!!!

This has completely ruined Hamlet for me!

Chirp | October 04, 20:33 CET

I absolutely love Ender's Game, and if OSC is comparing the feeling of Serenity to his masterpiece, then I really can't wait until Friday now. Thank god I have the day off and can watch it twice if the mood strikes me. Which I've a feeling it will. With a very hard stick.
Even better the fact that OSC won't let Ender's Game be made into something un-worthy - if there's something I've been waiting for more than Serenity, it's an Ender's Game film.

Luc | October 04, 20:33 CET

His glowing review for Serenity almost makes me want to forgive him for his history of hateful homophobic remarks.

Almost.

Hopefully a little of the other sensibilities Joss puts into his work will rub off on OSC as well.

Xkot | October 04, 20:40 CET

Simon, I ran a Whedonesque search on 'Orson Scott Card' and it only pulled up his reviews for the Firefly dvd set. FFF.net has had this link up for a few days, tho...

Hjermsted | October 04, 20:42 CET

I'm just happy to see more positive buzz, more positive buzz.

WhoIsOmega? | October 04, 20:43 CET

Simon, maybe we just need the warm fuzzies right now. . .

GrrrAargh | October 04, 20:45 CET

This has completely ruined Hamlet for me!

I have to say, after Ophelia died I realized this Shakespeare guy was willing to kill off anyone...it made the climactic swordfight especially tense...

tehipite_tom | October 04, 20:50 CET

This is one of the best non-spoiler reviews I've heard so far. Great read, I bookmarked it immediately and will read it every time the uh, previously quoted "warm fuzzies". ;0)

[ edited by Danica on 2005-10-04 19:03 ]

Danica | October 04, 21:02 CET

Simon, maybe we just need the warm fuzzies right now. . .

Ah how can I resist warm fuzzies :).

Simon | October 04, 21:12 CET

You've never been able to before, Simon :)

zeitgeist | October 04, 21:13 CET

Good piece, and useful praise. (Anybody else wondering where the "reviewers love it! Two Thumbs Up!" trailers are on TV this week??) Not entirely sure about that 'Full House' remark at the end, but....

EdDantes | October 04, 21:25 CET

His glowing review for Serenity almost makes me want to forgive him for his history of hateful homophobic remarks.

Sadly, I know nothing of this guy but exactly that. I will probably forever associate his name with his...views. Wish I could care what he says about Serenity, but this guy so seems like the anti-Joss to me...

Rogue Slayer | October 04, 21:26 CET

It really is good to see so many positive reviews.

I admit I'm the type to drink my half-full glass of milk while wearing my rose-colored glasses but I think in the end, Serenity will be considered a financial success. It's already a critical hit.

Reddygirl | October 04, 21:27 CET

I don't know about his hateful homophobic remarks, but he's actually a pretty good writer. Contrary to what he says, I think there are some similarities between his Ender novels and Firefly. Even though the Ender books revolve around a war with aliens, they are really about human emotion, which is what Firefly is about. And OSC's world contains many blended cultures, just like Firefly.

vampire dan | October 04, 21:44 CET

Wow, that is one great review! I agree with it mostly, even though the full house comment left me slightly baffled ;)

Having heard hints of his rather extreme views on issues like homosexuality before I decided to do a Google search, seeing as I'm sitting ill (flu) at home anyway, without much to do - and yikes! He sure does seem like the anti-joss to me.

I still have one of his books on my shelve here (Ender's Game) and I'll still read it, since it's supposed to be good, but I guess it'll be hard for me to warm to his positive reviews and fictional works now. Which sucks, because a person's views on one thing really shouldn't influence their views on other things. It's just that I can't turn of the association. At least not for a while.

Ah well, maybe I'll get over it, if I just ignore every single political statement made bij OSC ;) Hmm, I now wonder if this constitutes writer bashing. If so: sorry. If anything, he sure knows his sci-fi :)

GVH | October 04, 22:18 CET

I don't know about his hateful homophobic remarks, but he's actually a pretty good writer.

Yeah I've had people tell me similar things about other writers whose views I thoroughly disagree with. ("Cerebus"' Dave Sim comes to mind) And while I acknowledge writing talent is unconnected to religious-socio-political views, there is a strong part of me that simply does not want to be too acquainted with work that comes from a mind that also has those thoughts, because certain deeply held views will seep into someone's work even on an unconscious level.And while I may of course agree with him on many other things for all I know, some things are just too fundamentally wrong to me.

Still as I said this is an excellent review, and I'm happy he so enjoyed the movie. It is interesting how many people take to it. And I mean people like writers, critics, etc. Sadly this is not always representative in box office. Anyone remember Chris Rock at the Oscars asking people in the street if they saw some of the nominated movies? Most going "No, I but did see Deuce Bigolow!" (or something)

I still think Serenity should appeal more to the mainstream that the average Merchant-Ivory flic though;-)

EdDantes | October 04, 22:20 CET

I'm fairly certain I would have major disagreements with at least half of the writers I love (EdDantes makes a good point re: Cerebus/Dave Sim and his legendary misogyny, though I'm not a Cerebus reader), and they haven't managed to take over my brain from afar as of yet ;)

zeitgeist | October 04, 22:28 CET

I still think Serenity should appeal more to the mainstream that the average Merchant-Ivory flic though

I'm afraid people from the past that talk funny and wear silly hats are always going to be more popular than, um, people from the future that talk funny and wear silly hats.

Caroline | October 04, 22:29 CET

made bij OSC

You wouldn't happen to be Dutch, would you?? :~P

Rogue Slayer | October 04, 22:30 CET

...there is a strong part of me that simply does not want to be too acquainted with work that comes from a mind that also has those thoughts, because certain deeply held views will seep into someone's work even on an unconscious level.

You would never know Orson Scott Card's views on most issues by reading his works. They are certainly influenced by where he is in life - Ender's Game was certainly written by a different OSC than Shadow of the Giant - but he has a dedication to letting the characters be true to themselves that means many of his characters have opinions that do not jive with his own, and he finds empathy with all of them.
Even with his views on homosexuality (which I certainly do NOT agree with), I wouldn't place him among the gay haters who have done terrible, dispicable things. He simply believes they have no place in his Church (which is certainly the right of a private organization) and no place for special benefits of partnership under the American Government (which I fundamentally cannot agree with). I've seen enough out and out gay haters in my lifetime to draw a strong line between them and the comfortably ignorant (where I'd place OSC on this issue).

CG-Realms | October 04, 22:37 CET

There are two things about OSC that you WON'T learn about him by reading his sci-fi/fantasy novels. These are the same two things that you WILL learn about him if you read what he writes for his website:

1. OSC is a devout mormon.
2. His conservative politics are informed by the beliefs of mormon doctrine.

I am a left-leaning, progressive, euro-socialist who LOVES OSC's sci-fi/fantasy novels. I highly recommend everyone read Ender's Game, Speaker for the Dead, Treason, and the Alvin Maker series (in order!). His stories, in my mind, reflect an exploration of informed humanism, libertarianism and, yes, even progressivism all of which do seem to be at odds with his personal views on life and politics.

Mostly, I avoid reading his opinions about pop cultural phenomenon. They just make me frustrated with how much of a lunkhead this brilliant writer can be. But he is certainly entitled to his opinions.

Hjermsted | October 04, 22:37 CET

Man, I can't believe no one's mentioned the real "money quote":

I'm not going to say it's the best science fiction movie, ever.

Oh, wait. Yes I am.

How cool is that?

Also, just as a provocation, I thought I'd post a link to John Kessel's essay critiquing Ender's Game and the morality expressed therein. I don't necessarily agree with all of Kessel's points, but it *is* thought-provoking.

bobothebrave | October 04, 22:59 CET

I'm not going to say it's the best science fiction movie, ever.

Oh, wait. Yes I am.

Hello? Zardoz? Best Sean Connery in nappies in the future movie ever.

Simon | October 04, 23:22 CET

Just remembered (SPOILERS re plot of Ender's Game Trilogy):

1) the "aliens" in Ender's Game are called "buggers".
2) they are considered the be "evil" in the beginning of the novel.
3) at the end of the novel, the conflict between humans and buggers turns out to be due to misinterpreting each others behaviour. Said behaviour caused by the fundamental biological differences between the species.
4) love (emotional) and understanding ensues between Ender and a "bugger" queen

Interesting...

[ edited by redfern on 2005-10-04 22:08 ]

redfern | October 04, 23:27 CET

Interesting point indeed! I had forgotten that OSC used the word "Bugger" in his novels quite liberally. Perhaps OSC's homophobia is a way for him to overcompensate for the embarassment he felt when he learned what Bugger means in parts of the world outside of the US.

I will point out: in the newest batch of novels from the Ender-verse, OSC renamed the aliens "Formics". The word "Bugger" mysteriously disappeared from the new books (which parallel the first quadrilogy but are told from a different character's perspective).

Hjermsted | October 04, 23:46 CET

Hjermsted: I only read the first of the new books and I had missed that. Interesting yet again.

Just re-read my post and had a chuckle over the last two words of point 4. I swear to Goddess that was NOT intentional

redfern | October 04, 23:54 CET

Red Fern, can you please change your spoiler warning to read: Spoilers re plot of Ender's Game Trilogy?

I've read the first book, Ender's Game, so I thought I was safe, I didn't want to learn point #4 that way and I'm guessing there are others who feel the same.

[ edited by bravegal on 2005-10-04 22:11 ]

bravegal | October 04, 23:58 CET

I'm afraid people from the past that talk funny and wear silly hats are always going to be more popular than, um, people from the future that talk funny and wear silly hats.

Definitely at the Oscars, hehe. But hey, there weren't that many silly hats in Serenity! Right? Probably a good idea not to have Jayne regularly wear his orange knit cap.....;-)

(EdDantes makes a good point re: Cerebus/Dave Sim and his legendary misogyny, though I'm not a Cerebus reader),

And after reading Sim's essay on women, I don't care how many people say Cerebus is good, I'm not touching it with a ten-foot pole....

EdDantes | October 05, 00:08 CET

bravegal - I have changed my post even though point 4 was clear to me at the end of the first book

redfern | October 05, 00:10 CET

Hopefully a little of the other sensibilities Joss puts into his work will rub off on OSC as well

By that I guess you mean he will drop out of the Church of Latter Day Saints and worship Joss instead?

FaithFan | October 05, 00:12 CET

Thanks redfern, I thought the ending talked about something else... but it's been six years since I read it. And I won't go into as it'dlook really bad to ask for a spoiler adjustment and then spoil something for someone else.

I thought your spoiler point #1 really added to the discussion of whether OSC's views have leaked into his writing. Food for thought.

bravegal | October 05, 00:16 CET

You are welcome bravegal. Good point re leaking: The subconscious speaks...

redfern | October 05, 00:21 CET

Forget his views on homosexuality, the man likes "Friends" and, apparently, "Full House," more than "Seinfeld"! How wrong is that?

Serenity now (or last weekend).

bobster | October 05, 00:22 CET

Um, last paragraph = sarcasm? He does preface it by saying you could stay home and "play it safe" by watching Full House.

And he is right about Seinfeld....great show, but no real sense of community, and the characters were all jerks in their own way. It was a very cynical show.

[ edited by pat32082 on 2005-10-04 22:29 ]

pat32082 | October 05, 00:27 CET

I have gotten to the point that I just ignore most of the writings by any writer done outside of their actual work. If their work offends me, I usually will stop reading it, but I don't need to know or think about their personel views.

Orson Scott Card's work rarely if ever seeems to support his viewpoints, thus I continue to buy his work.

Dave Sim however... It's amazing how incredible his work is most of the time, but his viewpoints are peppered throughout his epic. So while I would easily praise Cerebus for it's "frequent" intelligence, I can't recommend it to anyone.

I think Joss Whedon and Neil Gaiman are the only two writers whose opinion would matter to me in the least.

rabid | October 05, 00:38 CET

Pat --

I was just making a little joke there, and my sarcasm detector is usually pretty strong, but it's possible I got that one wrong. I guess the "Friends" thing just through me off (I never cared for it much). And of course there was no community (well not one you'd want to be a member of) in "Seinfeld", that was kind of the point. If you watch "Curb Your Enthusiasm", you can see just how pessimistic his work is.

[ edited by bobster on 2005-10-04 22:50 ]

bobster | October 05, 00:48 CET

Seinfeld never captured my attention. I tried to like it, I really did.

zeitgeist | October 05, 00:49 CET

Oh yeah, definitely. And I enjoy Curb as well. It's just that I understood where OSC was coming from in his contrast.

The four main characters seemed on the surface to be a group of friends and a semi-weird family, but they didn't even like EACH OTHER much, never mind the society around them. The only reason they seemed to hang out with each other is because they all had similiar weird hangups and liked to make fun of people.

Whereas with Serenity's crew, you have nine very drastically different people who may seem on the surface like they don't or shouldn't get along, and yet they are a real family, who would have each other's backs when push came to shove.

pat32082 | October 05, 00:57 CET

Letting someones politics control what you think of him personally? It's not like Card has ever been hateful or facist. I don't agree with the Joss politics, or necessarily with Card, but I don't let that effect my hate/love quotient when it comes to a thoughtful well thought out story. Let's just not be untolerant. Let the party of Joss be a big tent party.

Nancy Boy hair Gel | October 05, 01:03 CET

I'm with you zeitgeist. Don't get what all the Seinfeld fuss is about. As far as American made sitcoms go, 'Newsradio' is my favorite, followed by 'Two guys and a girl' (my first reaction to Firefly was 'hey, what's Johnny doing captaining a ship?' ;-)).

And, btw, I love Friends as well. The sense of community and soapy elements appealed to me. Plus, Matthew Perry tends to crack me up. So sue me :-p.

Rogue Slayer wrote:

made bij OSC

You wouldn't happen to be Dutch, would you?? :~P

Whoops, yeah, that one slipped by me it seems ;-)

GVH | October 05, 01:07 CET

Whoops, yeah, that one slipped by me it seems ;-)

Ik hou van...um....Nederlanders....

Ik spreekt geen goede Nederlands...obviously! :~P

(sorry for mangling that, my hubby will beat me about the head when I get home...)

Rogue Slayer | October 05, 01:34 CET

Add me and my wife to those who never got on the Seinfeld bandwagon...can appreciate the craft and cleverness, but the lack of heart completely chilled us. I not only didn't care about the characters, I actively disliked them. It was a big hit out of the gate, and we were watching one evening during the first season, and I turned to my wife and said, "If we ever were in a room with these people, we'd dive out the window." Turned it off and never went back.

On the political front, as some here may have noticed, Joss and I are not eye-to-eye (Adam and I, maybe, if I have a big box to stand on.) Hasn't kept me (or my wife) from being a fervent Buffyvangelist (which includes all things Joss, of course.)

Chris inVirginia | October 05, 01:38 CET

If it wasn't for Seinfield, we wouldn't have had the nine trillion articles with the title 'Serenity Now!.

Simon | October 05, 01:46 CET

Speaking of which... I've never actually got the "serenity now" reference. What does it come from? I've been wondering about that...
As someone who for many many years didn't own a TV, pop culture references sometimes do fly over my head...

I liked Seinfeld somewhat, and am amused by Curb Your Enthusiasm, but I agree they're both pretty cynical shows that lack in either community or heart. One friend once described Seinfeld as "NY humor' that was all about sarcasm and making fun of everyone else whereas Frasier was "west coast humor" that was all about him making fun of himself. i thought it was an interesting point....

acp | October 05, 02:04 CET

Rogue Slayer:

Ik hou van...um....Nederlanders....

Ik spreekt geen goede Nederlands...obviously! :~P

(sorry for mangling that, my hubby will beat me about the head when I get home...)

LOL. No, that was great, actually. Okay, well, you made errors in that second sentence there, but I've been known to mess up in english from time to time as well. Not to mention other languages ;) So very impressive as far as I'm concerned.

Chirs inVirginia: I agree about the politics thing, it should not be that big an issue in general. My best friend here in Holland is a member of the biggest right-wing party, whereas I am a member of our Green party. And we get along just fine. But there are some things that're just a little bit too much for me, and OSC's views on homosexuals are one of those things. Maybe it's because we don't get to hear those particular views over here much, so I'm simply not used to hearing people argue them. But it just rubs me the wrong way. I'd have a real problem being a big OSC fan with him saying what he's saying. Enjoy what he puts out, maybe, I still haven't read any of his books (although, like I said, Ender's game is on the shelve waiting for me). But become a fan like I have with Joss? Not likely.

Oh, and Simon, allright, I'll give you the 'Serenity Now!' thing. That was, and still is, funny :-)

GVH | October 05, 02:04 CET

Let's just not be untolerant. Let the party of Joss be a big tent party.

Thank you Nancy. This is the tone I'd prefer here as well.
What say ye all?

Anna von Ovonov | October 05, 02:34 CET

Lol, I was under the impression people were being intolerant about intolerance. :)

This is a good review of Serenity, but OSC also loved Firefly, you can find his review of the series in the archive.

rabid | October 05, 02:49 CET

Let's just not be untolerant. Let the party of Joss be a big tent party.

It's what I love most about Joss, in his work and his personal life, he's tolerant of everyone. His tent is open to all.

Rogue Slayer | October 05, 03:22 CET

How awesome is this?! Seriously, it's great. I wrote Card a fan e-mail about one of his short stories and got a personal response back from him within 2 hours. It's great to see a good author, and a decent man, who appreciates both his fans and quality cinema enough to spend time writing them/about them.

And once again, as I have to do every time he's mentioned here, let me say this: Orson Scott Card is not a homophobe. He doesn't approve of gay marriage or gay relationships, but that doesn't make him a homophobe. Please refer to the comment I put on the Librarian in Black website on this very issue. (The name it's under is Mason Cole.)

Mods: I thought we didn't allow personal attacks on authors. Is calling him a homophobe, and saying something along the lines of "his history of hateful homophobic remarks," kosher?

BAFfler | October 05, 03:57 CET

BAFfler, whether or not he's a homophobe is certainly up for debate. As someone in a same-sex relationship, I can tell you that I find his comments on homosexuality offensive, ignorant, and hateful. This really has nothing to do with Joss Whedon, though, and so I wonder why we're even talking about it, other than to say "well, consider the source."

orphea | October 05, 04:27 CET

To bring this somewhat on topic: I'm just glad that those who find JW's personal politics offensive continue to support his art. (I'm old enough to remember what confusing the artist's political leanings with his art can lead to.) To the extent Serenity had a political message, for example, it wasn't so polemical that it was off-putting, and it was certainly open to interpretation. On lots of blogs the movie was seen as sending a strong libertarian message; I'm sure others saw different things in it.

There are places that are considered very progressive, but where filmmakers have been murdered for expressing unpopular political opinions. IMO the freedom to openly discuss politically-charged beliefs -- through art or otherwise -- is what helps keep disagreements from boiling over into violence.

Hmm, I'm not sure that was as on-topic as I'd meant it to be. ... Great review!

wrinkled time | October 05, 05:41 CET

Yes, we should be clear, OSC is probably not afraid of homosexuals. He's just afraid of what will happen to society if they're allowed basic human rights(and I don't mean that 'of course gays can marry--they can marry people of the opposite sex' crap--sorry, it is). Maybe that makes him homorightsphobic.

But I'd have to say that 'decent man' and 'homophobe'(in its generally accepted understanding) are both value judgments everyone has to make for themselves.

There are places that are considered very progressive, but where filmmakers have been murdered for expressing unpopular political opinions.

If you mean Theo Van Gogh, I'd say it was a very non-progressive person in a progressive place who killed him. And the political/religious opinions were unpopular with a small(but growing...) group. Of course, if that's who you're talking about, you already know that! :~)

Rogue Slayer | October 05, 06:19 CET

Oops.

[ edited by Rogue Slayer on 2005-10-05 04:20 ]

Rogue Slayer | October 05, 06:19 CET

And oops again.

[ edited by Rogue Slayer on 2005-10-05 04:21 ]

Rogue Slayer | October 05, 06:20 CET

And once again, as I have to do every time he's mentioned here, let me say this: Orson Scott Card is not a homophobe. He doesn't approve of gay marriage or gay relationships, but that doesn't make him a homophobe.

Frankly, I'd never call someone like that a homophobe since technically that word should mean that he's afraid of gays. Which is hardly the issue. (Not even getting into the fact that 'homo' just means 'man') The issue is that whenever someone says: "Because of my personal religious beliefs, I feel that certain people who are different from me should not have the same rights as me. Like marrying the person they love", I personally find that utterly and completely reprehensible on any moral level. And I can say that quite easily without name calling...

But then like GVH I was born and raised in Holland (in the US now) where gay marriage is quite legal, and was made legal without any fuss, and lo and behold, our society continues to function just fine! Imagine that! Straight people still get married too and actually manage to see their marriages as whole and valuable. Yeah I don't know how we do it either....;-)

EdDantes | October 05, 06:45 CET

JW is an atheist and OSC is a Mormon. While, I am neither. However, this fact in no way lessens the appeal of their respective works. I don't do a theology or ideology background check before flicking on the telly or plundering a bookshelf. It is the works in and of themselves that matter to me.

As long as I'm not being sermonized on a particular life view or beaten rigorously about the head and shoulders with a philosophical tenet, I can enjoy anything of quality.

And I must admit, I love that review. It gave me those oft mentioned warm fuzzies.

Rank Amateur | October 05, 07:06 CET

And the great thing is that finally I've found some common ground with EdDantes! My objection was simply to Card being called a homophobe with no evidence; I do believe (and I think he would agree) that it is a proper characterization of his argument to say he is unsupportive of, and even hostile to, gay marriage. The two things don't necessarily coexist. That's all I have to say on that subject. Seacrest...out!

However, whatever anyone's personal opinions of Card's politics or literary skills may be, I think we can all agree that he is seen as one of the foremost minds in contemporary science fiction. So to have him praise Firefly and Serenity in such glowing terms is really a feather in JW's cap, and something we can all take some pride in. Had we not backed this BDM, it would never have been around to become the best sci-fi film ever.

BAFfler | October 05, 07:11 CET

BAFfler,FYI:
http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/card/index.html

[ edited by orphea on 2005-10-05 05:18 ]

orphea | October 05, 07:18 CET

While I agree with what the author of the article says, I can't help but feel that the author would do better to simply play the conversation as it happened and let the readers draw their own conclusion. One can show the homophobia, beliefs etc. without starting the thing with "Worst Interview ever, horrible man to be around". Or going on about how she should have yelled at him on the last page.

[ edited by rabid on 2005-10-05 07:42 ]

rabid | October 05, 07:31 CET

Once again, orphea, homophobia means being afraid of homosexuals, or the homosexual act. You know, phobia? Fear? Nothing in that article convinces me that Card is afraid of anything about homosexuals or homosexuality--just that he is passionately, some would say irrationally, put off by it. So you've convinced me Card has no great love for the gay rights movement. Fine. But I already knew that. My question is, so what? How does that make him a homophobe?

BAFfler | October 05, 08:18 CET

BAFfler, I think you're(and OSC) just arguing semantics here. We all know he's not afraid of homosexuals. I can't think of one person who is genuinely afraid of homosexuals, except the ones who are apparently afraid of 'catching it' or something. The word homophobia has taken on a bit more of an extended meaning than just 'fear of gays' in our current society, as I'm sure you're aware. So while not etymologically correct (and depending on which culture you go with, it means 'fear of the same' or 'fear of man'), it's still a valid argument in terms of its current sociological conotations.

[ edited by Rogue Slayer on 2005-10-05 06:42 ]

Rogue Slayer | October 05, 08:41 CET

My objection was simply to Card being called a homophobe with no evidence; I do believe (and I think he would agree) that it is a proper characterization of his argument to say he is unsupportive of, and even hostile to, gay marriage.

No argument there indeed. He is not afraid of them. He feels it should be legal to fire them just for being gay among other extremely pleasant views, but he is not afraid of them.

However, whatever anyone's personal opinions of Card's politics or literary skills may be, I think we can all agree that he is seen as one of the foremost minds in contemporary science fiction.

Well I never read his work so I can't comment on the quality. I've also never come across him before the earlier articles on Wehdonesque, but I'm sure he's quite prolific and I am indeed happy with anyone like that praising 'Serenity'.

(Can't help but wonder what he made of Inara's lesbian scenes in Firefly. Perchance he was expecting her to be flogged in S2;-)

Due to this thread I've read some more articles and interviews on OSC (including one where the interviewer is a lesbian fan who finds out during the interview what his 'views' are. He doesn't find out she's a lesbian though) and I'm afraid I can not only easily rank him with Dave Sim, he's actually approaching Phelps levels. So I'm afraid I will still not go near a single one of his books. I realize this is my fault as I can't shake this association loose from his works, but I'm sure I'll get by.

EdDantes | October 05, 08:43 CET

I don't do a theology or ideology background check before flicking on the telly or plundering a bookshelf. It is the works in and of themselves that matter to me.

Rank Amateur, I agree. I have no idea what Mozart's or Shakespeare's position on abortion or gay marriage or gun control was, or would be today. Nor do I care, when it comes to enjoying their art.

Rogue Slayer, yes I was referring to Theo van Gogh. Trying to determine who was more "progressive" in that scenario is fruitless, imo; everyone was tagged as some sort of "phobe" or other. The fact that after his murder TPTB refused to let his film be shown only added insult to (lethal) injury.

wrinkled time | October 05, 09:56 CET

Rogue Slayer, yes I was referring to Theo van Gogh. Trying to determine who was more "progressive" in that scenario is fruitless, imo; everyone was tagged as some sort of "phobe" or other.

Hmm, not sure how you mean that. From my understanding, Theo directed a film based on a script by an ex-Muslim woman regarding the treatment of women in Islam. And a Muslim man killed him(shot him, slashed his throat and stabbed him, to be exact) for making that film. I'm not sure I could ever classify the murderer as progressive, as that's kind of been the way of the radical, extremist Muslims for thousands of years. Unless you're implying we as a society should progress to the point that people are murdered in the street over directing a film...Then I guess that murderer is progressive. I'm not sure where 'phobe's come in there, as Theo felt women were treated poorly and the word should get out, and the murderer felt he was disrespecting Islam by making the film.

And yeah, not showing the movie is kind of making his death really in vain. Of course, I hear it's available for download...

[ edited by Rogue Slayer on 2005-10-05 08:40 ]

Rogue Slayer | October 05, 10:37 CET

I can't help but feel that this thread is somewhat veering away from the original subject. Can we get back on track to talking about Serenity? Thanks.

Simon | October 05, 10:42 CET

I can't help but feel that this thread is somewhat veering away from the original subject. Can we get back on track to talking about Serenity? Thanks.

You are, of course, right Simon.

But I cannot leave this thread without saying that for anyone to argue against OSC's homophobia by trying to redefine the generally accepted use of the term seems petty and ignorant - and marks them as homophobic themselves.

crossoverman | October 05, 12:21 CET

Sorry, Simon, but I couldn't let that go.

Keith G, why don't you look up the word in the dictionary? It's definition will be something like "the irrational fear of homosexuals." I realize that there are many people on this board who would call Card's views on gays and lesbians, and I count myself among them. Fired for being gay?! But the man is certainly not afraid of them. It's not my fault that activists have gradually stretched the definition of homophobia so far as to deprive it of all meaning whatsoever.

Your response, however, is equally offensive--and childish. What do you expect me to do? Say "No, I'm not" or "Some of my best friends are gays" or "This one time, I gave a gay person a ride" or "I voted NOT to ban civil unions in my state" or something like that? (All of those are true enough, not that that's relevant.) It's the easiest thing in the world to respond by saying "Clearly, this person is intolerant" when you have no idea if they are or not, and you're just trying to score a cheap point. Maybe, as an English teacher, I just have an appreciation for the correct use of words. Anyone who can't use their own language correctly should take a long, hard look at who they're calling ignorant.

BAFfler | October 05, 15:33 CET

Sorry, Simon, but I couldn't let that go.

Yes you can. The both of you can conduct your debate via email.

Simon | October 05, 15:53 CET

October 04 2005