Orson Scott Card blasts J.K. Rowling over the Lexicon case; and Net Neutrality

[foresthouse]

1) Orson Scott Card discusses the Lexicon case:

Let me start out by saying, if you don't already know, that I enjoy Orson Scott Card's work (such as I've read). I've read Ender's Game a billion times. I loved Ender's Shadow. I eagerly await the comic. And as far as I know (because I don't know him, not at all) OSC is probably a fairly nice guy

Comments

[sucrelefey]

I thought you were taking a break and resting?

[foresthouse]

I...lied? Yeah, I was hoping no one would notice that part. HEE.

This is my weekend post. Back to break!

[ashcomp]

FYI. . .search on the terms "Card" and "homophobe" together.

I saw at least one post recently that suggested that he got involved with this case after JKR brought Dumbledore out of the (figurative) closet.

[foresthouse]

Huh, interesting. That could explain why his original review of the books was really glowing, and then in came this hostile tone. That's just silly of him.

Seems unlikely

[ashcomp]

Read Card's "Songmaster". Homosexual experimentation right there in the story, not just implied through author comment elsewhere as in JKR's case.

Re: Seems unlikely

[foresthouse]

Yeah, I looked at a couple of articles, comments, etc. - some people seem to be saying that he includes homosexual characters and writes them well, and has some homosexual friends, but also seems to believe it's a sin and stuff. So it's fairly unclear what his stance is, or whether perhaps he has different stances on it depending. I really have no idea.

From this one article, it seems what he was most annoyed by, Dumbledore-wise, was the thought that JKR announced Dumbledore's sexual orientation AFTER publication, as a publicity stunt. I don't really think she did it as a stunt, but he clearly thinks so and it makes him mad.

[particle_person]

I've seen him make homophobic statements before, and I'm not surprised he doesn't think global warming is happening. Since those are key issues for me, I really can't say I take anything he says very seriously at this point. Ditto with Michael Crichton.

[foresthouse]

Wait, Michael Crichton is also a dick? Damn. Why are these writers not awesome people??

I guess not everyone can be Neil Gaiman. Heh.

[particle_person]

Crichton tends to be a dick about global warming. He thinks it doesn't exist. I haven't heard anyone call him homophobic, though.

[skyblade]

Yeah, I think the Harry Potter books are pretty deritive, to the point where I'm not exactly playing a violin for Rowling, nor am I surprised it's inspired a lot of people who's own flights of fancy aren't original. But legally, she totally has the right to sue, and it's her responsibility as the copyright holder.

Man, the X-Men get knicked a lot--though some may accuse the property of doing the same thing. The most egregious cases is Heroes, mostly because Tim Kring pisses me off claiming he never read any comics before and he can't tell Magneto from Wolverine.

[foresthouse]

Well, the thing is, I totally agree that she took tons of elements of her story from myth, legend, other people's themes, etc. But by making it into something clearly unique, she's no different from others who have done the same thing (i.e. MANY writers do this, as OSC correctly points out). So yeah - she has the right, and until this suit, she hasn't been aggressively hounding fanficcers or others producing books or anything, so it's not like she's been being nasty about enforcing her rights. But she could have been, if she wanted to. People seem to forget that.

Really? Tim Kring claims he never read X-Men? I can see similarities, and I don't even follow Heroes much (because I haven't had time, WOE).

[chrryblssmninja]

amazing post, dear. Thanks for the explanation in the first part, and number 2 scares me.

[foresthouse]

You're welcome! I actually had fun writing the legal stuff on this one. Also, yes, number 2, if it is allowed to happen, is a Very. Bad. Idea.