On "Ender's Game" and the boycott thereof

[mckitterick]

I went to see the movie a few days ago, and loved it. Like many people, I, too, harbored qualms about supporting a project that might profit a hate-mongering, sexist homophobe, but I loved the story (and book), and the previews looked good. So I went, and was really pleased I did. Though I admit to having used a free pass to the theater that I'd

Comments

[clevermanka]

if you deny yourself enjoying the 10% of stuff that's worthy of your attention because 90% of that was written by someone you find despicable (what's that leave, 1% or something?), you're in for a desolate life.

My dollar is my vote. There are many things I don't purchase, and many places I don't purchase things. However, it is not my place to tell other people how to vote. That said, I stand by my comment on Bart's post: There are ways to obtain things and enjoy them without giving the (problematic) creator money. Used CD stores, video rental, libraries, etc.

I think it's interesting that in the flurry of conversation on his LJ, I didn't get a single response to that. Is my approach that unusual? Undesirable?

[mckitterick]

On Facebook, you'd get a dozen "Likes" for that comment; I suspect that's the issue. But keep in mind that Card sold his rights to the book; he doesn't get any royalties or additional payments (besides selling more of his books), so the dollar-is-your-vote thing isn't really relevant in this instance.

[clevermanka]

It's true for 90% of the other cases, though. And since I keep my FB and LJ very very VERY separate, I shan't be commenting with the same words in both places. AH WELL.

[tully01]

If I boycotted every film that someone involved with had done something I objected to, I would see no films.

[mckitterick]

Great point! I mean, so many people work on a movie that there's always going to be someone who is unlikable.

[tully01]

Exactly. And as noted, OSC gets nada from the movie itself that he hasn't already received and banked. At best he gets a bump in royalties on a book that earned out a quarter of a century back, but a bump that likely just cannibalizes future royalties he would have eventually received anyway. The film-makers take their cuts mostly from the front end as well. The people who worked on the film have already banked their paychecks.

So who do you really hurt with a boycott? Mostly theater owners and their employees, and maybe investors who were silly enough to believe that Hollywood accounting would ever show a book profit on their funding.

[mckitterick]

Great points, Tully. Of course, I also understand those who don't want to be seen as supporting the guy on ethical grounds.

Which, ironically, probably hurts a lot of the kinds of people OSC hate-speechifies about.

[bondo_ba]

I couldn't agree more. A literary work shouldn't be judged by the politics, attitude or general creepiness of its creator, ever (unless one of those things spills into the writing in unacceptable amounts). This book (and, it seems, the movie), stands apart from the man who wrote it, and missing it for such a trivial reason would have been unfortunate.

Anyone boycotting is seriously misguided, IMO. Of course, I also doubt that the boycott has gone much beyond certain very specific circles in the academic / literary world. Most people who go see the movie have no idea there was a book, and even those who do are unaware of Card's politics.

[mckitterick]

Great points. One thing people who are all worked up about the boycott are part of a small, inside group. The only people who know about this outside SF are those who have heard from insiders.

[bondo_ba]

Yup. That has been my impression since I first heard about it.

[tully01]

If it spills over into the writing in unacceptable amounts, the problem is then with the work itself. No?

[mckitterick]

Good point - the group of SF insiders who are most adamant about this are nowhere near enough volume of potential attendees who could actually make a difference.