Cruel Miracles by Orson Scott Card

I haven't, but mentioning Card in any remotely religious or political context involves opening large cans of worms that might be best left untouched if you prefer peace and quiet, and there are people who will probably dismiss anything good or interesting he might have to say on the subject because of his other, well-publicized views.

Going just by your summary, it might be preferable to use "philosophy" rather than "religion" when talking about the themes sci-fi deals with because the former includes but does not assume matters of theology.

I'm just warning that your query may not get a polite reception and made no prescriptions that anyone should or shouldn't read anything. People may just not want to talk about it for the sake of not starting the argument which can get heated and attempts to keep the other baggage out of it will likely fail.

Also, the other authors you mentioned share the common theme of no longer being alive and their views not being tied up in current events. It is easier to have a discussion about them without people being angry.

themindstream said:

Also, the other authors you mentioned share the common theme of no longer being alive and their views not being tied up in current events. It is easier to have a discussion about them without people being angry.

Click to expand...

I dunno. I'm mildly irritated that their names are spelled incorrectly.

mitchellmckain said:

Arguments from a "poisonous well fallacy" is just as bogus as "arguments from authority." The fact that he is the origin is largely irrelevant. The question is interesting and amusing. Or are you saying that we cannot read or talk about books by Card, T. S. Elliot, and Road Dahl any more? The books, ideas, stories of people are still interesting and valuable no matter what their flaws on other topics.

I hate this kind of political crap!

Click to expand...

Oh, cut the crap. No one said that. What was said is that topics involving Card often get too political oriented because Card makes his views on various political issues widely known if someone cares enough to look. People have a right to look at Card as a living person able to cause direct harm to others vs someone dead needing an intermediary with just as apalling beliefs. It isn't making something political to note that people have lots of feelings about Card's politics and will bring that to the discussion with them.

That said, I disagree with the Card quote because it's false and not because I despise his views. You can do what he talks about in almost any genre if that's what you really want to do without most people batting an eye at it, SF and Fantasy are just the genres in which it's easiest to do so.

mitchellmckain said:

I wasn't aware of such views by Card on this matter. I suppose it is him I should be most annoyed at for this.

Click to expand...

As I said, the information is there for those who care to look.

We're talking about the man who turned Hamlet's father into a pedophile, thereby altering the inciting event for the entire play, and then sent Hamlet to hell.

That guy, right?

Why do we have to keep talking about that guy? I don't want to talk about that guy. I want to talk abouT... ooh -- SQUIRREL!

SF is not the last bastion of anything unless one consciously chooses not to attempt it in other genres.

There is this rule on the site: Respect Your Fellow Writer (RYFW).

The mods generally ask us to apply that rule when we're discussing famous writers too. So even though I have opinions about OSC's views, I tread carefully in voicing them here, out of respect for the level of civility the mods expect from us.

Which is what themindstream was also gently trying to bring up.

I don't know about the "last bastion" argument, but I do see the general point. Science fiction and fantasy give you opportunities to explore religious and philosophical themes that you don't always get in other genres. Specifically, you can explore these themes through a different lens, using aspects of your SFF world that represent aspects of the real world. Just look at all the political subtexts in Harry Potter. SFF gives us an opportunity to explore some of these issues without necessarily carrying all the baggage that comes with them in the real world.

One question I have about the RYFW rule here: is it possible to be critical of a particular author's words or behavior without it coming off as disrespectful or an attack on them personally? Not knowing where the exact line is sometimes gives me a "walking on eggshells" feeling when these kinds of things come up.

I do think SF and F afford excellent opportunities for exploring various social issues, but I'm not sure I'd call these things religious in the sense that most people interpret the word. To me, there are ways to explore questions of purpose, ethics, and even morality that are religious in their approach and ways that are more philosophical, or even scientific. SF and F can do either.

I don't read enough inspirational or religious-themed fiction to know whether it all falls under the "self-congratulatory" heading. I've certainly seen some that seems to do this. But I don't think it's impossible to write a story in a non-speculative genre that explores themes important to a given religion or world view in a more general sense.

But I also don't consider myself to be at all religious, and I think there's a big difference between being religious, being spiritual, and being basically moral or ethical, or concerned with the "big questions." These things aren't mutually exclusive, but they're not dependent on one another either. I tend to dislike fiction of any genre if I feel like it's trying to convert me or if it's positing that there's only one truth or one way to be a good person.

One thing I've noticed is how rarely (outside of religious-themed fiction) characters in works of contemporary fiction are religious. People didn't attend religious services in most of the books I read that aren't historical fiction or fantasy, and for the most part, religion didn't play any role at all in kids' fiction I read growing up (Are You There God, It's Me, Margaret is an exception, and it's focus was on an adolescent girl who wasn't raised religious coming to terms with the pressures from various quarters to pick a religion).

I remember reading a novel once where the character went to church, though it wasn't a focus of the story, just something mentioned in the background (in the way home from Church that Sunday, she ran into...). It felt weird to me, and made her a bit less sympathetic. I think I stopped reading eventually, though that wasn't the only reason. Yet a high percentage of ordinary people do go to religious services, at least sometimes.

I did wonder about this then. Is all reference to religion omitted from most contemporary fiction that isn't specifically focused on religion because the authors of mainstream fiction are less likely to be religious as a rule? Or because they assume readers of mainstream fiction are less religious than the average person in society? Or is it because they worry that making a character observant in a given religion will alienate readers of other religions?

I think being critical of an author's views comes down to the tone you use.

In my view, this is fine:

"I strongly disagree with Card's views on homosexuality."

This is probably not:.

"Card is a raging homophobe who should die in a fire."

I think what it really comes down to is it's fine to attack the author's views, but you should keep such attacks from getting personal.

Roxxsmom said:

One question I have about the RYFW rule here: is it possible to be critical of a particular author's words or behavior without it coming off as disrespectful or an attack on them personally? Not knowing where the exact line is sometimes gives me a "walking on eggshells" feeling when these kinds of things come up.

Click to expand...

You can certainly say that you strongly disagree with Card's stance on same-sex marriage and relationships.

You can say you don't like Enders Game because you find it sexist, given the way Peta is treated.

Or because you're not a fan of games so the extended gaming metaphors confuse you.

You can even say that you love Card's fiction but loathe his politics.

Where it gets problematic is if you move from the specific instance to denouncing Card as a person/writer, or make assertions that move beyond specific examples to denouncing the quality of his entire literary output because you don't like his politics.

This chunk of the Newbie Guide is pretty helpful.

The last bastion argument suggests that perhaps Mr. Card needs to look at religion in a wider context; there's a lot more religious writing than he seems to be aware of; he sometimes forgets that there are other religions beyond LDS.

Certainly our own Aruna's retelling of Hindu religious texts in Sons of Gods --Mahabharata comes to my mind.

mitchellmckain said:

Perhaps what intrigues me is the possibility this represents a possible shift in what religious means. After all isn't the pompous self-congratulatory aspects of religion as well as dogmatic and denominational rigidity what is making so many people sick and tired of religion altogether? Though I suppose I should also include violence in some cases and places in the world.

Click to expand...

This has definitely been true for me. Since I was a kid (being unbaptized and raised in a household that didn't attend any religious services in spite of both sides of my family being of Christian--mostly mainstream protestant--heritage further back), I've associated religion with people who tell me I and most of the people I care for are going to hell (scary and upsetting when you're a kid).

As I grew up, I came to associate religion with positions I'd call sexist, sex negative, and homophobic and to associate it with the denial of science (I grew up in a house littered with science books and magazines). Of course there are many religions and religious people who aren't this way at all, but the loudest voices in our society, the ones that claim they're speaking on behalf of all religious people and who are trying to make our country more theocratic, tend to be.

I suspect there are others who have the same negative associations with the concept of religion.

And this is where it gets hard re individual writers too. Because, likewise, when I know a particular individual writer has come out and said and done things that seem prejudiced against a group of people, I do have a hard time giving anything else they say or write, even if it's about something that's seemingly unrelated (or only peripherally related), a neutral hearing. I'm suspicious of the true motives behind anything that person says from there on out. Is this going to segue into a thinly veiled attack on the equality of women or on the rights and dignity of LGBTQ people? I'll wonder.

I've been told this means I'm close minded, but is it really possible to hit that reset button and take everything a person says or writes in the same light as you would if you knew nothing about them and their past behavior at all?

This works the other way too. I'm more inclined to view someone's work or words in a positive light, or at least give the benefit of the doubt, if they've demonstrated words or behavior I'd categorize as "good intentioned" in the past.

This does not mean, however, that it's appropriate to attack the person personally or to attack the person who raised the question. To be honest, the question you raised about whether or not SF and F is a genre that's especially well equipped to deal with certain weighty topics without becoming preachy is an interesting one.

As per the comments of AWmoderator, I thought I had a pretty good grasp of where the line was, but I was concerned, because the comment up thread implied someone had crossed it already, just by mentioning that they found Card's politics problematic. That's why I was confused.

Roxxsmom said:

I did wonder about this then. Is all reference to religion omitted from most contemporary fiction that isn't specifically focused on religion because the authors of mainstream fiction are less likely to be religious as a rule? Or because they assume readers of mainstream fiction are less religious than the average person in society? Or is it because they worry that making a character observant in a given religion will alienate readers of other religions?

Click to expand...

I think it might be about the stereotypes of religious people, and wanting to avoid the characters/the author themself being thought of as one of Those Vocal People.

And for story reasons, probably. When the story is about finding the renegade clone before they hack the internet, it takes less space for a character to be a general no-religion-specified good person than derail things by explaining Christian theology. I would think.

I don't think being neutral about a person is required inherently given an example like OSC. But I do think given the broad context of a community like AW, it makes sense to abide by the TOS if you choose to participate even if you may disagree with parts of it.

And even in say a book full of problematic ideas, like say the Peta issue brought up earlier, there can still be good things about it. They don't excuse the bad stuff, but they aren't invalidated by it, either, necessarily.


I never thought about the lack of religious scenes in a lot of contemporary fiction writing. A really interesting point.

As for the thread topic, certainly speculative fiction can let you tackle topics a bit more indirectly or with a more laser-like focus is that's what you desire.

Lillith1991 said:

That said, I disagree with the Card quote because it's false and not because I despise his views. You can do what he talks about in almost any genre if that's what you really want to do without most people batting an eye at it, SF and Fantasy are just the genres in which it's easiest to do so.

Click to expand...

You are very correct. In fact, the most influential 'philosophers of this age' are screen writers in Hollywood. They write based upon their own philosophy of life, whether hedonist, new age, eastern mysticism or Christian and their ideas are then spread through our entire culture.

KaseetaKen said:

You are very correct. In fact, the most influential 'philosophers of this age' are screen writers in Hollywood.

Click to expand...

(Checks Netflix. Searches "Adam Sandler.")

They write based upon their own philosophy of life,

Click to expand...

(Checks Netflix. Searches "Chipmunks.")

My own two cents (Opinions are like armpits, we all have two of them and most of them stink.)

I think the idea he is trying to put into words is that Science Fiction has a Universe to fill. Because of this it can wrestle with grander concepts and ideas than the kitchen table issues and philosophies put out through other genres. What draws me to science fiction are these big ideas, grand concepts, and alternate philosophies.
I enjoy his science fiction. I can't say I've read much of his fantasy stuff. I just finished his Gate series where he creates a concept of the soul and body, of heaven and hell and of God and the devil and the demons which is interesting and thought provoking. It isn't biblical. It isn't meant to be biblical. It is focused on the what ifs.
What if the gods of the Greeks and Romans were really just aliens with advanced tech? What if humans are a genetically engineered virus designed to destroy our designer's enemies? What if everything does in fact have a purpose?
I think these kinds of what ifs about the nature of our existence and whether or not their is a purpose to our existence are relevant and powerful. They just need a story to provoke the thinking to wrestle with the ideas and understand them.

Science fiction has always been social commentary filtered through machines and technology. That's why it strikes a cord with so many while simultaneously alienating so many.

When it's not feasible to call out groups or individuals or idea in popular media, then it becomes possible to turn those taboos into aliens or robots or other non-terrestrial / non-corporeal entities and take your shots protected by the walls of fiction and satire.