YOU READ STEPHEN KING!
People are sometimes surprised when they learn I read Stephen King. Seen more than one guest pause at my bookcase and examine the portion dedicated to King first editions and unique stuff. "Why do you read Stephen King?" the bold ones ask. I read Stephen King for a lot of reasons, but mostly because I think he's a good writer.
The reason people in my circles are surprised I read Stephen King is because I'm usually a political conservative on social issues and I'm a pastor of a church. If CBU and Seminary taught me anything, it's that I can read people I disagree with. In fact, most higher education is just assigned reading. They force you to read a lot of stuff by people who see (saw) the world completely different than we do. I didn't agree with a lot of things Luther wrote, but that didn't stop me from benefiting from reading his work. Same with Calvin, Barth and more importantly Charles Schulz. I don't agree with Rob Bell or the modern atheist Richard Dawkins, but I read them both. You can't have dialogue, conversation or understand where another person is coming from unless you take time to read.
Reading Stephen King often gives me a perspective that I don't agree with, but should at least be informed of. His is a more liberal worldview. Do I benefit from getting a glimpse? Of course! I don't always like it when King injects a lot of politics into something, but at least I know where he's coming from.
ENDER'S GAME
I'm surprised when people think we should boycott certain writers. When you choose to avoid a writers entire body of work because you disagree on some points of politics or religion, you miss the opportunity to learn where they are coming from. More importantly, if the door is shut, you are assuming EVERYTHING they say must be wrong. Here's the thing -- I might disagree with Luther on a lot of stuff, but most stuff I agree with him on.
It is disappointing that some in the gay community are calling for a boycott of Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Game," because he supports traditional marriage.
Greg Gilman at THE WRAP writes,
Gay advocacy and fandom group Geeks OUT launched an online campaign earlier this week asking moviegoers to skip the Nov. 1 release of "Ender's Game" due to Card's previous comments against gay-marriage.
"Do not buy a ticket at the theater, do not purchase the DVD, do not watch it on-demand. Ignore all merchandise and toys," the organization's website reads. "By pledging to skip Ender's Game, we can send a clear and serious message to Card and those that do business with his brand of anti-gay activism -- whatever he's selling, we're not buying." (movies.yahoo.com/news)Should we boycott people we disagree with? This same tactic drives me nuts in the religious community. Not quite the melting pot we were promised in grade school. Remember the SBC Boycott of Disney? Didn't break Disney, did it? The Last Temptation Of Christ was set to be a total failure, until religious groups protested it and got everyone interested in what all the hubbub was about.
READING DOESN'T = ENDORSEMENT
Here's an important point to remember: You aren't politically endorsing someone's work by reading or watching it. And saying, "Well, I didn't read that!" doesn't make you look smart. Boycotts only make boy-cotters look narrow minded.
EW posted a response from Card, in which he said:
Ender’s Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984.
With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state.
Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.
Orson Scott Card (insidemovies.ew.com)DANGEROUS CROSSROADS
America is at a dangerous crossroads -- we've stopped talking to one another. We're shouting, but we're not talking. It concerns me when Republicans don't know any Democrats, and when Democrats don't have any Republicans they count as friends. When we think the whole world must think like we do -- or we will find ways to punish them -- we are participating in intellectual intolerance.
I believe marriage can only be defined as being between a man and a woman. I don't think government can change that definition. That conviction doesn't cause me to stop reading liberals who would totally disagree. And I would suspect those liberals would want me reading their work, in hopes I might see the world from their point of view. For many of us, our understanding of marriage is a Biblical issue more than a social issue. It has to do with how we interpret Scripture. Those same Scriptures show us how we are to treat those we disagree with; something I wish many in my own camp would take a closer look at.
I would say to conservatives that they would do well to read non-political novels by liberals. Why novels? Because through characters writers are showing us the world from their point of view. That's worth understanding. The same goes for liberals, they should try and read people who don't see the world the way they do. Slamming the door and calling people names only makes your position look childish.
I have read a post from people who argue Stephen King should stay out of politics. I disagree. And I'm on the other side of the aisle from him. But just because he is an artist doesn't mean we should not be interested in how he sees the world. Or, what he might say that either builds bridges or we might agree with (gasp!)
So here's a real question --
Is there anyone you read that you totally disagree with ?
I am a proponent of gay marriage, if for no other reason then because I know it makes a lot of people really annoyed. And really, they have no cause to be annoyed, because the matter at hand does not impact their lives in any way.
ReplyDeleteWould I read the writings of an author with whom I had a political disagreement? Absolutely. I don't always see eye to eye with King. Even though I share a lot of the same sensibilities, I thought the political content of "Under the Dome" weakened it.
Another favorite author of mine is Alan Moore, who on occasion sounds like a bit of a lunatic. And that's fine by me. I don't HAVE to agree with him; not compulsory to an enjoyment of his work.
However, there are times when the gulf between my opinions and somebody else's are so wide that I simply don't care to engage with them. It usually boils down to a willingness to respect the other side. Card is on the record as having said that not only did he oppose legalizing gay marriage, but that he would do whatever he could to topple the government if it ever should become legalized.
I can't roll with that. I can't get behind somebody whose hate for another group of people is so severe that he wants to deny them their rights not merely in a legal manner, but also in an illegal one. That, for me, crosses the line permanently.
Wow, I didn't know Card said that. Is extreme. And I agree, there are times when one side is so extreme on an issue they can't be engaged. I guess I'm saying that we should seek not to be those extremist who can't be talked to. In a divided country, people of peace are going to be important.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand Americans reaching the point where we hate one another because we disagree. Our ability to disagree, compromise and honor law are all things that make this democracy great.
I disagree with Ken Follett on religious issues, but I really like Pillars of the Earth, and used to read it almost once a year. (That was when I had much less reading to do)
The unwillingness to engage on an issue is definitely a problem. I like to think that I'm willing to talk about most anything, regardless of whether I agree or disagree.
DeleteI suspect the Internet has made this more difficult. It's certainly made it more difficult for me. I find myself getting in arguments online fairly frequently, and more often than not it's because I think somebody is wrong about something and find that I cannot live without telling them exactly HOW wrong they are about whatever it is.
Which is probably no way to go through life. And that's true whether I'm right, wrong, or somewhere in between.
Back to Card. I was also disturbed by something he said this week, which was to wonder "whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute."
This sort of blows my mind, and it does so on multiple levels. For one thing, it assumes that whatever intolerance Card supposes his camp will be shown would equate to the type of intolerance his camp has shown. To the best of my knowledge, no gay activists are advocating that straight people not be allowed to marry each other. I'd find that somewhat charming, thanks to how ludicrous it would be; but, sadly, I don't think it's happening.
It also presumes that those discriminated against owe the people who discriminated against them some sort of chivalrous good-sport-type behavior. I agree that turning the other cheek (as it were) is a noble goal, one to be strived toward; but then again, I also find the old "eye for an eye" thing to have some merit. And maybe those who hate deserve to be hated in return.
It leads nowhere good to do so, of course. But I certainly understand the urge to go that route.
Either way, as someone who has actively encouraged a form of intolerance, I don't know that it makes any sense for Card to be making a passive plea against intolerance. That's like a shark begging not to be eaten.
Bottom line for me is that Card strikes me as a petty, hypocritical goon. If that's the case, I don't believe I care to be told stories by him.
By the way, I read "Ender's Game" and "Speaker for the Dead" a couple of decades ago and enjoyed them, but his work did not move me the way the works of other sci-fi authors -- Bradbury, Clarke, Herbert, Bester, and Dick being my favorites -- did. I had no knowledge of his political views at the time; all I knew was that his work did not fully engage me, so I moved on to other writers whose work did.
But now I certainly have no intention of giving him a second look.
I'm going to go out on a limb and state a thought I've had for some time, one that may strike some as hopelessly naïve.
ReplyDeleteHowever my conviction is that outlets for Spin and Talking Heads (i.e. all the major 24 hour news channels) aren't paid as much attention to by most ordinary people than is routinely assumed, and those who do watch it do so not out of anything like agreement or political consensus, but rather by the mere force of daily habit.
It's been my experience that the people who do watch it do so without any real thought on way or another about what's being said, and those that do agree with what those channels put out are more like the choir than the great majority.
I believe Americans (as opposed to what De Toqueville "The Popular Majority") have learned to keep their heads down and not get caught in the crossfire (Har!) of the pseudo-culture wars of 24 hour news, which doesn't even really count as news.
If I had to sum up what I believe ordinary peoples' views about the Spin networks, it would be with a line from the Night Flier movie.
"You've been here before, Jimmy, and you'll be here again."
The rest of us, in fact the great majority, would just as likely be moving on down the road a piece.
ChrisC
That said, I agree with Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death, yet I think he over values the Enlightenment more than it's due, however that's a minor quibble.
DeleteI've also read a lot of books about Tolkien and only agree with a handful of them, but no matter.
The best are Author of the Century by T.A. Shippey and Tolkien and the Great War by John Garth, and even there I think Shippey nails Tolkien better than Garth, but again, minor quibbles.
ChrisC
I worked in politics for 15 years. I worked for a Republican senator during the impeachment of Bill Clinton. I worked as a government relations/lobbyist for the airport and seaport industries and I worked as the press secretary for the mayor of a major American city. I've seen the ugliness of our current state of affairs up close and personal.
ReplyDeleteI've worked for both Republicans and Democrats. I was a hired gun. What's interesting is most political professionals -- I mean staffers and aides -- could not care less about the politics of most issues. They don't watch the talking heads. They aren't activists. They don't choose their entertainment based on politics.
Heck, I'm a Republican that willingly sat through Barbarella last week!
I'm not sure, David, but … in your sentence, "The Passion Of The Christ was set to be a total failure, until religious groups protested it and got everyone interested in what all the hubbub was about."
ReplyDeleteI think what you meant to say was "'The Last Temptation of Christ' was set to be a total failure, until religious groups protested it and got everyone interested in what all the hubbub was about."
After all, why would Christians protest 'The Passion of the Christ'? (Except that it was rated R––GASP!––or kind of turned Jesus' last few days on earth into a snuff film.)
Anyway, regarding authors and politics … I will add this about Orson Scott Card: he is a Mormon, who believes that every other religion on earth (including protestant and Catholic) is from the devil, and that anyone who isn't Mormon is an agent of Satan. Fortunately, he has magic underwear to protect him from people like us. (I could really go off here about what Mormons believe, but I will refrain. Just wanted to point out the utter hypocrisy of his intolerance.)
Card also has ties to the National Organization For Marriage, which -- among their many other fine deeds -- has donated huge amounts of money to Uganda. Yes, Uganda, where political legislation has been attempted that would make it legal to kill homosexuals.
DeleteTHAT'S the author of "Ender's Game," folks.
Bryant -- he's not personally giving to Uganda. That's the old gotcha politics. Logic goes -- If you support a group on a broad principal, you must in turn support EVERYTHING that group does. Like saying Obama approved of everything Rev. Wright said from the pulpit. I don't buy it.
DeleteHe's a board member for the National Organization For Marriage, so not only IS he giving directly, he's helping to set policy for the group...unless everything I've read about him is incorrect (which I have to admit is a slim possibility).
DeleteYIKES, ANDY! you are so right, I did mean The Last Temptation !
ReplyDeleteI am quite well aware of what Mormon's believe, and it is scary stuff.
First my bias: I am a married gay man. I used to be a huge fan of Card's and read most of his books as soon as I could get my hands on them. I heard he disapproved of marriage equality, and that bothered me, but not enough to stop reading his books. However, when I started seeing his statements equating gay men to pedophiles, advocating having gay folk arrested, and advocating the overthrow of the US government over the marriage issue, not to mention being on the board of NOM, I cut the cord to the card. The books hit the trash, and I don't care to hear his name again. He has a right to his opinions and his actions, and I reserve the right to not put money in his pocket and to encourage others to do the same. I think there is a thin line between having a disagreement and supporting someone who would damn you to second class citizen status. Its not just an argument about a political question, or him saying something I disapprove of, he is actively engaged in trying to deny my basic civil rights. Card would have us believe that this is a tiff over the "Marriage Debate:" however, I see something far more evil and malignant in a man who is calling for my arrest because I am gay. Given the situation on Africa that kind of language can not be taken lightly. I also think there is a double standard here. If I were calling for the arrest of all Mormons would there even be a discussion about the intentions of people boycotting my work?
ReplyDeleteThere are many authors who hold opinions I don't like: Anne Rice, Dean Koontz, Chaucer, Heinlein, Tolkien, Lovecraft, Howard, Blatty, Tolkien, sometimes even Stephen King (though I agree with him more than most). But underlying my disagreement is the understanding that these are reasonable human beings of conscience (with the possible exception of two). Most importantly, for the ones who are still on this earth, they all seem to carry a respect for my basic civil rights. That's important to me.
Well said.
DeleteI get and respect what you are saying, Kevin.
ReplyDelete