I appreciate the artist's reasons for doing this. Due to circumstances beyond his control, this thing was turning into a three-ring circus. Of course it would have detracted from his work, no matter how fine the quality.

I'm actually really disgusted by the media campaign designed to hound Card out of a job here because he holds the wrong views (there's no other way to put it). This is precisely the sort of thing we fought tooth-and-nail to overcome as the gay movement was getting started. To see some of us now demanding the very same tactics be used against our political opponents has really soured me on ever wanting anything to do with the gay activists ever again.

The ethics of this are terrible, but it's also really, really bad politics too. It plays directly into the hands of the Christianist radicals who are painting themselves as the victims in the culture wars.

But it also sends a signal to society that it's OK to discriminate on the basis of political beliefs, and that's something that might very well turn on us in the future, whether "us" means liberals, environmentalists, feminists, gays, antiwar activists, whichever group we might belong to that could potentially end up on the outs.

I understand the desire to move the so-called Overton window here and to make holding any sort of anti-gay opinions completely socially unacceptable. But it's the wrong tactic to use. Especially when we're already winning the debate.

If Card were a Holocaust-denier, would DC have hired him? This is NOT a free speech issue, it's about who you hire to represent your business. You don't hire a Holocaust denier and you don't hire a hateful homophobe.

Just because he doesn't like Homoz, don't mean he is hateful.

Hyperbolic language.

I don't know, Corydon. Don't I have the same right to tell DC I won't buy their book, written by a homophobe, that the million moms have to tell JCPenney that they won't shop at their store because Ellen is a spokesperson? I have a hard time seeing either example as inappropriate or unfair. Using capitalism as a social/cultural tool for making your voice heard seems, well, absolutely kosher, either way.

@1: are you saying you see no difference between boycotts (which progressives tend to do a lot) and bans (which conservatives do a lot?) My first political memory is the late 70's boycott of Nestle over their marketing of formula in the third world. Were we wrong to say we wouldn't do business with them unless they changed their behavior?

I don't like the word homophobia.
It's not a phobia.
You are not scared.
You are an asshole.

@1 To me, its very easy to tell a company to not have a politically divisive spokesperson. Conservatives are still doing it with homosexuality, including JCPenny last year.

The difference between discriminating against sexualities and political or religious beliefs is that political and religious beliefs, and how one acts on them is a choice. AND, actions and words based on political and religious beliefs affect people.

And, besides, I don't see anybody vocally going after other heavily conservative comic book writers making original content. You know, like calling for firings based on Alan Moore's anarchism or Frank Miller's conservatism.

Nor have I seen any cries to have OSC dropped from Tor Books, Simon Pulse Books or any other contracts he may have with other publishers.

This is completely about spokesmanship. And, just as conservatives feel the right to hound out a Spokesman based on their politics or sexuality, liberals have the same right, especially if its a group in which they feel comfortable in. In geekdom, gays seems even more accepted than women, and to invite somebody whose work for the past few years has been to criminalize that whole group of people is wrong.

So, yes, I don't feel comfortable going after him writing original work for Tor. And, I would never go to a convention where he was at but I also wouldn't cry for the convention not to have him.

But, I do feel comfortable not letting him write as a spokesman for Superman. If he wants to write a comic, or if DC is intent on letting him write for them, let him do original work we can ignore.

@2, I don't know many Holocaust deniers, but to give a related example, Richard Wagner (and his family who kept the fires burning in Bayreuth after his death) was a notorious anti-Semite. He wrote against Jewish influences in music, and why Jews could never be good composers in the German tradition. Between its founding and the fall of Nazism, Bayreuth was a cultural center of Germanic racism, with the active collaboration of the Wagner family. His daughter Eva married one of the philosophical touchstones of National Socialism, Houston Stewart Chamberlain.

And yet the Seattle Opera is world renowned for its Ring cycles. And yet, yes, I have personally been to Bayreuth and seen his work performed there.

Good work is good work, no matter who produces it. If he turns Superman into a homophobic screed, then yeah, there'll be good reason to go after DC Comics. But if all he does is write a good yarn, then more power to him.

This looks like a job for - Rob Liefeld!

@7

Nor have I seen any cries to have OSC dropped from Tor Books, Simon Pulse Books or any other contracts he may have with other publishers.

This is completely about spokesmanship.

No, they're hiring him as a writer. He's not setting company policy. He's not even articulating company policy, like a spokesman would. He's writing a Superman story. Just like he writes novels for Tor.

Actually, your post goes directly to the point of how inexplicable this whole thing is.

By all means, excoriate him for his views. Comment on his blogs (if he'll let you; I personally have no interest in reading his opinions). Write about what he says. Critique his arguments. Hell, call him names if you think it'll do any good (it won't).

But don't hound him out of his work. If he writes a good story for DC Comics, he writes a good story.

I would totally buy the hell out of a Superman comic drawn by Alison Bechdel.

Also, it would be the first Superman comic that I've bought in 30 years...

@5 What I'm saying is that there's no company policy here that needs changing, by boycotts or otherwise.

DC Comics' policy should be that they will hire the very best writers and artists they can find and afford to publish. Period.

They're also have a right to some say in the content said writers produce while under contract. So if Card decided to turn Superman into a drug-pushing, child-molesting pimp, I imagine DC Comics would have a problem with that. And if Card decided to turn his Superman story into a homophobic rant, then I imagine they'd have a problem with that too, because it's inconsistent with the character.

I don't think they ought to be going through every writer's political opinions and writing and vetting them before they sign a contract though. That would be bad company policy.

So yes, I'm fine with using boycotts where they are justified. It's not justified here.

@ 8, I believe that I've read that Card actually writes homophobia into his fiction. (I don't know if he has - yet.) Wagner, despite some contorted efforts to demonstrate otherwise, never wrote antisemitism into his music.

That said, your comparison is pointless. Wagner is unofficially banned in Israel (or was, til recently), as well as by certain opera houses around the world. He still has a place in the music world despite these bans, just as Card will still have one in the literary world despite any threatened boycott.

Further, the actions of his heirs, whether you see them in line with his own actions or not, are not the actions of Wagner himself.

You may find philosophical disagreement with boycotts, but there's nothing about them that 's threatening either Card's livelihood or his freedom of speech.

@10 if you're writing for a certain established series or character, and your writing will be considered canon for that period, you are a spokesman, in essence, for that series.

See Frank Miller + Batman.

From what I can discern from this guys comments he basically embodies the spear point of the pro-civ position. At least he's rising from the aimless drift of status quo centrists and taking a side [albeit the wrong one].

@10 Also, by your argument, actors playing roles are not spokespeople for their roles. So, MGM shouldn't have had to worry about anybody playing James Bond wearing a tuxedo and bow tie when playing other roles. Instead, they write into their contract that you cannot appear onscreen in a tuxedo and bow tie while playing Bond. This is the reason Bronson doesn't wear a tux and bowtie in The Thomas Crown Affair.

@14 The question was, would I patronize the work of a Holocaust denier. My roundabout way of answering was, yes, if the work was of sufficient quality, I would.

FWIW, we can quibble on whether or not Wagner's anti-Semitism influences his work. I'm personally of the opinion that it does pop up from time to time, though not in any overt way (I'd point to the dwarfs in the Ring, especially Mime in Siegfried, and also Kundry in Parsifal). That having been said, while I completely understand the unofficial ban in Israel, I think it was wrong.

Other than that, the main obstacle to producing his works as I understand it is their expense, not any compunction over his personal views (and Judenthum in der Musik really is a horribly bigoted article, quite comparable, in fact, with some of the stuff you see written about gays these days).

As for this boycott threatening his livelihood, that is precisely what it is intended to do. The boycotters want him fired. That or forced to recant. Otherwise, why do it in the first place? Boycotts are explicitly political tools.

@15 Yes, of course, and that is precisely why I'm sure his editors at DC will make sure whatever he writes fits into that canon.

That's why this is a non-issue.

So he's a hateful homophone because he wrote a version of Hamlet that depicted the king as a mean spirited gay pedophile? Is that really what all this is about?

@ 18, Wagner died in 1883, 130 years ago, and 40 years before Hitler rose to power. Hell, it was six years before Hitler was even born.

Wagner was not a Holocaust denier. He is not a valid example to answer this question.

And sorry, but finding those characters as credible examples of anti-Semitism is possible only on behalf of those determined to find them. Mozart's "The Magic Flute" is much worse than anything Wagner wrote. (Mozart didn't write any of his own libretti, unlike Wagner, but he still voluntarily scored it.)

Now, keep in mind that Card is very wealthy, and that he probably isn't getting a big check from DC for this. This is the kind of thing that invited authors are expected to feel honored to do.

If you can show me that people intend for Card's books to go out of publication, you'll have a point. Until then, you're floundering around, finding make-believe threats as easily as make-believe stereotypes in Wagner's dramas.

I will agree that boycotts are political tools, although there's a big difference between an organic, truly grass-roots campaign and one organized by either a government or a powerful lobby. But you mentioned a threat to his livelihood. I was addressing that. Card will still be able to put caviar on the table and gas in the Lamborghini.

Whoops, 1883 was 50 years before Hitler's rise, not 40.

@21 So are you saying that's it's OK to go after people for their political views if they're wealthy but not if they're poor? I'm not sure what the point of his wealth is otherwise.

It's not even like he's acting like Sheldon Adelson and trying to spend his way to outsize political influence or anything. All he's done is write on his blog about his political and social views and presumably donated some of his money to groups we may disagree with. You may not like them, I may not like them, but when it comes right down to it, he's only expressing himself on political issues on his own time and dime in exactly the same way we do.

Turn this around: suppose your boss called you into the office and said, "Matt, we love what you've been doing for the company, but we see you've been saying some controversial things on some website called Slog, and, well, some of the clients are upset so we have to let you go." You'd be livid, and justifiably so. Even if you had other work lined up. Even if you had plenty of money in the bank.

@ 23, no, my point is to refute your claim that this represents a threat to his livelihood. Card will be fine.

I regard your attempt to apply this to unknown authors, presumably dependent upon every bit of income that comes their way, as missing my point. You say Card's livelihood is threatened. Not "any author in this situation," but "Orson Scott Card." I'm demonstrating that it is not.

That said, I can answer you. The difference between an unknown author, being presented with an opportunity to be part of something huge like this Superman collection, has likely not publicly used his or her fame as a soapbox for his or her hate. That's because such fame has not been attained yet.

Corydon, you're going to have to make apples to apples comparison in this discussion. Orson Scott Card has become notorious because he has explicitly gone up on a soapbox constructed from his success. His place in science fiction is assured, his books remain in print and on library shelves, his royalties continue to roll in, and hopefully he's made good investments in the meantime. Comparing him to an unknown author, or an obscure worker who gets on a blog, is apples to oranges (in the case of the former), and apples to Oreos in the case of the latter.

Orson Scott Card's personal beliefs are transparent in a lot of his work.

I read Ender's Game (just the first book and the Ender's Shadow series; fuck Xenophobe I couldn't slog through it) but check out Card's 7th Son series which is a folktale re-imagining of the life of Christ.

And by "check out" i mean read the cliff notes or pirate the books somehow. Don't give the douche money.

Corydon: does DC Comics hire writers who are openly as racist or openly as anti-Semitic as Orson Scott Card is openly as anti-gay? In other words, racist or anti-Semitic writers who, for example, serve on the board of directors of racist and/or anti-Semitic organizations, as Orson Scott Card does for a national anti-gay group?

If so, please provide a specific example of such a writer that DC Comics currently employs. If not, please suggest why DC Comics should not be taken to task for a serious double-standard when it comes to their practices surrounding whether or not they employ those who are highly vocal in attacking minorities and/or acting against the rights of minorities.

'cause it seems to me that if you can't establish that DC is not playing fast and loose with who they do and do not hire according to personal bigoted beliefs, then your argument that Card's personal viewpoints are irrelevant to his employment with DC immediately runs into a major iceberg.

@28 Satanic Cults vs NOM

Fictive association vs Reality

Corydon, it looks like you've either dropped out or got busy. Well, assuming you'll eventually check back...

I'll tell you what I believe would be wrong in regard to Orson Scott Card. It would be wrong to try to get his publisher to drop him. It would be wrong to call on book retailers to stop carrying his books. It would be wrong to call on libraries to remove his books from their shelves or not carry new ones. As long as there is a market for his books, they should be in print and freely available. Doing these things would truly threaten his livelihood. As far as I know, none of these things are happening.

@1, @23 It's about more than just his beliefs or some blog posts. He serves on the board of NOM (National Organization for Marriage), one of the worst organizations out there when it comes to pushing an anti-LGBT legislative agenda through a campaign of lies about and demonization of LGBT people. Serving as a leader of a multimillion dollar political lobbying organization comes with a certain level of accountability for one's views.

Let me save you all the debate: don't base your buying decisions on his politics, base your buying decisions on the fact that he hasn't written anything worth reading in 15 years.

His previous comic book experience was Ultimate Iron Man some years back, a piece of crap that effectively boycotted itself. His version of Tony Stark had a body literally composed of neural tissue, but also a healing factor on par with Wolverine. There's "new twist on the character," and then there's whatever that was.

@1 Die of AIDS you stupid faggot.

I'm just hoping Card pulls a "Hamlet's Father" and turns Lex Luthor into a pedophile that converts people into evil homosexuals... Because that way DC will get the complete shit-bomb story they deserve.

Card's "Ender's Game" series is quite good, the same way Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" is a nice piece of thrilling music. It's a shame that the authors of both are such disgusting bigots.

I suffer from no ethical quandary in declining to spend my time or money in a way that profits people whose views I disagree with.

@32: "a piece of crap that effectively boycotted itself"

Hee! That's a good one, actually.

Can we separate the actions of the artist from appreciation of the art?

We'd better, or I wouldn't be able to enjoy James Brown.

@35 The good thing about Der Nibelungen is that Wagner's days of being an asshole are over.

@1: He's a board member of NOM, has publicly stated his desire to see gays arrested, and has threatened violent revolution for the Federal Government if they ever give gays civil rights.

Keep cheerleading him on, he's surely entitled to make a living and spend it on lobbying against human rights.

Jesus Christ, some people are incredibly stupid.

@10: "He's not setting company policy."

No, he's only helping to set policy for State and Federal government through his tireless lobbying efforts.

@ 38, in general that's what one should do, but sometimes an artist does something so repugnant that it can't be helped.

@43: Well, plus, we're in a slightly better position now equality-wise to dislike the Chris Browns and OSCs of today than when people glorified abusers.

That these people were idolized in the past is not an excuse to tolerate it now..

@44, we can also talk about how Chris Brown is vilified, but other male celebrities get a pass for domestic violence.

@45: We can, but I'd prefer if people just didn't defend people like OSC, Brown, etc because someone else in the world is horrible too.

@30: Don't hold your breath. Everybody's favorite Gay Veteran Concern Troll seems to have taken a powder. (Probably thanks to @27, who got right to the heart of the issue.)

The one thing I'd point out is that Sprouse still has a living to make, and his statement reads pretty clearly as an attempt to get shut of this without pissing off his primary employer. (Be aware, if you aren't already, that there are few to no "staff" artists or writers at DC or any other major comics company - they're mostly all freelancers, even though some of them may have signed "exclusivity" contracts that prevent them from working elsewhere.) The guy just took a big risk for his principles; I know several comics writers and artists who have been fired and blacklisted for lesser stands.

@ 47, good point. The artist is risking his livelihood, while Card's is not threatened.

Separating the artist from the art is one thing. Giving money to a prominent member of an organization which actively works to keep others from having equal rights is another.