Your Favorite Author Is Probably a Jerkwad

No sooner do I start reading Russian fantasy author Sergei Lukyanenko’s Night Watch than I read that he forbids translation of his novels into Ukrainian because he believes Ukraine should belong to Russia. With Putin having just invaded Ukraine and thousands dying in the conflict (explainer), this leaves a bad taste in my mouth and raises a question: What to do when artists have disagreeable views? Do you keep enjoying their work or do you turn away?

I touched on this before in a post on science fiction author Orson Scott Card’s opposition to gay marriage. The world is full of people uncomfortable with LGBT lifestyles, but an acquaintance’s opinion voiced in the office or at a backyard barbecue is one thing and a public figure spreading hate and spearheading a campaign to limit civil rights is another. When you learn that Orson Scott Card is a homophobe and a paranoid nut in politics, do you go see the movie adaptation of his brilliant novel Ender’s Game?

I’ve been on a Brigitte Bardot kick. First I watched And God Created Woman (1956), directed by Roger Vadim and featuring Bardot as a vivacious young woman trapped in a dull marriage. Then there was Contempt, Jean-Luc Godard’s 1963 masterpiece about a marriage that falls apart. Bardot simmers and sizzles, flounces and fumes, pouts and purrs, and is, in everything she does, enchanting.

Then I read the French courts keep fining her for hate speech against Muslims.

One might ask what Card’s or Bardot’s political stances have to do with their art, and the answer is perhaps very little. But then again it could be a lot. This question has long surrounded Richard Wagner. His works revolutionized opera to the extent that for a long time composers and critics felt he had maxed out the art form, that nothing else significant could be done with it.  Wagner’s music goes beyond beautiful to sublime, and yet his anti-Semitism is well known. It was a sticking point with some in his day and even now musicians and philosophers continue to debate how much his views permeate his music.

When the connection between opinion and art isn’t clear, surely the decision of how to react is subjective. While I may not hesitate to voice my views on issues such as the Israel-Palestine conflict (recent post), I have no interest in telling you that since Seth Rogen signed his name to a letter in support of Israel during its recent invasion of Gaza that you shouldn’t laugh at his jokes in movies. I also have no interest in telling others what they can and cannot say.

But whether I lend my support to their views is another matter.

For my part, I swore off anything to do with Orson Scott Card, but when it comes to Bardot, I have already ordered more films from Amazon. Bardot’s films have nothing to do with her opinions and they all came out decades before the issues that spark her objectionable views were pressing. She is now an elderly woman in a proud country where many people are dealing with change (globalization, economic uncertainty, increased immigration and radical jihadism) the way people so often do--which is to say poorly.

So she gets a pass.

I’m still not sure about Lukyanenko. So far, Night Watch hasn’t had much going for it in style, character or vision. The series is based on the premise of two forces of Others--vampires, werewolves, magicians and so forth aligned with either Good or Evil--who have entered into a treaty according to which each polices the other to preserve a balance between Light and Darkness. As Putin solidifies his iron rule, enforces backwards social values, expands Russia’s territory, and imprisons his political opponents, is it relevant that Lukyanenko has taken what is usually a subversive genre and made it about law and order?

I’d like to give the book more of a chance before I make up my mind.

When the connection between artists' views and their art is tenuous, I can understand why someone else might decide other than I do, and I have no problem with that. Healthy discussion and debate is always desirable, but if others will respectfully leave me to my decision, I’ll leave them to theirs.

 

In Skip Ender's Game vs. Orson Scott Card, Money Wins

“Those who flagrantly violate society’s regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.”

 

--Orson Scott Card in “The Hypocrites of Homosexuality” (full text here)

The numbers are in and it appears Ender’s Game, the big-budget film adaptation of Orson Scott Card’s novel of the same name, has topped the weekend box office. According to AP, it earned $28 million, meeting Lionsgate’s expectations (article). The story of this film and the controversy surrounding Card’s homophobia has ended the way so many do: Money wins.

The controversy stems from the author’s opposition to LGBT lifestyles. The organization Geeks OUT (website) started the Skip Ender’s Game boycott of the movie (website), and offers the following as a summary of its position:

“Orson Scott Card is more than an 'opponent' of marriage equality. As a writer, he has spread degrading lies about LGBT people, calling us sexual deviants and criminals. As an activist, he sat on the board of the National Organization for Marriage and campaigned against our civil rights. Now he's a producer on the Ender's Game movie. Do not let your box-office dollars fuel his anti-gay agenda.”

I evolved on the issue of gay rights a long time ago, so I signed the Skip Ender’s Game pledge, but many, even supporters of marriage equality, take the position that Ender’s Game, about humankind at war with insect-like aliens in the future, has nothing to do with gay rights and is just cool sci-fi.

And I can understand that. I read the novel over a decade ago after a fellow teacher on the JET Programme pressed a roughed-up copy into my hands and urged me in hushed tones to read this book because it was awesome. It was indeed awesome, mind-bending even, so I can understand why many would prefer to ignore the controversy and just enjoy something for crying out loud.

One unfortunate aspect of that view is that it plays right into the hands of the movie execs. All along, they have tried to diffuse the situation by saying, in effect, “It’s just a movie.” (article) Which is another way of saying, “Whatever you do, close your eyes to all else and give us your cash.” As good Americans, we usually oblige.

The politicians, the corporations, the interests and the monied elite, including those in Hollywood, do not care one whit about what we say or do as long as we keep buying. I’m reminded of a rant by George Carlin:

 

In a capitalist society, one of the few voices any of us have left that makes any difference is the power to buy or not buy. By not buying a ticket to Ender’s Game or another book by Orson Scott Card, I do make a statement--which is to say, a difference in someone’s bottom line--even if it is a small one doomed to failure. As the box office reports show, Ender’s Game is getting a lot of dollars and the boycott hasn’t been able to mar the movie’s opening weekend.

Some would say that in addition to money winning, good science fiction has won, and that is at least something to be happy about. Nonetheless, I will stick to my boycott--unless someone gives me the DVD/Blu-Ray Special Combo Pack for Christmas. Then I’ll consider the battle lost and watch the hell out of it.

Money wins again.