Orson Scott Card: Dumbass
Orson Scott Card, the science fiction author famous for weaving Mormon ideology into books like "Enders Game," has something to say about the new Star Wars movie. Here's a taste:
To be clear, the "real person" to whom Orson Scott Card refers is Joseph Smith, who famously transcribed the "Book of Mormon" by magically reading it out of the bottom of a hat.
"It’s one thing to put your faith in a religion founded by a real person who claimed divine revelation, but it’s something else entirely to have, as the scripture of your religion, a storyline that you know was made up by a very nonprophetic human being."
6 Comments:
While I may not agree with Orson Scott Card on many issues, I would like to point out that your snippet from his article and reaction thereto is an attack on his character.
To be fair, the snippet appears to be an attack on Lucas, however, I think Orson is vitrolically pointing out that faith should be placed in things outside humanity's making. Perhaps, instead of merely tying your anger to centuries old misconceptions about religions, you should just voice your own dissastisfaction.
In case you are wondering, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I beleive that prophets are called in this day. You may not, and that is your choice.
Anyhow, I just thought that I would point out what I saw in this entry. Bear in mind that I am not trying to evoke bad feelings in you, my intent is to let readers out there know that "Mormons" are not morons. I apologize if I seem overzealous.
That's a fair comment.
I'm mostly calling Orson Scott Card a dumbass for his comments about George Lucas and the Star Wars franchise, and for taking seriously any assertion that there are more than a tiny handful of idiots who honestly subscribe to "the Force" as some kind of actual religion.
Stating the fact that Joseph Smith "transcribed" the Book of Mormon out of the bottom of a hat is really just a way of pointing out that, while the "faith" of the Force is dubious to Mr. Card, the "faith" of the hat might seem dubious to others.
I guess it's a "people who live in glass houses" sort of a thing, for me. As I see it, since Card's belief system comes from something as shaky as a former water diviner's angelic revelation as read through the Seer Stone at the bottom of a hat, I don't think Card is in any position to be poking holes in anyone's belief, even if that belief comes from something like the Star Wars movies.
And, really, I think calling someone a "dumbass" in the subject line of a blog post is a clear attack on that person's character. So I'm guilty there.
And hey, no need to apologize. I respect people of faith who are able to cogently explain their viewpoints and who provide a different point of view. Welcome to the Anylitical Engine. Please stick around a while and keep my on my toes.
I agree with you Erik - OSC is a dumbass. His concern about folk's faith in "The Force" proves that much. He can be a good writer though. If you haven't read it yet, check out "Lost Boys." No, its not about vampires, but it is a supernatural suspense story to rival anything Stephen King has written.
I am not a mormon and I could care less about mormonism. 'Dumbass' seems a little harsh when your point basically seems to be that people who live in glass houses of believing by virtue of faith shouldnt throw stones. Too harsh perhaps but not really worthy of a response from me.
On the other hand, Erik, I think you are missing several of the main thrusts of his fairly good essay:
1) How does the Force stack up as a religion (replace religion with ideology if you want to see my point)? From a larger perspective, every movie and every person has an ideology (or ideologies). How does the Force stack up as ideology? No God, no rules, manichaean orientation, balance between good and evil, an association of absolutes with evil? OSC identifies some of the major ideological themes of the movie. Surely, you arent surprised that he would object to most/all of those? Each of those runs against the 2000 year train of Western history. That doesnt mean of course that you have to agree with the creation of democracy, freedom, human rights and fantastic wealth and long life spans; but those have been the children of a judgemental, absolute-belief, anti-manichaean civilization. Why would you bother to fight a war to destroy slavery, naziism, or communism if you didnt believe in absolute human rights? Where does the American and English Lockean belief in absolute rights come from -- God of course -- thats a simple historical fact. "Endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable (ABSOLUTE)rights..." You dont even have to be remotely religious to see that the third movie could be viewed as having a radical philosophy at odds with the others of the series AND the traditions of the west.
2)The Jedi: A Ruling Elite
Are the Jedi a hereditary (or biologically based) aristocracy. Absolutely!
My brother and I joked when we were kids that you could see the difference between hearty American pulp stories and European tales by noting the protagonists' bloodlines. E.G. Conan, the son of a blacksmith, who strangled Numedides with "his own hands" to seize the throne vs. Aragorn, the son of a hundred kings. Its no different if you compare Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer to the Arabian Nights or a variety of European tales where people who accomplish things are all too often long lost princes. It says a lot about the 'proper' cultural milieu in each setting. Thus, it is interesting to see the 'Europeanness' (read aristocratic orientation) of Lucas.
3)Who are the Bad Guys?
Duh, Palpatine is comic book evil. But doesnt OSC have a point about the Jedi? Are the Jedi really good (at least in this movie rather than the original 3)? Do they deserve (in some cosmic sense) their awesome powers?
Draw your own conclusions. I thought his essay was thought-provoking albeit flawed in some respects. I thought that your resort to ad hominem assault on his mormonism (which doesnt form part of the essay) is well below the level of most of your blogs or your fantasy work, of which I am a great admirer.
Peace, Trollwad
This...
"Where does the American and English Lockean belief in absolute rights come from -- God of course -- thats a simple historical fact."
is an overstatement. The origin of Hobbessian and Lockean theories of rights is just as easily attributed to Reason (capital "R") as it is to the divine. Scholars still debate the issue.
And linking democracy and its benefits to a "judgmental, absolute belief" paradigm also overstates the case. I might just as easily argue that democracy et al arose IN SPITE of those trends, not because of them. After all, the entire project of the Founders was to diminish the role of religious extremism and replace it with what I would call "democratic extremism," i.e., making all isms, including the various religions, subservient to the ultimate ism and new religion -- Republicanism.
Paul
http://www.livejournal.com/users/paulskemp/
Hopefully Lucas won't turn into this centuries L. Ron Hubbard :)
Post a Comment
<< Home