 |
|
|
| |
Opinion: The Complex Question
by Christian Nutt [Console/PC, Exclusive]
|
|
| |
|
August 21, 2009
|
| |
A discussion erupted on popular gaming forum NeoGAF late yesterday morning. A user named Coins posed the simple-sounding question, "Should we boycott Shadow Complex?"
The question sounds simple, but the issues behind it are complicated. It's salient because the game is derived from the fiction of Orson Scott Card, and Orson Scott Card is a political campaigner against gay rights.
Card sits on the board of directors of the National Organization for Marriage, an organization "founded in 2007 in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures," according to its website. When you visit the site, a pop-up ad appears which contains a video defending ex-Miss California Carrie Prejean, who lost her crown amidst controversy about her opinions on the topic.
Everybody knows that same-sex marriage is one of the most politically-charged issues of the day. Proposition 8's passage last November was a defining moment in the SSM fight; the battle has only intensified as victories for both sides of the argument continue to unfold across the country.
Before I continue with the piece, I should up-front say two things. The first is: I'm gay. The second is: the purpose of this piece is not to advance the SSM cause. While I feel passionately about the issue -- it's a matter of public record on my personal blog, Twitter, and Facebook, which are all read by members of the industry -- it has nothing to do with "The Art & Business of Making Games", which is Gamasutra's mission and motto.
What does, however, is an examination of a boycott of a game, arising because some members of the gaming community feel strongly that one of the creative talents behind it is too strongly linked to a political cause.
When Shadow Complex was announced, I personally was torn. I'd already long since made the conscious decision to not support Orson Scott Card directly with my money. I also would like nothing more than to play a new game developed in the vein of some of my personal favorites -- Castlevania: Symphony of the Night and Super Metroid, the game's two biggest influences. I didn't have to hem and haw very much, however, as Chair Entertainment sent me a download code for the game.
Not everyone is so lucky, however.
GayGamer offers up an interesting suggestion toward compromise in its thoughtful analysis of the issue: buy the game, and donate to a gay-positive charity to offset any profits that might funnel to Card. While Card established the universe, along with Chair, that the game resides in, he didn't work directly on the title. Dialogue was handled by Peter David, a comic book writer who GayGamer describes as "straight but extremely gay-friendly."
Games are made by teams of individuals, and the scope of their contributions can widely vary. This is where things get murky for the politically-minded gamer. Boycotting Card's books is a simple and easy decision. But Card isn't nearly as in control of, nor benefiting as much from Shadow Complex. Further, the politics of the rest of the development team are not a matter of public record.
The issue became even more complicated for me, personally, yesterday. Prior to my discovery of the brewing controversy, I spent an hour speaking to Chair's creative director, Donald Mustard, and his wife and PR rep Laura about Shadow Complex.
Over coffee, toast, and fruit, we chatted about the couple's upcoming vacation to Paris -- which they can finally take now that Shadow Complex has shipped. I made suggestions on what to do in the city and talked about my desire to return there with someone special for a romantic getaway. I also mentioned that I'm going to see my boyfriend, who lives in Michigan, over Labor Day weekend.
The Mustards were warm and open throughout the conversation, and Donald and I bonded over our shared love of Super Metroid and Symphony of the Night, in an interview I'm extremely excited to share with Gamasutra's readership in the near future. After the interview, I walked back to the Gamasutra offices, sat down at my desk, and signed on to AIM -- only to find out that something was brewing with Shadow Complex on NeoGAF.
What Actually Bothers Me...
What's most striking to me is the naivete of the discussion on NeoGAF, at least early on. The thread was locked by moderator duckroll eight minutes after its creation, with the message, "The world was not created by Orson Scott Card, it was created by Chair Entertainment. He is simply the author they are working with to create novels set in that world. Please do better research before starting stupid threads like this in future."
Duckroll reopened the thread 11 minutes later after conferring with another mod. He later said, "I hope that what we generate here is actual discussion that is meaningful."
That didn't happen quickly.
What bothers me is not that so many users are going to purchase Shadow Complex. What bothers me most is not, as you might assume, that some gamers who understand the issue will decide to buy the game to show support for Card, either as an artist whose work they enjoy or even as a political figure whose views they respect. To argue against that would be childish; that's their right.
No, what bothers me is people who suggest that it's a non-issue because the topic of discussion is a game. "Holy crap, it's just a game," says user intheinbetween. "Don't judge a picture by its painter," suggests Lagunamov. "Remember back when we were kids and we just enjoyed games?" asks Wizman23.
Yes, I do. But we are not kids anymore. I'm of the NES generation. Born in 1977, the same year as the Atari 2600, I was 10 for the release of Metroid, 16 for the release of Super Metroid, and 20 for the release of Symphony of the Night, the touchstone games that inspired Shadow Complex. I was 32 on the day it became available for download on Xbox Live Arcade, and my life, it's safe to say, has changed drastically. I can't approach things the way I did as a child. That's not me being self-righteous; I mean that I literally cannot do this.
Again, the crux of what I'm getting at is not that Shadow Complex should be boycotted. I leave that for you to determine. What I am attempting to examine is that there is a fundamental distinction between those who hold views and those who are board members of organizations that operate political action committees with specific agendas; authors who write essays espousing political viewpoints. That may be the relevant distinction.
Card has made waves with quotes like, "Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down." That is the kind of writing that can push a lot of people's buttons for more than one reason.
And what I am wondering is -- as we age, as an audience, and as creators, and as we begin to understand the world more fully and hold views which have deep seated meaning to us, does that fundamentally affect our relationship to the medium? This is almost entirely new territory for games.
The Case Against Sugiyama
But it's not entirely new. Though it's so far very rare, there's another, similar controversy. Koichi Sugiyama, the composer of the music in all nine of the primary installments of the Dragon Quest series, has his own political agenda. That this series is generally regarded as the most popular franchise in the Japanese market -- the latest title, Dragon Quest IX, has sold 3.64 million copies in four weeks makes it even more interesting.
Sugiyama is a right wing Japanese nationalist who denies the Rape of Nanking. He's not shy about it, either; he was a signatory to an ad run in the Washington Post called "The Facts," which publicly denies the generally accepted historical record. "Where the Nanking 'Massacre' and the comfort women are concerned, the facts are on our side," says the advert.
Obviously, Sugiyama's position isn't doing a hell of a lot to hurt the sales of Dragon Quest in the game's home territory. Most gamers are likely unaware or unconcerned that the series' composer holds these views; the games themselves, in fact, have extremely lighthearted and humanistic tales in which cities are much more likely to be bespelled by mysterious magic than sacked by desperate soldiers.
At least one user on NeoGAF has made the Dragon Quest connection and made a decision based on it. Josh7289 says, "I personally boycott the Dragon Quest series because the composer, Koichi Sugiyama, denies the Japanese Empire's guilt in the Nanking Massacre, and he publicly advertises/advocates his position."
The Whole Foods Controversy
The situation with Shadow Complex mirrors another, much larger controversy taking place right now. John Mackey, the CEO of the supermarket chain Whole Foods recently penned an op-ed for the Washington Post coming out against Obamacare.
Until that moment, I think most people had an unconsidered assumption that Whole Foods was a liberal organization -- because it sells bulk grain, tofu burgers, and organic spinach. This is, in a word, naive. Business is done by businessmen; Whole Foods is successful because it caters to a lucrative market niche, not because it espouses an ideology. While the company does carry different products than many more typical supermarket chains, presuming a politically liberal ideology on the part of the company on an unrelated issue was, obviously, a mistake -- but it's one many made.
On political blog, The Daily Dish, a reader nails it on the head: "Are Mac users afficianadoes [sic] solely because of the software platform? Do Whole Foods shoppers patronize the chain solely because they like organic fruits? They're lifestyle brands; they connote status and priorities."
But while I can both recognize that and still call Whole Foods boycotters naive for assuming the company was any more liberal than Wal-Mart -- which incidentally pulled its ads from Glenn Beck's program on Fox News this week, making it look more liberal than Whole Foods, when you take the narrow view -- there's a relevant distinction here.
Whole Foods sells organic vegetables. Whole Foods arguably sells a lifestyle to Prius-owning suburbanites. Whole Foods has, however, a limited capacity for advancing an ideology directly to its customers -- it's limited to marketing materials and product selection.
A game, however, absolutely has that capacity.
Shadow Complex, by all accounts, has a rich narrative. That story is based on the work of Orson Scott Card, who set out the foundations of the universe in his 2006 novel Empire. According to Wikipedia, Empire's plot is set in motion when "A radical leftist army calling itself the Progressive Restoration takes over New York City and declares itself the rightful government of the United States."
I'll let you read the "Literary significance and reception" section of the Wikipedia article if you like. The short version is that it makes the book sound pretty right-wing. That's the funny thing about narrative art; it can and does easily espouse ideologies.
When it comes to Shadow Complex itself, NeoGAF poster Stumpokapow says, "if your objection is going to be based on in-game content, you're in the clear." Though I've not gotten far enough in the game yet to have my own take on its narrative ideology, signs from those who have point to Peter David and/or Chair showing restraint on the political overtones. One friend told me "it subverts the Empire universe severely," which is a funny twist on the whole controversy, if true.
I feel strongly about this medium, no matter how boneheaded the content can be -- and games like Killzone 2 can be pretty dopey, at least as far as I played it. Not everybody in the audience cares about this; hell, not everybody making games cares about this. Whether you do or not, games are maturing and changing in meaningful ways.
I remember that Ulf Andersson, on his press tour for Wanted: Weapons of Fate, honestly described the film the game was based on as "cool." I would describe it as vapid. But the medium of film is not devalued by Wanted. The medium of games is intrinsically capable of the heights of meaning and emotion that film is; our discourse must rise to that level as well.
And that's why it's acceptable to talk about this. That's why it's okay to skip buying Dragon Quest IX or Shadow Complex. If we can have meaningful political discussion in other media, we can have it in games. And even if Shadow Complex itself doesn't espouse views about same-sex marriage, in some way the product funds Orson Scott Card. He may be best-known and loved as the author behind Ender's Game, but he's also a political activist. He has become fair game.
Coda
I don't know what Donald Mustard or any of the people at Chair who worked hard on Shadow Complex think about same sex marriage. And even beyond that, I don't know what ballot measures they support or reject.
I do know that when I was done talking to Mustard this morning, over an hour after I had initially mentioned it, he wished me well in my long distance relationship with my boyfriend in Michigan. "It worked for us," he said, referring to himself and his wife Laura. For the first two years of their relationship, she lived in New York and he in Utah, he explained to me. As I shook Mustard's hand, wished him well, and thought about how much I wanted to get home and play Shadow Complex, no political thoughts were in my mind. That human connection -- that warmth -- means more to me than any political position.
Or I like to think it does. As with anyone else, my desire to make a life for myself in this world absolutely irretrievably informs my political positions. Same-sex marriage, then, is a crucial part of my own personal viewpoint. And that's the distinction that we're now facing. Are we "just gamers", or are we adults? The NES generation has grown up. Games have come a long way. We can now tell stories; we can now make statements. And it's not just the developers who have that power.
Note: Chair Entertainment, Epic Games, and Microsoft representatives were all contacted for comment prior to publishing this story but none had responded by press time.
Image of destroyed copy of Gears of War 2 comes from NeoGAF user NinjaFusion, who says, "Sorry epic, but i cannot buy your products while you make this man rich... after this i will not send these game out to create potentially a new fan that he could profit from."
|
| |
|
Either way, having the ability to take politics into account when making a purchase on a leisure product is a luxury for which we should all be grateful. I tend to not exercise that option, but it does not bother me if others do. I will add that many of the products we buy are made with large amounts of both hate and love, and it is rarely on the label.
That said, I admit that creative works are different from other types of products. I saw a band claim that they were about as much a Christian band as a plumber who is a Christian is a Christian plumber. I understood what they meant, but religious and political beliefs DO influence creative activities whereas the plumber probably wouldn't be fixing pipes differently if he was atheist.
It's a complex issue. Personally, I'll decide based on the quality of the game, but I will understand if other people don't want to buy it for political reasons. But I think that anyone who does not buy the game because of its association with an anti-gay rights activist should consider how they would feel if people boycotted a game because of its association with a gay rights activist before they decide to boycott- it is the same action driven by different beliefs.
The piece is very good and reasonable, good job Christian! And I must admit I boycott products, services and goods because of ideological affinities/propaganda.
What I'm not understanding is why they chose to base the game on an existing novel in the first place -- they now have to pay royalties (or, they at least had to pay a licensing fee or similar), and for what?!
Prior to reading this I had assumed that the stupid, hackneyed plot was typical game-writing: "evil organization plots to overthrow the government (and hires lots of loose-lipped loud-talking soldiers), etc". Surely it would be cheaper to write a brand new cliche-riddled stereotypical plot than to license one? Anyone could crank several of these out in an afternoon.
Also, the mech designs are blatant copies of some of the Ghost in the Shell tank/robots.. come on! And the scuba mask bears a striking resemblance to Q3A's Visor.
Parts of the game are good, but there are so many little things (and bigger things, like ALL of the dialogue between the couple) that really irk.
Although, one pretty awesome innovation was the full facemasks on 99% of the characters -- that much have cut the animation budget down a LOT (i.e no need to animate face/mouth/talking), which makes it a pretty awesome design trick. If only the IK was as clever..
When I saw the thread arise on GAF, i knew the net result would not be positive, but i was actually glad that OSC's desire to spread hate were being brought to light.
Thanks for wading into this discussion Christian. Great read.
It's stupid to boycott this game. Orson Scott Card didn't make the game. The game doesn't have an anti-gay message. You boycott products based upon the product or the company.
Card probably got paid some amount so his IP could be used. It doesn't mean Epic Games supports his religious beliefs. I can understand boycotting his books, but even still, you would still need to judge a) what he uses book profits on and b) do you sanction all of a person's actions when you buy their product?
I also believe that people like Card are dinosaurs whose opinions will slowly die out because of their lack of understanding of a new world, so it's a moot point eventually anyway. If anything though, it will spur discussion among those that are thoughtful.
What is unfortunate is that this game is one of the best to come out this year so far. I started playing this last night, and could not put down the controller. It fully delivers on the Metroid/Castlevania promise, and adds a level of refinement that makes this game unlike any other.
Epic Games discriminates?
I also agree with you that there seems to be an extremely strong presence from the gaming community of people who want to silence any and all debate. A similarly hostile dismissal came up after N'Gai Croal's careful and well reasoned concerns about RE5 and it irritated me then too. I find it extremely hypocritical that the same group of people who flies off the handle when Ebert says games aren't art or when another politician or journalist claims it has no productive value will conversely use the "It's just a game" excuse when anyone tries to apply genuine criticism to it.
I think the whole issue of boycotting--especially boycotting entertainment products like games, films, and TV shows--is a tough one. I tend to make my choices based on specific content.
For example--I make it a point not to watch Fox News because they have an agenda I disagree with, but I regularly watch a number of shows on Fox without regard to the fact that the entertainment arm of the network has the same owner. (This includes, oddly enough, 24--which often comes off as pro-torture propaganda.)
I know that actors like Bruce Willis, Craig T. Nelson, John Voight, and Gary Sinise very publically support political views that are not mine, but that doesn't stop me from watching (and enjoying) movies and TV shows that they are in.
The more I think about this issue, the less black and white it becomes. I play plenty of games where my primary task is killing without batting an eye. But would I play a game where I was killing people if it were based on, say, the writings of one of Charles Manson's followers? Surely not--it would be too real. But suppose the game had nothing to do with the crimes? "Squeaky Fromme's Bejeweled" or something? Would it matter as much then? I'm thinking it wouldn't. At least not to me.
So, I guess it all comes down to personal choice, and where you choose to draw YOUR line in the sand. I can be against John Voight's politics and still enjoy watching National Treasure--but I'm not going to go to the Republican National Convention and listen to him speak about politics. Just as I would have no problem playing Shadow Complex which is based on the fiction of an anti-gay rights activist but has nothing to do with that topic, but would never consider playing a game in which the theme of the game opposing gay rights, regardless of who worked on it.
As I said...it's a very thought provoking topic.
Also @ Louis Varilias, yes, I know many Jewish Americans who today won't even sit in a Ford due to Henry Ford being a Nazi-sympathizer, and they are not stupid. He did not invent the car, he just streamlined the assembly line production process allowing him to lower costs and sell more cars to people of modest budgets, sparking the industry. Without him I'm sure someone else would have thought of the assembly line.
That "it's just a game" thing is something that is constantly being said. You don't have to agree with it, but you need to accept the fact that the world and the internet is full of apathetic, lazy, juvenile, uniformed morons that have the same reaction to anything remotely thought provoking.
They are the rednecks of the internet. Anytime something challenges their tiny sphere of beliefs they seek to marginalize it by claiming it doesn't matter. This is because is something doesn't matter, is ignored, then the issue doesn't exist and they can go on their merry way without ever having their beliefs challenged.
These people fear change. They don't want the status quo disrupted and they don't want anything to get inbetween them and their selfish pursuits.
When I see those comments, I just ignore them and continue my conversations with people who give a damn. Trying to reach these idiots is a waste of time.
That doesn't mean we should stop our conversation and discussion about these kinds of issues. The question of the boycott is something that should be vetted.
My son, 11, already downloaded and began playing Shadow Complex before I heard about the controversy, should I tell him about it?
Now that is an interesting question. We already know what a certain group will say, that is "No. It's just a video." Okay, I will spend 2 seconds on that thought and argument and now let's move onto discussing whether or not I tell my son about it. See what I mean. That whole, "it's just a game" rap, is just a worthless, mindless position that should be ignored.
"I don't know what Donald Mustard or any of the people at Chair who worked hard on Shadow Complex think about same sex marriage. And even beyond that, I don't know what ballot measures they support or reject."
But if you are, I find that idea kind of disturbing.
Why does it matter what ballot measures someone supported or rejected? I understand and agree with your decision to boycott Card, because he's actively campaigning against something you strongly believe in. But suggesting that an individual's voting choices and personal views should be the foundation of a boycott for their employer seems violently closed-minded to me.
If people were to apply this kind of thinking to every issue they cared about, virtually every producer of games and other media would soon be overwhelmed by boycotts about every possible viewpoint and issue imaginable. Since refusing to hire someone based on this sort of thing could potentially be the foundation of a discrimination suit, companies rarely have the ability to exercise discretion over the personal viewpoints of an individual they hire.
Attempting to deprive people of their livelihood just because one of their coworkers has a viewpoint you disagree with is not a way to win people over to your cause on an issue. It's actively destructive to your cause, so I hope you're not suggesting that it's a good idea.
I guess the first thing I should point out is a quibble over historical accuracy: Carrie Prejean was "decrowned" over the racy photos that kept appearing in the media a few months after her infamous gay marriage statement. A lot of people did protest over her comments, but when it came down to it, those had largely died down by the time the photos came out, and at that point she was still very much Miss California. Just a minor thing.
I'm actually pretty torn on this issue after having read the article. As a kid, my favorite book was Ender's Game. Then when "Advent Rising" came out a few years ago (you may recall this was a 3rd person action sci-fi game, penned by Card), I found a link on the Gamespot forums to an article Card had penned wherein he basically stated that people who protested the Iraq war were traitors, and then intimated that they should be executed by the government for their "treachery".
Now. I'm all for freedom of speech. But once someone starts publicly calling for my death, that's when I start to get a little testy.
I threw out my cherished, well-worn copy of Ender's Game and swore never to buy Advent Rising. The latter turned out not to be such a difficult decision, as the game apparently was godawful anyway.
I think the distinction I make here is that it's not just that he holds positions that are opposed to mine and that he is public about these opinions. It's that he's basically insane. The guy makes Glenn Beck's "Obama is a racist... no I didn't say he's a racist... but Obama is a racist" comment look as tepid as a chorus from The Sound of Music.
But I digress. I completely agree that an artist's work should be separated from the artist. I can listen to Wagner without thinking about Dachau. But there are so many questions here that this brings up, many of which you've touched on well. The first is, what is the point of a boycott? Is it to actually attempt to financially cripple your opponent? It seems more likely that a high-profile effort to boycott the game would only backfire in that regard, making the game more visible in the marketplace and easily selling more copies than it would have otherwise. Or maybe the point is just to raise the profile of the issue itself? That makes more sense, though it's hard to believe that the gay marriage issue could be made any more of a hot-topic in America than it already has been for the last 5+ years.
In reality, I think it's a matter of personal satisfaction, like recycling, or throwing something at the TV when Glenn Beck is on. In reality your actions make very little impact (excepting of course if you break your television), but on a smaller level it helps you affirm your own beliefs and feel like you've maybe accomplished something positive in the face of an enormous opponent. And this too has some kind of larger impact - that affirmation of emotion, of sentiment, helps to engender community. I'm sure the folks over at GayGamer and their causes will benefit tremendously from having a completely salient issue to rally around.
So really, the greatest effect this proposed boycott has is most likely in the discussion of it rather than its execution. People like Mr. Card represent the most heinous of partisans: the kind which espouses hatred and even violence against his opponents, and for that alone his words deserve to be drug out into the sunlight. Visibility of people like that have a tendency to generate sympathy for their enemies amongst the general public: think the effect of Matthew Shepherd's horrifying murder, or the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church in recent years, among many other examples on this issue.
You know what this demands? A South Park episode. Or at least a scene in an episode. Somebody alert Matt and Trey that Mr. Card needs to be taken down a peg or two.
What I have to say in this instance is the following:
I believe it's not a complex (nice pun) question at all. I believe the answer to free speech is always more free speech. If you believe that Orson Scott Card is saying things that are wrong at the top of his lungs, then you say so at the top of yours. If he's donating money to organizations dedicated to infringing gay rights, you donate money to organizations that support them.
A society that embraces free expression depends on an unimpeded exchange of ideas.
The disconnect comes from those people who believe that boycotts are likewise a form of free expression. They're not. Boycotts are the opposite: They are designed to be punitive. To hurt someone financially. The message it sends is, "I dislike what you have to say and therefore am going to strike back at you in order to punish you for saying it." It has nothing to do with attacking the things the person says; it's about attacking the person.
That is antithetical to the notion of a free society because it promotes a chilling effect. It's the equivalent of Archie Bunker growling, "Stifle yerself," because the message it sends is, "If you say something I don't like, I'm going to find a way to hurt you." Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Boycotts have nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with trying to give the other guy a financial bloody nose.
Do people have a "right" to do it? Of course. No one is saying they don't have that right. What's at issue is whether they SHOULD do something. I CAN wear a Speedo to the community pool; trust me, though, I really shouldn't.
What's the end game here? To try and send a message to as many sources as possible that if they hire Orson Scott Card to work for them, they're going to take a financial hit? To put Card out of business? To make sure that someone is going to face financial ruin because he has opinions that differ from yours?
That is intolerant. It's inelegant. It's cheap and vicious and small-minded.
And also be aware that I've dealt with this any number of times coming from the other direction. If you think I haven't had threats of boycott from people who want to take me down precisely because I've been openly supportive of gay rights, then you are kidding yourself. Gay fans were overjoyed about my portraying Shatterstar and Rictor as an openly gay couple in the Marvel Comics series "X-Factor." But what if I had said to myself, "Hmmm. This is going to piss off a lot of people. I could wind up taking a financial hit over this. Probably it would be best if I just stayed away from such a hot-button issue." For that matter, what if anti-gay forces organized boycotts that hurt Marvel and Marvel management said, "Okay, that's it; no more stories having anything to do with gays or gay rights." Supporters of those causes would likely decry Marvel as being cowardly and knuckling under to financial pressure from the exact same tactics that are being called for here.
So by extension, if Orson Scott Card refuses to knuckle under to scare tactics, then he's brave and noble for holding to his principles.
And you're okay with that?
How is instilling fear of financial ruin conducive to a free society and intellectual progress? Especially when you're supporting an attitude that, when it comes from the other direction, can potentially kneecap support for the very causes you hold dear?
PAD
If they made the game, your comment would make sense. The point is I don't think there is enough of a connection between Card and Epic Games to warrant boycotting the game. Until you can point out how much of the profit goes to Card, and how much of what goes to Card then goes to the National Organization for Marriage, you're making baseless assumptions about where the money is going.
Instead of hating people, the key is to care for the people you disagree with (MLK). Caring for the person you disagree with the only way to actually discuss what you disagree about and to progress. We talk about respectful debate and working together, but it cannot happen if you look at what someone does and respond with "because you did that you are evil." In order for human beings to progress the response has to be "though I respect you and your right to act, this action I believe is not right, let's talk about this action/opinion/issue." Not approaching a subject with care and respect for the individual is the foundation of every war that has ever occured.
So what I'm getting at is...boycotting a game because "I hate Orson Scott Card" is not a useful approach. It is demonizing and creating battle lines. It leads to conflict and hatred, and makes the person instead of thier action the issue, it puts the focus on the wrong thing.
Boycotting a game because "I disagree with these actions, and I believe supporting the game is supporting the actions" brings the discussion to where it should be, on the action, on the actual issue, instead of making the person the issue (which is simply a personal assault). While attacking people might make us feel good, and may make for great ratings, it's pulling America apart.
We could use a lot more discussion about actual issues in this country, and we would benefit from spending a lot less time bashing and demonizing people for having opinions we disagree with.
PAD
It seems like sometimes the concept of boycotting smacks of censorship, and while you didn't break out the c word in your own piece, that seems to be the angle you're coming from. But doesn't this kind of cut both ways? I mean, boycotting isn't as much about attempting to effect "financial ruin" on your opponent as it is about using the product in question as a springboard to create debate on the issue itself. After all, Card does write books that illustrate his worldviews, and makes a very good amount of money off of them. So why is it suddenly so horrible for someone to use those same books/art/creative concepts as a conduit for expressing their own opposing views? Doesn't that also contribute to the larger discourse which you are rightly concerned about protecting?
I think your Holmes quote was more misleading than instructive here. An acceptable use of Holmes' analogy would be if we were discussing whether or not to break into Card's house and steal his valuables as retribution. Just as no man has a "right" to break another man's nose, we'd have no right to make off with Card's things. But this is not the question at hand; every person has the right to both decide NOT to buy something as well as to make public their reasons for doing so. Those organizing the boycotts or supporting them openly are merely raising awareness to other, sympathetic ears that they should know where their money (may) be going. No one is hacking the Xbox Live servers and preventing people who want to spend their money from spending it. These people are merely educating other possible consumers. In terms of the "dialogue" this contributes to, I think it's largely positive.
Boycotting the game and trying to make a statement does exactly zero to the person boycotters would be trying to hurt. The difference in the amount that Card would receive would be negligible. It could be very damaging to our hard working developers that made the game though.
My point is that those calling for a boycott of this game don't seem to have any beef with the game itself, just the fact that it's associated with someone they don't like. So let's be clear about this: the call for boycotting this game is not because the game is advancing a political agenda they disagree with, but rather as a personal attack against a certain individual who, by all accounts, didn't have much to do with the game anyway. Or maybe it's even worse, it's a "personal" attack against a game studio who had the gall to be associated with someone they don't like.
Personally, I give more credence to the opinion "it's just a game" crowd than the "it's just a political bargaining chip" crowd. If people are really just boycotting this game to "get at" or demonstrate against Orson Scott Card, they're also hurting a lot of people who just wanted to make a good action/exploration game (and, in my opinion, succeeded magnificently in doing so). Is it OK to dismiss all the--for all intents and purposes--apolitical developers at Chair as collateral damage because of some personal vendetta against someone else entirely?
Peter's hit the nail on the head here. This smacks more of McCarthy-era Un-American Activities blackballing than a legitimate political statement.
In defense of the press time thing, it's true that the concept of press time is a bit of a fallacy on the internet - but the fact is this was going to be published today, heads of each organization were contacted, but nobody had a comment. It is regrettable that you weren't contacted, but I would think we could rectify this in the near future with a more in-depth discussion that includes you, if you're game.
While I do to some extent agree that boycotts are not synonymous with free speech (was that comparison made?) in other cases it can be very much warranted. Without unions and boycotts a lot of things we now take for granted (to some extent) like civil or workers rights would not be where they are today. The gay marriage issue is also one of civil rights, and while this game is a very very small part of any of that, I do think it is something that merits discussion.
@Peter, As Brandon said, I'm not advocating a boycott at all. Like I said in the piece, I had personally decided not to spend money on anything OSC was involved in long before the game's release, but that was a *personal* decision and that's certainly not an organized boycott.
I did, however, find the discussion of whether there should be a boycott of a game due to political affiliations of one of its principle creators to be a highly interesting one that touched off a great number of thoughts in me, and became the basis for an article examining the issues around that. This is new territory.
Here's an instructive link on the point of boycotts, written in reference to the Whole Foods situation (I was thinking of including it in the piece; maybe I ought to have done.)
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/boycotts-a-quick-hi
story-lesson.html
Essentially, the writer suggests, the point of a boycott is to score political points rather than to create financial impact. In the end I think this is actually likely to be the case, given it's the mechanism that resulted in my writing of this article.
If you looked hard enough you could find some airhead on every game team who donates their money to a cause you don't believe in, that bastard.
But then call it what it is: Inelegant, intolerant pressure tactics. Acknowledge that you're basically stooping to the same level of intolerance as those you would despise. Don't imply that it's some sort of moral high road because it's not; it's the low road, and more often than not boycotts wind up hurting everyone BUT the people at whom you're aiming. In fact, all they do is reinforce the negative opinions they have.
How refreshing would it be for a massive call that said, "Instead of having a boycott, let's support this person financially because we want to show that we're bigger and better and more tolerant and more accepting than he is, and our business is with the type of material he produces rather than his opinions. Let's demonstrate by our actions what it's like to understand and accept that different people have different ways of life and shouldn't be attacked for it."
The reasons tossed around to try and justify financial scare tactics are amazing. I'm reminded of a moment in the film "Six Days, Seven Nights," in which the Harrison Ford character is making fun of women's magazines featuring articles with titles like, "Ten Ways to Get Your Man Interested On a Date." And Ford snorts, "You want to know how to get a man interested? Show up. We're not that complicated.
Same principle with debates. A boycott will help to spur debate? In my experience, you know what spurs debate? Disagreeing with someone. It's not that complicated. In fact, boycotts tend to blur issues rather than bring them into focus.
The issue of whether someone should buy "Shadow Complex" should boil down to one thing and one thing only: Is it an exciting game that will give you your money's worth? If the answer is yes, then buy it. If the answer is no, then don't. A gamer's issues should be with whether he's getting bang for his buck; not whether one of the people associated with the manufacture of the game is voicing ridiculous opinions.
And let's face it: You're not upset about Card's opinions, unless you've made it your business to investigate where on the political spectrum the makers of "Halo" or "Tomb Raider" or "Grand Theft Auto" fall. You're upset that he EXPRESSED the opinions. And folks who are so quick to defend their "right" to do what they want (when that wasn't in question) are endeavoring to curtainl the rights of Card to say what's on his mind since the end game, I suspect, is indeed to try and stop people from hiring him. You want to make him pay a price for exercising those rights that you yourself feel should remain untrammeled...for yourself.
Defending popular speech is always easy. It's defending unpopular speech that requires work.
And Christian: Yes. You advocated boycotts. Right here: "That's why it's okay to skip buying Dragon Quest IX or Shadow Complex." Because if you didn't advocate boycotts, you would have said, "It's not okay to skip buying Shadow Complex purely because you don't like Orson Scott Card's opinions. It's not okay that Epic or Chair or Peter David wind up as part of collateral damage when not only have they said and done nothing to warrant it, but Peter David has been an outspoken supporter of gay causes."
General rule of thumb: Any tactic that would be embraced by Tail Gunner Joe is probably one you should shy away from.
PAD
I can appreciate that as a much more involved creator of SC than OSC is, you have a high personal stake in the success of the product on an emotional level. I can understand why you would be absolutely angry at talk of a boycott, which also seems to be against your personal beliefs. And I understand that you're probably blindsided to get this from people with gay rights sympathies given your comics work; it's rare to get this sort of action from both sides in a writer's career, I'd imagine.
OSC is politically toxic to a number of people. The fact that this has to be confronted is a new issue in the games space. THAT'S what I'm writing about.
Also you did imply that it was not a person's "right" to boycott something, right here:
"Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Boycotts have nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with trying to give the other guy a financial bloody nose."
You're comparing a boycott to a punch in the face, with the conclusion that to boycott something is to give someone a "financial bloody nose". That's simply inaccurate. To boycott something is to simply decide not to buy something. That's it. No one is forcing anyone not to buy the game you wrote. No one is throwing molotov cocktails through your windows for having worked on it. At least, I sincerely hope they aren't. Your assertion with that quote, that to choose to not buy something out of principle is in any way the same thing as physically attacking someone, is simply false. I don't see why that's not worth pointing out or how I was somehow missing your point by saying so.
Would you buy something from a guy that outspokenly says "Peter David is a jerk" even if it was a compelling product? There are a lot of compelling products out there, and people have a choice of what to buy. People will buy or not based on their opinions, and deserve to know all the elements that inform that product. Some people research these on their own, some people need these elements brought to light. That is what is happening here, not a call to boycott. It would have been ok for people to "skip" buying these games regardless.
I feel that you are writing from a place of hurt feelings and financial worry, and not one of actual consideration of what's going on here. You are focusing on the boycott issue when that is not the main drive of the piece. The main point is to inform readers about what they may be supporting through purchasing this game.
I personally don't buy proctor & gamble products because of their politics and environmental standards. Ditto General Electric, and a host of other companies. I'm in the minority, sure, but I can choose what I spend my money on because of my opinions. I'm sure you don't intend to, but you seem to be suggesting that that's not right. That I should purchase things ignorant of their origins, or what they support. That is counter to the way I live my life, and the way I would hope others live - supporting things they believe in, and not supporting things that are counter to that. I would hope you would feel similarly.
Besides, OSC is anti-gay rights, and PAD is "straight but extremely gay-friendly" so is that a push then?
----------------
You're on to something here, I think - the complaint I sympathize with somewhat is just the notion that people who deliberately undertake boycotts in order to financially cripple someone associated with the product are psychologically predisposed towards censoring their opponents. They are. But that's not really why everyone participates in a boycott. I went into a lot of other reasons in my first post, so I won't repeat myself here and take up valuable conversational real estate, but needless to say I think that's kind of to the point of the original article that Christian has written here. He's really digging into the question of "what's the point?" and finding a varied set of answers. I think your approach seems to be pretty one-sided so far, in that you only see the downside to boycotts, when in fact boycotts have proven incredibly useful political tools in history. Indeed, this country may not even exist without the Boston Tea Party and the associated consumer activism that resulted from it.
Calling for a massive boycott would be a lame, catty thing to do. Not wanting to buy a game because one of its contributors (however small) is in some way being funded by you personally is perfectly okay (and about as far off from inelegant and counter-productive as you can get). I can understand being angry because you invested a lot of hard time into creating the game, Peter, but do you really expect such a hot-button issue to turn into a "turn the other cheek" situation? Some people just don't want to support someone with such drastic opposing views, regardless of the quality of the game or his personal input. Some people want to know if their money goes to him in some way. If Chair licensed the universe with an up-front fee, that might be different, but where's the problem in saying "I am in no way supporting this person?"
I don't donate money to the KKK, advocates of torture, or dog-fighting organizations because I want to show that I'm a better person. Why would I donate money to someone who is so adamantly opposed to something that would not effect him? Speaking your opinion is one thing; spewing out garbage about mortal enemies and the "hypocrites of homsexuality" is another. Maybe if I could watch TV without hearing about the gathering storm of gays, I might be more open-minded about OSC.
I believe I am understanding your position on boycotts, however it is a position that strikes fear and concern for me. You say that we need to start a debate, but what if you cannot bring the opposition to the table to have a civilized discussion? Where do people with no voice go to be heard?
Without the Montgomery Bus Boycotts or sit-ins across the South, where would African Americans be today? These acts of civil expression caused a change. Hitting people in their pocketbook tends to evoke a change and can open a dialogue that may not have been allowed previously.
Now, in reference to the article, there was no call to arms. I do not believe it tried to rally a boycott of the product, but it did try to inspire gamers...mature gamers... to think socially. Think beyond, "it's just a game". I would like to think we are more evolved than that.
With that said, I think the article about the issue on Gaygamer was present in a mature and excellent fashion. I bought Shadow Complex, and enjoyed it, but I also donated to a same-sex marriage fund to show where my support truly lies.
It's oky to stand against these issues, but is that enough to "boycott" products because poor kids would be making Nike shoes or because Mc Donald is cutting forest?
I think the boycotting action isseriously one of the lamest action we could perform to say "Hey I'm against your action, it's not correct". If someone is really against something, then I strongly suggest him to do something bigger and get way more involved, write something, meet people, take a few vacations and work on what must be done, do something.
I remember a sentence from Wanted; "What are you doing of your life?". I should say that in my opinion, boycutting is synonym of hidding yourself behind an action to affirm that you have done something for a cause, but it's more an illusion than a real fact.
Denying support of a product that gives an asset to a party whom you wish to give no business via boycott is seen as an outright cry against free speech. This is wrong; it violates constitutional rights and leads to more conflict, thus thus hatred ensues and perpetuates itself.
Supporting their products, not taking into consideration their political views (or even, acknowledging them and setting them aside for the sake of consumerism), makes it possible for aforementioned party/individual to continue advocating ideals that may be offensive to most, even the consumer. The consumer is vicariously responsible for any subsequent political acts the party in question performs.
My personal issue with this whole affair is that most do not realize that boycotts are only their most impactful when it is against a body and not an individual. I do not agree with Card's views in the slightest, but I've learned to seperate the man from the author. He has made a series of outlandish comments in regards to both homosexual rights and political activism, but those are not the segregation and Jim Crow laws of the United States' past. Events which needed a strong reaction from a body of people calling for change. Free speech, while it is painful to accept at all times, is just that: One's right to say what they wish at any given time. Painful, though his words may be, he has commit no heinous acts and is acting well within his rights. He is simply a man who receives a lot of press for his beliefs due to being prolific in other aspects of his life which ironically endorse acceptance.
There are alternatives to a boycott. A boycott is actually the last answer to this dilemma. We, as adults first and gamers second, simply must turn the other cheek.
That said, I'd like to thank you for the wonderful article, Christian.
That's not punitive. That's just choosing where to spend my money and spreading information.
1) That is as it should be. Who wants to lose a third of their potential audience because they have a political viewpoint? So you generally shouldn't take a public position as a company. It just makes good business sense.
2) As a 14-year veteran of the video game development industry, I have to say that every team that I have ever been a associated with had political and religious views across the entire spectrum. New employees ran the gamut as well as senior management. And yet every team was a close as can be and we accomplished great things. Should the sales of any game that I have made been affected because one particular person made their views known apart from the workplace (wherever they are in the hierarchy)? Of course not! Because one team member's political or religious views had nothing to do with the game we made.
I don't want anyone to suffer as a result, but I have to stick up for my own convictions more than anything, as do we all.
I see no need to throw this on anyones pile of political agendas, despite the overwhelming need for everything in 2009 to be politicized and over intellectualized. Once you start down this road where does it stop? A boycott of a game involving hundreds of people based on one persons views is not the way to change peoples opinions or address policy.
----------------
I don't really think this is a free speech issue though. No one is actually saying the guy should either have to stop supporting his political causes or be hounded into poverty and starvation. He chooses to make his money by creating products which by their very nature, have his personal stamp of opinion on them. The very world in question, Empire, is clearly based in his own political worldview. In short, in this case he is attempting to make his living off of selling his worldview to others in a palatable, narrative fashion. Of course he has every right to do so. That's not the question. The question is whether or not those who are not sympathetic to his worldviews should go around creating awareness of what his prospective buyers are going to be contributing to, and subsequently encouraging others with similar viewpoints not to support him. It's a lot more simple at its core than we're allowing it to be, really. Peter's allegations of "financial bloodying" aside, ultimately this is a question about how far one should go to express support for their cause, and whether or not that includes boycotting.
I think its wonderful to have such passion for such a just cause (I'm a San Francisco resident myself, and a very strong proponent of gay rights), but there are much better ways of helping the cause without so much strong-handing! Peace and Love!
Bottom line to me is when we buy or boycott for any reason other than the artwork itself - then the real looser is actually the art.
I do wonder if you have called out Card's speech and tactics in the same way you have called out those here. Certainly, his statements about homosexuals and same-sex marriage are far more aggressive, insulting, and wide-reaching than the statements Christian has made in this article.
You mention defending unpopular speech, but Christian does not advocate limiting Card's right to say unpopular things. He does, however, say it is fair and within a consumer's rights to react to that speech in any legal way one sees fit, and I completely agree.
By not buying a game that has been marketed as being based off the writings of a bile-spewing bigot, I am apparently destroying free society, and passing out bloody noses. And to suggest I give money to people who will use that money to further repress minority groups is just insanity.
Remember that Obama actively campaigned for presidency stating that he was against gay marriage. too.
The hypocrisy of some of you is sickening.
I'm all for creating awareness of content contained within a product, but it really does come down to how strongly you feel against the individual in question. I can admit to playing through Shadow Complex; it was gifted to me by a friend, and it is a very well constructed game. I am not very familiar with Chair Entertainment's work, but there is a fair amount of content in the game that should not go unrewarded.
Now, that said, I will say that the narrative I've seen thus far has been rather sparse and can indeed be taken at face value. Terrorists, conspiracy, squelch them, be a hero. I haven't seen anything as of yet that could be directly interpreted as pro-right-wing propaganda. And the truth is, I think it's a shame that Chair supposedly used the existing world of Empire to create the setting of Shadow Complex, because they probably would have been just as well off without it. Card's receipt of royalties from any purchases is the cherry on top of the sundae.
It really is nothing more than a simple moral decision of the lengths to which someone will go to create an awareness of his views and involvement in the game, but I think it's more damaging to the hard workers of Chair who produced this game to not buy something this finely crafted. The repercussions reaped against Card are rather minute by comparison. I stated the concept of free speech so heavily before because his words are ignorant, but not outright hatred calling for cleansing. If he was at the forefront of a movement, calling for more severe actions, then my stances would be different.
Personally, I'm in favor of donating a pittance to a LGBT charity to somewhat balance things.
Have other game developers has larger impacts? I'd argue the answer is probably yes, but they're also generally popular developers. Given Will Wright's extensive monetary support of anti-progressive organizations, might Spore have been a better place to start boycotting?
@Ryan Hibbeler said, "haven't seen anti-gay undertones in the game." Read below.
@Peter David - You wrote the game? Can you tell everyone why San Francisco is the city that is slated to be bombed/taken over by the enemy faction? OSC has said, "Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down."
For many radical right-wing and anti-gay activists their wet dream is to see San Francisco go up in flames. It is because of this one detail that I have decided not to buy the game because to me, it is ideologically aligned with OSC's views.
I've said this before when commenting on how dumb it was for Epic Games to kill all the rescued torture victims in GoW2. It says that torture victims can't be reintegrated into society and are better off dead. The games we make tell us a lot about the values and ideas we hold. I think this example of Epic, Chair and OSC's close associations needs to bring to light that as an industry we do need to make careful considerations on what our games say.
@Peter & @Brandon & @Nathan & @Raigan & others: A reasonable discussion on a tricky issue = yes, bravo.
0.02$:
I thought Ender's Game was terrific & I really enjoyed The Dig by the old team at Lucasarts. I had zero clue about Orson Scott Card's unreasonable political activism until this controversy brought it to light today.
Orson Scott Card: wtf?
Controversy: thx!
Shadow Complex: sorry...
Super Metroid & Symphony of the Night: HELL YES.
Good writers are complicated people who do not always conform to their audience’s expectations. Just as an example: Philip K. Dick was a sensitive, deeply humanist writer who spent much of his time in the liberal enclave of Berkeley, California. Dick didn’t have much in his bank account until the last years of his life but what extra money he had was donated to the anti-abortion cause. A cause that few people associate with liberalism.
It’s interesting that Card (who did not actually write Shadow Complex) could stir up this much agitation just by his association with the game. I’m worried that the game industry, which is already creatively and financially risk-averse, will look at this example and decide that writers with opinions are not worth the trouble.
> Why don't we refuse to play games by all the people who we disagree with? Is it because they are unknown, and not Orson Scott Card? Or are we lazy and don't want to find out what they believe? Or can't find out and are morally ok with it as long as we stay ignorant?
> Why don't we consider the beliefs of the people who actually made the game? Or published it? Or who are selling it, thus becoming "enablers"? How many contributors to the massive operation of creating a game need to share that belief for us to decide who we're "supporting"?
> Why don't we consider the amount of the offending agenda/belief that is actually in the game? Many great contributions to technology and culture have come from intolerant but incredible pioneers, yet that doesn't negate the good they do.
Do you really believe boycotting has taught the offender the lesson you wanted, or wrought the justice you seek? Is it worth ignoring the other facets of their contributions, from which you could learn from, understand, and through that, perhaps even change? Is that any less of a convenient dehumanization than their beliefs?
Or is the satisfaction of being steadfast in your moral compass more important, as it is for the offender, whose moral compass also guides him to do great achievements that you have the right to disagree with?
The only good reason I can think of boycotting something is because it is crap. Even if the creator is someone I idolize entirely, letting his ideology influence my enjoyment of the game is a sad dishonesty to myself, and there is no moral high ground there. Play or don't play, but don't rationalize because the practicality of boycotts is not on your side.
Of course now that I think about it, Jason spends the entire game chasing after his GIRLFRIEND; maybe there is a hidden subtext there. Or maybe people should just relax and agree that people have the right to believe in whatever they want, no matter how repugnant it might seem.
But Christian I COMPLETELY DISAGREE with you taking issue with people saying "it's just a game".
People often play videogames to escape reality and the stresses of life. People play to relax themselves, to challenge themselves, to simulate an experience they could never have in real life...videogames are a form of entertainment.
To criticize people who want to look at games as simply entertainment, it's something I cannot understand. I listen to political punk bands because to me the message is as important as the music. I would never criticize anyone for listening to Jay-Z solely because "the beat is sick".
In your article you don't explain why you are intolerant of that view. If the game espoused hate or homophobia I'd be in total agreement. But when a game is simply a fun experience and users want to view the product based on its own merits there is nothing at all wrong with that.
Personally I agree that these products are more than just entertainment, they are part of a business. But I am not going to deride anyone who doesn't see the business side of things, or people who choose not to.
I'm sure in your own case Christian, you wouldn't care if someone was a bigot or not. Do you own any Frank Miller comics or own a copy of "300"? It could be that his bigotry is a non-issue for yourself? If that's the case then obviously you're being hypocritical here.
If the game was in someway anti-homosexual I'd could understand boycotting it, but the only connection I see between anti-homosexuality, and Shadow Complex is Card, and that's not enough of a connection to make me feel guilty at all.
@Peter, I read many of your comics, liked some, hated others, I stopped reading Super Hero comics at all a few years ago, when Marvel did some small event called "Civil War", in the end the Heroes, that supported a goverment that set up Jails for political prisoners won and everybody was happy about that, I had to think about this event, when you wrote
"The issue of whether someone should buy "Shadow Complex" should boil down to one thing and one thing only: Is it an exciting game that will give you your money's worth? If the answer is yes, then buy it. If the answer is no, then don't. A gamer's issues should be with whether he's getting bang for his buck; not whether one of the people associated with the manufacture of the game is voicing ridiculous opinions."
The whole article tried to say that video games should be more then gettin "bang for his buck", that video games understood as some kind of art, can express opinions, ideas and ideologies.
From your point of view gamers should only look for the bang, not for something else. This position is mainstream among gamers and developers, so from a commercial point of view you are completely right. But I always loved the Super-Hero comics, that tried to be thought provocing and take a political stance and I surely would love it to play games that try the same. What you are saying is, that a game can't express a political message, I strongly disagree with you. I don't buy or play certain games because of their political content, I would never buy CoD MW or play something like Kane and Lynch and I wouldn't read Orson Scott Cards Novel "Empire", cause I think it's right wing propaganda I don't support. Why should I play a game based on a novel, that transports ideas I, that I think are plain wrong?
Critical thinking is useful. This essentially sums up everything that can be said. Again, Card is a writer, so providing him money as a result of his writing does not mean your money is supporting his anti-gay campaign. Boycotts are about money. If you don't know where the money is going, you're just making assumptions. Plus Card is a third party. A boycott is usually a DIRECT ACTION AGAINST the company producing a product. It's like boycotting my doctor so a pharmaceutical company doesn't get money; it's silly.
The quote from Jr Hawkins that Louis referenced above is exactly correct.
If a creative person had created a game or work as used as narrative that was a rapist, child molester, killers of gays, Jews, etc. THAT is a gravity and severity litmus test we should use for a boycott.
Thanks (insert your God here), we do not live in countries like China, Iraq, and Russia were this open debate is possible without repercussion.
Again, buy it or don't, for whatever reasons you choose.
I do agree with Peter about boycotting. But I also agree with GayGamer.NET's suggestion that if you buy the game, donate the same amount to a politically active gay organization like HRC, GLAAD, your local PFLAG chapter, or EqualityCalifornia. It's not a problem for me, personally, because I have a PS3 and no 360. If it did come out, was reasonably priced, and supplied native 1080p graphics and 24-bit audio, I would definitely purchase it. My husband and I already give quite a bit to many local and national pro-gay organizations, as well as donate our time.
It would be heartening for Epic to take a proactive stance and give some token percentage of profits to one of these organizations in response to this controversy. It would be even more heartening for people who are spending a lot of energy explaining why they aren't buying the game, or for a boycott, to each give a little time and/or money to the organizations that are out there actively fighting for equal rights.
To boycott the game and spend the time defending that action, while others actually are out there actively fighting for these rights, is lazy and inane at best. We can, and must, do better.
That seems obvious enough not to be necessary to state.
-- To put Card out of business?
Or to convince him to change his ways.
-- To make sure that someone is going to face financial ruin because he has opinions that differ from yours?
He is an intolerant, delusional bigot. That is not a difference of opinion. It was not "intolerance" to refuse trade with South Africa because of Apartheid. It would not be "intolerance" to refuse trade with slavers. It is not "intolerance" to refuse trade with those who do not treat their workers humanely or pay them reasonable wages. It is not "intolerance" to refuse to do business with those whom you disagree. It was not "intolerance" to vote against Proposition 8. It is not "intolerance" to stop doing business with shops that displayed pro Proposition 8 propaganda.
It is "voting with your wallet". It is "the invisible hand of the market" at work.
It is *capitalism*.
Orson Scott Card has no artistry to speak of, so I see no conflict. I only read one book of his, which I found banal, and chose not to waste any more of my limited lifespan on him.
I doubt that your wallet vote is going to hurt Mr. Card more than his benign game developers. Capitalism is not "voting with your wallet" and no one is going to visit financial ruin onto him by boycottingt. Besides, why invent so much power for him? Perhaps the money you spend on promoting a game made with heart and soul goes a lot farther for the industry and the audience than the pennies of royalty Mr. Card probably doesn't need. Research has shown that the "invisible hand" is often inefficient, and if you want to eat your utilitarianist heart out, support good developers and forget an irrelevant bigot's opinions.
I chose long ago not buy any of his books, I can't not buy anything from him more than I do now. I am undecided on the game, as it is only tangentially his work, and an equivalent donation to PFLAG or the NGLTF of the price of the game would benefit them proportionately more than a non-purchase would not help Card.
What I take issue with is the *literal* equation of passive, nonviolent resistance with the initiation of force. What I take issue with is the assertion that a person stating their decision and encouraging others to make the same decision is, in itself, somehow immoral. Mr. David would not make the same argument if the decision expressed were, "This game is awesome, you should buy it!" or "Purchasing this game helps feed starving children, you should buy it!" It is only because the opinion expressed was that choosing to not purchase something because of non-intrinsic characteristics is acceptable that Mr. David balks.
It is literally the same as saying that suggesting people not purchase coffee that is not "free trade" is "intolerance".
It is literally the same as saying that suggesting people not purchase clothing made by sweatshops is "intolerance".
We continually make evaluations of non-intrinsic characteristics, and it is only personal involvement that has created the cognitive dissonance necessary to internally frame the non-act of not purchasing something as a threat and an act of force.
Not that it is material, but I do not style myself a utilitarian. I find it unlikely that I would bother with the discussion of such ancillary relationships.
I wish more that it were easy to demonstrate to ChAIR that a purchase of this game might be *in spite* of Card's involvement, which is different than *because of*, and different again from simple ignorance.
If you want to know why the Republican Party has been reduced to near-irrelevancy, you need look no farther than their utter inability to tolerate diversity of opinion. If you're not anti-abortion AND anti-immigration AND anti-healthcare-reform AND anti-union AND anti-affirmative-action AND anti-gun-control AND anti-evolution, etc. ad nauseam, you're not welcome; any deviation gets you ostracized as a pantywaist unAmerican unChristian terrorist sympathizer. The only candidate the GOP was capable of fielding in the last election who had a chance of reaching the center was one who claimed to be a maverick within the party, and as a result he lost the GOP base despite his desperate veering to the right when things began to go belly-up. When I saw McCain -- John McCain, who endured unimaginable horrors in Viet Nam -- endorsing torture towards the end in an effort to salvage his campaign, I could have wept.
To put it more simply: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for my right to call you an idiot for saying it!"
Completely agree with you on that point, I was speaking more generally about the "vote with your wallet" comment not being a 1:1 panacea. I would also love to see a better way to demonstrate to Chair a more targeted support... I think the only solution to that is to continue to buy their games in the future, Card or not, so long as they keep up the great work.
Amazing Grace is "just a song".
1984 is "just a book".
Guernica is "just a painting".
Triumph of The Will is "just a movie".
Braid is "just a game".
Some people just want to play. I already spend enough hours in the day thinking about politics, I don't need to be spending my recreation time on it as well. Its not being naive, it's making a carefully considered choice, the choice that I want my recreation time to not be marred by anything other than the quality of that recreation.
@Christian: I wish you and your boyfriend all the best. Your right to happiness should not be limited based on the preconceived notions of the small minded.
I'm a straight married man, but I tend to lean to the left on social issues. I personally don't understand people like Orson Scott Card and their positions on gay rights in general. I see Anti-Same Sex Laws as being akin to modern day Jim Crow Laws. These are usually the same people who tend to expound upon the virtues of religion in politics as well, yet it seems to me that they often forget about most of Christ's message of acceptance when they do so. I find this sad.
As for Shadow Complex: It is a fantastic game, there's no doubt about it. I admittedly was not aware of Card's political viewpoints before I made my purchase. While I believe that "gay rights" actually falls under "human rights," as someone who is straight it's not one of the political issues I consider regularly, so I doubt it would have effected my own purchasing decision. But I completely understand anyone who would boycott this game over Card's views.
I can fully understand Peter David's point of view here: For him this whole thing reads "Pro-gay-rights author gets shafted by gay-rights activists being cocks about some dick who says stupid stuff."
If OSC had publicly stated that Shadow Complex was furthering an anti-same-sex-marriage agenda and the game had been funded expressly for that purpose by NOM, fine boycott away. However, I don't see how people who do no harm should suffer more financial damage than OSC - because the truth of the matter is that OSC's already been paid his licensing fee, which is quite probably the lion's share of his revenues from Shadow Complex, it's very doubtful that he makes extensive royalties. He certainly doesn't make anything NEAR what the developers make.
I can't condone the idea of creating disproportionate harm to people not involved in a message, just to damage a particular target they're loosely associated with. That doesn't sit well with me. If you're not buying Shadow Complex based solely on this issue, know that you're not having a net positive impact. Which is the point I believe Peter David was trying to make, impassioned as it may have been.
To say it's just a game is to toss aside the circumstances upon which the game was developed. For you it's only a game, for Card it's a tool to further beliefs, and for Christian it's an opponent's resource. Having the "it's just a" attitude spits in the face of education and responsibility. By reading this article you've been made aware of the fact that it's more than a game to some people. What you choose to do with that is your choice but real people are affected by your purchase decisions whether you're buying corn-fed beef or a game.
Absolutely. Case in point: I regularly buy the work of John Byrne who has called me a jerk and worse, and he's been doing it for years.
Because I always--always--separate the creative product from the creator.
PAD
A point and a refinement of that point should be made, though.
First, if a creator who espouses an opinion that leaves me horrified produces a work that does *not* offend me, I would likely purchase a copy of that work if it otherwise met my criteria for purchase. Does this in some small way encourage the creator to keep his personal opinions out of his work? Maybe. Regardless, they are entitiled to their opinion, even if it leaves me feeling dirty for having heard it or just thinking they're stupid.
Refining this point, if Shadow Complex does not advocate intolerance (and I'll be conducting further research on this point), then I actually like the idea that it subverts the world of the novels, allowing enjoyment of the setting divorced from the agenda of the original creator.
It seems like you're confusing Peter's role here - he is not the sole creator of the game's narrative, so it's unfair to assign him responsibility for every single element. It also seems rather unfair to attempt to read so much deep meaning into elements that would be at home in almost any conflict-oriented video game - if Modern Warfare 2 featured Islamic radicals of American origin trying to blow up San Francisco, would you interpret that as Infinity Ward expressing their deeply seated homophobia? I hope not.
@Jeremy Alessi - It seems rather odd to assume that Shadow Complex is viewed this way by Card and Christian. Why not argue on the more concrete aspects of the issue?
Overall I think an important point already made in this discussion is worth restating: Boycotts are only one tool in the political toolbox that activists have at their disposal for changing the way the world is. It's rather unwise to leap to a boycott as your first option without considering the consequences of a successful boycott - especially in this case, where it's clear that many of the involved parties are completely innocent in the issue.
There are many other routes that could be taken successfully for addressing this issue, and in this case it seems like the only thing that has been done other than suggest a boycott is to rant about the issue in blogs and forums. While I can appreciate the intelligence and depth of Christian's analysis, I find one of Peter's complaints especially troubling - that in this wide discussion, the team behind the game have had little opportunity to share their actual views on the issue, despite the fact that any boycott would harm them more than it harms Card.
You'll notice I didn't mention the game or Card when I said that. I was talking in general.
Years ago, when Neil Gaiman was in school, he had this one teacher who hated him. Just hated him. Got on him about everything. And Neil finally came up with a strategy: Rather than argue with him, he proceeded to kill him with kindness. He was unfailingly, relentlessly, over-the-top polite. It made the teacher nuts. It all came to a head one day when Neil said something like, "That's a lovely tie you have on today, sir." The teacher said, "Right, that's it!" He dragged Neil to the headmaster and started howling about Neil's behavior. The headmaster said, "Gaiman, what did you say to him?" Neil said, "I said, 'That's a lovely tie you have on today, sir.'" "SEE!" howled the teacher, "I TOLD YOU!" The headmaster stared at Neil, stared at the teacher, then looked back to Neil and said quietly, "That will be all, Gaiman." Next day the teacher was gone.
It's called thinking outside the box. Killing with kindness. Do I really expect people to abandon boycotts and try another approach? No. Why abandon a strategy so effective that it fails to have a significant impact the vast majority of the time?
By all means, everyone should advocate boycotts. Do the same old thing that people have been doing for years. The approach that hurts people with whom you have no quarrel and just reinforces the opinions of the people who are the real targets that their attackers are vengeful jerks.
In this case: Is it going to hurt me? Not in the least. I've got plenty of other irons in the fire. I'm fine, thanks. Will it hurt Card? Nope. He's likewise doing just fine. Who will you hurt? Well...possibly Don and Laura Mustard, a great couple of kids who poured her heart and soul and best efforts into a game that has drawn unilaterally rave reviews across the board. Who knows? Maybe you'll beat the odds. Maybe the boycott will actually be effective and terminally cripple their company so they can't put out more games that receive rave reviews, thus punishing not only Don and Laura, but every enthused gamer who enjoyed the hell out of "Shadow Complex" because they can't play the sequel.
All to prove...what? That you think Orson Scott Card is an asshole?
I think the words of Pogo might be appropriate: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
PAD
I also don't really get how the whole Neil Gaiman namedrop applies in this situation, since killing someone with kindness is getting under someone's skin by essentially mocking them right to their face. You don't kill someone with kindness by going out and buying them a new tie. On the lighter side of things, Peter I heard you have a most exquisite collection of sour grapes and I would be interested in tasting some if you can ever take a break from all your hard work fighting the good fight for homosexuals. My pal Jim Lee told me. Do you know Jim Lee?
Intolerant - "accepting of the beliefs, actions, etc., of other people" thefreedictionary.com
"Hypocrisy is the act of condemning or calling for the condemnation of another person when the critic is guilty of the act for which he demands that the accused be condemned." thefreedictionary.com
"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual is convinced of the truth or validity of a proposition or premise (argument)." thefreedictionary.com
There you go. Let's see how your reading comprehension fares.
"The issue of whether someone should buy "Shadow Complex" should boil down to one thing and one thing only: Is it an exciting game that will give you your money's worth?"
Coming from the writer of a game, I'm kind of dismayed to see the opinion boil down to: is this game exciting? When Shadow Complex has brought up this superb topic, good discussion, and all that, the game's writer focuses on whether or not the game is 'exciting.' I'd expect a somewhat better discussion from such a person.
But, really, so what if people don't buy the game because of its association with Orson Scott Card? The amount of people who don't buy Shadow Complex because of that is going to be minimal. Why would you rage out over that? Why, Peter, would you choose to "attack" (I am using this term loosely) the people that do that instead of providing actual, positive discussion from someone who is as informed about the game, the game's development, and the game's influences? The first couple of paragraphs of your contribution to this thread publicly lamented not being contacted about this story. Clearly that's more important than addressing the actual subject matter and why people should or shouldn't focus on Card's involvement in Shadow Complex.
And even if Christian was demanding people boycott Shadow Complex (which he is absolutely not doing), I respect people who stick to their guns on that front. Similarly, I also respect people who would buy the game and put some money towards some charitable organization in a noble attempt to "make right" whatever proceeds would go to Card. Card's views may not represent a single person at Chair, but when partnering with someone who has been incredibly outspoken about his political views, it seems naive to think such a thing would not leave a sour taste in people's mouths. I'm actually glad to see some controversy around this whole topic; I'm glad to see gamers take some stand regarding the content and thematic matter of a game.
Addressing the whole intolerance nonsense, here's a quote I found from Orson Scott Card (http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html) elsewhere earlier today:
"Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."
That seems pretty intolerant to me and the act of saying that's a rather intolerant attitude does not, in fact, make me an intolerant person. When someone suggests that a person's reasonable beliefs make them a less acceptable member of society, that's intolerant.
How refreshing would it be for a massive call that said, "Instead of having a boycott, let's support this person financially because we want to show that we're bigger and better and more tolerant and more accepting than he is, and our business is with the type of material he produces rather than his opinions. [/quote]
This seems to imply that the more I point out how silly the above is the more money Peter David will send me. (I'm more than willing to test this theory - though Remo deserves first dibs)
The "type of material" that Card produces is known as "garbage." Not just his personal rants but his fiction. If anyone wants to support the arts the last thing they should do is give money to Card. You'd be better off turning your dollars into fashionable green hats or paying 5000 monkeys to bang away.
Empire is largely about Card expressing his personal beliefs though cyphers. I guess we can pretend that Empire is a thoughtful and brilliant masterpiece and that Card's politics are some carefully siloed other aspect of his life but the reality is closer to David Duke writing a book in which scientists discover that whites are the superior race then winning a brutal race war, conquering the galaxy and reviving slavery. It's not just offensive, it's offensively dumb, transparent partisan hackery.
Here's the second chapter of Empire: http://www.hatrack.com/osc/books/empire/empire_02.shtml
Note two things:
1. The characters and plot exist only to express Card's own political beliefs.
2. It's stunningly awful.
If you disregard that Card is a nasty person and that his book is political propaganda there is also the simple truth that it is awful literature. That alone should make any developer think twice about using it as the basis for a game.
look, some people here have time to hate people, that's ok. I like to irrationaly hate things too (more irrational the better). Honestly though, if you hate people that hate you, why should they change their mind? If a bunch of gay people started calling me bigot and a racist, what do you think I would say?(probably a non-sequiter with ninjas or chainsaws or robots, but it was a rehtorical question)
seriously, if we hate people who hate people, shouldn't we hate ourselves? actually that makes my brain hurt, and there are no cyborgs or rayguns in that statements, so its not the good kind of brain hurt.
I have an idea, lets be nice to people, take a proactive apporach. Lets not be picky and care about things. If you want people to like you, take steps so they like you. If you try to isolate yourself from them and try to sabotage their buisnesses they arn't going to like you very much, or worse, they are gonna like you for the wrong reasons (I like you because you have money is shallow; I like you because you are a space-marine and can tell me how to kill buggers in 42 ways is also shallow, but strangly acceptable).
also, don't try to 'kill with kindness' thats kindness with evil intentions, which is still kinda evil. I mean you didn't see jesus saying "Pontius Pilate, nice robe you wearing" he was more like "ok guys lets do this" and then they sang 'Always Look on the Bright Side of Life'. (ok, that might not be how it was in the book, but I saw the movie)
so try to be nice to people every day. I think you will have more fun with that. Better yet be nice to people who have a zombie survial plan (that's more interesting).
@Ben Hanks: There is a difference between intolerance and disagreement. Disagreement is a personal opinion. You may debate with other viewpoints, maybe with the intent to change someone's mind, but never out of anger or hate.
Intolerance however embraces both anger and hate. Intolerance is disagreement taken to such extremes that it is not the idea you hate, but the person who holds it. Orson Scott Card has expressed his hate and disgust at homosexual relationships. Many disagree, and as a way to make their disagreement known, since he is not likely to debate in a public forum such as this, they have chosen to boycott the game.
To call it hypocrisy is inaccurate.
For those who claim that "it is just a game", and for those who claim it's no: You're both right. For those who are capable of appreciating something for what it does or tries to do, it is no longer a game, but a medium for a larger message. Anyone who either does not know of the issues, or does not care, understands Shadow Complex as "just a game". Just as art can be interpreted in many different ways, games can be interpreted, or not interpreted, in just as many. An adult can understand Animal Farm for the allegory of the Russian Revolution. A child will think it a story of farm animals unless it is explained to him.
"It's called thinking outside the box. Killing with kindness. Do I really expect people to abandon boycotts and try another approach? No. Why abandon a strategy so effective that it fails to have a significant impact the vast majority of the time?"
That is completely ridiculous. So in the 1960s you would have advocated that people sympathetic to the Civil Rights should just be overwhelmingly polite in the face of bigotry and human rights inequality? Polite speech is filtered, parsed and ignored by the national gestalt. Uncle Tomming your way to equality is an absolute dead end. It does nothing to further the debate on the subject, and creates the sense that the subject at hand is not all that important. And boycotts have had an impact, in spite of the fact that they often fail -- the rampant advertiser's boycott of Glenn Beck these past two weeks has done more for intelligent, factual discourse in the media than a thousand "well I guess we'll agree to disagree"s.
"In this case: Is it going to hurt me? Not in the least. I've got plenty of other irons in the fire. I'm fine, thanks. Will it hurt Card? Nope. He's likewise doing just fine. Who will you hurt? Well...possibly Don and Laura Mustard, a great couple of kids who poured her heart and soul and best efforts into a game that has drawn unilaterally rave reviews across the board. Who knows? Maybe you'll beat the odds. Maybe the boycott will actually be effective and terminally cripple their company so they can't put out more games that receive rave reviews, thus punishing not only Don and Laura, but every enthused gamer who enjoyed the hell out of "Shadow Complex" because they can't play the sequel."
If it hurts the developers, that's lamentable, but it's a poor craftsman who ignores what it is his or her customers want and blames the customer's taste for their failing. If people boycott the game it's because it represents something they don't want. So next time, perhaps they'll ask themselves if licensing a property created by a vehement advocate for the denial of equal rights and the subjugation of an entire class of people is the wisest business move. They made their choice, and it's our choice if we want to buy it or not based on whatever factors we find to be important.
I was not boycotting the game per se, as I said above, but your rhetoric against people buying their conscience has further convinced me that I don't need to play this game.
As for the boycott argument: I struggle with this sometimes, I admit. However, I can't really buy the censorship angle. No one has a moral obligation to buy a luxury good. "Buying" and "not buying" are morally-neutral outcomes. Likewise, no one has an obligation to subsidise speech that is harmful to them. I know someone is going to bring up some slippery-slope argument about the evils this could lead to if taken to extremes, but you know what? When there are actual people being harmed on a daily basis, the potential evils of some hypothetical dystopia aren't all that interesting to me.
The question is, I guess: I am able to factor in a bunch of different criteria when I buy something. Why should I, all other things being equal, buy something that will give money to someone who uses his fame to actively work against me and donates money regularly to those who do the same?
I’ve got to ask with this boycott; what is the desired end?
I think it is useful to draw an analogy to international sanctions. Sanctions are (ideally) used as by the international community as way of coercing other nations into acting in a certain way. Think of the economic sanctions against South Africa during apartheid, the aim was to force South Africa to change it’s ways. The problem arises when situations arise where it becomes clear that dictators will ignore the sanctions and they will only end up hurting the citizens who are already in a horrendous situation. Here (again ideally) the international community decides that sanctions are not justified as they are unable to weaken the regime.
As Peter David has said, there is no way that this boycott will hurt Card. The only people it will hurt are the other people who were involved with the game.
Anyone who supports a boycott should be very clear that they are involved in a political action and so should be able to clearly define what their aims are.
Orson Scott Card is Bull Connor by another name. Liberals do not show intolerance in disagreeing with him; even though he seeks to repress others, they do not seek to repress him. They simply seek to point out how very, very wrong he is, and to persuade others to ignore him and his products.
The bottome line is you simply are using the word incorrectly. It is actually ok to be intolerant if you feel and injustice or a moral wrong is being committed. This is of course, if you are honest, what you are attempting to do here.
@ Ryan Lowry. Sorry dude. Please look up the definition of hypocricy for yourself. To claim to be tolerant of all views and opinions and then not tolerate those you dislike or disagree with is hypocrisy my friend.
The only thing is that everyone propably has something in their house that was made by someone whom they disagree with. It is very hard not to. I also think of the people who have nothing to do with that persons personal beliefs and are just trying to feed their family. With that, I myself won't support it, but I won't organize a national boycott of their items, either.
In trying to understand and address this issue, I wanted develop a sense empathy with the opposing view. At first I couldn't see the big deal until I put myself in the shoes of those whose views I don't share.
I am a Mormon and in saying so I feel vulnerable to discrimination, especially in the games industry. There is no shortage of ignorance and intolerance sent our direction when someone disagrees with our way of life. I have questioned pursuing a career in gaming many times because of this fact. I don't share Orson Scott Card's views on gay rights, in fact I think that legislation has no place telling someone who can and can't marry.
Now, if there was an amazing new game to come out that was related to a person that was extremely Anti-Mormon, yes I would have to think twice about picking the game up. That, to me, is a personal choice. When you speak of boycott you speak of organizing yourselves in order to intimidate and coerce. Why not take it one step further and picket outside of OSC's residence? Why not take it further and riot in the streets?
I have nothing, absolutely nothing against those who choose to live a homosexual lifestyle. When the whole Prop 8 debacle occurred there were gay rights activists in the streets picketing in front of Mormon temples, the only thing those images did for me personally was create fear. When they come to organize themselves and point fingers and scream "Shame on you!" it was as if they wanted to be my enemy even when I wanted them to have the same rights as I do in the first place. I can speak for myself that targeting those who disagree with you and reacting in such a manner does not breed tolerance but the opposite.
Perhaps they should be picketing in front of the White House because Prop 8 was not about gay rights, it was about our constitutional right to vote. Giving people the chance to vote on such a right simply comes down to the math of number of people voting for A vs B. Again, I don't think that gay rights should be up for vote, they are rights and should be had by all.
Like it or not, we are all so intertwined and dependent on each other that you can't avoid being affected by those who don't share your beliefs. I work at a company where we run a dating website specifically for Christians. Though we consider ourselves Christian, the "mainstream" Christians do not. This very issue has come up and they have had to make the decision to use our services or go elsewhere based on beliefs. We also provide a dating website for black people, and there isn't a black person in our office. Does that mean we shouldn't provide the service, or be patronized by those who are *gasp* different from "us"?
If indeed we desire equality and tolerance for all, to me its a simple to see that in a civilized world, punitive actions such as boycotting, picketing and rioting aren't necessary and perhaps aren't beneficial.
If you want to change Orson Scott Card's mind, write him a letter. In the end it's still up to him to change his mind.
I see a great sense of optimism in your comments here. Your viewpoints are honestly ones that I wish I shared. It would be a great day if "killing with kindness" was enough and punitive actions such as boycotts didn't accomplish anything but history has refuted that repeatedly time and time again. The list of momentous world changes brought about or aided in part by financial pressures is substantial from the ending of apartheid to desegregation and so on. I don't know where one can perceive the notion that a properly orchestrated boycott has ever proven ineffective. I guess what I'm asking is: to what do you refer to when you say that they often don't work? What serious boycotts are you talking about when you label the practice this way?
Boycotting is a tenet of nonviolent resistance as espoused by Ghandi himself. And yet you've equated it to an act of violence and this is troubling to me. Has the right to expect others to purchase one's product entered into the inalienable rights that we all hold self-evident? What basic human right am I infringing on by actively choosing to not purchase someone's product?
I've come to believe that those who would denounce boycotts unequivocally are those who need them the least. And I see a parallel there with a just war. You referred to yourself as an "outspoken supporter of gay causes." How far would you take that? Would you deprive yourself of a percentage of your own income, reduce your livelihood? Would you seek to financially pressure certain individuals who aimed to persecute and demonize homosexuals? Would you do so even though innocent people may get financially hurt in the process? Would you go to war? Would you kill someone so that homosexuals could marry?
Tough questions to answer for everyone who supports gay rights. None of those things are anything anyone would like to do. I'd rather not engage in boycotts or stand up to bullies because I like to play video games and I'm a coward but, if it's over something important enough, I'd like to think I'd overcome my weaknesses and do the right thing. A boycott is an unpleasant action taken out of desperation by a minority voice because they've been marginalized. No supporter of homosexual rights wants to hurt Chair or Card's family but sometimes you have to get your hands dirty to get something done. I'm not going to argue that they're in some way a completely moral act or an example of taking the high road. It's an act of defiance against the status quo of a repressive society and any defiant act is going to be inherently transgressive or else it has no meaning. Is it disconcerting to anyone else that the most transgressive yet nonviolent act in our consumer driven culture is to not buy something?
I see that someone tried to gamely turn the argument about to get you to say "Oh no, I wouldn't buy a book by someone that called me a jerk" and invalidate your position. It proved far too easy to dismiss given your considerable talent at the art of argument. It is easy for someone as confident as yourself to ignore something so petty. I would posit more pertinent questions like would you buy a book that financed a campaign to make public false accusations about the promiscuity of your wife? Or how bout one that put forth the notion that certain races were sub-human and deserved to be put to death for the greater good of all? Can you in good conscience buy such products and see your money funneled in such ways? I often ascribe to a heightened form of moral relativism myself but that seems almost nihilistic. I understand the need to be entertained but surely one can find something else to preoccupy one's time.
I say the following to the discussion as a whole: let us not fool ourselves into thinking that Chair Entertainment is somehow an innocent in all of this. A substantial benefit to the usage of Card's Empire source material is the affixing of the author's name to this work. They are using it for marketing purposes and thus they have to deal with the positive and negative baggage that carries with it. And either they didn't know he had controversial views because they didn't properly vet his potential PR impact (an understandable mistake of a fledgling company) or they knew and they didn't feel it would make a sizable dent in their profits. Either way, let's not cast the developers as angelic cherubs under siege by the forces of the homosexual agenda. This is a risk you always take on when you license material from others.
In the interests of full disclosure, I already purchased Shadow Complex prior to reading this discussion although I did, on my own, weigh the merits of my purchase decision in regards to Card's beliefs and the overall moral impact my choice would make. As a derivative product, I saw little harm in making the purchase and continue to do so. The narrative is decidedly lacking in any substantial political subtext and seems as genuinely thoughtless as that of most video games only making any salient points one way or the other by virtue of blind luck or happy accident. And Card's financial benefit from the game is reduced to a point where a boycott is overreaching. It has neither the social or fiscal impact to be worthy of pursuit. We would be doing more harm than good in this particular case. One must make wise decisions when choosing one's battlefields. Conversely, I don't expect to ever buy one of Card's books in the future.
In the end, I really just find myself asking what is going to secure basic civil liberties for homosexuals if not the same dramatic and transgressive acts that secured those same liberties for African-Americans and women in this country? If these actions have worked in the past, why not continue to use them, especially when the alternative is allowing the humanity of certain individuals to continue to go unrecognized?
Using that comma there *after* the scare quotes is probably the only thing wrong with this article, and that's more of a personal opinion.
Excellent, excellent, thought-provoking article, Christian. It's pieces of text such as these that people like me (who don't care to get involved in political discussions but are fiercely interested in such subjects) find extremely valuable in order to balance our opinions and inform our decisions. Thank-you.