This fellow has been a thorn in my side for years. I was such a fan of him too since Jr. high school. Seven Son had a strong affect on my paradigm, but I cannot understand or condone his intolerance of gay people.

You seem pretty cool because you get it.

This is discussed in more detail in the above thread: suggest that you read the discussion.

I think it was cowardly to not have it more clear just to avoid controversy.

I don’t know if Rowling did it just to avoid controversy. I don’t know why Rowling never let Dumbledore come out (or even be outed after his death) in the novels, rather than leaving it subtextual and “open to interpretation”.

Lastly I think it remains true that there isnt much in Rowling ouevre other than HP.

It’s true that writing Harry Potter is what seems to have eaten up all of J. K. Rowling’s attention since she became a published writer. I rather hope in years to come (especially after reading this Commencement Address) that we’ll find out what else she may write. That comment came from pure professional jealousy on OSC’s part – exacerbated, I don’t doubt, that a mere woman was the one to write the children’s bestseller of this generation.

I also agree with the comment about her choice of outing Dumbeldore. I mean yeah, OSC is a homophobe, but he has a point. Even after rereading HP i dont see any real reason to think he was gay, atleast not anymore so than any other old wizard charecter in any other book (saruman or gandalf). I think it was cowardly to not have it more clear just to avoid controversy.

Lastly I think it remains true that there isnt much in Rowling ouevre other than HP.

I apologize in advance for any spelling mistakes or grammatical errors

Yonmei: Of course. Orson Scott Card is not the evilest person in the world, but I’m angry at and dismissive of him nonetheless. Who argued otherwise?

Just FYI, I understood the commenter’s comment to refer back to Card’s contempt for Rowling — i.e., while Rowling isn’t the worst person in the world, it’s still okay to be angry at Rowling.

To that extent, I agree — There’s nothing wrong with picking and choosing our targets, and of course, sometimes we pick targets that are “less evil” than other targets along various axes.

But the commenter is still missing the point, because the question is, based on what criteria do we pick our targets? Are we truly picking targets based on “evil-ness” or are we picking targets based on some less savory quality, e.g., the target’s race or gender?

Yonmei et al have convincingly made the point that gender is a very, very large factor in Card’s choice. This is identifiable as sexism and misogyny.

The intellectual property commentary – I feel I have to weigh in here.Yonmei quite properly points out several key pieces of analysis that are essential to radical analysis of IP.

(1) Ownership and transfer of ownership to corporations / employers;

(2) the class of creators. Creators are, in this sense of having wealth but not necessarily being fully class-privileged, are very much like athletes & entertainers. The athlete & entertainer analysis should be familiar to anyone who looks at the intersection of class, wealth, and race. [One key distinction, not relevant here but I don't want to ignore it, is that writers generally have a higher class-of-origin profile than athletes.]

And I’ll add two others, because I think that the commenter should complexify their analysis of IP issues:

(3) While some kinds of IP disputes might be clear, bright lines kind of ethical issues, which we IP activists like to champion, that’s only some kinds of IP disputes. There’s usually a lot more to the dispute than the simple issue that gets media attention or even added to the court documents. By far most IP issues that make it to litigation are morally much greyer and have the character of business disputes. It is silly to, for example, simply assume that the plaintiff is always evil in an IP dispute. Litigation is a late step in a long dispute that often involves wrongs on both sides, and moreover, the “sides” are typically business interests.

(4) Even when parties to a dispute are truly individuals, not simply business interests, it is also silly to black-and-white characterize people based on one position in one instance. You don’t generally know the full fact situation; and you don’t know their other positions.

For instance, Le Guin was one of the writers on a writers amicus brief arguing against copyright term extension, a much better copyright position than 99% of successful SF writers. For another example, some writers have been “fine” with fan works until they were forced by various exigencies to take a more limited approach, and the available limitations are not always within the writers’ control.

(5) Finally, even when a case has free expression issues, it is absolutely silly and reductive to assign moral judgments to the parties based on the implications for free expression / fair use case law. As I said above, there is usually a lot more to the dispute than you know; the parties usually involve significant business interests of corporations, not individual interests and free decisions; and the individuals involved likely have a lot of ethics and personal beliefs they have balanced to come to their actions.