Of course, if you boycott Card for not agreeing with his views, you should boycott a LOT of other artists, as well.
Certainly everyone from more than 200 years ago; back then, they had views that make Card's look like politically correct central.
Otherwise, isn't the attitude somewhat hypocritical?
You must have missed the whole point that subsidizing Card's work now
is going to directly subsidize him
. Why should I make his life any easier or better (financially speaking) when I so thoroughly detest his words and actions?
Samuel Walters wrote:
Lapis Exilis wrote:
I'm not one for confusing the art and artist - Picasso was a misogynistic prick, but that doesn't make his paintings bad. Card's not exactly going to use the money he makes from Ender's Game to go on any anti-gay rights campaigns, so I don't see the point of a boycott based on his personal opinions about homosexuality. If you only partook of art created by people whose every single thought and opinion you agreed with, we'd all have a very limited selection of art to chose from.
I've been thinking about this a bit ... and ... well, I don't want to be overly flippant, but I think it's easier to disassociate artist from art when the artist is dead. For starters, appreciating a Picasso painting is different than purchasing a Card book or a ticket to a movie based on one of his books. Also, any money spent to appreciate a Picasso (say, at the Met), isn't going to subsidize his life and any objectionable things he might subsequently do with that subsidy. Perhaps once Card has moved on, and provided his estate isn't bequeathed to groups based on his current views, I think more people will be willing to at least give his work a chance - based on its inherent merits, and not on the detriments of its artist.