Shadow Complex and Orson Scott Card

Pages

Rather than derail the Shadow Complex catch-all thread, I thought I'd create a thread to discuss the political issues surrounding Shadow Complex and its connection to Orson Scott Card.

GamaSutra has an excellent editorial on the subject. The short version looks like this (from the same editorial):

GameSutra wrote:

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.

The game is based on the work of Orson Scott Card, specifically his 2006 novel Empire, but the game's dialogue was handled by Peter David, a comic book writer.

Empire is a novel in which a left-wing group called the Progressive Restoration overthrows the US government. The book's Wikipedia entry on literary significance and reception has this to say:

Wikipedia.org wrote:

The novel's political stance has received both praise and derision. Booklist commended the novel for being "heartfelt and sobering" and expressed approval for "the author's message about the dangers of extreme political polarization and the need to reassert moderation and mutual citizenship". Other critics were less favourable. "Right-wing rhetoric trumps the logic of story and character in this (...) implausibly plotted departure from Card’s bestselling science fiction," wrote Publishers Weekly. Library Journal assessed the novel as "entertaining, though not one of Card's best efforts", and expressed reservations about its tendency to "lean heavily to the right" and sound "more like social commentary than fiction". In Locus, Gary K. Wolfe faulted the novel for constructing a world where "insanity is mostly the province of liberalism" and compared the characters and dialogue to "Mattel action figures" and "bumper stickers and political-convention applause lines". He also dismissed its afterword's claim of impartiality as a false centrism.

The most interesting part about this to me is this, also from Wikipedia:

Wikipedia.org wrote:

Empire is not an original Orson Scott Card project, but rather stems from the development of the Empire video game. The game is being developed by the brothers Donald and Geremy Mustard, founders of the Chair Entertainment Group development studio. Card was contacted by Donald Mustard and offered the chance to develop the game's storyline as well as a novel to set the series into action. The Xbox Live Arcade Game Shadow Complex was announced by Donald Mustard to be a tie-in to the second installment of Orson Scott Card's Empire Trilogy and is a prequel to the Empire developed by ChAIR.

So, to what extent are the two things, Shadow Complex and Orson Scott Card, connected? And is that enough to justify a boycott of the game?

I'm not sure, honestly. I had planned to ignore the controversy and purchase the game, but now that I've read more about the game and Card's connection to it, I'm not so sure. I now have half a mind to pick up Super Metroid and Symphony of the Night instead. I haven't played either one of those, so I might be getting a better experience anyway.

What are your thoughts?

Edit: I've been in touch with Epic Games/Chair Entertainment for a story I'm writing about the boycott. I can confirm that Orson Scott Card wasn't involved with the production of Shadow Complex and receives no royalties from its sales. I just wanted to get that out there in case that changes anyone's mind about a boycott.

I read most of his Enders series of books and never felt he was pushing any type of agenda. I disagree with his views but I'm not going to boycott his stuff because of it. However, it probably will make it harder for me to pickup the rest of his books had I not known his views. Of coarse if this boycott picks of steam I'll probably buy his books just because I hate boycotts like this.

I have always really enjoyed Card's work. Enders Game in particular was a really big deal for me when I was younger.

However I will not purchase any more books that he writes because of his ardent anti gay stance. I am not sure he is connected to the game enough to warrant avoiding it though.

Card is a product of his times. So are most authors. I am more than capable of separating my enjoyment of a product from my opinion of the political views of it's creator.

I have no idea whether or not I'll buy the game, but I'm not going to boycott OSC, no matter how much I disagree with his views on gay marriage.

Both Richard Wagner and Richard Strauss were rabid antisemites, but I don't have a problem listening to the Ring or Ein Heldenleben. I probably won't have anything to do with that game, but that's just because it is a genre I don't care for.

If he decides to write a novel condemning homosexuality, I'll skip it. Until then, I have no problem separating the man from his work.

Card is also a devout Mormon, if I'm remembering correctly. I'm sure that his religious beliefs have a lot to do with his stance on gay marriage.

Podunk wrote:

Card is also a devout Mormon, if I'm remembering correctly. I'm sure that his religious beliefs have a lot to do with his stance on gay marriage.

And, I'm sure, on his choice of undergarments.

Paleocon wrote:

Both Richard Wagner and Richard Strauss were rabid antisemites, but I don't have a problem listening to the Ring or Ein Heldenleben.

I think what nags me about this situation as compared to those you mentioned is that: a.) Orson Scott Card is alive and will directly benefit from my purchase of Shadow Complex; b.) Orson Scott Card has crossed a line from being someone with views that I strongly disagree with to being an outspoken advocate for those views. It's one thing to believe that gays shouldn't be married; that's a view that the majority of the members of my own family hold, and I'm hardly going to boycott family gatherings. It's another thing to be an active leader of a political action committee designed to do everything necessary to prevent gays from being married. It's another thing still to declare any government supportive of gay marriage to be your sworn enemy and to claim to dedicate yourself to its overthrow.

I think that line between believer and advocate is why people are willing to give, say, Beck a pass on his being a Scientologist but will hold that same belief against Tom Cruise.

adam.greenbrier wrote:

Empire is a novel in which a left-wing group called the Progressive Restoration overthrows the US government. The book's Wikipedia entry on literary significance and reception has this to say:

Good lord. I jokingly described that I was getting this very same vibe from SHADOW COMPLEX in the other thread... glad to know I was 100% right!

People are free to have their own opinions on things, obviously, but if you are very opposed to what someone stands for, there's nothing wrong in hitting them in the only place it hurts these days-- their wallets. While Card may have little to do with this game, he is certainly profiting by it in some fashion, and the creators are using his name in an effort to sell the game. When you do that, you take the benefits AND the risks it entails. I don't dig deeply into the thought processes of artist I enjoy, but if they put their politics front and center, and move from opinion holders to ACTIVISTS, then I have a problem.

This is no different that not frequenting any business where the owner expresses some overt political or social message you disagree with.

Hell, I obviously don't care enough about this to do anything since I bought and have been playing SC, and I teach ENDER'S GAME twice a year to my two different SCI-FI classes. If other people want to stick to their principals and call this guy out, more power to them.

adam.greenbrier wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Both Richard Wagner and Richard Strauss were rabid antisemites, but I don't have a problem listening to the Ring or Ein Heldenleben.

I think what nags me about this situation as compared to those you mentioned is that: a.) Orson Scott Card is alive and will directly benefit from my purchase of Shadow Complex; b.) Orson Scott Card has crossed a line from being someone with views that I strongly disagree with to being an outspoken advocate for those views. It's one thing to believe that gays shouldn't be married; that's a view that the majority of the members of my own family hold, and I'm hardly going to boycott family gatherings. It's another thing to be an active leader of a political action committee designed to do everything necessary to prevent gays from being married. It's another thing still to declare any government supportive of gay marriage to be your sworn enemy and to claim to dedicate yourself to its overthrow.

I think that line between believer and advocate is why people are willing to give, say, Beck a pass on his being a Scientologist but will hold that same belief against Tom Cruise.

Okay. That I can buy. I guess that's like boycotting Domino's for being the primary financial backer of Operation Rescue.

The commercial success which SC will undoubtedly enjoy will produce a revenue stream for Card in form of royalties, perhaps enabling the further funding of his anti-gay agenda. I think the decision "buy/skip" should be crystal clear here.

Card is a dinosaur. However, he has every right to be wrong, and even to spend his fortune being wrong publicly.

My advice, buy the damn game, donate $10 here, and have a blast playing Shadow Complex.

In my opinion, if we spend our lives avoiding hateful people, then the hateful people get to be with like-minded jerks, who have a bunch of kids together and start the cycle over again.

Want change? Write a letter. Start a campaign. OSC won't care if you don't buy Shadow Complex. He won't notice. In fact, if you disagree with him, he probably doesn't even want your money.

Ending hate is not about disowning hateful things, it's about promoting tolerance and compassion. A boycott doesn't accomplish that.

What might be even more of a statement than just not buying the game, assuming you're of the mind that Card's stance is not one you wish to support, would be contacting the developer and saying specifically that you're not buying it due to its connection with Orson Scott Card. Another idea, which I think is really good, is making a donation of a similar or greater amount to a charity that is in opposition to the one Card is involved with (NOM) to offset the money he might be making off of the game.

However, there is a question as to how much Card stands to earn as a result of purchasing the game. One of the commenter's on Christian Nutt's article (I know Christian, so I'm not surprised he wrote this particular article) mentions that Card may have been paid for his IP, but may not get a cut of the profits from the game. In that situation, I'd argue that a boycott would only be hurting the developer instead of Card.

Additionally, if you read further into the comments, Peter David pokes his head in. Personally, I think he comes off as a flaming arse, but then again I'm not impressed by him in general, and his response doesn't do anything to dissuage me of that opinion. So there's another entity that probably even more directly gets affected by the sales: the writer.

Then, you've got the development team as a whole, who likely run the gamut of political and personal belief. They also directly get affected by the sales of the game.

So, the question in part becomes: does the entity whose beliefs I disagree with get damaged sufficiently by boycott to make this worthwhile? Each person's take on this is going to wind up being different, if they're thinking along these lines at all.

Personally, even if I were in a position to buy the game, I wouldn't, because the two biggest-known entities are sufficiently worth avoiding that I don't mind missing out on what might otherwise be a good game. But, to each their own.

Kier wrote:

I have always really enjoyed Card's work. Enders Game in particular was a really big deal for me when I was younger.

I loved Ender's Game, too, but a few years ago I read this great critical essay about exactly why it appeals to so many teenagers, and why it's essentially an immoral work. I don't agree with all of it, but it's a great read--check it out if you get the chance.

Sorry, that was a total tangent. Back to the topic: personally, boycotts seem pointless to me, because my individual consumption is so tiny relative to the size of the market. If I buy Shadow Complex, OSC gets maybe $1. It doesn't seem worth worrying about.

But I agree his views on homosexuality are pretty terrible.

Rubb Ed wrote:

Another idea, which I think is really good, is making a donation of a similar or greater amount to a charity that is in opposition to the one Card is involved with (NOM) to offset the money he might be making off of the game.

Exactly! Great minds think alike!

Being that Shadow Complex is a great game, my desire as a gamer to support the developers of great games (and thereby encourage more great games to be made) by far outweighs the tiny effect my not purchasing the game would have on an old man with an outdated viewpoint.

People are free to have whatever opinion they want, and I am free to play good games.

Vulgar or Ridiculously Childish wrote:

Card is a dinosaur. However, he has every right to be wrong, and even to spend his fortune being wrong publicly.

Don't say that someones opinon on an issue is "wrong", it is different.

jonstock wrote:

I loved Ender's Game, too, but a few years ago I read this great critical essay about exactly why it appeals to so many teenagers, and why it's essentially an immoral work. I don't agree with all of it, but it's a great read--check it out if you get the chance.

Interesting essay. I certainly agree that Ender's Game resonates with so many teenagers precisely because it offers a worldview where an unappreciated genius wins...very thoroughly...as Graff puts it. When you're a teenager, the world is out to get you and anything is justified, so yeah. But an immoral work? Even assuming there is such a thing, Ender's Game doesn't qualify. Not even close.

Rubb Ed wrote:

Additionally, if you read further into the comments, Peter David pokes his head in. Personally, I think he comes off as a flaming arse, but then again I'm not impressed by him in general, and his response doesn't do anything to dissuage me of that opinion.

Heh. I've been a comic fan for about 25 years now, and I've never been able to stand that windbag.

So, the question in part becomes: does the entity whose beliefs I disagree with get damaged sufficiently by boycott to make this worthwhile? Each person's take on this is going to wind up being different, if they're thinking along these lines at all.

Personally, even if I were in a position to buy the game, I wouldn't, because the two biggest-known entities are sufficiently worth avoiding that I don't mind missing out on what might otherwise be a good game. But, to each their own.

Whether or not Card gets an upfront fee or a cut of the profits, not buying the game says "you will not profit if you associate with this individual." Well, it doesn't really SAY that, but you can and should say it in a letter if you truly feel deeply about it. The sad thing is, this game is really a nice piece of work, and the story is generic enough that they could have avoided the entire issue by simply not having him participate. At this point, I guess the positive name recognition probably still outweighs the negative impact for the general public.

Multra wrote:

Don't say that someones opinon on an issue is "wrong", it is different.

Are you arguing that there are no WRONG opinions?

Multra wrote:

People are free to have whatever opinion they want, and I am free to play good games.

Vulgar or Ridiculously Childish wrote:

Card is a dinosaur. However, he has every right to be wrong, and even to spend his fortune being wrong publicly.

Don't say that someones opinon on an issue is "wrong", it is different.

I think we are actually agreeing on this one. My point was not to debate what was said, but rather to illustrate that everyone has a right to say it, even if it isn't socially acceptable.

However, I got the impression that the very premise of this thread is that OSC is a bigot, and should we be supporting the work of a bigot, even indirectly? It was generally agreed that Mr. Card was "wrong" as a matter of discourse. But I digress...

My answer is yes. I think we should support the bigot for the small role he played in the creation of this excellent game, and offset any feelings of guilt by supporting an organization which stands in opposition to bigotry. I believe this because I think when it comes to matters of morality, inaction (boycott) is rarely sufficient, unless it is organized to the point where the offending parties are well aware of the movement. Even then, I still say throwing your support behind an organization which promotes tolerance trumps any boycott.

That being said, we are talking about a game where you fight giant spider robots with foam-spewing-future-guns. Lighten up and have a good time. The homosexual community won't hold it against you.

Baron Of Hell wrote:

I read most of his Enders series of books and never felt he was pushing any type of agenda.

I don't remember seeing it in Ender's Game, but he definitely pushes the idea that the only 'correct' situation occurs when a man marries a woman. I just finished reading Xenocide, where he states that teenagers who are unable to resist having sex grow up to either be "sheep" or "predators", and that only people who are able to abstain end up being strong of character.

These ideas are not at the forefront of course, but definitely there.

As a side note, reading Card and Heinlein at the same time makes for an interesting experience.

Orson Scott Card has a bevy of questionable believes that he puts into his writing like little seeds.

I used to kindov enjoy it, but as he got more and more explicit in his stances and the forcefulness of his proselytizing, I had to stop purchasing his products.

I do agree that moderates are treated poorly by both sides of the political spectrum, but I don't find his stances appealing to a constructive worldview.

I don't think anyone has to boycott him... but I just decided that I wanted to hold on to my memories of his work without losing it to politic.

This is a hard one. If he wrote it, you should kind of know the job was dangerous when you took it.

If you've read any of his works works other than Ender - most notably Songmaster, Treason, The Worthing Saga, and the Homecoming series - you see that this his faith is not something he leaves at the door. If you've ever read the Book of Mormon, the first couple books of Homecoming come off as almost a paraphrase down to the names of the characters. I still wonder how the heck he got away with that.

The question is, do I consider him being that way grounds for making a game-buying decision? Yes, I personally do, to some degree. But not necessarily because of any special onus from his faith or whatever the guy who wrote that essay was trying to say.

I consider it no different than me not buying a John Romero game because he's an asshat that annoys me greatly just knowing he's somewhere out there under a rock spending someone else's money to make something he calls a game. Or the way I don't even admit Peter Molyneaux's games exist until they go gold if I can help it after some of the crap he's pulled in Hype-ville.

I really don't like that essay, though. It's a showcase of what's wrong with a lot of modern literary criticism to me. The self-important blend of deconstructionist pseudo-psychology and labored attempts to give unwarranted historical context makes me want to vommit. Yes, people, particularly kids of a certain age like these sort of themes. No, Card didn't invent them - please read David Copperfield or Oliver Twist or heck, go back to the legend of Gareth/Beaumains in the Arthurian legends, or the tale of Hansel and Gretel (the real witch-burning one). Nor is he even close to the worst of them.

if you buy video games from japan, you're supporting a culture which is very homophobic. I think once we try to start punishing people for disagreeing with us we go down a road that we can no longer have dicusssion. If OSC started to give speeches or lectures promoting hate or violience against gay people, I couldsee a boycott making sense. But, I have read some (not all) of his articles and he is just against gay marriage because of religious/man of his times reasons. You know what? That is ok.

I donate money to Catholic Charities, should I worry in the future that if I release a product that I will get boycotted because the group is anti-abortion?

Politics has become way too personal with the advent of the internet.

No, I'm not supporting homophobia. That's like saying I support Hitler by buying a Toblerone. That's carrying the stereotypes way too wide for me.

But on a personal level I also think hard before I buy games Itagaki worked on, just on general principles. Even though he was acquitted for sexual harassment, DOA Beach Volleyball doesn't win him any points in my book.

It is my understanding Card receives no direct benefit from Shadow Complex. The relationship is such that a video game company wanted to make the game and licensed literary rights to Card and he wrote a book. Card has no royalties from the game, he does from the book sales. From Chair's own wikipedia entry -

Soon after, Chair licensed the literary rights of its Empire property to best-selling author Orson Scott Card. The novel Empire was published by Tor Books and debuted as a New York Times Best-Seller in November 2006. Card has since committed to writing another two novels for the series. Chair also secured an option with Joel Silver and Warner Bros. for the Empire movie, which is currently in development. Additionally, Chair has retained the rights to produce future video games and comic books based on its Empire property.

So Card is pretty much unconnected to the game is what I get from that. This is all much ado about nothing. Do you think the authors that write the Halo books are getting money for every copy of the game that is sold? It is the same situation...

But even if this case is particularly unconnected, I think the base question can still bear discussion.

Would you/could you take personal opinions biases into account in your game purchases. A look at the Fable 3 announcement thread shows that a lot of people are making their initial impressions based on their opinions of Molyneaux and his sorry road record for over-hype and late delivery.

Should they?

momgamer wrote:

But even if this case is particularly unconnected, I think the base question can still bear discussion.

Would you/could you take personal opinions biases into account in your game purchases. A look at the Fable 3 announcement thread shows that a lot of people are making their initial impressions based on their opinions of Molyneaux and his sorry road record for over-hype and late delivery.

Should they?

I think it is two completely different situations. If people were saying they won't purchase a Molyneaux game because he holds specific politcal views, then I think we are punishing him for having a belief that some may disagree. The fact that he over promises and under delievers in some peoples mind is plenty of solid ground to not to be that excited when he announces a new game.

I read what Peter David wrote and I kind of agree with him.

momgamer wrote:

I really don't like that essay, though. It's a showcase of what's wrong with a lot of modern literary criticism to me. The self-important blend of deconstructionist pseudo-psychology and labored attempts to give unwarranted historical context makes me want to vommit.

Yeah, I knew it wasn't going to be everyone's cup of tea. But I actually liked it because it's not like a lot of modern criticism--to me, it's very straightforward, it builds its argument using a lot of direct evidence from the text, and it ended up making me look at the work differently. The analysis of the genocide itself felt a little weak to me, but the stuff about Ender's killings of the bully and Bonzo seemed pretty right on..

But enough threadjacking:

momgamer wrote:

Would you/could you take personal opinions biases into account in your game purchases. A look at the Fable 3 announcement thread shows that a lot of people are making their initial impressions based on their opinions of Molyneaux and his sorry road record for over-hype and late delivery.

I think with Molyneaux it's a different thing. People are looking at his track record and using that to figure out whether this particular game will be good or not. That's a smart thing to do. But with Card, it's pretty much accepted that the game itself is good--the question is, do we avoid buying it even though it's good, because of Card's reprehensible opinions?

Okay, I see your point. Molyneaux may not be the best example. How about other examples I used farther up the thread?

There are people who will leave events because John Romero is present, just because he has the personality of a used Brillo pad. Or for a better GWJ example, Derek Smart.

Or for what may be a better comparison on the quality-front, are we supporting Itagaki's womanizing ways by picking up Dead or Alive, or are you a prude for avoiding it? Dead or Alive has an awesome combat system; it's a solid fighting game. And Beach Volleyball has some very good minigames. Too bad most of the characters look like $5 crack-addled hookers with balloons in their scanty little bra-thingies, and in Beach Volleyball one of those minigames is pole-dancing.

Ulairi wrote:

I read what Peter David wrote and I kind of agree with him.

I read what Peter David wrote and it put me off the game even more (which I recognize is not the most rational reaction). He comes off as feeling entitled to my purchase (apparently a decision not to buy the game is analogously as wrong as assaulting someone), he conflates an organized boycott with a personal, individual buying decision, and he devalues games as a medium, nearly playing the "It's just a game" card, when he reduces the buying decision to "Is it an exciting game that will give you your money's worth?".

Of course, it's a lot easier to pass on the game when I've just found out I've got the newest DS Castlevania game coming to me in the mail to scratch my metroidvania itch.

Pages