We reported earlier this week that Dallas’ Zeus Comics has decided not to carry Adventures of Superman, a new title from DC Comics written by award-winning—and vociferously anti-gay—sci-fi author Orson Scott Card.
Now at least three more shops are boycotting the comic as well: Whatever Store in San Francisco, Ralph’s Comic Corner in Ventura, California, and I Like Comics in Vancouver, Washington, all say they won’t carry the print edition of Adventure of Superman when it hits shelves on May 29.
The comic will first be published digitally, though, which means a store boycott may have less impact.
Card is a board member of the National Organization for Marriage, whose top dog, Brian Brown, calls the boycott “completely un-American.” Brown added that, “simply because we stand up for traditional marriage, some people feel like it’s okay to target us for intimidation and punishment.”
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
But Card isn’t just an opponent of marriage equality. He has written essays explaining that gays and lesbians could change their sexuality if they wanted to.
“Same-sex attraction is not a strait jacket; people’s desires change over time; gay people still have choices; a reproductive dysfunction like same-sex attraction is not a death sentence for your DNA or for your desire to have a family in which children grow up with male and female parents to model appropriate gender roles.”
Various articles and an All Out petition with more than 12,000 signatures hasn’t gotten DC Comics to budge:The publisher says “the personal views of individuals associated with DC Comics are just that—personal views — and not those of the company itself.”
I Like Comics owner Chris Simons explained his reasoning to the site Robot 6:
After reading about what he [Card] believes and what he does to back up those beliefs I’ve just made the decision not to carry that book either.
While Washington just recently legalized gay marriage I’m in a part of the state that definitely leans to the conservative and I expect some fallout from my actions. I know how naive this may sound, but it’s what Clark Kent would do. To me, at their core, comics are mostly about doing the right thing no matter what the cost.
If I can see this and back it up with my actions I can’t imagine why DC can’t do the same.”
Whether or not to link the personal actions and beliefs of an artist to his work is an age-old debate. (Just ask Roman Polanski—actually don’t.) But while the manager of our favorite restaurant may personally believe marriage is between one man and one woman, the difference is Card is a full-on anti-gay activist—working for NOM, donating to anti-equality initiatives and writing articles claiming “many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse.”
That’s just bad writing.
If you’re a comic-book fan—or even if you’re not—go to your local comic shop and ask them to not carry Adventures of Superman. Or perhaps, even better, ask them to consider creating a display of LGBT-interest titles to put right next to Card’s work.
Taliaferro
A store boycott might be lessened by the online publication first, but let us not forget that these stores are putting possible profit in second place behind ethics and principle. Let us applaud these businesses for taking a stand in support of us.
nstig8or
So does the plot line of the comic have themes or a story that is purported to be anti-gay or anti-marriage equality? Wouldn’t that be worth bringing up in this article? I read several of the novels in Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game series, and enjoyed them. I didn’t detect any anti-gay themes – although I wasn’t looking for any, and it was a decade ago. But the fact is…I liked the books. It kind of sickens me now to know a little more about the author, but it doesn’t make me retroactively unlike the books. They presented a unique view of the universe that I appreciated. I just think we should be careful before we go about “boycotting” literature…There’s a thin line between boycotting and banning, and once you’ve crossed it, you’re just a skip and a jump from burnings. Frankly that sort of thing has never been the hallmark of an enlightened society. I certainly won’t be able to bring myself to read any of his works ever again, but that’s my protest, my boycott: Not reading it. MAYbe I could see boycotting it, if its story encouraged bigotry or bullying homosexuals – which would be totally unSuperman anyway, but art is art. Some of it’s detritus written by perfectly lovely people but then some of it is genius, written by complete assholes….Hemingway was kind of a dick right? All I’m saying is: it feels icky.
jwrappaport
His abhorrent views have no bearing on his abilities as a writer or the substance of his work: If you like his work, read it – if you don’t, don’t. No one is asking anyone to subscribe to his views, only his literary work.
Nstig8or has a good point: Using our social power to coerce businesses into refusing to carry a work purely because its creator is an ass is hardly the hallmark of an enlightened society. Especially considering that we’re talking about the literary arena and a work within it that has nothing whatsoever to do with gay rights.
2eo
I download any of his works I wish, because I will not support the man, such as Ender’s Game and XBL game Shadow Complex, I won’t be deprived of entertainment, nor will I pay for it and tacitly support the person.
Kieran
I’m not sure disgraced director Roman Polanski is a good example to use by comparison here. Polanski actually drugged and raped a minor afterall.
But it is interesting to note DC Comics rationale for using a well-known homophobe:
The publisher says “the personal views of individuals associated with DC Comics are just that—personal views — and not those of the company itself.”
Does that mean if Orson Scott Card voiced his personal view that the holocaust is a big hoax, DC Comics and the media at large would have no problem with that?
Stache1
@jwrappaport: @jwrappaport: @jwrappaport: Sorry that I’m just not as “enlightened” as you are but if everyone took your approach nothing would ever get done. Boycotts are very effective tools.
jwrappaport
@Stache1: It’s okay – few are similarly enlightened. Maybe a few: Dr. Albert Schweitzer, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and Dr. Leo Marvin, to name some.
Anyway, I never said boycotts aren’t effective, nor did I articulate any general “approach.” Boycotts can be very effective, but I really do think that the arts are qualitatively different from say commodities: You can’t simply transact around one product to get what you want, as art isn’t fungible in the same way that commodities are. Hence, boycotting Chick-fil-a makes perfect sense to me: They offer nothing you can’t easily obtain elsewhere. Not so with a work of art or literature: Each is unique, and to pick and choose based on the identity of their creators would leave you with what I believe would be an impoverished canon.
This issue comes up quite a bit in the classical music and opera worlds with Wagner. In so many words, Richard Wagner wrote some of the greatest musical works ever conceived, almost unparalleled in their beauty and depth. He was also a virulent and frequently outspoken anti-Semite. Do we respond by boycotting his music or refusing to perform it? Hardly. I think Leonard Bernstein summed up the contradiction perfectly: “I loathe Wagner, but on bended knee.”
nstig8or
Equally it would seem ridiculous to us, as homosexuals, if some backwoods city library boycotted the entire works of William Shakespeare based on evidence that he was a known homosexual. I’m not saying such evidence does or does not exist, but the fact is there are a lot of gay artists/writers throughout history who wrote great works for which the subject had nothing to do with homosexuality. Yet they could easily be “boycotted” on the grounds of the authors beliefs/sexual orientation.
Blake
None of us really care about his opinions, but he is going to use part of his profit from this work to fund NOM, a virulent homi-hostile organization.
So we need to minimize his profit.
DarkZephyr
For me, this is less about his personal views and more about what he might do with the money he would make from my purchasing a copy of his work. He isn’t going to be getting any funds with which to attack my rights from me. That’s a promise. I would rather have fewer attacks on my rights than a particular piece of art, personally. But that’s just me.
DarkZephyr
@Blake: Exactly!