When someone is in opposition to something, the preferred method of informing people why there can be opposition to something is to use a quick and easy example to put forth as a reason why the thing should be condemned. In most cases, subtlety isn’t on the menu. The goal is to use the most visceral argument to make a point. It may not be the best point to use, but being visceral might move more people to make a snap decision.

Recently, Orson Scott Card was named as a writer for a new Superman series. There has been conflict about DC decision to have him work on the project because Card, and I will be a bit light on this, has some rather extreme views about current society. On the other hand, Card has written some fan favorite novels. The debate about Card working on Superman, especially with his worldview, has put many fans in a conundrum. It makes some wonder about the separation of artist and art. He may have repugnant views but does that take away from his skills as a writer?

The basic argument against Card working on the Superman book has boiled down to Card’s writings in opposition to same-sex marriage and homosexuals. This has been the focus of many debates online, which ultimately makes it hard to object to Card working on the title. It is doubtful Superman will be turned into an anti-gay activist. In all honestly I don’t think Card would write a story like that and I’m sure DC wouldn’t allow a storyline like that to appear in a Superman comic. If he were writing for a C-lister character, maybe that would be a concern. DC isn’t going to do anything to icon characters that would alienate them from a lucrative market.

People who were upset with Card’s views picked a subject that would definitely get a lot of press and generate commentary, but to think DC would allow Card to have Superman become super anti-gay, even on a subtle level, strains believability.

There is something more disturbing about having Orson Scott Card work on the series, which if this were the way some activist had started their argument, would make the boycott of Card easier to understand.

I spent the last few hours going online and reading some of the articles Orson Scott Card has written. Yes, his views on homosexuality are incredibly conservative and hateful. The key word I would use in describing Card’s articles would be extremely conservative. His views on the President, the current government and on society in general are so conservative I’m surprised he hasn’t been hired by Fox News. His views on homosexuality don’t begin to scratch the surface on his view of America. I can’t see a storyline where Superman might discuss homosexuality, but there are a myriad of possibilities where he might have questions about the government or some other social issues. With Card’s viewpoint, could he be objective in his writing?

Yes, I can see in this point where you could have an argument about separation of art and artist however Card has extensive articles of his extreme viewpoints. He has articles going back years with his extreme conservative views. Would he see a character that stands for truth, justice and the American way as a vehicle for voicing views of the extreme right? Of course we can assume DC will be vigilant in protecting their character, but his articles bring to light issues well beyond same-sex marriage issues. Think about it this way, would you be comfortable having Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh writing a Superman story?

Like I said at the beginning, I get trying to get people on board for the cause. What I find irritating is liberals, who claim to the smarter, use knee jerk tactics just like the other side and those arguments either confuse or are easily knocked down. Hammering on Orson Scott Card’s view on homosexuality and same –sex marriage doesn’t fit with him writing Superman. It almost seems like a college theory course because it is doubtful, in the long run, that DC would allow any anti-gay issue to show up in Superman. The more believable option, which has been demonstrated in his recent writings, is that extreme conservative issues can get into the story. It may not happen, but that seems more plausible if an argument against Card had to be made.