[
Editor's note: We're not just a (rad) news site -- we also publish opinions/editorials from our community & employees like this one, though be aware it may not jive the opinions of Destructoid as a whole, or how our moms raised us. Want to post your own article in response? Publish it now on our community blogs.]
I have not participated in a boycott of
Shadow Complex and would neither encourage nor discourage anyone else to do so. However, something troubles me in this
recent debate about whether Orson Scott Card's involvement in
Shadow Complex warrants a boycott. It's when people who comment attempt to trivialize the debate -- to insist that it is a non-issue or to call the pro-boycott people stupid, reactionary or hypocrites -- that I want to scream forth in their defense these words that I, like
Ben Goldacre, have been finding more and more useful lately:
I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that. Here I hope to demonstrate why I, while not participating myself, find a boycott to be a perfectly reasonable course of action. One thing I will
not be discussing is whether it is necessary to separate the artwork from the artist. I quickly realistic that this could warrant a whole post on its own, so I have chosen to focus on other arguments here. Briefly, though, I would argue that it is not only unnecessary but sometimes impossible to separate artwork from artist. With that out the way ...
First, an issue of semantics. In such debates a lot of words and labels are thrown around and labels are not necessarily useful. The obvious one would be 'homophobe.' Is Orson Scott Card a homophobe?
He'd insist not, of course, but I certainly follow Jim Sterling's argument that he appears to be in many respects. As I said, though, labels are not particularly useful here so let's instead look at some of the words he has said,
which can be found in articles that he has written and, for example, in the above linked Salon interview:
"Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."
"I'm amused that you think it [homosexuality] doesn't hurt anyone. The homosexuals that I've known well, I have found none who were actually made happier by performing homosexual acts. Or by withdrawing, which is what they do, from the mainline of human life. The separation is there and is, in fact, celebrated within the homosexual community."
"They [gay people getting married] steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won’t be married. They’ll just be playing dress-up in their parents’ clothes."
We are dealing with a person who feels threatened by what he calls the gay activist agenda, patronizingly feels that he knows better than me whether I am happy or not and, if he had had his way, would have had the gay 'educated' out of me from a young age -- and I could go on.
Is he a homophobe? Possibly, but who cares? Is he someone whose words and deeds make me feel fully qualified to dislike him intensely? Certainly, and it is on that basis that I choose to oppose him, not because of any label I've hung on him.
Examining an Argument Against Boycott 
One of the most common arguments against a boycott is that many other games and other things we indulge in will have been made by people who have views equally or more abhorrent than Orson Scott Card's and we just don't know about them. An example was given of the Composer on the
Dragon Quest games, someone who denies the
rape of Nanking. So the argument goes, if we boycott one then surely there are hundreds of other things we should also be boycotting. I believe there are a few different but interconnected ways to respond to this:
1) It's true, there are other people with views I would not necessarily wish to support working on games. However, not many of them will be in a position such as Orson Scott Card, in the board of directors for
National Organization for Marriage actively campaigning against gay marriage, so there is an argument that by supporting the game we are more directly funding such campaigns than in the majority of other cases.
2) Again, it's true there may be people I don't know about who may have similar or worse views but Orson Scott Card is someone that I
do know about. I can only possibly act on what I know and it would be most impractical to find out everything about everyone who works for any one company before making a purchasing decision. Since I
do know about Orson Scott Card, I can make an informed decision in this particular case, which is the best anyone can ask for.
3) People should be able to pick their battles without being called a hypocrite. Clearly for some people the issue of Orson Scott Card's political views is of
particular importance to them. If they chose to boycott this game but not another game which is made by someone else of different views that they also oppose, maybe that is because
this is the battle that is more important to them, this is the stand they want to make. While they may not agree with the views of this other person, it's just not a battle that they feel strongly enough about to act on in a similar way. I don't see anything wrong with that -- if we decided to make a stand on every single occasion we encountered something we disagreed with, we'd never get anything done! However, that doesn't mean we must take an all-or-nothing approach.
Why Do People Boycott? I used to be puzzled by the act of boycotting, because I could see that obviously most boycotts historically have had little to no impact. A handful of people boycotting
Shadow Complex won't significantly impact sales, nor will it change Orson Scott Card's mind or anyone else's for that matter.
Now I realize that this is to rather miss the point. People boycott not necessarily because they wish to harm sales or gain some similar result. Rather they do so to make a statement -- 'I choose how I spend my own money and this man/company will be getting none of it,' -- in order to highlight an issue. From the amount of discussion there has been, the issue clearly
has been highlighted.
So Why Am I Not Boycotting Shadow Complex? Honestly? It's not my style. Perhaps you were expecting something better thought-out by this point but that is more or less it. To me, a boycott is too much like a bludgeon; there's no finesse or flexibility about it. For example, I think Activision's behaviour recently regarding trying to block the release of
Brutal Legend and comments made by everyone's favourite CEO regarding game pricing are absolutely awful. For that reason I will think very carefully before buying a game with Activision on the box and will rent or buy second hand where possible. Even though I am not completely ruling out buying Activision products, they will definitely be getting less of my money as a result of their behaviour. Just like the boycotter described above, I'm under no illusions that I'm
hurting Activision, I am merely exercising my freedom, albeit in a slightly less hard-line (perhaps even weaker) manner: "I choose how I spend my own money and now I'll think twice before giving it to this man/company."
With Orson Scott Card, after
Ender's Game (which I was given as a gift) I bought one more book of his and at the time had such a bad taste in my mouth from what I had read about him that I had trouble enjoying it. I have never been tempted to buy one of his books since and whenever I see a product associated with the man I certainly think twice before getting it. He is surely getting less of my money as a result of his words and actions, because I believe that before I found out about his views I would have bought any book he wrote.
In the case of
Shadow Complex I decided I would get more pleasure out of playing it than displeasure that Orson Scott Card will most likely be paid some royalties, so I chose to buy it. Does that mean I am comfortable with his involvement? No, I would much rather he had nothing to do with it. Incidentally, he also wrote the insults for the sword fighting in my beloved
Secret of Monkey Island -- and I wish he hadn't. But I am also glad that I took the decision that I wouldn't let the man deprive me of playing these great games.
All said, the only difference between me and the boycotters is the line they choose to draw, which I completely respect and defend. I hope that if you are someone who has previously called this a non-argument or belittled the ideas of people who believe in a boycott you can now appreciate that it
is a little bit more complicated than that.
Contest:
4:00 PM on 08.25.2009 | 
I think the fact that none of his individual political/moral beliefs are present in the game (that I noticed) makes it much easier to ignore his involvement. I bought the game before I even knew about it. In retrospect, I don't think it would have changed my mind about buying the game -- although it definitely changes my opinion of him.
Enjoyed the post, by the way. I think Jim said it perfectly: like Wagner, I'll buy his intellectual property, but he's still an asshole.
I DO think, however, it's important to note that Chair do have something of a "relationship" with Card. Their first game was Advent Rising which involved him, and they also are working on an Ender's Game title and most likely other video games based around OSC's work somehow.
So, there's no question Chair are hitching themselves to OSC's work and reputation as a writer (though it's interesting that Shadow Complex distances itself so heavily from Empire that they might as well not bothered). I personally think it's a mistake, but in the case of Shadow Complex, I find it hard to personally boycott as it's a solid title and doesn't really have any politics in it. If people want to though, I understand.
Having such views is all about miseductation, but at the same time, there's no law saying you must love and agree with everybody. IMO, I say let people do what the hell they want, so long as they aren't hurting or oppressing anyone, and get on with your own life.
I say buy the game, or wait for a discount and buy it, as I'm sure more than one person worked on it, and not everyone is an angel or saint. That's just how the world is.
I too will be looking to stiff Activision for their bullshit.
The fact is that money that goes to Orson Scott Card will eventually be used to promote legislation that actively damages gay families. Thus the comparisons to Gary Glitter and the Dragon Quest composer are totally irrelevant. Gary Glitter doesn't sit on the board of NAMBLA and NAMBLA isn't even running any successful ballot initiative campaigns anyway. OSC is a very active member of a very active organization that has been very successful at taking away gay people's basic civil rights. Maybe you didn't know that. Maybe now you do. If so, then the boycott has worked. Awareness has been raised.
I was a strong opponent of Proposition 8 here in California. When my wife and I got married we had someone read a section of the Massachusetts Court case that legalized gay marriage in that state, and we also donated money to gay marriage advocacy groups instead of having a gift registry. Despite my involvement in equal marriage rights, I still bought Shadow Complex. I had a lot of reservations about it. I still do. But I firmly believe in the marketplace of ideas and that the most intelligent arguments can be strengthened by having to publicly encounter disagreements. I wish I didn't have to give money to Orson Scott Card or in some way encourage his artistic clout by purchasing Shadow Complex. But on the other hand, the game's popularity has brought a lot of attention to some of his more reprehensible ideas, so maybe some good has come of it.
The hardcore middle aged gamers. Are trying to highlight a issue they deem to be worthy in cause/nature. Making noise that future generations will quibble with, in the future. Duh.
It also helps the cause of the industry. Too get to know personalities behind their scripts / games. Only furthering the industry to the point of making a point/counterpoint with their games. When they aspire to grow up in a culture of videogame design / industry.
Taking names & kicking ass on the digital battlefront. That is XBL or PSN & the Interwebs. While living their lives day to day in the world we share or deem ours for the taking.
Your comment on Jim's post about this matter was one of the ones that made me stand up and say, "YES. End of thread." I'm really happy to see you expand your thoughts here.
Personally, I experienced the dilemma associated with buying the game and giving Card even the tiniest bit of my money, but eventually gave in and did it anyway. I still have a glimmer of worry that the small amount of money may be used in harmful ways, but at the same time, I'm really happy all this happened. There is so much awareness in the air right now that it's great for the cause opposing Card's. Not to mention that the whole thing is swaying many people to donate to the HRC.
I am against Card and what he could possibly do with the money he gets, but honestly, what makes me really angry are all the people who have been badmouthing the boycotters because there's no anti-gay content in the actual game. Things like boycotting Left4Dead 2 are completely silly, but there is an entirely reasonable explanation behind this one: they just don't want to give money to the chair of a well known anti-gay organization. Why some people can't understand this, I'll never know, but I must thank you for doing so.
But as you pointed out, how do I know that someone that works on Left 4 Dead 2 or Bioshcok 2 isn't a homophobe? Or a racist? Or some kind of bigot. I don't, but if it did it would definitely affect my purchase to buy a game, but that is my choice as an informed consumer.
Card's views are a little bit alarming, but as for a boycott...if we look at the big picture, what is he getting in royalties? Pennies? Half the price? A dollar for every purchase? Besides feeling good about denying an obvious homophobe some unknown monetary amount, is he even going to care about a minority of gamers boycotting this game? He is still going to get a check in the mail every so often. The checks won't state what he missed out because a group of people refuse to buy the game based on his work.
I don't want to go into what I feel the boycotters should do instead of denying themselves what could be one of the best XBLA games release...if they feel they made a difference, good for them.
I do have to say that this comment from Card disturbed me:
They [gay people getting married] steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won’t be married. They’ll just be playing dress-up in their parents’ clothes.
I have two gay friends that are living together. They want desperately to be able to prove legally that they love and care for each other. Letting them get married isn't taking anything from me, a married heterosexual. They aren't going to get married and then go burn down a church or demand that all men should marry other men. So I don't understand how someone could say something like this, actively wanting to deny their fellow human the rights that they are able to enjoy.
Well, in the section 'Why Do People Boycott?' I pointed out it isn't necessarily to harm someone or cut away their profits - it's because they have a choice about where their own money goes and they have decided that none of it will get to him, no matter how small an amount it may be, and it's to highlight the issue to people. So it really doesn't matter whether OSC is aware in any way or not, nor whether he cares - that's not the point.
What he does with the money after I purchase the game is none of my business. I spent 15 dollars on a very fun game with very good replay value from a possible homophobe. I dont care..at all. I could buy a 60 dollar game from a crackhead and if he goes and buys more drugs I am not bothered a bit. And this is all based on a guess of what the money would go to, not fact.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I'll play Shadow Complex and Orson Scott Card, good or bad, won't ever cross my mind. If he uses the money I'll give him from buying the game to further an anti-homosexual agenda, that's unfortunate, but then again it's also his prerogative. At that point it's up to me and everyone else to be smarter than the agenda and see through the bullshit. But I refuse to let politics and/or ideologies get between myself and enjoying a form of entertainment.
First of all explain to me how boycotting is hypocritical, in light of what I have said?
Secondly - to use your example what if he WAS a neo-nazi, and what if he spent a lot of time and money on anti-semitic political campaigns (just as OSC does in the case of gay rights). Would you want him to have your money then? Maybe you'd be okay with it, but surely you could understand if someone wasn't okay with it, whether or not the game has anything to do with it or not
"STFUAJPG"
Thank you for demonstrating exactly the sort of inane trivialisation of the issue that I was arguing against.
I'm a bisexual male. I know lesbians and gays, I defend the LGBT community vigorously hear in rural, buttfuck nowhere Maryland, and I will be enjoying Shadow Complex next week after payday and I encourage others to do the same as it's a great game. As far as Mr. Card's involvement goes that's where the issue you didn't touch, the artist and the art, comes into play. As far as I can tell this isn't even Card's baby really. It's Chair, the develop.
And you know if Mr. Card work hard and does a damn good job at whatever his job is I am more than happy to support. I consider it a joke on him that I'm enjoying his work.
but i do have to admit that certain things will personally affect me, and incline my personal consumer-habits, as you stated. i had been getting interested in Shadow Complex, but hearing this... has turned me against getting it. particularly when you mentioned he was actually part of an anti-gay marriage organization. i'm not judging those who buy it - my brother did (though after we found out about Card's homophobia - there's no other honest way to describe his views other than "homophobia."). but i've lost interest.
i read Ender's Game when i was a teenager, and read much of the rest of the sequels, which i have rather fond memories of. finding out he has such hateful views about homosexuality is mortifying to me - it may not be totally rational, but i actually feel *betrayed* by him to discover this.
i'm even more startled, considering how he makes such an issue in Ender's Game about parents' rights to have multiple children - for anyone who hasnt read, the Earth of Ender's Game restricts parents to having only two children (iirc). Card depicts this as a great and depressing crime, a horrible decision by an authoritarian power, yet the man cannot accept - and actively campaigns against! - the harmless marriage of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. perhaps he simply despises childless marriages? somehow i doubt this.
I am aware that OSC will be getting royalties from my money. But my money is also going to the hard working folks at Chair. They put all those hours to make a great game and I want to support them. Only a small precentile is going to OSC's royalties. The rest of all our money is going to Microsoft and Chair.
BTW @Reverend Macro
Chair didn't make Advent Rising. GlyphX did.
you can call it inane or whatever you like, but just because we didn't write a thousand word essay on the subject doesn't mean our opinions don't matter. frankly it doesn't require much writing to communicate that this is a non issue, and definitely not a new or unique one.
Although as I said I'm not boycotting, I can directly relate to your experience. I also read and loved Ender's Game - I actually finished it in one long sitting ending at 6am. I liked it so much that when I woke up in the afternoon, I immediately looked the author up to find out more about him - and was confronted with that Salon article I linked to. I was sure that if he can write such great stuff he must be a pretty good guy (I've generally found that to be true with other authors I like). So it was like being punched in the face.
@Xyzliac -
Maybe you don't disagree with as much as what I'm saying as you think. While you disagree with a boycott (for different reasons to the reasons why I am not boycotting), you seem at least to agree with my basic point which is what I really wanted to get across, which is that this is not a simple issue, and it's not 'obvious' that boycotting is a stupid idea.
In all seriousness, I don't care much for OSC's personality... but I love Ender's Game. It's a fantastic sci-fi novel.
It is so easy to boycott films, books and games, but how many times you really act against people you really know? That is when it matters. Either way, the game, as far as I know, doesn't talk bad about homosexuals, and there is nothing more useless than aiming at the wrong target.
/sarcasm
Yes, you're right. People who first brought up the idea were just pretending that it was an issue they cared about, and then I thought I would pretend to be interested in Jim's response, then I pretended that I thought it was important to reply to some of the comments people had made on it. Then I spent a few hours putting effort into this article which I don't really care about, and the majority of people responding have pretended to find my arguments interesting.
Why don't you just pretend to shut the hell up?
I do want to discuss this issue of seperation of art from artist because I think it's a really complicated thing... it's one of those philosophical issues that gets more and more thorny the more you get into it. I tried to summarise my views but even that made the post too long. That's really the reason why I barely touched on it here and focused on the other issues surrounding the boycott question.
I know it sounds like I'm dodging it but I don't think I can have a good discussion about this in blog comment form. However we are planning on talking about it in more detail on the next Pondercast (that's a podcast that I do with dtoid contributor Ben Perlee and community member Nishant Dave, and can be found at this page.), where I'll try to make my basic opinions about this known.
Perhaps. Maybe I'm just fiendin' for a fight. :P
What I didn't mention was this was a well written piece. Congrats.
Would you mind saying that louder so that all the people who have fought over the years for equal civil liberties for ethnic minorities and women can hear?
@SurplusGamer
Very well written. It may not have changed my mind on the issue, but your points were well established, with sound rationale, and were well worth the time it took to read them. You've earned your homepage spot, man.
Exactly, exactly, exactly.
I have to agree that this was a well-written, intelligent perspective of that side of the debate. But, my opinion remains that it is silly to boycott Shadow Complex. Not that you can't, I mean, if you want to protest in that form, more power to you. Your voice has been heard, and the movement has certainly gained momentum because of it. I have to agree though, SC is a very strange target to be attacking for this issue, and it almost seems like somebody is trying to stir up trouble where there isn't any. The question to me isn't whether people should boycott it, but whether there are more effective mediums to be boycotting/expressing concern with. I realize point 3 in the article addressed this, but still, most of the people leading this boycott are very well educated on OSC's activities. I can't help but feel the debate is just being dragged on top of SC because somebody felt blood thirsty or something.
Interesting points. The way I see it, the fine people at Chair who made this game haven't been harmed by the boycott any more than OSC has (which, of course, is not the point of the boycott). So while I can certainly sympathise with your concern that SC, a great game, is being dragged out in front of the firing squad unjustly, there's no question that the game or the people who made it will suffer in any way.
But in the mean time some loud voices have spoken and more people are in a more informed and aware position than they were before, as a result.