This is from the infamous essay "hypocrites of homosexuality"

. 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.

In so many words, Scott Card is saying that random enforcement of anti-sodomy laws is useful for keeping gay people in their place. He's trying to have his bigotry and deny it: I don't really want individual homosexuals prosecuted, but I do want them to be afraid of being prosecuted all the time.

What other giants of SF literature can we trample under our feet this irritating Monday afternoon?

Anne Shirley's quest for puffed sleeves was a metaphor for L.M. Montgomery's quest for a giant penis.

Discuss.

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

Pardon my ignorance, but, was there ever a law designed to be applied discriminately, that didn't get kicked in the pants by the Supreme Court? Another for the annals of Opened Yap Before Engaging Logic.

I'll agree with the broader proposal on the table, that Asimov was bad at characterization period, although I'll add the corollary that, because he attempted women so rarely, at least we didn't get that many insulting female characters from him.

Anne Shirley's quest for puffed sleeves was a metaphor for L.M. Montgomery's quest for a giant penis.

Discuss.

Snerk.

Pardon my ignorance, but, was there ever a law designed to be applied discriminately, that didn't get kicked in the pants by the Supreme Court?

It's an open invitation to arbitrary and capricious behavior. Which is one of THE big no-nos for government action.

I actually met Card about 20 years ago (when Ender's Game was winning every award in sight and then some) at a con or two. Can't say the experience was particularly memorable. Though at a late-night bull session, he won the "award" for Person Who Lived Furthest From His Birthplace.

I'll agree with the broader proposal on the table, that Asimov was bad at characterization period, although I'll add the corollary that, because he attempted women so rarely, at least we didn't get that many insulting female characters from him.

Yeah, Asimov wasn't so good at characterization. Or plot, for that matter. Or action. Really, he was good at ideas. Startlingly, amazingly good at ideas, and lots of them. He never met an idea he didn't turn into a story, although I think perhaps he should have, just because maybe if he'd taken a little more time, he would have done some marvelous things.

All this is, of course, repudiated by the Lije Bailey novels, which, as I recall, were actually pretty good at characterization, plot, and action. So maybe he just never really bothered TRYING.

This interests me because I'm trying to learn how to make a political statement when I write without beating people with it.

The best advice I ever got on this was to be sure to throw as many rocks at what you believe with as much force as you can muster, and see what remains standing at the end.

IOW, the instant you take what you believe for granted, the more likely you are to produce propaganda rather than something that comes out of deeply-held belief.

The best advice I ever got on this was to be sure to throw as many rocks at what you believe with as much force as you can muster, and see what remains standing at the end.

Shaw, my favorite in this area, always gave the side he opposed really good spokespeople. Brecht who slipped into straight propaganda more than Shaw did, (I'm leaving aside Shaw's non-fiction which of course WAS pure propaganda) was at his best when he undermined his message. His view of Galileo was to consider him a coward, but there has never been a presentation of the play that did not make him the hero. Mother Courage was intended to be the portrayal of a really awful person, but the audience or reader usually comes away saying "what a brave woman".

Not the only approach. Often a good way to explore ideas is to make sure none of the characters are ways to advance an idea or point of view, but let the world in which they live make the point. All fiction involves world building (IMO) not just fantasy, Sci-Fi or Specualative fiction. So let the world you build reflect the what you believe is the reality of how worlds work. Then make your characters real people, trying to get by in that world - not symbols or spokespersons, or caricatures.

Quick followup on the above - Michael Moorcock -- an intensely political writer, but it seldom show in his best writing, because there the politics is in his world building, not voiced by his characters.

Warning:Moorcock is one of the most prolific writers ever, and his output includes an immense amount of hackwork. You have to take the his best, not his worst or average.

So maybe he just never really bothered TRYING.

I have some dim memory of an essay by Asimov, wherein he said that, to him, characterization was the least important part of a story. So he may preferred putting the effort into building another story around another idea instead of working for more fully realized characters in something he felt was already done.