![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jadedmusingsI knew Orson Scott Card was homophobic, that's not really news to anyone who has spent any length of time online. However, what did come as something of a shock was learning he had re-written Hamlet as a novella, which on its own isn't anything to get up in arms about. After all, I'm a huge fan of Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, but Stoppard only tried to give us a humorous insight into two of the minor characters of Shakespeare's great tragedy. Card turned Hamlet's father into a gay pedophile.
Yeah.
From William Alexander's review of Hamlet's Father:
And that is just the cherry on this particular shit sundae. Subterranean Press, after receiving a multitude of complaints, released a statement and essentially said, "Well, it's shocking this didn't cause such controversy the first time it was published." To that I say, bullshit. By virtue of gaining a wider audience, it was discovered whereas before it might have slipped under the radar by being part of an anthology, or by being printed for audiences more liable to parrot Card's belief of homosexuality as a Big Evil.
I'm only surprised he used a work of Shakespeare, who many theorize was either gay or bisexual, as his particular foil.
A good round up of links can be found the unfunnybusiness community on Journal Fen, including an article from the Guardian.
P.S.: Free speech arguments stop here. Yes, Card can say whatever the hell he wants, but that doesn't mean he's safe from thousands of people calling him out for being an asshole. He's not being arrested for his statements; he is being taken to task. There's a huge difference and if you can't see it, please spare me and others who read this your cluelessness.
Yeah.
From William Alexander's review of Hamlet's Father:
Here's the punch line: Old King Hamlet was an inadequate king because he was gay, an evil person because he was gay, and, ultimately, a demonic and ghostly father of lies who convinces young Hamlet to exact imaginary revenge on innocent people. The old king was actually murdered by Horatio, in revenge for molesting him as a young boy—along with Laertes, and Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern, thereby turning all of them gay. We learn that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are now "as fusty and peculiar as an old married couple. I pity the woman who tries to wed her way into that house."
Hamlet is damned for all the needless death he inflicts, and Dead Gay Dad will now do gay things to him for the rest of eternity: "Welcome to Hell, my beautiful son. At last we'll be together as I always longed for us to be."
And that is just the cherry on this particular shit sundae. Subterranean Press, after receiving a multitude of complaints, released a statement and essentially said, "Well, it's shocking this didn't cause such controversy the first time it was published." To that I say, bullshit. By virtue of gaining a wider audience, it was discovered whereas before it might have slipped under the radar by being part of an anthology, or by being printed for audiences more liable to parrot Card's belief of homosexuality as a Big Evil.
I'm only surprised he used a work of Shakespeare, who many theorize was either gay or bisexual, as his particular foil.
A good round up of links can be found the unfunnybusiness community on Journal Fen, including an article from the Guardian.
P.S.: Free speech arguments stop here. Yes, Card can say whatever the hell he wants, but that doesn't mean he's safe from thousands of people calling him out for being an asshole. He's not being arrested for his statements; he is being taken to task. There's a huge difference and if you can't see it, please spare me and others who read this your cluelessness.
