Ender's Game homophobia / homoeroticism

Jessy Randall

Like many people, I loved Orson Scott Card's novel Ender's Game, first published in 1977 and soon to be a major motion picture. It's the story of a remarkable boy manipulated by his government into using his talents and skills in a faraway war. I really want to go to the movie, but I really, really don't like the idea of supporting Card, who is anti-gay, in any way. So, what to do? I'm rereading the book, wary of a hidden anti-gay message. If I find one, I can't go to the movie.

So far, I have to laugh, because I'm finding -- big surprise? -- gay overtones throughout the book. Battle School is an almost-all-male world, and closeness between males is a comfort. It's like ancient Greece -- in more than one way.

When Ender must say goodbye to his friend Alai, the boys share an intimate moment (p. 51 in the 1991 edition): "Alai suddenly kissed Ender on the cheek and whispered in his ear, 'Salaam.' Then, red faced, he turned away and walked to his own bed at the back of the barracks. Ender guessed that the kiss and the word were somehow forbidden ... After such a thing nothing could be said. Alai reached his bed and turned around to see Ender. Their eyes held for only a moment, locked in understanding."

I'm not implying that Ender and Alai have a sexual relationship -- they don't -- but language like this seems loaded, to say the least. Similarly, here's Ender's reaction when he meets another boy, Bonzo Madrid (p. 55): "A boy stood there, tall and slender, with beautiful black eyes and slender lips that hinted at refinement. I would follow such beauty, said something inside Ender."

Oh, and did I mention the so-called "sleep-uniform" (p. 54)? "Skin from head to toe." The book takes place in a world where young boys (and a very few girls) sleep naked in communal bunk rooms. Fraught with contradiction much, Mr. Card? Presumably, the sleep-uniforms will not show up in the film.

Not only do they sleep naked in the book -- they jog, work out in the gym, and wrestle in their sleep-uniforms (p. 125 and p. 147). Ender and his friend Bean share a bed at one point (p. 140). For no reason I can fathom, part of the novel takes place on a small planet called Eros (first mention p. 173). On this planet, Ender's teacher tells him " 'In this school, it has always been the practice for a young student to be chosen by an older student. The two become companions, and the older boy teaches the younger one everything he knows. Always they fight, always they compete, always they are together' " (p. 185). The companions sleep in the same room, too, though in this case the teacher sleeps on the floor.

I'm not the first one to notice homoeroticism in Ender's Game. A quick Google search shows that many readers have noticed homoerotic overtones in the book. Librarian and writer Emily Lloyd articulates her mixed feelings about the book (similar to mine) in the online comic Shelf Check, here.

Scholars, too, have written on the topic. In 2009. James Campbell published "Kill the Bugger: Ender's Game and the Question of Heteronormativity" in Science Fiction Studies (Vol. 36, No. 3); he says "I read the Ender's series as being at odds, on matters of sexual identity and desire, with Card's public stance as a Mormon fundamentalist." 19 pages later, Campbell concludes: "Card’s fiction provides a more nuanced and tolerant response to homosexuality than his more direct social commentary ... [science fiction] allows people, both writers and readers, to say things they would never articulate without the mask of genre."

So maybe I can go to this movie after all.

 

Addendum, August 14, 2013: Here's a related article by Kate Bonin, "In the Bugger Tunnels of Planet Eros: Gay Sex and Death in the Science Fiction of Orson Scott Card," first published in the New York Review of Science Fiction, December 2002: http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/articles/Boninessay.htm

Comments

[Jessy Randall]

Small correction: in Ender's Shadow, a sequel to Ender's Game, Eros is a "wandering asteroid" rather than a planet.

[Jeffrmarks]

If it was just a matter of some homophobic statements, I think that there wouldn't be such a fuss about Card's statements. We've all heard the right wing and their talking points. However, Card has called for the overthrow of the US gov't if marriage equality is implemented. Not a temper tantrum, or a few harsh words, but the treasonous act of staging a coup because he doesn't like a group of people. I won't be seeing this film.

[J. Nelson Leith]

Boycotting a work of art (an adaptation, no less) because we don't like the views of the artist is like boycotting a wine because we don't like the architecture of the building where it was bottled.

Art has a nasty habit of transcending the views and conscious intentions of the artist; this is clearly the case in Ender's Game. To punish the art for the artist's failings is to misunderstand how art works and where its value comes from.

[Jessy Randall]

Hello, J. Nelson Leith -- I agree with you completely that we can and should separate art from artist when we look for meaning. But boycotting the film isn't about the quality or meaning of Ender's Game. It's about not putting money into Card's pockets.

[Jessy Randall]

Jeffrmarks, I agree that Card's statements on gay marriage are despicable and unforgivable. It's ironic, I think, that the characters in his books (in particular Peter, Valentine, Bean, and Ender himself) are so clever in their political strategies, yet Card himself is so ham-handed and ignorant when he writes about gay marriage. It almost makes one wonder if he's playing the fool deliberately, the way Valentine does in Ender's Game (under the thumb of Peter, whose stand-in here would be Mormonism).

[J. Nelson Leith]

If we boycott every story that puts money into the pockets of a bigot somehow, we would just have to close down every cinema and bookstore on the planet to be safe.

Or (which is what is happening in regard to Ender's Game) we cherry-pick which offenses we'll be offended by, and which person in the process counts. Do we boycott bigot authors only, or also bigot producers, directors, actors, composers, investors? And, how bigoted do they need to be before we boycott? Is the overt racism and classism in LOTR enough to boycott, or does it get a pass because the author is dead? Essentially it boils down to an absurd stunt: unavoidably employing bias in our alleged opposition to bias.

The only way to be genuine about opposing bias while not boycotting every film and book in existence is to judge the story itself for bias, not people who might profit from it.

[Jessy Randall]

Yes, as a Facebook friend put it: "I'm going. I don't care. It's like saying I'd never watch the Searchers because John Wayne is a jingoist right-winger, or I'd never watch The Swimmer because Burt Lancaster is a piece of shit gun nut. I loved Ender's Game. I'm going."

[Sammy]

Actually, many people do boycott works by producers, actors, directors, and so on, on just these grounds. It's actually not nearly as difficult as one would think, since there is no way that any human being could possibly watch every single movie, or read every single book, or listen to every single album that exists. We often have certain genres that we prefer, and there are so many works of art to enjoy that one is not really denying themselves anything just because they are selective about what they bring into their own lives based on their beliefs. There are so many choices, that being selective is normal, not an imposition, and its not like we are talking about avoiding Ender's Game because of prejudice against people based on their skin color, gender or sexuality. Not wanting to support those whom you believe to be doing damage to the world is not really a bad thing to use as a criteria. What doesn't help anyone is a fatalist attitude that suggests you should just give up and not care about whose work you are supporting because there's always going to be a hateful person somewhere who makes a dime off of you because it's too much work to know where your time and dollars are going. Operating on that theory what's the point of believing in anything if you're not willing to stand behind those beliefs?

For example; I don't listen to Buju Banton, or buy any of his albums because of his lyrics promoting the murder of gay people and his use of homophobic slurs. There is plenty of non-homophobic music to listen to, and better reggae, so I have no problem avoiding it. I don't buy products made by certain manufacturers or corporations (like Monsanto), and I do not starve or walk around naked. That is because there are choices beyond those provided by people I do not want to support. It is not necessary to boycott every work of art in existence in order to be genuine about your purpose in doing so.

It is true that sometimes a work can be considered independently of it's creator, but more often than not, the work bears traces of the creator's point of view. Either way, I doubt that my life will be impaired because I chose not to see Ender's Game The Movie. There are lots of other movies out there, thousands of them come out every year.

[ConcernedCitizen]

Card already got his money. So, boycotting this film really won't affect him much. However, in regards to what must (yes, MUST) not be condoned is hatered. This man condones hatred. That is pure and simple.
His religion condones it.
His writing condones it.
He condones it.
And yes the story is the bias of man who condones hatred.
The story is the man or women who creates it.
They are not separate. They are part and parcel.