So... you guys have probably seen this. Well, I don't want to turn this into some grand political debate, but let's just say that I vehemently disagree with Orson Scott Card on this issue and many others. More than that, he subscribes to a world view that is so different from my own that it's hard for me to accept that he's not being satirical. I think his stances on homosexuality, family, and women are just downright wrong. That's my opinion. I respect his right to believe and say as he pleases, and I respect the opinions of those who disagree with me.
But I've granted Card a hell of a lot more than respect over the years. As a kid, the Ender series were among my favorite books. They spoke to me in a way that other fiction did not. It was a huge part of my adolescence, and, in many ways, those books got me into sci-fi, which got me into other geek stuff, which eventually got me into comics. I owe a lot to my love of Card's work.
I guess I don't really have a point here. I mean, it's not like I didn't know he felt this way, but to see it out there, so unequivocally, and in such an over-the-top tirade... it just has me wondering... as consumers of art, how obligated are we to evaluate the art on its own merits, regardless of the character of the artist? More importantly, is there a reverse obligation? One that requires us to consider who benefits when purchasing a piece or body of work?
Card is not the only example out there, I'm sure. So, second printers, I ask you... how do you reconcile the art with the artist?