“Ender’s Game” is in theaters now. I really want to see it, but I haven’t had the time or the money to go to the movies. (Who wants to fund the Blackmans’ date night and provide child care for three easily-excited munchkins?)
It’s a movie about a young boy named Andrew “Ender” Wiggins, who is sent to Battle School. Battle School is in a space station, and the young students are being equipped to fight the coming second wave of an alien invasion. The idea is that if they start training at a young age, they will have the skills to defeat the enemy. They train with a variety of war games, some of which turn out to be more real than they suspect.
I loved the book by Orson Scott Card, which I actually didn’t read until I was well into my 20s. What’s striking about the book is how humanity rallies together in the face of an alien threat. Races, genders, nationalities, religions, etc. are all put aside to preserve humanity. Yet in the “Shadow Series” books that follow Ender’s companions after the events of Ender’s Game, humans go back to business as usual, squabbling over territories, religion, and commerce. Same as it ever was, right?
You would think that the author has this same all-accepting worldview, embracing tolerance of all stripes. The heroes in his novels come from various walks of life, bringing with them varied lifestyles and worldviews.
The media hasn’t portrayed him that way, since Card has made some rather bold statements that sound judgmental and homophobic. What’s really crazy about this is some of his novels’ heroes are homosexual. I can’t think of any that are Mormon, as he is. Granted, there have been religious themes throughout his books. The Homecoming series is very much a sci-fi retelling of Joseph. (Card has blogged some pretty out-there conspiracy theories. So who knows what he really thinks. I’ve never read his blog, so I couldn’t tell you.)
This controversy begs the question: can an artist be separated from his art? Can a writer be separate from his writings, especially when it comes to fiction? Or are the two inextricably linked? I listened to a podcast about this very topic recently, and it got me thinking.
How separate are the artist and his or her creations?
Your work is inevitably influenced by your worldview. Whether the two agree is something else entirely.I think this is because we are all fallible. Some of the greatest artists have struggled with some pretty severe addictions, to the point that that is now part of the artist’s mystique. There are many who expect artists to live a careless, hedonistic, bohemian lifestyle contrary to the rest of the world, since the rest of the world is too blind to “the truth.”
The other extreme is a monk-like lifestyle in perfect keeping with the ideas espoused in the work.
In reality, most artists are probably somewhere in the middle. We know we can’t be as perfect as our work. Besides, our work is endlessly edited to show something beautiful or ugly in an effort to expose some kind of truth.
And I think we often become obsessed with those things we have a difficult time achieving. That’s how you find ministers who condemn something or other who happen to struggle with the very thing they condemn. While it is shocking, it isn’t coincidental. We know what our flaws are and what we really should be doing.
So, I think the answer is yes and no. Yes, you can live a degenerate lifestyle and take advantage of people and be an awful person while creating the most beautiful music there ever was, or lead a very disciplined life and work hard at creating something in keeping with your values.
I think in the end there is a definite relationship between lifestyle and output, since one tries to either redeem or support the other. In the case of the former, the art is meant to be better than its creator. With the latter case, the art supports the creator’s views.
Recommended reading: ‘Ender’s Game,’ its controversial author, and a very personal history