7 Rated Books Book Reviews

Book Review: The Lost Gate by Orson Scott Card

Title: The Lost Gate

Author: Orson Scott Card

Genre: Fantasy

Publisher: Tor
Publication Date: January 2011
Hardcover: 384 Pages

Danny North knew from early childhood that his family was different, and that he was different from them. While his cousins were learning how to create the things that commoners called fairies, ghosts, golems, trolls, werewolves, and other such miracles that were the heritage of the North family, Danny worried that he would never show a talent, never form an outself.

He grew up in the rambling old house, filled with dozens of cousins, and aunts and uncles, all ruled by his father. Their home was isolated in the mountains of western Virginia, far from town, far from schools, far from other people.

There are many secrets in the House, and many rules that Danny must follow. There is a secret library with only a few dozen books, and none of them in English — but Danny and his cousins are expected to become fluent in the language of the books. While Danny’s cousins are free to create magic whenever they like, they must never do it where outsiders might see.

Unfortunately, there are some secrets kept from Danny as well. And that will lead to disaster for the North family.

Stand alone or series: Book 1 of the Mither Mages series

How did I get this book: Review Copy from the publisher

Why did I read this book: Orson Scott Card (despite his repulsive personal views) is a great SFF author, and Ender’s Game (and the Ender saga of books) is an undeniable classic.1 When The Lost Gate was announced last year, a book that was thirty years in the making, I was eager to get a copy for review.

Review:

Scattered and hidden in the regular, mundane human world are isolated Families, made of powerful mages known throughout history as Gods. Danny North, of the North Family, has always struggled with his own standing as the son of the current Odin and the powerful lightmage Gerd – for despite his powerful and near-royal parents, by his thirteenth year Danny has yet to show any magical ability besides an affinity for languages, speed and dexterity. Teased by his cousins and ignored by his parents and elders, Danny is seen as a drekka (or powerless mage), just barely better than the drowthers, or humans. But one day, Danny realizes that his power is the most dangerous and frightening of them all: Danny is a Gatemage. A magic worker that can create, manipulate and open portals (or gates) anywhere he can imagine, Danny’s type of power is forbidden by all the Families, and should anyone learn his power, he will be ruthlessly killed. Centuries earlier, Loki the great trickster closed all the gates on Mittlegard (Earth), including the Great Gate to the gods’ homeland of Westil. Cut off from their home and source of power, each mage family has grown weaker over the years – but should a gatemage powerful enough to open a Great Gate to Westil ever be born, his portal could rejuvenate the ailing power of whomever passes through it. When a visiting Great Family (the Greeks) come to the North Family’s isolated Virginia compound, Danny’s secret power is discovered. Hunted by his own family, Danny flees Virginia and strikes out on his own. He must learn to master his newfound power and to open a Great Gate of his own, before he can be killed by his kin.

While Danny searches for help with his abilities and staying (mostly) out of trouble, his story is alternated with that of another young powerful gatemage named Wad, who slips into the court intrigues at the great palace in the kingdom of Iceway. Careful to keep his abilities secret for all gatemages are killed upon discovery, Wad spies on all the courtiers, thwarts an assassination, falls in love, and is harshly betrayed. Wad’s fate and Danny’s fate are closely twined, and as Danny tries to search for his own answers, so too does Wad – who cannot remember his own past, or why he is the man he has become.

At first glance (and after writing this brief, incomplete synopsis), The Lost Gate is a bit schizophrenic. One part contemporary/urban fantasy, one part young adult paranormal, and one part traditional high fantasy, The Lost Gate attempts to be many things at the same time – and for the most part, it succeeds (albeit certain facets of the story are more effective than others). The main story following young Danny as he makes his way in the world without his family and comes into his own powers is well paced and engaging, made all the worthwhile because of Danny’s believable voice as a precocious young man with a lot of power at his disposal, and an affinity for pranks. There are many times when Danny is tempted into using his considerable powers for unseemly means (robbing homes, stealing books, and, of course, playing elaborate tricks), but Danny also proves himself as a trustworthy and loyal friend, endearing him to readers (plus, he’s a complete wiseass, too, which makes for fun reading). Despite Danny’s strength as a protagonist, however, I found myself more enthralled with Wad’s ancillary storyline in the palace of Iceway, preferring his much more traditional fantasy style storytelling to the occasionally flat teenage foibles of Danny’s tale. That said, I loved the way the two storylines overlap and eventually converge – hopefully Wad’s story will play a larger role in the next book.

Of course, the biggest selling point for me with The Lost Gate was with the new world(s) and magical systems that Orson Scott Card has created. Although the integration of mythological gods (Norse, Greek, or otherwise) isn’t exactly a novel concept, how each mage comes into and wields their power is fantastic stuff and wonderfully detailed. The different types of mages and the hierarchy of power, the concept of creating gates, the spacetime and physical manipulation of these portals, and managing one’s “outself” are all intriguing, imaginative concepts. The best part is, since Danny is the first gatemage in over a thousand years, there is little knowledge about anything these mages are truly capable of – so Danny’s frustration with his inability to control certain aspects of his power, and his revelations when he is able to control his magic is a constant, genuine struggle.

Despite some slow moving parts (the beginning of the book isn’t nearly as strong as the book’s second half, and there is one particularly cringeworthy section about America and Democracy and Worshiping Ideas), I found myself thoroughly engrossed by the culminating scene of The Lost Gate and I cannot wait for the next book. Recommended for both young and adult readers alike, especially those looking for a new taste of contemporary fantasy.

Notable Quotes/Parts: From Chapter 1:

Danny North grew up surrounded by fairies, ghosts, talking animals, living stones, walking trees, and gods who called up wind and brought down rain, made fire from air and drew iron out of the depths of the earth as easily as ordinary people might draw up water from a well.

The North family lived on a compound in a sheltered valley in western Virginia, and most of them never went to town, for it was a matter of some shame that gods should now be forced to buy supplies and sell crops just like common people. The Family had spliced and intertwined so often over the centuries that almost all adults except one’s own parents were called Aunt and Uncle, and all the children were lumped together as “the cousins.”

To the dozens and dozens of North cousins, “town” was a distant thing, like “ocean” and “space” and “government.” What did they care about such things, except that during school hours, Auntie Tweng or Auntie Uck would rap them on the head with a thimbled finger if they didn’t come up with the right answers?

School was something the children endured in the mornings, so they could spend the afternoons learning how to create the things that commoners called fairies, ghosts, golems, trolls, werewolves, and other such miracles that were the heritage of the North family.

It was their heritage, but not every child inherited. Great-uncle Zog was notorious for muttering, “The blood’s too thin, the blood’s too thin,” because it was his considered opinion that the Norths had grown weak in the thirteen and a half centuries since the Evil One closed the gates. “Why else do we have so many weaklings who can’t send their outself more than a hundred yards?” he said once. “Why else do we have so few children who can raise a clant out of anything sturdier than pollen and dust, or heartbind with one of their clan? Why do we have these miserable drekkas like Danny in every generation? Putting them in Hammernip Hill hasn’t made us stronger. Nothing makes us stronger.”

Danny heard this when he was eleven, when it wasn’t a sure thing yet that he was a drekka. Plenty of children didn’t show any talent till they were in their teens. Or so Mama said, reassuring him; but from Great-uncle Zog’s words Danny began to doubt her. How could it be “plenty” of children who showed no talent when Danny was now the only child in the Family over the age of nine who couldn’t even figure out whether he had an outself, let alone send it out to explore. When the other kids used their outselves to spy on Danny’s school papers and copy them, he couldn’t even detect that they were there, let alone stop them.

You can read the first two chapters, along with a note from the editor, if you register at Tor.com (it’s free and easy and definitely worth it!).

Additional Thoughts: Many reviewers have cited young adult novel Jumper by Stephen Gould as a similar book to The Lost Gate. I have, unfortunately, only seen the terrible movie with Hayden Christensen, that guy from Billy Elliot, and Sam Jackson – but if you’re looking for more teleportation types of books, you could give Jumper a try. And hey look, a blurb from Orson Scott Card!

Also, The Lost Gate has a book trailer! Check it out (warning: it’s a bit cheesy and I have no idea what the skyline of downtown LA is doing in the middle of it).

Rating: 7 – Very Good

Reading Next: Black Hole Sun by David Macinnis Gill

  1. Let me make it clear that I completely disagree with Mr. Card’s bigoted and ludicrous views concerning homosexuality. But, as long as these opinions (however unpalatable) are not present in his books, I cannot hold them against his fictional work.

You Might Also Like

25 Comments

  • Ceilidh
    January 12, 2011 at 5:00 am

    After finding out just how much money OSC donated to pro-Proposition 8 groups and hearing him call for armed revolution if the US government ever legalised gay marriage, I can’t physically allow myself to give this many any more money or acknowledgement. Sometimes I can look past an author’s spotty personal life and beliefs but when the man takes the money he earns to donate to something as heinous as anti-LGBT rights groups, I just can’t do it and frankly don’t want to.

  • Hannah
    January 12, 2011 at 6:09 am

    Pretty much what Celidh said – some things I can deal with and look past a creator’s personal life to appreciate their creations. (Like Stephen Moffat’s unfortunate habit of spouting misogynistic crap but making fabulous TV – I just pretend his interviews don’t exist in my brain.) But I just can’t get past the rampant and horrific homophobia, and the ridiculous amount of support he gave to Prop 8. No more OSC books for me!

    I am glad that you enjoyed it though, and that you are open-minded enough to be able to review his books in an un-biased fashion. I do not think I’d have been able to do it so props to you. 🙂

  • Tweets that mention The Book Smugglers » Blog Archive » Book Review: The Lost Gate by Orson Scott Card -- Topsy.com
    January 12, 2011 at 8:08 am

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by The Book Smugglers. The Book Smugglers said: Book Review: The Lost Gate by Orson Scott Card http://tinyurl.com/5rkc2ka […]

  • April (Books&Wine)
    January 12, 2011 at 8:32 am

    I’m with Ceilidh and Hannah on this one. I don’t particularly care to support OSC with my money. Although, I did review Pathfinder, however, I found that my review was unfortunately colored by my bias. So, I’m actually very impressed that you are able to review this without letting your thoughts on his personal views affect your thoughts of The Lost Gate.

  • Kate @ Candlemark
    January 12, 2011 at 9:11 am

    I agree with you about OSC. On the one hand, I don’t want to support him with my money. On the other hand, he writes BRILLIANT fiction, and so long as he keeps his creepy and misinformed views out of my tasty sf/f, I do, in fact, want to read what he writes.

    It’s a quandary, but one I’ll likely end by reading this book.

  • Meredith
    January 12, 2011 at 9:50 am

    Mostly echoing what a lot of the previous comments said, but I loved OSC when I was growing up but when I found out about his personal beliefs, I was so disappointed and let down. It’s hard for me to read his work now knowing what I know. I am very impressed you did your best to not let your personal feelings about him get in the way of your review.

  • Thea
    January 12, 2011 at 10:27 am

    Hi everyone and thanks for the thought-provoking comments.

    It’s a touchy topic, and one that Ana and I have discussed at length before, the need to separate a review of a book from a personal review of an author. I completely, truly, 100% agree with all the sentiments expressed here in the comments concerning Orson Scott Card and his personal beliefs. As a Californian that has voted against, petitioned against, and donated money against Prop 8, believe me, this hits very close to home.

    However, it would be hypocritical for me to let an author’s personal beliefs color my interpretation of their book (provided that the book does not try to assert those beliefs).

    I do understand the monetary argument, though, especially in light of the author’s donations. Had I not received a review copy of this book, I probably would have passed on purchasing it.

    But the matter at hand is the ability to separate an author from a book – I think that’s a big part of being a reviewer. Just because I like an author’s personality does not mean I will like their books, and just because I loathe an author’s personal beliefs (or personality), it does not mean that their books are reflective of those beliefs. Last year there was a big brouhaha here about Jackson Pearce’s Sisters Red, and how the themes in the book supported rape culture. That’s not to say that the AUTHOR was a proponent of rape culture; the book was. I just want to make sure there is a distinction.

    And all that said, at the end of the day, this book is really good, and stands on its own merit.

  • Paz Darling
    January 12, 2011 at 11:55 am

    I for one will continue to read OSC. I feel that if he can keep his opinions and views out of his fiction, then I can keep mine while reading his stories. After all, I am not asking him for his political opinion or personal beliefs. He is not my guru. He’s a storyteller. And a good one. ( Though I do understand how that could be a point of contention for some.)

  • TopherGL
    January 12, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    A lot of really great authors with fantastic books have beat their wives and held repugnant views on race, gender, etc.

    I’m gay and loved every second of Ender’s Game.

    Of course, I borrowed the book from someone who had an old copy. I’ll probably borrow the book you’ve reviewed from my local library and most likely enjoy it.

    After four years at a private Christian school, I’ve learned to just hope that people change and try to enjoy the parts of them that aren’t grossly offensive. Terrible people or good people with terrible views and actions can still do some extraordinary stuff.

  • Anonymous
    January 12, 2011 at 12:38 pm

    Hi. I have commented here before, but I wanted to do this in stealth mode, and hope you’ll forgive the cowardice.

    My biggest problem with Card is that a substantial portion of his fiction is not so thinly veiled Mormonism.

    Example One: Orson Scott Card’s Homecoming Saga is an explicit retelling of the Book of Mormon.

    Example Two: Orson Scott Card’s Alvin Maker series is an explicit retelling of the founding of the Mormon church, with Alvin Maker cast as Joseph Smith. It’s a retelling that explicitly parallels much of the founding of the church.

    The one place the parallel diverges is that the Mormon church at its inception explicitly declared that blacks were unable to hold the highest offices.

    It’s impossible for me to read Orson Scott Card, not just because he is an intolerant asshole, but because I know that he has explicitly put his beliefs in his fiction before and I don’t doubt he’ll do it again. He’s written some damned fine novels, no doubt, and I’ve read many of them. He used to be one of my favorite authors.

    But once I started realizing how much he was slipping into his books, I couldn’t continue reading them.

    All of this, by the way, I found out when I read his site–it’s not conspiracy theory.

    See analysis he has published on his site:

    http://www.hatrack.com/cgi-bin/print_friendly.cgi?page=/research/student-papers/logan-mallory.shtml

    and

    http://www.hatrack.com/research/student-papers/alma-jean-porschet.shtml

    And could go on and on and on. He ISN’T keeping his views out of his fiction, and that’s why I can’t read him any longer. It utterly ruined the reading experience for me.

  • Adrienne
    January 12, 2011 at 4:47 pm

    the synopsis gave me a headache 🙄 . Though I always wanted to read his books, I find myself so hesitant to read them because of his views. I rather give my hard earned cash to an author that doesn’t post negative comments about people he knows nothing about.

  • Dr Tuka
    January 12, 2011 at 5:22 pm

    Following Anonymous’s logic you should not read Roger Zelazny’s Lord of Light, John Steinbeck’s East of Eden, C.S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia, or a host of other stories that are re-imagined myths and stories borrowed from religions simply because of their original sources.

    Just because an author “slips” in elements from religious sources, or even blatantly and overtly uses complete plots from texts some consider sacred or divine, does not mean stories that they are trying to convert you or subvert your own beliefs.

    I don’t find OSC’s works nearly as preachy as many other authors, including many of those who have become disaffected with the faith of their childhood and use their stories to overtly and covertly rail against those who still believe.

    I read stories with characters and plots I dislike, disagree and at times find repugnant, but by reading these stories I am not forced to think like them, or like the author (if that is truly what he/she believes). They are characters in a work of fiction, no matter how closely it draws from other stories, and I am able to control my own behavior and perspective.

    Reading stories I don’t agree with forces me to re-examine and sharpen or adjust my own beliefs.

    If we really knew every author we read, we could probably find something in their actions or beliefs that we would not agree with, possibly to the extent that we would not want to associate ourselves with them, but that would probably not undermine the true quality of their work.

    As has been said by others here, we should be able to enjoy well told stories for the sake of the story.

  • Isabeleeta
    January 12, 2011 at 7:39 pm

    I think that most of us know where we stand on gay marriage, so I’m not too bothered by the fact that my favorite sci-fi author has taken on this stance. Sure, it bothers me, but like you said, as long as he’s not trying to evangelize his readers with his views, I’m happy. I think he is one of those rare story tellers and certainly my favorite sci-fi author (tied with Octavia Butler). I have read mixed reviews on this book, still I won’t be deterred from reading it, because, let’s face it, Orson Scott Card is a consistent writer, whose work cannot be considered in any way fluff, repetitive, or needlessly long, as is the case with many fantasy/sci-fi works. His writing is some of the best and of the highest caliber in the genre.

  • Anon
    January 12, 2011 at 7:42 pm

    I actually have a different quibble with this post. I know a lot of people suffering from mental illness would find the use of “schizophrenic” problematic. Just wanted to mention that.

  • orannia
    January 12, 2011 at 9:57 pm

    Thank you Thea. I very, very rarely review, and I can’t imagine how hard it is to review a book when the author holds such opposing reviews to your own.

    Before reading this review I didn’t know Orson Scott Card had expressed an opinion on gay marriage (I’ve obviously been living in a box), but after reading the review I did some digging. Simply, I disagree with his stance. And that has me in a bit of a quandary as I do like the premise of the book. I checked and my local library has a copy. If I read it I won’t be buying a copy and I won’t even been suggesting it to them. If these views are not expressed in the book, then I think I might borrow it from my library…

    All of this has made me think though…about whether reading an author’s book is tacit agreement of his or her stances.

  • Isabeleeta
    January 12, 2011 at 10:25 pm

    @orannia: Of course not! I’ve read many books just because I wanted to know what the author had to say. Whether I agreed or disagreed was part of the experience of reading the book. It never meant that I bought into the author’s dogma, just because I enjoyed a book (well, almost never, :P). Part of the problem is many readers don’t read critically , and therefore, they experience no interaction with the author or the work. If an author’s work makes us think, agree or disagree, and have an opinion on the matter, that is literary criticism at work which allows us to add to the discourse and enrich the experience of reading all the more. I often find that the works have almost an independent spirit from the author. But at the same time I can understand your fear. Sometimes I do wonder if the books that we enjoy are surreptitiously trying to change our minds or persuade us to their view. Just like any good orator can rally masses, a literary work could do the same, right? But that’s inevitable in reading, and the more people read critically, the better they’ll be able to judge for themselves if they’ll be persuaded or not.

  • KMont
    January 13, 2011 at 6:26 am

    Anon – but the word schizophrenic CAN be used in that manner, outside of the medical definition. The word has two definitions. The way it’s used in this review is one of them.

  • mb
    January 13, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    Regardless of his views, I am mid-way through this book and not enjoying it much. I don’t like Danny as a person, and I’m not finding any of the other characters likeable either. As to the story and the mythology–well, we’ll see. I’m not blown away so far.

  • mb
    January 13, 2011 at 4:46 pm

    Regardless of Card’s views, I am mid-way through this book and not enjoying it much. I don’t like Danny as a person, and I’m not finding any of the other characters likeable either. There is WAY too much time spent on unfunny potty humor and a off-color question from a dad to his teenage daughter squicked me out. (I’m not a prude, but this is about all the ‘supposed’ humor shown so far.)

    As to the story and the mythology–well, we’ll see. I’m not blown away at this point.

    I feel kind of like I felt reading Lev Grossman’s “The Magicians”.

    BTW, I loved all of the Ender novels and the spin-offs. The rest of OSC’s work has underwhelmed me, although I think I’ve read most of it.

  • Bethany
    January 17, 2011 at 8:13 pm

    I’m with DrTuka on this one.

    Taking into account differing opinions, it’d be pretty easy to ban every book ever written. Who gets to create the standard of what worldviews and such are acceptable to represent?

    So it’s good to see a review based on quality rather than feelings about the author and/or philosophical disagreements.

    As a longtime reader of Hatrack, I’ve read OSC’s opinions many times, and it is impressive how many different ways they have been misinterpreted. There are many complicated reasons why a person might hold an opinion, and his are even more complicated than most.

    Anyway, I’m looking forward to checking out this book.

  • Bex
    March 5, 2011 at 11:10 am

    I have to agree with Dr. Tuka on this as well. Art is art, is has to be appreciated separately from the artist.

    @anonymous, would you have noticed those things in his fiction if he hadn’t pointed them out to you? Do you feel you were subtly brainwashed into becoming LDS? Of course not. He is inspired by the things in his life as all writers are, we don’t have to agree with them to enjoy the work for what it is.

    I felt CS Lewis’ work far more preachy, but It’s also imaginative and brilliant and I can over-look his personal beliefs where they slip through as just that, a part of the author who is giving his soul to the writing. It is his truth. And we are free to interpret it to our truths. That is why reading is just as creative an activity as writing is itself.

    The book by the way I found very interesting if you DO take his beliefs into account. He throws them out the window and talks about gods all being frauds. I thought it was brilliant.

    Appreciate beauty and art where you find it, if you look to find something you don’t agree with, something “wrong” with the person who created it, you will live a very disappointed life.

  • Persephone Green
    March 8, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    @Bethany: Could we PLEASE not use “book banning” as equivalent to disliking or (heaven forbid!) even boycotting someone’s fiction? Because that is not what book banning is.

    You need look no further than the BitchMedia controversy to learn that the hard way.

    Furthermore, Bex. Bethany, Dr. Tuka, you’re conflating several different situations into one problem:

    1. An author has opinions you find harmful. [Pick one.]
    2. An author has opinions you find harmful and INSERTS those opinions BLATANTLY / OVERTLY into her/his fiction. [Ayn Rand, C.S. Lewis, for some, etc.]
    3. An author has opinions you find harmful and INSERTS those opinions SUBTLY / COVERTLY into her/his fiction. [Stephenie Meyer]
    4. An author has opinions you find harmful and ACTIVELY CONTRIBUTES her/his income or time to (a) cause(s) promoting those views. [Jaid Black?]
    5. A combination of 2 and 4. [Dave Eddings, I think I read, not only wrote a really nasty piece of Islamophobic tripe as an epistle, but had ties to anti-Muslim Canadian politicians. I can’t find the link right now.]
    6. A combination of 3 and 4. [OSC]

    While Ayn Rand, C. S. Lewis, Stephenie Meyer, and Orson Scott Card all have/had opinions I disagree with, in the case of the two former, the messages were as subtle as a sledgehammer on a Sunday morning. (Let it be noted that my parents are not Christians but let me read C.S. Lewis anyway. Not so much with Ayn Rand.)

    It’s an exercise in America to find a fantasy/sci-fi/horror book that HASN’T been significantly shaped by the constant exposure to mainstream Protestantism and Catholicism. Still, I feel that the inherent value of the storytelling in Lewis’s work outweighs the Christian messages in it, no matter my personal feelings at the time. Ayn Rand’s stories were not only written to espouse her personal philosophy, but they were also shaped around that philosophy, so no matter how good people say she was as a writer, I can’t enjoy her books.

    If Stephenie Meyer were writing for adults and not teenage girls and marketed her stories as fantasy or horror as opposed to romance, or even a combination of the three, I would have no problem with them. Well, I would, but not to the degree that I do now, where I want to avoid giving her any more of my money and actively criticize her books. But were I still a teenager, reading them, I would have had limited exposure not only to modern feminism and womanism, I would have had very little social justice education at all. She might have made as big an impression on me as say, Marion Zimmer Bradley did when I was fifteen. (I am not comparing their writing in this example.) The Mormon ideology and the submissive, passive female ideal, coupled with the abusive stalker boyfriend being idealized, are problematic to me, and I recognize that now only as an educated adult.

    I’m sure there are just as many women who had better critical thinking skills even in their pleasure reading as a teenager, but I was your typical emotionally isolated, unrequited love story, insecure girl who wanted to escape from her real life and didn’t care how. When I read books, it was to find happy endings, not to dissect them. I just didn’t have the energy. All of my critical reasoning skills went into schoolwork and I was too exhausted to exhibit much logic outside of my homework. (This burnout contributed to a lot of problems, including a lack of “classical” reading repertoire in college and nasty habit of forming crushes on out of my league actors who always turned out to be nice, gay friends or straight assholes — pun intended — but I digress.)

    To be clear, reading for pure entertainment is fine. However, nothing exists in a cultural vacuum; words we read can and do shape us. Again, if I lack the skills to impartially assess the ideological underpinnings of a narrative, then it becomes necessary for others to try to do so for me. I wish we had had book blogs when I was younger.

    Yes, there is a big, big difference to me between authors who write great stories and HAPPEN to be conservative and authors who donate to bigoted causes like Prop. 8.

    I don’t think it’s wrong to remove or avoid harmful influences in one’s life or to refuse to aid them in their goals. There are degrees of offense here, and YMMV.

    To call proactive protection of one’s time and well-being “book banning” and “censorship” not only distorts the meanings of those phrases but lessens the seriousness of instances of actual suppression of free speech.

  • GLB
    February 10, 2014 at 3:16 pm

    So the consensus of these comments is, “Only read books by authors who agree with you in all respects and regurgitate your philosophies and your alone?” and conversely “ban” all books and authors who offend your stance on any issues? But then, that line of thought has sprung up once or twice in the past.

  • Toph
    February 10, 2014 at 3:51 pm

    GLB: You seem to have either not read or not comprehended the comments, or you’ve just deliberately misrepresented them to stir the pot or just like to feel contempt and righteous.

    Read the posts. Boycotting and banning are different, and that’s already been pointed out. The author is not just expressing views that are ignorant and damaging – he’s actively harming people by using the money from his work to fund groups that fight to further the discrimination and marginalization of a group of people.

    Go troll somewhere else. Or, better yet, go pick up a book and get working on that reading comprehension.

Leave a Reply