guardians_song (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
guardians_song) wrote2013-08-28 08:58 pm
guardians_song) wrote2013-08-28 08:58 pm
Entry tags:
So, what did I think of "Hamlet's Father"?
In a word: UGH.
In an action: *dry sobbing*
In a question: WHY?!
So I analyzed the story to see what it would take to make me care about it. "Hamlet's Father" is what I came up with.
*throws up hands*
For absolutely no reason, we are told that Hamlet surpasses the best of fighters with ease, and that his intellect is marvelous. We spend pages upon pages on this, with no character development corrupting the purity of this lavishing of authorial praise. This serves the plot not at all. So why did that happen?
So I analyzed the story to see what it would take to make me care about it. "Hamlet's Father" is what I came up with.
Now, Hamlet/Ophelia is treated as nonexistent. Indeed, a woman "is much like a pudding". Furthermore, Hamlet is disgusted at the thought of his mother having thoughts and desires of her own. Now, one could argue as to Hamlet's misogyny in the original play, but, if present, why is it left intact when Card so merrily shrugs off canon in other areas?
So I analyzed the story to see what it would take to make me care about it. "Hamlet's Father" is what I came up with.
Why in blazes is so much of the Denmark-based part of the story devoted to indirectly talking about Hamlet's father's rape of several boys starting at a young age and possibly continuing through adolescence (until one of them kills him, at any rate)?
So I analyzed the story to see what it would take to make me care about it. "Hamlet's Father" is what I came up with.
Why is Hamlet's character altered into this pious, pompous snot who JUST WANTS TO GO INTOSPACE THE MONASTIC LIFE!111! ?
I have little interest in a dithering hero [...] So I analyzed the story to see what it would take to make me care about it. "Hamlet's Father" is what I came up with.
If Hamlet's Father "contain[s] no homosexual characters", why, according to the Raintaxi review, do "[w]e 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.""? What purpose did it serve to inform us that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are apparently totally platonic strangely close best friends who won't be good news for a woman who "tries to wed her way into that house"?
So I analyzed the story to see what it would take to make me care about it. "Hamlet's Father" is what I came up with.
Why do we need to know that Hamlet is "golden-haired", "lovely", and possessed of "beauty"?
So I analyzed the story to see what it would take to make me care about it. "Hamlet's Father" is what I came up with.
Now, having expressed at length how much I despise the story, I must defend it on one point before turning around and attacking it on the exact same point.
I really don't think Card intended Hamlet's father to be homosexual. Yes, he preys exclusively on boys, but that's the thing - he's a predator. If a male character was described as having raped several girls at a young age and having continued to do so as they grew older, we wouldn't say "Obviously the author meant to convey that he was "an evil person because he was [straight]" (to misquote the Raintaxi review)", we would say "Obviously the author meant to convey that he was an evil person because he was a raping pedophile". So I think his confusion was real.
...Unfortunately, it doesn't help that he can't remember what he wrote.
"Hamlet's father, in the book, is a pedophile, period. I don't show him being even slightly attracted to adults of either sex."
On the contrary, he definitely indicates attraction to the 19-year-old Hamlet. He shows no attraction to Hamlet's mother, true, but he waxes poetic about how lovely Hamlet looks (and Hamlet, who thinks it's meant platonically, falls to his knees in a fit of emotion over his father's praise). He talks about how "I was ready to take you into my confidence and set you on the throne beside me", which, given the earlier description of Hamlet's thoughts about his mother as "it had never occurred to him that she might have loved being Queen so much that she cared little who sat on the throne, as long as she sat beside him", HEAVILY implies that he was going to be put in the role of "queen", i.e. his father's concubine. And perhaps I'm missing context, but "Welcome to Hell, my beautiful son. At last we'll be together as I always longed for us to be." SURE doesn't sound like Hamlet's father is at all minding the inconvenience of having to rape his son as an adult rather than as a little boy.
In light of that, it's understandable how readers who have some knowledge of Card's background might jump to the conclusion that Hamlet's father is predominantly gay (and also a pedophile) rather than that Hamlet's father is a child-raping predator who goes after little boys first and continues to abuse his pre-established victims as they grow older (which seems to be the intent).
The thing about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern doesn't help, either.
Given how incredibly poorly-written Hamlet's Father is in general, however, I can believe that Card's offensiveness towards homosexuals was wholly unintentional. As was his offensiveness towards women by likening them, without a hint of irony, to puddings. And his offensiveness towards the reader by expecting them to pay $35 for a "signed and numbered limited edition" of a VERY BAD FANFICTION.
For fuck's sakes, in this economic climate, there are MUCH better BNFs who would gladly include a vial of their own blood with the package if it meant people would pay $35 for "signed and numbered limited editions" of their fanfiction!
That's what offends me the most, I think, strange as it may sound. Look - on the internet, we're used to fanfiction culture. If you don't like, you may read, but you're not actually being asked to pay MONEY for whatever the local twits or geniuses produce. They just put it up there for free, and you can fawn or mock away. People can have any economic view they like, but legality issues compel them all to accept that fanfic is communal and free. If it's offensive - popular opinion may heap free scorn upon it, produce mockery of it for free, and advise others not to waste their time upon this free product. If it's wonderful - popular opinion may heap free praise upon it, produce tributes to it for free, and advise others that OMG CAN YOU BELIEVE YOU'RE GETTING THIS FOR FREE?!
Now, in a Salon interview back in 2000, Card claimed:
"But on economic matters, I’m a committed communitarian. I regard the Soviet Union as simply state monopoly capitalism. It was run the way the United States would be if Microsoft owned everything. Real communism has never been tried! I would like to see government controls expanded, laws that allow capitalism to not reward the most rapacious, exploitative behavior. I believe government has a strong role to protect us from capitalism. I’m ashamed of our society for how it treats the poor. One of the deep problems in Mormon society is that really for the last 75 years Mormons have embraced capitalism to a shocking degree.”
[...]
"And I find it extremely discomfiting that, really to a shocking degree, love of money has pervaded Mormon society. It’s something that as a people we have great cause to repent of. I think it will lead to our condemnation in the eyes of God. When I talk that way, there are some people who are extremely troubled because they think I’m saying that they’re wicked. And they’re correct — I am.”
Which is why Card charges people $35 for his crappy fanfiction.
That is almost exactly $1-for-3-pages. No, seriously - 35*3=105, and it's 104 pages long. (88 pages in the anthology, but perhaps he increased the font size.) Any BNFs or former BNFs on my f-list, I just screwed around in Word, and that totals up to about $3 every 4K words. By that rating, the average NaNoWriMo would be worth $37.50 per signed and numbered copy.
That's truly the action of a communitarian, all right. Charging people $35 for the equivalent, if not the inferior, of what they could get online for NOTHING. Of what they could get several online for nothing. Of what they are legally obligated to get for nothing.
Excuse me, sir? Who has the shocking love of money?
0/10.
Recommended for: people who have algolangia. Possibly the only way to get enjoyment out of this book.
In an action: *dry sobbing*
In a question: WHY?!
So I analyzed the story to see what it would take to make me care about it. "Hamlet's Father" is what I came up with.
*throws up hands*
For absolutely no reason, we are told that Hamlet surpasses the best of fighters with ease, and that his intellect is marvelous. We spend pages upon pages on this, with no character development corrupting the purity of this lavishing of authorial praise. This serves the plot not at all. So why did that happen?
So I analyzed the story to see what it would take to make me care about it. "Hamlet's Father" is what I came up with.
Now, Hamlet/Ophelia is treated as nonexistent. Indeed, a woman "is much like a pudding". Furthermore, Hamlet is disgusted at the thought of his mother having thoughts and desires of her own. Now, one could argue as to Hamlet's misogyny in the original play, but, if present, why is it left intact when Card so merrily shrugs off canon in other areas?
So I analyzed the story to see what it would take to make me care about it. "Hamlet's Father" is what I came up with.
Why in blazes is so much of the Denmark-based part of the story devoted to indirectly talking about Hamlet's father's rape of several boys starting at a young age and possibly continuing through adolescence (until one of them kills him, at any rate)?
So I analyzed the story to see what it would take to make me care about it. "Hamlet's Father" is what I came up with.
Why is Hamlet's character altered into this pious, pompous snot who JUST WANTS TO GO INTO
I have little interest in a dithering hero [...] So I analyzed the story to see what it would take to make me care about it. "Hamlet's Father" is what I came up with.
If Hamlet's Father "contain[s] no homosexual characters", why, according to the Raintaxi review, do "[w]e 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.""? What purpose did it serve to inform us that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are apparently totally platonic strangely close best friends who won't be good news for a woman who "tries to wed her way into that house"?
So I analyzed the story to see what it would take to make me care about it. "Hamlet's Father" is what I came up with.
Why do we need to know that Hamlet is "golden-haired", "lovely", and possessed of "beauty"?
So I analyzed the story to see what it would take to make me care about it. "Hamlet's Father" is what I came up with.
Now, having expressed at length how much I despise the story, I must defend it on one point before turning around and attacking it on the exact same point.
I really don't think Card intended Hamlet's father to be homosexual. Yes, he preys exclusively on boys, but that's the thing - he's a predator. If a male character was described as having raped several girls at a young age and having continued to do so as they grew older, we wouldn't say "Obviously the author meant to convey that he was "an evil person because he was [straight]" (to misquote the Raintaxi review)", we would say "Obviously the author meant to convey that he was an evil person because he was a raping pedophile". So I think his confusion was real.
...Unfortunately, it doesn't help that he can't remember what he wrote.
"Hamlet's father, in the book, is a pedophile, period. I don't show him being even slightly attracted to adults of either sex."
On the contrary, he definitely indicates attraction to the 19-year-old Hamlet. He shows no attraction to Hamlet's mother, true, but he waxes poetic about how lovely Hamlet looks (and Hamlet, who thinks it's meant platonically, falls to his knees in a fit of emotion over his father's praise). He talks about how "I was ready to take you into my confidence and set you on the throne beside me", which, given the earlier description of Hamlet's thoughts about his mother as "it had never occurred to him that she might have loved being Queen so much that she cared little who sat on the throne, as long as she sat beside him", HEAVILY implies that he was going to be put in the role of "queen", i.e. his father's concubine. And perhaps I'm missing context, but "Welcome to Hell, my beautiful son. At last we'll be together as I always longed for us to be." SURE doesn't sound like Hamlet's father is at all minding the inconvenience of having to rape his son as an adult rather than as a little boy.
In light of that, it's understandable how readers who have some knowledge of Card's background might jump to the conclusion that Hamlet's father is predominantly gay (and also a pedophile) rather than that Hamlet's father is a child-raping predator who goes after little boys first and continues to abuse his pre-established victims as they grow older (which seems to be the intent).
The thing about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern doesn't help, either.
Given how incredibly poorly-written Hamlet's Father is in general, however, I can believe that Card's offensiveness towards homosexuals was wholly unintentional. As was his offensiveness towards women by likening them, without a hint of irony, to puddings. And his offensiveness towards the reader by expecting them to pay $35 for a "signed and numbered limited edition" of a VERY BAD FANFICTION.
For fuck's sakes, in this economic climate, there are MUCH better BNFs who would gladly include a vial of their own blood with the package if it meant people would pay $35 for "signed and numbered limited editions" of their fanfiction!
That's what offends me the most, I think, strange as it may sound. Look - on the internet, we're used to fanfiction culture. If you don't like, you may read, but you're not actually being asked to pay MONEY for whatever the local twits or geniuses produce. They just put it up there for free, and you can fawn or mock away. People can have any economic view they like, but legality issues compel them all to accept that fanfic is communal and free. If it's offensive - popular opinion may heap free scorn upon it, produce mockery of it for free, and advise others not to waste their time upon this free product. If it's wonderful - popular opinion may heap free praise upon it, produce tributes to it for free, and advise others that OMG CAN YOU BELIEVE YOU'RE GETTING THIS FOR FREE?!
Now, in a Salon interview back in 2000, Card claimed:
"But on economic matters, I’m a committed communitarian. I regard the Soviet Union as simply state monopoly capitalism. It was run the way the United States would be if Microsoft owned everything. Real communism has never been tried! I would like to see government controls expanded, laws that allow capitalism to not reward the most rapacious, exploitative behavior. I believe government has a strong role to protect us from capitalism. I’m ashamed of our society for how it treats the poor. One of the deep problems in Mormon society is that really for the last 75 years Mormons have embraced capitalism to a shocking degree.”
[...]
"And I find it extremely discomfiting that, really to a shocking degree, love of money has pervaded Mormon society. It’s something that as a people we have great cause to repent of. I think it will lead to our condemnation in the eyes of God. When I talk that way, there are some people who are extremely troubled because they think I’m saying that they’re wicked. And they’re correct — I am.”
Which is why Card charges people $35 for his crappy fanfiction.
That is almost exactly $1-for-3-pages. No, seriously - 35*3=105, and it's 104 pages long. (88 pages in the anthology, but perhaps he increased the font size.) Any BNFs or former BNFs on my f-list, I just screwed around in Word, and that totals up to about $3 every 4K words. By that rating, the average NaNoWriMo would be worth $37.50 per signed and numbered copy.
That's truly the action of a communitarian, all right. Charging people $35 for the equivalent, if not the inferior, of what they could get online for NOTHING. Of what they could get several online for nothing. Of what they are legally obligated to get for nothing.
Excuse me, sir? Who has the shocking love of money?
0/10.
Recommended for: people who have algolangia. Possibly the only way to get enjoyment out of this book.