homophobia

[OrphanPip]

You're blatantly contradicting yourself. You can't claim not to argue from relativism while also maintaining it's all subjective. It's an inconsistent argument.

I'm not contradicting myself at all. I said that what constitutes universality is subjective, thus universality is an unreliable metric for measuring the value of literature. This is entirely different from asserting that the value of all literature is relative. I don't disagree that some literature is bad and some literature is good, however I don't think universality is a very meaningful concept to reach those judgements.

Your argument is amounting to a "No True Scotsman" one. Any book that's brought up to challenge your ideas is immediately dismissed as "not literature" without any clear definition of what actually constitutes literature.

Those so called universal experiences exist in pretty much any work of art. Upton Sinclair's Jungle you dismiss as socialist propaganda. However, isn't the struggle of a working man to support his family arguably universal, it's all about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness after all. Sinclair was a socialist, but he was a distinctly American one. The Jungle is hardly a spectacular book, but it has continued to have resonance enough that it remains in print 100 years after it's publication.

[HalInc]

I'm not contradicting myself at all. I said that what constitutes universality is subjective, thus universality is an unreliable metric for measuring the value of literature. This is entirely different from asserting that the value of all literature is relative. I don't disagree that some literature is bad and some literature is good, however I don't think universality is a very meaningful concept to reach those judgements.

What constitutes universality isn't subjective. Are you really arguing that death and sufferings isn't a universal human experience?

Your argument is amounting to a "No True Scotsman" one. Any book that's brought up to challenge your ideas is immediately dismissed as "not literature" without any clear definition of what actually constitutes literature.

But I've been clear throughout. Literature doesn't have a political agenda. It concerns universal human themes. So if I dismiss a book, it's either propaganda or it's superficial.

Upton Sinclair's Jungle you dismiss as socialist propaganda. However, isn't the struggle of a working man to support his family arguably universal, it's all about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness after all.

No, it's not. There was essentially no character development in the novel. The protagonist was simply lead from one situation after another that showed how terrible capitalism is compared to socialism. It was heavy handed propaganda without any trace of literary merit.

Sinclair was a socialist, but he was a distinctly American one. The Jungle is hardly a spectacular book, but it has continued to have resonance enough that it remains in print 100 years after it's publication.

First, 100 years is hardly a long time. And its continuing resonance has nothing to do with the illumination of the human condition or with the beauty of the prose. There are still socialists around, so the book hasn't been completely forgotten. The Jungle will eventual end up on the same trash heap Che Guevara t-shirts are destined for.

[desiresjab]

Propaganda can be interesting, I have to agree. Upton Sinclair is someone else I was devouring in high school. But let's face it, most propaganda is not literature, even if it can be successfully argued that all literature is proaganda, which it probably isn't. Open propaganda is annoying in general.

[OrphanPip]

What constitutes universality isn't subjective. Are you really arguing that death and sufferings isn't a universal human experience?

They're so universal as to be quite meaningless for evaluating the worth of a piece of literature. You insist the Jungle isn't literature, but it certainly contains explorations of death and suffering (whether it be under an oppressive capitalistic food packing industry or not). Your argument boils down to the statement that literature should contain themes, which is essentially impossible for any narrative text to avoid. However, the concerns and themes of the text, whether they are universal or not should be irrelevant to the value of the text. What's important is how the text handles those themes and how they resonate with the audience. Swift's Modest Proposal is still widely read because it is an expert example of satire, the craft and influence is what's important.

But I've been clear throughout. Literature doesn't have a political agenda. It concerns universal human themes. So if I dismiss a book, it's either propaganda or it's superficial.

Politics is the organization of people with other people, it is itself a universal theme. Why does Milton concern himself with politics with the Parliament in Hell scenes from Paradise Lost? Milton considered politics and political themes to be fitting subjects for his Christian epic. Art is a means of expression, and whether it is political or not is apart from its worth as a work of art.

No, it's not. There was essentially no character development in the novel. The protagonist was simply lead from one situation after another that showed how terrible capitalism is compared to socialism. It was heavy handed propaganda without any trace of literary merit.

It's a passable novel with effectively written scenes and some clunky plotting and a meandering end. Something doesn't have to be flawless to be literature, or even to be influential literature.

Political fiction is a longstanding genre and it's going to continue to exist and be read and it has value. Whether it's Caleb Williams, Hard Times or the Jungle. It's been around for 3 centuries and people are still writing and reading so it must have some merit.

First, 100 years is hardly a long time. And its continuing resonance has nothing to do with the illumination of the human condition or with the beauty of the prose. There are still socialists around, so the book hasn't been completely forgotten. The Jungle will eventual end up on the same trash heap Che Guevara t-shirts are destined for.

100 years is plenty long, I'd reckon more than 95% of what was published initially 100 years ago is out of print and no longer has resonance with audiences.

[Jackson Richardson]

I was going to pop in here with my experiences as a reader and same sex partner for a very long time, but the thread seems to have gone off at a tangent.

Without some sort of understanding and criticism of the world - political, religious, sexual, social, moral or whatever - any work will be very limited. If they are purely written to advance a particular political, religious, sexual or moral viewpoint they will be even more limited.

Cacian's opening question "What can literature do about it?" seems to miss the point, implying literature is unified and primarily didactic.

I'd be happy to tell you about my reading later.

[cacian]

somehow the case of lesbians seems less harsher then that of two gay guys or i may well be wrong.
is it not that it is acceptable for two women to be together but not two guys??

I think a lot of men have fantasies involving two (or more) women and these tie in with lesbian fantasies. Art history is ripe with images of lesbian lovers... but not so images of male lovers.

why do men hold such fantasy??

I was going to pop in here with my experiences as a reader and same sex partner for a very long time, but the thread seems to have gone off at a tangent.

Without some sort of understanding and criticism of the world - political, religious, sexual, social, moral or whatever - any work will be very limited. If they are purely written to advance a particular political, religious, sexual or moral viewpoint they will be even more limited.

Cacian's opening question "What can literature do about it?" seems to miss the point, implying literature is unified and primarily didactic.

I'd be happy to tell you about my reading later.

in what way does it the miss the point?
to imply literature is not didactic is missing the point.
to suggest literature that may tackle issues close to self expression is limiting .
in fact there is a danger of evasiveness because of that.

an expression is born out of frustration and so is homophobia.
I believe the purpose of literature including art is to exploint part of our subsconcious so it become conscious,
literature is bit of an analogy on The taming of Shrew
it is the taming of the few.

[JuniperWoolf]

I think homophobia has a lot to do with location and generation. People who are younger and living in certain cultures (parts of Asia and North America/Western Europe, etc.) are far less likely to be homophobic than people living in, say, Saudi Arabia. It is obviously very prevalent in some parts of the world, that should go without saying, so that answers that, and is pretty much /thread.

[Scheherazade]

The general public agrees. By and large only gays are interested.

This is an extremely simplistic (and dare I say "unsupported"?) view... Who is this "general public"? As in any genre, there might be well/poorly written examples but just to claim that "only gays are interested" is misinformed. Are only straight people interested in "straight literature"?

If one is young, say under 13, sexual activity in general would probably seem confusing if not gross.

When one is older the females want to "baby" others and the males want to "protect" the family. A lesbian relationship might seem fine because it is just two females babying each other. A gay relationship may make one wonder if either of the two men are adequately protecting the family against the other. Adulterous heterosexual relationships are a problem because they challenge pair-bonding. The female feels insecurity and the male feels betrayed. I don't think homosexual relationships challenge anything.

People who don't care for such relationships are like the under 13-year-old who does not see the point of sexual relationships at all.

I am not following this post at all. Are you suggesting that gay couples do not mind infidelity? And that sexual relationships with "underage" person (ie, say a 13 year-old) is acceptable?

[YesNo]

I am not following this post at all. Are you suggesting that gay couples do not mind infidelity? And that sexual relationships with "underage" person (ie, say a 13 year-old) is acceptable?

I don't know how homosexual couples approach infidelity. The survey that I am referencing to justify my position (see Alexander and Young, "The Chemistry Between Us") pointed out chemical explanations for what has through much of the 20th century been seen as culturally determined gender, pair-bonding and sexual orientation behavior. Basically, the argument is that the "social construction" of these three facets of sexuality is false. Or to put it simplistically, you cannot turn boys into girls by giving them dolls; you cannot destroy pair-bonding by advocating promiscuity and you cannot educate a homosexual to be heterosexual. Gender, pair-bonding and sexual orientation are not socially constructed. They have their origin as dispositions in the chemistry in our brains.

Children younger than about 13 do not have interest in sexual activity. Their bodies haven't developed yet to find these activities interesting. It is not a "fear" of such activity, as the word homophobia suggests, but a confusion associated with it. What I am trying to show is that the heterosexual's confusion with homosexual activity is similar to the under 13-year-old child's confusion with any kind of sexual intercourse.

I don't see how you got anything about having sex with a person under 13 from my post. What the Alexander and Young survey explicitly emphasized is that the old 20th century feminist social construction of gender is false. And so is the religious fundamentalist view that homosexuality is something that can be educated, or "socially constructed", into heterosexuality.

[Jackson Richardson]

is it prevalent still?
and should literature get involved in getting head to head with it?
if so how?

Literature can undermine homophobia by presenting same sex love and couples in an attractive light, or indeed in the past showing that it could exist at all.

When I became aware I had the same sort of potentially weak at the knees feelings for other men that straight boys have for girls, the problem that such a state wasn't meant to exist other than a sinister perversion.

My bookshelves have many examples of novels subsequently written by or about gay men (Armistead Maupin, Alan Hollingsworth, Neil Bartlett, Michael Carson, Michael Arditti, Joe Keenan and others) and the poetry of Thom Gunn. They were often writing about, or taking for granted, a life that was not mine.

The closest literary equivalent to my life with my partner is probably Mole and Ratty in The Wind in the Willows.

[stlukesguild]

Children younger than about 13 do not have interest in sexual activity.

You don't have much experience with children, do you?

[desiresjab]

This is an extremely simplistic (and dare I say "unsupported"?) view... Who is this "general public"? As in any genre, there might be well/poorly written examples but just to claim that "only gays are interested" is misinformed. Are only straight people interested in "straight literature"?

I must have left out a number of gay blockbusters.

[YesNo]

I just watched a movie, "The Kiss of the Spider Woman", that contains a gay character. Danik recommended it. It was directed by Héctor Babenco and based on a novel by Manuel Puig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_fjf01iebc

This could be an example of literature (and at least a movie) that deals with the theme of homosexuality as well as other themes. There is politics in it but no propaganda that I could see.

[Danik 2016]

Here is the thread on the novel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_o..._Woman_(novel)
I read it a very long time ago and the movie remains faithful to the original text if I remember rightly.
The psichoanalytical notes about homosexuality in the novel are downright silly and disgusting.

[OrphanPip]

I must have left out a number of gay blockbusters.

I once taught a course at a college on sexual transgression in literature. It dealt with adultery, homosexuality, radical feminism, S&M and fetishism and most of my students were heterosexual women. Lots of people are interested in these themes besides the people who live these experiences.