sexuality in books

[Veva]

Could somebody recommend me some books - novels that have something to do with freedom of sexuality... I mean books about bisexuals or homosexuals... I loved Nexus and I am looking for something quite similar...
thanx;)

[Scheherazade]

It might be too obvious but Jeanette Winterson?

Middlesex?

[jgweed]

Jean Genet or William S.Burroughs might be mentioned. Transitional works:

James Baldwin,Tell Me How Long the Train's Been Gone
Gore Vidal,Myra Breckenridge
Frederick Prokosch,The Missolonghi Manuscript
Mart Crowley,The Boys in the Band (drama)

The post-Stonewall era is quite diverse, and one could mention the TV series, Queer as Folk, as well as these more "literary" novels:

Larry Kramer, Faggots
Edmund White, Nocturnes for the King of Naples, The Beautiful Room Is Empty
Andrew Holleran, Dancer from the Dance, Nights in Aruba
Armistead Maupin, Tales of the City
David Leavitt, The Lost Language of Cranes

[snowangel]

Mauriceby E.M. Forster

[manolia]

I have heard of "Giovanni's Room", haven't read it myself but it is supposed to be good. Don't remember author :)

[Dark Muse]

I would recomend Snow Garden and the Density of Souls by Chritopher Rice. I think they are very interesting, and exellent books

[kelby_lake]

Giovanni's Room is by James Baldwin, and very good indeed. There's a book called Madame something about this bisexual man (sorry, can't remember full name)

[JBI]

Lolita - Nabokov, though that one is a little bit about too much freedom of sex.

[Kafka's Crow]

Stephen Fry's autobiography Moab is My Washpot gives an excellent insight in the formation of a homosexual personality:

http://www.amazon.com/Moab-My-Washpot-Stephen-Fry/dp/1569472025/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219338821&sr=8-4

[tractatus]

I mean books about bisexuals or homosexuals...

The level of freedom changes from one book to another, but I know
some books that cover your question. (of course none is Henry Miller level)

- Thomas Mann, Death at Venice,
- Andre Gide, The Immoralist,
- Lawrence Durrell, Alexandria Quartet,
- Lezama Lima, Paradiso


Agree to Manolia, i am sure of Giovanni's Room(didnt read), and Pale Fire of Nabokov. And many more from Dorian Gray to Satyricon... I think a good google search may offers a lot.

[Dark Muse]

Oh yes, I did not think of Death In Venice, that is a good one, it slipped my mind.

[barbara0207]

I have heard of "Giovanni's Room", haven't read it myself but it is supposed to be good. Don't remember author :)

It's by James Baldwin.

Edit: Overlooked somebody had already named the author. Sorry.

[manolia]

- Thomas Mann, Death at Venice,


Great book :thumbs_up

The one i have just finished ("The inner circle" by T C Boyle) is certainly a book about sexual freedom and homosexuality and sexuality in general. It is a good one ;)

[Jozanny]

To my memory, Death In Venice isn't explicitly homoerotic. I have read some modern Japanese/Chinese authors who are, but I can't remember the title(s). The Chinese one was about an egg roll chef who reminisces about his childhood in China. I enjoyed it. I also have a lesbian title I don't want which I ordered years ago from a small press capsule recommendation. If the OP might like it she can send me a pm and I will be happy to pop it in the mail.

It is set up like a traditional romance, nothing radical, and a breezy read, but I did not know at the time that it was girl on girl.

Mario Puzo, a more commercial author, likes lesbian kitten play. He has a lesser known title called Hell's Kitchen in which he toys with it. Someone mentioned EMF's Maurice, but A Passage To India is also a gay-coded love story if you know how to look for it.

[Veva]

wow, thanx for all your replies, actually I have read Lolita a few times and it is brilliant so I know of it..but for the rest I am going to get those....:thumbs_up

[Inderjit Sanghe]

Lolita - Nabokov, though that one is a little bit about too much freedom of sex.

Lolita is NOT about sex.

As to authors who specifically discuss sex, in an original and unbanal way-Jean Genet (part. 'Querelle of Brest', my favourite Genet), Giovanni's Room by James Baldwin, Edmund White is another great novelist for whom sex is a key theme. Or you could try out Bataille's 'The Story of the Eye' for a wacky take on sex, and let's face it, most takes on sex are pretty wacky. Or de Sade, though I have never read 'Justine'.

[atiguhya padma]

Don’t know if this has been suggested before, but Allan Hollinghurst is generally considered to be a good writer on homosexuality. I think Will Self has written some good stuff on the subject, such as Dorian. Ian McEwan’s Enduring Love is all about homosexual fixation after tragic events. Colm Toibin’s The Blackwater Lightship, about an Irish lad coming to terms with the various prejudices of his family whilst dying of aids I found fascinating and deeply moving, even though I am not particularly drawn to this genre of literature.

[kelby_lake]

Mademoiselle De Maupin, that's what it's called!

[johann cruyff]

I know this is far from what you're looking for, but I have to say it: The Story of the Eye by Georges Bataille.

[kelby_lake]

Don’t know if this has been suggested before, but Allan Hollinghurst is generally considered to be a good writer on homosexuality..

The Line of Beuaty is good

[JBI]

Lolita is NOT about sex.

As to authors who specifically discuss sex, in an original and unbanal way-Jean Genet (part. 'Querelle of Brest', my favourite Genet), Giovanni's Room by James Baldwin, Edmund White is another great novelist for whom sex is a key theme. Or you could try out Bataille's 'The Story of the Eye' for a wacky take on sex, and let's face it, most takes on sex are pretty wacky. Or de Sade, though I have never read 'Justine'.

The topic is sexuality not sex. Pedophilia is an aspect of sexuality.

[Inderjit Sanghe]

The topic is sexuality not sex. Pedophilia is an aspect of sexuality.


Could somebody recommend me some books - novels that have something to do with freedom of sexuality...

As I mentioned before, Lolita is not about sex, or indeed 'freedom of sexuality', or 'freedom of sex', which is what the poster was asking for. If anybody reads Lolita 'for the sex', or 'sexuality', then you are reading it for entirely the wrong reasons. Yes, it is a book which deals with an individual with idiosyncratic, and perverse, sexual proclivities, but sex is not one of the book's main themes, anybody who reads Lolita to read about sex, or sexual freedom, is completely going down the wrong path.

[Veva]

, anybody who reads Lolita to read about sex, or sexual freedom, is completely going down the wrong path.

true :thumbs_up

[Jozanny]

As I mentioned before, Lolita is not about sex, or indeed 'freedom of sexuality', or 'freedom of sex', which is what the poster was asking for. If anybody reads Lolita 'for the sex', or 'sexuality', then you are reading it for entirely the wrong reasons. Yes, it is a book which deals with an individual with idiosyncratic, and perverse, sexual proclivities, but sex is not one of the book's main themes, anybody who reads Lolita to read about sex, or sexual freedom, is completely going down the wrong path.

I disagree somewhat Inderjit. Sure, Humbert is not the conveniently analyzed pedophile you see featured on video news journals like 60 minutes, but Nabakov, brilliant as he is, like all men, thinks with his penis, and in that vein Lolita is about excessive gratification--however metaphorical the relationship between the characters, it is still a concrete, tactile relationship where our endearing protagonist masturbates while the girl is sitting on his lap, without Nabakov so much as writing an obscene word. You cannot make the story an entire abstraction, because it is about senses and sensations which are over-indulged.

[JBI]

It is about aesthetics, and empiricism. The book is very much about the nature of sexual attraction, and sexual taboos. Just because there are other things going on in the book, doesn't mean it cannot be read for something in specific. Death in Venice can be argued to be more about aging than sex, and the desire for youthfulness in all of us. Yet why do you not yell at that one?

[atiguhya padma]

Being a humble specimen of the testosterone filled sex, I would simply like to say that not all men think with their penis, Jozanny, but no doubt some may try to fcuk with your mind. :)

[Etienne]

Apollinaire's The Eleven Thousand Rods :lol:


but Nabakov, brilliant as he is, like all men, thinks with his penis,

I don't see what it has to do with "Nabokov thinking with his penis like any men". First of all this is merely idiotic and mindless feminism. Secondly, Nabokov's point was not to make an idyllic relation between Humbert and Lolita, but the analysis of a deranged man, who, whether Nabokov agrees or not with the man's feelings, the man does it for sexual gratification, not for some platonic ideal. Nabokov could very well have written it with a platonic ideal in mind, however that would have been a completely different book, and would not not have reflected in any way whether Nabokov himself "thinks with his penis" or not.

[Jozanny]

I don't see what it has to do with "Nabokov thinking with his penis like any men". First of all this is merely idiotic and mindless feminism.

This is a rather heavy-handed reaction to what was a facetious comment from a speaker of native American English. Mindless and idiotic feminism? Nabokov is a genius, but he is precisely because he can take his lurid, self-indulgent ego and make it art, and the controversy will remain about how much we can excuse him for it. Lolita, at its essence, destroys feminist mystique, declares that women are nothing more than vessels to be used rather than celebrated for the fact that we carry the responsibility for giving life to the next generation. Nabokov denies this optimism, killing off Humbert's dessert dish in childbirth.

I do not give a fig for how many critics say Lolita is about the Old World in its consummation of the United States, or how Russian totalitarianism destroys the values of liberalism. Nabokov carried this particular sexual fantasy with him during the course of his literary career--that of an aging aesthete proving his virility by despoiling nymphets. If it had been a woman author elevating Bobbit's castration skills, well, then maybe I might be more sympathetic to what is apparently a reaction toward feeling threatened.

[JBI]

Prove it - Nabokov married a 23 (to his 26) year old woman, and remained married to her until his death. He was not Humbert Humbert, nor did he act like Humbert Humbert, or justify the actions of Humbert Humbert. He merely wrote from Humbert's point of view, meaning he envisioned Humbert, which is something else entirely.

[DapperDrake]

I'm not attacking you by the way Jozanny but to be fair I think "thinking with his penis like any men" is quite a poor assessment of Lolita and somewhat sexist to boot.

"Lolita, at its essence, destroys feminist mystique, declares that women are nothing more than vessels to be used rather than celebrated for the fact that we carry the responsibility for giving life to the next generation."

What do you think sex is? I'm sorry but I'm not sure if there are many men who, during the act, have in mind the celebration of feminist mystique etc. I think your statement could be made true with one small amendment:

"Sex, at its essence, destroys feminist mystique, declares that women are nothing more than vessels to be used rather than celebrated for the fact that we carry the responsibility for giving life to the next generation."

... Ok, now I'm going to go and hide behind something sturdy whilst every woman in a 5000 mile radius throws stuff at me.

[Etienne]

This is a rather heavy-handed reaction to what was a facetious comment from a speaker of native American English. Mindless and idiotic feminism?

Well if it was meant as a joke, then so be it, but from your post you do seem to say it seriously. And I don't think it was heavy-handed at all, in fact, I was maybe a touch too light.


Lolita, at its essence, destroys feminist mystique, declares that women are nothing more than vessels to be used rather than celebrated for the fact that we carry the responsibility for giving life to the next generation.

What? This is just a blind, frustrated, feminist reading of the book.


Nabokov denies this optimism, killing off Humbert's dessert dish in childbirth.

Sorry, what do you mean by "deny this optimism"?


I do not give a fig for how many critics say Lolita is about the Old World in its consummation of the United States, or how Russian totalitarianism destroys the values of liberalism.

I don't care either, what's your point?


Nabokov carried this particular sexual fantasy with him during the course of his literary career--that of an aging aesthete proving his virility by despoiling nymphets.

Oh really? Have you visited his mind recently?

Fanatic feminism + misunderstood psychoanalysis = nonsense.

Feminism and psychoanalysis are two unstable tools, and too many people make boring fools of themselves trying to use them like chickens without head, and this leads to aberrations.

I also think that your view of men/women is archaic and looks like the stereotypical portrait of bad feminist books rather than real life.

[JBI]

Well if it was meant as a joke, then so be it, but from your post you do seem to say it seriously. And I don't think it was heavy-handed at all, in fact, I was maybe a touch too light.



What? This is just a blind, frustrated, feminist reading of the book.



Sorry, what do you mean by "deny this optimism"?



I don't care either, what's your point?



Oh really? Have you visited his mind recently?

Fanatic feminism + misunderstood psychoanalysis = nonsense.

Feminism and psychoanalysis are two unstable tools, and too many people make idiots of themselves trying to use them like chickens without head, and this leads to aberrations.

That is neither feminist literary criticism, nor psychoanalysis. Feminist criticism would more likely say something along the lines of "The tragedy of Lolita is that Humbert remained emotionally attached to Dolores, yet unaccepting of her personality, and wants as a maturing girl already attuned to her sexual needs as a woman, thereby restricting her sexual freedom after her affection for him had passed on, and forcing her against her will, after her affection for him had waned, and bringing about her deterioration, and eventual [highlight to see if you have read the book] death in childbirth, of a baby she didn't want, from a father she didn't respect ." Or something along those lines. Feminist criticism has nothing to do with those sorts of "misreadings" of texts, as misreadings are occurrent in every school's scholarship.

In truth, there is no "real" way to read a text, and even schools themselves disagree amongst themselves. Validity in the way we read therefore, is brought down to the evidence used to support arguments, and the evidence used to dispute arguments. Each critic reads a book a different way, and the better the reader, and the better the book, the more different each reading to a familiar reader is. It is not fair to say all Feminist, or all psychoanalytical readings are wrong or bad, because all of them are different. We can only bring the evidence against such readings, or the evidence in support of such readings.

Then again, I think Jozanny's reading is wrong as well, but not because it is feminist, or psychoanalytical, but simply because it doesn't match Nabokov's biography, or Dolores Haze's character.

[Etienne]

Yeah, that's why I said blind, frustrated, fanatic, etc. not that I have anything against feminism or psychoanalysis in themselves, on the contrary, but the key to my post are the last sentences. I do think that it is not misreading who is the source, but rather the poor and stereotypical attempts at both feminism and psychoanalysis that lead to the misreading.

But otherwise, I am in complete agreement with you JBI, however I do afford myself the luxury of having the opinion that the reading is wrong, and not just "different" :D I wouldn't mind being proved wrong, though, and I can find interesting opinions I don't agree with, but that interpretation is far too stereotypical and boring for me to be even interested in it, notwithstanding my agreement or not with it.

[DapperDrake]

Could somebody recommend me some books - novels that have something to do with freedom of sexuality... I mean books about bisexuals or homosexuals... I loved Nexus and I am looking for something quite similar...
thanx;)

Have no idea what Nexus is about but the first book that jumps to mind is Orlando by Virginia Woolf.

I don't know if you can get the feed overseas but this was an interesting program: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/03/2008_32_wed.shtml

[Jozanny]

I also think that your view of men/women is archaic and looks like the stereotypical portrait of bad feminist books rather than real life.

Exactly what do you base this on? My posts in this forum? I make no such assessments about members here because I may or may not agree with them. I don't know you even if I go back and read every post you've written, nor you me, no matter what judgments you make about what I write in the course of electronic conversation, and since you insist on insulting me for absolutely no reason other than the fact that you did not like an acerbic turn of phrase, the ignore feature is available.

[Etienne]

Exactly what do you base this on? My posts in this forum? I make no such assessments about members here because I may or may not agree with them. I don't know you even if I go back and read every post you've written, nor you me, no matter what judgments you make about what I write in the course of electronic conversation, and since you insist on insulting me for absolutely no reason other than the fact that you did not like an acerbic turn of phrase, the ignore feature is available.

Based on what you said. If you say things that do not represent your views, then alright, but what I said was directed at what you said. You insist on saying that what you said did not represent what you believe, but your post then confirmed pretty much that you stood by what you said. Anyways, I do not wish to ignore you, I have no reason for it, and who knows, I might learn from you some time.

Oh and I didn't insult you, I insulted your position, which is different as I have absolutely nothing against you, only I find that such kind of reactionary feminism as you showed is at least as worse as the mysoginism you condemn.

[Jozanny]

Oh and I didn't insult you, I insulted your position, which is different as I have absolutely nothing against you, only I find that such kind of reactionary feminism as you showed is at least as worse as the mysoginism you condemn.

No, you did insult me, making assumptions about feminist literary theory I may or may not have read--which you know nothing about, simply because I knocked reverence for Nabakov. There are ways to disagree without disparaging other people whom you cannot see, and you obviously have little command of your tongue when you want to cause hurt.

I do not need it, and here ask that you cease addressing my posts further, because you are incapable of disagreeing without a snide dig.

[Etienne]

No, you did insult me, making assumptions about feminist literary theory I may or may not have read

Nope, read carefully, I said that your view of men/women - or what transpired from your previous posts, if you prefer - looked like portraits stereotypical bad feminist books. That is not an insult. And it has nothing to do with wat you've actually read or not, which would in fact be even less an insult. (hint: an insult is ad hominem)

However I saw you accusing Nabokov of being on pedophile based on pretty much nothing. If someone has insulted or denigrated (the memory of) anyone, it is not me


I do not need it, and here ask that you cease addressing my posts further, because you are incapable of disagreeing without a snide dig.


the ignore feature is available.

I'm sorry but I won't accept that you make accusations on me without me answering. Perhaps you didn't like my tone, for which I am sorry, but am not retracting - or regretting - anything that I said.

Let's bring it to PMs if you want to continue this (which I believe you do not want?).

[Jozanny]

Then again, I think Jozanny's reading is wrong as well, but not because it is feminist, or psychoanalytical, but simply because it doesn't match Nabokov's biography, or Dolores Haze's character.

Fair enough, but Nabokov said in his own words that he created a shorter story with a similar theme prior to starting his work on Lolita, and the book he forbade his son to publish after his death is also a Lolita like rendering, so I feel safe enough in assuming that these December/May couplings preoccupied him somewhat during his mid to late career, but in fairness to the OP, she asked for texts which deal with homo and bisexual themes, and I know little of such explicit material which is of literary merit, on the basis of my own readings. Alice Walker's The Color Purple is a possibility, but I was a kid when I read it and remember little of it but for some vivid exposition.

[Logos]

Could somebody recommend me some books - novels that have something to do with freedom of sexuality... I mean books about bisexuals or homosexuals... I loved Nexus and I am looking for something quite similar...
thanx;)

Lots of topic drift going on here, could we please get back to the Original Post

The below-linked thread discusses Nabakov's Lolita, perhaps someone wants to continue there, or, start a new thread :)

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1059



--

[Etienne]

I just remembered Mohamed Choukri's For Bread Alone does treat (although very secondarily) about homosexual relations.

One author you need to look at is André Gide, who was homosexual, and wasn't afraid to treat it in his works. Les nourritures terrestres (The Earthly Foods?) would be indicated. I believe that Oscar Wilde might have some things that you might be looking for as well.

[Veva]

Yes I am a great fan of Oscar Wilde.. he was brilliant in what he did, despite his fate.... and for the Orlando by Woolf - that was great too...:p

[Jozanny]

Yes I am a great fan of Oscar Wilde.. he was brilliant in what he did, despite his fate.... and for the Orlando by Woolf - that was great too...:p

But how do you define Orlando? Do you see it as a transgender fiction? I see it more as a satire on gender roles myself, which are breaking down in the 21st century anyway.

[tractatus]

Yes, Orlando couldn't be an answer of this thread. As Metamorphosisis not a subject of entomology.

[Veva]

I read Orlando a few years ago and I understood it as a way of dismantling the prejudice of 2 worlds of men and of women which can't be integrated....

[DapperDrake]

Yes, Orlando couldn't be an answer of this thread. As Metamorphosisis not a subject of entomology.


What has entomology got to do with anything - did I miss something here :confused:

And as to Orlando not being relevant to the topic of sexual freedom and homosexuality, I have to say I disagree. I think it would take a fairly naive reading to come to that conclusion, especially give the time that to book was written in and by whom.

[Jozanny]

What has entomology got to do with anything - did I miss something here :confused:

And as to Orlando not being relevant to the topic of sexual freedom and homosexuality, I have to say I disagree. I think it would take a fairly naive reading to come to that conclusion, especially give the time that to book was written in and by whom.

Orlando as a novel may or may not be relevant to what Veva is looking to explore, but I have studied Woolf somewhat, and while Orlando may have a satirical risque about it in tone, the character of Orlando literally just switches sexes over a life span which is not grounded in realism, hardly a study in transgender like Berendt's discovery of Lady Chablis in Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil.

I am not saying Woolf isn't challenging and doing a send-up of gender issues, but she isn't threatening her audience in the presentation of Orlando. First he is a man, and comes off as something of a wus with his Russian princess, and then Woolf flips the coin and he is a girl. There is no real Shakespearean threat of homosexual underpinnings, which is there in the comedies because you have the boy playing girl who in the play may disguise herself as a boy, a trope made cutsie in Victor/Victoria.

I have not read Baldwin, and maybe that is something I might gear myself up for, but Orlando doesn't really challenge me on a psychological level about the lines between sexual preferences.

I also don't see why Sade gets any mention; his work is porn, pure and simple. No value to me in reading it. I found his material boring, and even Zola handles lesbianism in Nanna with more artistry. I had forgotten that Veva might like to check that out; it is 19th century, and quite soft in terms of gay literature out there today, but Zola is one of the first to concede lesbian culture within literary realism.

[kelby_lake]

The topic is sexuality not sex. Pedophilia is an aspect of sexuality.

Indeed, and Lolita experiments with sexuality in the novel. Not that this is primarily important but you can't dismiss it.
I read the feminist interpretation and didn't much like it. We may carry the responsibility of childbirth but we couldn't do it without men :)

[Jozanny]

Indeed, and Lolita experiments with sexuality in the novel. Not that this is primarily important but you can't dismiss it.
I read the feminist interpretation and didn't much like it. We may carry the responsibility of childbirth but we couldn't do it without men :)


:yawnb: I suppose it will be some time before LitNetters will be done riding me over for my Lolita ribbing, but let me hazard one or two points:

1. My comments were not intended as serious critical commentary. I am not an expert on Nabakov. I read Lolita once and it was, for me, a strenuous and exacting exercise that I may one day repeat--however, as I wanted to take my doctorate degree in feminist literary theory, and had hoped to study under Nina Auerbach at University of Pennsylvania, I cannot quite bring myself to "engorge the patriarchy" that Nabokov presents, however complex and layered and ironic Humbert's corrupt social and psychological processes may be.

Any moderating feminine principles Nabokov offers against Humbert's dominant voice over the reader are snuffed out, and by the close of the novel fall apart, and that is how I would approach a thesis toward the novel, even while acknowledging its sheer mastery, and these are my last comments on the issue, cross my heart.;)

[kelby_lake]

I think Lolita is presented in an okay light. HH may charm and outwit women but Lolita outwits him.