Gay literature

[toptenor]

I'm looking for books of literary merit that feature prominently homosexual themes--something of a cross between Death in Venice and Tennessee Williams. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. :)

[JBI]

What is a predominantly gay theme? something like 30% of the major Western writers were, if not homosexual, than open minded, or bisexual. Outside of the West, the figure is perhaps higher, if we maintain a definition of homosexual as has sexual relations, or a desire to have sexual relations with the same sex.

Still, I'll be simple - try Plato.

[Scheherazade]

Are "gay literature" and "homosexual themes" one and the same? I don't know.

Couple of books that I can think of right now:

Middlesex

Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit

Orlando

[JBI]

Are "gay literature" and "homosexual themes" one and the same? I don't know.

Couple of books that I can think of right now:

Middlesex

Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit

Orlando

Still, having only read the last one, do we consider Orlando a homosexual novel? Do we consider Virginia Woolf a lesbian author?

[Scheherazade]

Still, having only read the last one, do we consider Orlando a homosexual novel? Do we consider Virginia Woolf a lesbian author?"Sexuality" and "homosexuality" are among the themes explored.

PS: I consider Woolf a boring author.

[Virgil]

What is a predominantly gay theme? something like 30% of the major Western writers were, if not homosexual, than open minded, or bisexual. Outside of the West, the figure is perhaps higher, if we maintain a definition of homosexual as has sexual relations, or a desire to have sexual relations with the same sex.

Still, I'll be simple - try Plato.

Where do you get thirty percent????


What Percentage of the Population Is Gay?by Jennifer Robison, Contributing EditorIn his 1948 book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Alfred Kinsey shocked the world by announcing that 10% of the male population is gay. A 1993 Janus Report estimated that nine percent of men and five percent of women had more than "occasional" homosexual relationships. The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes. http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/What-Percentage-Population-Gay.aspx

The 2000 study seems to probably capture it, but it's arguably bounded anywhere from 2% to 8%, depending whose bias one supports. Now unless other western nations are different than the US, I cannot see where you would get 30%. (Gallup by the way is a non-partesan extremely respected polling company in the US.)

[Delta40]

Jeanette Winterson - Lesbian. Read the Stone Gods

[Scheherazade]

Where do you get thirty percent????Well, you know, they say 58.17543% of statistics are made up on the spot. (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_statistics_are_made_up_on_the_s pot)

[DanielBenoit]

Where do you get thirty percent????


Well some aspects of the works of Shakespeare and Plato can be speculated as having homosexual attributes. The relationship between Achilles and Patoclus in The Illiad may be interpreted as homoerotic.

But I'm not really sure if it measures up to thrity precent. . . . .

[OrphanPip]

Where do you get thirty percent????

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/What-Percentage-Population-Gay.aspx

The 2000 study seems to probably capture it, but it's arguably bounded anywhere from 2% to 8%, depending whose bias one supports. Now unless other western nations are different than the US, I cannot see where you would get 30%. (Gallup by the way is a non-partesan extremely respected polling company in the US.)

It depends how you want to classify it, most of the research I've seen puts self-identified homosexual males at 4-6% of the population and self-identified bisexuals at another 3-4%. However, studies looking at incidences of homosexual experience put the numbers a bit higher, so experimentation is a lot more common.

A lot of surveys face a bias problem that has been accounted for better in recent research. Kinsey developed his famous 1/10 position from his observations of upper class urban males. This is the migration bias, since homosexuals tend to congregate in areas where there are other homosexuals, like New York City. When we try to account for this bias we usually get that approximately 5% number. So, 1/20 men instead of 1/10.

As to the thread topic, homosexual themes are quite common. For clarity's sake, let's consider "gay literature" to be literature written by homosexuals about homosexual characters, experiences, viewpoints, or issues. This excludes some writers like Gore Vidal, who would be considered major figures in queer literature, but it let's us keep it simple for now. With that definition I'd go with Larry Kramer and his plays as well as his novel Faggots. Another major author is Edmund White and his semi-autobiographical series that starts with A Boy's Own Story. E.M. Forster's Maurice is no where near as good as his other work and many critics have very negative views of its portrayal of homosexual love, but it is an interesting perspective having been written in 1911.

Edit: I admit a clear Western bias in my recommendations.

[Jozanny]

As to Orlando, I got halfway through it before I started to have landlord revenge fantasies, and when I do lift it up again I will probably start it over, but from where I am in the text, and from a video version I saw before I bought it, I am going to wade in and say it is not a gay agenda text the way A Passage to India is. A Passage To India is a homosexual love story concealed within itself. Straight readers were not supposed to, and probably did not get it, because Forster could have faced serious legal problems otherwise.

I see Orlando more as gender satire, but this opinion is not fully formed.

Titles I see as agenda driven are:

The Color Purple, Alice Walker
Nana, Zola--though Zola was straight and makes lesbianism vicious, probably so he could publish
The Lessons of The Master and The Wings of The Dove, Henry James
A Passage To India and Maurice, EM Forster
The Bravest Indian in the World, Alexie, though I am not big on Sherman and don't know why publishers like him, and some of Willa Cather. One of her editors shelved her career to be Cather's domestic partner in an age where the closed door policy was still in force.

There are more, but these I've read.

[OrphanPip]

As to Orlando, I got halfway through it before I started to have landlord revenge fantasies, and when I do lift it up again I will probably start it over, but from where I am in the text, and from a video version I saw before I bought it, I am going to wade in and say it is not a gay agenda text the way A Passage to India is. A Passage To India is a homosexual love story concealed within itself. Straight readers were not supposed to, and probably did not get it, because Forster could have faced serious legal problems otherwise.


A Passage To India isn't simply a veiled homosexual love story, after all Forster himself was involved in an inter-racial relationship and was very much concerned with issues of racism and the oppression of the Indian people he witnessed while living there.

[DanielBenoit]

Oscar Wilde was certainly gay, for he was arrested for "leud conduct" due to his private relationships with a number of men. Proust too was clearly gay with In Search of Lost Time clearly having homosexual themes.

[Jozanny]

A Passage To India isn't simply a veiled homosexual love story, after all Forster himself was involved in an inter-racial relationship and was very much concerned with issues of racism and the oppression of the Indian people he witnessed while living there.

I did not mean to imply that its hidden eroticism was the full force of the text. I studied Forster for nearly an entire semester and he is a very radicalized author for what the then fading British Empire was amounting to in the sum of its parts, in that era.

[JBI]

Where do you get thirty percent????

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/What-Percentage-Population-Gay.aspx

The 2000 study seems to probably capture it, but it's arguably bounded anywhere from 2% to 8%, depending whose bias one supports. Now unless other western nations are different than the US, I cannot see where you would get 30%. (Gallup by the way is a non-partesan extremely respected polling company in the US.)

I just estimated it myself really - but when you think of it - by today's definition, essentially all the Greeks were, the majority of the Romans, tons of the Victorians, and a great deal in the Renaissance too.

The figure you provided doesn't really make much sense in the context - for some reason, homosexuality and literature, particularly poetry, have been very connected - Shakespeare, for instance, if we are to take the youth from the sonnets as a person, rather than a fiction, Plato, Tennyson perhaps, Hart Crane, Virgil certainly, Sophocles definitely, etc.

I believe D. H. Lawrence made a remark in the like of "I should like to know why nearly every man that approaches greatness tends to homosexuality, whether he admits it or not…"


Well some aspects of the works of Shakespeare and Plato can be speculated as having homosexual attributes. The relationship between Achilles and Patoclus in The Illiad may be interpreted as homoerotic.

But I'm not really sure if it measures up to thrity precent. . . . .

The relationship between Achilles and Patroklus is definitely homosexual, given the nature of the relationship, and the way Homer describes it (not figuratively, but in terms of titling and naming - a phrase which I think translates to "Great Friend" is definitely a reference to their relationship). I think to argue otherwise, as I am sure religious scholars and teachers throughout the middle ages (in a limited fashion of course) and the rennaissance did, is the same sort of cowardice as one sees with commentary on Virgil's second Eclogue - the first sentence can only mean one thing.


As for the figure, it was meant to go by author, rather than by individual text.

[NickAdams]

I guess it depends on whether you're interested in homosexuality in literature or the "modern" homosexual themes, which I believe comes from the homosexual individual in relation to an intolerant society. I don't know if Plato would be what you're looking for in that regard, but beyond the Brokeback Mountain novella I would suggest William S. Burroughs.

[Virgil]

I just estimated it myself really


One out of every three people you know is gay? You must know a hell of a number of gay people.


but when you think of it - by today's definition, essentially all the Greeks were, the majority of the Romans, tons of the Victorians, and a great deal in the Renaissance too.
What? Are you saying that 100% of the Greeks were gay? That sentence has to be the silliest thing I've heard you say.


- The figure you provided doesn't really make much sense in the context - for some reason, homosexuality and literature, particularly poetry, have been very connected - Shakespeare, for instance, if we are to take the youth from the sonnets as a person, rather than a fiction, Plato, Tennyson perhaps, Hart Crane, Virgil certainly, Sophocles definitely, etc.
Half those people are conjectured to be gay. There's no proof. This is all post modern hog wash politically driven absurdity.


I believe D. H. Lawrence made a remark in the like of "I should like to know why nearly every man that approaches greatness tends to homosexuality, whether he admits it or not…"
DH lawrence said a hell of a lot of silly things. The very end of that is psycho babble: "whether he admits it or not." :lol:

[OrphanPip]

I guess it depends on whether you're interested in homosexuality in literature or the "modern" homosexual themes, which I believe comes from the homosexual individual in relation to an intolerant society. I don't know if Plato would be what you're looking for in that regard, but beyond the Brokeback Mountain novella I would suggest William S. Burroughs.

I found the Brokeback Mountain film to be almost exploitative and simplistic in its portrayal of homosexual relationships, I can't speak for Proulx's short story, which I've heard good things about.

[glover7]

Since most of the texts mentioned above are using the terms "homosexual" and "gay" anachronistically, I'll give you a few books that explore actual homosexual issues.

Stone Butch Blues
Dancer in the Dance by Andrew Holleran
The Swimming-Pool Libraries by Allan Hollinghurst
Faggots by Larry Kramer
The Sluts by Dennis Cooper
Frisk by Dennis Cooper
The Confessions of Max Tivoli by Andrew Sean Greer

Hollinghurst and Holleran are kind of boring, in my opinion, but they appeal to a more "literary-minded" crowd. My favorite I Faggots, which I've mentioned before. It has received its share of criticism for glorifying open sex, but the end of the book resolves that issue. Confessions is one of the only three books in my lifetime that have made me cry.

[DanielBenoit]

What? Are you saying that 100% of the Greeks were gay? That sentence has to be the silliest thing I've heard you say.


I'm no expert on ancient Greek culture, but bisexuality and homosexuality was quite popular during those times.



Half those people are conjectured to be gay. There's no proof. This is all post modern hog wash politically driven absurdity.


Speculation of Shakespeare and Socrates homosexuality have been around for centuries and has nothing to do with the advent of postmodernism. It has merely been more wide-spread accepted because of recent cultural changes.

And of course there's no proof in cases like Shakespeare or Socrates. But I don't think that their sexual orientation should be such a big deal. One can interpret the 'Fair Youth' in the Sonnets to be homoerotic or hetroerotic, it doesn't make any difference, they're still beautiful poems.

Btw, I'm not just talking about you Virgil when I say this, but I hate how the term "postmodern" is thrown around so freely. Just like "deconstructionism" it is a widely known term which is misused in so many different ways.

[OrphanPip]

Since most of the texts mentioned above are using the terms "homosexual" and "gay" anachronistically, I'll give you a few books that explore actual homosexual issues.

Stone Butch Blues
Dancer in the Dance by Andrew Holleran
The Swimming-Pool Libraries by Allan Hollinghurst
Faggots by Larry Kramer
The Sluts by Dennis Cooper
Frisk by Dennis Cooper
The Confessions of Max Tivoli by Andrew Sean Greer

Hollinghurst and Holleran are kind of boring, in my opinion, but they appeal to a more "literary-minded" crowd. My favorite I Faggots, which I've mentioned before. It has received its share of criticism for glorifying open sex, but the end of the book resolves that issue. Confessions is one of the only three books in my lifetime that have made me cry.

Gay doesn't have to mean strictly homosexual males, it is just used that way popularly. I think it's acceptable to apply "gay" to all homosexuals, but it can cause confusion with the more popular sense of the word. Anyway, I usually prefer to talk about queer lit, to be inclusive of topics of gender identity and bisexuality as well, which can be difficult to separate from gay or lesbian issues.

Edit: Ya anyone of the Violet Quill group (Holleran, White, Picano) would be a good choice for exploring gay literature.

Edit2: I just keep coming back, I had to comment on Faggots. Kramer is just too brilliant, I don't think he was glorifying that mindless sex in anyway at all. I find the book highly critical of the seeming emotional vacuum of the community. Most of the criticism I've seen directed against Kramer has been towards some perceived hostility towards the community, he is usually accused of being a homophobic gay. After all, Faggots was removed from the shelves of gay bookstores for being too critical of gays.

[Virgil]

I'm no expert on ancient Greek culture, but bisexuality and homosexuality was quite popular during those times.

Well, let me ask you and everyone, is homosexuality a born (probably genetic thing) as claimed by almost all homosexuals or is it a choice? If it's genetic, then there is probably a constant percentage (the 2-8% cited) of people who are gay across time and cultures. If it's a choice then that percentage can be anything. Unless you or anyone want to dispute what most homosexuals say and what I hear from scientifically minded people, it's not a choice. It's fixed and innate. So why would any culture have a substantially different percentage of gays?

[JBI]

One out of every three people you know is gay? You must know a hell of a number of gay people.


What? Are you saying that 100% of the Greeks were gay? That sentence has to be the silliest thing I've heard you say.


Half those people are conjectured to be gay. There's no proof. This is all post modern hog wash politically driven absurdity.


DH lawrence said a hell of a lot of silly things. The very end of that is psycho babble: "whether he admits it or not." :lol:

I am not saying all the Greeks were gay, I am just saying, how we define gay, and how culture defines sexuality must be taken into account - under the purely physical definition, I would say anybody who practices pederasty (on either end) was gay or bisexual if they did so willingly, which, in the context of the Ancient Greeks, was pretty much all of them as it was normal, and in fact, the thing to do back then.

Would I call them all gay? No, as I think the whole notion of "gay" or even "homosexual" is pretty much a Abrahamic construction built around a Judaic understanding of sodomy as a sin worthy of death.


Well, let me ask you and everyone, is homosexuality a born (probably genetic thing) as claimed by almost all homosexuals or is it a choice? If it's genetic, then there is probably a constant percentage (the 2-8% cited) of people who are gay across time and cultures. If it's a choice then that percentage can be anything. Unless you or anyone want to dispute what most homosexuals say and what I hear from scientifically minded people, it's not a choice. It's fixed and innate. So why would any culture have a substantially different percentage of gays?

Quote me that all homosexuals say this - perhaps most in the US where you draw your other statistics from. There has never been any conclusive evidence to prove homosexuality is biological, and I would bet that even if there were, which I doubt there ever will be, it would only be applicable to a fraction of those who identify as homosexual anyway.

[DanielBenoit]

Well, let me ask you and everyone, is homosexuality a born (probably genetic thing) as claimed by almost all homosexuals or is it a choice? If it's genetic, then there is probably a constant percentage (the 2-8% cited) of people who are gay across time and cultures. If it's a choice then that percentage can be anything. Unless you or anyone want to dispute what most homosexuals say and what I hear from scientifically minded people, it's not a choice. It's fixed and innate. So why would any culture have a substantially different percentage of gays?

Well my words were confusing, let me clarify. Greek culture was probably less represive of homosexuality than other cultures (again, I'm no expert, I don't know for sure), and thus the homoeroticism is more open in their works. Homosexuality has existed throughout all cultures and times, it's just seems that the Greeks didn't have to hide it as much. One could say the same thing about todays society: Why is there such a substantial amount of gay literautre today? Because society has become more tolerant.

[OrphanPip]

Quote me that all homosexuals say this - perhaps most in the US where you draw your other statistics from. There has never been any conclusive evidence to prove homosexuality is biological, and I would bet that even if there were, which I doubt there ever will be, it would only be applicable to a fraction of those who identify as homosexual anyway.

Conclusive is a tough thing to do with any human behavior, especially when it's likely a combination of genetic and environmental. However, the evidence supports a genetic component with an important environmental effect. Homosexual males are statistically more likely to have older siblings and be born later in a mother's life, this supports an evolutionary argument based on kin-selection for a propensity for "strong" homosexuality. There is huge evolutionary advantage to sexual malleability in social animals, which is why homosexual behavior is probably so common amongst all primates.

edit: Lesbianism isn't as well understood by biologist, but the predominant theory is that it arises out of group bonding behavior we see in chimps and bonobo.

[JBI]

Well my words were confusing, let me clarify. Greek culture was probably less represive of homosexuality than other cultures (again, I'm no expert, I don't know for sure), and thus the homoeroticism is more open in their works. Homosexuality has existed throughout all cultures and times, it's just seems that the Greeks didn't have to hide it as much. One could say the same thing about todays society: Why is there such a substantial amount of gay literautre today? Because society has become more tolerant.

There always has been a substantial amount of homosexual literature - I'm telling you, when you question it, things get close to 30% of major Western authors easily. Of course, that would vary between whose list one uses for "great literature" - mine is particularly poetry heavy, so perhaps that means something, but even as canonical a poet as King David was, I would think, at least bisexual - he said himself that his love for Yonatan was greater than any mans for a woman, so are we to argue with that?

[DanielBenoit]

Half those people are conjectured to be gay. There's no proof. This is all post modern hog wash politically driven absurdity.


If you want proof in Plato, check out the begining of Protagoras.

[JBI]

If you want proof in Plato, check out the begining of Protagoras.

Or Symposium.

[stlukesguild]

30% is certainly a vast overstatement... and comments about rampant homosexuality among Greeks, Romans, and Renaissance writers may also be exaggerations. Homosexuality and Bi-sexuality may have been more openly accepted... but I doubt that this resulted in a much greater occurrence, any more than the recognition of homosexual marriage will lead to a vast rush to gay marriage by heterosexuals who suddenly realize, "Gee, I coulda had a guy!":rolleyes:

Still there are more than a few homosexuals in literature (and the arts in general): Garcia-Lorca, Whitman, Hart Crane, Thomas Mann, Jean Cocteau, Jean Genet, etc... There are also more than a few instances of bisexuality: Wilde, Rimbaud, Verlaine, etc... It may just be possible that the arts have long been one of the most tolerant areas of society and as such they have represented something of a safe haven. Still, I do find that I agree somewhat with Virgil that suggestions that the sexuality of Shakespeare, Virgil, Plato, Woolf, Dickinson, etc... are clearly known is a blatant falsehood (owing much to wishful thinking among the contemporary gay community and gay theorists/critics). Hell, we even have scholars who argue that Jesus was gay when (like Socrates and even Homer) we can't even be certain that he even existed beyond a literary character. Personally, I find the notion of discovering proof of an authors sexuality from his or her writings as problematic as any Freudian attempt to uncover the personality of the artist solely upon the basis of the art.

Personally, when it comes to Shakespeare's sexuality I like Anthony Burgess' novel, Nothing Like the Sun, in which he imagines the Bard thinking he had knocked up an older Anne Hathaway leading to a shotgun wedding and his eventual abandoning her for a career in the theater where he becomes involved in a gay relationship with a young aristocrat and later with a woman of African descent while his wife carries on having affairs with his brothers Edmund and Richard (who were the true fathers of his supposed children) and thus leading to his choice of Edmund and Richard as two of his greatest villains. How's that for a plot?:brow:

[glover7]

Gay doesn't have to mean strictly homosexual males, it is just used that way popularly. I think it's acceptable to apply "gay" to all homosexuals, but it can cause confusion with the more popular sense of the word. Anyway, I usually prefer to talk about queer lit, to be inclusive of topics of gender identity and bisexuality as well, which can be difficult to separate from gay or lesbian issues.

Edit: Ya anyone of the Violet Quill group (Holleran, White, Picano) would be a good choice for exploring gay literature.

Edit2: I just keep coming back, I had to comment on Faggots. Kramer is just too brilliant, I don't think he was glorifying that mindless sex in anyway at all. I find the book highly critical of the seeming emotional vacuum of the community. Most of the criticism I've seen directed against Kramer has been towards some perceived hostility towards the community, he is usually accused of being a homophobic gay. After all, Faggots was removed from the shelves of gay bookstores for being too critical of gays.

I understand that gay doesn't strictly mean homosexual male. I simply meant that "homosexual" was a term created only rather recently, and its definition has altered drastically from its original usage.

Somebody mentioned Orlando by Virginia Woolf, which is a queer lit book, but it was a real slog for me to finish. I mean, I was actually close to skimming the last third of the book because I was so bored with it. What other queer lit would you recommend?

And I agree that the criticism leveled against Kramer is unwarranted. Most of the reviews I've read of Faggots talk about his unrealistic depiction of free and unchecked sex. Funnily enough, his other works have gotten him in trouble for being "conservative gay," like the main character of his play The Normal Heart. It's really a shame because I think Kramer pretty much has the right idea when it comes to most gay issues.

[OrphanPip]

What other queer lit would you recommend?


Well I already recommended A Boy's Own Story by Edmund White, Maurice by Forster, and Faggots by Kramer.

I guess I could add The City and The Pillar by Gore Vidal, A Single Man by Isherwood and Giovanni's Room by James Baldwin.

Edit: The one by Baldwin being about bisexuality.

Edit2: I find Teleny, which is attributed to Wilde and his circle of friends, to be amusing, but I'm hesitant to recommend it as literature, since it is pretty much well written pornography.

[JBI]

It's amazing how the adds for this site change so quickly - I am now getting all sorts of banners advertising exotic gay cruises - I guess they are probably more fun than Nerdy Online Dating though.

[mortalterror]

It's amazing how the adds for this site change so quickly - I am now getting all sorts of banners advertising exotic gay cruises - I guess they are probably more fun than Nerdy Online Dating though.
Really, 'cause all I've been getting for weeks is Barnes and Noble, and Blackberry adds?

[JBI]

Really, 'cause all I've been getting for weeks is Barnes and Noble, and Blackberry adds?

Perhaps you need to vary what you post more, so you get a wider range of banners, no? As it is, every time I stick a Chinese character somewhere I get Confucius Institute adds. Hell, I'll probably get the adds now for just saying that.

[Jozanny]

I do not read modern gay & lesbian romances, because I do not see the point, though I guess there are some authors I'm missing who push boundaries, though I do have one small press title I ordered by mistake which is a girl on girl crush and forgettable.

I am going to say something controversial, but I believe it to be basically true, and that is, the criminalization and oppression of homosexual behavior created the great literature behind it. We would not have the genius of Henry James if the Victorian era did not have its propriety up its tush, nor the scathing wit of Patricia Highsmith, nor Baldwin's anguish (though I have not tackled his work yet) and so on. It was the heterosexual lid on the bottle that created the subversion, and we lose this as gay and lesbian come within so-called normal parameters--although I don't think human sexuality is ever really a tame topic, in literature or anything else.

[jocky]

Surely the standard in the Arts and Sciences we should be looking for is the quality and not the sexuality of the artist. Is Wilde a better writer because he was gay, or Hemmingway because he was not, ( contoversial ):) Do we look at a painting or a book and think about the artist or authors sexualty, and then judge it ? My point being that De Profundis by Wilde is a brilliant literary icon but should not be judged by stereotypes.

[JBI]

Surely the standard in the Arts and Sciences we should be looking for is the quality and not the sexuality of the artist. Is Wilde a better writer because he was gay, or Hemmingway because he was not, ( contoversial ):) Do we look at a painting or a book and think about the artist or authors sexualty, and then judge it ? My point being that De Profundis by Wilde is a brilliant literary icon but should not be judged by stereotypes.

You are assuming that we should actually make the valuing of works the prime concern, which I would disagree with - do we actually have a need to establish Wilde as better than Hemingway? That is what I would rather question, instead of discussing sexuality.

[jocky]

You are assuming that we should actually make the valuing of works the prime concern, which I would disagree with - do we actually have a need to establish Wilde as better than Hemingway? That is what I would rather question, instead of discussing sexuality.

Not at all JBI, I thought the thread did have a sexual element but I did not intend to make meaningless comparisons. Why is the valuing of works not the main concern, or is this not the literature thread? Wilde is better than Hemmingway but that is only in my opinion, or is art above individual judgement? I like Poussin, you may not, you may like Claude, but that would show a distinct lack of taste. :)

[shortstoryfan]

I find this entire thread LOL.

[billl]

I imagined (very possibly incorrectly) that the OP was looking for something that might be written by or about gay people. What their reason would be for it, I don't know, but I can think of two good ones right off the top of my head.

I think it is right to point out that the writers shouldn't be completely pigeon-holed, and that a race, gender, gay/straight shouldn't be the basis for judging a writer's "greatness" or rank. But there are times when a fact about the writer, or some particular aspect of the writing can become relevant to someone.

Unfortunately, I have no recommendations, just chiming in on this side issue (I'm enjoying the discussion, thanks as always, everyone).


PLATO, SOCRATES GAY?

ALSO, I spent a fair amount of time studying Socrates, Plato, Greek Philosophy in general, as well as a single (awesome!) Greek History class. However, the "corrupting the youth" charge against Socrates never interested me--I got the impression that people didn't know exactly what it meant, with some winking about homosexual stuff, others agreeing but thinking it was part of a greater sense of rebellion/corruption that he represented, and others thinking the homosexual angle was flimsy enough to ignore altogether. So I just didn't care, it floated in the back of my mind.

Anyhow, what would it say about homosexuality in Athens at that time if Socrates was in fact being, at the very least, criticized (in many modern interpretations) for having "corrupted the youth" in some homosexual sense? It would seem that this (on its own...) is, as much as anything, evidence that Athens at large didn't approve of whatever the phrase meant. Perhaps it is an accusation of paedophilia?

I understand that there might be more evidence out there, but I always find this "corrupting the youth" quote popping up when Plato and Socrates are held out as examples of how homosexuality was much more common, socially acceptable, etc. back then in Athens. And the fact that the phrase is used against Socrates by the Senate would seem to make it, at best, evidence that homosexuality was far from universally accepted.

[Jozanny]

I never really cared for Wilde (no offense to Neely) but for me that has more to do with his lack of gravitas than his sexual preferences. Dorian Gray is just a parable more than anything else, and the way he uses language doesn't leave much room for genuine characters of substance.

But, as much as JBI likes to challenge the assumptions behind the notion of the literary subset, categories do in fact have some validity, and homo-erotic subversion, radicalism, and political intent is one such category, and does form a body of work, with its own thematic issues.

[DanielBenoit]

ALSO, I spent a fair amount of time studying Socrates, Plato, Greek Philosophy in general, as well as a single (awesome!) Greek History class. However, the "corrupting the youth" charge against Socrates never interested me--I got the impression that people didn't know exactly what it meant, with some winking about homosexual stuff, others agreeing but thinking it was part of a greater sense of rebellion/corruption that he represented, and others thinking the homosexual angle was flimsy enough to ignore altogether. So I just didn't care, it floated in the back of my mind.

Anyhow, what would it say about homosexuality in Athens at that time if Socrates was in fact being, at the very least, criticized (in many modern interpretations) for having "corrupted the youth". It would seem that this (on its own...) is, as much as anything, evidence that Athens at large didn't approve of whatever the phrase meant.

I understand that there might be more evidence out there, but I always find this "corrupting the youth" quote popping up when Plato and Socrates are held out as examples of how homosexuality was much more common, socially acceptable, etc. back then in Athens. And the fact that the phrase is used against Socrates by the Senate would seem to make it, at best, evidence that homosexuality was far from universally accepted.

Ummm, the "corrupting the youth" accusation in Apology had to do with Socrates supposed teaching of atheism and psuedo-polytheism to the youth of Athens. Socrates of course refutes this. If my memory serves me right never is any homosexual act or insident once mentioned or implied.

[JBI]

Ummm, the "corrupting the youth" accusation in Apology had to do with Socrates supposed teaching of atheism and psuedo-polytheism to the youth of Athens. Socrates of course refutes this. If my memory serves me right never is any homosexual act or insident once mentioned or implied.

There is enough proof of homosexuality at the time being a fairly common, and accepted practice, even in a pederastic manner. Just read Xenophon's Symposium.

[jocky]

I never really cared for Wilde (no offense to Neely) but for me that has more to do with his lack of gravitas than his sexual preferences. Dorian Gray is just a parable more than anything else, and the way he uses language doesn't leave much room for genuine characters of substance.

But, as much as JBI likes to challenge the assumptions behind the notion of the literary subset, categories do in fact have some validity, and homo-erotic subversion, radicalism, and political intent is one such category, and does form a body of work, with its own thematic issues.

It is time you read your Stevie Smith, No Categories, please.

[DanielBenoit]

There is enough proof of homosexuality at the time being a fairly common, and accepted practice, even in a pederastic manner. Just read Xenophon's Symposium.

That's what bill was saying, not me. I was just pointing out that the subject of homosexuality does not come up at all in Apology.

[billl]

Ummm, the "corrupting the youth" accusation in Apology had to do with Socrates supposed teaching of atheism and psuedo-polytheism to the youth of Athens. Socrates of course refutes this. If my memory serves me right never is any homosexual act or insident once mentioned or implied.

Yes, I agree, and we probably studied under the same sort of professors (or read similar commentary, etc.). But some people read stuff into it, and I think that the evidence coming from other places is used to paint this vague phrase to mean what they think it means. We're on the same side, except maybe you have already dismissed these interpretations outright.

[JBI]

Meh, modern writers just became obsessed with categories because it is probably the cheapest way to get attention - just think about it - if it can be stuck into a category, some half-rate Ph. D. scholar can specialize in that "area of literature" and then teach that "tradition" - so we get essentialized forms, after some self-essentialization as an attention grabber, as it is far easier to yell "hi, I'm an African-American, female, lesbian poet" than "hi, I am a poet who probably isn't very good and is very limited in theme." These categories don't seem to function the same way in contemporary Canadian literature though, I wonder why? My guess? Quite simply movement-specific periodicals aren't as prevalent, and more general groupings of "Canadian literature" seem the essentialized form.

It makes sense too, when looking at the past - Do we consider Dante, for instance, a Scholastic Poet? Or Petrarch a "Humanist" poet? Quite simply put, his poetical works in Italian make up very little of his collected works, and he was primarily known as a Latin Prose stylist for 150 years after his death, with very little attention paid to his insignificant vernacular works. What do we make of that?

Shakespeare is a homosexual poet then, so should we only read him as such? What about the "dark lady"? Can we say then that now he is a bisexual poet?


Lets be honest, these categories are primarily an American invention more so than anything else. There is some truth in categorization, but the American institutions in particular have driven this to an extreme where they can only categorize and belong to "Schools" or "movements". The reason I suspect for this? Quite simply, that's the way the American cultural political scene works - it's no surprise that the way political activism works in the US leaked over to the way things are read.


Yes, I agree, and we probably studied under the same sort of professors (or read similar commentary, etc.). But some people read stuff into it, and I think that the evidence coming from other places is used to paint this vague phrase to mean what they think it means. We're on the same side, except maybe you have already dismissed these interpretations outright.

I don't know - I had a Law teacher in high school propose the homosexual charge question - to me it just seems like fishy half-theory by bigots.

[billl]

There is enough proof of homosexuality at the time being a fairly common, and accepted practice, even in a pederastic manner. Just read Xenophon's Symposium.

Thanks JBI. Can anybody point to a few quotes or something, or characterize some of it as it might be vaguely remembered? I'm not curious enough to read Xenophon's Symposium anytime soon, and I of course don't want to insist that anyone do my research for me, but are the deniers really completely wrong?

One bit in Wikipedia says that, at least publicly, it was probably a sort of uncomfortable topic in Athens. Perhaps reading Xenophon would be like watching Brokeback Mountain, or something?

[jocky]

There is enough proof of homosexuality at the time being a fairly common, and accepted practice, even in a pederastic manner. Just read Xenophon's Symposium.

JBI, you are at it big time, as you will have no doubt guessed I have not read Xenophon's Symposium but if you hum a few lines I am sure I will pick it up. Here is a few lines from Bananarama, nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah nah, hey hey goodbye. And I noticed you have brought up sex again. Either you or the wallpaper has to go. :)

[JBI]

Thanks JBI. Can anybody point to a few quotes or something, or characterize some of it as it might be vaguely remembered? I'm not curious enough to read Xenophon's Symposium anytime soon, and I of course don't want to insist that anyone do my research for me, but are the deniers really completely wrong?

One bit in Wikipedia says that, at least publicly, it was probably a sort of uncomfortable topic in Athens. Perhaps reading Xenophon would be like watching Brokeback Mountain, or something?

How, in the first place, is it possible for him to hate a lover who,
he knows, regards him as both beautiful and good? (35) and, in the next
place, one who, it is clear, is far more anxious to promote the fair
estate of him he loves (36) than to indulge his selfish joys? and above
all, when he has faith and trust that neither dereliction, (37) nor
loss of beauty through sickness, nor aught else, will diminish their
affection.


from a translation available online here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1181/1181.txt

[billl]

Meh, modern writers just became obsessed with categories because [etc.]

Yes JBI, but I recently saw on some forum somewhere where a Vietnamese-American teenager who had been adopted (I mean the parents, etc weren't of Vietnamese origin) was looking for Vietnamese pop music. Of course, this introduces the difference in languages, but I don't think it is stretching things too much to suggest that she might also seek out books by women that look like her (be they translated, or originally-written in English). If not for the content (perhaps insights into her experience), then for the mere fact that it is an example for her of how she can fit into the world alongside others.

Actually, Jozanny had already added to the brief burst of pointing this sort of thing out perhaps half-a-page ago.

[shortstoryfan]

I'm a little confused.

This guy asks for reading recommendations that have homosexual themes. JBI brings up a good point--what makes a book predominantly gay? In later posts, he says that he doesn't agree with categorization of writing (which is such a nice concept, so many years away, but we have to start somewhere). At the same time, there is this dialogue on how many writers are gay, or bisexual, or open minded towards different sexualities. We go into this big discussion about how gay the world is (to some of us everything seems gay--haha).

But if categories aren't important, why does it matter how many writers are gay or bisexual or open minded? Couldn't a writer who is none of these deal with gay themes--in a negative or positive way? Maybe they wouldn't be as likely to, but isn't making that statement kind of categorizing work as well?

Maybe we just have all these superfluous things being introduced, cause obviously this is still a very hot button topic (how quickly this thread grows). But some of them seem like we are relating them to our ideas about "gay literature" or literature in general.

I think there have been some rude things said as well, but that is to be expected.

Lots more to say, but I'm not good at articulating my thoughts and feelings into English.

[billl]

How, in the first place, is it possible for him to hate a lover who,
he knows, regards him as both beautiful and good? (35) and, in the next
place, one who, it is clear, is far more anxious to promote the fair
estate of him he loves (36) than to indulge his selfish joys? and above
all, when he has faith and trust that neither dereliction, (37) nor
loss of beauty through sickness, nor aught else, will diminish their
affection.


from a translation available online here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1181/1181.txt

THANKS! That is some pretty obviously gay stuff (and the footnotes tend to make it even more obvious). However, Wikipedia is saying that this version of the symposium is generally regarded as worthless as a source for information about Socrates and the trial. It seems like a lot of joking around, from the description there.

[shortstoryfan]

In a Project Gutenberg/Wikipedia death match, Wikipedia doesn't win.

Hahaha. Wait, maybe it would be a tie where they both die horrible bloody deaths.

[billl]

But some of them seem like we are relating them to our ideas about "gay literature" or literature in general.

I think there have been some rude things said as well, but that is to be expected.

Lots more to say, but I'm not good at articulating my thoughts and feelings into English.

Basically, there is an interlude taking place, regarding whether people should be interested in gay literature (ie. all literature should be considered without categories, ideally), or perhaps whether it even really exists, etc. It isn't about the OP so much this last page or so. I'm not sure which bits are rude, but you are probably a little bit correct--I think it energizes some of the writing maybe or something, and then it snowballs, occasionally out of control. Please don't take it too seriously, and it is almost certainly nothing rude against homosexuality (as far as I have seen so far...) just competitiveness about larger academic issues.

Ignore this stuff and offer recommendations, if you like, or try to enjoy JBI's writing, if not his exact opinions.


In a Project Gutenberg/Wikipedia death match, Wikipedia doesn't win.

I wasn't opposing Gutenberg (in favor of Wikipedia), I was just wondering if JBI was right to suggest that Xenophon hadn't in fact been writing some sort of entertaining farce, rather than a serious discussion of Socrates's trial. Again, these extended passages about homosexuality might be meant to scandalize the audience, or provide humorous characterizations...

[JBI]

Yes JBI, but I recently saw on some forum somewhere where a Vietnamese-American teenager who had been adopted (I mean the parents, etc weren't of Vietnamese origin) was looking for Vietnamese pop music. Of course, this introduces the difference in languages, but I don't think it is stretching things too much to suggest that she might also seek out books by women that look like her (be they translated, or originally-written in English). If not for the content (perhaps insights into her experience), then for the mere fact that it is an example for her of how she can fit into the world alongside others.

Actually, Jozanny had already added to the brief burst of pointing this sort of thing out perhaps half-a-page ago.

Perhaps, it brings up an interesting point though, which in this context I would term (borrowing from Said, and Dirlik) self-orientalization - where, ultimately, as a defense against being limited to a sense of the other - that is, a self-recognition (whether the recognition be rooted in truth or not) that she is somehow apart from those around her, and essentially "Vietnamese", whatever that means. In truth, it comes down again to categories - how do we see ourselves - as outside, it generally is natural to instead seek to declare ourselves within the outside frame - so, for instance, I coming from an immigrant Israeli family in Canada seek to declare myself from my heritage, yet, at the same time, self-essentialize myself against the Canadian Jewish population, who, in turn are, arguably culturally apart, and are unaccepting of my definition of Jewish, as it conflicts with their own essentialized construct.

Is this Vietnamese girl essentially different, or is she only made different based on the fact that culturally she is seen, or sees herself as somehow outside - removed.

In essence, I have read on the subject of West-Indian immigrants coming to Canada, and not "knowing" they were "black" before getting here, in the sense, that their culture, from where they come from, doesn't essentialize, or Other them in such a fashion - they didn't have the need for self-assertion, as the population more coherently saw itself as one unit.

In that sense, this girl listens to Vietnamese music, and may read Vietnamese literature, but what is quintessential Vietnamese music? What is quintessential "Vietnamese"? The "Vietnamese" experience perhaps cannot be applied to everyone who is of Vietnamese origin can it?


This is actually a very interesting topic, and one which is given much attention in Diaspora Studies. In all honesty, most people are pretty much the same - that's the conclusion I have drawn from my reading, and meeting people - culturally speaking, most people have the same wants, and same ways of thinking - everything else is just mannerism and language, and difference in ritual. In contrast though, what categorization seeks instead to do is really create a fundamental division between things, and declare two things fundamentally different, and essentialize them in the process - the Vietnamese person is somehow different than the American, or the homosexual author somehow writes differently than the straight one. All this is merely rubbish.


When it comes down to it, there is no essential "homosexual", and there isn't one "homosexual experience" or "homosexual mentality". What we term homosexual is only termed such because we somehow remove it from "heterosexual" and Other it - we essentialize it by marking it as fundamentally different, and then we imbue it with qualities that dictate what it is.

But lets be honest; is the experience of Catullus the same as Oscar Wilde? And better yet, is their "sexuality" even a topic worth mentioning as the "essential" quality to their work? Wilde, for instance, wrote witty plays and some good stories and a particularly good novel - mostly dealing with "heterosexual" relationships. Catullus wrote witty poems about Roman life - does their sexual preference really make them so fundamentally similar, or would it not be better to compare, for instance, Swinburne to Wilde, and Catullus to Horace?


THANKS! That is some pretty obviously gay stuff (and the footnotes tend to make it even more obvious). However, Wikipedia is saying that this version of the symposium is generally regarded as worthless as a source for information about Socrates and the trial. It seems like a lot of joking around, from the description there.

That isn't the point - the point is how homosexual culture isn't greeted with signs that say "burn in hell". Quite simply, the text is farcical, but at the same time, not because of its projection of sexuality, but more so because it doesn't really take itself seriously.

[billl]

Still, it is asking a bit much for an adolescent girl to not be looking for things that might widen her understanding about her situation, where she "comes from" and what's going on among others facing the same issues.

But you are right, things can get carried away, and some people might, in their quest to validate something, end up ghettoizing it, or even cynically (or, perhaps, unconsciously...?) milk it for cash and career. I guess, anyhow... Big topic.

[MANICHAEAN]

Try:
Andre Gide: " Fruits of the Earth"
James Baldwin: "Giovanni's Room"

[billl]

That isn't the point - the point is how homosexual culture isn't greeted with signs that say "burn in hell". Quite simply, the text is farcical, but at the same time, not because of its projection of sexuality, but more so because it doesn't really take itself seriously.

OK, but I thought the point was that it was supposed to be evidence for this:


There is enough proof of homosexuality at the time being a fairly common, and accepted practice, even in a pederastic manner. Just read Xenophon's Symposium.


Comedy isn't strong evidence for common and accepted practice. I agree, though, that even the fact that such comedy as this exists in their society hints at a sophistication about humor that might seem surprising to some now, and maybe hints at some winking at things that actually went on. But that is a plausible perspective, not conclusive proof that a much harsher intent and reception hadn't existed at the time.

[Scheherazade]

Since this thread has not served its original purpose and has been derailed enough,
it will now be closed.

Toptenor> I apologise for this and please feel free to start another thread for your quest.