What makes gay literature 'gay' is it the author's sexual orientation or the 'gay' subject matter or both? Is 'gay' different to 'queer'?
Printable View
What makes gay literature 'gay' is it the author's sexual orientation or the 'gay' subject matter or both? Is 'gay' different to 'queer'?
The author's sexual orientation isn't meant when we talk about gay literature. It means that the theme or at least one of the theme's in a novel is about homosexual love or disire or in any case has some reference to it. It can also be about a struggle of concience or false morality where homosexuality is concerned.
I don't know about queer. I don't really use that word. Essentially it means the same thing but I think it can be insulting.
But isn't there something called "Queer Studies" in the US?
I don't like the term 'gay literature'; it implies that only gay people will enjoy it. It's the subject matter that makes it 'gay literature' although the author tends to be gay as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by dismo
Queer studies, or sexual studies, or gender studies, or whatever, is basically like feminist studies - not a direct part of reading, but becomes associated with reading through critics.
Basically, readers in that vein look for homosexual "themes" and elements in a text, and therefore act accordingly.
I'm not going to lie, most of what they find is similar to what a Freudian reader would find, and is pure speculation. Though, if an author has made a character secretly homosexual, usually it won't take much to dig him up. But there are readers who, for instance, insist that Septimus from Mrs. Dalloway is gay, or homophobic (I've read both), and there are readers who read Mrs. Dalloway as a closeted lesbian.
There are also those who try and forge an "homosexual" tradition in, for instance, English literature, which is silly, since there have been countless homosexual authors in English from the beginning, from Shakespeare, to Ashbery and beyond.
I'm of the mind that there is no "gay literature", but simply literature, whose author happens to be influenced by some aspect of homosexuality, which isn't that uncommon. Shakespeare's sonnets for instance, would seem to be based on autobiographical elements, pertaining to his relationship with his Beloved. But in truth, only a homophobic reader would see a problem with that - I think for most of us, it simply doesn't matter.
Well, we must take into account that there is something about the author's spirit... I remember reading Wilde's short stories and I felt that there is something very feminine about the way his stories affected me emotionally.
JBI--
I get your drift, but I think there is, like anything, literature with homo-erotic suggestion, and literature with an explicit *gay* or *in-the-life* agenda--for lack of a better categorization. Forster can be seen as an early forerunner of the gay and lesbian civil rights struggle, as we call it today. A Passage To India is a radical novel, if only because, or at least, some of my instructors implied, that it is a male on male love story which goes right over the heads of its straight readers, and then there is Maurice, which is explicit about the oppression homosexual men go through.
When it comes to James, the hot thing in critical scholarship is to deconstruct all of his masterworks according to a *bisexual subversion of traditional Victorian bonds* to quote a scholar who thinks I am a blockhead in objecting to this:D. I do not object to such interpretations because I am prissy, or do not see them as possible, but because James himself was all about obfuscation--and not so much because HE was prissy, (which he was), but because the process of human interaction itself is obscure. We may think we know someone, only it turns out we don't. We may trust, only to be betrayed. Or even in my case, some people think I am a *sweet person*, which may be partly true, but I have a terrible dark side, which frightens even me!
But to the extent that there is a gay literature, it is a modern, supposedly progressive incarnation. I am prissy to the extent that I am not sure how progressive, or even good, comes from so much sexual exposure and freedom in the modern era, but that is me. That said, this forum has made me very interested in reading James Baldwin, and the members get kudos for that!:p
I really liked Giovanni's Room. Intend to read Blues For Mr Charlie next :)
An example of where I would agree with JBI, that sometimes critics are only serving themselves, is in The Wings of The Dove, where James returns to some of the themes he develops in Portrait. In the opening chapters, we learn about Kate Croy's situation, and how she came to live with her aunt, a circumstance which is not very satisfying to the young woman. In the backstory, we learn that Croy senior did something *wicked.* But James being James, what this wickedness amounts to is never spelled out. Some contemporary critics read this as meaning that Croy papa is gay, and that Kate subsequently displays lesbianistic tendencies in her relations with Millie, the dying mega-rich American.
What I tried to ask these scholars, apparently not very successfully, is why the novel has to be read this way, even if James had personal struggles with his orientation. There is exceedingly little evidence in the novel itself to suggest that Senior Croy had or faced legal troubles due to homosexual activity--and what scant evidence there is leans more toward gambling debts, or, as the movie director implies, a drug addiction, which in those days would have been opium.
Hence, I agree with JBI that plugging in various interpretations onto deliberately ambiguous language does not necessarily mean that the author's hidden agenda is to promote homosexuality--even though these days, gay and lesbian is a genre on its own.
As to the OP's question about queer, I am not an expert on the history of its use, but do know that *gay* was first used as a slang term for homosexuality in a 1930's Cary Grant comedy--the one with the leopards in it. The title escapes me.
People are capable of seeing homosexuality in everything these days. There are literally tons of essays written about homosexuality being seen in almost ALL great literature. It's completely ridiculous.
I refuse to acknowledge something as being gay literature unless it is overtly gay or definitively recognized as being suggestive of gay themes. So something like Larry Kramer's Faggots (terrible book that it is, just saying) would qualify as gay literature. I would also argue that Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray is at least within the realm of gay literature as well because, knowing the context, you can reasonably argue that it has gay themes without trying too hard.
PS: I know it hasn't been mentioned at all yet, but 'queer' studies I think is a touchy designation. People often feel tempted to shove transgender or transsexual things within the realm of 'queer' when in reality being transgender does not make one inherently queer any more than a book related to transgenderism/transsexuality makes it inherently queer. Just saying. Sore spot for me. Queer is a title one gives to themselves.
Bringing Up Baby.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
On the gay different from queer thing it would really depend on the context, dialect, and probably the time the work came out....Examples:
"The night was a queer one." -That would be saying the night wasn't a good one.
"The man was queer when he kissed the other man." -Sorry, best sentence I could think of, but that would be talking about gayness.
And I'm pretty sure what makes gay literature gay, is the content, not the author, I could be wrong though.
Bringing Up Baby. He's wearing a pink dressing gown and someone asks him why he's wearing it and he says "I felt gay all of a sudden." But you can still interpret that as feeling light and frivolous as opposed to actually being gay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Queer is used as an umbrella term for any member of the GLBT community. Thus, queer studies looks at issues of sexual orientation and identity, while gay literature would usually be used to refer to specifically male sexual orientation.
Edit: As to there being a tradition of gay literature, I think a case could only be made for this from the 60s onward. Baldwin, Vidal, and Forster are certainly looked back at as influences on gay literature. White and Kramer are later big names coming out of the 80s. Essentially, it is hard to find a literate gay male in the English speaking world who has not read Edmund White or Gore Vidal, so in that sense there is a gay literary tradition because most people writing from a gay perspective, for a gay perspective, share similar literary histories.
As to Kramer's Faggots being a horrible book, its influence culturally is undeniable for gay people, although it does engender extreme hate in some readers, especially those that view it as apologetic and homophobic.
I think having gay literature, or African-American litearture, Or One eyed men with their left hand replaced by a hook literature, is degrading. In a way it says we give you your own field, as you cant compete with the big boys. Literature is literature, weather the protagonist is a black lesbian one eyed, left hand missing, replaced by a hook woman, or just a regular joe, they should be looked at as merely literature.
That being said, homosexuality can be a major theme of a novel.
Oh and I dont think the picture of dorian gray is gay lit, I mean just because Wilde was doesnt mean his novel is, I mean if we never knew Wilde was gay, we wouldn't be calling the novel gay lit. The author and the art must be separated. Ironically enough it was the very fact that the conservative law system of 1890's, which couldn't separate art from artist, which well to but in frankly screwed up everything fro wilde.
The problem here is that gays are a cultural group, and to look specifically for gay lit is not always about looking for the best written literature, of its own merit, but to find something that speaks to your own experience. Gay lit is useful as a marker in so far that people want to find and read stuff written by and for gay audiences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
Exactly. Queer as Folk may not be great television (as say, The Wire), but it certainly speaks for me being a bisexual man.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Precisely, it is a genre for the public, it should not be a genre for academia.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Some of academia is focused on cultural studies though, and how the arts reflect ideas of culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
Ah sorry for not being clearer, Literature academia.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
If the author is openly gay, that helps to determine if a book is 'gay', since sexuality is a huge part of most people's lives. Or at least, it is mine.
Also, just ask - as someone else said - 'literate gay people' who have probably been to college and know what books are gay touchstones, like 'Dancer from the Dance' or 'Leaves of Grass'.
I think my favorite 'gay' book is either the aforementioned "Dancer from the Dance" or "City of Night". But I have a lot of other ones I've enjoyed - yes, some Edmund White, some Gore Vidal, but also Mary Renault! And others I have as yet to read.
Queer has been pretty successfully reclaimed, arguably more so even than "dyke" in the lesbian community... it is now its own identity, used to connote that a person has a stronger identification with the LGB community than with any particular orientation. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinivere
I do think literature can be gay without having explicitly homosexual content. For instance, anti-humanism, a movement Rimbaud began, was a major part of gay culture in the late 1800s/early 1900s... Gide's L'Immoraliste does not have two men engaging in sexual behavior, but it eroticizes the male body and it is implied that all the men Michel associates with in Paris are gay public officers...