That's why he wrote 'Moby Dick'.Originally Posted by stlukesguild
That's why he wrote 'Moby Dick'.
A professor I had, a total Moby Dick nut, researched the etymology of the word "dick," and couldn't find any evidence that it was slang for penis until the 1900s. She may be wrong, but I think it's a coincidence that seems too perfect in a book with so many homosexual allusions.
Is that enough to conclude he was bisexual though? I mean, he could've been, but I don't really see his writing to be too huge amount of support, especially when looking at the comedic tone of pretty much every homosexual allusion in MD. Melville, more than anything, was trying to push boundaries with MD, both with structure and subject matter. Clear allusions to homosexuality and jabs at Christianity (both of which got his book banned by churches who bothered to read it) show this. He definitely could've been bisexual, but a book, especially one that toys with the reader as much as MD, I don't think is the most trustworthy indicator. Of course, aside from some of his shorter works, I've only read MD. If homosexuality is a theme shown throughout all his works, maybe there's more to it. Still, and I know you'll agree to this more than none stlukes, art isn't necessarily autobiographical (hell, I learned that from you more than anyone).
(I know this has nothing to do with Gore Vidal, but I'll take a literary discussion on this forum anywhere one takes place, now.)
Is that enough to conclude he was bisexual though? I mean, he could've been, but I don't really see his writing to be too huge amount of support, especially when looking at the comedic tone of pretty much every homosexual allusion in MD.
Personally I couldn't care less if Melville was straight, gay, bi-... or f***-ing sheep. I'm not really big on reading into the Freudian obsessions with the artist's personal life... the cult of personality.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
Yeah, same here. It would be kind of weird if he ****ed sheep, though.
Made for a great Woody Allen skit, however.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B94lP-fZyLk
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
My favourite part is when Gene Wilder's character brings the sheep to a hotel.
"If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
- Margaret Atwood
Gene Wilder's eye movements form 0:55-1:15 get me every single time I watch that scene.
Vladimir: (sententious.) To every man his little cross. (He sighs.) Till he dies. (Afterthought.) And is forgotten.
My favourite part is when Gene Wilder's character brings the sheep to a hotel.
And gets caught in bed with it dressed in stockings and garters.
Unfortunately I couldn't find that part on YouTube... except on a very dark video with AC/DC's Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap overdubbed.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
I met Gore Vidal when I was a summer intern at the Virginia Theater in NYC about 12 years ago. He was a very nice friendly person and not the cranky, pompous character perceived by other people. Mr. Vidal wanted to see his billboard down by the Covenant House building on the west side and my boss asked me to accompany them. Despite the high regard his novels and essays are held in, I will most remember Mr. Vidal as this nice affable man who spent 15 minutes chatting with me (a lowly intern). Below is a photo I took that day. May his soul rest in peace.
It's interesting that Number7 is taking flak for criticizing Vidal without having read him, whereas Mutatis-Mutandis doesn't take the same flak for praising Vidal without having read him.
I don't believe I've praised him nor criticized him, at least in terms of his writing.
You started a thread eulogizing a man whose work you've never read. What did you like about him? His personality, evidently. Other people disliked that personality, but they're taking heat for it; you don't.
But, my previous comment was not aimed at you, since I find nothing wrong with your comments here. It was aimed at those whose standards seem to be selective.
You started a thread eulogizing a man whose work you've never read. What did you like about him? His personality, evidently. Other people disliked that personality, but they're taking heat for it; you don't.
But, my previous comment was not aimed at you, since I find nothing wrong with your comments here. It was aimed at those whose standards seem to be selective.
It seems to me that MM merely drew attention to the passing of Gore Vidal. I assume that anyone might be capable of pointing out that a well-known literary figure has died without having read their work. He even mentions in his OP that he had never read Vidal. Looking at all of his posts, not once does he make any critical commentary for or against Vidal as a writer. He does, on the other hand, state in general terms that it is probably not a good idea to judge a writer by his or her personality, and then mentions Cormac McCarthy as an example. That seems somewhat different from stating that "I never liked him" or "his work doesn't interest me" in spite of having never read anything by him. That... and perhaps the lack of decorum in making such comments about a writer in a thread started as a sort of eulogy or recognition of his passing, is what was being criticized. MM will tell you that he has been the target of critical disagreement by myself and any number of other regulars here on more than one occasion.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
Neither has Number7, as far as I can tell.Looking at all of his [MM's] posts, not once does he make any critical commentary for or against Vidal as a writer.
I agree. Now where was that healthy attitude a few weeks ago in the Ayn Rand thread? This comment is not aimed only at you, stlukesguild; it is a general comment to all those who commented there. It seems that some attitudes have switched between then and now.He does, on the other hand, state in general terms that it is probably not a good idea to judge a writer by his or her personality, and then mentions Cormac McCarthy as an example.
{EDIT}
Let us recall how this thread evolved. Number7 said:
There's no mention of Vidal's work here, only of his personality. You replied withI always felt that I never liked him, he just come across as embittered.
thereby shifting the issue from Vidal's personality to his work. Admittedly, Vidal's work should be the focus, not his personality, but then the OP was by a person who has never read his work, so the door was open for discussion of his personality.And what have you read by him?
Anyway, it's not a big deal either way.
Last edited by Summer M; 08-11-2012 at 01:39 PM.
Different threads are going to bring about different posts.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
