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.Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
J.H.S.
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.
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.
J.H.S.
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
Try:
Andre Gide: " Fruits of the Earth"
James Baldwin: "Giovanni's Room"
OK, but I thought the point was that it was supposed to be evidence for this:
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.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.
Last edited by billl; 11-20-2009 at 03:13 AM. Reason: verb tense
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.
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
Posting Permissions
