Queereaders discussion

Moby Dick was so far above my head when we had to read it in 9th (10th?) grade, but I remember wondering why Ishmael spent so much time describing Queequeg's brawny body; and finding that, probably, the most interesting thing about the book at the time. I chalked up their sleeping together (and snuggling!) to being a quirky historical thing, but I will say, again, those facets of the story made the strongest impressions. I remember plodding through the rest of the book waiting for something exciting to happen and it seemed like nothing really did.

Probably worth giving it a second try as an adult. :)

I find that my reaction to characters in books becomes quite personalized. If I see myself in a character I'm disappointed when he displays attraction to girls/women. This happened when I read The Perks of Being a Wallflower (I know, not a classic in literature, but then again, I have no desire to read Moby Dick.). I empathized with the fragile, clever character so deeply that I mistook him for myself for awhile, then, you know, girls. But other times it's just a fun, wishful thing for me. The temptation is to assign queerness to any character (male or female) who feels apart from the crowd, who is conflicted, because at the very least metaphorically s/he IS queer. Certainly Holden Caulfield is queer, and that narrator in The Stranger, and Piggy and Simon in Lord of the Flies. Not because of sexuality, but because of their otherness. I think I'm deviating a bit from the discussion, but it's an intriguing topic and thought I'd chime in :)

Andrew wrote: "I find that my reaction to characters in books becomes quite personalized. If I see myself in a character I'm disappointed when he displays attraction to girls/women. This happened when I read [boo..."

I had a very similar reaction to [book:The Perks of Being a Wallflower|22628]. I was really disappointed with the 2nd part of the book, with how neatly everything fell together. The first half showed so much promise and was so good. And I did read the character as queer, for similar reason as it seems you did, and was let down when all the expected cliches fell into place.

I had similar reaction to Ducky in the film Pretty in Pink. Wonderful film, but disappointing in it's conventional predictability and HEA ending.

Bernie wrote: "Has anyone run accross anyhing to sugest there were gays among the Inklings themselves. I would be surprise if velthre was for Tolkien. I would be less surprised about C.S. Lewis. He was very socia..."

Sadly, I didn't focus much on the Inklings during my thesis research. I had to keep focused on my topic and as it was only an undergrad thesis, I didn't have the luxury of time and space to do everything I'd have liked to do. I've meant to get back into all that, but just never have ... yet. ;)

Sherlock Holmes came over as pan/bisexual to me, definitely demisexual and potentially having a form of Aspergers. Watson was as close to bi-romantic as please in most books.

Several characters in Katherine Kurtz's Deryni books appear to be either gay or bisexual, namely Arilan, Duncan, but also Camber of Culdi, his aide and one of the bishops.

Bernie wrote: "Good luck on your research when you do get back to it. I hope you find wonderful things to share.

I edited my initial comment. Sorry about the mess. I wrote it with my kindle and auto-correct makes a hash of what I write. "

Thanks. ;)
I have the same problem with auto-correct. Add my terrible spelling and things come out awful, and unintelligible, sometimes. ;)

Mark Twain once wrote, or said, something to the effect that he had no use for a person who only knew of one way to spell words. I took that to heart, I suppose. ;)

Greg wrote: "Bryn wrote: "...American publishers changed the title of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, fearing that Americans wouldn't get the alchemical reference. I wish publishers wouldn't do that!!..."

This is a reason I try to get British copies of British books.

This reminds me that I need to find the British edition of Morrissey's autobiography. Apparently the U.S. edition completely omits Morrissey's discussion of a gay relationship he describes. Why would I want to read an incomplete book?

Kernos wrote: "This is a reason I try to get British copies of British books."

I'm the same way. I have a copy of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, which I read before I knew of all the cultural alterations to Americanize the book, and now a copy of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone which I'll read when I get around to reading them a second time. ;)

Andrew wrote: "This reminds me that I need to find the British edition of Morrissey's autobiography. Apparently the U.S. edition completely omits Morrissey's discussion of a gay relationship he describes. Why wou..."

This one of the most annoying issues with book editions. Knowing before hand which edition has what deletions and omissions, which has been censored and which is authorized.

I've had lots of problems with this issue regarding editions of the works of Michael Moorcock. Some of the UK editions are more complete than the US editions, sometimes the other way around. To complicate things even further, the author keeps revising his books. Frustrating beyond belief.

Bernie wrote: "That is a cute quote. Thanks for understanding."

Da nada ;)

Rick wrote: "I've had lots of problems with this issue regarding editions of the works of Michael Moorcock. Some of the UK editions are more complete than the US editions, sometimes the other way around. To complicate things even further, the author keeps revising his books. Frustrating beyond belief. ..."

Good to know Rick! One day I want to read the Count Brass and Elric books I remember enjoying as a kid. I'll have to check out version info!

Andrew wrote: "This reminds me that I need to find the British edition of Morrissey's autobiography. Apparently the U.S. edition completely omits Morrissey's discussion of a gay relationship he describes. Why wou..."

How strange Andrew! I wonder why they did that. Was it written a while ago?

Greg wrote: "
How strange Andrew! I wonder why they did that. Was it written a while ago? "

Nope, just three or four years ago.

I just read that Adam Ant's autobiography was also edited down for the U.S. version.

I guess, at least with British books, best to get the British edition!

Andrew wrote: "Greg wrote: "
How strange Andrew! I wonder why they did that. Was it written a while ago? "

Nope, just three or four years ago.

I just read that Adam Ant's autobiography was also edited down for ..."


Wow, good to know Andrew! I'm surprised they're still doing that as far as everything has come in the US lately. I will definitely go for British editions!

I'm reading Neal Stephenson's Quicksilver. He strongly alludes to Isaac Newton being Queer. There is some discussion of this in the literature, but is of course highly disputed. There is little actually known of his private life which was very, very private.

Wow, lots of great discussion going on here since I last checked in! And I'm glad people have been enjoying the topic. :)

Melville is definitely an interesting one in the context of this topic. Given a lot of his subject matter and milieu (sailing and ships) an intense homosociality is almost inevitable, though from the several texts I've read it's hard to not see some kind of dynamic at play beyond platonic friendship. Billy Budd is definitely the extreme case though: unless one is content to merely read it in the abstracted terms of good vs evil as in a parable or morality tale, Claggart's actions make not a bit of sense. I personally think his actions have to interpreted as being tangled up with desire, whether or not Claggart himself--or even Melville!--actually realizes it themselves.

Actually, the other day another example occurred to me: in Middlemarch Casaubon really only made sense to me as being in the tradition of the fussy, "eccentric" "bachelor of a certain age" who never bothered to take a wife because, well, not only did he prefer his books but, frankly, he probably just wasn't all that interested in ladies in the first place.

It made the character a lot more sympathetic to me than even Eliot--despite all her expansive empathy--probably intended. I sparked a lot of debates in class just by trying to give a compassionate reading to his character (though in the end even I had to turn on him, lol).

Andrew wrote: "The temptation is to assign queerness to any character (male or female) who feels apart from the crowd, who is conflicted, because at the very least metaphorically s/he IS queer. Certainly Holden Caulfield is queer, and that narrator in The Stranger, and Piggy and Simon in Lord of the Flies. Not because of sexuality, but because of their otherness. I think I'm deviating a bit from the discussion, but it's an intriguing topic and thought I'd chime in :) "

This is a great point, Andrew, which I think merits further consideration. In a way, this really gets to the fundamental--and ongoing--debate regarding the difference between "gay" and "LGBT" versus "queer," even though I think most people tend to use the terms somewhat interchangeably, especially depending upon context (or at least I do).

My original query asking about "queer" characters was intentional--and not just because this is the "Queerreaders" group! :) Because if I had asked for "gay" characters a lot of our discussion would be superfluous--I'd say a lot of the characters being discussed above probably wouldn't qualify because not only did they likely never have any same-sex experiences, they might not even consciously recognize same-sex tendencies in themselves. "Queer," on the other hand, opens up the potential for encapsulating a lot more behaviors and attitudes, because it means on one level non-heterosexual, but in a larger sense counter everything that is considered "normal." Which automatically puts any "outsider"," "loner," or "othered" character into play--whatever their actual sexual preference/behavior--simply because they exhibit behavior that opposes or subverts what a "normal" person is supposed to do.

The strange (and I think potentially beautiful) thing about "queerness" is that at least theoretically it can include heterosexuality; it can also means those that those who are gay can also, theoretically, NOT be queer, which is kind of the explanation of the rise of the term "homonormativity."

Anyway, apologies for getting pedantic, but I suppose this is all to say that in the end I wanted ALL of these things to be in play when I asked my initial question, especially as it is my belief that queer behavior can come in many different--and potentially contentious!--forms.

Jesse wrote: "Billy Budd is definitely the extreme case though: unless one is content to merely read it in the abstracted terms of good vs evil as in a parable or morality tale, Claggart's actions make not a bit of sense. I personally think his actions have to interpreted as being tangled up with desire, whether or not Claggart himself--or even Melville!--actually realizes it themselves. .."

I completely agree Jesse!

And reading over Jesse's latest comments makes me once again wish I was still a student in classrooms. I have not read Billy Budd, nor have I read Middlemarch, and I know this is shocking considering my degrees are in English, and everyone has told me to read the former, and everyone else has said Middlemarch is possibly the best novel ever written. I find that now, in my 40s and not in classes, when I try to read classic works I have trouble summoning the energy to stick with them. I revisited Ethan Frome, for goodness' sake, last autumn, and I failed to even finish that novella!

To continue on in the understanding(s) of the word "queer," I myself embraced that word when someone told me that "gay" didn't embrace the L&B portions of our acronyms. Using the "word" "LGBTQIA*" (or a variation) just strikes me as pretentious or political and by nature of its attempt to capture everyone necessarily excludes so very many. Queer has the nice action of reclaiming going for it, and it's a bit in-your-face while still being kinda cute. (That latter is an academic term, in case you were wondering).

And it really hits deep for me too, this word's expansiveness as we have started discussing here. Even in queer groups, I usually feel like an outsider. I'm not in any way inclined to acting against my true nature and honest beliefs. I resist conformity unless there's little compromise involved. I tried on the term "bear" because I'm a big guy with fur (as they say...it's a bit embarrassing, but again, it's a "cute" way to say it), but as a way of self-acceptance. It turns out that to be part of the "bear community" you almost need to be a horndog and you need to be "into" other bears. For me, such identification was with the hope of simply making friends and growing into a personal sense of confidence and identity. But that already puts me outside that group.

Further, even within that fabled "LGBT+ community," we encounter silly things. An example: "Pride parades with open displays of sexuality make us look bad." And my thought, always, is: since when is making us "look good" so very important to begin with? Political advancement due to being nice and boring and ironically oppressing things that are not in any way shameful?

I look at our political advances as mixed blessings. The rights we've gotten back (they were always ours, I say, because they were being illegally and immorally withheld from us and we were wrongly prevented from exercising them...and in many parts of the world this is still true!) are often attributed to "straight people discovering how normal we are." But in my experience, I'm not normal, even among the abnormals. I'm queer among the queers!

All of this is to say what I hint at in the last sentence, affirming what has been said in a different way: not all lgbt-whatevers are queer. And by the same type of example, not all queers are "other than straight."

I almost kind of miss societal oppression (I came out in 1991, so I missed a lot of the worst of it, but things have certainly improved a lot since then). I miss it because being in the underground, being disapproved of, meant that there was nothing to lose in being ourselves.

And a slight departure: did anyone else, as a kid perhaps, read something like the Outsiders and just felt it was a gay utopia of sorts? Given the notion of queerness being not-necessarily-about-sexual-orientation, it's already a book sort of about queers, though the greasers probably had their own group conformity to contend with.

I read the Harry Potter books in my thirties (okay, I gave up on book 7, as I was weary of Rowling's writing to be honest, but I enjoyed the films). I just decided I liked the books better with Harry and Ron and Draco as gay teens with frustration over their unrequited feelings for each other. And yes, at 45, I "totally ship Harry and Draco."

Steelwhisper wrote: "Sherlock Holmes came over as pan/bisexual to me, definitely demisexual and potentially having a form of Aspergers. Watson was as close to bi-romantic as please in most books.

Several characters in..."

I love how everyone who's commented on Sherlock Holmes so far has a completely different opinion on what his sexuality is. XD

Agreed on Watson being biromantic (and bisexual, as far as I'm concerned), and also on the Aspergers. I'm also convinced Holmes has bipolar disorder, given his "black moods" followed by periods of high-energy running around on cases, etc.

Jesse wrote: "Actually, the other day another example occurred to me: in Middlemarch Casaubon really only made sense to me as being in the tradition of the fussy, "eccentric" "bachelor of a certain ..."

I'll defend Casaubon alongside you. On sexuality I'd peg him more as uninterested, but I thought his story sad and worthy of sympathy.

Andrew wrote: "... I read the Harry Potter books in my thirties (okay, I gave up on book 7, as I was weary of Rowling's writing to be honest, but I enjoyed the films). I just decided I liked the books better with Harry and Ron and Draco as gay teens with frustration over their unrequited feelings for each other. And yes, at 45, I "totally ship Harry and Draco." "

I also was not as impressed with the later Harry Potter books, although for me it was #4, 6 & 7 (I did think Rowling captured the angst of teen Harry in #5, so I did enjoy that one more than those other three). But I really thought Rowling missed a great opportunity with having Draco just what amounted to being a single dimensional henchling. I was so hoping he'd come in and sacrifice himself to save Harry at the end, admitting that he also fancied Harry, but could never admit it and he was only forced by his father into following Voldemort. Yeah, yeah, yeah... But at least he would have had some depth then. At least she didn't have (view spoiler)[ Harry and Hermione hook up at the end (oh, better mark that as a spoiler just in case) (hide spoiler)], that would have been terribly cliché.

Andrew wrote: "I almost kind of miss societal oppression (I came out in 1991, so I missed a lot of the worst of it, but things have certainly improved a lot since then). I miss it because being in the underground, being disapproved of, meant that there was nothing to lose in being ourselves...."

I came out in a similar timeframe Andrew, and think I kind of know what you mean. I don't really miss the oppressiveness, but there was a special connection in being part of a group of people that were all considered unacceptable. It's odd.

There's a poem by Elizabeth Bishop called "Crusoe in England." It's about Crusoe, not the sturdy, unimaginative one from Robinson Crusoe but a more modern, more instrospective shipwrecked, stranded Crusoe - as in the book, after he's literally starved for human contact, another man becomes stranded on the island too, a man named "Friday" (yes, an oddly and confusingly named character, but you can thank Daniel Defoe for that, not Bishop). They are literally everything to each other. Much later, after he's rescued and Friday has died of meases, Crusoe sits in England (what he calls "another island") and thinks almost longingly of the impossible intimacy back on the island. Here's the last couple stanzas of the poem:

Now I live here, another island,
that doesn’t seem like one, but who decides?
My blood was full of them; my brain
bred islands. But that archipelago
has petered out. I’m old.
I’m bored, too, drinking my real tea,
surrounded by uninteresting lumber.
The knife there on the shelf—
it reeked of meaning, like a crucifix.
It lived. How many years did I
beg it, implore it, not to break?
I knew each nick and scratch by heart,
the bluish blade, the broken tip,
the lines of wood-grain on the handle ...
Now it won’t look at me at all.
The living soul has dribbled away.
My eyes rest on it and pass on.

The local museum’s asked me to
leave everything to them:
the flute, the knife, the shrivelled shoes,
my shedding goatskin trousers
(moths have got in the fur),
the parasol that took me such a time
remembering the way the ribs should go.
It still will work but, folded up,
looks like a plucked and skinny fowl.
How can anyone want such things?
—And Friday, my dear Friday, died of measles
seventeen years ago come March.

It's odd, but the old times are a little like that, an oppressive, isolating island that nevertheless burned with a special intimacy and importance. I'm extremely grateful and happy in my current life off of the "island" but sometimes I look back a little longingly too at that time that "reeked", glowed, and burned with a special intimacy and meaning. I'm not sure I'd want it back again, but I don't regret that time I spent on the "island" either.

By the way, if anyone likes poetry, that poem comes from her collection Geography III, and I do highly recommend it!

Okay, Greg.... I think I read that poem ages ago. And Crusoe-Friday: there was a certain film that did their intimacy such that they were queered in my mind. I understood that to be the film's intentions. I never read the original book.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074849/
Film was Man Friday. I see one reviewer thought Crusoe in love with Friday, as I did -- but then, Crusoe is Peter O'Toole and I don't think I watched a Peter O'Toole film where I didn't think his character queer.

I did read the book for this film, same title.

Bryn wrote: "Okay, Greg.... I think I read that poem ages ago. And Crusoe-Friday: there was a certain film that did their intimacy such that they were queered in my mind. I understood that to be the film's inte..."

I'll have to look for that film Bryn! The island is a potent metaphor I think, one Defoe doesn't take full advantage of but more modern adaptions seem to.

Bryn wrote: "http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074849/
Film was Man Friday. I see one reviewer thought Crusoe in love with Friday, as I did -- but then, Crusoe is Peter O'Toole and I don't think I watched a Peter O'..."

Speaking of Peter O'Toole and Queerness, I feel compelled to mention "Lawrence of Arabia" which left little doubt to his proclivities for the aware.

Jesse wrote: "Andrew wrote: "The temptation is to assign queerness to any character (male or female) who feels apart from the crowd, who is conflicted, because at the very least metaphorically s/he IS queer. Cer..."

This is an excellent point that I definitely can relate to. I read a lot of YA, from a male point of view, keeping my head in the game so to speak since some of what I write is gay YA. I did not read Perks of Being a Wallflower (loved the movie), but I've read dozens of outsider young male characters who left me with that same bit of disappointment when their heterosexuality crept in.

I love unlikely heroes in fantasy, and the nice unlikely part for me mainly has to do with gender expression. Will in John Flanagan's Rangers Apprentice series is one recent example. I recently discovered Isabel Allende's City Of The Beasts, and the main character, 15-year-old Alexander is a mild-mannered kid who would rather play the flute than participate in sports. Neither story hits the reader over the head about the boy's heterosexuality, though the interest is suggested. I feel like each kid could easily have been written as gay.

That didn't ruin the stories for me, and I guess while I would have liked a gay portrayal, they did make me reflect on my own queer teenage self, who was more than just a sexually repressed kid; but also sensitive and introspective and hammered by traditional masculine roles that didn't fit. You could say I had more in common with "queer" heterosexual kids than "queer" homosexuals of the time, who couldn't really hide who they were and had few options but to act out their anger and take on an aggressive flamboyance.

So mini-tangent here, speaking of Perks of a Wallflower, how fabulous is Ezra Miller? He reads queer to me in every role he's played, which is so refreshing for a young adult actor (I guess not so young adult anymore).

Just discovered this topic and enjoyed it.

Not books per se but I've always attributed gay qualities to certain friendships in films that I've seen. Check out my IMDb list Special Friendships (and attractions?) between men
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls009105959/

Rick wrote: "Andrew wrote: "I find that my reaction to characters in books becomes quite personalized. If I see myself in a character I'm disappointed when he displays attraction to girls/women. This happened w..."

I thought that about Ducky in PRETTY IN PINK and felt it was very obvious (even though it didn't seem that anyone else thought so then!)

Larry Darrell in Somerset Maugham's THE RAZOR'S EDGE.

Ducky in Pretty in Pink is a great example, David. (And I often confused Jon Cryer with Alexis Arquette when I was younger). I thought I heard the character was straight-washed so as not to offend fragile, "mainstream" audiences at the time, but a quick search about the issue didn't turn up anything besides an interview with Molly Ringwald in which she said she thought Ducky was gay. And Cryer's argument against it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05...

David wrote: "I thought that about Ducky in PRETTY IN PINK and felt it was very obvious (even though it didn't seem that anyone else thought so then!) "

I thought Ducky was obviously gay as well. And I was rather pissed off that the filmmakers straight-washed his character to make it palatable.

"Straight-washed" is a great expression I have never heard before. If they made that movie today, I sure hope they would be more honest about it!

As I re-read that rebuttal by Cryer, I think he raises an interesting point:

“I want to stand up for all the slightly effeminate dorks that are actually heterosexual. Just cause the gaydar is going off, doesn’t mean your instruments aren’t faulty. I’ve had to live with that, and that’s okay.”

If you take that as sincere, and not homophobic, it's quite different from straight-washing, and dare I say, kind of brilliant. I mean, he's right, there's a whole subset of heterosexual guys who don't fit the heterosexual mold, and they're also impacted by gay stereotypes and shunning.

On the other hand, you could argue that the story, and his portrayal, didn't explore that issue very well since many of us (including the lead actress) were left with the impression that the filmmakers were afraid to commit to Ducky being gay. It might have worked if we saw Ducky grappling with the issue, or even better, if there was a well-developed gay character in the cast to compare and contrast with him.

Andrew wrote: "As I re-read that rebuttal by Cryer, I think he raises an interesting point:

“I want to stand up for all the slightly effeminate dorks that are actually heterosexual. Just cause the gaydar is goin..."

I totally agree with every word you've written. Well said.

Andrew wrote: "As I re-read that rebuttal by Cryer, I think he raises an interesting point:

“I want to stand up for all the slightly effeminate dorks that are actually heterosexual. Just cause the gaydar is goin..."

I'm in complete agreement as well, Andrew. Cryer's response can be taken a number of different ways. I give him the benefit of the doubt on that. And in any case, when I was sitting in the theater watching the film I thought Ducky was just... Well... ducky. ;)

David wrote: ""Straight-washed" is a great expression I have never heard before. If they made that movie today, I sure hope they would be more honest about it!"

Nit are if I can take credit for coining "straight-washed" but thank you. ;)