Read Christopher Bram’s Mapping the Territory.
Posted on September 30, 2009
Filed Under Book Review | 1 Comment
Queer readers no doubt will be tempted to read the most tantalizing articles in Christopher Bram’s new book first and then perhaps not get around to reading the others. “Homage to Jimmy,” for example is a fascinating explanation of how “Gods and Monsters” grew from a personal obsession to a novel and finally, an excellent film. “Faggots Revisited” is a surprisingly literate, unusually even-handed examination of Larry Kramer’s now-thirty-one year-old novel. And it has a surprise ending. “Can Straight Men Still Write?” is both intelligent and ironically humorous. Yes skipping from one tasty morsel to the next has a certain logic to it; cockroaches instinctively eat the chips on a chocolate chip cookie first. But–in this case–I must strongly argue against this urge.
If you don’t read Mr. Bram’s book all the way through, from beginning to end, you will be depriving yourself of a supreme pleasure. Because Mapping the Territory scans. From the first article, Mr. Bram demonstrates a remarkable story-telling ability. These articles have a beginning, a middle and an end. And they seque smoothly from one article to the next. It is a tribute to Mr. Bram–and presumably his editor–that this queer reader frequently found himself forgetting he was reading a collection of articles. In fact, it reads more like a literary memoir.
If you don’t read Christopher Bram’s Mapping the Territory all the way through from beginning to end, you might find yourself missing “Perry Street, Greenwich Village”–one of my favorite pieces. Mr. Bram grew up in Virginia and this is clearly an outsider’s view of New York. It is frequently humorous, but the humor here does not come from putting people down. It comes from a genuine appreciation of humanity.
Every queer should read “Hearts of Stone: AIDS and the Common Reader,” and “Mapping the Territory: Gay Men’s Writing.” These two articles present a highly intelligent, literate overview of the state of queer literature. In ”A Queer Monster,” Mr. Bram objectively examines the question of Henry James’ sexuality.
Queer readers will also enjoy, “A Sort of Friendship: Some Thoughts on Gay Marriage.” Nice to have some intelligent input on the subject. Mr. Bram reveals that he has been with his “boyfriend” for twenty-five years and they have no intention of getting married. But it is Mr. Bram’s wit and humor that make this article worthwhile.
I am reluctant to go on, because I don’t want to help you pick and choose. Instead, let me offer you this advice: Read Christopher Bram’s Mapping the Territory from beginning to end.
Christopher Bram’s Mapping the Territory: Selected Nonfiction is published by Alyson.
Good News: Bob Smith’s Selfish and Perverse is in paperback today.
Posted on September 1, 2009
Filed Under Book Review | 3 Comments
Queer readers have reason to rejoice. Bob Smith’s Selfish and Perverse is available in paperback today. Mr. Smith’s book is both laugh out-loud funny and surprisingly wise. I don’t use these words lightly. I personally almost never laugh out-loud when reading a book. But Selfish and Perverse had me laughing out-loud repeatedly–from the first page.
Mr. Smith begins his novel on the set of a late-night television comedy show. The dialogue is both hilarious and completely realistic–these are comedy writers afterall. But it’s the narrator’s voice that gives this novel its wit. Almost every page contains a witty one (or two) liner. And as the novel progresses from Southern California to the tundra of Alaska, these witticisms evolve into wisdoms–truths about life.
The plot of the novel is fairly simple. Aspiring writer, Nelson Kunker is working as a script co-ordinator for a struggling TV show called, “Aftertaste.” After a humorous mishap, Nelson loses his job and, at the same time, finds himself falling for a hunky guy from Alaska. As the narrator explains: “Love at first sight makes sense, because we’re all pressed for time.” Nelson decides to spend the summer with him fishing in Alaska. To complicate matters, someone else comes along: a possibly bi-sexual, definitely uber-sexy movie star named Dylan Fabrizak. Why did Nelson think bringing Dylan along would be a good idea? Much of the novel is an answer to this rhetorical question. Mr. Smith’s description of Dylan is very deliberate. He doesn’t describe Dylan all at once. Instead, he provides tiny bits of description throughout the book. These glimpses of Dylan are erotic and amount to a tasteful striptease. The reader is effectively reminded of why they let him come along in the first place: he’s hot. The second half of the novel takes on a more leisurely pace. Alaska’s rugged scenery is lovingly described. And Mr. Smith amusingly renders Alaska’s gay scene. It can accurately be called a “community.” Everyone knows each other. And that’s not always a good thing. I don’t want to give away too much, except to say that the plot’s climax is both logical and satisfying. And the arrival of Wendy–a fellow TV writer–brings the novel back to its comedic roots. Beyond that let me just say that only Bob Smith could make the electrocution of the Rosenbergs hilarious.
I’m so glad Selfish and Perverse is finally in paperback. Because it is, in the best sense of the expression, “a beach read.” A fun read. A delightful read. You’ll find yourself learning about television, about Alaska, about love. And you probably won’t even notice how well-constructed this novel is. You’ll be too busy laughing.
The paperback edition of Bob Smith’s Selfish and Perverse is published by Alyson.
When Gay People Get Married
Posted on August 2, 2009
Filed Under Book Review, Same-Sex Marriage | 1 Comment
Yesterday New York University Press published an important book: When Gay People Get Married, What Happens When Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage. As the title suggests, this book is an in depth analysis of how societies have been changed by the legalization of same sex marriage. There is a particular emphasis on The Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries–because these countries have had same sex marriage the longest–but other countries are also covered. The birth rates of these countries are examined. As are the marriage rates and the cohabitation rates. There are multitudinious statistics and graphs. This is a serious academic repudiation of those who argue that the legalization of same-sex marriage will result in some sort of sociological calamity.
All of this could make for a pretty dry read. But Ms. Badgett was wise to inject her own same sex marriage story into the book–personalizing the narrative. She passionately and intelligently describes the insidious discrimination that LGBTs experience in their daily lives.
Most people–sometimes including gay and lesbian people themselves–do not realize the extent of the sense of difference that is embedded in many gay people’s lives and, consequently, in most social interactions. In a given day or even hour, the context of difference means that we might travel back and forth between feeling affirmation and alienation, connection and rejection, understanding and confusion. Not all of us operate at the extremes, of course, at least not all the time. Maintaining one’s mental health in a world that legally treats gay people as second class citizens, with no protection against employment discrimination in thirty states and very little recognition of relationships, means learning to distinquish ordinary unfriendliness from prejudiced behavior, to choose battles carefullly, but bravely, and to depersonalize institutional discrimination, including exclusion from marriage.
In the conclusion she writes:
While writing this book, I’ve also lived through most of the changes discussed here: deciding whether to marry, creating a meaningful ceremony, coming out as a woman who has a female wife and addressing the social and legal implications of a new status. My relatives treat my wife differently, my employer extends benefits to her and we feel more committed to each other–all outcomes that help me easily overlook the fact that my taxes have risen.
Ms Badgett also acknowledges that, as positive as her own same sex marriage experience was, not everyone is on board. In the Netherlands for example the same sex marriage rates are still surprisingly low.
Near the end of the book Ms. Badgett takes a few pages to ask some rhetorical questions. Such as: Will gay people change marriage? And: Will marriage change gay people? The short answer to these questions, I believe, is “Yes.” For the longer answer, we’ll all just have to wait. Perhaps until Ms. Badgett’s next book.
M. V. Lee Badgett’s When Gay People Get Married, What Happens When Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage is published by New York University Press.
On the passing of E. Lynn Harris
Posted on July 25, 2009
Filed Under Queer Lit News | 3 Comments
I am so saddened by the horrible, horrible news that E. Lynn Harris has passed on. I never had the privilege of meeting Mr. Harris, but I would like to send my condolences to all those who knew and loved him. Beyond that I am stunned–literally speechless.
Band of Thebes covers this story better than I ever could.
Click here for Band of Thebes coverage of E. Lynn Harris.
Michael Cunningham’s new fiction is great.
Posted on July 20, 2009
Filed Under Fiction Review | Leave a Comment
The current issue of Electric Literature magazine has a new fiction excerpt from Michael Cunningham. As soon as I received my copy, I read this excerpt quickly, throughly enjoying it, but also expecting to be unsatisfied at the end. The piece is labelled “an excerpt from a novel in progress.” But to my surprise it read like a free-standing short story. And a great one. This is a word I rarely use. There are only a handful of short stories that I would label “great.” But since I first read this excerpt, I have been almost literally haunted by it. I have gone back and read it again and again and again. And each time I appreciate it more. Appreciate is not the right word. I love this story. And I have found myself wanting to cry out like Linda Loman in Death of a Salesman: “Attention must be paid!”
In this new fiction, Mr. Cunningham tells the story of two brothers–one gay, one straight–growing up in the midwest. It is a frequently humorous variation of the Cain and Abel myth. Reading this excerpt, I was reminded of why I loved Mr. Cunningham’s first novel so much. As in A Home at the End of the World, this new excerpt combines multi-faceted characterization with illustrative dialogue and a solid plot structure. But there is something new here. Mr. Cunningham has always been an expert at showing–at describing–the world his characters inhabit. But in this new excerpt Mr. Cunningham allows his omniscient narrator a voice. Thus, he tells more. And the effect is both delightful and insightful.
The narrator’s witty voice even shows up in the dialogue, as the older, gay brother tries to talk to his younger, straight brother about their mother:
“She’s still a beautiful woman. There’s nothing for her here. She’s like Madame Bovary.”
“Really?”
Peter at the time had no idea who Madame Bovary was, but imagined her to be an infamous figure who presaged doom–he had in all likelihood mixed her up with Madame Defarge.
I don’t want to say anything about the plot. Except to say that it is surprising, logical and poignant.
We live in a society of speed readers. We’re so bombarded by media that it’s sometimes easy to forget that we have the choice to slow down–to savor quality writing. On my fifth reading of Mr. Cunningham’s new work I found myself reading it extremely slowly–admiring each paragraph like a fine painting. Here is one of my favorites:
They are on their family summer vacation, a week in a musky pine-paneled cabin on Mackinac Island. Matthew is by now, and Peter is about to be, too old to delight in these trips. The cabin is no longer a repository of familiar wonders (the beds still shrouded in mosquito netting, all the board games still there!) but a dreary and tedious exile, a full week of their mother’s quiet fury over the fun they don’t seem to be having and their father’s dogged attempts to provide it; spiders in the bathrooms and cold little wavelets plashing and plashing against the gravelly beach.
An excerpt from Michael Cunningham’s Olympia, a novel in progress, is published in the current edition of Electric Literature.
Happy Birthday Henry David Thoreau!
Posted on July 12, 2009
Filed Under Book Review, Happy Birthday! | 4 Comments
Today is the birthday of Henry David Thoreau. So let us take a few moments to celebrate this great American. He was, of course the author of the classic: Walden; or Life in the Woods. What makes Walden a masterpiece is its combination of a transcendental appreciation of nature and a surprisingly humorous flinty-dry wit. Many of these witticisms seem particularly relevant today. Such as:
We are in great haste to build a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate.
In addition to being a great writer, many consider Henry David Thoreau to be the father of the environmental movement. He was a vegetarian. A gentle soul who could pick up a frog and pet it like a cat.
Mr. Thoreau was part of a group of American writers who clustered together in the small landlocked town of Concord, Massachusetts. These writers included: Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nathaniel Hawthorne and Louisa May Alcott. How these literary giants came together and how they related to each other is entertainingly explored in Susan Cheever’s gently evocative: American Bloomsbury.
So now it’s time to ask that question: Was Henry David Thoreau gay? Well we know that in 1991 the Journal of Homosexuality published an article concluding that Henry David Thoreau was gay. But I suspect that if there were a Journal of Heterosexuality it would have reached the opposite conclusion. Some scholars have commented on the fact that the popular press of the time referred to Mr. Thoreau as “eccentric”–and this was often a code word for homosexual. Maybe they’re onto something. I’m not sure.
For my part I think Susan Cheever put it best.
It’s a twenty-first-century question directed at an emphatically nineteenth-century personality. What is to be said about a man whose connections to birds and fish and all living things sustained him in a way that his connections to other people could never do?
Susan Cheever’s American Bloomsbury: Louisa May Alcott, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Margaret Fuller, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Henry David Thoreau: Their Lives, Their Loves, Their Work is published by Simon and Schuster.
This will be our year.
Posted on June 20, 2009
Filed Under Book Review, Deep Thoughts | 3 Comments
June is a special month for my neighborhood: Chelsea. In an annual migration, the circuit boys have landed here for the month, en route to Provincetown, Fire Island and points beyond. This ephemeral splash of beauty is enhanced by the occasional appearance of long-lost acquaintances–acquaintances I’d long thought were dead. The experience is quasi-religious: a virtual resurrection. No, he didn’t die. He just moved to California.
But something else is going on this June. Quite simply it is the collective feeling that our community–and our people–may be on the cusp of historic change.
To celebrate Gay Pride Month, I am re-reading David Carter’s classic: Stonewall: The Riots that Sparked the Gay Revolution. And this time I am particularly impressed by the similarities between 1969 and 2009.
“Maybe this could be our year.” Earl Galvin quotes gay men saying to each other as the year 1969 approached. This was more than just a saucy reference to the last two digits of that year. Mr. Carter describes a palpable sense of anticipation in the gay community. In late 1968 WBAI began broadcasting the first weekly radio program on the subject. Then Time Magazine published its first cover story on the subject. The then-new Broadway hit show, Hair, had numerous gay-positive references. And Mr. Carter even describes how in mid-1968, a psychic, went on Johnny Carson’s show and predicted that “…within a few years exclusively homosexual communities would spring up throughout the country.”
So while the nation was feeling the beginnings of a cultural shift on the subject of homosexuality, day to day life for gays and lesbians was extremely difficult. If Mr. Carter were not such a meticulous writer, it would be easy to forget just how bad it was for gays in early 1969. LGBTs were routinely arrested and this would almost certainly lead to immediately losing your job. And make it difficult for you to find work again. So while Americans were watching Peter Sellers make gay-positive statements in the hit movie, I Love You Alice B. Toklas, gays were still being rounded up in bars, forced into “paddy wagons”–on their way to ruined lives. Meanwhile, the only mainstream gay organization, Mattachine, was supine, compliant with the powers that be and unwilling to ruffle anyone’s feathers in the pursuit of gay rights.
Fast forward to 2009. Rachel Maddow has her own nightly television show. Ellen Degeneres has her own daily television show. The Academy Awards turn into an infomercial for gay marriage. Jodie Foster comes out as a lesbian. And Chastity Bono comes out as a man.
To quote that late sixties television ad: “You’ve come a long way baby!”
And yet: gays and lesbians are still being drummed out of the military in a cruel and dishonorable way. In most of the country LGBTs can still lose their jobs because of who they are. Violence against LGBTs is still a serious problem. And in no part of the United States do LGBTs have full marriage rights.
And what about our gay leaders? Compliant, supine. Barney Frank has proven himself to be so compliant to the Democratic Party Establishment that he no longer can be called a gay leader. Why? Because yesterday he announced that he approved of the language of the Obama Administration brief in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act. Among other things that brief compared gay marriage to incest. The language was so offensive that The New York Times called it A Bad Call on Gay Rights. So much for Mr. Frank’s “leadership.” But this shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise. It was Barney Frank’s “leadership” that enabled the passage of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell “compromise.”
And what about the Human Rights Campaign? Well, the best you can say about its leader Joe Solmonese is that he has followed; not led. Two weeks ago, Jason Bellini ran a piece in the Daily Beast. It alleged that Mr. Solmonese had cut a deal with the Democratic Party Establishment. Put simply the deal was for the HRC to keep quiet about getting rid of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell until “sometime next year.” HRC called the story “an outright lie.” And Senator Schumer’s office also denies the story. I personally have no idea if there is any truth to the story. Mr. Bellini claims the story is multi-sourced, but more than one person can get a story wrong. That happens. The problem for me is this: the story has the ring of truth. Whether or not there was a formal deal cut with Democrats, Mr. Solmonese seems to have behaved that way. He didn’t express any impatience with the administration and even defended it in vague terms: “They’ve got a vision. They’ve got a plan.”
The Obama administration’s Defense of Marriage Act brief changed everything. In particular: David Mixner’s response to it. Mr. Mixner’s eloquence and also his call to LGBTs to stop giving money to the Democratic Party alarmed the Establishment. And even Mr. Solmonese issued a statement against the DOMA brief. This must have made it a bit awkward for him when he showed up at the White House for the Same Sex Benefits Memorandum signing a few days later.
Am I the only one thinks that President Obama’s signing looked like it took place in a bunker? The president began it with the question: “Get everybody in?” The implication: bolt the doors quickly lest David Mixner, Cleve Jones or (God forbid)Michael Petrelis shows up to tell us what he really thinks.
How did this happen? This should have been a joyous occasion. It should have had a huge contingent of leaders of LGBT organizations, LGBT bloggers and LGBT press. And it should have taken place in the first month of his administration.
How could this efficient, intelligent administration mess up with the gays so badly? Let me offer three observations: First Barack Obama comes out of Chicago politics. Gays don’t figure as strongly politically in Chicago as they do in, say New York. For most of my lifetime the city has been run by the Daley family which is relatively conservative culturally. Second, President Obama’s chief of staff is Rahm Emanuel. Mr. Emanuel referred to then-President Clinton’s historic meeting with Gay leaders in the Oval Office as “pandering.” And he pushed for Bill Clinton to come out for the Defense of Marriage Act even before the bill was drafted. In short, Mr. Emanuel is not a good gate-keeper for the gays. Third, and this is the biggest point, but also the hardest to convey: Things are moving very fast. Faster than anyone could have seen when President Obama took office five months ago today.
Two and a half months ago, I read an article in The New York Times on gay marriage legislation in New England. Included in the article was the phrase “Six by twelve.” The lofty goal was for gay marriage to pass in all six of New England’s states by the year 2012. Well, as of today five of New England’s states have gay marriage. And Iowa has gay marriage too. No doubt about it: the movement for equal rights is going faster and faster.
Meanwhile in that bunker-like setting at the White House, the laughter seemed nervous as President Obama cracked half a joke. Maybe our “leaders” are a little nervous right now. Maybe they should be. Because the leaders I’m following right now weren’t in that room in the White House. In particular, I’m following Cleve Jones who has called for an October 11 March on Washington. Many don’t think it can be done so quickly. I say to them: “Yes we can.”
This will be our year.
David Carter’s Stonewall: The Riots that Sparked the Gay Revolution is published by St. Martin’s.
Click here for my BlogSpot review.
Writing on Prop 8: Arthur Leonard is the best, The Nation disappoints and Justice Moreno has the last word.
Posted on May 28, 2009
Filed Under Deep Thoughts, One of Our Best, Same-Sex Marriage | 4 Comments
When the sad, but expected California Supreme Court Proposition 8 ruling came in yesterday, I automatically turned to one of my favorite writers, Arthur Leonard, to help me make sense of it. Sure enough, Mr. Leonard quickly turned in a high quality report on the court’s decision. As I have mentioned before, Arthur Leonard is, in my opinion, one of our best writers. In fact, he is perhaps the best legal writer on the web. What is particularly impressive to me about his writing is the objective quality of it. Mr. Leonard is a law professor and his prose reflects both a deep knowledge of the law and an uncanny ability to explain it to the rest of us. While I was disappointed by the ruling, I came away from his article with a deeper understanding of this highly complex legal issue.
Next I turned to The Advocate’s website. They featured good reporting on the decision plus responses from Lambda Legal, Antonio Villaraigarosa and an excellent letter from the head of LA’s LGBT Community Center. In short, The Advocate rose to the occasion splendidly.
I wish I could say the same of The Nation. On this occasion, the renowned liberal publication failed miserably.
The author of the article on this subject, Richard Kim, began his dispatch with the statement: “I haven’t fully digested it yet.” Translation: “I haven’t read it all yet.” Of course that didn’t prevent him from editorializing on the subject. And it shouldn’t come as a complete surprise to the reader that his report reflected pre-existing biases. But the real jaw-dropper came in the second paragraph:
First, under California law, there is no material difference between marriage and domestic partnership. Not one of those 18,000 married couples got any new rights or benefits that California’s DP did not already provide; they only acquired the term marriage itself. Of course, as a state, California cannot grant any of the federally provided rights and benefits of marriage, but as a matter of state law, the two categories are substantively equal.
Hold the phone. The reason why gay marriage existed in the first place in California was because the California Supreme Court ruled that these two categories were not substantively equal. Connecticut has gay marriage today because the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that Domestic Partnerships were not substantively equal to marriage. Here’s the probem: Domestic Partnership is an extremely new term. So new, most people don’t even know what it means. By contrast “marriage” is an ancient term that almost everyone on the planet can define. So while Domestic Partnership can be equalized with marriage in terms of state laws and regulations, nothing can equalize these terms in day-to-day life. Is a “domestic partner” a family member? Does that entitle him or her to family discounts? How about equal access to accomodation? Hospital visitation? Anecdotal reports from New Jersey (where Domestic Partnerships are up and running) show that partners are routinely denied hospital visitation. How is that possible? Because no one really knows what a “domestic partner” is. And everyone in the world knows what a spouse is.
I am not the first person to equate Domestic Partnerships with being put in the “back of the bus.” But if you think about it, this analogy is surprisingly apt. Because, on the face of it, there is nothing inherently unequal about sitting in the back of the bus. I, myself, routinely make the decision to sit in the rear of the bus. What is unfair is the selective demand that a certain group of people be forced to sit in the back of the bus. Add to this the discrimination against that certain group on a whole range of issues: from being prohibited to serve in the armed forces to legal discrimination at the workplace and the net effect is well… wrong.
Legal decisions are routinely reversed. I have lived long enough to see the Supreme Court of the United States reverse itself on sodomy laws. In the meantime, perhaps Mr. Kim should take the time to carefully read Justice Moreno’s sole dissenting opinion:
In my view, the aim of Proposition 8 and all similar initiative measures that seek to alter the California Constitution to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification, violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning. Such a change cannot be accomplished through the initiative process by a simple amendment to our Constitution enacted by a bare majority of the voters; it must be accomplished, if at all, by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons. I would therefore hold that Proposition 8 is not a lawful amendment of the California Constitution.
History will prove him right.
Happy Birthday Katharine Hepburn! Read William Mann’s Kate.
Posted on May 12, 2009
Filed Under Book Review, Happy Birthday! | 2 Comments
Today is Katharine Hepburn’s birthday. It’s a good day to pick up a copy of William Mann’s Kate (available in paperback). Here is my complete BlogSpot review:
Having read William Mann’s classic queer Hollywood history, Behind the Screen, I expected his new Katharine Hepburn biography to be very good. It isn’t very good. It’s great. Mr. Mann’s Kate: The Woman Who Was Hepburn may just be the best-written movie star biography ever. Without resorting to any tricks or gimmicks, he seems to inhabit the character of Katharine Hepburn. And, as a result, the reader comes to understand her in a profound way. It’s a rare achievement in literature–particularly rare in a film actor biography. But Mr. Mann chose his subject well. For Katharine Hepburn is one of the most paradoxical of all the Hollywood stars. A feminist icon who wore slacks and remained unmarried throughout her long screen career. An independent woman who somehow periodically became subservient to an alcoholic bisexual named Spencer Tracy. A liberal who never said a word against the Vietnam War. A cultural reactionary who denied the existence of (male) homosexuality and firmly advised women that they most definitely could not ‘have it all.’
At no point in Mr. Mann’s 656 page biography does he actually come out and say (for example): Katharine Hepburn was a lesbian who lived her life in the closet. Instead he brilliantly, painstakingly illustrates how Katharine Hepburn constructed a separate, alternate personality carefully designed for public consumption. The book takes its title from the name of this alternate personality: “Kate.” Friends and family would call her “Kath” or even “Katy,” but “Kate” became her public personna.
So while Katharine Hepburn could be verbally abusive on the set of a Broadway show, none of it ever happened to Kate. And while Katharine Hepburn had numerous lesbian relationships, none of it ever happened to Kate. And in later years, when Katharine Hepburn succumbed to drinking alcohol heavily, none of it ever happened to Kate.
Where Ms. Hepburn’s reality began and where the for-the-public’s consumption Kate version ended was an open question. The denial of her homosexuality (perhaps even to herself) was just part of the construction of Kate. Early on she was re-writing her gay brother’s obvious suicide as an accident. The truth is: Kate represented something Katharine Hepburn wanted to believe. She wanted to believe that her brother’s death was an accident. She wanted to believe that she was heterosexual–or at the very least, not a lesbian. So if Kate represented something the public wanted to believe about her, Kate also represented something she wanted to believe about herself.
Reading Mr. Mann’s book, it is difficult not to admire Ms. Hepburn’s accomplishments. At an early age she achieved success on Broadway in spite of the fact that quintessential New Yorkers like George S. Kaufman and Dorothy Parker despised her. Then she cleverly negotiated with film industry executives–leveraging the entirely false impression that she was rich in order to get more money. She had a very successful career in film. It was also a very long career: over sixty years. And yet, I must confess, I’ve never particularly been a fan of Katharine Hepburn. It always seemed to me that she was too controlled–that she was holding back. But the other day I happened to turn on TCM and there she was on the Dick Cavett show, her feet tucked onto the chair, hair occasionally falling into her face–delighted with herself. I was surprised at how much I liked her. She seemed so natural, I actually forgot that I was watching a performance–her greatest role of all: Kate.
Now Make Him Do It
Posted on March 3, 2009
Filed Under Book Review, Gays in the Military | 6 Comments
When Franklin Delano Roosevelt met with reformers in the Oval Office, he responded to their requests with three cryptic sentences: “I agree with you. I want to do it. Now make me do it.” This possibly apocryphal quotation has become something of a viral cliche. I only mention it because shortly after taking office President Obama posted a list of gay priorities online. It’s a pretty good list too–although it does not include gay marriage. To my knowledge, this is the first time in American history a president has put out a list of promises after taking office. In my opinon, President Obama–a student of history–is asking us to make him do these things.
How do we make our government expand LGBT rights? As an ACT-UP veteran, I know there is a time and a place for shouting down politicians. This is neither the time nor the place.
Reasoned intelligent argument is what is called for now. And the best example of this is Nathaniel Frank’s Unfriendly Fire which is published by St. Martin’s today. Mr. Frank’s book is both a beautifully-written history of queers in the military and an intelligent argument against the gay military ban. Much of the book centers on the year 1993–when then-President Bill Clinton took ten months to go from gays in the military proponent to “Don’t ask. Don’t tell.” fan. It was a bad year for Bill Clinton and a disastrous year for queers. Mr. Frank does an excellent job of illustrating how Mr. Clinton really just wasn’t up for the fight. He didn’t realize that by passing over Senator Sam Nunn for the Secretary of State job, he was leaving a powerful opponent in place. He didn’t foresee ugly Senate hearings with (former) segregationist Strom Thurmond playing a reliable second fiddle–occasionally yapping out nasty, otherwise masked prejudices. To a gay witness: “…your lifestyle is not normal. It is not normal for a man to be with a man or for a woman to be with a woman.” And the room erupted in applause.
For all the deliberate political framing, these hearings were clearly motivated by hatred and vengeance. And some of the rhetoric used seems shocking by today’s standards. But this book is a history. And it didn’t end in 1993.
In Unfriendly Fire, Mr. Frank skillfully renders two parallel histories. The first is the international story. Mr. Frank meticulously describes how several countries eliminated their military gay bans. (Twenty-four countries, have eliminated the ban so far. Including: Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Israel, Italy, Spain and South Africa.) At one point, Mr. Frank comes very close to apologizing for the repetitiveness of these stories. All of these countries went through the transition smoothly. The elimination of the gay bans had no impact on recruitment, unit cohesion or morale. Anecdotal evidence even shows some improvement in morale–with both gays and straights feeling more comfortable.
The second part of this history deals with the United States military. ”Don’t ask. Don’t tell.” quickly devolved into a legal briar patch for gays. This inherently hypocritical scheme was far too nuanced for the military brass, so they simply chose to transform it into a living nightmare for gays in the military. Women who resist sexual advances from men are routinely accused of lesbianism and then investigated thoroughly. Friends are coerced into testifying against friends. A soldier who confesses gay desires to a therapist is promptly discharged. In this witch-hunt environment, no one is free from fear.
There is another argument against “Don’t ask. Don’t tell.” And to most Americans, it is probably the strongest argument. Put simply, it is the ‘brain drain’ argument. Mr. Frank describes in chilling detail, how the United States government intercepted two critical telephone messages from within Afghanistan: “The match is about to begin.” and “Tomorrow is the zero hour.” These messages were intercepted on September 10, 2001. Unfortunately, these messages were in Arabic. And our government just didn’t have enough Arabic linquists to translate these messages right away. One year later, the Bush administration admitted they didn’t have enough Arabic linguists. A recent suit brought under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that twenty gay Arabic linguists were discharged between 1998 and 2004. We don’t know how many have been discharged since then. But one thing is clear: We still don’t have enough Arabic linguists.
In another chapter, “Gays out, Ex-convicts in,” Mr. Frank realistically renders the United States military today. And guess what? The U.S. military is practically begging qualified people to serve. And at the same time gays and lesbians are being thrown out solely because of their sexuality. Can anyone say this is defensible–let alone intelligent?
Nathaniel Frank’s new book is brilliant. And that alone cheers me up. But there’s still some part of me that wants a happy ending out of this. The problem is–as Mr. Frank carefully explains–”Don’t ask. Don’t tell.” isn’t just an executive order; it’s also an act of congress. And recently Paul Schindler reported in the Gay City News that repeal of “Don’t Ask. Don’t tell.” will be an uphill battle.
So how do you “make him do it”? Organize. Use the new media and the old media to set up working groups. Arrange sit-down meetings with your members of congress and your senators. Work with national organizations. And first of all: read this book.
Nathaniel Frank’s Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America is published by Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin’s Press.
On the Closing of the Oscar Wilde Bookshop
Posted on February 25, 2009
Filed Under Queer Lit News | 2 Comments
By now, you’ve probably heard the sad, sad news that our beloved Oscar Wilde Bookshop will soon be closing. Recent visitors to the Oscar Wilde Bookshop probably didn’t realize they had arrived at a historic location. Older queers might have recognized this. But the rest of us would have to rely on David Carter’s Stonewall to fill in the blanks. Reading Mr. Carter’s 271 page Stonewall history, it occurred to me that Craig Rodwell’s Oscar Wilde Bookshop was even more important in queer history than was Harvey Milk’s camera store.
It’s a shame that Craig Rodwell’s name is not universally known in the queer community. It was Mr. Rodwell’s rhetoric against the Stonewall Bar that began to raise queer people’s concsiousness. And his message was reinforced by the fact that his bookstore was also an ad hoc queer drop-in center.
Is it an exaggeration to say that without the Oscar Wilde Bookshop there would have been no Stonewall riots and thus no modern gay rights movement? Yes. The truth is, if there weren’t a Craig Rodwell, someone else would have come along. And if there weren’t the Stonewall riots, something else would have happened. And we would have kept on fighting. But Craig Rodwell was there and he created the Oscar Wilde Bookshop and then two blocks from there the Stonewall rioted. And that’s what started the modern gay rights movement.
So put a plaque on this building. Learn the history. And never forget.
David Carter’s Stonewall: The Riots that Sparked a Gay Revolution is published by St. Martin’s Press.
Tom Daschle: OY!!
Posted on February 3, 2009
Filed Under Deep Thoughts | 1 Comment
Two weeks ago today, I celebrated the innauguration of Barack Obama with a rave review of Tom Daschle’s book, Critical. Unfortunately, recent press revelations have severely tarnished Mr. Daschle’s reputation. Yesterday Tom Daschle even issued an apology to the Senate Finance Committee.
Apology for what? On Friday it was reported by the New York Times that Mr. Daschle delayed paying $128,000.00 in Federal income tax until after he was asked to serve as HHS secretary. Later the Times reported that Mr. Daschle knew of the potential tax liability as early as June. And yet, he did not inform the Obama camp. Much of this had to do with the free use of a car (with a full-time driver). Apparently it did not occur to Mr. Daschle that this perk might actually be considered income–and therefore subject to tax.
This unpleasant story was dumped on Friday in an age-old hope that it would die of non-interest over the Super Bowl weekend. But this story didn’t die. To mix metaphors: it snowballed. First came the tax story in the Times, then came a Politico follow-up. Then more tax reporting from the Times. And finally on Monday, the most inco
nvenient piece: “In Daschle’s Tax Woes, a Peek into Washington.” This New York Times article exquisitely described how the down-home, populist was living a high life in Washington–earning 2.2 million dollars in two years. The source of all these funds: $30,000.00 speaking fees, six figure consulting fees, etc, etc. What was Mr. Daschle doing to earn all this money (not to mention that 24-7 car with driver)? Well, he was lobbying. No I can’t actually say that without potentially getting sued. Mr. Daschle was not technically, legally lobbying in Washington. Because Mr. Daschle was not actually registered as a lobbyist in Washington. So, in this case, Mr. Daschle is not subject to President Obama’s ban on lobbyists. But it doesn’t look good. Especially since some of the firms he was (not) lobbying for included businesses that would likely be subject to decisions he would make as health czar.
Apologies are good I think. They imply a certain willingess to learn from mistakes. Apparently Mr. Daschle has made quite a few. I’m not ready to suggest that President Obama replace Mr. Daschle with Howard Dean. Indeed there is a certain logic to appointing Mr. Daschle now. This “nobody knows the chicken coop better than the fox” argument is how Joseph Kennedy found himself serving in the Roosevelt administration. I’m not politically sophisticated enough to know what should happen next. But whether or not Mr. Daschle ends up serving as the HHS Secretary, his reputation has undeniably been damaged by these recent revelations. And that’s not a good thing for a “czar.”
UPDATE: CNN is reporting that Tom Daschle has withdrawn his name for consideration of the HHS post. Right now it appears to me that the cause of health care reform in the US has been dealt a severe setback. But I’ve been wrong before.
President Obama: YAY!!!
Posted on January 20, 2009
Filed Under Book Review, Deep Thoughts | 2 Comments
As you probably know, not everyone is celebrating today. Many gays and lesbians have cancelled their innaugural parties. Even after the announcement that openly gay bishop, Eugene Robinson, would be giving the invocation at yesterday’s pre-innaugural celebration. Even after the Washington DC Gay Men’s Chorus performed at that event. The reason for all this discontent is, of course, Mr. Obama’s decision to have Rick Warren give the invocation at today’s innauguration.
Why have so many LGBTs turned on Mr. Obama even before he takes office? Because we are so used to getting thrown under the bus by politicians that we think it’s happening to us even when it isn’t. I personally don’t think Barack Obama selected Rick Warren as a concsious slap in the face of LGBTs. He did it in a spirit of inclusiveness, but he also underestimated our anger–particularly coming off the victory of the anti-gay Proposition 8 in California.
Now let us take a moment to pause and cogitate. The selection of Rick Warren was a symbolic issue. However you decode the symbols of this, you must objectively conclude that there is no substance here. Let us not get distracted by phony symbolic issues. Instead, let us stay focused on our real issues: equal rights for LGBTs, hate crimes legislation, marriage rights, permitting gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military and universal health care. To quote Lyndon Johnson: “These are the stakes.” Not Rick Warren.
The innauguration of Barack Obama today is a proud day for America. I’m old enough to remember “whites only” drinking fountains and other such abominations. I also remember the tremendous dignity displayed by Dr. King and so many other civil rights activists, including our gay brothers, Bayard Rustin and James Baldwin. Barack Obama’s victory wasn’t just a victory for African-Americans; it was a victory for all Americans. So go ahead: Celebrate.
We can celebrate the fact that Mr. Obama is about one hundred times smarter than George W. Bush (remember him?). And we can celebrate the fact that Mr. Obama is committed to reforming our health care system. Health care is a queer issue. And it’s also a universal issue. That’s why we should also celebrate the fact that Mr. Obama has selected Tom Daschle to be his Health and Human Services Secretary. That’s not normally the kind of post one writes home to mother about, but Mr. Daschle will also be named “Health Czar. We’ve had “czars” before. In the seventies, we had an “Energy Czar.” In the nineties, we had an “AIDS Czar” (remember her?). In spite of the scary, Russian title, “czars” don’t usually have that much power in this country. In Mr. Daschle’s case it may be different. For two reasons: 1) There is a huge political mandate for health reform–the biggest mandate in over forty years and 2) Mr. Daschle has written a book.
Even if Tom Daschle was not about to be the next HHS Secretary/Health Czar, I would heartily recommend this book. Critical, which Mr. Daschle co-authored with Scott S. Greenberger and Jeanne M. Lambrew, is a surprisingly readable history of the American health care system and–as it turns out–an interesting illustration of what might come next.
The great political scientist, Mae West, once said: “When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I’ve never tried before.” In many ways, Mr. Daschle suggests that what Hillary Clinton did in the early nineties was well…the one we’ve ”tried before.” Mr. Daschle is extremely respectful to Hillary Clinton. He acknowledges that Mrs. Clinton exceeded all expectations of her and demonstrated a disarming grace under fire. And he also shows us how she failed. Mr. Daschle (and his co-authors) describe in detail how Mrs. Clinton’s task force got too big, was too secretive and took too long to do anything.
The former Senate Majority Leader writes: “In my experience, the challenge of passing a bill is directly proportional to its size.” The message is clear: The Clinton plan was large, secretive, top down from the executive branch. Mr. Daschle suggests a plan that is more incremental and more generated from the legislative branch. The endgame is two-fold: a universal individual mandate and a new Federal Health Board. The individual mandate would require all Americans to be insured and give them numerous incentives and a variety of plans to choose from. The new Federal Health Board would be the equivalent of the Federal Reserve Board in the American medical world. There are so many changing protocols, the argument goes, it is literally impossible for the political world to keep up with them. A new Federal Health Board would be insulated from day to day politics and have the power to make tough decisions. Mr. Daschle points out that many states have similar boards.
I am in no way an expert on this subject, but from my perspective Mr. Daschle makes a strong case that his plan can get America to universal coverage. And that would truly be cause for celebration.
Tom Daschle’s Critical is published by St. Martin’s Press.
What Went Wrong on Election Day and Marriage Proposals is Now in Paperback
Posted on December 1, 2008
Filed Under Book Review, Same-Sex Marriage | 3 Comments
We all know what went right on Election Day. Barack Obama was elected president. That was the good news. I was literally partying in the streets of my neighborhood (Chelsea) as the bad news came trickling in. California’s anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 was ahead. It was close, though. And we were celebrating. Horns were honking, people were spasmodically screaming out of their windows. It was like the movie Network in reverse.
But by the day after the election it was becoming increasingly clear: gay and lesbian Californians had lost the legal right to marry. It was shockingly true. And suddenly California queers were madder than hell. Yes it was a shock, but should it have been a surprise? Afterall, a late SurveyUSA poll showed Prop 8 behind by only three points–within the (four point) margin of error of the poll.
What went wrong? Were we lulled into a certain complacency by the mainstream media’s puffy coverage of the George Tseki wedding? Did we not see that this sort of coverage simply reinforced the notion that gay marriage was a luxury for rich celebrities? And did we not see that this coverage trivialized gay marriage by over-emphasizing the wedding ceremony?
In the last days of the campaign to stop Proposition 8, queer leaders apparently became aware that they might be in trouble. They quickly raised some cash. Huddled for a little while. And emerged with a television ad starring Diane Feinstein. The problem with this is not just that queer leaders over-estimated the ability of Senator Feinstein to shape public opinon. No, the much bigger problem is that queer leaders viewed this as two competing advertising campaigns with some high class public relations work thrown in.
Perhaps queer leaders should consider reports that since the election, California public opinion has turned against Propostion 8–and the recent massive street protests may have tipped the scales. In other words, street protests may be better than television advertisements at changing the opinons of voters. They’re cheaper too. And they can also be a lot more fun.
As a New Yorker, I am concsiously contemplating this ‘into the streets’ message, because I read in the Times yesterday that the New York State Senate may postpone a vote on gay marriage indefinitely. Meanwhile, my partner and I are considering the fact that gay marriages are now up and running in Connecticut. MIght this possibly be the time for us to elope to say… New Haven?
So it is perfect timing that NYU press publishes Anita Bernstein’s book: Marriage Proposals: Questioning a Legal Status in paperback today. I resisted this title when it was first published in hardcover two years ago. Why the need to question the legal status now, I wondered. And might these new “marriage proposals” be yet another means to legally define a “separate, but equal” status for gays and lesbians? Well, the answers to these questions are a lot more complicated–and interesting–than first met my eye.
In the brillianly-written forward, Anita Bernstein effectively deconstructs the institution of marriage in the United States. Ultimately she concludes: “Marriage, in short, is a peculiar status.” She points out the inherent contradictions within this “peculiar status.” Specifically the question: why is this institution reserved for cohabitating partners in a monogamous relationship? And is this truly a universal institution or is it a legal carve-out: effectively granting special status for a select group at the expense of the rest of the population?
What follows are several interesting essays that approach the institution of marriage from a variety of disciplines. Lawrence Rosen writes an anthropological perspective. Peggy Cooper Davis draws parallels between the denial of family rights to American slaves and the denial of marriage rights to same sex couples today. But for me, the most interesting essay in the book was, “Taking the Government Out of the Marriage Business.” The reason why I found this essay to be so fascinating was quite simply the passion of the authors: Dorion Solot and Marshall Miller. Both are affiliated with Alternatives to Marriage (aka unmarried.org).
Ms Solot and Mr. Miller do an excellent job of putting American legal marriage into historical context–arguing that state involvement in American marriage contracts didn’t begin until the nineteenth century. And it was an inherently sexist institution from the beginning.
Ms. Solot and Mr. Miller ask informed, intelligent, provocative questions along the way. Such as: “Why should a couple who marry in Vegas knowing each other for a week gain more legal recognition than an unmarried couple who have shared their lives for thirty years and raised children together?”
Taking the government out of the marriage business, the authors argue, would eliminate, “…the archaic notion that legally married couples are superior to unmarried families.” Adding: “Unmarried families should not be granted rights by squeezing them under the ‘married’ umbrella.” The authors also point out that according to a recent census, forty-six percent of adult Americans are currently unmarried. In other words, in spite of all the subtle and unsubtle ways our society promotes marriage, in spite of the (let’s face it) special rights our legal system grants married couples, in spite of a multi-billion dollar wedding industry… in spite of all that, almost half of our adult population is currently unmarried.
My head was frankly spinning just a bit at the end of this book. Marriage is certainly a special status–even a privilege. We all know from Perry Mason that–in most cases–a person cannot be compelled to testify against his or her spouse. But not all of us are aware of the social security benefits denied to unmarried (straight and gay) participants. Marriage also involves a myriad of potential financial downsides. Remember that scene in Mildred Pierce when Wally informs Mildred that she’ll have to divorce Burt, because of the debts he’s run up? The novelist Frederick Ted Castle once wrote: “Marriage is a very sacred institution; it means you’ve finally met someone you’re willing to share your money with.”
Yes marriage needs reform. But the complete elimination of (legal) marriage isn’t likely to become politically possible any time soon. And so, having read these proposals, I came away thinking that perhaps the best possible choice would be all of them. In other words, universal access to all of the available legal options: marriage, domestic partnership, civil union, common law marriage etc. We should also extend “The Hawaii Experiment,” a domestic partnership law that does not require couples to be connected by sexual or conjugal association. And don’t give up the fight. Ultimately, ours must be a battle for universal human rights.
Marriage Proposals: Questioning a Legal Status edited by Anita Bernstein is now in paperback . New York University Press.
Edmund White’s Rimbaud is Superb.
Posted on October 30, 2008
Filed Under Book Review | Leave a Comment
I’ll admit I was a little nervous about this one. One of America’s great writers, Edmund White, has written a biography of one of France’s great poets–arguably the father of modern poetry–Arthur Rimbaud. Sounds intelligent. Sounds profound. Sounds…well, maybe just a little bit over my head. Frankly, I’ve always steered clear of Rimbaud. My French has never been good enough for me to read him in the original language. And I’ve always been suspicious of poetry translations. Is there any way to translate a rhyme? And so, Rimbaud remained a mystery to me. Without even the sketchiest information about his life, would it be possible for me to follow this story–let alone get interested in it?
Fortunately, Mr. White is the intelligent, ever-patient tour guide. In a surprisingly minimalist style, he skillfully renders the worlds of Arthur Rimbaud: nineteenth century France, London and Northern Africa. Mr. White’s tone is often drily humorous, as when he writes of Rimbaud: “While still a kid he had already become resolutely anti-bourgeois in the great tradition of French bourgeois authors.” He refers to Rimbaud’s long-term lover as “a drama queen.” And he even gives us the etymology of the queer culture expression: “Miss Thing.” Make no mistake: this is a highly entertaining read.
It is also highly intelligent. Reading this book was an edifying experience for me. I learned not only the details of Rimbaud’s life, but also what made his poetry great. Mr. White sometimes describes how the poems rhyme in French before he presents the English translation. At other times he presents the poetry first in the English translation and then in the original French–effectively illustrating the rhymes. More important: Mr. White selects samples of verse which perfectly demonstrate the depth and the breadth of Rimbaud’s genius.
The story of Arthur Rimbaud is as surprising as it is interesting. I don’t want to give away too much of it, except to say that the subtitle: The Double Life of a Rebel is ideal. From a twenty-first century perspective, Rimbauld remains an enigma. Was he bourgeois or anti-bourgeois? Did he really cease to see the value of his poetry–poetry that many in his lifetime identified as great? Was he gay, straight–something in between? As always in great literary biographies, it is the unanswered questions that remain the most interesting.
Edmund White’s Rimbaud: The Double Life of a Rebel is published by Atlas.
« go back — keep looking »