Nobody cares about the sexuality of the guy that wrote that thing about stuff. Get over it.
Seriously, when you're reading, oh, I don't know, Harry Potter (god save you if you do, though), are you thinking, "Hmm, I wonder, is Rowling a flaming lesbian?"
If the answer is yes, and it's not in context of perverted fantasies, the italics of the second paragraph define your group and status in life. Get over it and please, never reproduce.
You see, we get it that some of the great people were gay, and some of the gay people were great. Awesome. Hooray. So what? A lot of great people were straight but we just don't make a point of it. And guess what? If you feel like advocating gay rights and stuff, how about you become gay and write something great instead of spewing academic (and otherwise) crap on (and into) the heads of the unsuspecting population? Can't do it? Then shut the hell up.
P.S: The author has nothing against homosexuals, heterosexuals, writing, academic writing and kittens. He does hate stupid trends, however.
P.P.S: This article was brought to you by the Class, Sexuality, Gender approach to literature analysis.
I'm thinking that your lecturer is beating a most specific drum.
ReplyDeleteI always like to think that certain literature is shaped by the fact that the author was flippant by nature, or a right gloomy sod.
Yes, as a writer, as an individual, we are formed by both our nature and nurture. And it is an influence in what we do. But I also don't agree with focusing down on one aspect to the total exclusion of everything else.
You need to ask the lecturer if he has reception issues.
I'd say transmission issues it has for sure.
ReplyDeleteAnd yush, of course personal experiences shape a person and such... But there are writers that are, as we find out, extremely well-humoured, very cheerful and normal, and yet, what they write is drenched in gloom and terror.
Regardless of what the person is like, it's a person's work of fiction. It's a person's construct. Why don't we look at the Brooklyn Bridge and wonder if the chief engineer was gay? It's nearly the same thing.
If someone, for whatever reasons, decides to analyse my writings a hundred years from now, the last thing I want them to analyse is my personal life. "Was Angthoron gay? Was he not gay? What was he? It was popular to be gay at the beginning of the 21st century, and if we look at some of his descriptions..."
Ugh. What nonsense.
I wonder if it's part of the 'tribal' nature of humanity. People are always trying to claim individuals into their area, or exclude them into the other.
ReplyDeleteThere is a place for analysis of personal life in an author's creation. I have no idea what type of 'writer' you are, but from what little I know of your personal life, there are incidents or events that would perhaps be relevant to your writing -shifting national identity at the very least.
To look at the engineer of the Brooklyn Bridge is irrelevant. However the architect - the designer - the influences of their culture, training and personality are relevant. But all of them.
Otherwise you start arguing backwards, forcing all analysis down to one end result. And that's pointless.
Well, the reason for the sexuality analysis approach is pretty simple, really. The homosexual groups required validation on various cultural levels, and of course, referring to someone great and saying, "Hey, he was like us, you value him, so what's wrong with us then?".
ReplyDeleteThen the approach took on a scientific form, and considering the fairly large amount of homosexual people in the academia, obviously got a lot of favour, since the people in the academia are merely more learned but not at all different from the rest. And then, a funny thing happened.
Homosexuality became trendy. The companies and the media realised that they can *market* homosexuality. I mean, hell, you can't really sell the ol' straightness to anyone, it's kinda hard to be cool when everyone does that, but then, there's gay! And gay's different! And so on, and so forth, until the trend starts growing larger and larger in scope (Katie Perry's song thing, anyone?), until the "alternative way of life" is not just accepted as completely valid but is shoved down the throat just like the goddamned political correctness. Who knows, maybe in a hundred years, everyone will be politically correct and gay. And gender-neutral. And of mixed racial origins. Who knows.
Sounds like suicides will be the most likely cause of death in that society, though.
And in all honesty, I rather be seen through what I *did* rather than through who I *was*. Tchaikovsky was gay, but that's not why people adore him.
You're making a few sweeping simplifications there, which I'll be honest make me slightly uncomfortable. Not to say that you're entirely wrong. ;) You obviously know more about the subject than I do due to the exciting lectures you're obviously so enjoying.
ReplyDeleteYes, you should be judged upon your writing. And you will be. But humanity is, by nature, inquisitive. It's why we climbed out of the swamp and down from the trees. Many people will simply read and enjoy 'what you do'. But some will seek to know more about the motivations behind what you do - the motivations ostensible and inferred.
And some truly loopy theories will be put forward. Get used to it now.
Oh, I know, I know. Some of them are truly stupid. The theories, that is. Like the theory that all Shakespeare's sonnets are addressed to this pre-pubescent boy.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I make simplifications. They're fun to make. Everyone else likes to make things look so complex that they forget that things may well be quite the opposite. My opinion... Well, let's just put it this way, what I write on my "blog" isn't necessarily my opinion. Or the entire opinion. It's a construct. In a way, it's as much a work of fiction as a fantasy novel, just in a different way.
It's actually quite fun. But it's true, I'm really irritated with short-sighted lecturers, and to their short-sighted stupid little things, I like to produce short-sighted stupid little counter-points.
Rofl. Agreed wholeheartedly.
ReplyDelete