Can't have a queer summer reading list without Dorothy Allison. Recommend: Bastard Out of Carolina; Two or Three Things I Know for Sure; Trash; and Skin: Talking about Sex, Class and Literature.
This is helpful to me. I've never heard of any of these authors! I must take a *bit* of an exception (in a way) to one thing, though.
-----
"It’s fascinating that white evangelicals at places like Hillsdale are so eager to return to “classical (read: white) education” while at the same time espousing such puritanical notions of acceptable sexual identities."
-----
I agree with most of this. I know that most Trump supporters (of whom I am most assuredly NOT!) feel as though they are being "squeezed" out of their country. I get that. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand it. And I understand that "unusual" sexual identities - not to mention racial discussions - frighten them. I also understand that there are those (mostly on the far-left) who see me as an upper-middle-class white man & that I should feel guilty about it. It was truly an accident of birth, but I don't feel guilty about it. Do I hate what white men have done over the years to (for lack of a better word) "unusual" ethnicities, sexualities, etc.? Of course I do. And I do agree with you about the Evangelicals. The hypocrisy is blatant. But there are those of us who still believe that some of these things are (should be) more of a "side-chick" interest. I can really only speak with expertise on Western Tonal Music, so I'm a little out of my depths with the books/arts you're talking about. But, I think abandoning Beethoven to discuss and spend a significant amount of time on a gay composer misses the point of the "Western Canon". Western music followed what might be called a "formula" that was completely eschewed by composers by the time the 20th Century came along. There is just too much to teach and learn. I think only the test of time will judge whether Stravinsky or Bartok or Bernstein or Schoenberg or Webern... the list goes on forever... was most influential and important. I absolutely adore the music of Samuel Barber (who was gay), but studying him because he was gay at the expense of Schoenberg or Stravinsky (even though they weren't) misses the point, IMHO. Schubert was a gay contemporary of Beethoven, but spending too much time on Schubert (who was nowhere near as influential as Beethoven) *at the expense* of leaving out someone like, say, Haydn, is missing the point of knowledge. You couldn't leave out Aristotle in philosophy to focus solely on a gay/bi philosopher.
I understand that's *not* what you (or many) are espousing... i.e., the complete dissociation between Western (white-European men) and LGBTQ+ (or Black or Mexican, etc.) cultures with complete emphasis on the latter. But abandoning the entirety of the white-European knowledge and culture of Western history/arts to make room for other - what might be seen as exclusively - "unusual" (I hate that word. I truly do.) is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath-water. The terribly, terribly unfortunate thing, to my mind, is that there is just not enough time to learn everything in the proper context.
I don't know what "conservative" even means anymore. It sure ain't what it meant when I was in high school. I now describe myself as a Bleeding-Heart Libertarian. Just please be aware that there are those of us who believe firmly that there is and should be a place for LGBTQ+ folks to exist and thrive in the arts. But many (most?) of us same people also believe that the Western Canon is important. And at this point in mankind's history it may still be the most important. Blacks/Slaves being "worth" 3/5 of a person in the American Constitution is blatantly racist, harmful, and ultimately just ridiculous. But that's how it was then. Was that correct? Of course not! But it needs to be taught. And it can be taught in the context of more modern African-American history. It could, I imagine (I'm no expert), be successfully taught in the context of the Civil Rights movement in the 20th Century. I know I've moved my response away from LGBTQ+, but I don't feel like I have the expertise to comment on it meaningfully. If - perhaps - the LGBTQ+ freedom movement started with the Stonewall Riots, then the community is obviously still very early on in its life. (I hope it's past six weeks & can't be aborted... sorry, bad joke.)
My son and one of my step-sons are both gay. I've never had any problems with that. A lot of my family (my step-son's side) are Trump supporters and are "racist" (again, for lack of a better term) and openly homophobic. There was a point at which we couldn't have the grandkids come to spend the night because my step-son, who still lives with us, is gay. I have no idea exactly why that was the case, but it's a moot point now. We convinced them it was "safe". I personally "experimented" with bisexual/gay sex when I was younger, but it was primarily anonymous and completely purely sexual. I would most likely still be what you might considered bi-sexual but for the fact that I am married and vowed to have a monogamous relationship with my wife. It's not a big deal for me. I don't think I am what you would call gay or bi (or whatever). I just like(d) having sex with men. I've never been ashamed of that, but most of the men I have been with are/were. The promiscuity and anonymity of many men (especially) who refuse or are frightened to admit that they have homo/bi-sexual curiosities accounts for a good bit of the phobia against the LGBTQ+ community, I think. I could be completely off the mark on that, of course.
But mainstream acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community is necessary. And I have faith that it will happen. It probably won't happen as quickly as some of us would like. But try to remember that there are non-evangelicals who don't want to lose sight of the important virtues and knowledge that "white European men" contributed to the history of mankind.
White men aren't necessarily bad & don't feel guilty about being a white man. Some of us can even hold what might seem to be contradictory ideas in our minds at the same time. I hope and pray that my son and my step-son will eventually live in a world that allows them to freely express themselves without worry of condemnation by society at large. Ironically, I think I might have more faith that it will happen than they do.
There's just not enough time to learn everything... and it's terribly unfortunate.
Thanks for sharing this, Rob. I definitely don't want to throw out the canon with the bathwater, as it were. I love the classics, and it's really interesting how especially women writers are reworking classic myths to center the women in the stories. I was just pointing out how the canons are always ideologically deployed--in Hillsdale's case, it's about race. I was deploying it to make the case for sexual inclusivity... I don't think interpretation or criticism is ever ideologically neutral, including when it serves political ideology I agree with. That's what I think is most useful about Marxist theory--showing how discourse is always connected to ideology and supports (or undermines) power structures. Glad to have you as a friend and colleague!
I understand. I get your point & it’s more than valid. I think I might have sounded as though segregating LGBQT+/feminist from the canon of white European men. I think that’s how some of that come out, but it’s not how I intended it. (Marxism should certainly be segregated, of course. :)
I do agree with you that LGBTQ+ should be celebrated & while there are many (too many) on the right who seem to think that “unusual” (again, not quite the right word) is getting “special” rights. That’s where a lot of the Hillsdale ideologies might come from - at least I think so. They feel their own culture is being attacked. Which is fair, in a sense, since other communities seem to feel the same way.
Definitely don’t get me wrong on this. I think your post is very good & I think the celebration of LGBQT+ (and feminist) art is a worthwhile endeavor. A lot of citizens feel left out (left behind, really) & that’s where the issues arise, IMHO. Unfortunately, too many evangelicals are quite closed-minded.
I do really understand both sides. I’m not sure, to be honest, exactly where I fit in this continuum. But whateverthecase, good for you for the summer reading list. I’ll pick one or two to try out. I find it difficult to read blatantly ideological books. Except Ayn Rand, of course… bad joke…
I appreciate your post. Celebration of cultures other than the Western is a valid endeavor. So thanks. (And im sorry for hijacking your comments!$
Can't have a queer summer reading list without Dorothy Allison. Recommend: Bastard Out of Carolina; Two or Three Things I Know for Sure; Trash; and Skin: Talking about Sex, Class and Literature.
Oh yes! I love Allison, thanks!
Thanks for sharing these!! So nice to have a list to come back to...sometimes it’s so difficult to choose what to read next 😅
This is helpful to me. I've never heard of any of these authors! I must take a *bit* of an exception (in a way) to one thing, though.
-----
"It’s fascinating that white evangelicals at places like Hillsdale are so eager to return to “classical (read: white) education” while at the same time espousing such puritanical notions of acceptable sexual identities."
-----
I agree with most of this. I know that most Trump supporters (of whom I am most assuredly NOT!) feel as though they are being "squeezed" out of their country. I get that. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand it. And I understand that "unusual" sexual identities - not to mention racial discussions - frighten them. I also understand that there are those (mostly on the far-left) who see me as an upper-middle-class white man & that I should feel guilty about it. It was truly an accident of birth, but I don't feel guilty about it. Do I hate what white men have done over the years to (for lack of a better word) "unusual" ethnicities, sexualities, etc.? Of course I do. And I do agree with you about the Evangelicals. The hypocrisy is blatant. But there are those of us who still believe that some of these things are (should be) more of a "side-chick" interest. I can really only speak with expertise on Western Tonal Music, so I'm a little out of my depths with the books/arts you're talking about. But, I think abandoning Beethoven to discuss and spend a significant amount of time on a gay composer misses the point of the "Western Canon". Western music followed what might be called a "formula" that was completely eschewed by composers by the time the 20th Century came along. There is just too much to teach and learn. I think only the test of time will judge whether Stravinsky or Bartok or Bernstein or Schoenberg or Webern... the list goes on forever... was most influential and important. I absolutely adore the music of Samuel Barber (who was gay), but studying him because he was gay at the expense of Schoenberg or Stravinsky (even though they weren't) misses the point, IMHO. Schubert was a gay contemporary of Beethoven, but spending too much time on Schubert (who was nowhere near as influential as Beethoven) *at the expense* of leaving out someone like, say, Haydn, is missing the point of knowledge. You couldn't leave out Aristotle in philosophy to focus solely on a gay/bi philosopher.
I understand that's *not* what you (or many) are espousing... i.e., the complete dissociation between Western (white-European men) and LGBTQ+ (or Black or Mexican, etc.) cultures with complete emphasis on the latter. But abandoning the entirety of the white-European knowledge and culture of Western history/arts to make room for other - what might be seen as exclusively - "unusual" (I hate that word. I truly do.) is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath-water. The terribly, terribly unfortunate thing, to my mind, is that there is just not enough time to learn everything in the proper context.
I don't know what "conservative" even means anymore. It sure ain't what it meant when I was in high school. I now describe myself as a Bleeding-Heart Libertarian. Just please be aware that there are those of us who believe firmly that there is and should be a place for LGBTQ+ folks to exist and thrive in the arts. But many (most?) of us same people also believe that the Western Canon is important. And at this point in mankind's history it may still be the most important. Blacks/Slaves being "worth" 3/5 of a person in the American Constitution is blatantly racist, harmful, and ultimately just ridiculous. But that's how it was then. Was that correct? Of course not! But it needs to be taught. And it can be taught in the context of more modern African-American history. It could, I imagine (I'm no expert), be successfully taught in the context of the Civil Rights movement in the 20th Century. I know I've moved my response away from LGBTQ+, but I don't feel like I have the expertise to comment on it meaningfully. If - perhaps - the LGBTQ+ freedom movement started with the Stonewall Riots, then the community is obviously still very early on in its life. (I hope it's past six weeks & can't be aborted... sorry, bad joke.)
My son and one of my step-sons are both gay. I've never had any problems with that. A lot of my family (my step-son's side) are Trump supporters and are "racist" (again, for lack of a better term) and openly homophobic. There was a point at which we couldn't have the grandkids come to spend the night because my step-son, who still lives with us, is gay. I have no idea exactly why that was the case, but it's a moot point now. We convinced them it was "safe". I personally "experimented" with bisexual/gay sex when I was younger, but it was primarily anonymous and completely purely sexual. I would most likely still be what you might considered bi-sexual but for the fact that I am married and vowed to have a monogamous relationship with my wife. It's not a big deal for me. I don't think I am what you would call gay or bi (or whatever). I just like(d) having sex with men. I've never been ashamed of that, but most of the men I have been with are/were. The promiscuity and anonymity of many men (especially) who refuse or are frightened to admit that they have homo/bi-sexual curiosities accounts for a good bit of the phobia against the LGBTQ+ community, I think. I could be completely off the mark on that, of course.
But mainstream acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community is necessary. And I have faith that it will happen. It probably won't happen as quickly as some of us would like. But try to remember that there are non-evangelicals who don't want to lose sight of the important virtues and knowledge that "white European men" contributed to the history of mankind.
White men aren't necessarily bad & don't feel guilty about being a white man. Some of us can even hold what might seem to be contradictory ideas in our minds at the same time. I hope and pray that my son and my step-son will eventually live in a world that allows them to freely express themselves without worry of condemnation by society at large. Ironically, I think I might have more faith that it will happen than they do.
There's just not enough time to learn everything... and it's terribly unfortunate.
Thanks for sharing this, Rob. I definitely don't want to throw out the canon with the bathwater, as it were. I love the classics, and it's really interesting how especially women writers are reworking classic myths to center the women in the stories. I was just pointing out how the canons are always ideologically deployed--in Hillsdale's case, it's about race. I was deploying it to make the case for sexual inclusivity... I don't think interpretation or criticism is ever ideologically neutral, including when it serves political ideology I agree with. That's what I think is most useful about Marxist theory--showing how discourse is always connected to ideology and supports (or undermines) power structures. Glad to have you as a friend and colleague!
One of your best posts, because literature "trumps" politics, though we need to work on/with both!
Thanks for always having stellar recs!
I understand. I get your point & it’s more than valid. I think I might have sounded as though segregating LGBQT+/feminist from the canon of white European men. I think that’s how some of that come out, but it’s not how I intended it. (Marxism should certainly be segregated, of course. :)
I do agree with you that LGBTQ+ should be celebrated & while there are many (too many) on the right who seem to think that “unusual” (again, not quite the right word) is getting “special” rights. That’s where a lot of the Hillsdale ideologies might come from - at least I think so. They feel their own culture is being attacked. Which is fair, in a sense, since other communities seem to feel the same way.
Definitely don’t get me wrong on this. I think your post is very good & I think the celebration of LGBQT+ (and feminist) art is a worthwhile endeavor. A lot of citizens feel left out (left behind, really) & that’s where the issues arise, IMHO. Unfortunately, too many evangelicals are quite closed-minded.
I do really understand both sides. I’m not sure, to be honest, exactly where I fit in this continuum. But whateverthecase, good for you for the summer reading list. I’ll pick one or two to try out. I find it difficult to read blatantly ideological books. Except Ayn Rand, of course… bad joke…
I appreciate your post. Celebration of cultures other than the Western is a valid endeavor. So thanks. (And im sorry for hijacking your comments!$