Proud to be so, no doubt. Like someone proud of how many speed cameras they outwit, or indeed, proud of not doing their homework.
And I hate to disappoint you, Richard Littlejohn, but you're hardly at the pinnacle of political incorrectness, especially if you won't indulge me in 'muff divers'. I mean, that phrase isn't even partial - it's just rude. Presumably, you draw the line right after 'tits'?
Et pray tell - what form does my "misunderstanding of women in general" take? Who are these 'women-in-general'? Some kind of unified political faction, one would think, to listen to thee.
I agree with Emma about catagories - sometimes words just get in the way.
I like to think that I'm me and I fall in love with and have sex with whoever I damn well please. If I have to put a name on it, then that bothers me. If I have to exclude parts of the population to fit into a 'mould' then that bothers me. But than that's just me.
Words can get so damned complicated - the above posts show that.
Katrina - we've all agreed about a writer who writes is a writer - we were just discussing people's reactions to the various ways work is marketed etc etc. Your comment is the one lots of us ended up agreeing with - or agreed with in the first place. But of course sexuality in all its forms does affect our writing, as does the size of our feet, where we grew up, if we have brothers and sisters.... all those facets of ourselves are in our writing. That's the way writing workds.
I don't understand your point about 'hetrosexuals being interested by what homosexuals do in bed' in terms of this thread. Nobody in this thread has said anything about it. Some are (the readers of the Sun for example) perhaps, but not on this thread, and not in this discussion. I thought we were talking about writing.
On the point of language...
Homosexual is overwhelmingly a medical term, which only really existed originally to divide behaviours into a recognisable medical definition of not statistically normal sexual behaviour.
I reckon, and I may be wrong, that's not the actual word 'gay' that's used as an insult in school playgrounds but the idea that the person is 'gay'. The insult is that the person may not be heterosexual. It is that that is the insult. Any term you choose will be used as an insult in a society that considers homosexuality to be in some way unpleasant or undesirable.
All of the straight men (except Phil at my old job) who read my book and commented directly on it to me said there was a lot of gay sex in it. The gay men who read it, and the reviews in the gay press, said there wasn't much sex in it. And the females who read it (regardless of orientation) didn't mention the sex at all.
This probably says a lot about the way people read. Women are probably more used to reading sex scenes than men.
I have to say that I've posted a lot of stories on ABC and no-one has ever talked about them, or judged them on their sexual orientation. That's brilliant as far as I'm concerned as I hope my sexuality isn't an issue. It's the writing that's important.
Hopefully the days of having to define who we are are behind us. In my new job I've never had to go through the process of saying, 'I'm gay'. Instead it was probably obvious in the course of conversation when I mentioned that I had a boyfriend that I was.
As for the kinds of books gay and lesbian writers write, as was Neil's original question, I'm not sure. People like Sarah Waters and Jeanette Winterson are the way forward. It's their writing that's great, and their sexuality a lot less important.
For me, I don't think there are any gay writers whose work I look forward to. I like Patrick Gale a lot and he would probably be classed as a woman's writer; sensitively dealing with family relationships, gets good reviews in Marie Claire and Cosmo.
I can't stand Edmund White, or that annoying actor who's just released a book.
I was in a collection of gay writing last year, Death Comes Easy, and I was very unhappy with a lot of the stories. The theme of the book was murder and so many of the stories seemed to be about gay men arranging their own murder because they were gay, or being killed because they were gay. I don't like stories where the point of them is the sexuality.
Single issue literary perspectives which go out of their way to exclude other views (on gender, sexual preferences, race, religion or whatever) are for me ultimately boring and I assume are probably targeted and most enjoyed by those who attempt to live their lives like that and who require reinforcement in their beliefs.
Of course, one could argue, that these multiplicity of single-perspective views, taken together constitutes something balanced and democratic and that one should try and seek out the 'best' of each category...
However, to me the 'best' of these will always be inferior to a piece of writing that cannot be categorised so readily and thus is not so easily a slave to the fashions/interests/passions of the day.
Great writing in my opinion transcends known boundaries and attempts to say something that is universal to the human condition... it lasts longer. Great writers (as do great artists) deliberately try and avoid arbitrary classifications and push boundaries rather than fit cosily into an existing slot.
I would be absolutely amazed if in a hundred years time, if people would still be writing 'gay' novels as they are main known today.
If writing from a sexual perspective at all... far more interesting for me would be someone writing from a 'bisexual' one... that is, with the implicit understanding that they see a world were praiseworthy characters were people who would be capable of finding attractive and falling in love with either men or women (at least theoretically)... without their preferences requiring added commentary beyond that in the narrative...
Jon, I have a go at you regularly because I KNOW you'll bite. It's just meant to counteract the boredom that some folk suffer from on here. As I've told you many times, your opinion on anything is completely meaningless to me, now go and do your paper-round, there's a good boy.
Wherever young boys go when they've done their chores.
And by the way, your term was 'FEMALE muff divers', and used as a rather sick description of female homosexuals. Don't let's pretend it was meant as a rather jocular reference to gender unspecific oral sex, which is a whole different dish.
Emma,
Thanks for correction on the spelling of dike-dyke. Seriously.
I thougt for a second, I've seldom if ever used the word, and it did not occur to me there was an alternate spelling. Obviously, it has one. Now, Websters defines the spelling of dyke as a slang term, a lesbian, esp. one with physical characteristics traditionally thought of as belonging to men: usually a term of contempt and hostility.
A more interesting word though is faggot, ie Fag. I am aware of the GB version being used to identify a cigarette, which is very rare in the US. Many times, I've seen some Joe-Bob over here encounter this word in the British context and comment on it. Usually in some derogatory fashion. I still encounter a great number of homophobics in my society(George Bush is a prime example). What's it like in Great Britan? Having never traveled there, I'm under the impression that it's less common in general. I'd say 50/50 here.
So you're asking me to leave the site?
'Female muff divers' - quite so - as in muff divers who are female, women who eat carpet, the female equivalent of chocolate chimney sweeps. I'm sorry if that's too coarse a term for your delicate ears, but let me see if I understand you correctly - a female is fine. A muff diver is fine. But the two together is 'sick'?
Woah!
Pack it in the pair of youse!
You're both like dogs worrying at each others bones.
I'm fairly sure that Neil didn't intend this thread to turn into a discussion about what's PC or not.
A good rule of thumb I reckon is 'If you wouldn't use the term in question to someone's face, don't use it'.
If I was gay and if someone refered to me by any of the the slangy euphamisms in all seriousness and I had up until that point believed that they respected me as a person, I'd be a bit miffed to be honest.
Oh I'm such a poe faced little spoil sport aren't I?
I came across a theory that went along the lines that gay writers are often more acute in describing relationships because they are, or certainly were, always 'outsiders' who rather than taking anything for granted had had to thrash out their own position in the world and their own way of conducting themselves in it.
Any thoughts?
>> ..I'm sorry if that's too coarse a term for your delicate ears.. <<
No you stupid boy, you couldn't possibly come up with anything too coarse for MY ears, but there ARE those on the site that might take it as a personal insult. But then you've never been very delicate yourself have, except perhaps in the rest home for sensitive writers!
I'd say 'muff diver' out loud any day 'o the week, and I'd preface it with 'female' if I was talking about lady rugmunchers. A touch of crassness is extremely healthy when used unaggressively.
Find that theory hard to agree with. Being an 'outsider' is to do with how you feel about yourself in relation to other people, so anyone can be an outsider... and it seems *almost* (but not quite) offensive to suggest that straight people never have to thrash for a decent relationship. I'd like think people very rarely see it as something they have a right to, or something that'll just happen to them because it's 'normal'. Relationships are so tricky that I would think we all have to work out our own way of conducting them.
There's that... and I generally dislike *any* theory that sets people apart based on gender, sexuality or race. I'm not trying to be an ultra-liberal or anything, but such theories, whether positive or negative, set up imaginary boundaries. If we were to take this one on board, for example, there'd be a degree of expectation for any gay writer to 'do' relationships well. And don't we all get sick of expectations related to one part of our personality, instead of to the whole?
"No you stupid boy, you couldn't possibly come up with anything too coarse for MY ears, but there ARE those on the site that might take it as a personal insult."
Well, I never! Not only is Missi the pinnacle of political incorrectness - he's also the guardian of ABC's minority groups! For someone so well versed in matters PC, it's a wonder you can't see the similarity between this line of argument, and the one that says you can't say 'hunchback', 'black' or 'chairwoman'. After all, some people might take offence, right? Some people might find those phrases demeaning.
Here's a thought. If people are offended, let them speak for themselves. If you aren't offended, don't get on your high horse, PC Van Win.
The word 'gay' used to mean 'promiscuous' and was primarily used to describe women, as in 'The Gay Divorcee.' I'm not sure when the homosexual community claimed it for their own, but it wasn't all that long ago. No conclusion here, just an historical footnote.
As for the rest of it, I'm more interested in the content of the writing than in anything about the author. If an author writes exclusively about so-called 'gay themes and culture,' then sooner or later, I will bore of it because I'm not part of that culture. Likewise, I easily become bored with 'women's literature' and little domestic romance novels about family life, in part because I have little interest in the subject matter and in part because authors who can be so easily categorized are usually not very good. They write genre potboilers for a narrow audience, which is fine, but it doesn't obligate me to read it.
Similarly, I don't read Tom Clancy any more. I read two of his books, regret having wasted the time, and have no intention of reading more by him or anyone else writing in that genre.
Having said all of this, Drew is one of the best writers on this site and I've very much enjoyed reading his stories. At the same time, given the way things are marketed, had it not been for this web site I almost certainly would never have been aware of his writing because it is marketed in the 'gay and lesbian' genre. I guess that says something positive about the site and something obvious about the publishing industry.
Or something obvious about the way people buy books - ie a straight person wouldn't check out what was hot in the gay and lesbian section of thier local bookshop, if indeed it had one.
Missi, why would you choose the word 'homosexual' if that's what you were? That's only been around since about 1903, or thereabouts. If you were so concerned about terms, you'd be better off caller yourself a bugger. That's been around longer. Or how about sodomite?
Or just a sod?
I thought 'gay' was a euphemism for homosexual, and homosexuals can be either sex. You obviously mean male homosexuals v female homosexuals. I felt the need to clarify this as it pisses me off when perfectly good words with innocent meanings are usurped to describe something that the user feels is socially unacceptable. There is NOTHING wrong with being homosexual so why do most of them insist they are 'gay'?
Other than not understanding missi's point at all... (what are you angry about exactly... if you explain a little further I might get it), this is an interesting thread Neil.
I think if a writer is billed as a 'gay writer' then that is obviously going to effect the way this writer is going to be reviewed, read and sold. If a writer is gay and is just billed as a writer per se, then this a totally different thing again.
Sexuality does shape people's writing, but it is not the only thing. Okay, so being in a minority group, or a group which has trouble being accepted, means that there are going to be many issues relating to sexuality that come up in the writing. As I believe a lot of writing has to do with the repressed mind of the writer, then this seems a natural progression.
However, I am pretty sure that many writers write about what interests them. I am also pretty sure that gay writers are not only interested in being gay or the various facets of their sexuality.
It's the same with straight writers.
I do know that some gay writers are marketed as such - usually if the book is a coming out tale, or an exploration of living as a gay person in our society or whatever. I have read many books where it just so happens that the character is gay and loads of other stuff happens too. I've read some great fiction written by female or male gay writers which have not been furiously issue based as such - Sarah Waters, Patricia Highsmith, Stephen Fry, Jackie Kay, Ali Smith, Paul Magrs - loads more just got sore head thinking. There has been gay characters in their work, sometimes their work has had a gay experience at the centre, but what they all have in common is that they write a cracking tale.
As I said in the male/female thread. Good writing is good writing.
Of course being gay has something to do with it. But so does being born on the 7th June. Growing up in Northampton. Being an only child. Having Jamaican parents. Being stood up by Lucy Worthington at the cinema in 1982....etc..
My point being that every writer is shaped by everything that has happened to them. Sexuality, parentage, schooling, all.
In terms of your question Neil about whether gay writers <> All I can say is, I'm sure some do, but I'm sure some don't. I bet there are many gay writers who either a) haven't come out b) have come out and just don't say they're writing queer fiction or c) champion 'queer fiction' and write it because they feel there is a lot politically and sociologically to say. I also think that marketing has much more to do with publishers and agents than it does to do with the writer. Most writers write what is important to them, and so it should be.
Oscar Wilde - gay as you like - and it is clear he was gay from looking at his work, absolutely (all those cucumber sandwiches - a complete secret signal to London's secret gay community without a doubt). He made his points about being an 'invert' (as was the term in those good ole victorian days) in secret. He was very interested in surface and how things seemed. He always 'inverted' accepted themes; such as in The Importance of Being Earnest when the town is seen as the place to be good and the country is seen as the place for hedonism... This was all clever, interesting stuff, at a time when <> sexuality was not an option. Wilde wasn't just a 'gay' writer though, as we all know. He was interested in art and beauty and the classics and society and satire. He was also ridiculously funny.
These days, in Britain at least, people don't have to necessarily do it/write about it in secret. This makes the issues explored in supposedly gay literature different. It is no longer a shock to come out - although it may be still in many British towns and villiages - it is acceptable to the point of the blase in Literature and the culture sector. This means the traditional queer tale is changing. Now it is okay to just have gay characters as characters. They don't need to be banging a drum and standing up for gay rights (not that doing any of these things is a bad thing) - they can be a whole, complex, interesting character that doesn't need justification for being on the page.
My own opinion as to whether they <> - I'm still wondering if that gap exists as much as we often think it does. Maybe we all have facets of everything in varying percentages. So one writer will write 20% with drive and plot and all those other things people seem to associate with male writers (herein labelled 'A') and 80% with emotional intelligence, tenderness and the intricacies of things which are apparently female (herein labelled '1').
I think I'm about a 35% A and 65% 1
But I grew up in a single parent family with my dad, so I can blame him for that.
I also think (oh really Hayley, none of us are listening any more to what you think...) that gender and sexuality is a very complicated subject and cannot necessarily be labelled off as easily as many would like. Whether that be in life, in writing, or anything.
*Hayley breathes out*
It's too easy to look at a writer as a female writer or a gay writer or an Afro Caribean writer. These things have their place - sometimes a huge and extrememly affecting place - but they are not everything. I'm a bit of humanist in that way.
That didn't answer your question at all did it Neil?
<>
Yes, I agree with this statement very much. Queer culture aims to break down the accepted norms and blur the categories. I have a watchful eye on the future...hehehe, but feel there is a long way to go, especially when I hear, everyday, school children using the term 'gay' perogatively. I have in no way 'studied' the theme of this thread, though I feel myself being drawn more and more into the debate through being a sexually experimental person, now identifying as lesbian, whose path through to self-awareness and acceptance has been fraught with pain and confusion. I am currently going through a separation with my husband of 10 years.
I have used lesbian sexuality in some of my writing, but have also written stuff that has no reference whatsoever to an alternative sexual nature...in fact quite the reverse. Having had such a rich and varied life experience I now feel able to write from a wide variety of perspectives. When I write with reference to lesbian sexuality it is deeply personal and verges on the erotic. I do this to satisfy myself...hehehe...perhaps in the absence of my lover...hehehe, but I am more than aware that there is a market for this stuff (!!!). I am also very interested in matters of personal identity, and the path to finding freedom of self-expression in an oppressive society/family environment. This, of course, can apply to anyone and can be in regard no only to sexuality but also to some other psychological inhibition. These matters do fascinate me, and they all stem from my upbringing and lifestyle over the years. I am also interested in completely different forms of writing and artistic expression, such as travel writing and photography/art/music. On the whole I would prefer to widen rather than narrow the themes of my work, whilst at the same time injecting something deeply personal and from the heart so that it can sing.
I do think that, in today's publishing world, a writer who discloses their sexuality and makes it an issue will undoubtedly attract a fan club of those who share the sexual orientation - this for obvious reasons. Of course, as Hayley has been at lengths to point out, the sexuality of a writer need not be an issue at all, though the critics will always attempt to seek it out. For example, it is still not known whether Virginia Woolf actually ever slept with a woman, but it is a subject of hot debate. Here is an author who, in 'Orlando', displayed an insight into alternative sexual preference (the character being based on Vita Sackville West who was known to have had an affair with a woman), and exploited the expressive possibilities of this alternative approach in her art.
I know l need to do more 'work' on this matter...but this is my contribution thus far...
Okay, I read it and I understand it. Perhaps I meant I didn't agree with it. But then maybe I didn't understand so how can I disagree. It is probably best for me to leave it.
I just wanted to know if you were being sarcastic. I am usually good at spotting sarcasm, but in this instance I wasn't sure.
Emma,
I agree with you about if a writer states they are a gay writer than that will attract a certain audience. That's natural for any of us. I went to see Moulin Rouge because the main character had red hair. I'm always looking for red head role models. I can't help myself.
I suppose one of the things about discussion forums is that generalisation can be fun, can spark off great debates, but I find that mostly everything is far too complex to be an either/or.
It's true that the word 'gay' is used offensively in playgrounds and by some adults. As was queer. That's why gay groups use the words 'gay' and 'queer' - to reclaim these words for themselves. To take away the aggression and harm that is meant by them and make them powerless to damage. It is the same with the word nigger. A word used by one group to label and shame and disempower another group is a powerful word in deed. In taking it back, in subverting it, that group gets stronger.
I think.
It sounds like you've been through a difficult and complicated time Emma. From looking at your posts in some of the other threads, though, I can see that you are happier now... ;)
Oscar Wilde, apart from being the greatest wit of the last 200 years, was a male homosexual. He may also have been gay at times, no doubt. He may have been sad at others. Either way, he has been my favourite writer for most of my life.
If 'I' were homosexual I would refer to myself as such. It is not a term I would feel sensitive about, but being called 'queer' or a writer of 'queer fiction' would leave me feeling insulted as it has a derogatory connotation. I also find the use of the word 'gay' slightly offensive as it's use is designed to create a cosy feeling about minority sexuality that society has, for hundreds of years, decried.
On reflection I wouldn't refer to myself as anything. In fact I don't really know why I felt any of this was worth saying. What time's the next bus home?
Perhaps people stopped using homosexual because a) it takes longer to type b) when news readers say it it sounds like they are describing something they found on the bottom of their shoe and c) it's four syllabals and nobody uses words with four syllabals anymore.
we al talk in txt spk nw anywy. Who nds lng wrds? No mttr wht thy dscrbe.
i am 15 and i live in virginia. i am a lesbian and i love to eat pussy.there is nothing wrong with being gay.neil_the_auditor wrote:
> Following on from the male/female writers discussion, do gay
> and lesbian writers bridge the perceived gap at all e.g. gay
> men writing with tenderness, perception and emotion and
> lesbians being strong on action, humour and the intricacies of
> things as opposed to people?
>
> Or do these writers concentrate too much on displaying their
> own sexual preferences, perhaps because they can fit into a
> marketable genre?
>
> I've no particular opinion - yet, although I've just commenced
> reading a lesbian short story collection.
i am 15 and i live in virginia. i am a lesbian and i love to eat pussy.there is nothing wrong with being gay.neil_the_auditor wrote:
> Following on from the male/female writers discussion, do gay
> and lesbian writers bridge the perceived gap at all e.g. gay
> men writing with tenderness, perception and emotion and
> lesbians being strong on action, humour and the intricacies of
> things as opposed to people?
>
> Or do these writers concentrate too much on displaying their
> own sexual preferences, perhaps because they can fit into a
> marketable genre?
>
> I've no particular opinion - yet, although I've just commenced
> reading a lesbian short story collection.
[%sig%]
Why can't you eat beef, pork and lamb like the rest of us. Eating cats is disgusting, I thought they only did that kind of thing in the far east. I bet you eat budgerigars as well!
I live in Manchester which is probably the most gay-friendly city in Britain - there's an area of the city centre called the Gay Village with gay bars, restaurants, etc - I'd find it threatening but "straight" girls often like the company of gay men and they go to the Gay Village knowing they won't have to fend off advances all night. This is not an "underground" scene -gay events are listed alongside everything else in the press.
There's plenty of gay writers here too - at least four at my writers' group so far - and specialist press, so it seems easier to get published if you're gay.
Though the lesbian short story collection I'm reading is admittedly quite good - not as many dungarees and dildoes as I'd feared.
My employers have an anti-harassment policy which means you can't pass comment on others' sexual orientation amongst other things and I think that is becoming more common. I also think the majority here find George Bush and his homophobia hateful - I certainly hope so.
Ian, I mentioned having friends of all persuasions to illustrate that sexual proclivities have no bearing on my friendships, I wasn't being patronising, defensive or excusative.
I am new to this site and I have to say thus so far I am not impressed. If this thread is what I can expect then I will be hesitant to bother. Becoming caught up with with the origins of words doesn not answer neil's question. Interesting though many of the posts were this does not seem the place to debate. Perhaps open a semantics thread up and you will attract like minded people. I digress, back to neil's question:
'Following on from the male/female writers discussion, do gay and lesbian writers bridge the perceived gap at all e.g. gay men writing with tenderness, perception and emotion and lesbians being strong on action, humour and the intricacies of things as opposed to people?
Or do these writers concentrate too much on displaying their own sexual preferences, perhaps because they can fit into a marketable genre?'
I did not see the male/female thread, though neil, I am quite intrigued by this 'perceived gap', i wasn't aware one existed! From what you have said it would seem this is based on sterotype just as it is sterotypical of women to write with emotion and men about action. Perhaps this is what you mean, I am not sure. If it is, you should know that sterotypes are just that and can be a dangerous thing and do not always apply, thankfully! IN addition I was intrigued by what you meant by 'do these writers concentrate too much on displaying their own sexual preferences'? What is too much? Are you talking about erotica? Then sex would sexual preference would be the main focus! Can you give me an example where there would be 'too much focus'? Finally, it is every writers wish to be published and it makes great sense to tap into what is 'marketable' yet i would think many writers do not write on demand, there are better and faster ways of making money. For those that try and succeed, well, perhaps it is just good business sense.
Pages