Oh. Queer...?
Ok, so I got into this discussion with a friend about Queer, Burroughs kind of follow up to Junkie (it's more a short novel than a full-fledged novel, as you might know) and when I read it way back I was kind of fascinated by the whole writing style and the world it described. I was fascinated by the fact that it could not be published when it was written (it was the fifties, hunny) and that it was an 'expat' experience. I found it fascinating.
The discussion with the friend was going ok until I mentioned that Queer was one of the early gay books I've read. My friend said that Queer was not 'gay'. They added that it is not 'canon' because Burroughs said it was not 'gay'. I was gooped and gagged. What? It is LITERALLY (no pun intended) a gay short novel. It literally depicts a search for THE outmost gay sexual experience at a time when gay sex was literally prohibited. Duh.
But then I thought about Burroughs and realized that yes, of course he would say that. If there's someone who suffers from internalized homophobia, it's Burroughs (who was emotionally fractured at best). But we also have to recognize he's a product of his times. Men who grew up in a homophobic time will be homophobes, even when it comes to their own craving of dick. Denial is not just a river in Africa, babes.
Now Queer is going to be a movie, with Daniel Craig in the title role. It's directed by Luca Guadagnino (Call Me By Your Name) and I will be making a visit to the cineplex as soon as this hits theaters. Oh yes.
So, what's your take, Constant Reader? Does the author decide if a work of art (or a book, in this case) is Gay Cannon or not? Or is it up to the reader? Inquiring minds want to know…
XOXO
P. S. I’m gonna read Queer again now. Just for shit and giggles.
My opinion is that straight guys play gay parts because they want an Oscar nomination.
ReplyDeleteI'm looking forward to seeing this movie too. While an author's opinion of his work is important, it is not the final word. The readership's opinion is just as important, and often more perceptive. And all art is judged by posterity. So yes, "Queer" is a legitimate expression of queerness from a very particular era and culture, no matter how full of self-loathing Burroughs was.
ReplyDeleteAnd P.S. on another topic -- Thanks for all the great comments you've been leaving on my new blog, Beautiful Woman of the Day. I appreciate it!
DeleteBig says,
ReplyDeleteAn author knows the original intent, but the reader is the final judge. A reader interprets what they're reading. This is why you can have so many different interpretations, opinions; some people place too much meaning behind words, others not enough. Both end with unintended consequences --- think about how laws are written and then interpreted by different lawyers and / or judges. "Queer" is a peek at a different era and culture from what we know today.
XOXO
You summed it up just perfect Pat.
DeleteArt is subjective and based on the time it was written or created and the person who created the art; then years later we see it and put our own viewpoints on it. Burroughs may have been unable or afraid to call his work gay out of fear and that fear stuck.
ReplyDeleteI think it's up to the author for his take and the reader for what they glean from the work.
That said ... Daniel Craig ... oooooh la la.
xoxo
Ils maintenant temps qu’ils créent un film sur l’histoire des expatriés homophiles de Tanger.
ReplyDeleteNow is the time they create a film about the expatriate homophile history of Tangier !
-Beau Mec
Up to the reader. I don't know what he thought...but it's gay. And now I wish we did live close. If I could see this movie with anyone it would be you. And I love Daniel Craig.
ReplyDeleteIt won't happen here, but I love to see him just once suck a dick.
Ultimately, the reader has the last word. Period. As for Mr. Craig and his gay for pay role. Another film I will never see. I can't. I can't watch another straight actor steal food from a gay actor. Rupert Everett would have been a marvelous choice. F*ck Mr. Craig. Literally and figuratively.
ReplyDelete