Talk:Queer (novel)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Burroughs is without question a queer author
Burroughs is without question a queer author. He not only was queer, he wrote about queer life. I think you're concerned that he shouldn't be pigeonholed as a "gay" author, but "queer" as a concept has a much broader reach than sexuality alone and certainly Burroughs is a figure in the queer world. James James 00:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but is that what the Russell book is talking about? I don't think so. I have just read chunks of it, but I think it trys to explain, or understand a paradox- the fact that Burroughs has not been read as a queer author. If this seems to be unworthy of inclusion in the article on the novel Queer fine- but if it is going to be mentioned, then some effort should be made to explain why, in Russell's scholarship, he is "totally excluded from the queer canon". That is what my additional sentences are aimed at explaining. I was foolish to pose the point in personal 'my 2 cents language'- sorry about that.--Mikerussell 05:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think your recasting of it is much better. I think that you've hit the nail on the head. James James 07:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Just an additional point- if you look at the scholarship on Burroughs before Russell's attempt at a 'queer study', you will see the authors do not focus primarily on Burroughs homosexuality or 'queer subjectvity'. The books below are evidence of the fact. (in my opinion at least).
- Murphy, Timothy S., Wising up the marks : the modern William BurroughsUniversity of California Press, 1997.
Exerpt-Burroughs's literary career is defined by the central challenge he sets himself: to find an escape route from the linked control systems of capital, subjectivity, and language.
- Skerl, Jennie and Robin Lydenberg. William S. Burroughs at the front: critical reception. Southern Illinois University Press. 1991
- Skerl, Jennie. William S. Burroughs. Twayne Publishers, 1985.
- Schneiderman, Davis. Retaking the universe: William S. Burroughs in the age of globalizationPluto Press, 2004.
My original point about Burroughs not being seen as 'queer' by many of his most avid readers also is evident in the sci-fi group of 'fans' that made much of his writing popular in North America in the 70s. Now this doesn't mean they don't understand Burroughs is writing about gay characters. Not to belabour the issue, but I actually do think it is worth noting that Burroughs can attract many readers, who are hetrosexual, becuase he writes about things that transcend the topic, sort of speak. As a hetrosexual I think Queer is very relevant, I can identify with Lee and his thoughts/feelings as depicted in the Lee-Allerton relationship. Now does this make his writing any less queer? I think the fact that Russell sees Burroughs as a 'problem' to be solved- to be deconstructed and constructed again in a more 'queer' subjectivity which appeals more to queer literature category suggests it might.--Mikerussell 06:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Look, in the first instance, I think you hit the nail on the head with your recasting of Russell's views. He's not been seen as a "queer" author because of his peculiar (I mean idiosyncratic not strange) viewpoint. And I do take your point about his appeal for straights. However, many "queer" authors appeal to straights! But queerness is more than gayness, and it can be seen as a curiosity that Burroughs is not an icon of queerness, given that, not only in Queer, he is very "queer", expressing a notion of transgression that is quintessentially queer, regardless of whether it is expressed by a gay or straight author. And queerness is not diminished by being understood and even shared by straight readers, Mike. In any case, I think we're agreeing, not disagreeing, and I like your new rendering. James James 07:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- "queerness is more than gayness", that's somethiing I haven't really heard before, so you have taught me look for something new. I get your point above too.--Mikerussell 19:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Reason for the novel not being published
The reasons given for the novel not being published are uncited and do not jive with the reason given in the article on Junkie. I personally had never heard this account -- the books I'd read on Burroughs says Queer was simply rejected by nervous publishers. Can anyone confirm that the history described here is correct (with preferably a source)? Once that happens, the Junkie article should be adjusted accordingly (as well as the main WSB article if Queer is referenced there). 23skidoo 20:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Allerton
He was known as Lewis Marker. His complete name was Adalbert Lewis Marker. I have given the only online source for this I could find. Print sources are numerous, including Gentleman Junkie and the Barry Miles book.68.14.23.222 19:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Tommy
[edit] See also Pedophilia in literature (boys) deletion
I don't think lusting after 12-14 year olds is pedophilia; it certainly would not qualify in law as pedophilia, and it strikes me that labeling artistic expression as the same thing as sexual acts on a minor child, even as depicted in literature, is blurring an elemental disntiction. That being said I do know that Burroughs is over the top in many of his books- and I am a big believer in interpreting "art" as commonsense before one tries to go deeper, or higher, depending upon your point of view, about a story. I know his routine about the slave salesman in Queer would loose many, as the satire is, shall we say, sharp like a ten pound axe. If I say I see the commidification of persons in the satire of that section, and a deep social comment on the nature of emerging acquistive American society, then you can just as rightly say you see pedophilia, I guess. I am unaware of how you came to determine the age of these persons as 12 though. If you are talking about the South American kids maybe you can explain the age reference- it doesn't stick in my mind that there are any 12 year olds "lusted after" by Lee. So if you want to detail the instance in the Pedophilia in literature (boys), you may have some resaonable cause, but you're getting into a very unenlightened place in my opinion when you try to themetically assess a novel based on aspects of character's personality and psychology in abstraction from the whole story. The guy is a homo- to be blunt- if he sees sexual qualities in young people- its not pedophilia. The term jailbait has such popular currency for reasons that seem too obvious to mention, and these type of thoughts or feelings are not pedophilia. I mean I was just watching a Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward film on tv recently called Mr. and Mrs. Bridge and there is scene where Newman, looks out the window at his daughter and sees her sunbathing then grabs his wife. Is that incest in literature, or just humane insight? --Mikerussell 17:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Pedophilia is simply the sexual attraction to children. Straight and gay men can be pedophilies. It is a condition irrespective of whether the individual acts on his attraction. Lee doesn't engage in any child sexual abuse in Queer. In the book Lee extimates the age of the boys he lusts after (Burrough's words) as 12-14. Perhaps the book could be moved to the minor theme section? Tony 19:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Tony
- Not according to the Pedophilia article in wikipedia, which is no authority but is certainly reflective of common sense and is cited. More pointedly, you are leaving out the essential quality of "primary or exclusive". To quote-Pedophilia or paedophilia (see spelling differences) is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction by adults to prepubescent youths. It does not apply to Queer. Nobody would define pedophilia as a theme, minor or major, to this novel. One or two instances of an adult "lusting for 12-14 year olds" in a novel devoted to adult male relationships, or hetrosexual relationships for that matter, is not pedophilia. You are wishing to attribute an exclusive concern for the deviant quality of primary or exclusive where it factually is untrue. No references to Pedophilia are warrented in this article. Any more than a reference to incest in Mr. and Mrs. Bridge. You are actually minimizing and distorting, intentionally or not, the real harm and victimization of pedophilia by labeling "lusting for 12-14 year olds" as the same thing as the explotation of power and age differences to give gratification to an adult over a victimized child. I don't know much about this stuff, but maybe you are getting confused with pederasty. At any rate, Queer is not a novel with pedophilia in it, period. --Mikerussell 22:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Mike: the primary or exclusive definition of pedophilia is a US psychology definition which is certainly not accepted in the UK. There should be no implied 'harm and victimization of pedophilia'. Pedophilia is a condition, a condition that Lee had in Queer. There is no implication that he acted on his feelings. The best known (probably) pedophile in literature who is non abusive is in Mann's novella Death in Venice. You will note I have not reverted your deletion although I believe you are mistaken. You have said you 'don't know much about this stuff' - well I do know a fair amount. I know, for instance, that your comment about 'qualify in law as pedophilia' is ill-informed as pedophilia is not a crime in either the USA UK.Tony 11:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Tony
- As far as Death in Venice is concerned, I know it came to be interpreted as a "coming out of the closet" type novel in North America, but many novels can be used to simply defend personal needs and wants, dressed up in the garb of "high art". It seems like people love to cite that novel when trying to blame society for repressing and victimizing the poor sensitive, artist-type, with their "normal" and "natural" human longings like molesting kids, or whatever. Burroughs is almost the exact opposite of Mann in the way he approaches his homosexuality and other related writing themes like heroin addiction. His characters rarely ever "blame" society and long for simple "acceptance". At any rate, you contribute a lot on this topic, I don't, and we'll have to disagree on Queer and the definition of pedophilia. --Mikerussell 14:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Mike: the primary or exclusive definition of pedophilia is a US psychology definition which is certainly not accepted in the UK. There should be no implied 'harm and victimization of pedophilia'. Pedophilia is a condition, a condition that Lee had in Queer. There is no implication that he acted on his feelings. The best known (probably) pedophile in literature who is non abusive is in Mann's novella Death in Venice. You will note I have not reverted your deletion although I believe you are mistaken. You have said you 'don't know much about this stuff' - well I do know a fair amount. I know, for instance, that your comment about 'qualify in law as pedophilia' is ill-informed as pedophilia is not a crime in either the USA UK.Tony 11:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Tony
- Not according to the Pedophilia article in wikipedia, which is no authority but is certainly reflective of common sense and is cited. More pointedly, you are leaving out the essential quality of "primary or exclusive". To quote-Pedophilia or paedophilia (see spelling differences) is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction by adults to prepubescent youths. It does not apply to Queer. Nobody would define pedophilia as a theme, minor or major, to this novel. One or two instances of an adult "lusting for 12-14 year olds" in a novel devoted to adult male relationships, or hetrosexual relationships for that matter, is not pedophilia. You are wishing to attribute an exclusive concern for the deviant quality of primary or exclusive where it factually is untrue. No references to Pedophilia are warrented in this article. Any more than a reference to incest in Mr. and Mrs. Bridge. You are actually minimizing and distorting, intentionally or not, the real harm and victimization of pedophilia by labeling "lusting for 12-14 year olds" as the same thing as the explotation of power and age differences to give gratification to an adult over a victimized child. I don't know much about this stuff, but maybe you are getting confused with pederasty. At any rate, Queer is not a novel with pedophilia in it, period. --Mikerussell 22:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
