A Single Man by Christopher Isherwood

[michaelflanagansf]

^^^^^

This does sound interesting, Michael.  Have to tell you, I'll be leaving town early Friday to visit my sister and will be gone two weeks total, but I'll be reading here until at least mid-day tomorrow.

Okay, I'll try to get some things up before then.  I hope you'll be able to check in while you're out of town (although I certainly can understand that you'll have other things on your mind).  I also have a hold on this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Conversations-Christopher-Isherwood-Literary/dp/1578064082

There's a great interview in it between Isherwood and Winston Leyland (the founder of the Gay literary magazine 'Gay Sunshine' in 1970) in which 'A Single Man' is discussed.

So I'm not done yet.  We can still give Harvey and Randy Shilts a run for their money. 

[dejavu]

Okay, I'll try to get some things up before then.  I hope you'll be able to check in while you're out of town (although I certainly can understand that you'll have other things on your mind). 

Thanks, Michael.  Unlikely that I'd get much time online while out there, since I don't have a laptop and my mom's house, where I'll be staying, doesn't have a computer.  I might find a few minutes somewhere else, but as you can imagine, my time is mostly booked.

But in any case, your references all sound so interesting.  I will catch up with it all after I get back, at least.  I'm glad you're still finding more information.

[michaelflanagansf]

From 'Who is Christopher Isherwood?' by Katherine Bucknell (pg. 26)

The early 1960 brought conflict in Isherwood's relationship with Bachardy, who was struggling to establish himself independently, as an artist and as a man.  Ultimately the conflict was to be resolved, but not without pain and a tremendous effort of love.  'A Single Man' reflects Isherwood's fear of being abandoned by Bachardy and his fear of aging and death, but it also evokes the challenge of sustaining his mature identity - no longer a renegade English writer but now a permanent member of a community....The persona of the college professor proved to be one Isherwood could write about with exquisite comedy...now he was able to draw upon his own personality as a teacher to create a classroom magician for 'A Single Man.'  In a sense he was portraying himself as having grown into the role of one of his adolescent heroes, G. B. Shaw.

[michaelflanagansf]

From 'The Isherwood Century' - 'Who is Christopher Isherwood' by Katherine Bucknell (pg. 26 - 27)

'A Single Man' is modeled on Virginia Woolf's 'Mrs. Dalloway'...George is a middle-aged Englishman, a foreigner and a homosexual.  He is lonely because his companion has recently been killed in a car crash, and, like any aging person, George fears his own death; but otherwise he is not unhappy - not with himself.  George is unhappy with society because society cannot understand or accept him as he really is.  He keeps his true nature hidden, not least because when he does allow it to emerge he risks having it explained away by psychology.  As a homosexual, his plight is not psychological but social and political - a radical notion at the time the novel was written, although Isherwood knew by then that such a view was supported not only by his own experience and impressions but also by the work, for instance, of his longtime friend the psychologist and psychotherapist Evelyn Hooker.

Outwardly George is cultivated and presentable; but secretly he is a ferocious, angry monster.  He is a raging misogynist, dislikes children, has breathtakingly sadistic fantasies.  Isherwood deliberately emphasizes these characteristics.  From the point of view of the conventional heterosexual community which Isherwood clearly meant 'A Single Man' to shock, George is a monster because he is a homosexual; he is 'unspeakable.'  But from Isherwood's point of view, George is a monster simply because he has long been persecuted and, at the moment, is unloved.  Indeed George's condition is emblematic of the hidden monotonousness of human beings generally.  And the novel's widest importance lies not in its candid depiction of homosexual anger but in its foretelling of the way in which any number of sexual, ethnic, and religious groups, living side by side in a culture then prosperously at peace, were all about to come out of hiding during the 1960s and 1970s.

[janjo]

Sorry I haven't contributed much this week, but I have read everyones contributions with great interest. Thank you for all of the references Michael, which I am enjoying researching.
We have a General Election here today, and as I will be at the count tonight, probably until about 5 am, later, when I have had some sleep, I hope to return to more normal forum service.

[dejavu]

He keeps his true nature hidden, not least because when he does allow it to emerge he risks having it explained away by psychology.  As a homosexual, his plight is not psychological but social and political - a radical notion at the time the novel was written, although Isherwood knew by then that such a view was supported not only by his own experience and impressions but also by the work, for instance, of his longtime friend the psychologist and psychotherapist Evelyn Hooker.

I think these sentences further explain what you must have been getting at when you asked if "A Single Man" was a gay liberation novel.  I didn't initially see that strong of a connection, because A Single Man isn't primarily about a gay subculture, and its main character, Geroge, has other experiences which put him in an Everyman category. 

But, in the sense that it puts homosexuality in a social and political context (as this quote points out), and rejects looking at it as a psychological problem, then the answer would be yes, it is in part written from a gay liberation point of view.

BTW, thanks for these quotes, Michael.               

[michaelflanagansf]

Sorry I haven't contributed much this week, but I have read everyones contributions with great interest. Thank you for all of the references Michael, which I am enjoying researching.
We have a General Election here today, and as I will be at the count tonight, probably until about 5 am, later, when I have had some sleep, I hope to return to more normal forum service.

*puts on crown*  'I hereby decree that Jess has a royal dispensation from participation until her work for the good of her country is done!' 

[hmmm...if the SNP wins does Britain have to devolve from itself?....]

See you when you're rested, dear.

[michaelflanagansf]

I think these sentences further explain what you must have been getting at when you asked if "A Single Man" was a gay liberation novel.  I didn't initially see that strong of a connection, because A Single Man isn't primarily about a gay subculture, and its main character, Geroge, has other experiences which put him in an Everyman category. 

But, in the sense that it puts homosexuality in a social and political context (as this quote points out), and rejects looking at it as a psychological problem, then the answer would be yes, it is in part written from a gay liberation point of view.

BTW, thanks for these quotes, Michael.               

For me the novel is a revolution in consciousness, Deb.  I'm not sure I buy everything Ms. Bucknell says, but Isherwood wrote a novel where the main character was not a flawed or sad creature (think 'Well of Loneliness') and where the issue was not some tragic hopeless love ('Death in Venice').  George is a functioning, contributing member of society and has had a good life and a good relationship.  His relationship with Jim did not cause him great personal angst (as it did for at least one of the characters in 'City and the Pillar').  And for THAT reason to me this is a great novel in the pantheon of gay liberation.  It may sound convoluted, but the reason I think this is a gay liberation novel is because being gay isn't the point of the book.  George is trying to get past the death of his partner, he's trying to figure out how to live.  He's not trying to figure out how to be gay - he's got that all figured out.  And though he has internalized some of the societal bias (in what he thinks about Mrs. Strunk and how she thinks about him) those biases have not stopped him from having a good life.  If I had been reading this in the 60s I would think 'aha! so THAT'S how you do it!'

It could easily be said that this was because parts of Western Europe was well ahead of the U.S. in its progress toward incorporating gay people into the culture and eliminating bias towards them.  I'm not sure that this is true.  The Wolfenden report had been published in the UK and the film 'Victim' had come out in 1961 and the Dutch LGBT organization COC Nederland formed in 1946, for example.  But Isherwood was on his own trajectory, I think.  He had already left his family and friends in the UK to live a whole life in Germany in the 30s (I don't think I'd call him 'slutty', btw, as the article about the upcoming 'Christopher and His Kind' movie did - but he certainly was NOT some model for monogamy that current gay marriage proponents could point to either).  He knew Magnus Hirschfeld and also knew the primaries in the 'homophile' movement in the U.S. (and Evelyn Hooker - as both Bucknell and I pointed out).  He had been living as an openly gay man for 30 years by the time this novel was published and there are a lot of ways that I see him leading by example here.  I think this is why Gore Vidal was so enamored of him too.

For Isherwood the problem was not being gay and he wasn't begging for anyone's understanding.  He was trying to maneuver his way around what he saw as outmoded small notions - and yes, it made him (and George) angry.  That's why I see this as an important gay liberation novel - years before the term existed.  He was already fighting back at this early time with the weapon of his choice - his pen.

[dejavu]

Thanks for these additional comments, Michael.

[michaelflanagansf]

This should be of interest to you, Gary, as she talks about the 'minority' aspect of the book:

From 'Isherwood Century', chapter 'Who Is Christopher Isherwood' by Kathrine Bucknell, pg 27:

The students in George's class include a nun, a recent emigre from Germany who barely speaks English, a divorcee of implied Spanish or Mexican background, a Chinese boy, a Japanese girl who was interned,...a Swedish boy, a black girl, a 'crazy' beatnik boy curious about drugs and sex, a Jewish boy, a homosexual boy....Isherwood depicts a class in which every student is a member of a group which may be called a minority.  And one subject of their morning discussion is the relation of the minority - any minority - to the majority....George leaves his own affinities unmentioned; his minority is still a secret tribe for whom he may not speak out loud.  As a result, his classroom polemic works as a long double entendre which makes an implied claim for the right of the homosexual minority to be recognized along with the rest, and which, more important, also highlights the ways in which the other minorities are like George's own.

On the surface, the characters in 'A Single Man' share a loose consensus about freedom and tolerance...but underneath lie suspicion and unrealized conflicts.  Each character has hidden needs and resentments; each character in his or her fundamental nature is at odds with the group.  Near the end of the novel, Isherwood describes a bit of Californian landscape which symbolizes this:

"Up the coast a few miles north, in a lava reef under the cliffs, there are a lot of rock pools.  You can visit them when the tide is out.  Each pool is separate and different, and you can, if you are fanciful, give them names...."

The landscape of the rock pool is, relatively, unchanging.  By contrast 'A Single Man' portrays a society about to break up; it will be fragmented by sexual liberation, gay liberation, women's liberation, the civil rights movement, black power, the drug culture, the peace movement, the generation gap.  Each of these movements is represented or implied by the individual members of George's class....Isherwood wrote in his diary about George's bout of hatred on the freeway..."I wrote that hate passage as a parable for all the members of all the other minorities as well as mine.  Because we are all so unwilling to admit that our own dear little injured minority can ever feel hate - except of course when it is 100% justified....The vast majority of all minority members sometimes give way to a paranoia which makes them temporarily insane (unpublished diary, Sept. 14, 1973)"....

The passage about the rock pools makes clear that Isherwood's own idea of liberation had a higher, spiritual dimension....

[michaelflanagansf]

So what do you (all) think of Ms. Bucknell's comments about minorities?  Does her analysis fit for you?  What about her observation about the minority component to the classroom?  Do you think that Isherwood was too subtle in his depiction of all of the members of the class (at least all we talk about) as being minority?

And, for the film, what do you make of Tom Ford's changing Lois from a Japanese-American to a blond Caucasian?  Do you think Mr. Ford missed the minority implications of George's speech and Isherwood's book?

[dejavu]

So what do you (all) think of Ms. Bucknell's comments about minorities?  Does her analysis fit for you?  What about her observation about the minority component to the classroom?  Do you think that Isherwood was too subtle in his depiction of all of the members of the class (at least all we talk about) as being minority?
And, for the film, what do you make of Tom Ford's changing Lois from a Japanese-American to a blond Caucasian?  Do you think Mr. Ford missed the minority implications of George's speech and Isherwood's book?

I made notes about the student characters in George's class, when I was reading the book for the second time, and am looking those notes over now to see whether my impressions from before we started discussing the book agree with what Ms. Bucknell is saying.

Regarding the bolded part of your question, Isherwood made it pretty obvious that most of the members of the class were minority in some way.  Sister Maria is the nun.  Mr. Stoessel is the recent emigre from Germany (he is also called "deaf" at one point, which is another minority, as well as "middle-aged," which is a minority among students at George's college.)  Mrs. Netta Torres is the apparent divorcee and is also middle-aged, while Lois Yamaguchi and Alexander Mong are the Japanese (Nisei) girl and Chinese boy, respectively.  Buddy Sorensen is the Swede and Estelle Oxford is the "Negro," who is hypersensitive about her race, thinking she is being discriminated against.  Isherwood specifically alludes to Buddy's and Estelle's ethnic backgrounds in a thought passage during a lecture about minorities, when he wonders why he can't bring himself to refer to them directly while making the point that there really are observable differences between minorities.  Wally Bryant is the presumed homosexual boy; Myron Hirsch the Jew who is an "indefatigable heckler of the goyim" who brings up Nazis and turns George's thoughts to minorities in the first place.

There are, however, two students in the class who are not apparent members of minorities, or at least are not singled out as such by Ms. Bucknell: Russ Dreyer and Tom Kugelman.  Russ Dreyer isn't an ordinary student, since he is identified by Isherwood as George's "personal attendent, executive officer, bodyguard."  And Tom Kugelman is labeled "Dreyer's lieutenant."  So they seem to have some undefined intellectual or academic importance to George, and may have therefore been put in the novel by Isherwood for reasons other than to illustrate George's ideas about minorities.

In the film, I think Tom Ford did go lightly on the minority aspects of the book.  Perhaps he thought he had to, to avoid complicating the script and to keep focus on George's planned suicide.  Changing Lois to a blonde Caucasian also must have simplified the drama between herself and Kenny, made her blend into the background better, and keep the focus on the main characters.

[michaelflanagansf]

There are, however, two students in the class who are not apparent members of minorities, or at least are not singled out as such by Ms. Bucknell: Russ Dreyer and Tom Kugelman.  Russ Dreyer isn't an ordinary student, since he is identified by Isherwood as George's "personal attendent, executive officer, bodyguard."  And Tom Kugelman is labeled "Dreyer's lieutenant."  So they seem to have some undefined intellectual or academic importance to George, and may have therefore been put in the novel by Isherwood for reasons other than to illustrate George's ideas about minorities.

Thank you Debbie!  I knew there was someone who was not identifiable as a minority, I just couldn't remember who it was.  I do think that Bucknell's comments have some value, but I don't feel that you can look at this as a matter of (sorry) black and white.    She seems to think of the rock pools as a metaphor for minorities as well (and I didn't get that when I read the book) but she also mentions the metaphysical implications of that passage too.

I did really like that she gave us information from Isherwood's diaries about his intent regarding minorities.  As she is an editor of that material she was bound to have access to something that had an implication regarding this book and I'm grateful that she shared.

[dejavu]

Thank you Debbie!  I knew there was someone who was not identifiable as a minority, I just couldn't remember who it was.  I do think that Bucknell's comments have some value, but I don't feel that you can look at this as a matter of (sorry) black and white.    She seems to think of the rock pools as a metaphor for minorities as well (and I didn't get that when I read the book) but she also mentions the metaphysical implications of that passage too.

I did really like that she gave us information from Isherwood's diaries about his intent regarding minorities.  As she is an editor of that material she was bound to have access to something that had an implication regarding this book and I'm grateful that she shared.

I didn't get any connection between rock pools and minorities either, when I read the book.  Although I suppose one could make a connection, by saying that the rock pools weren't just individual people, but various minority groups.  And then going on to show how all individual people (or all minorities) are also part of a united "humanity."

Isherwood does say at one point that we could suppose that the rock pools had names, such as "George, Kenny, Charlotte, Mrs. Strunk."  By that same token, perhaps we could use the names of George's students for the rock pools:  Lois, Alexander, Wally, Sister Maria, Mrs. Torres, Estelle Oxford, Buddy Sorensen, etc., and then go on to suppose that these student names were just representatives of various minorities: Japanese, Chinese, homosexuals, Catholic nuns, Hispanics, blacks, Swedes.  This may be along the lines of Ms. Bucknell's thinking, but I think it's a step beyond from what Isherwood was getting at in that passage.

Still, I also do appreciate Ms. Bucknell's comments.   

[garyd]

This should be of interest to you, Gary, as she talks about the 'minority' aspect of the book:

The landscape of the rock pool is, relatively, unchanging.  By contrast 'A Single Man' portrays a society about to break up; it will be fragmented by sexual liberation, gay liberation, women's liberation, the civil rights movement, black power, the drug culture, the peace movement, the generation gap.  Each of these movements is represented or implied by the individual members of George's class....Isherwood wrote in his diary about George's bout of hatred on the freeway..."I wrote that hate passage as a parable for all the members of all the other minorities as well as mine.  Because we are all so unwilling to admit that our own dear little injured minority can ever feel hate - except of course when it is 100% justified....The vast majority of all minority members sometimes give way to a paranoia which makes them temporarily insane (unpublished diary, Sept. 14, 1973)"....

The passage about the rock pools makes clear that Isherwood's own idea of liberation had a higher, spiritual dimension....

Hmm, maybe. ^^^^^^^^

Yes, Michael , I do find this interesting.  I think, certainly hope, I implied or made it clear in some of my posts and links that I am familiar with “The Isherwood Century” and, in particular Bucknell’s article which I find very helpful in digesting elements of ‘A Single Man”. 

The classroom, at least in the book and to a lesser but still important extent in the film, is certainly a microcosm of minorities.  George, of course, uses this to fuel his “lecture” on the subject.  Obviously Isherwood is underscoring the fact that some minorities, certainly ethnic ones, can not hide themselves from the mainstream.  Conversely, a gay person not only can but in most instances must.
The classroom passage combined with the “freeway rant” illustrate two important points, I think. The first is that some minorities, find a way to galvanize or coalesce to a point where they at least have a voice. (in this case the Blacks and the Jews).  Others, in this case, gays, must find their own voice as well.  To do so, of course, they must first “de-cloak”.  (I may be projecting our communal knowledge of recent history here but I always have felt that Isherwood was attempting to make this statement.)
The second is the idea that being a member of a minority does not automatically confer saintliness.  Minorities can love, clash, disagree, be disagreeable and, even, hate.  In other words, they, too, are human.

All of this , in my opinion, meshes beautifully with the layered meaning behind the title “A Single Man”. A single gay man  and everyman really, may be able to construct a life, integrate himself into society, live, love, and peacefully exist, but at some point, he must finally join forces in something a bit more revolutionary….a communal declaration of existence and self-pride. 

 It also adds credence to the idea that the book is most definitely a milestone of “gay liberation”.  While not an overt “call to arms”, the story in and of itself is “liberating” for many of the reasons already stated in your and other’s posts.

I am not sure I agree with Bucknell’s juxtaposition of the rock pool metaphor and the idea that the book “portrays a society about to break up” (though I do agree that this is, indeed, one of the things it portrays.)  The rock pool is a separate  theme being explored more in line with Isherwood’s association with Vedanta and Huxley’s book which explores the folly of immortality. 

Rather than symbolizing “unrealized conflicts” and each character’s “fundamental nature” being at odds with the group, it seems to me that this passage symbolizes the innate and shared similarities of individual humans.  Of course, each rock pool is, I admit, a single man.