A Single Man by Christopher Isherwood

[garyd]

Well THAT makes me wonder if Isherwood was talking about her in the quote I posted.  What's very odd (and must have been baffling for Isherwood) is that he doesn't consider the book to be about homosexuality and yet that is what she is objecting to.

Could be.

As for the rest, you already know my thoughts.
(for some inexplicable reason, I have a difficult time conjuring a "baffled" Isherwood.) 
Authors are forever declaring that their work is "not" about one specific thing but goes beyond to something much more universal.
Blah, blah, blah.
(Thank god we were never subjected to Julia Child and Simone Beck going on and on about the universality of "Mastering the Art of French Cooking"!)

I, of course, am the first to agree. (well, you know, IF, I agree)
My only point is that it is for the audience to decide.
If not, then one gets deluged with statements such as those from Ford which can be interpreted as quite offensive.
(as we have seen  )

[michaelflanagansf]

I obviously should have placed a great big IMO at the end of that sentence.

What?  And ruin my fun? 

[michaelflanagansf]

Authors are forever declaring that their work is "not" about one specific thing but goes beyond to something much more universal.
Blah, blah, blah.

This is, of course, what galls me about Tom Ford's statements to this effect.  He's not a dumb person - I'm sure he knows about the Vito Russo quotes I posted.

Perhaps irritated would have been a better term than baffled regarding Isherwood.

Oh, and btw - we're number one (we just bypassed 'Mayor of Castro Street' as being the most commented on single book in the book threads.

[garyd]

This is, of course, what galls me about Tom Ford's statements to this effect.  He's not a dumb person - I'm sure he knows about the Vito Russo quotes I posted.

Perhaps irritated would have been a better term than baffled regarding Isherwood.

LOL, ok, now I AM baffled, or confused. (not irritated! )
I thought Isherwood said ASM is "is not a homosexual story".  So if HE said it, why are we mad at Ford for saying it?
Or or we mad at Ford because he said he does not think of himself as gay, or that at least he does not put it at the top of the list?
'Tis a puzzlement.
Help please.

[tfferg]

well -- Edmund White and I (we are this close!    )  seem to think the book is about homosexuality, but I think the difference is that we don't point it out with subtle derision.

I think it is about homosexuality, as a part of George's life, just as grief is a part of George's life, and his feelings about minorities.

Her observations about the trite beginnings of the day and the masturbation at the end of the day are interesting also, but dismiss what Isherwood is doing with the book.  Those things are in Ulysses as well, now that I think about it.

I wonder if, when Isherwood said ASM is not about homosexuality, he simply meant that George's homosexuality is not the problem, not the issue for his protagonist.

If I understand correctly, the fact that George's homosexuality is treated so matter-of-factly as unproblematic in itself in the book is what was something new or uncommon in works of literature at the time and led gay writers like Edmund White and the Violet Quill group to admire it and draw some inspiration from it. And of course, it must have upset honmophobic reviewers.

[michaelflanagansf]

LOL, ok, now I AM baffled, or confused. (not irritated! )
I thought Isherwood said ASM is "is not a homosexual story".  So if HE said it, why are we mad at Ford for saying it?
Or or we mad at Ford because he said he does not think of himself as gay, or that at least he does not put it at the top of the list?
'Tis a puzzlement.
Help please.

I really don't care how Ford identifies himself and that does not play into my objection.  However, when Isherwood said that ASM is not a homosexual story it was 1965, and he was reacting to articles like the review I posted.  Ford said it in 2010 - and the climate was considerably different.  After Isherwood said that the analysis of the Violet Quill group occurred and Ishwerwood did things like appear in interviews in Gay Sunshine.  The analysis which Vito Russo did, in which he pointed out how regardless of what the story was it was NEVER a homosexual story occurred between the two events.  We have made a little progress between the two events.

[michaelflanagansf]

If I understand correctly, the fact that George's homosexuality is treated so matter-of-factly as unproblematic in itself in the book is what was something new or uncommon in works of literature at the time and led gay writers like Edmund White and the Violet Quill group to admire it and draw some inspiration from it.

Yes Tony, exactly.

[garyd]

I really don't care how Ford identifies himself and that does not play into my objection.  However, when Isherwood said that ASM is not a homosexual story it was 1965, and he was reacting to articles like the review I posted.  Ford said it in 2010 - and the climate was considerably different.  After Isherwood said that the analysis of the Violet Quill group occurred and Ishwerwood did things like appear in interviews in Gay Sunshine.  The analysis which Vito Russo did, in which he pointed out how regardless of what the story was it was NEVER a homosexual story occurred between the two events.  We have made a little progress between the two events.

Yeah, I know. We have had this discussion and I see your point....to a point. 
I think somewhere along the line I missed the Russo analysis.  Did he say that the story never was a homo story?
Did we discuss this here? Was it in his book?

[michaelflanagansf]

No, Gary, Vito didn't refer to 'A Single Man' - he was talking about how various directors, actors, etc. have always said that their films are not about homosexuality.  Here's what I quoted from him:

It is also problematic because this sort of statement has a history.  Throughout the book 'The Celluloid Closet' Vito Russo peppered the beginning of chapters with quotes of this sort:

"'The Children's Hour' is not about lesbianism, it's about the power of lies to destroy people's lives"
(William Wyler, 1962)

"'The Sergeant' is not about homosexuality, it's about loneliness" (Rod Steiger, 1968)

"'Windows' is not about homosexuality, it's about insanity" (Gordon Willis, 1979)

"'Staircase' is not about homosexuality, it's about loneliness" (Rex Harrison, 1971)

"'Sunday Bloody Sunday' is not about the sexuality of these people, it's about human loneliness" (John Schlesinger, 1972)

"'The Boys in the Band' is not about homosexuality" (William Friedkin, 1970)

"'Cruising' is not about homosexuality" (William Friedkin, 1980)

[garyd]

^^^^^^
Oh, oh, oh, yes, yes, I remember.
Sorry.
Yes, this is all true.
However, all of these comments appear to be "cover" statements.
I really don't see them in the same light as I see Isherwood's statements or, for that matter, Ford's.
I could be wrong but it just doesn't seem to me that either guy is really trying to hide or sidestep the issue.
Ford maybe, I just don't know.
Ford is trying to sell a movie(and perhaps rationalize his behavior?)  Isherwood may be reacting to reviews similar to Hardwick's.
Either way, it is the story of a homosexual man and, of course, it resonates on other levels for some people.
It is difficult.  Shilts "outed" people in his columns. I understood, intellectually, but it bothered me but I got over it.
I understand being irked at Ford for distancing and perhaps screwing around with the essence, the importance,  of Isherwood's work.
That is inexcusable.  He is an intelligent man and should know better.
On the other hand, well there is no other hand is there?
As long as we are bashing, and killing, and discriminating, there really is no excuse for just wanting to live one's life. 
Though, of course, that IS the goal.
Sigh.

[michaelflanagansf]

The problem with all of this for me is the issue of visibility and invisibility and identity and self-concept.  I can certainly remember growing up and wondering about representations of myself in the media.  Now, of course, there is hardly that problem.  But the quality of things that represent people is something that we certainly could question (think 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy' or 'Ru Paul's Drag Race, for example).  Books by people like Colm Toibin, Edmund White, etc. certainly give people a vision of what their world is and/or could be.  But if you are constantly told that something that is about you really isn't about you I think it can play with your self-concept.  Not that it is the responsibility of artists to do this.  But it is duplicitous, at best, for people to keep telling you that something isn't about you when you can see that it is.  I think it does fracture individuals identities.

Again, artists aren't responsible for representing communities - they only represent themselves.  But it is certainly frustrating to be told over and over again that you don't exist in works.  And you don't hear Black, Hispanic or Asian authors going on about this (Maxine Hong Kingston or Gus Lee don't do this and imagine the outcry if someone like Spike Lee were to say that 'Do The Right Thing' was not about the Black experience).

[michaelflanagansf]

Sorry, Gary, we cross-posted.  I'll get back to you on your post later (after work).

[garyd]

The problem with all of this for me is the issue of visibility and invisibility and identity and self-concept.  I can certainly remember growing up and wondering about representations of myself in the media.  Now, of course, there is hardly that problem.  But the quality of things that represent people is something that we certainly could question (think 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy' or 'Ru Paul's Drag Race, for example).  Books by people like Colm Toibin, Edmund White, etc. certainly give people a vision of what their world is and/or could be.  But if you are constantly told that something that is about you really isn't about you I think it can play with your self-concept.  Not that it is the responsibility of artists to do this.  But it is duplicitous, at best, for people to keep telling you that something isn't about you when you can see that it is.  I think it does fracture individuals identities.

Again, artists aren't responsible for representing communities - they only represent themselves.  But it is certainly frustrating to be told over and over again that you don't exist in works.  And you don't hear Black, Hispanic or Asian authors going on about this (Maxine Hong Kingston or Gus Lee don't do this and imagine the outcry if someone like Spike Lee were to say that 'Do The Right Thing' was not about the Black experience).

Yes, I agree, Michael and I also agree with Mendelsohn. (attached for those who have not read it)
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2006/feb/23/an-affair-to-remember/

I think there is a difference, however, when universality is invoked in an attempt to deceive or obfuscate.
Many great works do indeed transcend their original intent, including that of even Spike Lee.
I suggest that many of these artists are actually trying to say "it is more than just a such and such story" when
it might be best if they just pulled an Albee and say nothing at all leaving it up to the audience to decide.
(well maybe a bad example, he has become a bit preachy as of late)

[janjo]

To play Devil's Advocate  just a little here, aren't all stories about homosexuality really just about the human condition? How different fundamentally is a homosexual from a heterosexual?
Society and culture might see us differently, but biologically and emotionally how great are the differences?
We are all human beings with the same frailties and mortality after all.
On that basis a story like ASM or BBM for that matter reflects us all.

[Nikki]

I suppose it depends upon exactly what one is attempting to communicate. 

No it doesn't -- if you can't understand what one is 'attempting' to communicate because the language is intimidating what's the point? Not worth the effort is what I was trying to say.