queer theory vs. lesbian/gay theory: a ten minute quickie that I originally accidentally posted to the wrong blog (whoops)

I have ten minutes left on my shift, so this is going to be fast, wham-bam, a quick recitation of my opinions, minus all of the bullshit.

I hate the word queer. I hate hate hate it (and yes, three hates is necessary to fully explain the extent of my loathing). Every time I hear that word, I remember Eric Oberhart sitting on the bus to state Science Olympiad in the 7th grade pinching his nose close and whining on and on about the sick little "queeeeers". I understand that use of the word is an attempt to reclaim it for the GLBTQ community but it feels to me in some ways like an attempt to further hide sexual orientation even within the GLBTQ community and again, every time I hear the word, Eric Oberhart's whiny, pinched little voice echoes in my head.

Okay. 7 minutes left. Time to move on.

Why is queer theory a better term to use than gay/lesbian theory? That's because it's all-emcompassing. It doesn't groom towards extremes. Modern literature is very rarely so completely polarized; a lot of the interest in non-heteronormative literature is in seeing where the subject lies on the unique and varied spectrum of sexuality. Very few pieces of the works that we look at have complete gay or lesbian readings. To read The Lover as a lesbian or a heterosexual text, for example, would be an incomplete reading; if we claim that her feelings for Helene make her a lesbian than we discount her feelings and passion towards her Chinese lover. If we take her as completely straight, on the other hand, and say that she uses Helene as a mirror in which to reflect her own desire for herself and the lover as a couple, then we discount the extremely sexual descriptions of Helene's breasts. Even if this is pure narcisism, we cannot deny her attraction towards the female form. Even Dorian Grey cannot be seen as a "pure" gay man; he has great passion for Sibyl. Yes, he is most attracted to her when she dresses like a man, but he is still intrigued by her female form. Women interest him, as they do Lord Henry, and ignoring that provides an extremely shallow look at the book.

The term "queer theory" is useful in that it does not force us to view things as purely homosexual but at the same time it doesn't assume heteronormativity. We can examine and appreciate the broad spectrum of sexual attraction and then view the intricate social or biological sources that sexuality, "queerness", or "perversity" have.

okay. I'm pretty sure I made up some words here (heteronormativity, anyone?) but I got my point across. I don't function well this highly caffeinated. I'll revise later. For now, that's my post.

Is homosexuality like medicine--you're always practicing, never ready for the actual recital?

"H. Montgomery Hyde, in Oscar Wilde: A Biography, cited 'strong grounds for believing that it was with [Ross] that Wilde first deliberately experimented in homosexual practices.'"
hahaha haha I can definitely imagine someone whispering this so no one's delicate ears are offended. Oh research, you amuse me. Some writers are clearly very, very uncomfortable talking about sex. It's fun to watch them squirm. He deliberately experimented in those homosexual practices now. Beforehand he only accidentally did.
haha. I was working on my paper and this completely made my day :D

Die Klavierspielerin/The Piano Teacher

I've been working on my book for my final paper, Die Klavierspielerin by Elfriede Jelinek (commonly translated as "The Piano Teacher", though it actually means "the female piano player"--I guess that piano teacher has a better ring to it) and I have got to say, this is the most screwed-up piece of fiction I have ever read in my life.

This book has it all--incest, pedophilia, unhealthy power dynamics, just about every fetish I can think of short of furries and diapers, violence, and some creative uses for pretty floral dresses. The narrator and the characters loathe and envy men with surprising violence and they act out their misplaced aggression through extremly controlling tendencies, painful, public sex acts, and random acts of violence on public transportation. This is both the most compelling and the most discomfiting work I have ever read. I keep getting caught up in what's happening and reading out of curiosity and without thinking analytically, so I've resigned myself to rereading it later. Right now I'm too shocked to think clearly.

I had expected strong, oversexualized power-play--I was even expecting incestuous overtones between the mother and her daughter--but it wasn't until the main character "accidentally" kissed her cousin's genitals in the middle of the neighborhood picnic shortly after a lengthy description of three generations of dusty steel vaginas that I realized just how overt and excessive this book is. I understand now why some critics called it "whining, unenjoyable public pornography," though I think it's more than that. Regardless, I am enjoying this book, as uncomfortable and intimidating as it is.