In intellectual and literary circles, gay people are still never taken *quite* as seriously as straight people. Discuss.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @DAMendelsohnNYC
I think there's something to that ... the usual tactic is they are relegated into the category of the "playful" or "delightful." On the other hand, I've been advocating for Samuel Delany to be in the Library of America & getting a warm response.
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
Yes. I’m just wondering if there’s not always a filter, some patronage or trivialization even (or especially) if unconscious. I think of this particularly in criticism, where questions of “authority” are salient & reveal deep biases about who is perceived to be authoritative.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @DAMendelsohnNYC @HeerJeet
It hurts some writers of the past as well. Glenway Wescott, Julian Green & Grant Woods are gay artists who played it fairly safe and yet suffered condescension/dismissal by those who suspected they were gay. Hemingway dismissed Wescott's war experience on these grounds.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RickOehling @DAMendelsohnNYC
Yep. I recently learned that Paul Goodman was marginalized from the Partisan Review circle in part because he was openly gay.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet @DAMendelsohnNYC
Openly bi-sexual seems more accurate for Goodman.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.