Subject: Re: Eric's homosexuality
From: Andrew Kennis (kennis@math.grin.edu)
Date: Thu Feb 27 1997 - 01:00:34 GMT
On Wed, 26 Feb 1997 gauthier@SLU.EDU wrote:
>
> If you need help with this logic, let me know. I teach the subject here
> at SLU.
>
Nichole, is this teacher more pretentiousness than the one we both talked
about? :grin:
> > > > I might be the most liberal person on this list. I certainly
> > > > support gay rights and gay marriages. That I even have to mention
> > > > such information on this list is outrageous.
> > > >
> >
> > First of all, you are not the most liberal person on this list, *I am*.
> > HA! So there!
>
> Well, if you do your research on me, you may discover I registered
> Republican in 1988 in Kansas. It was just so I could vote against Bob
> Dole in the primaries and the general election though.
>
Uhhhhh, you think I did or would want to do "research" on you? HAHAHA!
That's even sorta freaky. Whoa.
> >
> >
> > Secondly, supporting gay marriages and gay rights isn't liberal, it's
> > sensible.
>
> I agree that it is sensible, but you are being naive if you don't believe
> society considers such a view liberal.
>
Ummmm, when did I ever say or insinuate that society didn't believe it was
liberal? So the fuck what society believes. Fuck that. I guess because
Nazism viewed killing Jews as being acceptable, well then, that must have
made it acceptable, right? WRONG. And that's YOUR logic buddy. Ew.
>
> um, AK, it's fine if you don't think he's gay. But where is your proof
> that he isn't? At least I'm using textual evidence. You are simply
> arguing by assertion.
>
Bullshit you are using textual evidence, you are using stereotypical
evidence,
> Now, round 4:
>
> Salinger clearly does use stereotypes. In one of the stories, he has a
> man sleep with another man's wife. That's unscrupulous. The man is a
> lawyer. Wow! An unscrupulous lawyer.
Uhhhhhhh, very poor and weak connection there buddy. Can we say, uh,
that you're reaching here man? Ya we can. Ya you are.
> In "Down at the Dingy" the servants make comments about Lionel's fathers
> nose (he's Jewish). In this case, the character being bashed through
> stereotypes (like I've argued in "Eskimos") is meant to be received with
> compassion--a point that the namecallers seem to ignore.
>
First of all, uh, by calling people namecallers you're being a namecaller
yourself, you god damned hypocrite. Secondly, how does anyone ignore
this? What the hell?
> In "For Esme" Esme uses stereotypes: she says most Americans act like
> animals. Sergeant X takes her to task for making such a suggestion, but if
> you read these stories at all carefully, we see that most Americans (adults
> in particular) do behave like animals.
>
Uhhh, ok, so Salinger had one of his characters state a stereotype
directly. Sooooooooooooooooooooooo the fuck what? What the hell is the
point here? I thought we were talking about Salinger's supposed
deliberate attempt to indicate to his readers that Eric was gay through
stereotypical characteristics, not about whether or not JDS characters
state stereotypes in dialogue.
> I might also suggest we look at Eric's characteristics in another (more
> theoretical light) than simply "stereotype." We should talk about gender
> codes. One's sex is biologically determined. You are either male or
> female.
WRONG! What about hermaphrodites (sp?)? BUSTED, d00d! haha
>
> Why is this important? Well, as everyone has so astutely noticed.
> Thinking that a man is gay because he crosses his legs, likes women's
> fashion, speaks with a high voice, etc., are all stereotypes. The thing
> is, men in the late 1940's would NOT want to be thought of as being gay.
> So men consciously would choose not to cross their legs like women, talk
> about women's fashion, use a high-pitched voice, etc. And Salinger makes
> it fairly clear that doing such things are choices--yes, even the high
> voice. Remember, Eric speaks through his layrnx rather than his
> diagragm. That is something that he can control. Just as the leg
> crossing, etc. So, what this shows us is that Eric is choosing to gender
> himself as a female in society. A society that was homophobic (openly
> gay men were court marshalled during WWII). Why would he do this? Just
> because he enjoyed risking being beat up on the street?
>
> I think not.
>
Under this logic, I think that we should all assume that my good friend
Malcolm Lawerence is gay, because he has stereotypically female gender
traits. After all, why in the world would Malcolm want to be considered
gay IN THE 1990'S when gays are still oppressed? He *chooses* to act the
way he does, right? And so, because Malcolm CHOOSES these stereotypically
female gender traits, HE MUST BE GAY, because as I said, gays are STILL
OPPRESSED in the 1990's, so my good friend Malcolm MUST BE GAY. Right
d00d? Right? Right? *WRONG*.
Your logic sucks. It absolutely sucks.
> And, just a final note, about the curious reactions that I have sometimes
> solicited. Having read papers at several conferences, I can safely say
> that queer theorist would be excited to discuss the possibility that one
> of the characters is gay. Usually, the lament is that gays/lesbians are
> underrepresented in literature.
>
Yes Paul, I'm sure that "queer theorists" would be very happy with your
justifying literary analysis through the use of stereotypical assumptions
about homosexual. Mm hmmmm, they'd be very happy, yup. Pffft.
--AK
-
To remove yourself from the bananafish list, send the command:
unsubscribe bananafish
in the body of a message to "Majordomo@mass-usr.com".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Oct 09 2000 - 14:59:01 GMT