2021 Blog Posts

In the chapter “No Kisses is Like Youres,” Karen Hansen explores the relationship between Addie Brown and Rebecca Primus through an epistolary format. I am going to explore Hansen’s hesitancy to make a definite determination on the nature of the relationship, and how this hesitancy ties into her calls to action at the end of the piece that center around a more in-depth scholarship dealing with the complexities of nineteenth-century women’s sexualities, specifically in the African American community. On page 199, Hansen evaluation of the relationship includes the considers several possibilities. She makes it clear that she does not want to try to force twenty-first century contexts or terms onto the relationship between Addie and Rebecca. Hansen states, “In agreement with others studying nineteenth-century sexuality, I find it inappropriate to label the relationship as lesbian. This term was not part of mid-nineteenth century parlance and not part of the culture’s consciousness” (199). Hansen’s awareness to the label shows not merely the disparity modern vocabulary and the vocabulary of the time, but also, the differing conceptualizations of female sexuality of the time. While the term “lesbian” existed at the time, it is possible that the women were unaware of it in their tight-knit, enclosed community; or perhaps, they chose not to define their relationship as this. It is possible to see Addie’s impassioned letters to Rebecca as a struggle to describe the depth of what she feels toward Rebecca, or a choice to not fully define the relationship in a way that is to be understood by society. Upon considering the former possibility, it is evident in Addie’s words that she has romantic feelings toward Rebecca: “You are the first girl that I ever love so and you are the last one… if you was a man, what would things come to?” (Hansen 187). However, the idea of a romantic monogamous female/female relationship is out of reach in the letters, not because of a limited imagination, intellect, or passion, but because sexuality is shaped by the era. Hansen’s ideas are similar to the ideas Jonathan Katz posits in the chapter “’Homosexual’ and ‘Heterosexual’: Questioning the Terms.” Hansen posits three theories, which on the whole, do not subscribe to the rigid binaries of either homosexual or heterosexual. At the end of her piece, Katz declares his goal, which is similar to Hansen’s; he aims to “empower a pragmatic, strategic conceptual advance, allowing us to ask new questions” (179). Hansen draws on Katz’s ideas that it is necessary to reject the strict, modern binaries of homosexual and heterosexual, and instead asserts the need to gain a deeper understanding on nineteenth-century sexuality in order to more completely understand the nature of Addie and Rebecca’s relationship.

In Adrienne Rich’s 1991 poem “In Those Years,” she often repeats the words “I” and “we.” This is seen in the first stanza of the poem when she writes “in those years, people will say, we lost track / of the meaning of we, of you / we found ourselves reduced to I / and the whole thing became / silly, ironic, terrible.” The shift of going from “we” to “I” signifies a shift away from people working together as a collective unit to being separated individuals. The second verse continues the shift between this collective life and a personal one through the lines “but the great dark birds of history screamed and plunged / into our personal weather.” The birds seem to represent unrest within their personal lives, and the use of the term “personal weather” represents personal problems or turmoil. The poem continues with “they were headed somewhere else but their beaks and pinons drove / along the shore, through the rags of fog / where we stood, saying I.” The use of a flock of birds attacking separated people signifies a united force against a fragmented one. The last line stands out because it shows Rich reflecting on this individualism of “saying I” while reflecting on it from the once again united “we.” Throughout the poem, Rich is describing this personal life while using the word “we” when talking about the separated people during the poem – this seems to mean that at some point between “those years” that she is reflecting on and when she is writing the poem, the personal life of these people has once again moved together as they use “we,” giving the poem two timelines.
In relation to queer studies, this writing can represent the danger of queer people not working as a collective community against different forms of oppression. At the time that this poem was published the AIDs epidemic was raging, and so was blatant homophobia from both the public as well as the government as research and treatment went underfunded and queer people were openly attacked. This poem could be a reflection on an oppressed group of people who had been fragmented and shows how separating from being a community caused more harm than good. When they are attacked by the “dark birds of history,” this could possibly be a reminder of the long history of horrific treatment to queer people, and it shows that they were unable to face this problem alone and at some point once again needed each other. The birds could also be the larger danger of oppression or violence against queer people and serves as an external danger rather than the internal one of fragmentation. When she is reflecting in the first stanza and calls the years of separation “silly and ironic,” it may be because she has reflected on how important unity is and how ironic it was for a community of people bound by sexuality and gender identity to be separated even though so much of sexuality is based on relations with other queer people. This is a poem seems to represent the importance of community especially when people within it are being threatened.

I took a closer look at a quote from Karen Hansen’s “‘No Kisses is Like Yours’: An Erotic Friendship Between Two African-American Women During the Mid-19th Century”.
On page 187, one of the women, Addie says to the other woman in this closely examined friendship, Rebecca in a letter,
“You are the first girl that I ever love so and you are the last one. Dear Rebecca, do not say anything against me loving you so, for I mean just what I say. O Rebecca, it seem I can see you now, casting those loving eyes at me. If you was a man, what would things come to? They would after come to something very quick. What do you think the matter? Don’t laugh at me. I not exactly crazy yet.”
Although homosexuality was not widely acknowledged or sanctioned at this time, these women feel love with the intensity and depth of any heterosexual relationship. The phrase “If you was a man” (187) indicates that the relationship is not one of friendship. This distinction in the type of relationship is from a standpoint of gender, not devotion or attraction. In addition, Addie refers to Rebecca as “the first girl that I ever love so and…the last one,” (187). Singling out Rebecca and putting her apart from all other women that she could have relationships with indicates a romantic connection. Finally, the notion that Rebecca would think of Addie as “crazy” for loving her suggests that their love would not be sanctioned by their general community. This is typical of a homosexual relationship, both then and, in some circumstances, now. However, it is important to note that the author of this chapter found that this type of relationship between two women was not looked down upon by many in their African-American community at the time.
The entirety of the chapter deals with reading notes between two African-American who had an “erotic friendship”. The author noticed that these women were far less subtle in their displays of affection and sexual attraction when compared to white women from the same time period. Addie’s note exemplifies one of the ways in which black women, presumptuously, were more transparent with their amorous feelings towards each other in comparison to white women in the same age.

Adrienne Rich’s poems offer a vibrant look into thoughts of gender and sexuality. Dialogue is one such poem that offers a cross-examination of gender conformity, the nature of sexuality and an ambiguous reading of queerness in different forms.

Dialogue’s main plot can be read and interpreted as the narrator (of an unspecified gender who speaks in first person) referring to a ‘she’, who responds to the narrator with a monologue represented in italics : “ I do not know if sex is an illusion
I do not know who I was when I did those things
or who I said I was
or whether I willed to feel
what I had read about
or who in fact was there with me
or whether I knew, even then
that there was doubt about these things.” (Rich 100)

Now this can be read one of two days in the context of a queer lens reading. The first is the narrator is the only figure present in the story, with the I and she being two aspects of the narrator having an internal dialogue, where sex can be read as gender. The second is obviously much more straightforward, with two separate people having a conversation with each other about sex, in this case intercourse.

The beauty of this poem lies in its ambiguity and how it works to support either way. The ambiguity of defining who the ‘I’ and ‘she’ are can allow readers to interpret either opinion. The first is an interesting read of transness, where the ‘she’ is the trans personality speaking to the clearly conflicted original ‘I’. The italics can be read as inner monologue, so this ends up being the trans identity of the narrator describing sex as an illusion as their gender is a lie, expressing ‘doubt’ over their past actions (“I do not know/ who I was when I did those things). The fact it also line breaks into the inner monologue in a different stanza is both a literal transition for the poetry, and also metaphorical, because the ‘speaker’ changes. Thus the poem then becomes a dialogue of transness, of doubts of gender identity.

The alternative reading can be read as a potentially queer conversation between two partners, who discuss their intercourse and how it plays into their relationship. The “sex is an illusion” here implies more explicit subtext, which makes the second speaker’s (the ‘she’) dialogue more about the doubts that come with embracing their sexuality and queerness. It could potentially refer to them feeling uncomfortable about their previous encounters being with partners they weren’t attracted to.

Personally, I prefer the first reading as it makes a lot more use of the poetic form to take advantage of reader ambiguity and lean into us being conflicted alongside the narrator as to the identity of the speaker — much like gender identity conflict, we as readers are made to question who to identify in the poem, and their struggle about being themselves.

Upon my first readings, I find myself drawing towards the mirroring of its first and last stanzas. Most interestingly, it begins and ends with the mention of “the book of myths” (1, 92). I question what this book could be and what the wreck could mean. Ultimately, I believe “Diving into the Wreck” by Adriene Rich is a commentary about gender norms and their effects on gender identity.

The “book of myths” is what pushes the speaker into this journey and what disappoints them in the end. I believe that the “book of myths” is a metaphor for the history of gender norms. The word “myth” indicates a false belief, a tale that has been passed down culturally. Gender and how it is perceived, is subjected to history and culture. Therefore, it is possible that upon reading and familiarizing themself with this notion, the speaker begins to believe that they must act a certain way to be accepted by the culture. In relation, they would be allowed to travel to and into the wreck. 

The wreck is a representation of society, it is the world where gender norms dictate who is ‘normal.’ In the first stanza, the speaker gets ready to go out into the world. They describe that in order to do so, “[they must] put on / the body-armor… the absurd flippers / the grave and awkward mask” (4-7). They speak of “having to do this” in order to be accepted (8). These lines allude to the idea that the speaker must prepare in order to exist in this society. The words “body-armor” and “mask” support this idea, as the speaker must cover themself before they leave. In addition, the words “absurd,” “grave,” and “awkward” connotes that these actions are not voluntary. The anaphora in lines 5-7 indicates that it is a routine, as it elicits a feeling of familiarity with the task. The first stanza highlights that in order for the speaker to travel to the wreck, they must not be themself.

In the last stanza, the speaker finds themself in the wreck. By the end, it is unclear if the speaker chose to live as themself or as how society wants them to be. The words “cowardice” and “courage” paired with the enjambed line “the one who find our way / back to this scene” does not make a clear distinction (88-90).  The first part of the enjambed line seems to indicate that the speaker chose to live as their true self. The words “find our way” heavily implies it. However, the line continues with “back to this scene” indicating that they did not. Either way, despite having lived a life – true or pretend – the speaker and others like them find that “[their] names do not appear” in the “book of myths.” (94, 92). It relays a discouraging message, even if the speaker chose to live as their truth or not, they’re still erased from history – their identity is not acknowledged.

“Diving into the Wreck” may be disheartening in its message, but in it there also exists bitter-sweetness. The first stanza emotes a feeling of isolation, referring to a singular “I” and ends with the word “alone” (1, 8, 12). It indicates that in the society they live in, one must face the disappointments by themselves. Whereas, the last stanza talks of “we,” “you,” and “our” (87, 89, 94). This alludes to the idea that the speaker is not alone, that there are others like them. There is solidarity in this ending, despite the discouraging message.

Passage: the thing I came for:/the wreck and not the story of the wreck/the thing itself and not the myth

I think this passage is about looking for something concrete rather than superficial or not physical. The reason that I believe this is because first, Rich talks about something that she “came for,” so she was looking for something in the wreck. The thing that she is looking for is not the story or the myth of the wreck. Both myth and story are things that one cannot physically see or touch and can therefore not be taken. A myth or a story can also get twisted and changed over time, so someone may never know the original form it was unless they were the person who first told the myth or the story. It is unclear what “the thing itself” is that she has come looking for, but she is looking for something real, as she states. The wreck is real compared to the story of the wreck because it is something she can see and touch. In the second two lines she first states the thing that is real and then the thing that is not. I think this indicates that she is not being fooled by the myth and the story. It appears the myth and the story are placed there to distract the person from looking for the thing that is real, and she is not buying into that distraction. With all of this in mind, I believe what she is looking for is the people of the LGBTQ community. She is not looking at the stories about them because those can be twisted and changed. She is looking for the physical thing that defines the LGBTQ community. Also, since she is looking for the wreck, this means she could be looking for the things that are painful to see. The hardships the community has gone through, not the myths and stories that have been warped by history.

Adrienne Rich’s “Dialogue” is a poem of transitions, of “almosts” that only lead to more questions, and of trying to uncover “if sex is an illusion” (ll. 10). It is a piece open to numerous interpretations, but the one I will be focusing on explores how a dialogue between two women ultimately transitions to an internal monologue of the narrator alone and her personal thoughts on sex as an illusion (sex, in this argument, as in the differentiation between male and female, not the act of intercourse). Like I mentioned briefly before, there is a common pattern of “almosts.” For instance, the first stanza describes the aftermath of two women talking “for hours” (ll. 3) followed by images that suggest they were almost able to come to a conclusion with their thoughts but were never quite able to get there fully. First, we are told, “our talk has beaten/ like rain against the screens” (ll. 3-4), which suggests an onslaught of ideas and theories but ones that are never able to reach them as they are metaphorically inside while the rain beats against the screen on the outside. Then, there is “a sense of August” (ll. 5), which is the summer month before the relief of fall in September – this relief being the cool autumn air that dispels the sticky summer heat that can make it impossible to move. Again, this adds to the idea that they have been close to an answer, but they stay stuck, nonetheless. And finally, the image of “heat-lighting” (ll. 5), or a split-second revelation that leaves them excited but is gone just as quickly.

These three images then lead to the peak “almost” of the whole poem: “then she says (and this is what I live through/ over and over)—she says: I do not know/ if sex is an illusion” (ll. 8-10). The switch from dialogue to monologue occurs with, and is emphasized by, the break between the two stanzas that follows. The statement in parenthesis, specifically the phrase “I live through,” is important because it shows that the narrator hasn’t just thought about what her friend was saying – she’s lived (or is living though) it. The repetition of “I” in the second stanza could also signify the transition from dialogue to internal monologue as could the continued italics, a traditional literary technique to signify thoughts rather than words. Transitioning from one’s birth sex to another means following a path that is typically unclear and full of questions, and, with this thought in mind, whether the break between stanzas indicates the transition from dialogue to monologue is similarly unclear and, of course, only presents further questions. However, it is undeniable that it is there and is something that needs to be considered when analyzing the poem, just like sex is when analyzing one’s own identity once they realize it could be an illusion.

Adrienne Rich’s poem “Dialogue” explores sex and gender in an interesting way through the use of pronouns. Over the course of two stanzas, Rich uses the pronouns “she”, “I”, “our”, and “we” while telling the story of a conversation. While it is not entirely clear if this conversation in between two different people or one person reflecting to themselves, it is my argument that is it the latter. Perhaps this could be commentary on the trans experience, with the narrator being a trans male, trans female, or nonbinary individual looking back on who they once were. The “she” and “I” pronouns exist separately until they are brought together when Rich writes “we look at each other,” as if the two halves of this person’s identity are coming together to reflect.

The second half of the poem is exclusively in italics and only uses the “I” pronoun. It begins with “she” saying “I do not know if sex is an illusion.” While sex and gender are different, they are rather similar and are used interchangeably. If Rich is using sex in place of gender, this statement could be commentary on society’s concept of men and women and how it tries to put people in boxes. If this is from the point of view from a trans person, then it could be their old self questioning their place in the boxes society provides. The rest of the italic section is this narrator who they once were in the past and what they did. The use of “I” in combination with the italics makes the second stanza appear to be an internal monologue of the narrator. The narrator’s inner thoughts with the image of them talking to who they were before allows for the reader to see the changes that can occur with someone when they are allowed to be their true self.

Manipulating, limiting, and structuring language in everyday writing is in itself a difficult task, and somehow Adrienne Rich manages to coerce language so effortlessly in Diving into the Wreck, that I felt the responsibility to examine her work further. I first read this poem in my junior year of high school and enjoyed it then as much as I do now, but I realized, reading it again in the context of this course, that I had barred my self with unintentional ignorance regarding its depth. I have decided to frame my analysis by using both feminist and new historicist criticism, the former for obvious reasons, and the latter because I feel that queer history in the time period of the poem’s release provides an overwhelming amount of context and meaning to the sparse stanzas. Although every stanza in the poem contains fascinating prose, the last stanza really connected with me, and with the central paradox of queer history that we have noted upon as a class: How can one honor a painful past, while simultaneously push forward towards brighter horizons?

We find ourselves at the end of the poem looking upon the wreck, beautifully decrepit, our view being framed by the ambiguous identities of the diver and merfolk. Perhaps the key phrases in this stanza, in my opinion, is Rich’s use of the singular form of ‘one’ in line three, and ‘back’ in line four. The singular form of one grammatically contradicts the previous usage of ‘we’ in the first line, but I think that in ignoring this, it further bolsters the theme of collective identity of the wreck’s visitors that was previously established. There need not be any labels for those who make the dive to the wreck, nor are there stipulations to be followed for one to admire it. I connected this to the toxic tendency that exists in the queer community to marginalize its members unnecessarily for not expressing their gender/sexual identity in a way that is ‘gay enough’ or manifesting their gender expression in ways that aren’t definable or able to be organized. Additionally, this poem came out in 1972, an era in which governmental demonization of same-sex marriage, discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation, and the criminalization of ‘homosexual acts’ were coming under fire by LGBTQ activists in gay liberation of the early 70s. This erasure of stereotypes and rules for the queer community was unprecedented, and Rich deciding to manipulate individuality with use gender unspecific pronouns and juxtaposing ‘we’ and ‘one’ emulate the transitory nature of this period. Returning focus to the word ‘back’, this sparked equal interest for me because it insinuates that those mentioned in the poem have been to the wreck before. This being a return journey to the wreck, a symbol for the history of queer struggle, reinforces the difficulty of the imposed personal obligation queer people feel to acknowledge and overcome their own history. The dichotomy between ‘cowardice’ and ‘courage’ serve to illustrate societal feelings (feelings Rich herself has probably been forced to grapple with) about this paradox. One is only courageous if they survive descending the ladder, the ensuing perilous dive of self-discovery, and unblinkingly understands and honors the painfully contradictory nature of queer history; because it is not simply queer history in a broad sense, but their own history. This is the queer persons burden, according to Rich. An eternal, invisible struggle, emulated in the last lines of the poem-

“a book of myths

in which

our names do not appear.”

 

This collection of poems by Adrienne Rich poses many questions that intrigue the readers to attempt deciphering the meaning behind the several imagery and symbolism. Specifically, when analyzing Dialogue the irony behind the title and the rest of the poem. The word dialogue insinuates conversation between two people, yet in this poem, one can only locate one voice. The narrator seems to be deep in thought with herself, thus meaning an internal dialogue one where she is confronted by conflict and confusion. The structure of the poem is reaffirming of an internal conflict within the first sentence there is an enjambment. May be representative of her continuous, repetitive thoughts that seem to be never-ending. Thoughts that seem foreign and uncomfortable for the narrator to confront based on her own “doubt about these things” (100). Those “things” being questions of sexuality as she questions if she knows “sex is an illusion” (100). Sex may represent the act or the questioning of one’s sexuality, in this case, it may refer to the act which is commonly accepted between a woman and man. Following this quote is a sudden break in the poem as the narrator may have the internal conflict as to whether to continue with this train of thought of questioning her sexuality. 

Early on in the poem, the narrator seems to be fidgeting and “turning an old ring to the light” as if she was conflicted with her true feelings regarding her idea of traditional marriage between a man and woman. Although it was written in 1972 the cultural context varies from today in terms of sexuality questioning awareness and homosexuality thoughts were not commonly accepted. The imagery behind the “rain against the screens” signifies the violent, rattling against a figurative window and her thoughts that provoke her everyday activities (100). They distract her from attending to her usual tasks and these thoughts seem to follow her as she goes to make tea and go about her day. The cluster of related terms including “August, heat-lighting, and tea” can signify heat, possibly an illusion of how she feels overwhelmed by her thoughts (100). Tone and word choice throughout the poem has a negative connotation when she says “and this is what I live through over and over” which is indicative of how she seems exasperated with these penetrating thoughts (100). 

The latter half of the poem is a personal reflection of her running thoughts as we glimpse into these questions she poses for herself. There is a sense of desperate questioning of identity when she asks “who I was when I did those things” (100). The narrator seems to be repressing her feelings based on what she views around her as socially acceptable, by learning through current readings and in that current political climate questioning sexuality was not as commonly accepted. “Those things” possibly being engaging in a heterosexual marriage and reflects on how as though she cannot associate herself with that same person. The disconnect haunts her throughout the day with this personal dialogue that is repetitive and seemingly never-ending.