Only later did I understand what I lost by leaving. Loss of a
daily sustaining connection to a landscape that I still carry with me
as home. Loss of a rural, white, working-class culture that values
neighbors rather than anonymity… (p.38)
I consider that in this passage, we can identify language and vocabulary related to loss. Not only because the word was repeated 3 times, but also because this helps the writer to highlight how he feels, and creates an image in the reader’s mind. He helps us to see that, while trying to define himself, he went to a different place where he found his home: “queer.” However, in this discovering, he lost the place where he grew up. That beautiful rural place where he feels he has belonged to for so many years, but due to the fact that he found himself in the urban life where he could be queer more easily, he was forced to let that first place behind. Here is where Eli distinguishes the life in urban and rural places. Urban places are shown as big cities where people could be themselves without taking into account the norms and stereotypes more easily than in the rural zones, where all the people know among themselves and those stereotypes and norms are stronger. In this last one, Eli would never be allowed to discover himself and be who he really wanted.
This reading helped me to understand how, due to the discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community, a lot of people struggled trying to define themselves. Not only for going against the stereotypes, but also because knowing where home is, is a really important part of our definition of identity, and if that is not clear, then one’s identity may become unclear.
What I am really trying to say here is that I think these lines show that in every attempt to define who he is, Eli goes back to his past, and he shows that he cannot have both ideas of himself, he only can have one. By having queer as a home, he lost his previous home that was a place he loved and enjoyed a lot. For him, there is no way of defining himself without losing.
I really like your distinction between the urban life and the rural life and your interpretation of its effects on the identity of the author Eli. Your post connects well with the post “Trade for what?” which also acknowledges the fact, that Eli was trying to trade a life of family and home for a life of acceptance. Something you both point out and I believe is a key point in the queer community, is that living openly queer in an accepting bobble usually always means that people need to give something up for their happiness. Heterosexual people have the privilege of not having to deal with that at all and are able to openly show their sexuality and relationship without any hesitation.
I love your insights on Clare’s relationship between identity and place. It also makes me think about how Clare’s experience relates to the queer experience as a whole. You point out how “there is no way of defining himself without losing.” I wonder how this idea of loss plays into the queer identity as a whole. It seems to be the case for many queer people that they have to pick a life and accept loss, which is something many straight people will not relate to. It is far too common that a queer person must choose between staying close to their family and living authentically with their family, and there are countless examples of other choices like this. Overall, the idea of choosing and losing seems to permeate queer identity, and hopefully that can change.