Author: knights_who_say

My cultural artifact was the US Banned Book Collection and it was chosen because of its informational and harmful qualities. This list was written by conservative members of the United States everywhere, who believe that books will lead to the breakdown of family and society as we know it instead of violent racial or religious supremacists, mass shootings, or hate speech. This list is an uncontrolled tumor on our society and it needs to be cut out. This list shows how far members of our country will go to undue change by the people before us who have put died and cried for us to have the rights that we do today.

The items contained within this list are about queer history or romance, Native Americans, or books that go against the views of the church — even though we are supposed to have a separation of church and state. These texts and the act of banning information is integral to this course, because they incredibly relate to the core part of this class which is learning. It is important to learn what people want so dearly to ban, because who will fight for this except for the people who have the information.

`The purpose of this class is to educate, and this banned book collection goes against that purpose. We need to be aware of what others seek to destroy

When discussing camp, it is important to understand the incredibly complex definition of the word. Part of it requires, a lack of intention of being “camp,” meaning it must be natural and empathetic, not artificial or sympathetic. The Met Gala theme of being camp fulfilled the latter or those two situations. For the artificial side of the equation, the idea of being “camp” was entirely intentional and purposeful, not for the purpose behind being camp — the self fulfillment and self expression of it all — but for the twisted version of grotesque disembodiment of what being camp is. These incredibly wealthy people paraded around in (majorly queer) self-expressionist culture that represented being who they were, not what expensive brands of Gucci and Marc Jacobs tried to make them. The second part of the equation is being “sympathetic,” which at first glance seems to be a positive word, not one that is used negatively. In my personal observations and opinions, sympathy is for people who are unable to personally relate to a subject on a deep level, but find a vague understanding of it. There is a separation, while being empathetic is the opposite. There is closeness and the truth is bare. That is what part of being camp is — it is being laid bare in a truly dramatic and ostentatious way to be self-expressive and to scream to the world that this is me. The Met Gala was unable to meet this equation.

In class, Professor Kersh posed an interesting question relating to the topics about exile, Eli Clare, and missing home. The obvious question is how does Eli Clare combine these topics into such a profound way. Clare in the beginning of his memoir, writes pages upon pages of descriptions of salmon, logging, the woods to the point I was thinking I was reading the wrong story. The purpose of this was to show Clare’s real home, not just the people and the buildings he that he was exiled from but the physical nature of it. He is unable to live in the place he wants and in the fashion he wants because of human-caused norms that create a hostile environment. Clare mourns this, because he is forced to leave a go to a place that is more “forgiving” and has more community, but it is not HOME. Clare made it clear with every word on those pages, that nature is where is heart is and if the world were different, he would be right back there.

There is a similar line length throughout the poem that leaves it feeling enclosed and less free. This feels like having all your ducks in a row or a overly organized structure, with no freedom of movement or verse. There is a multiple examples where the author uses descriptions of both parts of the human body like hair, voice, legs, knees and having of parts of clothing. The descriptions of things are mostly literal until the last line that describes the burning house. That last line is sort of a turn from the literal nature of the organized poem, but it still is of a similar line structure as the rest. This makes me believe there is a turn from the rest of the poem, but not in the way I originally thought. The description of a burning house is still a metaphor, but not really. The authors feelings about this place overpass any standard metaphor and become more literal. The description of the burning house immediately made me believe this house feels like hell to the writer. The description of queer sex that happens in the woods, away from home or comfort right before this descriptions, leads me to believe the family is not comfortable with this part of their son’s life and wish to contain him. What I am really trying to say here is that I think these lines are showing how closed off the author feels from comfort, is forced to be in a uniformed line, and is uncomfortable with his home life due to his parent’s opinions on his sexual preferences.