Class Blog

In most young adult fiction, we see the recurring pattern of a main character overcoming some sort of coming of age obstacle. In both Boy Meets Boy by David Levithan and Luna by Julie Anne Peters, the coming of age struggle exists though instead of focusing on the struggle of the narrator, we are exposed to the struggle of the person closest to them. Published within a year of each other, both novels possess major LGBTQ characters, a little love story and desire for a sense of belonging. These two stories are obviously similar for their ability to fit into their genre.
A surprising difference between these two texts are the realities they are set in. In Boy Meets Boy, is set in a society that is utopian to when it was written. It shows the opposite of heteronormativity by showing very little negativity and disapproval of the LGBTQ community. The acceptance in this community is clear when it becomes apparent to the reader that Paul never really “came out”, he simply liked boys and there were no further questions, taking the “coming out” out of what the reader expects to be a coming out story. There are no specific moments speaking of him being harassed for his sexuality, instead there is a transgender quarterback.
On the contrary, Luna is set in a household where gender norms are assumed and the gender spectrum is not widespread. In the very beginning of the book, Regan reveals about her Father, “He wasn’t too crazy about Mom’s job. Specifically, her elevating her own status from Wife and Mother to More Significant Other.” (Peters, 7). Though she says her Dad wasn’t being sexist, when their Mom says she will be home late too cook dinner, Regan is assigned the duty. She complains and when Liam offers to cook he is shut down by his father instantly, saying it is not his job (10).
These different settings are important to explore because Luna can be seen as the current reality. Some people have open minds, others closed by the hands of their upbringing and fear of the unknown. Boy Meets Boy can stand as a hopeful future, where sexuality can have such fluidity that people don’t assume and we stray from labeling.

Spend the first 20 mins of class on the following prompt.  Feel free to draw on our conversation on Friday about Young Adult (YA) fiction and utopian novels.

We know that Writing Analytically suggests that one way to make a claim is to think about similarity in difference, or difference in similarity.  So, answer the following in your freewrite:

Do you think that Boy Meets Boy and Luna are more obviously similar?  If so, state why and then look for unexpected difference.  Articulate what that difference is (using evidence from the text where necessary)  and then say why you think it is important to explore this difference.

Do you think that Boy Meets Boy and Luna are more obviously different?  If so, state why and then look for unexpected similarity.  Articulate what that similarity is (using evidence from the text where necessary)  and then say why you think it is important to explore this similarity.

The play Angels in America is very similar to Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit in that both works offer narratives of members of the LGBTQ+ community. The characters not only share how they expressed their sexuality, but also how their larger societies scrutinized and ostracized  their sexual identities. For example in Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit, on page 88, Janette tells us about her first sexual experience with another girl. In Angels in America, the way that AIDs is mainly tied to the gay community demonstrates that the gay community is considered “deviant” and therefore, are the blame for a lot of the misfortune in the greater society (pg. 50-52).

However, one way that these two works are distinct, is in the setting of where the works take place. Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit takes place in the 2000’s in a heavily Protestant community in England. Angels in America takes place in the 1980’s in New York City. Janette grows up in a small community in more of a rural area, where there is only one correct religion practices and way to live. On the other hand, the multiple characters in Angels in America all have different religion practices and views and live in an extremely developed and diverse city. For example, Roy does not really believe in in an all-fearing God, Joe is a Mormon, and Ethel Rosenberg is Jewish.

Even though these two works take place in contrasting settings, both works have the existence of a bigger society that polices, discriminates against, silences, and invalidates people who are labeled as having “deviating” identities. This is seen when Janette’s community believes that Janette is a lesbian because she has been “possessed by demons” and needs to be “saved” by religion in order to stay in the community (pg. 104). In Angels in America the gay community is very big, but they to live in secrecy by only being able to express their sexuality by picking up men in the middle of the park in the middle of the night (pg. 58). Joe’s Mormon mother, Hannah, and wife, Harper, both do not want to accept Prior as a gay man and expect him to keep living in a false and miserable heterosexual marriage. The fact that the play takes place during the AID’s epidemic, emphasizes the fact that the AIDs disease was solely tied to Haitian people gay men, hemophiliacs, and heroin users. These specific groups were denied affordable drugs and treatment. This speaks to the problematic binaries that society creates between what is “correct” and what is “bad.” Society creates norms and binaries as mechanisms for navigating spaces, people, and life. However, this results in the marginalization of everything and everyone that is labeled “other” and “wrong” that leads to the dehumanizing and silencing of identities, ideas, and people.

 

Both Adrienne Rich and Tony Kushner address the importance of recognizing the complexity of life in its totality, of recognizing not just the end, but the means—life is, in chemical terms, a not a state function but a path function. On page 44 of Kushner’s “Angels in America,” Louis explains to Prior his philosophy on judgement and justice. Louis says “…It’s not the verdict that counts, it’s the act of judgement…it should be the questions and shape of a life, its total complexity gathered, arranged and considered, which matters in the end, not some stamp of salvation or damnation which disperses all the complexity in some unsatisfying little decision.” One’s morality should be viewed in the context of their entire lived experience before judgement is bestowed. If life is a math problem, it should not be multiple choice. There should not simply be “correct” or “incorrect.” We should be graded on the work we show, and we deserve the opportunity to be awarded partial credit—the estimation of our success or failure should not weigh solely upon our final answer. As Louis described it, relying on the verdict without regard to the judgement process “disperses all complexity,” minimizing the validity of what we have overcome to get to where we are. In other words, the whole is lesser than the sum of its parts.

In Rich’s poem “Fox,” she similarly emphasizes the process by which a life is shaped or formed, the importance of recognizing in others the circumstances or “briars” that lacerate the skin over the course of our individual histories. However, in Kushner’s play, Louis is addressing this topic to make a comment about justice and judgement, and how it is more complicated than simply giving someone a “stamp of salvation or damnation.” Alternatively, Rich is primarily concerned with how recognizing the path or shape of one’s entire life can help validate her own existence and her own life. I think this difference highlights Tony Kushner’s purpose in writing this play. The entire book serves as a commentary on society at a specific point in time. It is a period piece on 80’s and 90’s. Rich’s poem is much more focused on the individual, on internal struggle. Louis’s words highlight Kushner’s intention to make broader comments on society, and how the LGBTQ community fit into society leading up to the turn of the century.

Both “Oranges are not the only fruit” by Jeanette Winterson and “Angels in America” by Tony Kushner centralize queer people, but there are significant differences between the two pieces that highlight the unique experience of each individual within the community.

The protagonists of the two texts, Jeanette and Roy, have their own mother in mind on every milestone of their lives. Jeanette used to adopt the conservative and religious mindset of her mother from a very young age without even questioning about it once. For her mother, the world exists in a strictly dual fashion, with no middle ground in between two extremes of any spectrum. “She had never heard of mixed feelings. There were friends and there were enemies (p3)”. Jeanette’s mother tends to manipulate her life as evidenced by the way she treats her daughter. When Jeanette is sick, her mother visits but not to whole-heartedly take care of her but to give her a symbolic fruit that indicates her command on Jeanette’s life. As time goes by Jeanette discovers her sexual orientation, gradually deviates from the binary order and maps out a route for her own life.

Roy thinks about his mother in the last moment of his life. She is not physically there but Roy looks at the ghost of Ethel and sees her as his mother. This scene implies that at that moment Roy is very vulnerable and he is no more or less than a little child crying in front of his mother. He begs her to sing him a song: ”Good to see you Ma, it’s been years. I feel bad. Sing to me. Please, it’s scary out here”. Though it is a moment of weakness, the appearance of his mother helps heal his soul as opposed to the presence of Jeanette’s mother.

These parallel patterns between Jeanette and Roy are obvious in the text, but there are differences that shed light on the personalities of the two characters. While the self-portrait of Jeanette is quite innocent and full of pride, that of Roy is marked with shame and self-loath. Another contrast lies in the circumstances of Jeanette and Roy. Based on the definition of her mother about sin, Jeanette is blameworthy because her sexuality does not fit into the binary lens of her mother. Consequently, she is not approved within her family, let alone in the living community or in the society. Nonetheless, the general public respects Roy as a powerful conservative lawyer regardless of his sin because Roy lets no one but Joe knows about his manipulation of Ethel’s trial.

Given that contrasting background, Jeanette and Roy have opposite feeling towards themselves. Jeanette does not have any supporter and yet she is strong enough not to let her mother’s judgment, such as her having “unnatural passion”, bring her self-worth down. Her confidence is not backed up by the certainty that she can persuade others but rather grounded by her will to follow her passion. “I loved God and I loved the church, but I began to see that as more and more complicated. It didn’t help that I had no intention of becoming a missionary” (p 128). As Jeanette realizes she no longer believes in the values that she used to believe in, she still respects the past and acknowledges why she does not feel appropriate in further pursuing what has once nurtured her. She gains strength on the process of deviating from the old pattern, but she appreciates every piece of what have shaped her identity.

The opposite reaction can be seen in Roy. No matter how respectful others view Roy, he still hates many characteristics of him and he even abhors Ethel because she mirrors those traits. Though he claims that he hates traitors and communists, the real reason why he is hostile to Ethel is that she, being a Jew as Roy, reminds him of so many qualities that he considers weaknesses. He performs acts of hyper-masculinity to cover his insecurity and he forces himself to constantly prove that he is strong by bashing others for their weakness. For example, he not only calls Joe a sissy when Joe is about to turn down the job offer in DC but also calls Ethel stupid for believing that he deems her to be his mother. For the record, Roy does see Ethel as his mother but he lies because he does not want to admit his fault to Ethel. Such denying pattern of Roy repeats over the course of the narration, unlike Jeanette who is willing to accept all facts of her personality. There are so many secrets that Roy hides and there are so many facts that he does not dare to admit, such as when he asserts that he has cancer instead of AIDS. Having such strong intention to show off his power, he would never confess his affection to his mother unless stunned. The rare moment when he imagines his mother being in front of him reveals how desperately Roy need to count on his mother as a source of emotional encouragement. Once again we see the opposite direction in the behavior of Roy and Jeanette, one leaning towards his mother’s image to acquire courage while one becoming stronger as she deflects from her mother’s influence. They both respect their mother, but how they think about them reflects their self-portrait. The mother plays important roles in supporting the two characters’ coming out effort and also in reinforcing their pride.

The two extremes represented by Roy and Jeannette exemplify the campness in the two texts because both exaggerate based on raw materials to obtain an effect than move the audience better than the original story can. All in all, one observation can be drawn from the two pieces: self-esteem plays a critical role in the coming out process of queer individuals. There are many external challenges that can easily defeat the characters but how they view themselves after being exposed to other’s harsh judgment determines how happy they feel about their identity.

Through the 58 notes on camp written by Susan Sostang I have taken away that the meaning of camp, is looking at something through a new perspective, a way to show a new side to things. Camp is a breakaway from the social norms. It can be controversial in the sense that it brings up differing views or ideas from what is known and expected throughout society. This is seen many times in Angels in America. Angels in America takes place during a time of the AIDS crisis, where the LGBTQ community was being vastly discriminated. Camp is seen specifically in the scene of the funeral of the drag queen. During this scene, there is a clear difference between those who were in the “chosen” family, vs. blood related family. The members of LGBTQ, his “chosen” family were seen dancing and singing and rejoicing his life. This scene has many characteristics of camp. Instead of mourning during the funeral and wearing all black to the funeral, they were dressed in bright colors, singing and dancing. This is very different to what is known as a society norm. This over the top way of expressing their grief is very campy. The drag queens real family is confused and looking at the other people as if they are crazy. The actions may represent the different ways they cope with death. This scene depicts the separation of the LGBTQ throughout society. It is representing that the style of camp has separated them from society norms. To me, the LGBTQ community was dealing with so many deaths because of the AIDS crisis, that this way of mourning was their only choice. It already is a very depressing time, but in order to stay positive in some way they choose this campy way by having over the top, exaggerated ways at the funeral.

 

It is true that one if the main themes of Angels in America is the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. However, the tone that Tony Kushner uses to introduce the issue is neither tragic nor serious in every scene. The seventh scene from the first act of Millennium approaches is a good example of an existing alternative point of view, heavily influenced by Camp sensibility. This scene is Camp because of various reasons : Prior gives tremendous importance to aesthetics and style, he acts in an exaggerated way and he is aware of his own lack of originality.

As he states, the hallucination starts when he is getting ready :  ‘I was in the process of applying the face, trying to make myself feel better— I swiped the new fall colors at the Clinique counter at Macy’s’ (32). Prior pays a lot of attention to aesthetics, even if his physical features are not conventionally feminine.  He reinvents himself starting by his own image, because it is the territory where he has power and he is able to make his own decisions. Drag is seen as a means to transform himself. Make-up and clothes make Prior artificial. Hence, campy :  ‘the way of Camp, is not in terms of beauty, but in terms of the degree of artifice, of stylization’ (Sontag, 1).

Moreover, Prior focuses on sumptuous decorative elements, but he combines them with other that are not considered elegant at all, like the stretch pants that he mentions on page 34. These luxurious dresses usually give the play an over the top feeling, emphasized by the self- deprecating jokes that Prior tells. For example, when he looks at his own reflection, he states :  ‘I look like a corpse. A . . . corpsette ! […] Oh my queen; you know you’ve hit rock-bottom when even drag is a drag’ (30). He does not take himself seriously, and he acknowledges the ways in which his demeanor is laughable. He is a parody of himself.

In this vision, Prior is terribly dramatic and dramatic : ‘He looks in his mirror, SCREAMS!, mimes slashing his throat with his lipstick and dies, fabulously tragic’ (31). However, there is still a hint of self-awareness : ‘It’s something you learn after your second theme party: It’s All Been Done Before’ (35). He knows that even if he tries to change himself, he will not be completely original because of the inspiration that he gets from others.

In conclusion, Kushner uses these Camp elements to make the theme of death and loss less grave and more approachable. However, this campiness does not equal frivolity, since including elements of gay and drag culture gives the community more visibility. Showing an alternative point of view is important because it contributes to take the stigma away from the AIDS crisis, and it proves that the characters affected by HIV are much more than sick people.

 

 

 

Tony Kushner in Angels in America wastes no time being prude, as the idea of Camp appears as early as page 33 when Harper says to Joe, “I heard on the radio how to give a blowjob… You want to try?” The concept of “Camp” is described by Susan Sontag in “Notes on ‘Camp’” as “…the love of the exaggerated… Camp responds particularly to the markedly attenuated and to the strongly exaggerated (39).” To connect these two ideas, begin by considering the audacity of Harper to outright suggest to Joe the idea of oral sex at the time or, in a realistic sense, why Kushner would write about it if not for stylistic purposes or the shock value that finds itself in Camp culture.
Speaking to the linguistics of Sontag’s definition of Camp and placing it in conversation with Joe’s character, I am able to draw the parallel in the vocabulary of “love of the exaggerated”, as Joe’s character and his excitement for sexual activity and willingness to vocalize such feelings shows an exaggerated, arguably liberated version of a gay male (2). To push further in analyzing Camp, specifically in parallel to this piece of text, Camp culture has taken elements of satire, shock value, and sex appeal to create a liberating movement in queer literature.
Overall, the Campiness of Joe’s character lies within his outward sexuality and refusal to hide his gayness. Sontag makes the claim that, “the androgyne is certainly one of the great images of Camp sensibility,” meaning that questioning the boundaries of gender norms is a large component of Camp culture (3). Joe’s character does so in acting arguably feminine, which is another controversial concept as femininity and masculinity are also social constructs.

Posted on behalf of Leslie Wilkerson:

 

Belize: You have been spending too much time alone.
Prior: Not by choice. None of this by choice.

Belize believes that, due to Prior’s loneliness, he is seeing visions of angels. Belize also thinks that he has been spending too much time with his thoughts. The effects Prior’s loneliness has taken a toll on his mental health and overall well-being. This is when Belize expresses, “You have been spending too much time alone”, and Prior then makes it clear that him being alone wasn’t an idea he cultivated; he never wanted Louis to leave but that is something that happened that wasn’t in his control. This exchange highlights the ways in which control and choice can both be complicated as internal turned into external expression. Control for Prior starts with the way that social constructs that regulate Priors position as a gay man. The conflicts that control his loneliness are all dependent upon his positions in society. This connects to control because society has conditioned people to understand heterosexuality as the only assertion of healthy performance of sexuality, thus deeming it valid. In this social conditioning the people whose identities contradict these stagnant ideas, which further leads to the breaking the cycle of control to construct identity the ways they deem appropriate. This deconstructing and disrupting heteronormativity is the assertion of agency, bodily and sexual autonomy. In disrupting dominant ideas upheld through society one is not only choosing to present themselves as authentically as possible, but one is also choosing to take full control over their actions and the influence this has on their navigation of space. This assertion of control that Prior makes in expressing his sexuality is an active choice he makes to navigate space as a gay man. Control over agency is making the choice to pursue the life that one deserves. This then trickles down to the way that Prior asserts his sexuality and expresses it through sexual acts. The way his body is being controlled by the disease speaks to the internal conflict he deals with because of his sexuality along with the way control has been used to create a stigma around the disease. The internal conflict that Prior battles with Aids is essential in understanding why loneliness is such a large worry for Belize. The control he has over his sexuality complicates his contracting of Aids and the idea of control. In him saying, “Not by choice. None of this by choice” he is saying that not only is Prior leaving him not a choice but he is suggesting that the circumstances in which he lost Louis. His external conflict has manifested in way that now alters his idea of control, especially because he believes that his current situations is not a result of the choices he made, but a result of those events over which he had no control over.

Tony Kushner’s Angels in America (1995) deals with the AIDS crisis of the 1980s, depicting the stages three entangled couples go through while they are confronted with the disease. Dealing with such a serious and even grave topic, the play is expected to be realistic. What is somehow startling for the reader is, however, Kushner’s use of the supernatural in such a context. He indeed alternately inserts scenes depicting apparitions and taking place in dreams and hallucinations. This alternation between dream and reality effectively illustrates the characters’ often unstable state of mind. But it also gives the play a general sense of absurdity, and even, at times, a somehow burlesque quality, which needs to be examined in further detail.

Scene 7, Act I, is the first apparition scene of the play. Harper and Prior simultaneously appear in each other’s dreams, even though they have never seen each other. Kushner makes an extensive use of the lexical field of make-believe in this scene. This is indeed visible through the use of verbs such as “feigning,” “mimes,” “believe in,” “to make up”, and nouns such as “hallucination,” “dream,” “visions,” “untruthfulness,” “falseness,” “appearance,” “imagination,” as opposed to “the real world” (37: 38). Prior’s appearance in makeup, and references to a “theme party” and “drag” are also proof of the staging of a scene based on notions of unreality, that aims at unsettling the reader (37: 39). In contradiction with this particular semantic field, Prior and Harper both acknowledge that dreams can be “the very threshold of revelation sometimes” (39). Scene 7 indeed builds up the dramatical tension that will be at its peak in the last two scenes of the act. In terms of “revelations,” this is where Harper learns about her husband’s homosexuality, and where Prior is confronted with his sickness. And it is somehow contradictory that Kushner choses for such important revelations to take place in a scene staging a dream.