Class Blog

In Act Three, Scene One of Millennium Approaches, two predecessors of Prior show up at his bedside. One claims to be Prior Walter the first, and the other is Prior Walter the 17th. This confusing but telling scene alludes to the many Priors that have lived throughout the years, showing the apparent strength of the family bloodline. However powerful this bloodline, however, there is a certain expendability that one may associate with the name Prior Walter. Because there have been so many, it makes each Prior that follows seem less and less significant and just another prior Walter. In addition to the inevitability of the existence of a Prior at any point in time, the death of each Prior is inevitable as well. Whatever the “pestilence” of the time, the Prior of that time will fall ill to it (Kushner 92). For Prior the First, it seemingly was the Black Death, and for this current version of Prior, the pestilence of course is AIDS. This speaks to a larger theme of the play, which is the inevitability of death.

This play is encompassed in death. Because it is so persistent in this text, Kushner must resort to camp to make the play seem less dark – in this particular scene, Prior is already pretty close to dying, but the campiness of having Prior the first and Prior the 17^th there makes the theme of death easier to digest. It is also important to note that Prior will not reproduce and therefore he won’t be continuing the family bloodline, an extremely tragic fact that is covered up by the campiness of this particular passage.

This speaks to the many roles that “camp” can play in a text – it typically is used to allude to a common critique of society and does not really take a side. However, in this situation, “camp” alleviates us and makes the large pill of death that is ever-present in this play easier to swallow.

Roy in “Angels in America” is similar to Jeannette in “Oranges are Not the Only Fruit” because they both claim to make their own “laws.” In “Angels in America,” Roy states, “Lawyers are…the High Priests of America. We alone know the words that made America. Out of thin air. We alone know how to use The Words.” Roy points out the significance of lawyers to Belize in order to highlight the fact that throughout his own life, he has used his position of power to create his own laws and truths. From his position of power, he was able to persuade the judge to convict and execute Ethel. He was also able to use his power to hide the fact that he was a homosexual and use that power to get whatever it is that he wanted whether it be pills to help his fight against AIDS or to have his lovers introduced to the President at a time when homosexuals were marginalized. As a High Priest, he created his own narrative and influenced the lives of others.

This is similar to Jeanette’s experience as she considers herself to be a prophet, able to create her own meaning from certain texts. She was able to break from her mother’s reality and teachings that homosexuality was a sin. She often used dream sequences and storytelling to create her own version of good, regardless of what the Church said. In the book, Jeannette does not see anything wrong with her love and affection for Melanie. In fact, she sees her love for Melanie and both of their love for God as fitting neatly together in harmony. She states, “I love you almost as much as I love the Lord.” By claiming this, she puts her love for Melanie on the same playing field as her love for the Lord, rejecting the Church’s notion that her love is a sin. Her affection for Melanie stems from the fact that Melanie has joined her religious community, a community in which Jeannette has used as a guide throughout her life.

Another part where Jeannette creates her own reality is when she and Melanie embrace each other and she wonders out loud whether this is an “Unnatural Passion” to which Melanie states, “Doesn’t feel like it. According to Pastor Finch, that’s awful.” Jeannette accepts this as truth, thus affirming her belief that her love for Melanie is not sinful like the Church says but rather wholesome and comparable to the love of the Lord.

The difference in this similarity is that Roy used his power to create in order to hide who he was and to harm others. The fact that he hid who he was is made clear in the book when he loudly asserts that he is not a homosexual, but a man who has sex with other men. He creates his own reality and denies his homosexuality based on the belief that homosexuals are feared and treated as second class citizens while he is an influential powerbroker who gets his way. Roy uses his power to create in order to hide himself from the world. In a world that oppresses him, instead of embracing himself for who he is he shoves it aside in order to stay powerful.

Jeanette on the other hand uses her power to create in order to accept who she is. Unlike Roy, she uses the Bible to reinforce her own life, not shun it. By comparing her love for Melanie to the love of the Lord, she legitimizes herself in a time when the Church and the rest of the world oppress her. Another differences is that as Jeannette considers herself to be a Prophet, she recognizes that others will reject her teachings and her ways. Roy, however, uses his ability to create his own laws and narrative in order to have others see and believe his heterosexuality. It is precisely because of society’s belief, though, that gives him his power.

Susan Sontag lays out for us fifty-eight notes on camp, attempting to conjure up the difficult to grasp and almost elusive concept of camp. In very broad terms, I see camp as the extreme dramatization (and often heightened irony) of a moment in order to highlight some aspect of that moment. It is particularly useful in situations dealing with a serious or complex situation. Angels in America,” a play dealing with a myriad of difficult topics such as the AIDs crisis and the struggle that members of the LGBTQ community faced in the 1990s, camp is heavily utilized. The first scene that I found to be clearly campy in the play was act one, scene seven, where Harper’s hallucination and Prior’s dream converge. This scene is particularly important because Harper and Prior are able to provide one another new insight into themselves that the characters they typically interact with have not been able to offer.

Perhaps one of the most defining characteristics of camp is a sort of acknowledgment of the absurdity of the moment. We see this acknowledgement in the interactions between Harper and Prior, who both seem confused by the other’s presence in their personal imaginations. This scene is so infused with camp that we even see elements of it in the stage direction, where it is conceded that the fact that these two characters are meeting on this strange ethereal plane is in fact “bewildering” (36.) However, without this eccentric, absurd, and campy scene, these two characters would not have crossed paths. Infusing the play with these heightened, campy scenes allows for deeper revelations by the characters and interesting overlaps and relationships between characters whose plot lines would not necessarily cross otherwise. The element of camp in “Angels in America” both facilitates these moments of recognition and understanding, as well as highlights them for the audience as moments of particular importance.

Camp is a form of expression often defined as overdramatic, excessively theatrical to the point of bordering on parody. Camp exists, in many ways, to mock common ideology of the mainstream while providing a space for the counterculture. A certain degree of allusion to camp is expected in most modern queer works. What sets apart Angels in America is the degree to which camp and campiness is employed, given the subject matter. It is common for stories about the AIDs crisis to narrow the lens and focus purely on the tragedy of the epidemic, on the wrongs done to queer individuals by their peers, their families and their governments. Angels in America turns this idea on its head with the extensive use of camp, as seen with Prior’s angel, Harper’s visions and the character of Belize.

But what’s worth noting more than where camp is used is where and when camp is not used in Kushner’s play. Most characters encounter camp early on in thee show. Belize and Prior are both former drag queens and often use “girl-talk” (a mixture of French and English) when talking to one another. Prior and Harper see visions. Harper’s visions are often more doom-and-gloom: she sees herself alone in the Arctic or imagines her husband Joe as a dummy in the Mormon Visitor’s Center. Prior, on the other hand, has visions of the Angel of America: a creature who trys to be terrifying, but only comes off as ridiculous. Even Louis encounters camp through his exaggerated “Jewish guilt”. The only character who does not encounter any form of camp is Roy Cohn, the closeted lawyer dying of AIDs. Roy has plenty of opportunities to encounter camp; like Prior and Harper, he sees visions and with Belize as his nurse, he has direct contact to drag culture.

I think that the reason the character of Roy avoids camp and instead carries the mantle of the ‘traditional AIDs story’ is because of his refusal to admit that he’s a homosexual. When Roy first receive his diagnosis, he tells his doctor that “Roy Cohn is a heterosexual man, Henry, who fucks around with guys” (Kushner, act one scene nine). Roy remains in denial of who he is, refusing the align himself with the rest of the queer community. Roy is not the only closeted character in the story. Joe, a Mormon clerk starts the play deep in the closet, but comes to terms with his identity and comes out. After his coming out and affair with Louis, Joe finds himself confronted by camp through Harper’s visions and an interaction between Belize and Prior, where both men speak using their drag queen slang. It is because of his denial of self that keeps Roy from being able to be embraced by camp and confines him to the traditional, tragic narrative of the AIDs crisis.

In the latter half of Scene 1, Act Four, when Roy is emoted by Joe’s news of living with another man, Belize enters the scene at just the right moment to receive Roy’s bleeding arm and enraged state. Belize is able to take control of the erratic situation, and bandage Roy’s arm. His presence in this scene is crucial for Joe because he not only saves Joe from Roy’s wrath, but also urges him to change his shirt and not to touch the blood- something Joe would not have known to do otherwise. This particular instance enforces Belize as the more ‘omniscient’, and ‘voice of reason’ character.

Belize’s somewhat protective, somewhat informative role in Roy’s fragile life, is similar to Elsie Norris’s role in young Jeanette’s life in Oranges. Though Belize and Roy are not good friends as Elsie and Jeanette were, he is quite literally, Roy’s caretaker, as Elsie becomes Jeanette’s ‘surrogate mother’. Elsie and Belize both become reliable sources of safety for Jeanette and Roy. Elsie Norris, as an experienced and well traveled person, represents life outside the church that Jeanette has not yet experienced. In a similar way, Belize represents gay culture, and living as an openly gay man, as Roy has never experienced. Another similarity between Belize and Elsie is their innate good nature, despite factors that have lead other characters to turn against Roy and Jeanette. Even though Roy is relentlessly rude, racist and berating to Belize, Belize is equally calm and caring to Roy, as we assume he’d be to any other patient. When everyone Jeanette knows turns against her for being gay, Elsie remains Jeanette’s friend, regardless of her strong religious views. Each of these characters represent humanity and morality in two stories that are ridden with cruelty and inhumanity.

The play Angels in America and the novel Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit share certain thematic and idiocentric similarities. Such character similarities include the relationship between Ethel Rosenberg and Roy, in Angels in America, and Jeanette and her Mother, in Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit. These relationships personify internal struggles of Roy and Jeanette. Mother and Ethel both make the internal concepts of Roy and Jeanette external, all the while trying to rid them of their demons.

Despite their similarities however a significant difference develops between these two relationships. Although both Mother and Ethel embody internalized emotions of Jeanette and Roy, Ethel and Mother present these aspects differently. In Act 3 Scene 5 Roy lays in his hospital bed and sees the ghost of Ethel Rosenberg. In this scene Ethel acts as the embodiment of Roy’s pain, weather it’s his AIDs, his homosexuality, the murder of Ethel herself, or his self-hatred. While seeking forgiveness, Ethel refuses to sympathize with Roy, laughing at him and claiming he is “a very sick man” (118).  The forgiveness Ethel denies him, symbolizes Roy inability to forgive himself. Within this, Ethel tries to kill Roy, punishing him for all the harm that she claims he has done, persecuting him for his inner demons and making sure that he is aware of them.

In Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit Mother yearns to save Jeanette, not kill away her demons. Mother uses religion and the bible to try to save Jeanette. Mother believes that making Jeanette a good Christian girl will save her from her sexual desires and internal struggles. While Mother seeks to change who Jeanette chooses to be, readers feel sympathetic for Jeanette, a feeling we may not get for Roy.

This subtle difference, within a seemingly obvious similarity between Roy and Ethel and Mother and Jeanette, is significant to understanding these two pieces of text as a whole. Both of these texts mirror society at the time that they were written, specifically through the relationships of these four characters. Each relationship is a version of how we oppresses and dealt with LGBTQ individuals at certain times. During late 19th century America, our society persecuted gays and aligned them closely to the HIV/AIDs crisis, just like Ethel does to Roy.  In the 80s and 90s, within an English Pentecostal community, society tried to use the bible to save homosexuals from their “behavior,” just like Mother attempts to do with Jeanette.

“Well you’re wasting your time! I’m scarier than you any day of the week! So beat it, Ethel! BOOO! BETTER DEAD THAN RED! Somebody trying to shake me up? HAH HAH! From the throne of God in heaven to the belly of hell, you can all fuck yourselves and then go jump in the lake because I’M NOT AFRAID OF YOU OR DEATH OR HELL OR ANYTHING!”

One passage that has struck me while reading this book occurs in the encounter between Roy and Ethel while the former is in the hospital. Unlike many of the other characters in the novel, Roy has a particularly tough time coming to terms with himself, particularly his sexual orientation. We’ve seen, through several incidents, how he copes with this internal insecurity through frequent expressions of hypermasculinity. This personal attribute is perfectly identified in the passage above. In the brief but meaningful meeting Ethel makes no comments that are particularly patronizing to Roy. Despite this, it takes only the slightest provocation for Roy to lose his temper. This demonstration of anger towards Ethel is an expression of the internal guilt that has developed in Roy as a result of his role in the execution of Ethel. This internal guilt is similarly present and expressed as a result of the uncertainty and doubt Roy has towards his own sexual identity.

Though this correlation is clearly demonstrated in this passage, the concept of Roy’s personal struggle speaks to a wider application of personal acceptance. Roy is a distinguished outlier in his inability to garner any level of acceptance for himself. A stark contrast, other non-heteronormative characters such as Joe, Louis, and Prior are able to come to terms with themselves. Although certainly suffering from other personal problems, these men are able to utilize this acceptance in order to project a sense of relative happiness and positivity that eludes Roy entirely. I feel that this personal acceptance is, for the most part, symbolized by physical condition. Despite the personal issues that may arise, most of the men are able to persevere, a resultant mirrored by their respective health. Even Prior, who, like Roy, suffers from aids, is able to overcome his illness in a sense at the books closing. Roy’s gradual deterioration, and eventual death, however, shadows his lasting incapability of personal acceptance.

Angels in America portrays the devastating situations one is forced into when diagnosed with AIDS.  Most characters in the play seem to have their lives under control for the most part at the beginning.  However, one person after another is infected by AIDS, first Prior, and then Roy, which strongly impacts all of the characters’ lives whether they have the disease or not.  This reminds me of Jeanette from Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit and her struggle to find happiness throughout the story.  Later in the story, after Jeanette has left her mother, someone asks her about what would have happened if she had stayed with her mother.  

I could have been a priest instead of a prophet.  The priest has a book with words set out.  Old words, known words, words of power.  Words that are always on the surface.  Words for every occasion.  The words work.  They do what they’re supposed to do; comfort and discipline.  The prophet has no book.  The prophet is a voice that cries in the wilderness, full of sounds that do not always set into meaning.  The prophets cry out because they are troubled by demons. (Winterson 161)

Jeanette asserts that she could have had her future set out for her; she could’ve followed her mother’s beliefs and been a priest.  This is similar to many characters in Angels in America.  For instance, Prior had his life figured out before he was diagnosed; he was happy, he had Louis, and they were happy together.  However, everything changed when Prior got AIDS.  He had to figure out what to do with the rest of his life, especially when Louis left him.  Prior struggles with reclaiming his life in light of Louis leaving him and his disease.  Roy also struggles with coming to terms with his life when he is diagnosed.  He has to confront all of his inner demons when trying to come to terms with his AIDS.

I think that the juxtaposition of “priest” and “prophet” posed by Jeanette is seen in characters in Angels in America with the juxtaposition of the characters before AIDS and after AIDS.  Before any of the characters had AIDS, they seemed to have control over their lives; they were similar to the “priests” with the fact that they knew what they were doing, it was like they had a book to follow for their life.  Roy remained in control and powerful in his career; Louis and Prior were happy together, etc.  However with AIDS, maybe nothing really changed for the characters except their state of health, but the disease uncovered all of the problems in their lives and they were forced to face all of the mistakes they had ever made, because they were confronted with death.  When these characters face death, there is no book for them to follow; they are like “prophets” in that way.  However, the struggles that the characters in Angels in America face differ from Jeanette’s struggle because she has the choice to be a priest.  Maybe she doesn’t get to choose her sexuality which is what puts her against her mother, but she could’ve chosen to stay and cover up her true self; she could’ve followed the books written for priests.  However, Prior and Roy are diagnosed with AIDS, meaning they had no control over their choice.  They are involuntarily thrown into this state of confusion with themselves because they struggle with figuring out their life throughout this tragic experience.

Both Oranges are not the only Fruit by Jeanette Winterson and Angels in America by Tony Kushner symbolize the internal and external struggles of coming out.  Each piece of literature attempts to define the exterior barriers of their societies.  While both fall under the same category of coming out stories, the novel and play take different approaches to exemplify the struggles in their society with the LGBTQ community.  Each story highlights characters who embody the attitude that their societies had with people who identified with queer.

In Oranges are not the only Fruit, Winterson personifies these values within the character of Jeanette’s mother.  Her mother is a queer-fearing Christian who believes that with the help of God, her daughter can be saved. In the book, Jeanette’s mother attempts to save her by aiding the church in attempting to get Jeanette to repent from her sins.  Jeanette’s mother, along with members of the church and the pastor, pray for Jeanette while locking her in the parlor for thirty-six hours.  Jeanette then falsely accepts that her sexuality is a sin, only to get out of the confined space.  However, the elders, the pastor and specifically Jeanette’s mother are ecstatic believing that God has saved Jeanette from this horrid sin.  This was a common assumption at the time, that a person could be saved from their “queerness” by God or a religion and Jeanette’s mother is an outward example of this.

While Jeanette’s mother shames her for who she is and attempts to destroy Jeanette’s “gayness”, in Angels in America the character Ethel has the same purpose, but attempts to punish Roy for his identity rather than save him.  Ethel visits Roy as a ghost to haunt him about decisions he’s made in his lifetime. She terrorizes him on his sexuality and attempts to shame and reprimand him.  Ethel characterizes the aggression that people of her time had towards the LGTBQ community.  During the time of the AIDS crisis, the common belief was that queer people were dirty and misfits, therefore not worth trying to save.  The hostility and disgust that Roy receives from Ethel was a general way the culture dealt with the LGBTQ community during their time.

Ultimately, Oranges are not the only Fruit and Angels in America help their audiences understand how the main characters coped with the mechanics of their societies and cultures.  Through both authors work, they portray their struggles, and how each of them took different approaches to get through it. The differences in the way the authors coped with their own hardships can teach others in how to deal with their versions of the same base story.

Religion is a fundamental theme in both Winterson’s Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit and Kushner’s Angel’s in America. Both texts discuss characters’ unfortunate circumstances of belonging to a religion that does not accept their sexuality. However, the repercussions of their “sin” varies greatly between texts. Winterson depicts a loving and forgiving god while Kushner describes a religion focused on eternal damnation. When Jeanette’s church first begins to realize she is attracted to other girls, they react by asking her to repent for her sins. Though, from the point of view of her church, Jeanette has sinned, she is still capable of forgiveness. “The Lord forgives and forgets.” (Winterson, 109)

Meanwhile, Joe fears the consequences of acting on his sexuality. When he finds himself attracted to Louis, he responds, “I’m going to hell for doing this.” (Kushner, 122) There seems to be no opportunity for repentance in Joe’s idea of his religion. He is certain that this act alone is enough to send him to hell. His religion does not have the same opportunity for forgiveness that Jeanette’s seems to allow. Additionally, The Angel explains to Louis that, “HE left…and did not return.” (Kushner, 177) In this quote, a messenger of god describes the way in which god, disappointed by the humanity he created, abandoned it and all the people within it.

Kushner’s god is capable of abandonment, while Winterson’s is loving and faithful to all who are faithful to “Him”. Winterson’s view of god allowed Jeanette to grow up and redefine her religion. It gave her the safety to discover where she fits within her religion with god’s unconditional love as a safety net. However, Kushner’s god responds to any deviance from “His” word with eternal damnation and suffering. This is an immensely poignant way to frame a book centered around gay men during the AIDS epidemic. The characters of Kushner’s novel exist in a world where their sexuality, which they are incapable of changing, will result in eternal suffering following their death, which could come suddenly and unexpectedly for a gay man during the AIDS epidemic. These two texts together show the very contrasting religious views one can hold, and the effects this view can have on you as a person, especially if you are a member of the queer community. Jeanette was able to meld her religion with her identity, while Joe continues to have a painful internal conflict between his sexuality and his religion.