by Dwight Cathcart

by Dwight Cathcart

Monday, August 18, 2014

The Princesse de Guermantes, Baron de Charlus, rough trade, in, out

I have just finished reading Sodom and Gomorrah, the fourth volume of In Search of Lost Time, in the Penguin edition. It is a novel whose major theme is Time—we age, all of us, and lose our youth, we lose our memories of our past, we forget the people who mattered to us, and we lose our memories of our lives. The principal subject of In Search of Lost Time could be said to be homosexuality. The Baron de Charlus is one of the great literary creations of any century as he goes out into the night, decked out in his rouge and heavy powder, in search of rough trade. By the time the novel ends, after seven volumes, just about everybody is seen to be homosexual. It is a novel that I—being me and my age—would predictably find fascinating. Decay—the decay of youth into age, the decay of Parisian society, the decay of beauty into ugliness—is one aspect of the theme. Rejuvenation is another aspect—the revivifying qualities of beauty, the kindness of the narrator’s mother and grandmother and of Charles Swann, and, it ought to be said, the immense amounts of money various characters inherit unexpectedly, almost as many as are killed at the front in the Great War. Most of Proust’s themes come together at the end in a large reception given by the Princesse de Guermantes, and what the reader notices first is that the people at the party are not the ones he expected to see there. Even the Princesse de Guermantes is not the same person we have known. There are beautiful young people at the reception, so beautiful nobody much cares who their parents were or how they got invited. A man who has reached advanced age speaks easily to a man a third his age because he forgets for a moment how radically things have changed since he was the age of the young man he’s talking to. Time is destructive, but it’s also the source of rejuvenation. A younger generation is on the way in just as the older generation is on the way out. So finely balanced is this book that it is impossible to tell whether it is a comedy or a tragedy.

Proust suggests that the past can be recovered by art, by the novel he will write, which will become In Search of Lost Time. Marcel Proust is gay, and In Search of Lost Time is an important gay novel of the early twentieth century. Probably the most important gay novel ever. For that reason, it ought to be read. The gay community has other, more important reasons for reading In Search of Lost Time. It sheds light on a culture aside from our own that has undergone radical change, and it speaks to a people whose losses have been immense and profound and suggests a way of recovering the past that has been lost. Finally, it suggests the shape of the future. It’s the paradox of art. Even as In Search of Lost Time draws to a close at the Princesse de Guermantes’s reception, as Proust closes his harsh comic exposure of Parisian society as social climbers, prostitutes, and fornicators and liars, driven by money, clothed in their ancient titles and rich clothes, the reader knows that Proust’s great novel was written in the same social world that the novel judges so harshly. If there are liars and fornicators and snobs in turn-of-the-century Paris, there are also writers of genius. That genius was one of us, and that fact should be celebrated.


Thursday, August 7, 2014

Anna Paquin, James Franco, heteroromantic pansexual, bi, me

We had a moment this past week when we were shown exactly how far we have to go before we reach freedom. 

Anna Paquin, she says, is bisexual, married to the actor Stephen Moyer, and Larry King found out about it, and the result, for several days, has been all over the web, two examples of which are here and here. King wanted to know how you could be bisexual and married at the same time. People focus on how clueless King is about bisexuality, but it seems to me that almost everybody is pretty clueless about all these matters.

Remember how exercised people got three years ago when John Travolta wouldn’t come out (here and here) just because, people said, he had been caught having sex with some male body? I think what the raft of marriage equality states have done is to make it OK for people who will say “I’m gay.” Then there are the people who say, “I’m straight.” All those folks are OK, and we can treat them with respect and dignity. That leaves all the rest of humanity out there, neither gay nor straight, and they’re the weirdos. This is what we’ve been doing for the last several years, setting up a system where we have, instead of one approved sexuality, with everyone else a weirdo, now we have two sexualities, and everybody else who is not in those two is a weirdo. We’ve set up this system so that to get respect and dignity—in Justice Kennedy’s phrases—we have to come out and call ourselves either gay or straight. 

Now we have bisexuality, which so confused Larry King. This means we can choose among three options. That’s better than being confined to two, I guess.

Choosing from among a limited number of options is still a mechanism of control that people who are approved impose on people who are still out there. 

I had it several years ago, when a man I used to know said to me, “Well, if you were married, you must have been bisexual.” I said, “No. I was always gay.” He looked at me, worried, his arm in the air, looking for something to point to that would resolve his discomfort. It was as if his world was divided into two—those who were married, and those who were bisexual, and everything would be OK if everybody got in one or the other of those two groups. Here I was claiming to be a member of both of them, at the same time, and that made him uncomfortable. This is so because, once we define ourselves by coming out and saying, “I’m gay,” or “I’m straight,” we have to act like the other members of that group. Men who claim to be gay can’t marry women. Men who say they are straight can’t suck cock. But of course, they do it all the time. And people who act like gay people refuse to take on the label.

Well, it’s not the people who get it wrong, it’s our words, the way we think about all these things. It may be that  “gay” and “straight” have about lived out their usefulness. We’ve reached a point where we do not need words that describe one kind of person and one pattern of behavior. And we have certainly lived beyond the point where we can attach a word to people, and then judge them by whether they match the supposed requirements of the word. People may be too various for that. It may be that we should assume that all sexual states are temporary and that no sexual states are exclusive—unless we choose to make it so. You can’t know anything about my sexuality unless I tell you personally, and then you’ll have to ask again next time.  

In these ways, it may be that the word gay has been bleached of all meaning and that the term gay activist likewise has no meaning left. What we can fight for, because it does have meaning, is the right of all of us to live our own lives, free of those who think they have a right to know and a right to impose their thoughts on the rest of us. 

This guy, who wrote a comment on Gawker dealing with whether or not James Franco was gay, has it right:

  • “Relationship or not, why are people so quick to label gay or not. There are so many more types of relationships than that. Why not bi? I know in the public eye it isn’t as inclusive as it should be, and it makes it seem like a 50/50, but it’s a common label that people are coy to use. I’m bi, but will I actually date a guy? I’m leaning no, but I may. But I’m not gay nor am I straight. I’m a heteroromantic pansexual. But I’ll just say bi, it’s one syllable.” (go to the link, then scroll down to the comments to "someguy J. K. Trotter, 8/4/14")