Leave your questions here for Queer. Feel free to draw connections between Lee and the other 'difficult personalities' featured in last week's reading. What do Lee, Anthony Burns, and Jesse have to say to one another? What does Queer have to say about the Cold War? And what in the world do Lee's routines have to say about any of this? 
I find Allerton to be a puzzling character throughout the novel. We are given very little information about his past, and we only learn about his character through his interactions with Lee. There is very little evidence of change or growth as the book progresses. Given this, what do you think Lee is seeking in his relationship with Allerton and what is it that he actually gains? Is he motivated by sex, friendship, love? Does this relationship offer him escape from something else in his life?
ReplyDeleteI think that the reason the reader doesn't see growth in Allerton is because Allerton is not communicated to the reader as a real person. Lee uses him for his own gain. He never expresses an interest in how Allerton might be feeling about their relationship. To Lee, Allerton is just another drug. Lee doesn't respect Allerton as a person, so it's hard for the reader to also to see Allerton as a real, multi-dimensional character. That is, the reader sees Allerton as Lee sees Allerton: an object of pleasure.
DeleteTo add to that, Burroughs does mention in this introduction to the novel that Allerton is purely an audience, which he explicitly states on pg. 129. He uses his little "performances" or Routines in order to "mask his disintegration" (not exact quote), and requires an audience to do so, which he found in Allerton.
DeleteIt would be interesting to consider what it is about Allerton that makes him a good/acceptable audience, why he is drawn to Allerton. It's also interesting to consider how much of what an author, particularly an author like Burroughs, says can be trusted or taken at face value.
One of the themes that I have noticed in both Queer and an overarching aspect of the Cold War is the idea of passing judgement on another country (or individual, in the case of Queer), for a difference in culture, expression or personal relations. In Queer, I often found that Lee was using terms that were extremely derogatory towards other gay men. Although all of these people were going through similar struggles, he still felt the need to pass judgement and dehumanize many of the minor characters. I saw situations similar to this in the study of race relations between the U.S. and the USSR, in that the USSR passed judgement(in the form of propaganda, etc), about the state of relations in the United States while themselves suffering from a serious class-based conflict in their country. What does this say about the character of Lee and the integrity of the USSR? Is it possible to be completely objective and judgement free of other people/countries?
ReplyDeleteThroughout the book, Lee and other characters medical language to "diagnose" sexual sexual difference as he sees it. In referring to himself, he says, "I was a homosexual. I thought of the painted simpering female impersonators I had seen in a Baltimore night club. Could it be possible that I was one of those subhuman things," (35). Relating his experience with an army psychiatrist, Joe Guidry's date explains how he learned that he was "an Oedipus." What is the role of psychiatry (and rationalization) in shaping Lee's character (or setting the context of the novel). How might these same theses be related to cold war politics?
ReplyDeleteI think one of the readings on Moodle, Burroughs Live, sheds some light on this topic, although I’m not sure if someone will be using this for a presentation later so I won’t go into detail about it here.
DeletePsychoanalysis tried to harness and control what constituted the very foundations of the Beat Generation and movement, and was a pervasive force as it gained momentum during that era. These defining features included freedom of sexuality, a multitude of recreational (and oftentimes hallucinogenic) drugs, and a general rejection of all that was “right” and “good,” including consumerism and the nuclear family. All of this in a very conservative and fearful post WWII atmosphere was bound to meet resistance, and psychology (or more generally, the pseudo-scientific fervor that it generated among the public) was one facet or at least manifestation of that resistance. The American Psychiatric Association even considered homosexuality was a mental deviation during the time Queer was written.
I think it’s also important to note that it is a youthful, naïve character who says he is an Oedipus, and that the older gay man who we would be more inclined to associate with Lee and Burroughs tells him that he doesn’t believe this young man is an Oedipus. He says it in such a matter-of-fact way, it even strikes Lee as funny. This psychoanalytic observation was not taken seriously by either character.
*The American Psychiatric Association even considered homosexuality a mental deviation during the time Queer was written.
DeleteWhat is the significance behind the description of the bar named Cuba on pg. 41, if any?
ReplyDeleteThere are many unique motifs in Queer, including temperature, cleanliness, the color yellow, and even building materials (not to mention fish and water). What role are these playing in Queer and what can they tell us about the context in which it was written?
In his intro, Burroughs says, "I live with the constant threat of possession, and a constant need to escape from possession, from Control" (pg. 135). Again, how does this reflect on the time in which Burroughs wrote Queer? How does it come up in the novel or even shape it?
Lee’s constant preoccupation with Allerton’s thoughts reflects the uncertainty of the relationship between the US and the USSR during the Cold War. What is the relationship between Lee’s insecurity and his seemingly insatiable sex drive? Did the insecurities of the two nations have similar effects? Does Lee’s sex drive symbolize the nations’ drive for power, or is there also such a thing as a national sex drive? If so, was it similarly increased by the insecurity of the Cold War?
ReplyDeleteQueer started out confusing and only got worse. If Burroughs isn't a xenophobic racist as his character Lee is, then he's a fantastic writer; if he is, he's a bit horrifying.
ReplyDeleteThroughout Queer, the males Lee is attracted to are consistently described with the word "boy" or "animal." In Baldwin's story, Jesse is turned on by "unmanning" other men, specifically blacks, whom he views as subhuman. How does sexuality tie into these concepts of attraction to those who are "lesser" than yourself? Is this trait always a result of some trauma (the lynching, Lee's addiction in the previous book) or does it ever arise naturally?
Lee seems to constantly be looking for some sort of detachment from reality through his alcohol and drug use, yet he also feels a need for a meaningful attachment to someone or something, displayed through his pursuit of several men (or boys), especially Allerton. By the time that Lee and Allerton travel together, Lee has stopped denying the fact that he is essentially buying Allerton's affections, and even then those affections are infrequent and reluctant. This desperate need for a significant other or a consuming, preoccupying activity is also seen in Anthony Burns of "Desire and the Black Masseur." What does this say about the insecurities of the two characters? Is this stemmed from their homosexual identities and the insecurities that instinctually come from (the majority of) society's disapproval? How can we tie their needs for attachment together? Looking at Burns' fate, is it inevitable that Lee will come to some sort of realization and consequential destruction by the end of the story?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Eden's questions, I think society's current constructs of sexuality leave space for debasement as part of debauchery. In the ways that sexuality is connected to and governed by power, the theme of sexual excitement surrounding "lessers" in both Baldwin and Burroughs' works makes meaningful commentary on the power constructs of the period in which the pieces were written, as well as currently, in sparking discourse between the two works.
ReplyDelete