#also i know that saying this is th first explicitly gay doctor is like saying the first gay diseny charcater | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

gayregis · 4 years

Note

Question. Part 1. Hi. I like your blog and your analytical analysis of books, which is always very accurate and insightful, so I couldn't find anyone better to ask a question to. I am haunted by the scene where Regis announced to the male part of Hansa that Milva is pregnant. Then there is a dialogue, at the end of which Regis asks Geralt to do something... I felt connected to Jaskier as a character for the first time because I also don't understand what it is about. ->

P2. I asked my friends who had read the books, and their opinions were divided. Some believe that Regis asks Geralt to dissuade Milva from having an abortion, while others, on the contrary, believe that Geralt should persuade her to do it. Or maybe that's not the point at all? Further, my reflections, which may not be relevant to the question... Maybe I'm the only one who noticed a lot of "c*nservative" ideas in books.

P3. We cannot ignore the fact that they were written quite a long time ago and many ideological and cultural aspects of Poland (see the law banning abortion in 2020) that could influence them. It was the 'poll' at the beginning of this scene that made me think of this. Why do men decide whether to give Milva medicament or not? Secondly, Geralt insistently refuses to call it "medicament" but prefers the word "agent."

P4. Secondly, Geralt insistently refuses to call it "medicament" but prefers the word "agent." He also demands that Jaskier shut up when he supports Cahir that "only a woman decides." Pro-life vibes, or is it just me? We also can't ignore the fact that Geralt is very concerned about his infertility.

P5. In general, continuing the theme: very many sorceresses also lament the lack of ability to have children, and all of them, even if they had relationships with women, were always looking for the ONE AND ONLY man. Moreover, the same-sex relationships in the book are only female/female shown, but never male/male (a quick and disdainful mention in "Season of Storms"). But even f / f relationships are presented as some not-serious-play; remember how Ciri called it all "fun," talking with Mistle.

P6. Here again, I see a toxic-masculine culture that sexualizes lesbians and completely denies gays. (This also reminds me of Poland's situation, where the majority of the population is very religious and homophobic.) I was too disappointed by the stereotypical representation of women: hatred because of the same outfits/jewelry, thin waists and small portions (remember how Yen and Fringilla eat), eternal gossip, and so on. I mean, women aren't like that, man.

P7. The toxicity of the presented heterosexual relationships has been said a thousand times before me. In general, I am always a little upset when I see that someone calls Sapkowski such a tolerant writer. According to my observations, toxic masculinity, "conservative" ideas, and strengthening stereotypes about LGBT people, women, etc., often slip into his books. I may be wrong, so I apologize in advance. I would like to hear your opinion. Thanks.

Finally. The scene I was talking about, maybe you need it. ‘What’s this all about then? Unanimity? Total agreement? Is that what you’re expecting?’‘You know very well what it’s about. But since you ask, I shall tell you. Yes, Geralt, that’s precisely what it’s about. And no, it’s no me that's expecting it.’ ‘Could you be clearer?’ ‘No, Dandelion,’ the vampire snapped. ‘I can’t be any clearer. Particularly since there is no need. Right, Geralt?’ ‘Right,’ the Witcher said...

p. s. From the same Anon with a 7-part question. English is not my first language, so I apologize for any mistakes. I tried to ask questions as respectfully as possible, but I often confuse English pronouns/times/etc. Please note that it was completely unintentional if I made an offensive mistake, and I deeply apologize. I will correct myself if you point this out to me in your answer. Thanks again.

omg i love this and i’m gonna divide it into different segments to be easier to read. also don’t worry your english is great thank you!!

1) “I asked my friends who had read the books, and their opinions were divided. Some believe that Regis asks Geralt to dissuade Milva from having an abortion, while others, on the contrary, believe that Geralt should persuade her to do it.”

yes, this is a confusing scene. when i first read it i was TOTALLY relating to dandelion, completely confused on what the message was and what the in-universe conversation was about. i had just felt proud of myself for understanding everything regis said in the previous scenes, and now here he was saying something and i didn’t know how the fuck to decipher it.

but after re-reading and also reading others’ analysis on r/wiedzmin, i found what i think to be the answer. in my opinion, the scene is not about actually either dissuading or persuading milva to have an abortion. rather, it’s about supporting her emotionally so that she can make the right choice for herself.

regis, as a doctor, wants his patient to make choices with a level head and for her own self, not under pressure to make the strategic choice that would benefit the company the most. this is my interpretation but since regis mentions milva has been a little feisty in consultation (she wouldn’t give him the date of her last period... lol), i feel like he could sense that she was really stressed out about this and although she initially made the choice to have an abortion, she may not have been thinking for her own self, rather letting the priorities of the company come first before her own wants.

in this moment, geralt realizes exactly why she has come on the journey, he mentions how she was willing to sacrifice her own child for his, etc. so, geralt needs to talk to her in that moment to tell her that he doesn’t expect her to do anything just so she can be more of an “asset” to the company, to tell her that she is his friend first and comrade-in-arms second, because milva is very loyal and also headstrong and would have done anything for geralt and the company. milva in general also wants to be “useful” because she has internalized misogyny from how she was raised, she doesn’t want to be “useless” like she was taught women are ‘supposed’ to be, as is shown in their conversation.

so geralt talks to her and she makes the choice not to have an abortion after all, because after talking to geralt, she doesn’t feel like she has to prioritize geralt’s needs and the company’s needs over what she wants.

2) “Maybe I'm the only one who noticed a lot of "c*nservative" ideas in books. We cannot ignore the fact that they were written quite a long time ago and many ideological and cultural aspects of Poland (see the law banning abortion in 2020) that could influence them.

It was the 'poll' at the beginning of this scene that made me think of this. Why do men decide whether to give Milva medicament or not?

Secondly, Geralt insistently refuses to call it "medicament" but prefers the word "agent."”

He also demands that Jaskier shut up when he supports Cahir that "only a woman decides." Pro-life vibes, or is it just me?

We also can't ignore the fact that Geralt is very concerned about his infertility.

in my opinion i think the author-intention was to set up a conversation in which a rhetorical question is asked, which will 100% be answered with a resounding positive, a “yes” all around. regis asks the company, because he’s a character so he can be poised as the author wants to propose a question like, “what are your thoughts on abortion,” which allows the rest of the characters to respond “it’s a woman’s right to choose for herself!” in this way, i think that it is very pro-choice... i will agree later on about what you say in other parts of your message, about the conservatism and also centrism in the books, but when it comes to abortion sapkowski imo in the witcher series espoused some pretty pro-choice views. this scene, compounded with the fact that yennefer, the leading female character, performs abortions as part of her job, and also the scene in season of storms with coral and the king of kerack in which he makes a fool of himself in front of her because she assists women with abortions... it’s a topic that’s come up a few times, and all of the times it has been a pro-choice perspective. (again, this is not to say everything in the witcher series is progressive, haha)

in-universe, i suppose you could think of it as that regis was just being coy and asking a rhetorical question also in-universe... such that he was going to give milva the decoction no matter what the men of the company chose, but he just wanted to “ask their opinions” (i.e., tell them what is happening with milva, because it’s a serious subject that needs to be addressed by the company) before, so he could introduce the subject to them (sparing milva of the difficulty of telling them all) and gain their assistance in supporting milva during this time. (random sidenote, but i like how regis acts as a middleground between milva and the rest of the company in this. there are three genders: woman, man, and medical professional. lol).

so yes, i don’t think that the men of the company actually “get to decide” if milva would have an abortion or not - their opinion’s don’t matter. out-of-universem sapkowski probably just wanted to set up a conversation between his characters where they could espouse explicitly pro-choice opinions (dandelion and cahir practically start arguing over if the northern kingdoms or nilfgaardian empire are more pro-choice). in-universe, this was probably more of a way to bring the subject up rather than actually asking for opinions.

i think it may look like there are some pro-life opinions shown by geralt in this conversation at first glance, but there might be something deeper. when he tells dandelion to be quiet when he begins to hound him that “only a woman decides,” i think it’s not because he disagrees with that - rather, that he agrees, but that that isn’t the issue here that he needs to deal with. it IS milva’s decision, everyone is in agreement about that - and that’s precisely the problem, because milva is in a vulnerable emotional state and also a precarious physical environment, and these factors could influence her to go through with the abortion, while in “regular circumstance,” if everything were fine and everyone was safe and they weren’t on a quest to save ciri, she might go through with the pregnancy. so, geralt gets annoyed that dandelion tells him this, because he agrees, he already knows! it’s useless to tell him that, because he already agrees with him, what he really needs to do now is move forward with having an emotional talk with milva, which is difficult for him.

i think the “medicament” / “agent” thing is still a little confusing to me, because i don’t know which one has a negative connotation. to me, it’s a medicament, or a medicine, whic is something that cures an ailment, that has a negative connotation, because it kind of refers to the state of being pregnant as a sickness or illness that needs to be cured? an agent is more like a substance that causes a reaction, i think of that of enzymes that speed up chemical reactions in cells, it causes a certain result to happen - which seems more appropriate in my opinion. but yeah i’m not sure which is the “worse word” to use, or if either are “bad words” to use when it comes to this

3) In general, continuing the theme:

Very many sorceresses also lament the lack of ability to have children, and all of them, even if they had relationships with women, were always looking for the ONE AND ONLY man.

I was too disappointed by the stereotypical representation of women: hatred because of the same outfits/jewelry, thin waists and small portions (remember how Yen and Fringilla eat), eternal gossip, and so on. I mean, women aren't like that, man.

The toxicity of the presented heterosexual relationships has been said a thousand times before me.

Moreover, the same-sex relationships in the book are only female/female shown, but never male/male (a quick and disdainful mention in "Season of Storms"). But even f / f relationships are presented as some not-serious-play; remember how Ciri called it all "fun," talking with Mistle. I see a toxic-masculine culture that sexualizes lesbians and completely denies gays. (This also reminds me of Poland's situation, where the majority of the population is very religious and homophobic.)

In general, I am always a little upset when I see that someone calls Sapkowski such a tolerant writer. According to my observations, toxic masculinity, "conservative" ideas, and strengthening stereotypes about LGBT people, women, etc., often slip into his books. I may be wrong, so I apologize in advance. I would like to hear your opinion. Thanks.

very much agree with all of this. in some circumstances, i think the author-intention was to break stereotypes and tropes - such as fringilla and yennefer speaking about oysters in relation to their ‘diets’ ... but then, they are actually talking about oysters in the context of having to teleport from the castle, they are actually speaking about high-intrigue political alliances, not something as silly as diets... but the effect, to me, is lost, because they led into it acting vapid and speaking about diets anyways, and if they used sarcasm in their voices, it wasn’t strong enough coming through the text in my opinion.

similarly, i think he tried to do some of this trope-breaking with the sorceresses overall, how they are all vapid and obsessed with appearance, but actually are the political masterminds behind everything. although he achieved the latter, he did not manage to have the latter negate the former... the intelligent political talks did nothing to “cancel out” the previously-demonstrated vapidness and obsession with femininity, and the way he describes women overall is something to roll the eyes (and the stomach) at. (“triss’ waist measured ‘22′,” oh give me a break lmfao...)

i also agree that although there are technically gay and lesbian characters in the books, none of them are “good representation” - the only ones i can think of are philippa, mistle, and degerlund (season of storms, which you are right in describing as “disdainful”) - all of these characters are violent, none of them ever are shown having a healthy relationship, and their “love” either ‘corrupts others’ (i use that term semi-lightly) or is part of some political manuever. ciri’s time with mistle is that of a ‘youthful violence,’ it is part of her time with the rats, her time reaching into her worst most hateful depths as a person, and it’s presented as something to “heal from.” and we haven’t even mentioned how mistle assaults her in the beginning of it all. this is largely a post for another time, but it’s not a good situation by any means.

i also get super annoyed for this reason when i see people applauding sapkowski for being a “progressive writer.” in my mind, he is not progressive at all, although he has his character espouse some pro-choice views here and there, that is not nearly enough to make up for the fantasy racism/antisemitism, use of antisemitic caricatures to do trope-reversal on, misogyny to do trope-reversal on, and blatantly just Not Good gay and lesbian characters.

in my mind, it’s inappropriate to label him as “progressive,” because he was not writing with diversity and representation in mind. i think a lot of people get confused, because they assume, “oh he included women, so he must have been wanting more representation for women!” ... when he was pretty much just writing for writing’s sake... of his own worldview and biases, nothing special when it comes to representation. and i agree that a lot of conservative ideas slip their way into the books, from my perspective he tries to make some centrist milquetoast statements at times (”don’t be neutral in the face of evil” for example) but wraps it up in literally a fantasy pogrom - which is not something imo for a goyische author to put into their stories. his inspirations at times are clear, and he uses them in manners which can come off as blunt and disrespectful.

#anon #ask #long post /#also apologies its 6:30 am and i didnt sleep so if theres any spelling errors or weird syntax or trains of thought...

34 notes · View notes

weirdbynorthwest · 7 years

Text

Notes on Northern Exposure, S01E02: “Brains, Know-How and Native Intelligence”

We begin the episode with Chris Stevens delivering his first ever “Chris in the Morning” address on the show, in Cicely’s local radio station, KBHR, or “K-Bear”. Why “K-Bear”? Well, firstly, it’s customary for radio stations to be given easily pronounceable names inspired by their initials, for the sake of marketing. But there’s an additional fun fact regarding this particular station’s origins: both KBHR and its nick-name belong to a real-life local radio station in Big Bear City, California. Surrounded by the Alaskan wilderness, Cicely undoubtedly has more than its fair share of bears, so the nickname remains appropriate.

The subject of Chris’s speech, and a significant chunk of the episode, is the 19th century poet Walt Whitman, an American literary giant and one of Chris’s leading artistic inspirations. But not everyone approves of Whitman. Chris recalls being “blindsided by the raging fist of [his] incarcerator,” at the juvenile detention home where he spent his juvenile delinquent days. This stern authority figure told Chris, in no uncertain terms, “that Walt Whitman's homoerotic, unnatural, pornographic sentiments were unacceptable and would not be allowed in an institution dedicated to reforming the ill-formed.” Whitman’s sexuality has been the subject of endless debate, but it’s generally accepted that he was either homo- or bisexual. That Whitman, “that great bear of a man, enjoyed the pleasures of other men came as a great surprise” to Chris, leading him to “reconsider the queers [he] had previously kicked around.” Yes, Chris wasn’t always the open-minded liberal we otherwise see him as. He was, in his youth, capable of homophobic violence. This makes me, a confirmed homosexual (or “homo-romantic grey-sexual,” if we’re being particular), rather sad. It also makes me more inclined to be wary and critical of Chris in this episode.

Chris reads Whitman’s “When Lilacs in the Dooryard Bloom’d” (1865), a poem written following the end of the American Civil War (1861-1865), during a period of national mourning over the then recent assassination of former president Abraham Lincoln. The poem doesn’t explicitly identify Lincoln, but it’s generally thought that that’s who the poem was about. However, the final line of the first stanza – “And thought of him I love” – may have been presented in this scene in order to underline the topic of Whitman’s sexuality. For Whitman’s clearest expression of homosexual love in verse, one should really examine the “Calamus” sequence of poems written in or before 1859, included in the third edition of Leaves of Grass, originally published in 1855. (I nearly read some to an ex-boyfriend on his birthday once. I regret not doing that. But they were aware of the thought, and I got a lot of love for it, so it balanced out.)

We catch a glimpse of Maurice fishing whilst listening to Chris’s show. He clearly isn’t impressed by all this talk of Whitman enjoying “the pleasures of other men.” Maurice was established as being, at the very least, a sexist and racist bigot in the previous episode, so any homophobia on his part wouldn’t come as a surprise. This still doesn’t prepare the viewer for what Maurice will do next.

Meanwhile, in this week’s instalment of “Will They? Won’t They?’ Joel and Maggie are in the Brick, having a go at each other over plumbing. This argument at least feels as if it springs from a natural cause, compared to last week’s glaringly-contrived-in-order-to-establish-the-formula bickering. Joel is talking to Maggie as his landlord, about a faulty toilet. Maggie teases Joel over his lack of self-reliance: why not try fixing it himself, or go out and fertilise the scenery? She winds up calling him a “helplessness junkie”, an odd turn of phrase he’ll spend half the episode grumbling about and later delight in throwing back at her, when she visits him in his surgery over a self-inflicted knee injury.

Joel’s chauvinism is out in full force again, as he offers to treat any puncture wounds Rick may have received from Maggie walking all over him in her heels. Yecch. And then he comes on to her in a way that fictional characters in a “Will They? Won’t They?” comedy set-up routinely get away with, when he says “you’re clearly attracted to me.” Of course, the show will routinely remind us she is. But in real life, if you said something like that to someone, it would be widely and rightly considered inappropriate. Unlike the utterly irredeemable and thoroughly loathsome Ross Geller in Friends (NBC, 1994-2004), Joel is a genuinely likeable character under all the sexist asshattery the writers insist upon having him say. I hope the situation improves, and soon.

Joel remarks that he’s “not the Grizzly Adams type.” This is a reference to John “Grizzly” Adams, a nineteenth-century mountain man who hunted and trained wild animals (including, you guessed it, “grizzly” bears) for use in zoos, menageries and circuses, from New England to California. An outdoorsman and a showman (he partnered up at one point with another American icon, that jack-of-all-trades P.T. Barnum), “Grizzly” Adams became, in the popular cultural consciousness, an iteration of an American frontiersman archetype, akin to Davy Crockett. Joel does not resemble that archetype at all – but Brick proprietor Holling Vincoeur, according to Joel, does. We’ll see how that comparison bears out in the episodes and seasons to come.

Meanwhile, over at K-Bear, the “raging fist” of Maurice Minnifield comes raining down on Chris Stevens like the fist of that faceless authoritarian in Chris’s juvenile detention home. I find the violence Maurice inflicts on Chris in this episode jarring. We later learn from Joel that Maurice threw Chris through a plate-glass window. We see bruises and band-aids on Chris’s face, and his arm in a plaster cast. We learn, towards the end of the episode, that Chris snuck in a decent left-hook – but that still, to my mind, doesn’t make up for what might be one of the single most unpleasant things Maurice has done on the show.

And while we’re on the subject of violence, what about Ed’s response to Joel describing his current spat with Maggie? He asks “Did you hit her?” Where did that come from? A more uncharacteristic thing for Ed to say – even just two episodes into the show – is hard to imagine. Is it meant to suggest that Ed grew up in an environment where domestic violence was the norm? Or that Cicely’s foremost cinephile learnt everything he knows about human interaction from the movies? I don’t know. I just know that it’s a weird, discomfiting line.

Ed introduces the episode’s secondary plot, which is about Ed’s uncle Anku (Frank Sotonoma “Grey Wolf” Salsedo). Ed tells Joel that his uncle is a “witch doctor,” which briefly leads them into a variation on the famous “Who’s on First?” comedy routine.

Ed’s uncle is seriously unwell – as in, there’s blood in his urine. And blood in your urine is nothing to be sniffed at. 11 years ago I had a urinary tract infection thanks to the onset of type-one diabetes. The pain was unreal. Imagine passing red hot needles instead of water. TMI? Ah, DMY. My point is, it’s not something you can comfortably ignore. And as a doctor, Joel knows it’s not something you can afford to ignore. And so, at Ed’s behest, Joel spends a significant chunk of the episode befriending Anku and trying his best to persuade him to seek medical attention. But, unbeknownst to Anku’s family, Anku has already sought medical attention and learnt that he has prostate cancer. He just needs Joel to pressure him into swallowing his pride as a medicine man before seeking further treatment.

Joel will, in dealing with Anku, realise in an on-screen “eureka!” of an epiphany that pride is the theme binding all the episode’s narrative threads together. Anku’s pride, his own pride, Maggie’s pride, Maurice’s pride, are all wrapped up in a neat little package. Is it too neat, too tidy? Maybe, but I like it. It’s a reassuring sign that Joel’s character won’t remain static, that he’ll gain new insight into the town and its characters, learn new things and continue to develop over the course of the series.

“Keeping it in the family”: Mrs. Anku is played by Armenia Miles, the mother of Elaine Miles, who plays Joel’s secretary, Marilyn Whirlwind. In future episodes, she’ll play Marilyn’s mother.

Anku asks Joel if he’s ever seen the film Little Big Man (dir. Arthur Penn, 1970), in which Dustin Hoffman plays a man who, as a white child, was rescued and raised by a Cheyenne tribe. Is Anku drawing a connection between the Jewish actor and Jewish doctor, to whom he imparts some of his own “native intelligence”?

Joel, after explaining that he can’t keep chasing after Anku, pleads with Ed not to “do this northern brooding thing, I can’t stand Bergman films.” Is Joel intentionally using sophisticated cinema references he knows Ed will get? Because if so, that’s kinda cute. Couple that with Ed watching Joel as he sleeps, and I wonder if anyone, anywhere, at any time, has thought to ship these two characters?

As Maurice takes full control of radio K-Bear we learn he’s a huge fan of musical theatre, something that’s often been depicted as a stereotypical trait of gay men (less so these days, but very much so in the nineties). Is the episode replaying the old, unhelpful cliché that “all homophobes are repressed homosexuals”? I don’t think so. It certainly doesn’t underline or lean into that idea. As much as Maurice’s showtunes are driving the residents of Cicely crazy, he’s never mocked for the fact that he enjoys showtunes.

At a town meeting, angry Cicelians call for the reinstatement of Chris Stevens as radio presenter. Maurice isn’t having it. “One of our own, Chris Stevens, made a mistake,” he “did a bad thing” and “he had to pay for it.” What was that mistake? We get an answer, of sorts, when Maurice returns to the airwaves the next day and attempts to explain his recent behaviour. It’s a speech that causes the entire town to stop in its tracks, suggesting we should stop in our tracks too and take what Maurice is saying seriously.

Maurice recalls his devastation upon discovering, as a child, that his hero John Wayne didn’t do his own stunts. The gist of it is, Maurice doesn’t want his heroes to be humanized, to have their weaknesses exposed. “Sure, we’re all human,” but do we have to be reminded that our heroes are human too? Maurice is an advocate of the “Great Man” theory of history, the idea that the greatest achievements in human history were brought about by great men (and with his ego, he no doubt fancies himself one). Maurice wants his heroes to remain on their marble pedestals as untainted paragons of manly virtue. “We need our heroes. We need men we can look up to. Believe in. Men who walk tall.” Of course it doesn’t occur to Maurice, just as it doesn’t occur to most advocates of the “Great Man” conception of history, that those heroes could include women or minorities.

Maurice considers Walt Whitman a hero. Though “Walt Whitman was a pervert,” in Maurice’s bigoted view, “he was the best poet that America ever produced.” Maurice concedes that Whitman was, most likely, a homosexual. He’d just rather not know or be reminded of that. Because Maurice is a homophobic bigot who believes that homosexuality is a weakness, a character flaw that should be hidden from view, never to be acknowledged. But just because Maurice believes that “there are damn few of us who deserve to be called heroes” and that, despite his own bigotry, Whitman deserves the title of hero, doesn’t make Maurice less wrong or less of a bigot.

And yet, as the speech prompts Chris to go and apologise to Maurice, the episode seems to come down firmly on Maurice’s side of the argument. Not that there’s actually been an argument. No one in town has attempted to argue the opposite of Maurice’s position – that a knowledge of Whitman’s probable homosexuality does nothing to diminish him or his work. The implicit and unfortunate assumption in this episode is that it does diminish Whitman. That’s why we have Chris apologising to Maurice, saying that he also doesn’t want people reading Walt Whitman for “the wrong reasons.” What reasons are those, Chris? The only reason suggested in the episode comes from Ruth-Anne, when she tells Joel that all the Whitman has been taken out of the library as there’s “nothing like an interesting sex-life to get people reading.”

So, is Chris suggesting that he doesn’t want people reading Whitman because of his sexuality? Why not? Whitman’s “Calamus” poems meant a lot to me when I was younger, and I would never have discovered them had I not heard about Whitman’s sexuality and the poems’ reputation. I see in them a beautiful expression of the romantic feelings I then had for my ex-boyfriend, and I can’t read them now without getting misty-eyed. Like a lot of great poetry, the poems powerfully describe feelings of romantic/erotic longing, the distinction being that they clearly describe feelings of romantic/erotic longing between men. It isn’t “subtext.” You don’t have to “read between the lines.” It’s there, in the words on the page. Whitman’s sexuality informs his writing, even if his writing isn’t explicitly sexual.

Unfortunately, in the nineties there persisted this idea that homosexuality was something to be guarded against, lest it corrupt our children or our own imaginations when engaged in the intellectual enjoyment of nineteenth-century verse. Depending on where you are in the world, it’s an attitude that still persists or even prevails. And this episode of Northern Exposure appears to embody it.

For me, Whitman’s “Calamus” poems are a powerful reminder of a time in my life when I was young and happy and in love. But Chris appears to be suggesting that I’m reading Whitman wrong. Well… Fuck you Chris. There’s nothing wrong with highlighting the fact that Walt Whitman was likely gay or bi, or that a significant number of his poems appear to have been informed by his own homoerotic desire. It can do a lot of people – gay or bisexual people, for example – a lot of good to know that people who felt the way they do existed in the 19th century, and that they wrote beautiful verse you could share with a loved one.

It should be clear by now that, unlike Maurice, I don’t believe it’s a mistake to humanize our heroes. Knowing Mark Twain loves cats humanizes him. In no way does it diminish my love of Mark Twain (but then I’m a cat person, so I’m biased). Other than the very worst literary critics, who really wants to see the likes of Twain and Whitman reduced to cold, lifeless marble statues in the Pantheon of the American Literary Canon? It does us no harm, either, to learn the personal and political beliefs of our heroes, especially if we don’t want people thinking we share certain of those beliefs. Hero worship is problematic in general, but it’s impossible for us not to admire people, to have our own personal heroes. But as we grow and change over the course of our lives, we shouldn’t be afraid to update that list.

In the course of its run, Northern Exposure introduced a gay male couple; confirmed that its founders, Cicely and Roslyn, were a lesbian couple; and was the second US TV show to feature a gay wedding (the first being Roc [Fox, 1994-1994]). Northern Exposure was not only on the right side of history, it was consistently ahead of its time. If I’ve been especially hard on this episode, it’s because I know how far it falls short of the show’s future accomplishments.

2 notes · View notes

strange-goodfellows · 7 years

Text

A Sweet Friend: Power and Erotics in Doctor Faustus -- A Summary

So, let’s talk male-male relationships in this time, shall we? Hey y’all! I actually am getting around to this now! Now some disclaimers overall: I am an undergrad. I’m not like an expert in any way shape or form. This is just the conclusion I reached in a 9-12 page essay for a 10 week class on renaissance literature. Additionally I feel as though I may have misrepresented the amount of this paper that is explicitly about the use of the word “sweet.” It is an important part of my paper because it complicates the topic in a weird way. I am in no way done with this paper, it’s something I want to continue to research, refine my thesis, and eventually maybe get this shit published. But for now, I’ll talk about the stuff that I have done. Probably gonna put this under a cut because this could get aggressively long.

My main topic was to determine the power dynamic between Faustus and Mephistopheles through a lens of the erotic. We’d spent the whole term looking at how the Elizabethans were actually pretty into having power over others, thus the erotics of a young boy’s body on stage (there’s lots of shit with this). So I thought, well if we can identify erotic elements of a relationship based on the difference in power, we should be able to go the other way, and determine a power dynamic based on the erotic elements.

I started this paper going there is clearly something going on between Mephistopheles and Faustus, right?? Like surely there will be no shortage of scholarship identifying the homoerotic language in this play... RIGHT? Well as it turns out it was actually difficult to find scholarship on the erotics in this play specifically. Weird. So I had to turn to more general topics-- how do men show affection to each other normally in this period? By determining the norm, and attempting to quantify how the relationship between Mephistopheles and Faustus does or does not fit within it, I could study the queer qualities in their relationship, and hopefully from this I could determine who holds the power between the two of them.

So, let’s talk male-male relationships in this time, shall we? I relied heavily on the works of Alan Bray in this particular regard. He wrote an article titled “Homosexuality and the Signs of Male Friendship in Elizabethan England” in around 1990 that summarizes what he considers to be the normal relationship between two gentlemen of equal or very similar rank. An important detail: this relationship that I am about to summarize is not in fact queer because it was a perfectly normal relationship. That’s not to say they are not gay as hell (pun not intended). As we define relationships now, this absolutely would constitute a gay relationship so please don’t panic as I continue to use the term “gentleman’s friendship.” I am with you all. I just want to point out the weird intricacy of this relationship. It was not considered sodomy to the Elizabethans, and they didn’t have the identity concept of homosexuality we have. It doesn’t mean we are trying to erase the queer aspects in any way, it just means we need to deal with it slightly differently (one reason I put off writing this so long is I’m very afraid people will be like ‘you promised us gay code and now you’re just calling them friends’). That said, Bray outlines two very important features of a friendship between two gentlemen: an outwardly-directed physical relationship, and an inwardly-directed emotional bond.

Let’s break that shit down now. What do I mean when I say outwardly-directed physical aspects? Bray explains that these relationships included public displays of affection. Gentlemen could embrace in public, kiss in public, and in fact share a bed with each other. While the bed-sharing would not be public in itself (they weren’t like hey look watch us sleep!), people would make it very clear who they were sharing a bed with and people would know they were “bedfellows” (Bray 4). This public side of the relationship was incredibly important because these relationships between gentlemen of rank were often power plays in themselves. Everyone wants someone to cuddle and smooch, but at this point in time two gentlemen could essentially protect each other’s rank by showing their bond. Same concept as having powerful friends to my understanding. You have someone to call on if someone wrongs you, who will undoubtedly be on your side. Looking at the public aspects of this, it opens our options for finding examples of this relationship in Faustus a little bit more--rather than just looking for examples of them kissing or embracing (relatively scarce seeing as no stage direction like ever)-- we can look for examples of favors between them (literally everything that happens).

That said, there are some very real places that we do see evidence of Faustus and Mephistopheles sharing a bed. Take for example when Faustus and Mephistopheles visit Rome, Meph has this lovely little present for Faustus:

...and because we will not be unprovided, I have taken up His Holiness’ privy chamber for our use.

(3.1.843-845)

Now ok so a privy-chamber isn’t exactly a bedroom, though some privy chambers may in fact have had a bed, the intimacy of sharing that space remains. So is this in fact an implication that Faustus and Mephistopheles would share a bed there, perhaps even with the Pope (ok but a threesome with the Pope and a literal devil?? Marlowe buddy)? Another piece of evidence for Mephistopheles and Faustus sharing a bed is that right at the end of his life, Faustus confesses to some fellow scholars, crying to one:

Ah, my sweet chamber fellow! Had I lived with thee, then had I lived still, but now I die eternally!

(5.2.1390-1391)

So maybe Faustus and this scholar used to be close and share a bed, but they no longer do. Why? Most likely because Faustus has been bedding down with somebody else recently. Also note Faustus’ use of the word die there, because it has one of my favorite double meanings. “Die” was at this point very much a slang word for orgasm. Amazing Faustus super subtle bro. (I mean to be fair he likely means his actual impending damnation here, but also Marlowe most certainly chuckled as he wrote that shit, and it is still significant that elements of their relationship are coded as erotic).

And I’m not gonna get into the specific favors that I covered in my paper because this is already super long and I haven’t even touched sweetness yet. But idea being, go through the play if you’d like and note all the favors Mephistopheles does for Faustus. You can argue that Faustus “owns” Mephistopheles and thus Mephistopheles has to follow his orders, but I think the next section may complicate that understanding.

OK NOW WHAT MOST OF YOU ACTUALLY WANTED: “sweet.”

The source you should all start with for interest in the use of this word is Jeffrey Masten’s “Toward a Queer Address: The Taste of Letters and Early Modern Male Friendship.” It is incredibly interesting, and covers what Masten discovers to be “a rhetoric of sweetness between men” (Queer Address 370). First of all, what a fucking great way to put that. he examines the use of “sweet” between Valentine and Proteus and Hamlet and Horatio (”Goodnight, sweet prince” anyone? literally kill me it’s so good). So maybe it wasn’t “queer code” then because that relationship was normal but it sure as hell points to a queer relationship in modern view. Now looking at Faustus, this play is absolutely fucking littered with the word “sweet.”

Now the angle I used from this article was actually Masten’s examination of the etymology of “sweet” as coming from the word meaning “to persuade” and therefore its use in persuasion between men (think “my good sweet honey lord” Poins turning on that charm to get Hal to play along). But remember how I said the play is littered with sweetness? The thing that struck me when I was looking more into it is that I could not find one example of Mephistopheles addressing Faustus as sweet. Ever. Maybe I missed one but I don’t think I did. So in an equal relationship, Faustus and Mephistopheles ought to share this rhetoric equitably right? So what is up with this why does Faustus call Meph sweet all over the damn place and Meph never reciprocates?? Like honestly what a dick move Meph. This is where my thesis comes in (and I will reiterate, I’m not fully sold on this thesis myself) -- their relationship is not equal. The power truly rests in Mephistopheles’ hands; however, Mephistopheles is clever and knows he cannot let the proud Faustus realize this. So, Mephistopheles allows their relationship to become framed as a gentleman’s friendship in order to rhetorically dominate Faustus.

I ended up looking specifically at the situations in which Faustus uses “sweet” and it is most often at times when Mephistopheles has appeared unwilling to follow his order. Take for example when Faustus asks Mephistopheles to bring him a wife

Faustus. …let me have a wife, the fairest maid in Germany, for I am wanton and lascivious, and cannot live without a wife.

Mephastophilis. How? A wife! I prithee, Faustus, talk not of a wife.

Faustus. Nay, sweet Mephastophilis, fetch me one, for I will have one.

(2.1.587-592)

Mephistopheles immediately denies Faustus’ request, and this drives Faustus to flex his persuasive rhetoric with his use of “sweet Mephistophilis.”

Basically this is where my paper fell apart in my opinion. I don’t think my thesis is necessarily wrong, but it does not cover the intricacies of their relationship. I also am unsatisfied because I essentially draw the conclusion that Mephistopheles only ever is doing his job to drag Faustus to hell and never becomes really close to him, which I just don’t think is true. It bugs me to no end that Mephistopheles never uses the word “sweet” in reference to Faustus. So I’m still examining the text, looking for new sources, I may dip into the B-text a little bit sometime because I used only the A-text for this because it is the one more accepted as “accurate.”

I hope this interested some of you, I’ll include my whole bibliography that I used for this paper (lots of it was not covered in this summary, and also several things didn’t even make it into my paper because I hit 12 pages very fast). There were a couple more relationships I wanted to examine the erotics of, but I really only got to talk about 2 of them in my full paper.

Thanks for your interest though y’all! I’m very proud of this work, even though it has a very very long way to go and I’d be interested to hear thoughts on this one.

Bibliography:

Barrie, Robert. “Elizabethan Play-boys in the Adult London Companies”. Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 48.2 (2008): 237–257. Web.

Bray, Alan. "Homosexuality and the Signs of Male Friendship in Elizabethan England." History Workshop 29 (1990): 1-19. Web.

Cox, John D.. “Devils and Power in Marlowe and Shakespeare”. The Yearbook of English Studies 23 (1993): 46–64. Web.

"die, v.1." OED Online. Oxford University Press, March 2016. Web. 29 May 2016.

"familiar, n., adj., and adv." OED Online. Oxford University Press, March 2016. Web. 29 May 2016.

Goldberg, Jonathan. Sodometries: Renaissance Texts, Modern Sexualities. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992. Print.

Masten, Jeffrey. “Between Gentlemen: Homoeroticism, Collaboration, and the Discourse of Friendship.” Textual Intercourse: Collaboration, Authorship, and Sexualities in Renaissance Drama. Ed. Stephen Orgel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. 28-62. Print.

---. "Toward a Queer Address: The Taste of Letters and Early Modern Male Friendship." GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 10.3 (2004): 367-384. Project MUSE. Web. 29 May. 2016. <https://muse.jhu.edu/>.

"ravished, adj." OED Online. Oxford University Press, March 2016. Web. 29 May 2016.

Richmond, Velma Bourgeois. “Renaissance Sexuality and Marlowe’s Women.” Forum. 16.4 (1975): 36-44. Electronic.

Smith, Bruce R. Homosexual Desire in Shakespeare’s England: A Cultural Poetics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991. Print.

Stockholder, Kay. “‘Within the massy entrails of the earth’: Faustus’s Relation to Women.” “A Poet and a filthy Play-maker”: New Essays on Christopher Marlowe. Ed. Kenneth Friedenreich, Roma Gill, and Constance B. Kuriyama. New York: AMS Press, 1988. 203-219. Print.

Weil, Judith. “‘Full Possession’: Service and Slavery in Doctor Faustus.” Marlowe, History, and Sexuality: New Critical Essays on Christopher Marlowe. Ed. Paul Whitfield White. New York: AMS Press, 1998. 143-154. Print.

#Doctor Faustus #queer studies #elizabethan literature #christopher marlowe #my work #scholarship #long post #so horrendously long #this took me like 2 hours to write #the paper is stupid long #and this isn't even based on the full paper right now because my copy of my very full paper was not on my computer for some reason #this is based on the shortened version I did for the conference I went to

395 notes · View notes