I'm awash in work and related activity as school starts up again, so posting will be a bit light for the next few days. But I wanted to point to a couple of fascinating articles, to recommend some excellent reading, and to recommend avoiding some less than excellent reading.

If you are interested in the knotty constitutional questions raised by the juvenile death penalty, check out Adam Liptak's piece in the New York Times. And if you are interested in the knotty historical problems raised by Abraham Lincoln's multiple love affairs with men, check out Gore Vidal's essay in the current Vanity Fair. If you are a fan of Twain's classic, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, check out Stephen Railton's site on the novel's back story, publication history, and so on. Don't miss the bit about how a naughty-minded illustrator wrought havoc on the first edition when he pornographically altered a drawing in chapter 32.

If you are looking for some fine fiction, I must recommend Don DeLillo's Underworld, an epic examination of Cold War American culture--its obsessions, its paranoias, its sensibilities, dreams, desires, and obliviousnesses--whose studied hyper-timeliness (it was published in 1997) already exudes a strangely dated quality: As monuments to American urban modernity, the Twin Towers are minor characters in DeLillo's novel, appearing to characters studying the New York skyline from various vantage points; the novel knows nothing about the Middle East, so concerned is it with the U.S.' actual and imagined struggle with the Soviet Union for the half century after World War II. In this regard, Underworld--whose chief concern is to think about how we think about, or don't think about, threat--is as prescient of what is to come as it is unaware of it. A fascinating and gorgeous read in its own right, and a genuinely intriguing historical document.

Avoidable: Tom Wolfe's I am Charlotte Simmons, which I am sorry to say does deserve the bad reviews it got. Wolfe may be a master sociologist of American microcultures, but academe is one microculture whose inner workings he badly bungled.

Not worth the hardback price, but interesting reading if you like to read flawed experiments by great writers: Philip Roth's The Plot Against America. The paranoid plot of a Lindbergh win in 1940, followed by a Hitleresque conversion of the U.S. into a quasi-fascist, anti-Semitic state, following by blissfully quick recovery when Lindbergh's plane disappears and FDR resumes office, just does not work. What does work--and what has been overlooked by reviewers interested in reading the novel as a thinly veiled allegory for our recent presidential elections--is Roth's attempt to write a memoir by way of a paranoid fable. The family in the novel is his; the renderings of detail and character are, by Roth's own account, accurate and true. The best parts of The Plot Against America are the domestic ones, the ones centered on capturing the nostalgically remembered feel of a particular family, living in a particular moment in time, from the vantage point of an old man recollecting himself as a young boy. Like John Steinbeck, who recorded his family's history in the form of a potboiler--East of Eden--Roth is writing autobiography by other means. From that angle, the novel may not exactly work, but it definitely grabs you, makes you think, won't let you go.

UPDATE: Philip Nobile calls the theory that Lincoln was gay a "hoax" and a "fraud." Thanks to Jerry Sternstein for the link.

That Huck Finn site sounds interesting. The relationship between illustrations and novels is a thorny one. There's a good article out there by Stephen Raynie on illustrations for Samuel Richardson's 1740 Pamela that portray the title character in a manner that runs counter to the author's intentions.

(Raynie, Stephen A. "Hayman and Gravelotís Anti-Pamela Designs for Richardsonís Octavo Edition of Pamela I and II." Eighteenth-Century Life 23, no. 3 (November 1999): 77-93.)

To pick up on an earlier thread re: comics; this is further support for why some degree of critical thinking about visual culture needs to be taught.

I was also disappointed in "Charlotte Simmons," which I didn't think was anywhere near as gripping as "A Man In Full" or most of Wolfe's essays. There have been several recent reviews, though, that interpret the book as more "about" the philosphical issues of of consciousness and free will rather than purely a description of a subculture and its denizens. When/if you get time, I'd be really interested in a more expanded version of your thoughts on "Charlotte."

Avoidable: Tom Wolfe's I am Charlotte Simmons, which I am sorry to say does deserve the bad reviews it got. Wolfe may be a master sociologist of American microcultures, but academe is one microculture whose inner workings he badly bungled.

I'm with David -- this really merits a separate post when you get the chance.

I'm still not buying the whole gay Lincoln thing.

I'm bored with all things gay. It's been an obsession among eggheads for my entire life. The indoctrination was already going full steam when I arrived at the University of Illinois in 1967. Why does everybody keep pretending that this obsession with all things gay is new and interesting?

It's a bore.

I suggest a 50 year moratorium on any discussion of how fashionable it is to be gay. It isn't. It's dull as hell.

Yeah Stephen, I know what you mean. Everywhere you turn, it's gay pop stars getting married in Vegas and divorced the next week. It's gay politicians in gay sex scandals. It's Hollywood films with loads of gratuitous gay sex, and gay sit-coms with fat gay men loved by their gorgeous gay wives. It's gay politicians telling straight people that they can't get married. It's gay bosses sexually harrassing their gay employees. It's gay artists writing yet another tired thriller/mystery/spy novel about a gay protagonist facing some dilemma while freaking some young gay love interest wild. It's loud-mouthed gay radio hosts talking about being gay all the time, bringing in gay porn stars and gay midgets. It's gay pundits on cable news programs shouting loudly about their narrow interests. It's gay governors being criticized for playing grab ass all the time. It's gay soldiers in gay prison torture scandals.

For the love of God, major newspaper obituaries didn't even *mention* that Susan Sontag had a female partner!

Luther - I guess that about sums it up, doesn't it? So what's to be the next fadish perversion? Group/poly? Perhaps, they're already gearing up to draft through behind the gay agenda. Bestiality? I don't think so, unless PETA changes course a bit.

"M": Yes, you're right, being gay is nothing more than a "fadish perversion." Socrates, Walt Whitman, Aaron Copeland, Oscar Wilde, Djuna Barnes, Gertrude Stein, Susan Sontag: what a bunch of posers!

And why call it "the gay agenda," as if civil rights were some sort of conspiracy? Why not "the Christ-fascist agenda"?

To paraphrase John Goodman in *The Big Lebowski*: ". . .5000 years of noble history, from Sappho to Langston Hughes . . ."

Greetings Erin,
I enjoyed Underworld. It may be the one DeLillo work I actually enjoyed. I thought the opening chapter was worth the price of admission.

As to Roth, it was not his best piece of work to be sure but, but medium Roth is better than most. I agree that when he goes off on the internal family dynamic he is at his best. I didn't spend too much time concerning myself with any potential parables to the contemporary scene, I just enjoyed the ride.

Just for fun, I read the Vidal essay. It is fatally flawed from its first paragraph. He's infatuated with Kinsey's purported sex research.

Unfortunately, Kinsey was long ago exposed as a fraud. To say that seems to only provoke a discussion of whether or not it's OK to be gay, or bisexual, or perverted. That's not the issue. Kinsey's research methodology was a shambles. Kinsey was desparately trying to rationalize and understand his own sexual behavior. He, like the gay activists of today, was obsessed with strong arming people into publicly approving of his sexual behavior. He wasn't a researcher. He was a shill.

So, Vidal's essay is a botch. Vidal, likewise, seems obsessed with public approval of his sexual behavior, as if public approval would allow him to have a satisfying sex life.

I'm going to propose a stunning theory. Public approval of one's sexual behavior is not the cornerstone of building a satisfying sex life. Gay men flock to San Francisco and NYC for the orgies and sex clubs, and then complain that the narrow minded folks back home in Nebraska persecuted them for their sexuality.

I was born less than 50 miles from tbe Great Emancipator's childhood home in Illinois. In the tiny farm town of 5,000 people into which I was born, heterosexual people do not attend orgies and sex clubs. Almost ever one is married and monogamous. Those heterosexuals who do engage in orgies and attend sex clubs are likely to be pilloried and driven out of town. To assert that a similar prohibition against homosexuals is a form of intolerance is absurd. Vidal is something of an idiot.

I don't give a damn whether Abe was gay, don't want to know, and I don't think knowing would tell us much if anything about him.

And Luther, please try to understand what I'm saying, whether you are hetero or gay.

A happy sex life is not the result of public policy or public approval. I'll tell you a secret. Those who have a happy sex life keep it quiet, because publicly proclaiming your happiness nets you an avalanche of jealousy and hatred. People do not like to hear that you have something that they ain't got. If they do hear, they will set about destroying you. Jealousy is by far the strongest human emotion.

The key to a happy sex life is two people who work hard in private to make it happen. And one of the most important characteristics for making it work is not giving a damn what other people think of your happiness.

Stephen -- I don't think gay activism is about "having a happy sex life." It's about discrimination, violence, tolerance, and promoting pride and visibility. Nor do I think that most -- or even many -- gay folk are into orgies and sex clubs. That sounds like some terrible stereotype from the disco era. Nor do I buy the "everyone in the Heartland is married and monogamous." Why would the red states lead the nation in divorce if everyone is hetero and happy?

I agree that a gay Lincoln doesn't change much about the man as a historical figure. But I understand the desire to locate traces of homosexuality in history. If I were part of a group whose history has been systematically repressed and destroyed and ignored and ridiculed, I too would be interested in recovering lost bits of that history.

Luther, you seem to assume that I am speaking from a position in life that is not me. I've lived for 35 years in San Francisco and NYC. My closest friend of the past 20 years is a gay man who is struggling to survive with AIDS. You might be surprised to know that his major political concern in this life is men's issues... divorce, child custody and the hysteria surrounding domestic violence.

I disagree with your suggestion that sexual promiscuity is not characteristic of gay men. It is. I say this from years of observation. The scientific evidence also supports this. The average gay man has many hundreds of sex partners in his life. I watched an entire generation of gay men wipe themselves out as a result of their sexual behavior. I am not speaking as a homophobe. I'm not even suggesting that I disapprove of their behavior. People have a right to do what they want to do. I even believe that attending orgies and sex clubs can be a positive experience for some people. But, I will not pretend that that behavior does not exist or that it does not have consequences. It's still going on.

I didn't say that everybody in the heartland is monogamous and married. The high rate of failure in marriage among heteros is indeed something to be alarmed about.

The myth of supposed discrimation, violence, etc. is just that. In my friendships with literally hundreds, if not thousands, of gay men in San Francisco and NYC, not one has ever related an actual experience with this purported discrimination, violence, etc. If such discrimination and violence were a reality, I would have been hearing about it. It's a myth, Luther. Gay activists made it up. Really, they did. They just plain made it up. Now, try to remember, Luther, that I've lived my life right in the middle of the largest gay communities in America. I don't hate gays. I work in the graphic design business... a business dominated by gay men.

And, I do believe that the real issue is how to achieve a happy sex life. If you are going to wait around for the world to change to make this happen, you are going to be waiting for a very long time. There is absolutely nothing going on in the U.S. that would prevent any gay person from having a happy sex life. It's entirely a matter of the personal choices that person makes. Now, Luther, please try to remind yourself of who I really am and where I really live before you pretend in your reply that I am a redneck homophobe living out in the middle of the stix.

Stephen -- No one implied that you were a hillbilly or homophobe.

As far as discrimination, hate crimes, etc. go, I'm not sure if Frisco or NYC are good sources for data. You'd have to be an idiot to try to physically or verbally intimidate a gay person in either city. It's more in places like New Jersey -- close to metropolitan centers, but still relatively provincial. New Jersey, where a 15 year old girl was stabbed by homophobes who tried to pick her up. She told them to get lost and that she and her friends were gay; the men stabbed her.

I have a hard time believing that discrimination and intimidation against gay folk is a fiction produced by gay activists. I've met only one gay activist in my life. But attending and working at an Ivy League University, I've been harassed several timesby frat boys and other drunken troglodytes when walking with male friends through campus at night -- and I'm straight! But your anecdotal evidence and my anecdotal evidence doesn't amount to a hill of beans. I've never met a black man who was lynched; doesn't mean no black men have been or will be lynched. I've never met a woman who was raped (or who admitted to it); that doesn't mean rape is a fiction made up by feminists.

Luther,

Thanks very much for your kind reply.

It's certainly true that some gays have suffered discrimination, harassment and violence, and that some women have been raped. So have some straights and some men. What I'm telling you is that advocacy groups always exaggerate and focus only on the insults to their group. In the aftermath of the civil rights movement, everybody wanted to compare their plight to that of blacks in the Jim Crow south. The modern feminist movement started with Betty Friedan's pronouncement that being a housewife was the same as being a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp. Friedan, unfortunately, lied about having ever played the role of a housewife. She was a professional communist labor organizer, funded by her wealthy publisher husband, and she had a maid.

The issue really is how much and how often. I spend considerable time riding my Harley in suburban and rural New Jersey, and I can assure you that gays live comfortably throughout the state. I grew up in a tiny town in central Illinois. I was friends (and this is in the 1950s) with the two obviously gay boys in town. Nobody harassed or hurt them. In fact, the boys in that town had a fairly protective attitude toward them. In the 1980s, thousands of gay men returned home to the small town midwest to die of AIDS. I know this because my mother is an LPN and she treated many of them. One of them was my brother-in-law's brother. The reaction of the small town midwest to this catastrophe was very compassionate. Once midwesterners realized that gays were their kids, all bets were off.

It is much more common for a white man to be attacked and murdered by a gang of black men than vice versa. I'm not suggesting that this should be addressed by some sort of political movement, but perhaps you can understand what I mean. Every advocacy group tries its best to create the impression that its members live under seige.

When I say that there is no campaign of violence and discrimination against gays, I don't mean that there are no isolated incidences of such occurrences. What I am saying is that the advocacy groups are lying when they say that such things are common, organized or of much consequence in the lives of the vast majority of gays. I certainly think that it is awful when people attack or rape another person out of racial or sexual hatred. It's simply quite rare.

Steve,

I am gay and I also grew up in a small midwestern town. I have lived in several large cities on the East Coast including NYC, Baltimore, DC and Boston as well as in small towns outside those cities. I also had contracts in the red states. I have had no problem with my gayness over the years.

What bothers me about people like Luther is that they operate on the basis of "I am gay so you have to rent me that apartment" or "I am gay so you have to give me that job" instead of operating on the basis of being a good tenant or the right person to fill the job. They do not seem to realize that you have to earn your privileges. You already have your rights. There is a difference.

My experience with the people of this country is that they pretty much let you do whatever you want as long as you don't scare the horses. What you do is your own business. If you want to make a display of yourself and then cry because people don't treat you the way you want, that is your own fault.

Stephen and dick both raise a lot of good points. If one wishes to get along peacefully and quietly in life, keeping a low profile will help. If one wishes to attempt to change societal perceptions so as to create affirmation of a lifestyle, one is going to make waves and there will be some backlash. In addition, flamboyance is generally not well regarded by many in the mainstream (and a small contingent of idiots with a caveman mentality will focus some of their negative attention on the flamboyant).