An event which caused me to alter my weltanschauung was, shockingly, discovering slash fiction. I became metacognitive of internalized sexism and homophobia. Furthermore, slash caused me to question heteronormative ideals, and see how these ideals seeped into the judgemental attitudes of my peers and others in society. There is stigmatization surrounding the idea of being a slash fangirl. They are perceived by some as creepily fixated on same sex romance. Therefore, I was reluctant in admitting I enjoyed reading slash fiction. However, I came to realize that people interested in same sex relationships in fiction were maligned as being myopically concerned by sex. This ignores the fact that many slash fans are LGBT individuals who don’t want …show more content…
The issue with criticizing queer readings of older literature as far fetched is that homosexuality was taboo throughout much of history. Consequently, it is absurd to demand a plethora of explicit, undeniable evidence that characters in literature were intended to be queer. It demonstrates ignorance of the oppression LGBT people faced. What caused me to become aware of queer culture being hidden in plain sight was discovering the Johnlock Conspiracy. It is basically a loosely associated group of people online who theorized that the BBC adaptation of Sherlock was rife with queer undertones pointing to a romantic relationship between Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John Watson. My interest piqued, I read through the original stories by Arthur Conan Doyle, as well as literary analyses of it, and began to wonder if they were right. Months later, I read The Great Gatsby, where it is practically impossible to ignore Nick Carraway’s interest in men. It made me more aware of the tragedy of all these creative individuals, who were not permitted to freely express themselves. Who, in spite of being constricted by society, made unforgettable works of literature. Regardless of how often queer interpretations of media are mocked, it can’t be denied is that queer people have found solace in identifying with characters similar to
On November 22, 1963 President John F. Kennedy arrived in Dallas to a crowd of excited
From reading the first few lines of the book, Gender Outlaws: The Next Generation by Kate Bornstein, I was immediately hooked. I personally connected with the section “We are all somebody’s freak.” At first glance of the title, it implied something sexual to me. After reading the explanation I completely understood the concept. The concept is basically that we are all individuals, and somebody out there considers us to be a weirdo. In the same way I would consider somebody to be weird. It’s extremely eye opening because I never thought of that before. Also, within this section I learned that there is hate within the transgender, gay, and lesbian community. Initially, I was under the impression that all of that community would only be drawn
Their sexual objects are members of both sexes. Like homosexuality, bisexuality triggers negative social reactions; thus bisexuals are outcasts and socially isolated. Both homosexual and heterosexual communities are inimical to them, so bisexuals have to cope with ‘double marginality’ (Weinberg, Williams and Pryor 190). And it seems no great stretch to consider the androgyny and homoeroticism (or pan-eroticism) present in much recent vampire literature as evidence of Rice`s profound influence. (Leonard 1999). Emphasize on the homosexual theme, suppressed women not just in literature, but also in the current American standard of beauty. The most beautiful runway models (and vampires) have a combination of masculine and feminine characteristics.
The topic of homosexuality has always been one approached with caution due to its taboo nature derived from its deviation from the heterosexual norm. Traditionally, and across several cultures, homosexuality has been successfully discussed through normalizing the behaviour through heterosexual representation. Gender reversal or amplification of feminine qualities of male characters have often been means by which authors are able to subtly introduce the foreign idea of homosexuality and equate it to its more formal and accepted counterpart, heterosexuality. The works of Shakespeare and Li Yu have assisted in exposing homosexual relationships while still maintaining them under the heterosexual norm, whether it be through direct or metaphorical representations.
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. "Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading; Or, You're So Paranoid, You Probably Think This Introduction is About You." Novel Gazing: Queer Readings in Fiction. Ed. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. Durham: Duke UP, 1997. 1-37.
Those like Jekyll, however, who were of the upper classes and who harbored secret and socially forbidden desires, nonetheless had to control these desires in order to maintain an elite appearance. As Henrik Hansen notes, "A man was considered to be civilized if he was able to repress the animal instincts within him. . . and the Victorian elite could thus claim to be more civilized than the lower classes" (par. 2). The novel, then, can be perceived as a commentary not only on the distinctions between these sides of London but also on the hypocrisy of the upper-class men who struggled to conceal their homosexuality and who, in spite of whatever rhetoric they spoke among their class against the End End, sought to fulfill their lusts in areas like Soho and Regent Street - where their anonymity would be almost certainly secured.
In Great Britain, during the Victorian era, a new law named Labouchere Amendment was put into effect. This criminalizes homosexuality with a sentence of life imprisonment or death. This new law forces many people who are gay into hiding. Those in hiding would live double lives. Some are married to the opposite sex, others remain single throughout their livelihood; causing them to be heterosexual by day and a homosexual by night. Some like Oscar Wilde remain open about their sexuality. Which led Oscar to be imprisoned for 2 years of hard labor. Robert Louis Stevenson focused on this cultural issue in his novel The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, through figurative language. Through this Stevenson posits that if one hides one’s authentic
Slasher films have attracted feminist academic attention in recent years, most notably from theorist Carol J. Clover. Clover's groundbreaking article, "Her Body, Himself: Gender in the Slasher Film," was first published in 1987 and continues to influence feminist film critics today. With some success, these critical inquiries have recuperated the genre as one that might actually indicate shifting ideas about gender roles and female agency. Whedon nods both to the "slasher" as a subgenre and to feminist film theory in the Season 3 episode, "Helpless." In "Helpless," Whedon grafts the slasher scenario onto the Buffyverse but makes significant changes, based, I think, both on feminist responses to the genre and also on his own understanding of the show's audience demographics. Though Whedon puts his title character on a continuum with the slasher's female but "boyish" victim-heroes, Buffy b...
The overall purpose of Carol Clover’s essay “Her Body, Himself: Gender in the Slasher Film” is to illustrate the repetitive, predictable aspect that Slasher
Within the novel, however, the word "homosexual" is never used. If it were, perhaps, then such a homoerotic interpretation as this would be redundant. There are, however, certain, rather ambiguous, words that Stevenson uses that have Victorian homosexual connotations.
“...[T]he same offence be from henceforth ajudged Felony,” said the Buggery Act of 1533. The offence, of course, was gay sex. It has never been easy to be a man who desires other men. In England, the punishment for sodomy was being hanged. Because of this, English authors frequently resorted to using subtext and coded language to explore homosexual relations in their country. This was especially true in the 19th century, a time of rapidly changing social mores and ideas about gender and relationships. It was a time when sex (of any sort) was not discussed in public, and women were supposed to remain at home. It was also a time when rapid industrialization meant more young men in the cities than ever before: it was both easier to meet other gay men and easier to feel immense guilt about being one. In Dr Jekyll
The 1990s saw surge of gay characters in both television and movies. From Ellen Degeneres and her character Ellen Morgan coming out under much scrutiny on the TV show ‘Ellen,’ to Julia Roberts and Rupert Everett comedically playing off each other in the motion picture ‘My Best Friend’s Wedding.’ Sure, gays and lesbians have been around forever, especially in Hollywood. But never has there been a time to be more out. With the popularity of shows like Will and Grace, which feature leading gay characters, as well as Dawson’s Creek and it’s supporting character of teenager Jack McPhee, we are slowly seeing gay and lesbian characters creeping into the mainstream media.
Even after its publication in 1813 Jane’s Austen’s romantic and wonderfully written masterpiece, Pride and Prejudice, remains an absolute joy to read for thousands and thousands of readers across the globe. The 19th century novel enchants the youngest of readers to the wisest of souls. Many individuals all over the world, very much like us as university students here at Villanova, are quite intrigued by the amazingly created characters, impressively dynamic portrayal of an oppressively class-bound culture, and the vitality of a strong woman at the center of the novel. Jane Austen presents the reader with the most tantalizing and illustrious opening sentence, which enamors the reader and never lets go. "It is a truth universally acknowledged,
In the face of a homophobic society we need creative and critical processes that draw out the complexity of lesbian lives and same sex choices, not a retreat into the comforting myths of heroines and unfractured, impeachable identities
Upon being assigned to write a film review for Joe Wright’s 2005 instant classic Pride and Prejudice, for a “Writing by Women” course my pulse quickened and my pupils dilated. This physiological reaction to the task before me was not founded in the same excitement that had the dozen or so young women in my class squealing and clapping with giddy approval. Rather it stemmed from a much more primal instinct—FEAR! A fear that was quickly confirmed; for, while my amygdila was still wrestling with indecision between fight or flight my fellow students had one by one shot their murderous glances, each like a pair of warning shots fired over my bow. I was under attack! My foe, the not-to-be-crossed cult-like Austen fan club sitting across the room warning me not to disrespect the text that braver men then I have glibly labeled “a girl’s guide on how to get a man in the 18th century” but which, they cherished on par with scripture! As I teetered on the precipice of my own demise in fear of my life the thought struck me, “why do they judge me so?” For, I had not yet voiced one iota of criticism of Austen’s classic. Yet I had somehow become the enemy; a Mr. Darcy of sorts to a room full of Elizabeth wannabes.