Q: A number of your gay or bisexual male characters (Felix and Gideon in The Doctrine of Labyrinths, Isolfr in A Companion to Wolves) have Issues about anal sex. They fear being penetrated or refuse it entirely, and in the case of Isolfr, even after he supposedly gets over his fear we learn that he avoids sex with his two wolfcarls.
The depiction of anal sex (especially between men) in fiction is something I've been thinking a lot about since I read China Mieville's interview in the March 2008 issues of Weird Tales. Mieville argues that anal sex tends to be represented as violent, depraved, and even as a sign of evil. I'm wondering what you think about this question and why you've made the choices you made about how you portray anal sex between men.
A: I have not read the Mieville interview, so I can't comment, aside from wondering what he's been reading lately. But to answer your question:
Point 1: Isolfr is neither gay nor bisexual. He's straight.
Point 2: Felix's hang-ups aren't about anal sex per se. They're about control, and his experience has been that if he's the one on the receiving end, he's generally NOT in control. Frequently, in fact, he's in a nonconsensual situation of one kind or another. And I think fearing and/or rejecting nonconsensual situations is actually pretty psychologically healthy. (Notice that in The Mirador, he has no problems letting Isaac Garamond fuck him. That's because he (Felix) is in control of the encounter.)
Gideon's issues come from the culture he was raised in--as so many of everybody's issues do--in which the question of "submitting" to anal penetration is inextricably entangled with questions of power (both magical and otherwise) and abuse.
I think the representations of anal sex in my work need to be considered in the broader context of representations of sex in my work--which mostly is fraught and contentious and uncomfortable, one way or another. Mildmay, you'll notice, has his share of hang ups about sex. I use sex, very often, as a way to talk about power: the power imbalances and power dynamics between two people and what that says about them and their backgrounds and all sorts of other things.
This question arose twice, in two different conversations, so I figured I should, you know, answer it.
What is revenge tragedy?
Revenge tragedy is a genre of plays that flourished in England between about, say, 1580 and 1642. The prototype of the genre is Thomas Kyd's The Spanish Tragedy (ca. 1582). Revenge tragedy is characterized by its Senecan aesthetic (blood and rhetoric, with or without love), its metatheatricality (self-awareness, and the tendency to comment on itself as theater: revenge tragedies love plays-within-plays, like Hamlet's Mousetrap) and by a plot arc which may or may not be followed, but which is always palpably present. There has been a wrongful death, which the law cannot or will not redress (e.g., Claudius kills the elder Hamlet, but since he promptly becomes king, nobody's going to prosecute). The revenger, who loves the victim (whether in a parent-child or sibling relationship or as a lover), sets out to GET REVENGE on the murderer. There is a lot of what we now call collateral damage. (In Hamlet, for example, Hamlet kills Polonius, which causes Ophelia's madness and death; Rosencrantz and Guildenstern get caught in the machinations between Hamlet and Claudius; Gertrude drinks the poison Claudius means for Hamlet; Hamlet kills Laertes and is himself poisioned. Notice that Claudius, his target, is the last person killed.) The stage ends up strewn with corpses--and that's frequently a literal description. The revenger inevitably ends up mirroring his antagonist, becoming every bit as bad. Answering murder with murder merely causes more murder, like a contagious disease (disease and corruption imagery is everywhere in revenge tragedy, as is madness: Hieronimo in The Spanish Tragedy goes mad--Hamlet fakes madness--the B-plot of The Changeling is set in a madhouse--in The Revengers Tragedy, the characters remark that there's no way to tell if they've gone mad, because the world they live in is insane). Murder doesn't solve anything and creates more injustice than it ostensibly corrects. The Spanish proverb is, He who seeks revenge must first dig two graves, but in the English Renaissance, you needed a bigger grave than that.
As I said to
jonquil, I wrote my dissertation on revenge tragedies because I love them. So if you have questions or things you want to talk about, the comment thread of this post seems like an excellent place. (Caveat: if it looks like you're trying to get me to do your homework for you, I'm unlikely to give you a useful answer.)
The depiction of anal sex (especially between men) in fiction is something I've been thinking a lot about since I read China Mieville's interview in the March 2008 issues of Weird Tales. Mieville argues that anal sex tends to be represented as violent, depraved, and even as a sign of evil. I'm wondering what you think about this question and why you've made the choices you made about how you portray anal sex between men.
A: I have not read the Mieville interview, so I can't comment, aside from wondering what he's been reading lately. But to answer your question:
Point 1: Isolfr is neither gay nor bisexual. He's straight.
Point 2: Felix's hang-ups aren't about anal sex per se. They're about control, and his experience has been that if he's the one on the receiving end, he's generally NOT in control. Frequently, in fact, he's in a nonconsensual situation of one kind or another. And I think fearing and/or rejecting nonconsensual situations is actually pretty psychologically healthy. (Notice that in The Mirador, he has no problems letting Isaac Garamond fuck him. That's because he (Felix) is in control of the encounter.)
Gideon's issues come from the culture he was raised in--as so many of everybody's issues do--in which the question of "submitting" to anal penetration is inextricably entangled with questions of power (both magical and otherwise) and abuse.
I think the representations of anal sex in my work need to be considered in the broader context of representations of sex in my work--which mostly is fraught and contentious and uncomfortable, one way or another. Mildmay, you'll notice, has his share of hang ups about sex. I use sex, very often, as a way to talk about power: the power imbalances and power dynamics between two people and what that says about them and their backgrounds and all sorts of other things.
This question arose twice, in two different conversations, so I figured I should, you know, answer it.
What is revenge tragedy?
Revenge tragedy is a genre of plays that flourished in England between about, say, 1580 and 1642. The prototype of the genre is Thomas Kyd's The Spanish Tragedy (ca. 1582). Revenge tragedy is characterized by its Senecan aesthetic (blood and rhetoric, with or without love), its metatheatricality (self-awareness, and the tendency to comment on itself as theater: revenge tragedies love plays-within-plays, like Hamlet's Mousetrap) and by a plot arc which may or may not be followed, but which is always palpably present. There has been a wrongful death, which the law cannot or will not redress (e.g., Claudius kills the elder Hamlet, but since he promptly becomes king, nobody's going to prosecute). The revenger, who loves the victim (whether in a parent-child or sibling relationship or as a lover), sets out to GET REVENGE on the murderer. There is a lot of what we now call collateral damage. (In Hamlet, for example, Hamlet kills Polonius, which causes Ophelia's madness and death; Rosencrantz and Guildenstern get caught in the machinations between Hamlet and Claudius; Gertrude drinks the poison Claudius means for Hamlet; Hamlet kills Laertes and is himself poisioned. Notice that Claudius, his target, is the last person killed.) The stage ends up strewn with corpses--and that's frequently a literal description. The revenger inevitably ends up mirroring his antagonist, becoming every bit as bad. Answering murder with murder merely causes more murder, like a contagious disease (disease and corruption imagery is everywhere in revenge tragedy, as is madness: Hieronimo in The Spanish Tragedy goes mad--Hamlet fakes madness--the B-plot of The Changeling is set in a madhouse--in The Revengers Tragedy, the characters remark that there's no way to tell if they've gone mad, because the world they live in is insane). Murder doesn't solve anything and creates more injustice than it ostensibly corrects. The Spanish proverb is, He who seeks revenge must first dig two graves, but in the English Renaissance, you needed a bigger grave than that.
As I said to
no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 04:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 05:03 pm (UTC)Also, not set in outer space. Set in a very dystopian England after some unnamed catastrophe.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 07:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 05:00 pm (UTC)Do revenge seeking characters think that revenge will make something better? Is the tragedy part the collateral damage or the ultimate futility of revenge as an achievement, or are there revenge tragedies where the revenger is happy or satisfied? Why do they like to comment on metatheatricality more than other types of tragedy?
no subject
Date: 2008-09-07 02:02 pm (UTC)The tragedy of revenge tragedy is that revenge doesn't work (for whatever value of "work" once could possibly imagine revenge could have). Once the revenger has made that decision, he has doomed himself and everyone around him. And thus the play works by putting its protagonist into a situation where the only option he can see is the worst possible choice.
Metatheatricality (we should note) is also a feature of Renaissance comedy. Think of the epilogues to As You Like It and A Midsummer Night's Dream. And other tragedies often have metatheatrical moments, like the Porter's speech in Macbeth. I think that in part it's simply a result of the conditions of production: you have this outdoor theater, you're playing in broad daylight, much of your audience is standing, and you're competing with orange sellers and prostitutes and pickpockets . . . the modern theater-going experience, where the lights go down and everyone (pace a screaming baby or two) is quiet and attentive, makes the suspension of disbelief a lot easier to maintain. Renaissance theater had to make a virtue out of necessity and CALL ATTENTION TO ITSELF. Revenge tragedy, in particular, is very LOUD. The Spanish Tragedy was popularly known as Hieronimo Is Mad Again, referring both to Kyd's earlier play (which, no, there is no particular reason to seek out: The Spanish Tragedy makes perfect sense on its own and you're really not missing much) and to the reason that The Spanish Tragedy was so popular, which is the scenes of Hieronimo running mad.
Someone could probably do some very interesting work about the evolution of tragedy through the second half of the sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth centuries, because I think they'd find that the spectacle and the bombast gradually got less and less as both playwrights and audiences learned how to tell, and how to watch, more subtle plays. (The Red Bull, to the north of London, was known in the seventeenth century for continuing to put on the blood and thunder tragedies, so if you didn't WANT Othello or Coriolanus, you could go there and watch Tamburlane instead.)
Also, I think it's relevant that revenge tragedy has a distinct and recognizable form, with characters and tropes you can expect to encounter. So it's easy--and fun!--for Jacobean and Caroline playwrights to talk to their Elizabethan forebears, to use and transform and subvert the genre. So for example, the revenger in The Changeling spends the entire play a step behind the fair and never gets to exact revenge at all.
---
Hamlet doesn't have a tragic flaw. He has an impossible situation.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 05:06 pm (UTC)Why Seneca? Why do those plays suddenly resonate in the period? What's the enormous demand? Obviously, this is psychologizing and thus unreliable. But I would argue that the fad for vampirism of the last decade and a half has a lot to do with sex/death wrapped up together. (Buffy is fabulous, and I love it, but it is only partially a cause; it's not as simple as 'copying Buffy'.) Vampires are Important somehow, they say something satisfying, like Women With A Secret did to the late Victorians (viz. Lady Audley's Secret, Can You Forgive Her?) So why revenge tragedies to the Jacobeans? Reaction to the bloodiness of Tudor politics?
P.S. I solemnly swear that I am up to no paper.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 05:16 pm (UTC)I'd been wondering that myself with more recent things, like why the big boom in fantasy in the last 5-10 years, or why the big boom in horror in the 1970's? People often attribute it to a commercially successful phenomenon, like Buffy or Harry Potter, but something must be ready in the public consciousness for the spark to catch.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-07 02:36 pm (UTC)So we've got a new form on our hands: secular theater. And we're trying to figure out what to do with it in such a way that it will provide us a living wage, or at least close enough to scrape by on. Which means, since plays have no cultural cachet, they had damn well better be entertaining. Comedy does this with slapstick farce, with satire, and, yes, with a lot of cribbing from Plautus. Tragedy does it with spectacle and ranting speeches (that's what the actor Richard Burbage was famous for) and blood. Lots of blood. Remember also that at this time, executions were public entertainment, and while Tudor politics were bloody, they weren't nearly as bloody as Plantaganet politics. So I'm not sure that we can say there's some sudden upswelling of demand for carnage and macabre deaths. (Where I think you do see a reflection of contemporary politics is in the obsession with kingship: what makes a good king? what happens if you have a bad king? what happens when your good king gets old? who has the right to say to a king 'you are a bad king'? etc. etc.)
I think, actually, an equally, if not more, interesting question is why at the Restoration (after that horrible 16 year gap, thank you so fucking much Oliver), tragedy suddenly fell out of favor and didn't make a comeback for another three hundred years.
(Vampirism has been a fad for more than a decade and a half. Interview with the Vampire was published in 1976. And the late Victorians also had a thing for vampires every bit as intense as the current fad.
[/nitpick])
(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-09-07 03:23 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 05:31 pm (UTC)2. The Changeling: Would be totally awesome remade as a 1940s creepy psychological revisionist film noir a la Chinatown: y/n?
no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 07:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-07 02:09 pm (UTC)It's a personal and highly subjective reaction, and I apologize if it's one of your favorite plays.
2. Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 08:24 pm (UTC)What do you think of John Marston?
What do you think the "flaming gold" is in Women Beware Women? "X throws flaming gold on Y" seems up there in the pantheon of bizarre stage directions.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-07 03:35 pm (UTC)2. I have NO IDEA.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 08:33 pm (UTC)China Mieville, incidentally, bases his comments on Dan Simmons's The Terror and Mary Doria Russell's The Sparrow. The interview is due to appear on the Weird Tales website but wasn't up there the last time I checked; if you're curious, I transcribed the relevant portion of it here (http://kindkit.livejournal.com/274254.html).
no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 08:47 pm (UTC)As another reader, I don't find the gay sex is presented as more fraught than the straight for the reason that I see Felix responding as an abuse survivour, not solely as a gay man. His sexuality has nothing to do with his response, as far as I'm concerned. Because of the lasting damage from the abuse Malkar inflicted upon Felix, anything emulating that abuse--and being put in/expected to take a submissive position is enough--evokes the emotions from the abuse and triggers a panic reaction. Hence, Felix has control issues.
I think Felix would have these control issues regardless of if he was female, or if he prefered women and had been abused by a woman, based on what I've heard from real life sexual abuse survivours (which includes myself).
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:spoilers for The Sparrow & its sequel
Date: 2008-09-07 02:56 pm (UTC)He's not saying that's how anal sex tends to be represented across the board, or even in sffh. He's saying that texts with particular issues about homosexuality represent anal sex that way.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 09:11 pm (UTC)2) Why the switch to the giant font?
no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 10:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-07 01:49 am (UTC)New Format
From:no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 09:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-07 03:49 pm (UTC)I think it is his father's ghost. I also think that the ghost failed its Good Christian roll and that in fact, Hamlet is asking the wrong question. It's not whether or not the ghost is actually his father; it's whether what his father is asking him to do is right or wrong.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-07 10:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-08 12:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-08 04:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-08 02:16 pm (UTC)Hamlet and The Revengers Tragedy between them give you a pretty good sense of the genre, at least as a first approximation. (I haven't read either the Robbins or that particular Kushner, so I can't comment on your analogy.)
no subject
Date: 2008-09-09 04:13 am (UTC)I might say the dissertation is extremely interesting reading, also. :)