Greetings Economists,
On Jul 17, 2009, at 6:31 PM, raghu wrote:
Homosexual ethics and esthetics are staging a vengeful, derisive
counterattack on what deviates call the "straight" world. This is
evident in "pop," which insists on reducing art to the trivial, and
in the "camp" movement, which pretends that the ugly and banal are
fun. It is evident among writers, who used to disguise homosexual
stories in heterosexual dress but now delight in explicit
descriptions of male intercourse and orgiastic nightmares. It is
evident in the theater, with many a play dedicated to the
degradation of women and the derision of normal sex. The most
sophisticated theatrical joke is now built around a homosexual
situation; shock comes not from sex but from perversion. Attacks on
women or society in general are neither new in U.S. writing nor
necessarily homosexual, but they do offer a special opportunity for
a consciously or unconsciously homosexual outlook. They represent a
kind of inverted romance, since homosexual situations as such can
never be made romantic for normal audiences.
Doyle;
What do you know about homosexuality? I don't mean this to sound
accusative. Rather how do you parse these two articles? What do you
mean repeats arguments from the sixties and why?
Thanks,
Doyle Saylor
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
