Bret Easton Ellis: Towards a Non-Magical, Non-Elvish Gay Life

Bret Easton Ellis 

Photo: Iris Schneider for The Washington Post 

According to the American novelist Bret Easton Ellis, the liberal insistence on sanctifying homosexuality is a kind of inverted homophobia, which results, ironically, in a new form of victimisation that transforms complex human beings into little more than fairy tale characters (Gay Magical Elves). The heteronormative majority cheer every time another man or woman in the public eye dares to come out and appear before them as some kind of saintly figure whose primary purpose is to remind them of their own virtues as a people: Look at us! So tolerant, so loving, so inclusive! 

This desire to embrace and celebrate every queer individual on the LGBT spectrum, is not only patronising in and of itself, but it denies the individuality of the person concerned; they become merely a stereotype and symbol. And, in the process, they become neutered and neutralised. Because the deal is, if they want to be loved and accepted within wider society, then they must make themselves lovable and acceptable by becoming like the sweet and sexually nonthreatening persons seen on TV (bitchy clowns and queeny best friends). "God help the gay man", writes Ellis, "who comes out and doesn't want to represent, who doesn't want to teach, who doesn’t feel like part of the homogenized gay culture and rejects it."

Ultimately, to be liberated, is not to feel pride in your identity (be it sexual, racial, or religious); it means, rather, having the freedom to be flawed (and often full of self-loathing) just like everybody else. In other words, it means having the right not to smile and have to be so (HIV) positive all the time. Not all queer individuals wish to promote healthy mainstream values; they don't all want to be married and raise a family; don't all support left wing causes or aspire to be politically correct. According to Ellis, however, a lot of gay men today "feel they can’t be provocatively raunchy or politically incorrect in the mainstream media because it doesn’t represent The Cause".

He continues:

"This is where we're at now, I guess. Within the clenched world of the gay PC police there has been a tightening of the reins. It's as if in this historic moment for gay men we somehow still need to be babied and coddled and used as shining examples of humanity and objects of fascination - the gay baby panda - and this is a new kind of gay victimization. The fact that it is often being extolled by other gays in the Name of the Good Cause is doubly stifling."

Saying this predictably resulted in a lot of criticism for Ellis - not least from others in the gay community. But, to his credit, the author of American Psycho ultimately chooses to affirm himself as a writer who believes in free speech, rather than as part of a community whose members must conform with the prevailing orthodoxy in order to display their solidarity. The fact that some wish to promote a fantasy of queer life that doesn’t really exist, is not something Ellis is prepared to comply with. He may write fiction for a living, but he prefers gay reality no matter how painful and fucked-up that reality is:

"We are not all well-adjusted Good Gays. We’re not all happily queer - meaning the queer part doesn't make us happy or unhappy - just that some of us are cranky, depressed wrecks. We're complicated. We're angry. We can be as rude about our sexuality as our straight counterparts. Some of us feel the need to express our 'gay' selves any way we want to, even if that doesn't conform to 'gay positive' stereotypes. (A lot of us think these so-called 'gay positive' stereotypes are, in fact, 'gay nightmares.') Some of us reject the notion of how Gay Life is defined and don’t want to be a part of it, and so we create our own."

Ellis continues in a passage with which I'm very sympathetic:

"Where's the not-famous, slobby, somewhat lazy gay dude who is fine with being gay but just doesn't care about being PC or being an example of 'moral uplift,' who just wants to get on with his life, the guy who wants to be himself without becoming a label? A gay man who doesn't equate gay with dignity? The gay man who feels he doesn’t have to march in the parade while smiling? The inclusion and promotion of this common gay man by the Gatekeepers of Politically Correct Gayness would be something shattering. It would be a massive move toward eliminating The Gay Man as Magical Elf."

Notes

Bret Easton Ellis, 'In the Reign of the Gay Magical Elves', Out, (13 May 2013): click here to read online. 

I assume that Ellis still stands by this essay, as he repeats the views expressed here in his new book White (Picador, 2019). 

On the Portrait of Ms Ruby May, Standing

Portrait of Ms Ruby May, Standing 
Oil on canvas (2012) 
Leena McCall

I.

There is something of a tradition within the world of fine art for portraits of women standing.

Dutch Golden Age painter Frans Hals, for example, completed his contribution to this genre sometime around 1610. Indeed, such a lover was he of upright women that he produced another portrait of a woman standing just a few years later (c.1618-20).   

Neither of these unidentified women, however, arouses my interest as much as the fabulous Ms Ruby May, pictured above, standing, hand-on-hip and pipe in mouth, by UK based visual artist Leena McCall.

The painting is obviously intended to be sexually provocative. There's that defiant look in the eye of the subject, returning and challenging the male gaze, for a start; clearly this is a woman who knows how to construct and express a playfully ambiguous model of sexual identity on her own terms.

And then there's the fact that her breeches are unbuttoned, exposing her lower body or loins such that her pubic hair is clearly visible ...


II.

I recently published a post reflecting on the issue of female pubic hair, referring to its representation within the world of art.* A woman kindly wrote to me afterwards to say that whilst she enjoyed the piece, she couldn't help thinking it was essentially a non-concern within what she insisted was a sexually liberated  - or, at any rate, sexually indifferent - age:

"Some women wax, some women shave and shape their bushes, and some just leave things to grow naturally; the point is no one really cares and it's not a big issue, even if it remains subject to changing fashion. Thankfully, the days when people freaked out at the sight of a pubic hair have long gone."

I wonder, then, how she explains the fact that McCall's painting was swiftly removed by the Mall Galleries from the Society of Women Artists' 153rd annual exhibition in 2014, following a number of complaints and the concern that perhaps children or vulnerable adults might view it ...?

According to McCall, the picture was branded as pornographic and disgusting precisely because it showed Ms May as an amorous subject proudly displaying her pubic hair as a sign of mature womanhood. Afforded the opportunity to provide a replacement work, McCall admirably refused on the grounds that to do so would be to concede there was something inherently offensive or obscene about the portrait (and/or the body) of her friend Ruby May.  

So, to my correspondent I say thank you very much for writing, but I beg to differ with your analysis of the times in which we live.

For if there's been a pornification of culture on the one hand, so too is this the age of safe spaces, trigger warnings, political correctness, censorship, and the new puritanism in which the greatest crime is to cause offence (either wilfully or inadvertently) to the easily offended, be they snowflake liberals, religious maniacs, or - apparently - London gallery owners worried about their trustees and sponsors, etc. ...


* See: Where the Turtle Doves Sing ... the post mentioned above that reflects on pubic hair.

Luis Quiles and the Transparency of Evil

Louis Quiles: self portrait and Twitter profile picture

twitter.com/perterpunk 

The work of Spanish artist Luis Quiles brilliantly reveals what Baudrillard describes as evil.

That is to say, that which belongs to the order not of morality, but of invisibility; that which is usually concealed and circulates in secret; that which, despite the best efforts of our society to deny its existence, eventually shines through (thus Baudrillard's notion of the transpiring of evil).

We like to think that our idealism has triumphed in a world unified by technology and illuminated by the light of reason; that the good, the true, and the beautiful are now the supreme values and we should therefore all be wearing a permanently happy face.

Un/fortunately, however, evil remains within our society and, indeed, it continues to provide the indispensable energy needed to drive it forward. 18th-century Anglo-Dutch philosopher and political economist, Bernard Mandeville, was right when he asserted, scandalously at the time, that society operates and advances on the basis of its vices, not its virtues or positive qualities.

Quiles, I think, recognizes this - recognizes, that is to say, that corruption has a vital function within the world - even if, as a liberal humanist, he finds it difficult to countenance greed, violence, exploitation, and hatred. Thus the terrible tension and ambiguity within his images. They clearly satirize the pornographic character of contemporary culture and consumer capitalism, yet nevertheless they are complicit with it.

A friend of mine compared the images to those of English graffiti-artist Banksy. But, at their best, the comic-book style pictures by this young, Barcelona-based artist are almost as unbearable to look at - their content as profoundly troubling - as the so-called Black Paintings produced by Goya during the final period of his life. They're that good; they're that appalling.


Note: the above picture, as well as many other works, can be found on Luis Quiles's Facebook page by clicking here.
 

OMG! I Finally Agree With Julie Burchill

Julie Burchill by Phil Disley (2013)

I know that times of conflict and violent upheaval can lead to strange alliances and the sharing of space with some rather dubious bedfellows, but who would have guessed I'd finally want to cuddle up to Julie Burchill?

At the very least, I'm sympathetic to her recent piece in The Spectator in which she argues that, for some men, the misogyny of the Islamic State is a crucial part of their appeal; i.e. far from being problematic, the abominable manner in which they treat women and young girls is the perverse factor that makes otherwise impotent losers hard with sexual excitement. 

And this, shamefully, includes those far-left apologists in the West who defend the actions of the jihadis and fail to condemn their gynocidal gender politics. Self-hatred goes some way - perhaps a long way - towards explaining this. But so too does a suppressed feeling of resentment towards women and their emancipation in what was doubtless the most significant and successful of all modern revolutions. 

I think Burchill is right to touch on this and entirely justified to think about holy war within a wider context of desire. She's right also to link the violent abuse of women and the negation of their rights by Islamists to nice, middle-class white youths masturbating to misogynistic rap music and sharing rape jokes online. 

For feminists, there is therefore a far wider and far more disturbing problem to address here than one to do with beards and veils; one that is as much about pornographic models of masculinity within contemporary popular culture as it is religious fundamentalism.

    

Note: the Julie Burchill article to which I refer first appeared in the print edition of The Spectator magazine, dated 22 November 2014. It can be found in the online edition by clicking here.