Munch's Daughters: Tracey & Marlene

Edvard Munch / Tracey Emin / Marlene Dumas

 

I.

 

I have a highly intelligent and sensitive friend who loves the work of Norwegian sjelemaler Edvard Munch (1863-1944). 

 

Essentially, that's because Munch was an artist who didn't attempt to objectively capture the world, so much as distort its reality in terms of his own inner turmoil via non-naturalistic colours and swirling, dramatic brush strokes. That's very much his cup of tea.  

 

What's more, Munch gave visual form and expression to a variety of mostly negative emotions - anxiety, loneliness, sorrow, fear, etc. - and that also appeals to my friend as he is psychologically predisposed to exploring (and manipulating) such feelings as a self-confessed dark empath [1].   

 

What irritates me about this particular friend, however, is not his focus on the more morbid, melancholic, and miserable aspects of the human experience - believing these things to be far more profound and poetic than simple happiness - but his refusal to see how Munch has had a (somewhat surprising) but crucial influence on several contemporary female artists, including two that I would like to briefly discuss here: Tracey Emin and Marlene Dumas. 

 

 

II.

 

British artist, Tracey Emin, is probably the most obvious starting point for a post of this kind. 

 

For Dame Tracey openly credits the uncompromising expressionist style of Munch as a formative influence from an early age. If she has adored Bowie for an even longer period of time - and perhaps with an even greater degree of passion - Munch nevertheless comes a close second, Emin confessing that she has been "totally, madly in love" with him and his work since she was seventeen [2].  

 

This devotion culminated in 1998, when Emin created a haunting work titled Homage to Edvard Munch and All My Dead Children.  

 

In this short Super 8 film, the artist lies naked in a foetal position on a jetty in Åsgårdstrand, Norway, close to Munch's former home and a location central to many of his paintings, thereby explicitly linking her own personal trauma - she had undergone two abortions in the early 1990s - directly to his artwork [3]. 

 

The piece featured in the Royal Academy exhibition Tracey Emin / Edvard Munch: The Loneliness of the Soul (18 May - 1 August 2021) [4]. 

 

The exhibition also included a significant number of Emin's paintings - some displayed for the first time - hung alongside a selection of Munch's oils and watercolours. When seen together, "the dark territories and raw emotions that both artists navigate" create a "moving exploration of grief, loss and longing" [5].       

 

More recently, Emin curated the group exhibition Crossing Into Darkness (18 Jan - 12 April, 2026) at the Carl Freedman Gallery in Margate [6], which again featured works by Edvard Munch. Emin provides an excellent description of this exhibition:

 

"Crossing Into Darkness brings together a group of artists whose works confront the darkness inherent in human experience, not as something to be feared but as a necessary threshold toward renewal. In times marked by upheaval and uncertainty, this journey feels both universal and deeply personal." [7]

 

She continues (in clichéd quasi-religious language that I find problematic, to say the least, even if my friend mentioned earlier enthusiastically gobbles up this sort of guff):

 

"I feel that we have to cross into darkness to find light. I’d like this show to be very emotionally immersive and people to feel the strength and vibrations within the works. I want people to know that art isn't just something that you look at. That it has a deeper purpose and can penetrate all souls." [8]

 

One of the twenty or so artists contributing to this project is the South African born painter (now based in Amsterdam) Marlene Dumas ... [9]

 

 

III. 

 

Dumas - whose work I have previously discussed on Torpedo the Ark [10] - is another artist who might be described as a daughter of Munch, although she's less of a daddy's girl than Emin. 

 

In other words, her relationship with Munch isn't quite so intense and intimate and she enters into a more intellectual and technical dialogue with the latter, although, like Emin, she is known for her expressive, psychologically charged works exploring themes of human vulnerability and sexuality [11].  

 

For Dumas, Munch is primarily a modern storyteller who used paint to convey emotion - including love and passion, not just angst - rather than merely represent forms. And like him, she also likes to think her canvases have a tale to tell, but, where Munch uses swirling, heavy oil paint, Dumas often employs a ghostly, ink-wash technique. 

 

This can clearly be seen in her 2018-2019 exhibition, Moonrise: Marlene Dumas & Edvard Munch, at the Munch Museum, in Oslo. By placing her washed-out pictures alongside his more vibrant oils, she obliges us to see Munch as a direct ancestor to the way contemporary artists still struggle to capture the shame and desire of being human. 

 

Interestingly, one of the things Dumas was keen to do in this show, was deconstruct some of the more dated (and arguably misogynistic) myths and stereotypes of womanhood that Munch reinforced in his works such as Vampire (1893) - a picture Dumas admits she found particularly problematic [12]. 

 

And that does make one wonder quite why it is so many female artists - not just Emin and Dumas, but also Louise Bourgeois and Maria Lassnig, for example - seem so attracted to Munch and ready to buy into his romantic mythos. 

 

It's a question addressed by the art historian Patricia Berman ... [13] 

 

 

IV.

 

Berman argues that despite being "one of modern art's foundational misogynists", Munch's willingness to reveal his more feminine side and paint his pain has ironically made him a spiritual mentor to "generations of women who explore the body and memory, and the body as memory, in their art". 

 

Munch, it is said by his female champions, displays "a vulnerability rarely acknowledged by a man" and has an empathy with women that allows him to intuitively understand something of their inner life; Munch is seen as an ally or, as Emin once said, a friend in art. 

 

Obviously, I smiled when reading this; doesn't Tracey know that not only must we find it within our hearts to love our enemies, but also learn how to hate our friends [14] - and that empathy comes in various shades, some of which - as we noted earlier - are very dark indeed?  

 

  

Notes

 

[1] A dark empath is a term coined in a research paper published in 2021 by Nadja Heym and her colleagues to describe a more devious (and arguably more dangerous) form of narcissist; one who is highly attuned to another person's thoughts and feelings and uses this skill in order to manipulate and further their own goals. 

      The study concluded that being empathic doesn't necessarily make someone a good human being - especially when, beneath their charm and intelligence, they also harbour aggressive psychopathic tendencies.  

      See Nadja Heyem et al, 'The Dark Empath: Characterising dark traits in the presence of empathy', in the journal Personality and Individual Differences Vol. 169 (Feb 2021). It can be downloaded as a pdf from the Nottingham Trent University website click here.    

 

[2] See the video posted on the Royal Academy YouTube channel (6 Dec 2020) in which Emin introduces a carefully considered selection of Munch's paintings alongside her own works in the exhibition Tracey Emin / Edvard Munch: The Loneliness of the Soul (18 May - 1 August 2021): click here.  

[3] My favourite description of this work is by Patricia Berman (see note 13 below): 

      "The dreamy setting of water, sky and the artist's coiled naked body is abruptly shattered by a horrific scream that seems to go on forever. Although the film is only one minute long, the scream enters and shakes you to your very core, resonating like an afterimage. It calls forth Munch's most famous motif, The Scream, animating it and reinventing it."

 

[4] For details of the exhibition, an image gallery, further reading, and a virtual tour, please visit the RA website: click here.  

 

[5] I'm quoting here from the press release for the Royal Academy exhibition, which can also be found on the website via the above link.  

 

[6] For details of the exhibition, etc., please visit the Carl Freedman Gallery website: click here. 

 

[7] Tracey Emin, quoted on the Carl Freedman Gallery website linked to above. 

 

[8] Ibid.

 

[9] Dumas's inclusion in the exhibition is titled Utøya (2018-23); a medium-sized oil painting that deals with memory and tragedy, darkness and rebirth. This work can be viewed on the Frith Street Gallery website: click here. 

 

[10] See the post titled 'Marlene Dumas: Mourning Marsyas' (13 Nov 2024): click here.  

 

[11] If perhaps less intimate and intense, Dumas's relationship with Munch is just as long-standing as Emin's. She first encountered the astonishing lithograph series presenting his version of the creation myth - Alfa og Omega (1908-09) - at the Munch Museum in 1981, for example; an experience she later documented in her book, Omega's Eyes: Marlene Dumas on Edvard Munch (2019). 

      For Dumas, the great thing about Munch's work is its honesty and directness - particularly when it comes to the portrayal of bodies; he was not just concerned with psychological states, but with the physical character of touch and physical sensation (of what it feels like to kiss or to cry). 

 

[12] Munch was obsessed with the idea of the femme fatale and explored this theme throughout the 1890s, using the vampire archetype to depict women as dangerous and seductive creatures who would not only break hearts but drain men of their life-force (presumably he was projecting his own male anxieties and sexual fantasies).

      See, for example, the iconic Symbolist painting Vampire (1893) - originally titled 'Love and Pain' [Kjærligkeit og Smerte] - which depicts a red-haired woman kissing (and/or biting) a man's neck: click here. 

 

[13] See Patricia Berman, 'Munch's influence on women artists', RA Magazine (Autumn 2020) and available on the Royal Academy website (20 Oct 2020): click here. Berman is a Professor of Art at Wellesley College, Massachusetts and an expert in Scandinavian art. All quotes in section IV of this post are taken from this essay (as is the quote used in note 3 above). 

[14] Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 'Of the Bestowing Virtue' (3). 

 

 

From Pup Play to Babygirl Fetish: Sydney Sweeney Outrages the Internet (Again!)

Sydney Sweeney as OnlyFans content creator Cassie Howard 

in season 3 of the HBO TV series Euphoria (2026)

Images: HBO Max

 

 

I. 

 

Other than the fact that she has great jeans [1], I really don't know much about the 28-year-old American actress Sydney Sweeney.

 

However, it's hard not to know of her when she seems to be in the news every other day, causing outrage and controversy. I don't know if she deliberately sets out to be a provocatrice, but she certainly has a talent for upsetting people and apple carts alike, which I rather admire. 

 

And, what's more, she's one of those rare individuals who really doesn't give a fuck what her critics say, refusing to apologise for her actions, opinions, or acting roles even when under huge pressure to do so.

 

So, here's a new post on the further (mis)adventures of Miss Sweeney ...     

 

 

II.

 

Euphoria is an American teen drama created and principally written by Sam Levinson for HBO, based on an Israeli miniseries of the same name created by Ron Leshem and Daphna Levin. 

 

In its first two seasons [2], Euphoria told the story of a group of Californian high school students struggling to keep their lives on track while dealing with problems related to love, loss, sex, and addiction. 

 

Both seasons received generally positive reviews, although some critics found the relentless scenes of nudity and sexual content - not to mention the substance abuse and self-harm - problematic due to the high-school setting and its teenage characters.   

 

In the third season, set five years later, the group of friends - now young adults - will be seen to grapple with more spiritual issues to do with the problem of evil and the possibility of finding redemption.

 

Whilst Sydney Sweeney is not the star of the show, she's a central cast member and the one who seems to generate most of the show's publicity. Her performance as Cassie Howard in season 2 also earned her a Primetime Emmy nomination.     

 

However, whether she'll pick up another nomination for season 3, which kicked off a few nights ago, is doubtful. Disgusted viewers say the show has gone too far by having her character dress up as a sexualised puppy and an equally eroticised baby in order to provide content on her OnlyFans channel.

 

These same viewers say the show has crossed a line by normalising extreme pornography and promoting material that is illegal as well as grossly offensive and obscene [3]. And, if what you read online is to be believed, HBO is facing a massive backlash with some calling for a total boycott of the network.    

 

 

III.

 

I might be wrong, but I'm guessing that the puppygirl scene hasn't upset as many people as the one in which Sweeney, dressed in pigtails with a dummy in her mouth and wearing a sheer top and a pair of white (nappy-like) knickers, grabs her feet and lifts her legs in the air.   

 

For whilst there will be some who will argue that canine roleplay - or pet play more generally - is the first step on the slippery slope to zoosexual activity (or what used to be termed bestiality), I think most people will concede that it's essentially a BDSM fetish and so is more about the consensual exploration of power and control rather than a genuine desire to romance animals [4]. 

 

Puppygirls may wear collars, chew on toy bones, or beg for treats, but they remain adult human females when all is said and done and whilst pup play can be sexual in nature, that isn't always the case and for some participants it's primarily a form of fantasy and emotional escapism.  

 

Besides, Sweeney looks rather fetching in her puppy dog costume; whereas, dressed as a baby, she does present an altogether more challenging image ...

 

 

IV. 

 

To be fair, the same arguments used to defend pup play can be assembled to defend daddy dom / little girl fetish (or DD/lg, as it is written by its devotees); it's all about role play, age play, and exploring power relationships and has nothing whatsoever to do with paedophilia. 

 

The babygirl enjoys receiving care and protection (and occasionally punishment) from her dominant partner. Similarly, she takes pleasure in surrendering responsibility and embracing softness, vulnerability and dependency.  

 

However, the babygirl rarely regresses to infancy; rather, she knowingly mimics childish behaviours whilst, contrary to appearances, still maintaining a degree of adult agency (as well as sexuality). Like so much else in the world of kink, it's purely performative and consensual. 

 

Having said that, the fact remains that within the popular (non-kinky) imagination babygirl fetish - unlike pup play - remains highly suspect and seems genuinely perverse. And this is why it's the second of the images above, not the first, that has attracted criticism expressed in words such as twisted, sick, and repugnant (i.e., the language of physical disgust and moral outrage).   

 

Even critics who at one time celebrated Euphoria are now clutching their pearls and insisting it feels tired and dated - whilst The Guardian's Hannah J. Davies even goes so far as to write that the HBO drama has become "a grubby, humourless work of torture porn that's obsessed with and repulsed by sex work" [5]. 

 

Meanwhile, The Telegraph's Eleanor Halls said the show was increasingly feeling "like the misogynistic fantasies of a creepy old man" and she wondered if Sam Levinson - whom she describes as a debauched pervert - isn't actually extracting some form of revenge on "America's pin-up Sweeney" by turning her character Cassie into "a caricature of an airhead sex kitten" [6]. 

 

The critical tide, then - like public opinion - seems to have turned against Euphoria and against Sweeney in particular. But, as I noted earlier, I very much doubt she cares. When she started on the show, she was earning $25,000 an episode; now, she's rumoured to be receiving just under $1million per episode.  

 

And I would rather blissfully bathe with a bar of Miss Sweeney's soap than drown in a sea of tears wept by po-faced critics and other self-appointed custodians of virtue upset by a TV show ... 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

 

[1] See the post written on Miss Sweeney and the controversy surrounding her ad for American Eagle: dated 31 July 2025: click here. And see the Nietzschean-flavoured follow up post dated 2 August 2025: click here. 

 

[2] The first season of Euphoria, consisting of eight episodes, premiered on 16 June, 2019 and concluded on 4 August. Season 2, also consisting of eight episodes, was broadcast in Jan-Feb 2022. The third season kicked off three nights ago (12 April, 2026). 

   

[3] Obviously, terms such as 'extreme pornography' and 'obscenity' are almost impossible to define. As D. H. Lawrence noted in 1929: "What they are depends [...] entirely on the individual. What is pornography to one man is the laughter of genius to another." 

      See the essay 'Pornography and Obscenity', in Late Essays and Articles, ed. James T. Boulton (Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 236.   

 

[4] Readers who wish to know more about pet play can click here for a blog post about such on the HUD App (a casual dating platform designed for hookup-focused connections rather than long-term relationships). 

 

[5] Hannah J. Davies, 'Euphoria season three review - grubby, desperate and absolutely not worth the wait', The Guardian (13 April 2026): click here.  

      Referring to Sweeney's character, Davis writes: "The way the show handles her cam girl ambitions, in particular, feels bafflingly dated [...] while storylines around sugar babies and kink feel simultaneously voyeuristic and judgy." 

 

[6] Eleanor Halls, 'Euphoria has descended into one man's creepy, sex-obsessed fantasy', The Telegraph (13 April, 2026): click here. 

 

 

Bonus: click here to watch an official Euphoria Season 3 trailer posted on YouTube. 

 

 

On Nietzsche's Moustache

Not Vital: Nietzsche's Schnauz (1993)

Aluminium (70 x 140 x 40 cm)

Image via Galerie Nordenhake

 

'Thus the gentlest and most reasonable of men can, if he wears a large moustache, 

sit as it were in its shade and feel safe there ...' [1]

 

 

I. 

 

Understanding as he did the importance of first impressions, Nietzsche highly valued the protective and deceptive nature of his exuberantly styled facial hair. 

 

He even noted in one of his middle period books that a formidable moustache allows a gentle soul to mask their sensitive nature and be perceived as an "easily angered and occasionally violent" [2] military type and thus treated with more respect than is often shown to mild-mannered university professors. 

 

 

II.  

 

The style of 'tache adopted by Nietzsche as soon as hormones allowed, is known as a walrus moustache. It is characterised by thick, bushy whiskers that droop over the mouth and resemble the whiskers of the large marine mammal from which it takes its name. 

 

Nietzsche, of course, was not unusual in choosing to have a Schnurrbart of this type, as they were extremely popular among men in the latter half of the 19th century when he was doing his thing (revaluing values and so on).  

 

Soldiers, scientists, politicians, and poets - not just rogue German philosophers - favoured this rugged style regarded as a symbol of masculinity and, in Poland, a mark of nobility and traditionalism [3].     

 

 

III. 

 

Now, I have to confess, personally, I don't like this moustache - hate it, in fact.  

 

Nevertheless, I do like Nietzsche and I am interested at the moment in the work of the contemporary Swiss artist Not Vital who, in 1993, created a surreal aluminium sculpture titled Nietzsche's Schnauz ... 

 

Retrospectively asked about the piece in a conversation with the curator, critic and art historian Hans Ulrich Obrist - a longtime friend of the artist - Vital recalled:  

 

"When I first went to the Nietzsche-Haus in Sils Maria, what impressed me most about the death mask, drawings and photographs of Nietzsche, was this moustache that grew bigger throughout his life. In the end, you couldn't even see his mouth. That was fascinating: that this moustache would take over his face. So I made a sculpture of his moustache, and placed it in his bed. [4]

 

By isolating the facial hair, Vital's sculpture - part of a wider series exploring memory, identity, and the blurring of human and non-human forms - enables the moustache to assume a kind of object-autonomy. 

 

And, hearing Vital discuss how the 'tache appeared to take over Nietzsche's face, one is put in mind of the parasitoid entity (Manumala noxhydria) that attaches to the face of Kane (played by John Hurt) in Ridley Scott's Alien (1979).

 

Fortunately, the facehugging moustache didn't prove fatal to its host and, according to Nietzsche's own philosophy, whatever didn't kill him made him stronger ... [5] 

      

Notes

 

[1] Nietzsche, Daybreak, trans. R. J. Hollingdale (Cambridge University Press, 1997), IV. 381, p. 171. 

 

[2] Ibid.

 

[3] Some readers may recall that Nietzsche often claimed descent from an aristocratic Polish family (although there seems to be no genealogical evidence available to support his claim). 

 

[4] Not Vital, in conversation with Hans Ulrich Obrist (14 April 2021). The transcript can be read on the Thaddaeus Ropac (London) website: click here. The interview also featured in Wallpaper and can be read on their website by clicking here.  

[5] See Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, 'Maxims and Arrows' (8). 

 

 

Readers who enjoyed this short post might like to check out an excellent essay on Nietzsche's moustache available on the website nietzschesbody.com. The site is administered by Robrecht and I'm guessing this is the independent Nietzsche scholar, translator, and cultural critic Robrecht Vandemeulebroecke (apologies to both parties if I'm mistaken). 

      What this essay does well is bring home the fact that Nietzsche knew his moustache was distinctive and would become iconic: "Though not exactly unique, Nietzsche's whiskers were uncommon enough in intellectual circles to become something of a trademark, a fact of which he was not unaware." 

 

Reflections on Not Vital's Self-Portrait as a Table (2025)

Not Vital: Self-portrait as a Table (2025) 

Marble 115 x 65 x 50 cm [1]

 

'The table as autonomous object is not merely the sum of its parts 

and the ear is not merely a passive cavity or vacuous opening ...' 

 

 

I. 

 

Sometimes, you go to a gallery for one artist and leave haunted by the work of another ...  

 

So it was I returned to Thaddaeus Ropac for the opening of a show by Liza Lou full of previously shared expectations [2] and, while her hyper-colourful fusion of glass beads and oil paint didn't disappoint, it was the concurrent exhibition by Swiss artist Not Vital [3] - bringing together a selection of sculptures with his latest series of painted self-portraits - that captured my curiosity. 

 

Specifically, it was his obsession with the human ear as a motif that I found intriguing ...    

 

 

II.

 

As the title of his exhibition indicates, Vital doesn't want people to merely look at his work, but listen also to what it is telling us about the art of representation and the "intersections between painting, sculpture and architecture" [4]. 

 

And in order to encourage us to attend with our ears rather than just view with our eyes, it's the former that feature prominently on several of his works; playfully protruding from canvases or, in the case of his Self-portrait as a Table (2025), adorning a polished marble surface.   

 

As a Deleuzian philosopher and forniphile who has an interest in the becoming-object of the human being, I naturally found this piece irresistible. 

 

It isn't just art as furniture (or vice versa), but a zone of indiscernibility; i.e., a space wherein boundaries dissolve, differences blur, and transformative connections proliferate. Just as the artist becomes table, the table starts to sprout ears and become a new type of listening device.  

 

 

III. 

 

The English physicist A. S. Eddington famously argued there were two types of table: the tangible everyday object that we eat our dinner off; and the scientific or quantum table that is understood conceptually in terms of fast-moving atoms and empty spaces [5].  

 

But Not Vital presents a third table; the table we discover in art and which excites the interest of object-oriented ontologists like Graham Harman; the table that is neither reduced downward to invisible particles, nor upward to a series of properties, effects, and functions [6]. 

This table we encounter in art lies somewhere between (and beyond) these two. Picasso envisioned it from multiple simultaneous perspectives [7] and Vital - amusingly - attaches ears to it. The key thing, however, is this: great artists aren't content to pull up a chair at just any old table; they want one that stands in the mytho-poetic fourth dimension (i.e., the realm of true relatedness between all things and into which every straight line curves) [8]. 

 

 

IV. 

 

Finally, I'd like to say something about the ears sticking out from the surface of Vital's marble table, forming "irrational, dreamlike anatomies" [9] and prompting us to wonder why it is that since a table already possesses legs, it shouldn't also one day grow lugs ...  

There's something rather touching about the thought of old-fashioned (analogue) objects evolving the Momo-like ability to listen with genuine, time-giving sympathy and not merely the artificial intelligence of Alexa.

 

We desperately need a new ethics of listening, so that we might learn once more to acknowledge (and liberate) the Other in their otherness. It's poignant to imagine that Vital's table doesn't only encourage us to attend to it, but is attentive to us and prepared to lend an ear.   

 

Although, having said that, there's always the danger that a table with ears open to every sound and sigh might eventually become monstrous ... 

Notes

 

[1] This work by Not Vital is included in the exhibition Listening + Looking (10 April - 23 May 2026), at Thaddaeus Ropac (London): click here for details. 

 

[2] See the post dated 19 March that I published in anticipation of Lou's FAQ exhibition which is also showing at Thaddaeus Ropac (London) from 10 April until 23 May 2026: click here.

 

[3] A comprehensive biography and CV for Not Vital is available on the Thaddaeus Ropac website: click here.  

      In brief, he was born in Switzerland in 1948, but has spent much of his adult life travelling and living in foreign countries including China, Brazil, and the USA and his work is inspired by his nomadic lifestyle. Vital studied visual arts in Paris from 1968–71 and then moved to New York in 1974, where he began his artistic career: 

      "Exploring the boundaries between abstract and figurative forms, his work is marked by a particularly intimate relationship with materials, including plaster, steel, marble, ceramic and organic matter. [...] The physicality of his approach, combined with an innate understanding of his chosen materials' essential properties, results in visually challenging works that are often destabilising in their striking scale and presence."

 

[4] This from p. 1 of the Thaddaeus Ropac press release for Listening + Looking - click here. One assumes it was written by Nina Sandhaus (Head of Press). 

[5] Eddington proposed his two table theory in his Gifford Lectures delivered at the University of Edinburgh in Jan-March 1927. These lectures formed the basis of his seminal text The Nature of the Physical World (Cambridge University Press, 1929). See the Introduction, pp. xi-xix. 

      Readers who are interested, can find this work published online as a Project Gutenberg ebook (2013): click here.  

 

[6] See Graham Harman, The Third Table / Der Dritte Tisch, Number 085 in the dOCUMENTA (13) series '100 Notes - 100 Thoughts / 100 Notizen - 100 Gedanken', (Hatje Cantz, 2012). See my synopsis and critique of Harman's essay published on Torpedo the Ark (10 Mar 2018): click here.  

[7] I'm referring here of course to Picasso's 1919 collage La table. Created in a Cubist manner, the work attempted to represent the object on a two-dimensional canvas from all sides at once, by breaking it down into geometric components: click here. 

 

[8] See D. H. Lawrence writing in 'Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine', in Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine and Other Essays, ed. Michael Herbert (Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 347-363. 

 

[9] Thaddaeus Ropac press release for Listening + Looking, p. 2.  

 

We're Born Naked ... Notes on Simon Doonan's Complete Story of Drag (Part 3: On Popstar Drag, Movie Drag, and Radical Drag)

Simon Doonan: Drag: The Complete Story (2019) [a]

Alt. cover feat. Curtis Dam-Mikkelsen (aka Miss Fame)  

Photo by Albert Sanchez and Pedro Zalba

 

 

I.

 

And so we come to chapter 7: Popstar Drag ...

 

Doonan claims that for most of the 20th century, "the guiding principle for men's clothing design was anonymity" (163) and that's true, though perhaps requires some qualification - and I don't believe it's because the average male is "terrified of being stared at" (163). 

Actually, the desire for anonymity - founded upon uniformity of dress and the will to conformity - can be traced back to a shift in sensibility known as the Great Male Renunciation, which began in the late- 18th century and saw men abandon ornate and colourful clothing in favour of more sober, functional attire. 

 

It was the age of the dark suit, designed to signal seriousness and professionalism as well as social conformity. But the aim was not anonymity per se, but to look the business whilst not being conspicuous [b].   

 

It's the modern pop star - that 20th century dandy born of the music business in the 1950s - who challenges this: "In order to sell records, the male popstars of the conservative American mid-century needed fans to take notice, and a sure-fire way to stand out was to raid the feminine repertoire." (163)

 

Doonan continues (in a passage that again rather reinforces the argument often put forward by conservative critics; namely, that pop music was an assault on manly virtue):

 

"The boys were encouraged in their flamboyance by a select and influential group of homosexuals, such as gallery owner Robert Fraser, interior designer Christopher Gibbs, Brian Epstein (manager of The Beatles), Robert Stigwood (Cream and Bee Gees), Simon Napier-Bell (The Yardbirds, Marc Bolan), Billy Gaff (Rod Stewart) and Ken Pitt (David Bowie). These gay Svengalis were drag enablers ..." (165) [c]  

 

For Doonan, two names in particular stand out when it comes the golden age of glam rock in the 1970s: Bolan and Bowie - but they were by no means the only two camping it up:

 

"Billowing bohemian blouses and cascading tresses became the norm. Boys wore girls' skimpy knits and crop tops with unisex crushed-velvet bellbottoms. Ladies' accessories [...] were piled on with gypsy-ish abandon. The emerging popstar drag was nothing if not radical." (166)

 

At this point, Doonan return us to his (strangely unisex) vision of utopia "where men and women overcame their vast differences by dressing alike" (168). 

 

I'd really like to know what he thinks these differences are exactly; is he here talking about differences that are constructed socially, or differences that have a crucial biological basis? If these differences are so vast - his word - then can they really be overcome simply by wearing the same clothing or shade of eyeshadow? I doubt it. 

 

And I'm pretty sure also that Doonan's claim that glam rock (or what he calls popstar drag) was "repellent to the establishment" (171) is simply not the case. It may have been viewed by some members of the older generation with mild disdain and dislike, but, in general, it was met with confusion and amusement. It was certainly not feared and hated in the way that punk rock would be a few years later (or even the countercultural, drug-taking hippie movement had been in the '60s) [d]. 

 

While androgynous fashions, a garish use of makeup, and gender troubling behaviour were scandalous to some, glam was a popular, commercial force that was ultimately tolerated - and often enjoyed - by the wider public; Bowie and Bolan and company were regulars on Top of the Pops and their records were not banned (cf. the Sex Pistols). 

 

In sum - and despite what Doonan likes to think - popstar drag was considered frivolous rather threatening and its huge commercial popularity meant it was soon just seen as another form of showbiz. That was true in the 1970s and it remained true in the 1980s, when figures like Boy George and Marilyn [e] were dominating the charts and airwaves.     

 

And don't get me started on Eurovision - an annual festival of "gloriously naff pop, easy to mock but never boring" (181) - if Doonan really thinks this is in anyway radical or presents a positive vision of the future, then, I'm afraid to say, he's more naive than I thought he was.  

 

 

II. 

 

From the world of pop drag to the world of movie drag ... 

 

Those of you who read part 2 of this post will recall I have already noted my favourite celluloid scene involving drag. 

 

For those of you who haven't read part 2, it's the one in Carry On Constable (dir. Gerald Thomas, 1960), in which officers Benson and Gorse - played by Kenneth Williams and Charles Hawtrey respectively - drag up as Ethel and Agatha in order to go undercover as store detectives.      

 

For me, this scene is as good as it gets when it comes to comedy drag on film and I rank it above the work even of Laurel and Hardy in Twice Two (dir. James Parrott, 1933), or Curtis and Lemmon in Billy Wilder's Some Like it Hot (1959). But, funnily enough, Doonan doesn't mention the film - so I guess it's not amongst his favourites, although he predictably raves about the latter as "the most beloved movie of all time" (187).  

  

Doonan also indicates how movie drag is often associated with pervy horror and homicidal insanity - starting with Hitchcock's Psycho (1960) and coins the amusing term dragsploitation. Being dressed to kill often means putting on a frock and wig in the mainstream cinematic imagination.   

 

Meanwhile, underground movie makers - including Andy Warhol - also liked to include elements of drag: 

 

"What was unsavoury and objectionable to a mainstream audience - as we've seen, drag was acceptable only as laughable slapstick or the prelude to a homicidal bloodbath - was given a warm and rousing reception in the art houses of yore." (192) 

 

What he had done for soup cans, Warhol also did for drag queens and trans women: 

 

"Warhol's genius was to plonk [... marginal figures and] unconventional attention junkies in front of the camera and let their natural charisma do the rest. Plots were thin but the screen magic is undeniable." (192)

 

I don't mind Candy Darling, but, I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of Divine; described by Doonan as the "empress of underground movie drag" (192), so will skip past the films made by John Waters ... 

 

And, because I hate them so, I'm also not going to say anything either about those "upbeat, non-sexual, non-homicidal, and worthy" (195) films made in the 1980s, when drag became family-friendly, Tootsie (dir. Sydney Pollack, 1982), starring Dustin Hoffman, and Mrs. Doubtfire (dir. Chris Columbus, 1993), starring Robin Williams. 

 

Similarly, I don't wish to say anything about The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (dir. Stephan Elliott, 1994) - although that's not a film I've seen (and, by the sound of it, don't think I want to, either; even Doonan describes it as shrill and cartoony).   

 

Ultimately, whilst I'm all for films spreading joy and celebrating individuality, I don't want to have sequins thrown in my face and an ideological message shoved down my throat to do with the need for greater DEI. 

 

In other words, I prefer those films involving drag and/or trans actors that are non-shrill and non-cartoony and don't invite audiences to dress up and sing along à la The Rocky Horror Picture Show (dir. Jim Sharman, 1975) - films such as Sean Baker's Tangerine (2015), described by Doonan thus:

 

"Tangerine is a groundbreaking 2015 movie that combines the early Warhol approach - find charismatic gender-fluid individuals and let the cameras roll - with more solid plotlines. It is is also very Warholian in that the individuals are not presented as noble or worthy." (204)    

  

 

III. 

 

And finally ... chapter 9 - Radical Drag - and a chance to really examine the politics of the topic (or at least Doonan's understanding of such) ... 

 

Before we turn to the material in chapter 9, however, I'd like to pick up on a sentence from earlier in the book (ch. 8), which suggests where I think Doonan will be heading:   

 

"In these trans-positive times [...] nobody is going to high five a hetero dude for frocking up unless he actually means it. Dragging up purely for attention or dough would, in our era of increased sensitivity, be viewed as less than respectful." (185)

 

That, I think, is true - but it's also a call for authenticity that I find problematic and something which has led to a lot of recent debate within the acting profession: should a straight cis male actor be able to play gay or trans (even if he does so in all sincerity and his performance is sympathetic and convincing)? [f] 

 

I would answer 'yes' to this, but understand the controversy surrounding the issue - particularly when it is presented in terms of representation and opportunity, rather than in terms of authenticity or the need for lived experience in order to play a part (lived experience is the most overrated thing in the world - something that the unimaginative unempathetic pride themselves on). 

 

And surely, if drag is radical in any sense, it's precisely because it deconstructs gender roles; how does that square with a modern sensitivity that insists only certain people have the right to inhabit certain identities? Answer: it doesn't.    

 

Moving on ...

 

Predictably - but still a bit disappointingly - in chapter 9 Doonan returns to all his favourite themes to do with Victorian prudery and puritanism in contrast to the subversive fuck you attitude of drag queens whose rebellion against the binary nature of society is to be uncritically lauded:

 

"Even when done in jest, the donning of a frock or a drag king suit is a provocation that automatically messes with the stale conventions of any society." (208)

 

Subscribing to this line of thought gives Doonan a good deal of what Foucault called speaker's benefit - i.e., a false sense of pride in one's own courage and rebelliousness in daring to speak up and speak out on issues which are (mistakenly) believed to still be feared and subject to censorship by mainstream society. 

 

Foucault argued this perceived transgression actually reinforced existing power structures and that the benefit of speaking in terms of repression and resisting power is merely a way to feel edgy and enlightened, while still adhering to an old-fashioned and untenable model of sexual politics.  

 

It strikes me as a little odd that, having compiled a complete history of drag, Doonan sometimes writes as if nothing important really happened before the late-1960s and '70s (i.e., when he was a young man):

 

"When, in the late 1960s, the counter-culture began to bloom - black power, gay lib, women's lib - drag followed suit. With the gays for solidarity, drag finally had the support it needed to hit the streets and to walk tall [...] Harassment and discrimination continued, but this time the dragsters fought back, birthing new and creative genres of drag activism." (210)

 

Out of this period of political upheaval, three radical groups emerged: the Cockettes [i], the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence [j], and the Radical Faeries [k] ... Now, without wishing to denigrate members of these groups - about whom my knowledge is strictly limited - one might ask whether they are truly sticking it to the Man or, actually, just engaging in theatrics and arty provocation?   

  

The fact is that, during the period Doonan specifies, drag was already being recuperated into the Spectacle as a safe (and highly commercial) form of subculture - as he himself has shown in his chapters on popstar drag and movie drag.  

 

I have respect and admiration for those highly idiosyncratic individuals and brave souls who "through a combination of daring, resilience and reckless disregard for their own safety, lubricated the wheels of social progress" (218), but I have to admit I'm increasingly bored by radical activists of every stripe - dragged up or otherwise.      

That doesn't mean I'm a Trump supporter. But it does mean I don't find drag so "wickedly compelling in these new politicized times" (233) and don't believe that drastic times require dragtastic measures. 

 

Doonan closed his 2019 study insisting that, thanks to technology and social media, "mocking, shocking, radical satirical drag" (233) would spread into "every corner of the universe" (233), presumably changing things for the better. 

 

And yet, as we know, Trump won the Presidency for a second time in 2024 - winning both the Electoral College and the popular vote - and his administration has taken a firm stance against drag culture, prioritising the removal of drag performances from public venues like and limiting federal funding for related initiatives. 

 

So it seems that a revolt into a queer politics of style might not be the answer after all ...   

 

 

Notes

 

[a] The page numbers given here (in round brackets) refer to the 2024 concise paperback edition published by Laurence King. 

 

[b] Roland Barthes writes about all this in The Language of Fashion, trans. Andy Stafford, ed. Andy Stafford and Michael Carter (Berg, 2006).  

 

[c] Some might also suggest that Doonan's enabler narrative strips the artists of their own agency; framing them as puppets of a homosexual cabal (a trope that again feeds into the conservative and homophobic agenda). 

 

[d] Doonan doesn't say much about punk, other than that it was unconventional in every way, but not drag-friendly: "While drag was largely anathema to the genre, the punk makeup styles [...] have proven influential to subsequent drag queens." (175) 

      Again, I'm tempted to push back on this claim ... An openly queer aesthetic - informed by the drag queens, transvestites, and transsexuals associated with Warhol - was crucial to the clothing designed by McLaren and Westwood for their boutique, Sex. Iconic items of punk clothing - such as bondage trousers and the Tits T-shirt - were intentionally transgressive and could be worn by either sex.  

      One might even describe Jordan - with her extreme theatrical look - as a kind of drag queen. And who can forget Malcolm's cross-dressing in The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle (1980)?  

 

[e] Doonan obviously had the hots for gender-bending popstars Boy George and his pal Marilyn, admitting that he was "totally smitten" (176) with the former and claiming (rather laughably) that the latter's appearance on Top of the Pops in 1983 "is seared into the national consciousness" (178). 

      That might be true of a few ageing new romantics and homosexuals, such as Doonan himself, but I suspect it's not true for most UK residents. 

 

[f] The same debate is also taking place with reference to race and disability; should a black actor, for example, be allowed to play a role previously associated with a white actor (a lot of people were exercised by the prospect of Idris Elba becoming James Bond); or should an able-bodied actor be given the role of a paraplegic - think, for example, of Tom Cruise as Ron Kovic in Oliver Stones's Born on the Fourth of July (1989)? 

      Again, as I say in the main text, I recognise that there are a limited number of roles open to actors belonging to minority groups, but, even so, I can't get behind the idea that an actor must be X, Y, or Z in order to play the part (though the current trend within the profession seems to be moving more and more in that direction).  

 

[h] See Foucault writing in The History of Sexuality 1: The Will to Knowledge (1976). 

 

[i] With their glitter-encrusted beards, the Cockettes "pioneered a delightfully amateurish do-it-yourself genre of performance drag" (213). 

 

[j] The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence were a "group of gays [... wearing] nun's habits and a smidgen of makeup" (214), who wished to challenge religious fundamentalism with impromptu street theatre. According to Doonan: "By combining elements of religious piety with rampant decadent artifice, they successfully satirize conventions of gender and morality." (214)

 

[k] Founded in California in the late '70s, the Radical Faeries "embody many aspects of counter-culture, including environmentalism, paganism, communal living and free love" (215). Their drag is characterised by "a wilful randomness and lack of rigour" (215) and often they prefer nudity and body paint.  

 

To read part 1 of this post, click here.

To read part 2 of this post, click here. 

 

 

We're Born Naked ... Notes on Simon Doonan's Complete Story of Drag (Part 2: On Butch Drag, Black Drag, Historical Drag, and Comedy Drag)

Simon Doonan: Drag: The Complete Story (2019) [a] 

Photo by Greg Endries and posted on simondoonan.com 

 

 

I. 

 

I don't have much to say about women who like to cross-dress as men (drag kings). 

 

It's not that butch drag doesn't deserve analysis, it's just that the topic doesn't particularly excite my interest and Doonan irritates me in this chapter with his lazy politics of empowerment (which I critiqued in part one of this post): 

 

"Butching it up, aping the style of men and making it their own, has put many women in the driver's seat and improved their lives." (70) [b]

 

It seems that hyper-femininity only empowers when you're a man and that women who are happy wearing pastel twinsets with matching skirts are regressive and reinforcing the gender binary. For Doonan, a woman in trousers who has released her inner butch feels powerful, looks stylish, and can earn big bucks. 

 

And, best of all, she has "banished the ditsy ruffled femininity" (75) that he finds so objectionable.   

 

Doonan's closing section to chapter 3 - 'Fey is the new butch' - argues that for many young people in this non-binary age of gender fluidity, "dressing with heavy-handed masculinity" and "aping the patriarchy (82) does not appeal. 

 

They want a new (non-toxic) look connected to their trans identity; more nuanced - which, I suppose, is fair enough, although, in my view, identity remains the problem (can't you see) and self-expression remains far less exciting (for me as a Deleuzian) than becoming-imperceptible.          

 

 

II. 

 

I also don't have much to say about black drag queens; although again, it's more because I feel this is outside my area of experience, knowledge and real interest [c], not because I believe it's undeserving of critical commentary, or is marginal to the world of drag. 

 

Doonan, however, seems knowledgeable of and fascinated by the black drag queen as "an enduring icon" (85) and source of inspiration. One almost worries, in fact, that his admiration tips over into racial fetishism at times: 

 

"She generously and magnanimously enriches the culture [...] and we must all bow down before her.

      The Medusan ferocity that characterizes glamour drag queens is amplified in the black drag queen, and augmented with unique black irony and wit. The black drag queen is both comedic and glamorous. The black drag queen is fierce." (85) 

 

I can, I suppose, see the appeal - but this goes a bit too far, I think. 

 

Doonan is, one suspects, over-egging the pudding in the attempt to firstly compensate for his white privilege and, secondly, assuage his white guilt. Talented black artists and performers have obviously made a vital contribution to contemporary popular culture (as have Jewish artists and performers), but whether we all need to fall down on our knees and kiss their arses in eternal "#gratitude" (85) is debatable.    

 

Also, I'm less than convinced that "creativity and originality is a function of marginal status" (86) and that individuals "with marginal status have always contributed disproportionately to the culture" (86). Perhaps. But I'd be a bit more convinced if Doonan actually offered some evidence to back up his claims. As it is, I see such thinking as, at best, romantic and, at worst, indicative of slave morality.  

 

Ultimately, some black drag queens are fabulous - and some are not. To say, as Doonan does, that all of them possess "that mystical creative charisma" (88) is just a form of positive stereotyping or benevolent prejudice.  

 

 

III. 

 

Chapter 5 is on drag history - or herstory as Doonan insists on writing, thereby referencing a feminist pun and common etymological misunderstanding. It is, apparently, a brutal, bizarre and cautionary tale, full of "madness and excess" (103). So sounds interesting ...

 

The Ancient Egyptians loved a bit of androgynous glamour and the Greeks and Romans were also keen on drag and traces of transvestism are woven throughout ancient mythology and history. In fact, as Camille Paglia notes, drag is a global phenomenon. 

 

Fast-forwarding to modern Europe (and no one can race through world history faster than Doonan) ... 

 

"The Renaissance was a groovy, swinging period of creative expression and new ideas. Despite the cultural flowering, the Christian Church maintained an unforgiving position regarding the [...] evils of cross-dressing." (114) 

 

Fortunately, however, drag continued to flourish - seeking refuge in the theatre, where there's always been a steady supply of fresh-faced young men eager to don frocks and play the female roles: 

 

"With a bit of padding and extra rouge, a 16-year-old lad might give a convincing portrayal of a 26-year-old woman at the height of her erotic powers." (116)

 

Shakespeare perhaps pushes drag to its meta-most point in As You Like It, a play in which a male actor dresses as a woman, who dresses as a man, who dresses as a woman. Unfortunately, Shakespeare died in 1616, "thereby missing the dawn of the nelliest period in history: the Baroque" (119) [d]. 

 

That's a fun description of the period between 1600-1750, but I can't vouch for its historical accuracy. Indeed, it might be said that the Baroque was not inherently effeminate, but rather characterized by dramatic and ornate styles designed to project masculine power, wealth, and status.

 

While male fashion included elements such as wigs, high heels, and ribbons, these were viewed as lavish, not effeminate. In contrast, the subsequent Rococo period was deemed to be feminine and delicate; light and airy with lots of soft pastel colours and the use of natural forms such as shells and flora in art, interior design, and fashion. 

 

The point is: when reading history, one must be careful not to project one's own values and desires into the past and avoid interpreting events from a perspective shaped by the present. The past is not "a giant gender-inclusive dressing-up box, just waiting to be plundered" (131), no matter what drag performers may choose to believe [e]. 

 

Moving on, this note by Doonan caught my eye: 

 

"There was nothing unisex about the eighteenth-century Brits. Men's attire was butch and militaristic. Women's fashions were ornate and romantic in the extreme. The gendered nature of clothing added massively to the frisson generated by cross-dressing ..." (123)

 

If that's the case - and I think it is the case - then one might ask what's so desirable about dissolving the male/female binary and celebrating gender neutrality; hasn't Doonan just provided a thrilling argument not only for maintaining sexual distance but for widening the gulf? Uni-anything is always boring. 

 

Doonan closes chapter 5 by zooming into the modern (and postmodern) world, beginning in the so-called Mauve Decade of the 1890s when "drag becomes a thing, with a name and a reputation to uphold" (131) [f] and ending up in the present; "an era of relative tolerance where the acceptance and visibility of drag and trans have surged dramatically" (133). 

 

In a paragraph mixing cultural pessimism with political optimism, he writes:

 

"Masculinity is in retreat and gender nonconformity is on the march. Will it last? Some scholars point out that drag and trans have surged in late-stage civilizations [...] and that this freewheeling exploration of identity was immediately followed by sharp decline and total eclipse. Hopefully the prominence of drag and trans in our society is not an augur of doom, but rather a sign of the arrival of a progressive utopia that will last for eternity." (133)   

  

If I were Doonan, I'd keep more than my fingers crossed ... 

 

 

IV. 

 

Comedy drag, says Doonan, is an enduring showbiz staple that continues to amuse; everyone loves a pantomime dame - apart from those, like me, who don't find Christopher Biggins particularly amusing, either in or out of drag [g]. 

 

For Doonan, the dame might be a loveable figure, but, to my mind, she often represents the most banal version of the craft. Whilst glamour drag at least hints at something dangerous and transformative, the comedy drag of the pantomime variety feels too much like a cheap caricature; a way of neutralising the seductive threat of the feminine by turning it into an end of the pier joke. It's drag devoid of anything Medusan. 

 

In fact, Doonan admits as much: 

 

"Comedy drag sprang from a desire to disarm the nightmarish female archetypes of Victorian England [...] Strict governesses, relentless nags, ruler-wielding schoolteachers and cruel stepmothers [...]" (140)

 

Reading this, one might almost think there was something a little misogynistic about it [h], though Doonan says that such drag performance has "obvious psycho-therapeutic benefits" (140) (I'm not quite sure for whom). 

 

Whilst reading between the lines, one suspects Doonan also sees a radical political element to this genre of drag; that it represents an attack on Queen Victoria - "the ultimate disapproving matriarch [... who] unwittingly fuelled the bawdy drag-strewn irreverence of Victorian music halls" (140) - something that really wasn't the case.   

 

For while true that 19th-century British music halls and pantomimes frequently featured drag queens and female impersonators - and whilst satirical commentary was often part of the act - there is no evidence that Queen Victoria was a direct or frequent target of mockery. 

 

Indeed, direct mockery of the monarch was heavily restricted by censorship laws and tempered by the popularity of the Queen amongst her subjects. Any ridicule of the rich and powerful was aimed at the swells, toffs, and big nobs in society - not Her Majesty [i]. 

 

Moving on, Doonan has some interesting things to say about the boom in comedy drag post-Second World War:

 

"The returning troops brought home their enthusiasm for drag and somehow infected the entire population. [...] It is no exaggeration to say that, once the telly started to appear in British living rooms, we Brits began to drown in drag." (147) 

 

He and his best pal loved dressing up in drag and watching comics on the TV dress up in drag. But I guess one has to be that way inclined and, as indicated in a note below - [g] - as a child I was never particularly taken with drag. 

 

Thus, for example, whilst it's true that Benny Hill would perform in drag "in order to generate cheeky-but-family-friendly primetime laughs" (147), he did not invent one single, famous drag character that defined him and I much preferred watching Hill as Fred Scuttle or Ernie the milkman to seeing him in drag.   

 

Things changed in the late '60s, when "gay culture came screaming out of the shadows, with drag following close on its heels" (148). As gay bars, pubs and clubs proliferated, "so did the number of performing drag queens" (148). 

 

But they weren't so family-friendly; "this new wave of drag queens was angry, loud, proud and foul-mouthed" (148) - but also very funny, says Doonan: "The rude and fabulous creativity and comedic talent that gushed forth during this period of new-found freedom is remarkable." (148)

 

Drag, says Doonan, became "more gay, and more postmodern" (149); a sentence that makes smile and which one feels tempted to interrogate, but which I'll pass over due to space restrictions, though one would like to know what Doonan means by the latter term, which he uses on several occasions in his book. I guess he simply means comedy drag became "hipper and more self-aware" (150), for constructing as he is a complete story of drag, I doubt he's overly incredulous towards metanarratives.    

 

And today?

 

"Today, as more and more trans comedians and entertainers take the stage, the face of comedy drag is changing. The bawdy raging postmodern campy humour of pub, club and disco is morphing into something more subtle and emotionally real." (158)

 

I think Doonan is saying that drag has gone woke and is now designed for a new "gender-inclusive generation" (158) who respond less to cruelty and irony and more to vulnerability and victimhood; less Lily Savage and more Justin Vivian Bond, whose act is "infused with a subtle melancholic humour" (159) and promotes values of care, community, and kindness. 

 

The world, says Doonan, "has become a kinder, gentler place" (159) - I have to say, I haven't noticed that here on Harold Hill - and drag queens are spreading a message of "inclusivity, creativity and empowerment" (160). 

 

Unless you happen to be a straight white male, which for Doonan equates with being overbearing, treacherous and Trumpian. Out with toxic masculinity and in with "suave gay metrosexual identity" (160). Who's subscribing to simplistic binary opposition now, Simon?   

 

Notes

 

[a] Page references given in this (in round brackets) refer to the concise paperback edition of this work, published by Laurence King, in 2024.  

 

[b] Surely this is really only true of a few women working in the arts and showbiz ...? I'm not sure that the most successful approach for women in other (traditionally male) environments has been to masquerade as one of the boys - and don't see why they should have to do so just to prove themselves and gain respect. 

 

[c] Having said that, I did write a post earlier this year on voguing (27 Jan 2026) - click here - though it was essentially about Malcolm McLaren and Madonna, rather than the black dancers and drag queens who created the scene. 

 

[d] For those who may be unfamiliar with the term, nelly is a slang word used to describe an overtly effeminate man (not necessarily but more often than not homosexual), who adopts stereotypical feminine behaviours, mannerisms, or interests. Whilst historically used negatively in the straight world, it is sometimes used as an affectionate label within the queer community (as here by Doonan). 

 

[e] Doonan writes: "But history is not all thigh-slapping pastiche and nostalgia. To study the arc of civilization is to be drenched in blood, madness and brutality. Drag and trans, always vulnerabe to shifts in politics, have often felt the cat-o'-nine-tails." (133)

 

[f] Actually, the first recorded use of the term drag in its modern sense was in 1870. It is believed to have originated in theatre slang; male performers playing female roles wore long skirts that would literally trail or drag on the floor.   

 

[g] Come to think of it, I've never really been fond of drag artists. As a child, I grew up watching Danny La Rue on TV, but never found him remotely entertaining and hated his sentimental theme song, 'On Mother Kelley's Doorstep' (a popular music hall number from the 1920s). I also declined all offers to attend a pantomime at Christmas.

      Having said that, I did like Dick Emery's Mandy (Ooh! You are awful ...) and one of my favourite scenes in any of the Carry On films is in Carry On Constable (1960), in which Kenneth Williams and Charles Hawtrey drag up as Ethel and Agatha. I discuss this scene in a post dated 9 April 2022, titled 'Carry On Cross Dressing': click here.   

 

[h] The question of whether drag is misogynistic is a subject of intense debate. Critics argue it creates a grotesque caricature of women, while proponents view it as a celebration of femininity and a subversion of rigid gender norms. 

      It's certainly worth considering if the empowerment of the performers that Doonan celebrates is based upon the mocking exploitation of actual women. Worth recalling too how blackface used to be hugely popular and seen as just a harmless bit of fun. 

      Readers interested (and perhaps undecided) on this issue might like to see two letters published in The Guardian (7 April 2024); one arguing that drag is a sexist caricature, the other that it's a fascinating and fabulous art form: click here.  

[i] Readers might also note that there remains a rumour circulating in certain drag circles that one artist was so popular that Victoria reportedly attended a show in disguise to find out what all the fuss was about. This is most likely an urban legend, but it nevertheless casts further doubt on Doonan's claim that the Queen was completely humourless and/or a target of public ridicule. 

 

 

Part one of this post - on glamour drag and art drag - can be accessed by clicking here. 

 

Part three of this post - on popstar drag, cinema drag, and radical drag - can be accessed here.