Boy - Is A Gay Album

[joyfulgirl]

Look, I think one of the main points of this discussion is that it doesn't matter what Bono intended--each listener's interpretation is valid. Where we seem to disagree is that Niceman said something to the effect (sorry, I'm not going to go back through these long posts to find the exact quote) that it's fine if you want to read Twilight as gay but that in his opinion that is not obvious to most people and therefore it's something one has to look for, while his interpretation of it being more of a coming of age thing is the more obvious interpretation. So in a sense he's saying, as I understand it and please correct me if I'm wrong, "all interpretations are valid, but mine is more valid because it's more obvious to most people." That is where I flatly disagree and Irvine has IMO very eloquently argued exactly why the gay interpretation is as obvious as the other one if one is aware of gay culture [edit] or even they aren't but have had some kind of experience that would clue them in.

If simply reading the lyrics at face value without looking for hidden symbolism, one sees that a man and a boy (young man) are meeting in the shadows. What exactly do men do when they meet in the shadows? Smoke cigarettes? Plan a robbery? Tell dirty jokes? Eat a sandwich? "Shadows" to me obviously implies something illicit and due to my own knowlege of "cruising" in gay culture, my interpretation was glaringly obvious to me. And I don't buy the suggestion that only people who are gay or who have gay friends would see that. Many many many young straight men in this world have been approached by older gay men whether they talk about it or not. They may not be aware of cruising in gay culture but they may have had an experience of being approached, even if nothing happened, so that in reading that line they would pretty much get it. I wouldn't be surprised if everyone here knows someone who has had that expereince whether they know it or not, just like everyone knows a woman who has been raped whether they know this about her or not. So to say that that could not be obvious to many people IMO is just not true. However, if gay culture is not part of your realm of knowledge and experience, or if you have never been approached, then of course you would find a different meaning. But it's really insulting for anyone to say that "of course it's fine if you see it that way but it's a stretch." I can see exactly why someone would see it as a coming of age analogy and I feel both interpretations are equally valid. I'm sure it would not be well-received if I said, "sure, your interpretation is valid but only because you need to see it that way--it's not really there but you've decided it is and that's fine."

Whew. Okay, I think I'm done. For now.

 

[catlhere]

Look, I think one of the main points of this discussion is that it doesn't matter what Bono intended--each listener's interpretation is valid. Where we seem to disagree is that Niceman said something to the effect (sorry, I'm not going to go back through these long posts to find the exact quote) that it's fine if you want to read Twilight as gay but that in his opinion that is not obvious to most people and therefore it's something one has to look for, while his interpretation of it being more of a coming of age thing is the more obvious interpretation. So in a sense he's saying, as I understand it and please correct me if I'm wrong, "all interpretations are valid, but mine is more valid because it's more obvious to most people." That is where I flatly disagree and Irvine has IMO very eloquently argued exactly why the gay interpretation is as obvious as the other one if one is aware of gay culture.

If simply reading the lyrics at face value without looking for hidden symbolism, one sees that a man and a boy (young man) are meeting in the shadows. What exactly do men do when they meet in the shadows? Smoke cigarettes? Plan a robbery? Tell dirty jokes? Eat a sandwich? "Shadows" to me obviously implies something illicit and due to my own knowlege of "cruising" in gay culture, my interpretation was glaringly obvious to me. And I don't buy the suggestion that only people who are gay or who have gay friends would see that. Many many many young straight men in this world have been approached by older gay men whether they talk about it or not. They may not be aware of cruising in gay culture but they may have had an experience of being approached, even if nothing happened, so that in reading that line they would pretty much get it. I wouldn't be surprised if everyone here knows someone who has had that expereince whether they know it or not, just like everyone knows a woman who has been raped whether they know this about her or not. So to say that that could not be obvious to many people IMO is just not true. However, if gay culture is not part of your realm of knowledge and experience, or if you have never been approached, then of course you would find a different meaning. But it's really insulting for anyone to say that "of course it's fine if you see it that way but it's a stretch." I can see exactly why someone would see it as a coming of age analogy and I feel both interpretations are equally valid. I'm sure it would not be well-received if I said, "sure, your interpretation is valid but only because you need to see it that way--it's not really there but you've decided it is and that's fine."

Whew. Okay, I think I'm done. For now.

I don't know if your post was to me or Niceman. I'd just like to say I didn't tell anyone their opinion was less obvious than mine. Only that it's unfair to come off as high and mighty over someone by stating they are ignorant or don't understand anything at all for not agreeing with the main point of the topic. Just want to clear that up. Moving on...

-ejects from topiX-

 

[joyfulgirl]

I don't know if your post was to me or Niceman.

It was just directed generally to anyone who has been following this thread I guess.

 

[Irvine511]

And how must it be "thuddingly obvious for everyone?

Am I supposed to think now from this point on that "Twilight" has gay references because it's obvious to you? What if I interperate the song in a different way that includes no gay innuendos at all? Does that make me an "ignorant" person because I don't find the same hidden symbolism that you, master of "Queer Studies", do? That in it self speaks volumes about YOUR ignorance, that no one is allowed to disagree with someone that thinks they are SO right in saying Boy is a gay album, because they have studied a gay course. Well guess what, to me, IT ISN'T! OMG I must be ignorant! I mocked the thread with my quote of the Acrobat line "Choke on it, etc blah blah" not because I'm ignorant on any subject but because the point that Niceman and I seem to both be trying to get across is that anyone could find gay messages in ANY song if they happen to feel that it is gay in THEIR opinion. What if I don't think meeting a man in the shadows is a gay line. What if I feel that the line means you became or saw your future self in a dark time, a time of shadows, or uncertainty. I must obviously be ignorant that I can't see the glaring homosexual undertones right? Wrong. Could the thought possibly get through to some people that when they want to paint someone as ignorant or not understanding, that they themselves are the ones practicing those characteristics. I don't have to think that everyone supporting Boy being a gay album is right because some study told me so. You make what you want of music, and if that happens to be "Boy=Gay" that's fine, but don't call ignorance on someone that has a dissenting opinion, and doesn't voice it in the way you'd like them to.

wow, how defensive.

yes: you are ignorant of *gay culture* if you miss how "in the shadows/ boy meets man" can be read, validly read, as a reference to crusing.

and i'm getting sick of this pulling out of your butt vague lyrics and then saying, "well that could be about gayness" in the same way that it could be about a ham sandwich. there are rules to interpretation, there are rules to textual analysis, and while everyone is entitled to an interpretation there are some interpretations that are simply more valid than others because they can be better supported with evidence. it's why some English papers get C+'s and others get A-'s. i'm not going to say, for example, that your interpretation of Hamlet is wrong; but i am going to say that your interpretation of Hamlet is poorly argued and poorly supported.

this is the difference between opinions and arguments. while everyone is entitled to an opinion, some arguments are better than others. if you don't know anything about Queer Studies or doing a Queer Reading, then it's going to make you look pretty silly to assert that "anything" can be read as gay or homoerotic because that's simply not true. that's a kindergarten-level argument. i don't give a shit about sounding high and mighty because it would be bad thinking to simply nod and give a relativist "yes, well if you think it then it is true for you and if it is true for you then it is as valid as anything else" because that isn't true. scholars base their entire careers on the quality of their arguments, and sloppy equivocation (like you're making) would mean the death of academia.

i don't see what's so hard about this. simply because you missed it doesn't mean it isn't there, and as Joyfulgirl -- who is well studied in gay culture and gay norms and gay history, as opposed to you -- has nicely pointed out, the meeting in the shadows as suggestive of the possibility of an illicit sexual encounter fits in perfectly with what is known as "cruising" -- the details of which is a whole paragraph that i don't have time to write.

fuck, if memory serves, if you pick up the Into the Heart book, these gay themes are noted by Niall Stokes and Bono says something like, "yes, it's totally about being approached by a guy, even though i didn't intend that when i wrote it."

 

[joyfulgirl]

there are rules to interpretation, there are rules to textual analysis, and while everyone is entitled to an interpretation there are some interpretations that are simply more valid than others because they can be better supported with evidence.

That is an excellent point. My argument about everyone's interpretation being equally valid is missing this line of reasoning.

 

[Irvine511]

That is an excellent point. My argument about everyone's interpretation being equally valid is missing this line of reasoning.

what i think happens is that people focus on the meaning -- i.e., is it homoerotic -- rather than the quality of thought and argumentation that leads one to whatever point one is trying to make about any text.

i once heard a lecture on a Freudian reading of Pulp Fiction, where the blood in the movie was read as how Freud saw shit. children playing with shit, shit being illicit, something to be kept from mothers. she chose the scene where they call in the Wolf -- a father figure -- in order to prevent the mother figure -- Bonnie, Tarantino's wife -- from finding out that there was blood/shit all over her house after they shot Marvin in the face.

that's a poor summary, but you get the idea.

i'm not a huge fan of Freud, and i found myself thinking, "so?" however, the argument this scholar put forth was outstanding -- she was very detailed, very comprehensive, and had an outstanding understanding of Freud that she then applied to this scene. so, my opinion of her interpretation might be one of indifference, however the quality of her argumentation was outstanding. and she received loud applause and approving nods.

 

[joyfulgirl]

I've showed the ZooTV video to a couple of friends (straight and gay) who immediately saw something homoerotic in Bono & Edge's duel at the end of UTEOTW. We didn't get into a heavy intellectual analysis of it but I'd be interested to hear them debate that. Unfortunately one of them is now dead so unless he reveals it to me in a dream I guess I will never know.




edited to correct egregious spelling error, "duel" not "dual."

 

[catlhere]

wow, how defensive.

yes: you are ignorant of *gay culture* if you miss how "in the shadows/ boy meets man" can be read, validly read, as a reference to crusing.

and i'm getting sick of this pulling out of your butt vague lyrics and then saying, "well that could be about gayness" in the same way that it could be about a ham sandwich. there are rules to interpretation, there are rules to textual analysis, and while everyone is entitled to an interpretation there are some interpretations that are simply more valid than others because they can be better supported with evidence. it's why some English papers get C+'s and others get A-'s. i'm not going to say, for example, that your interpretation of Hamlet is wrong; but i am going to say that your interpretation of Hamlet is poorly argued and poorly supported.

this is the difference between opinions and arguments. while everyone is entitled to an opinion, some arguments are better than others. if you don't know anything about Queer Studies or doing a Queer Reading, then it's going to make you look pretty silly to assert that "anything" can be read as gay or homoerotic because that's simply not true. that's a kindergarten-level argument. i don't give a shit about sounding high and mighty because it would be bad thinking to simply nod and give a relativist "yes, well if you think it then it is true for you and if it is true for you then it is as valid as anything else" because that isn't true. scholars base their entire careers on the quality of their arguments, and sloppy equivocation (like you're making) would mean the death of academia.

i don't see what's so hard about this. simply because you missed it doesn't mean it isn't there, and as Joyfulgirl -- who is well studied in gay culture and gay norms and gay history, as opposed to you -- has nicely pointed out, the meeting in the shadows as suggestive of the possibility of an illicit sexual encounter fits in perfectly with what is known as "cruising" -- the details of which is a whole paragraph that i don't have time to write.

fuck, if memory serves, if you pick up the Into the Heart book, these gay themes are noted by Niall Stokes and Bono says something like, "yes, it's totally about being approached by a guy, even though i didn't intend that when i wrote it."

Wow what an uninformed post. Did you even read what I wrote? Where in any place did I say I "missed" anything? So because I don't think the song is gay I'm either ignorant or just can't see the truth right? Wow! I can see there's no point arguing with someone like you because you can't seem to understand ANYone's point that doesnt coincide with your own. While at the same time you criticize anyone who hasn't studied "Queer Studies" as unable to make a valid point because they aren't "versed" in gay culture. Give me a break, and you say you're not high and mighty. That's the very definition of it! That line of thinking is what I'd rather not even dignify with a response but I just can't stop myself because it's so offensive. Saying someone is ignorant because they don't see what you see. Good lord, hypocrite much? Yikes. And I thought people we're better than this. You think some arguements are better than others, well here's one. YOU make what YOU want of music, and that in NO way makes your arguement fact or "better" than anyone elses. It in no way means someone elses opinion is "sloppy" and "uninformed" because it doesn't fit with yours. That is just plain idiocy. If you can learn to understand that, then maybe you'll learn to respect other peoples voice against this topic and learn to see that everyone's point is just as good and worth hearing as your own. But from your 2 posts it doesn't look like thats gonna happen.

 

[yolland]

Does that make me an "ignorant" person because I don't find the same hidden symbolism that you, master of "Queer Studies", do?
I mocked the thread with my quote of the Acrobat line "Choke on it, etc blah blah" not because I'm ignorant on any subject but because the point that Niceman and I seem to both be trying to get across is that anyone could find gay messages in ANY song if they happen to feel that it is gay in THEIR opinion.
You make what you want of music, and if that happens to be "Boy=Gay" that's fine, but don't call ignorance on someone that has a dissenting opinion, and doesn't voice it in the way you'd like them to.

Sigh. I can't believe how threatened you are by the idea that there's more than one legitimate way to interpret a fricking rock song. Irvine never said or implied that his reading was the only or most valid one and that his "Mastery of Queer Studies" proves it. What he did suggest--and I think your post soundly confirms he's right--is that you don't know enough about Queer Studies and the postmodern intellectual legacy it comes from to recognize what sort of claims a queer reading is and isn't making about the content of a text. You're the one who's derisively reducing it to a fancy version of prepubescent boys titillating themselves with all the possible oral sex references to be found in a lyric.

And Irvine never said "Boy=Gay," either--it was the thread starter who came up with that overblown analogy. Oh, tee hee, giggle giggle, they think it's all about gay sex! Quick, let's make an absurd straw man caricature of what that claim means and set it on fire before anyone gets any ideas about having the right to pervert Bono's true meaning with their childish need to find themselves and only themselves in his expressions of heterosexual angst.

Anyone who follows Irvine511's posts over in FYM knows him to be a big-hearted, open-minded man with an admirably self-critical conscience and a vigorous intellect to match. I make no such claims for myself, but I can certainly see that you are way overreacting to his defense of the claim that legitimate alternative readings of Bono's lyrics exist, and projecting all sorts of threats to your own interpretive authority into his arguments that simply aren't there.

What's worse, though, is that you're going beyond that to make a mean-spirited personal attack by reflexively and reductively attributing the intent of his analysis to Irvine=Gay. If nothing else, catlhere--can you not grasp how much more difficult it is for him to persist with a civil academic tone in the face of such derision, than it would be for you to just grant Irvine the benefit of the doubt as someone who speaks from an intellectual and experiential standpoint you are simply unfamiliar with? Why is insisting on the primacy of Boy=Straight-Before-All-Else so important to you? Does a little indulgence of interpretive exploration cost so much?

I respect your own intellectual integrity and your right to your own interpretations--I want to make that clear. But I also regard Irvine, from experience, as a man of integrity and a friend, and will insist on his right to respectful consideration of his views. And his right, like everyone else's in this thread, to a forceful self-defense in the face of personal attacks.

~ Peace

 

[catlhere]

Sigh. I can't believe how threatened you are by the idea that there's more than one legitimate way to interpret a fricking rock song. Irvine never said or implied that his reading was the only or most valid one and that his "Mastery of Queer Studies" proves it. What he did suggest--and I think your post soundly confirms he's right--is that you don't know enough about Queer Studies and the postmodern intellectual legacy it comes from to recognize what sort of claims a queer reading is and isn't making about the content of a text. You're the one who's derisively reducing it to a fancy version of prepubescent boys titillating themselves with all the possible oral sex references to be found in a lyric.

And Irvine never said "Boy=Gay," either--it was the thread starter who came up with that overblown analogy. Oh, tee hee, giggle giggle, they think it's all about gay sex! Quick, let's make an absurd straw man caricature of what that claim means and set it on fire before anyone gets any ideas about having the right to pervert Bono's true meaning with their childish need to find themselves and only themselves in his expressions of heterosexual angst.

Anyone who follows Irvine511's posts over in FYM knows him to be a big-hearted, open-minded man with an admirably self-critical conscience and a vigorous intellect to match. I make no such claims for myself, but I can certainly see that you are way overreacting to his defense of the claim that legitimate alternative readings of Bono's lyrics exist, and projecting all sorts of threats to your own interpretive authority into his arguments that simply aren't there.

What's worse, though, is that you're going beyond that to make a mean-spirited personal attack by reflexively and reductively attributing the intent of his analysis to Irvine=Gay. If nothing else, catlhere--can you not grasp how much more difficult it is for him to persist with a civil academic tone in the face of such derision, than it would be for you to just grant Irvine the benefit of the doubt as someone who speaks from an intellectual and experiential standpoint you are simply unfamiliar with? Why is insisting on the primacy of Boy=Straight-Before-All-Else so important to you? Does a little indulgence of interpretive exploration cost so much?

I respect your own intellectual integrity and your right to your own interpretations--I want to make that clear. But I also regard Irvine, from experience, as a man of integrity and a friend, and will insist on his right to respectful consideration of his views. And his right, like everyone else's in this thread, to a forceful self-defense in the face of personal attacks.

~ Peace

OMG!

What the heck is going on here! Does no one read what I wrote? I don't CARE if the song or the album or U2 is thought to have homosexual undertones! For the last time. I think it's fine, and perfectly valid for whoever wants to say that. I was defending someone who was being talked down to because he didn't think that the song had the same meaning! I was also stating how someone could possibly have a different opinion which doesn't seem to be going over well in here, not one single person, save for Joy, has allowed me to say it's ok to NOT think it's a gay reference in that song. My opinion has been called ignorant now, and uninformed because I don't agree. This is becoming absurd.

 

[joyfulgirl]

So because I don't think the song is gay I'm either ignorant or just can't see the truth right?t

I think you may be confusing the word "ignorant" with the word "stupid." "Ignorant" simply means uninformed. If you are participating in a thread about gay culture/queer readings/etc. but are uninformed on the subject to the point that you miss certain points that would be obvious to one who is informed, yes you are actually "ignorant." You are not stupid, you simply are uninformed/ignorant. I am in fact quite ignorant on many of the things Irvine has discussed because I have not had the formal training in arguing and analyzing texts that he has but I do possess a rather deep understanding of gay culture.

Give me a break, and you say you're not high and mighty. That's the very definition of it! That line of thinking is what I'd rather not even dignify with a response but I just can't stop myself because it's so offensive.

Actually, he never said he wasn't high and mighty. He said "i don't give a shit about sounding high and mighty"

 

[catlhere]

Ok well I don't like the whole 3 voices against 1 thing going on. I'm going to concede. You guys win. Congrats. I'll go find somewhere else to voice an opinion. Thanks for the debate.

 

[Irvine511]

wow ... as usual, Yolland and Joyfulgirl respond beautifully and better than i could have.

and Yolland is a giant over in FYM. i also think he's a professor of some sort, and i'm certain his students are very lucky to have him as a professor.

thank you both.

catlhere: i don't think you're stupid. nor do i think you are homophobic. but i don't think you know much about the subject at hand. i don't think your viewing "twilight" as a song devoid of homosexual references is wrong. there's nothing explicitly homosexual -- ie, description of love for other men or gay sex acts. but what i do object to is your dismissing of my reading not by saying that it is wrong, but that it is no more valid than finding homoerotic subtext in any other piece of art.

there's a huge, huge difference between viewing homosexual subtext in the song with lyrics like "the old man tried to walk me home / i thought he should have known ... in the shadows/ boy meets man" versus saying someting like "i still haven't found what i'm looking for" means that Bono is unsatisfied by heterosexuality and wants to be gay.

one is valid and can be supported; the other can't. thus, they are not equal readings of the songs.

that's really my only point here. if you want to disagree, fine. but disagree with me on the merits of that particular text -- the lyrics of "twilight," don't deride the application or validity of a queer reading.

 

[yolland]

...not one single person, save for Joy, has allowed me to say it's ok to NOT think it's a gay reference in that song.

I respect your own intellectual integrity and your right to your own interpretations--I want to make that clear.

well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but i think there's a tremendous amount of homoerotic imagery in the lyrics and the album cover, as Bono himself has admitted.

i work under the assumption that there are no "correct" readings of texts, there are merely "valid" interpretations that can and should be contested.

 

[yolland]

I'm a "she," Irvine.

 

[yolland]

[deleted]

I would pick this moment to make a double post...

 

[Irvine511]

I'm a "she," Irvine.

my bad.

wow.

 

[joyfulgirl]

 

[joyfulgirl]

Ok well I don't like the whole 3 voices against 1 thing going on. I'm going to concede. You guys win. Congrats. I'll go find somewhere else to voice an opinion. Thanks for the debate.

I'm sorry you felt ganged up on. We're all pretty passionate here and all had something to say in response to your posts but the intention was not to gang up on you.

 

[Irvine511]

i hope other people will join in and engage in debate.

i think Boy is a terrific album, and i'd love to see it's merits -- homoerotic subtext or otherwise -- fleshed out.

 

[yolland]

my bad.

wow.

Oh I think it's a riot, no problem.

And I *probably* never have explicitly said "and as a woman, I think..." or whatever in here, now that I think of it. I did wonder a bit when you made that "go bald" suggestion a few days back, but then, I have real-life friends giving me exactly the same advice right now, so...

Hope I haven't inadvertently misled anyone by not specifically stating this, if indeed I haven't.

I was just looking at the photos thread over in Lemonade Stand the other day and experienced several gender identity shocks myself...it's a truism to say so, but it really is amazing how we tend to ascribe maleness-until-proven-otherwise to anyone whose gender is somehow unclear. (I'm not saying anyone was doing that in my case, rather observing that I myself do it.)

My husband will be very amused to hear about this, as we just finished reading "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus" together (as a lark, not because we think John Gray "PhD" has anything to teach us) and we both agreed that in our case, I am the terse, needing-to-be-needed-and-admired, leave-me-alone-I've-had-a-bad-day "Martian," whereas he is the verbose, needing-to-be-loved-and-cared-for, oh-my-God-get-this-you'll-never-believe-what-happened-today "Venutian." I grew up with four brothers and he with six sisters for siblings, perhaps that has something to do with it.

Now how's that for an alternative reading.

OK, sorry for the digression, I just wanted to clarify. Carry on!

 

[Niceman]

And how must it be "thuddingly obvious for everyone?

Am I supposed to think now from this point on that "Twilight" has gay references because it's obvious to you? What if I interperate the song in a different way that includes no gay innuendos at all? Does that make me an "ignorant" person because I don't find the same hidden symbolism that you, master of "Queer Studies", do? That in it self speaks volumes about YOUR ignorance, that no one is allowed to disagree with someone that thinks they are SO right in saying Boy is a gay album, because they have studied a gay course. Well guess what, to me, IT ISN'T! OMG I must be ignorant! I mocked the thread with my quote of the Acrobat line "Choke on it, etc blah blah" not because I'm ignorant on any subject but because the point that Niceman and I seem to both be trying to get across is that anyone could find gay messages in ANY song if they happen to feel that it is gay in THEIR opinion. What if I don't think meeting a man in the shadows is a gay line. What if I feel that the line means you became or saw your future self in a dark time, a time of shadows, or uncertainty. I must obviously be ignorant that I can't see the glaring homosexual undertones right? Wrong. Could the thought possibly get through to some people that when they want to paint someone as ignorant or not understanding, that they themselves are the ones practicing those characteristics. I don't have to think that everyone supporting Boy being a gay album is right because some study told me so. You make what you want of music, and if that happens to be "Boy=Gay" that's fine, but don't call ignorance on someone that has a dissenting opinion, and doesn't voice it in the way you'd like them to.

Woo-Hoo!!!!!!!! I'm not alone! I'm not crazy!!!! Bravo.

 

[Niceman]

And I'm gone.

Irvine, you're a jerk.

Everyone else who didn't want to allow me to say what I wanted to respectfully say without accusing me of being ignorant or having malicious intentions, you can think whatever you want. I have nothing more to add to this topic other than to repost what I've already said.

Your poor manners say more about you than they do about me.

I won't be checking this thread to read any responses.

I'll be too busy listening to U2.

ta!

 

[Irvine511]

Irvine, you're a jerk.




Your poor manners say more about you than they do about me.

pot? kettle?

grow up.

i've been nothing but polite in this thread, and in the face of not-so-subtle homophobia and the mocking and belittling of valid areas of scholarship at the hands of people who simply don't know what they're talking about.

like you.

 

[AtomicBono]

Irvine, you're a jerk.

Nice, personal attack

Let me say though I haven't been in this discussion much it's been fascinating to read. I'm sorry to see it reduced to such a frustrating debate, but I've learned from reading it. Also, I don't think anyone (besides perhaps whoever started the thread?) is saying the album Boy is entirely about being gay, or that even one song is entirely about being gay; people are simply saying that there are some lyrics that could easily be interpreted to be about homosexuality, and that it would make sense for the question of sexual orientation to show up in an album about a boy becoming a man, the confusuon of adolescence, loss of innocence, ect. I think the most important thing is for everyone to keep an open mind.

 

[Muggsy]

i hope other people will join in and engage in debate.

I felt the same way as calthere..... and nobody (including me) should be ignored or considered stupid just because has a different point of view.

I respect the others point of view and I'm capable to see why they think that way, therefore I hope to receive the same treatment. when I read irvine`s post I found them interesting (although I don't share his view cuz simply i'm not him!!) the thread got a little narrow but they have good arguments. but later, when some people tried to debate his opinion or exposed their owns things got ugly.

 

[Irvine511]

but later, when some people tried to debate his opinion or exposed their owns things got ugly.

here is, i think, the center of the misunderstanding that i thought Joyfulgirl had elucidated, but i guess went unnoticed:

to say that someone is ignorant isn't to say (especially in an intellectual exchange) that they are stupid; it is to say that they are uninformed. the posts by Niceman and Calthere clearly demonstrated an unfamiliarity with Queer Readings, and Niceman himself said that he simply didn't care about the topic. that's not a productive way to engage in debate -- it's like wanting to argue about China, but professing not to care much about Chinese history or culture.

i'm not going to feel any sort of regret for calling people out when they don't know what they are talking about. call me a jerk if you want, but that, to my mind, further demonstrates an inability to participate in a debate. again, you can hold any opinion you want, but when you denigrate not just an opinion but an argument i was making by mocking, out of ignorance, precisely how the argument was constructed with a Queer Reading of the text of "Twilight" which, as i demonstrated in my very first post in this thread, is an excellent example of a song that suggests homosexuality, or at least it's temptation, or at least it's existence, without ever being explicit about it, then you're going to set yourself up to be called out on your being uninformed.

it's the lack of explicitness that is essentially the foundation of a Queer Reading -- because you couldn't talk about homosexuality until very recently, it could only exist in cultural texts through allusions, coded language, suggestion, and intended silences.

Muggsy -- none of that was directed at you, but your post did bring up a point that i wanted to make.

 

[ZeroDude]

I'm starting to believe that we all may lack the ability to empathise with opposing viewpoints here.

==============================================

Although I've read and enjoyed the debates that this thread has produced, I'd just like to say that all personal interpretations of the lyrics found on “Boy" are indeed valid.

The line "In the shadows, boy meets man" from "Twilight" can be construed as an allusion to a homosexual relationship between a young boy (a man aged say 16 to 25) and an older male figure.

Continuing in such a literal vein, we can view the older man in this scenario as a father figure or mentor to the boy and/ or a lover as previously stated, in fact this ties in with the concept of "pederasty" that Oscar Wilde also spoke of himself.

(As a side note remember that Bono on "The Ocean" makes references to "Dorian Gray" linking in with "Twilight" quite intimately. Showing a definite at least to my mind Wilde influence.)

Although all of this may just show a willingness to confront the social normalities present in Ireland at the time, the concepts and actions of the "Lypton Village" show influence here as well in my opinion.

My final interpretation of the lyrics prevalent in "Twilight" is indeed the most metaphorical, simplistic and typical of Bono.

"In the shadows, boy meets man" may simply describe the transition from adolescence to adulthood.

In my interpretation the shadows represent his mother's death, with out a mother the child must learn to fend for himself and mature at a faster rate than those who still have such a comfort.

To put it simply Bono had to "be a man" and continue on living despite terrible loss.

Disclaimer:

If anything I've wrote here seems contentious at all I apologise. I have tried my best to avoid socially biased and ignorant statements.

And before people start jumping on each other, I’ll quote some of Tolstoy’s musings on art and the perception of art.

"Art begins when one person, with the object of joining another or others to himself in one and the same feeling, expresses that feeling by certain external indications. To take the simplest example: a boy, having experienced, let us say, fear on encountering a wolf, relates that encounter; and, in order to evoke in others the feeling he has experienced, describes himself, his condition before the encounter, the surroundings, the woods, his own light heartedness, and then the wolf's appearance, its movements, the distance between himself and the wolf, etc. All this, if only the boy, when telling the story, again experiences the feelings he had lived through and infects the hearers and compels them to feel what the narrator had experienced is art. If even the boy had not seen a wolf but had frequently been afraid of one, and if, wishing to evoke in others the fear he had felt, he invented an encounter with a wolf and recounted it so as to make his hearers share the feelings he experienced when he feared the world, that also would be art. And just in the same way it is art if a man, having experienced either the fear of suffering or the attraction of enjoyment (whether in reality or in imagination) expresses these feelings on canvas or in marble so that others are infected by them. And it is also art if a man feels or imagines to himself feelings of delight, gladness, sorrow, despair, courage, or despondency and the transition from one to another of these feelings, and expresses these feelings by sounds so that the hearers are infected by them and experience them as they were experienced by the composer."

Thank you for your time.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Nice post, ZeroDude. Nothing contentious there at all--just a beautifully balanced and articulate expression of what IMO are the two most obvious interpretations of these ambiguous lyrics. I really like the Wilde connection and Tolstoy quote.

 

[financeguy]

Homophobia has a face and a name, and it dwells amongst us, and it dwells in this thread.

And it dares to CLAIM to take its inspiration from
something called 'morality' and something it dares to call 'God' and the 'holy book'.

And then it procedes to present its thoughts as somehow approximating to intellectual debate, and it presents its analysis as something other than blind prejudice (which is what it is).

That's all.

That's all.

But don't fear, cos the spirit she moves in mysterious ways...