Boy - Is A Gay Album

[Niceman]

Are you thinking he should be thrown in jail? taken out behind the woodshed and beaten? or maybe just having his pants pulled down in public?

methinks I may be in trouble ,eh? I post once and already someone wants to "rip me a new one" and someone else wants to pull my pants down..crikey!!!!!

 

[financeguy]

I mentioned the "boy meets man" line because I noticed that someone had singled it out earlier in the thread.

So, what is your own interpretation of the song 'Twilight' out of interest?

 

[Irvine511]

When I hear "boy meets man" sex is the last thing on my mind. Does that mean that I think you are gay because you hear the line and imagine/assume sex? I suggest that you see the world VERY differently than I do if you write sex into that. Am I suggesting that YOU personally do? NO. But if you do, then that says a lot more about you than it says about the album. What it says, I wouldn't presume to guess, except it wouldreflect what you imagine a man and a boy do together....

well, i am gay, and when i first heard that song, i didn't think about sex, because i was probably 15 and really wasn't dealing with my sexual orientation on a conscious level. however, going back and looking at the lyrics to Boy, and especially that song "Twilight," and using all of those Lit Theory skills i learned in college, i saw the album literally explode with meaning for me. there is so much in Boy that is about growth, fear, the unknown ... and an album written by adolescents must have sexuality in it, since this is perhaps the greatest change that occurs over the course of adolescence -- becoming a sexually mature human being. what separates Boy from other teenaged albums is, as i think Bono said, it's not about losing your virginity but it's about virginity, which is fascinating in and of itself, but it is preoccupied with the psychological effects (what seem to be mostly anxiety) about sexuality and both it's thrill and pleasure as well as it's burdens and responsibilities.

it does say a lot about me, but it also says a whole heck of a lot about the album. for me, the joy of U2 is unpacking the meaning, of songs taking different meaning and shapes over time as i grow and change. Boy is probably one of my favorite U2 albums, both for it's spectacular energy (SFB and OOC, especially) and also for what i can now look back on, since i'm now in my late 20s, and understand as what was then the anxiety of adolescence, the uncertainty, the thrill and the fear of growing and changing and entering adulthood. sexuality is a huge part of this process. my sexual orientation is homosexual. bono's is heterosexual. but that doesn't mean there aren't many, many parallels in the process of sexually maturing (not physically, but emotionally) that are shared by heteros and homos alike. its a credit to bono's 18 year old mind that he was able to dig far beyond the typical tits-n-ass-n-fucking cartoonish view of sexuality, and write something of worth, something that resonates with all people regardless of sexual orientation.

it's important to mention -- and this is one of the pillars of literary theory -- is that it doesn't really matter what the author intends, what matters is how it is understood by the audience. the creative process is, essentially, about making decisions. my creative writing professor said this. keith richards will say this. you simply make decisions based on instinct, and it often takes a 3rd party to unpack what kinds of meaning are in these decisions. i think Bono says in the Niall Stokes book, "wow, it's totally about being approached by a guy" and goes on to say that, yes, he was approached, but he never had any homosexual experiences himself, and he wasn't thinking about that when he wrote the lyrics. but an experience like that -- that is probably a much more universal adolescent experience that we might initially think -- will find it's way into one's chosen method of creative expression. i've done some creative writing, and it's *amazing* to hear what people see in something you've written. it's never something that you consciously put into the piece, but it's there all the same, and it takes someone else to point it out to you.

 

[If you shout...]

I've still a lot to say, but less than no time to say it, at present. As others have done, though, I'll quickly point out that the "boy" in these songs is presumably Bono (or at least his fictive referenct)...the "boy" is not a young boy, but a boy who is himself becoming a man. I dunno...that doesn't add much, I guess, but I feel it's something that should be pointed out.

I'm pretty sure these songs aren't about little kids, is all. These are boys about to be men, or even boys who think or act they are already men, themselves.

SO much to say...! Bah. Time to split.

 

[Niceman]

So, what is your own interpretation of the song 'Twilight' out of interest?

"Out of interest", eh? Well, you've been so fair with your comments to me this far I'm a little skeptical, but sure, I'll humor you.

It's about goring up, growing old and dying - FOR ME. As a boy grows up into a man he becomes stronger, and smarter, but it's like the book flowers for Algernon, these powers are only given briefly and then "old men cry."

Is that the only meaning the song can have? Surely not, but my own life predisposes me to see my own issues in the lyrics. This song isn't sexual for me. It can be for you, but the lyrics don't necesitate that reading.

 

[Niceman]

well, i am gay, and when i first heard that song, i didn't think about sex, because i was probably 15 and really wasn't dealing with my sexual orientation on a conscious level. however, going back and looking at the lyrics to Boy, and especially that song "Twilight," and using all of those Lit Theory skills i learned in college, i saw the album literally explode with meaning for me. there is so much in Boy that is about growth, fear, the unknown ... and an album written by adolescents must have sexuality in it, since this is perhaps the greatest change that occurs over the course of adolescence -- becoming a sexually mature human being. what separates Boy from other teenaged albums is, as i think Bono said, it's not about losing your virginity but it's about virginity, which is fascinating in and of itself, but it is preoccupied with the psychological effects (what seem to be mostly anxiety) about sexuality and both it's thrill and pleasure as well as it's burdens and responsibilities.

it does say a lot about me, but it also says a whole heck of a lot about the album. for me, the joy of U2 is unpacking the meaning, of songs taking different meaning and shapes over time as i grow and change. Boy is probably one of my favorite U2 albums, both for it's spectacular energy (SFB and OOC, especially) and also for what i can now look back on, since i'm now in my late 20s, and understand as what was then the anxiety of adolescence, the uncertainty, the thrill and the fear of growing and changing and entering adulthood. sexuality is a huge part of this process. my sexual orientation is homosexual. bono's is heterosexual. but that doesn't mean there aren't many, many parallels in the process of sexually maturing (not physically, but emotionally) that are shared by heteros and homos alike. its a credit to bono's 18 year old mind that he was able to dig far beyond the typical tits-n-ass-n-fucking cartoonish view of sexuality, and write something of worth, something that resonates with all people regardless of sexual orientation.

it's important to mention -- and this is one of the pillars of literary theory -- is that it doesn't really matter what the author intends, what matters is how it is understood by the audience. the creative process is, essentially, about making decisions. my creative writing professor said this. keith richards will say this. you simply make decisions based on instinct, and it often takes a 3rd party to unpack what kinds of meaning are in these decisions. i think Bono says in the Niall Stokes book, "wow, it's totally about being approached by a guy" and goes on to say that, yes, he was approached, but he never had any homosexual experiences himself, and he wasn't thinking about that when he wrote the lyrics. but an experience like that -- that is probably a much more universal adolescent experience that we might initially think -- will find it's way into one's chosen method of creative expression. i've done some creative writing, and it's *amazing* to hear what people see in something you've written. it's never something that you consciously put into the piece, but it's there all the same, and it takes someone else to point it out to you.

I understand. My own degree is a multidisciplinary degree in creative writing and philosophy from Bard college.

I did not say that one cannot or should not read sexuality or gayness into the song, but I did suggest that not everyone would. Some readings are more dictated by the text and others more so by the reader. I believe that a gay reading of Twilight or of BOY is a reading that reflects more about the reader than the text.
For example, one can read Gloria and not get that it is about God as much as it is a woman, if not moreso, but I would argue that the reading that it is about God is actually intrinsic to the text.

What if when I grew up and became a man I became a criminal? I might hear in the lyrics to Twilight the transformation into a criminal. (which is not to say that I equate criminality with gayness, merely that they both are a form of loss of innocence)

The album is about the sad realization that they are undergoing a loss of innocence, but to make it more specific than that is to in a large way bring one's self to the text rather than to stick tightly to what is necessarily written.

I mean, he hardly says; "On your knees boy!" On that album, does he?

Sorry. I am unconvinced that a "Gay" reading of Boy is necessarily anything more than people looking around them and thinking that everyone and everything is just like they are.

The world is a mirror.

 

[Irvine511]

Sorry. I am unconvinced that a "Gay" reading of Boy is necessarily anything more than people looking around them and thinking that everyone and everything is just like they are.

The world is a mirror.

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. several people in here have pointed these things out, and also how well they fit into the overall context of the album, but if you're not convinced then i suppose that's that.

however, i do think it's rather presumptuous of you to think that my queer reading of Boy is little more than wish fulfillment. i don't think War, for example, is a good subject for a queer reading. same with Joshua Treet. but Boy, in my opinion and the opinions of many other people, is an excellent example.

i've made several posts with clear textual references, and it has also been linked to the rather undeniable gay subtext of much of their 1990s work, and it seems that any use of sex as a subject necessarily implicates homosexuality -- for how could you have heterosexuality without it? you've offered little to describe how you're not convinced, other than by making hardly applicable comparisons to disparate subjects irrelevant to the context of the album (i.e., criminality) and then equate them with one facet of sexuality (which the album is certainly about) in order to debunk my reading. that, to me, is poor thinking and i would imagine you could do better.

 

[Niceman]

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. several people in here have pointed these things out, and also how well they fit into the overall context of the album, but if you're not convinced then i suppose that's that.

however, i do think it's rather presumptuous of you to think that my queer reading of Boy is little more than wish fulfillment. i don't think War, for example, is a good subject for a queer reading. same with Joshua Treet. but Boy, in my opinion and the opinions of many other people, is an excellent example.

i've made several posts with clear textual references, and it has also been linked to the rather undeniable gay subtext of much of their 1990s work, and it seems that any use of sex as a subject necessarily implicates homosexuality -- for how could you have heterosexuality without it? you've offered little to describe how you're not convinced, other than by making hardly applicable comparisons to disparate subjects irrelevant to the context of the album (i.e., criminality) and then equate them with one facet of sexuality (which the album is certainly about) in order to debunk my reading. that, to me, is poor thinking and i would imagine you could do better.

I certainly respect your right to read any text in any way that you would like.

However, if you are going to accuse me of having said or implied things about you personally which I obviously have not then there is not much point attempting to have a conversation with you.

You take even greater liberties with my posts than Bono's lyrics!

I have never suggested you engaged in any "wish-fulfullment". I also explained quite clearly that I used the example of criminality wholely because it was an example of another form of loss of innocence.

Either you are arguing insincerely, or you are not reading my words with any care.

 

[Irvine511]

I certainly respect your right to read any text in any way that you would like.

However, if you are going to accuse me of having said or implied things about you personally which I obviously have not then there is not much point attempting to have a conversation with you.

You take even greater liberties with my posts than Bono's lyrics!

I have never suggested you engaged in any "wish-fulfullment". I also explained quite clearly that I used the example of criminality wholely because it was an example of another form of loss of innocence.

Either you are arguing insincerely, or you are not reading my words with any care.

i'm afraid i read your ciminality comparisons and found no merit to them. please point to other places in the album where criminality is present, and remember that "i threw a brick through a window" is on October there is also a huge difference between the loss of innocence through becoming a criminal, and the psychological impact of losing innocence through the natural process of maturing. the album is about feelings, not actions, though it is also about the feelings that arise from and the implications of certain actions.

you implied that i was seeing a mirror in Boy. i took this to mean that, as a gay man, all i would see in Boy is a gay album. far from it. it's a complex work, and homosexuality is certainly a powerful undercurrent, and many straight posters have arrived at this conclusion on their own.

 

[Niceman]

i'm afraid i read your ciminality comparisons and found no merit to them. please point to other places in the album where criminality is present, and remember that "i threw a brick through a window" is on October there is also a huge difference between the loss of innocence through becoming a criminal, and the psychological impact of losing innocence through the natural process of maturing. the album is about feelings, not actions, though it is also about the feelings that arise from and the implications of certain actions.

you implied that i was seeing a mirror in Boy. i took this to mean that, as a gay man, all i would see in Boy is a gay album. far from it. it's a complex work, and homosexuality is certainly a powerful undercurrent, and many straight posters have arrived at this conclusion on their own.

Alright. Two things.

#1 I did not and do not suggest that the album is about criminality. I buy that about as much as I buy that is about "gayness." As is very clear in the post where I made the comparison, I was only suggesting that if one identifies a loss of innocence with something more specific then a loss of innnocence, then one is bringing something external to the song. One's reading in this case will carry more specific and personal connotations than the text might necessarily have to the majority of readers. Is this clear yet?

#2 You are leaping to conclusions about what I mean which is not supported by what I have said. Have I said that all you would see is "gayness?" have I? Clearly, I have not. But for someone for whom a loss of innocence is not connected with a theme like that it would be extremely unlikely that they would leap to the conclusion that the lyric has a "gay undercurrent."

Any meaning which is not necessarily a part of the text that is read into the text reflects more on the reader than on the written work.

 

[Irvine511]

Alright. Two things.

#1 I did not and do not suggest that the album is about criminality. I buy that about as much as I buy that is about "gayness." As is very clear in the post where I made the comparison, I was only suggesting that if one identifies a loss of innocence with something more specific then a loss of innnocence, then one is bringing something external to the song. One's reading in this case will carry more specific and personal connotations than the text might necessarily have to the majority of readers. Is this clear yet?

#2 You are leaping to conclusions about what I mean which is not supported by what I have said. Have I said that all you would see is "gayness?" have I? Clearly, I have not. But for someone for whom a loss of innocence is not connected with a theme like that it would be extremely unlikely that they would leap to the conclusion that the lyric has a "gay undercurrent."

Any meaning which is not necessarily a part of the text that is read into the text reflects more on the reader than on the written work.

1. i know you don't think that Boy is about criminality. you were using that as an example to challenge the notion that there is homosexual subtext. there is much texutal evidence for homosexuality or gayness whereas there is no evidence for criminality. therefore, it is a poor comparison. perhaps we are approaching from two very different standpoints. i work under the assumption that there are no "correct" readings of texts, there are merely "valid" interpretations that can and should be contested. everyone brings something external to every text, and it is the ability to back up one's reading -- to assert it's validity through effective argumentation -- that creates meaning, often meaning beyond what the author intended. this is far, far different than simply using lyrics to function as a mirror as if it were some sort of vanity project.

2. there are many straight posters here who have noticed the gay subtext and didn't need a gay person to point it out. i never asserted that you thought that i'd only see gayness; i did assert that, from your comments, if all we see are mirrors, then by definition only a gay person could tease out gay subtext in "twilight." clearly, this is not the case.

your last statement might apply to your example about criminality, since there's no evidence for it. not so with sexuality, so it's essentially moot to this thread.

 

[Niceman]

I see there as being readings which are closer to the text than others. Some readings are more likely than others and others require more from a reader for them to reach.

That's all.

To my mind, a gay reading of BOY requires you to look for it. The average listener will not read it that way.

In my opinion.

 

[Irvine511]

To my mind, a gay reading of BOY requires you to look for it. The average listener will not read it that way.

In my opinion.

i think you're exactly right.

but that's exactly what Queer Theory is all about. because homosexuality was so taboo, it's open discussion in popular culture was impossible until probably the early 1990s. the idea of speaking with silence, of speaking with codes, can be found all over the place. one of the best papers i remember writing as an undergraduate was a queer reading of Rebel Without A Cause -- there is much evidence that it is a cautionary tale about how the breakdown of the nuclear family and the weakness of fathers can "infect" a child with homosexuality, or make him more suceptible to the advances of homosexuals, which pretty much corresponds with popular 1950s psychological notions about the "causes" of homosexuality.

the point i'm trying to make is that i don't think you can simply look at anything and do a Queer Reading. i can't do that with Joshua Tree. but i do think that Boy, of all U2 albums, lends itself well to a Queer Reading, and i would imagine that's because of it's naivete, because of it's lack of self-consciousness, whereas today Bono might write a lyric and think, "hmmm, seems a little gay," but an 18 year old Bono might have been oblivious to the homoerotic overtones embedded in the anxiety and temptation and same-sexed encounters in the shadows depicted in the lyrics of "twilight."

i think you're right to be skeptical of people claiming any text as "queer" or "black" or whatever social identity. however, if a strong, compelling case can be made, then i think it makes the text that much richer and powerful.

 

[Niceman]

I could probably argue that just about ANY song at all is about being gay if I try hard enough and actually WANT TO.

You say that The Joshua Tree doesn't lend itself to a gay reading, but for arguement's sake I'm going to take the opposite side of that argument and TRY to show how it could be done.

1. Where the Streets Have No Name.
I want to Run, I want to Hide. I want to tear down the walls that hold me inside. This is about being afraid of the way that one censors and limits one's self. It is about breaking through the rules and roles that society has placed upon one and having the bravery to define life for yourself. Perhaps admitting to being gay?

2. I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For. It is about trying as hard as you can to fit into a role that doesn't fit you. Trying so very hard to be straight and to be close to a woman, and yet something is still missing, something is incomplete.

3. With or Without You. I can't live with or without You. He does love her, but she doesn't fullfill him. There is a part of his heart and soul that she cannot take care of.

4. Running To Stand Still. This song is about realizing that you "she" has been struggling so hard in the wrong direction. This can easily be read to be about trying to pretend to be straight when your heart wants something more.

These songs CAN be read to be about coming out of the closet...but it is a stretch. I imagine that for someone somewhere they have taken on that personal meaning. Does this meaning require that one look at the lyric in a way that few will, yes, and I believe that the same is true about BOY.

Boy is no more or less gay an album than The Joshua Tree. The only thing gay about either of them is a reading by someone who needs/wants/decides to make the songs gay.

Yes, BOY does touch on sexual issues, as a boy grows up to become a man, but sexuality does not equal gay sexuality unless one is predisposed to in some way view sexuality that way.

 

[Irvine511]

Yes, BOY does touch on sexual issues, as a boy grows up to become a man, but sexuality does not equal gay sexuality unless one is predisposed to in some way view sexuality that way.

okay, well that explains a lot. you're missing the forrest for the trees.

gotta go, but i'll engage later.

and what you just did with Joshua Tree is precisely *not* what a queer reading is about.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Boy is no more or less gay an album than The Joshua Tree. The only thing gay about either of them is a reading by someone who needs/wants/decides to make the songs gay.

Sorry, but when I first heard Boy in 1980, I neither needed/wanted/decided to make it gay. It was simply that young gay boys were meeting older men in the shadows at night in the park across the street from our apartment building. From my point of view, it was obvious. It wasn't a stretch at all. I didn't need to look for it. That's not to say that that was Bono's conscious intent at all, but to say that I needed it to be that is just wrong.

 

[Niceman]

Sorry, but when I first heard Boy in 1980, I neither needed/wanted/decided to make it gay. It was simply that young gay boys were meeting older men in the shadows at night in the park across the street from our apartment building. From my point of view, it was obvious. It wasn't a stretch at all. I didn't need to look for it. That's not to say that that was Bono's conscious intent at all, but to say that I needed it to be that is just wrong.

You didn't need it to be, but there was something specific in your experience which gave those words a connotation that they would not have for most people.

 

[Niceman]

okay, well that explains a lot. you're missing the forrest for the trees.

gotta go, but i'll engage later.

and what you just did with Joshua Tree is precisely *not* what a queer reading is about.

I neither know nor am concerned with what a "queer reading" is, but what I did do is show that the songs could be read as being about being gay if one is predisposed for one reason or another to look for gayness.

 

[joyfulgirl]

You didn't need it to be, but there was something specific in your experience which gave those words a connotation that they would not have for most people.

And there was also something specific in Bono's experience as well as Irvine pointed out earlier that could have very easily seeped out through his subconscious and made its way into the work. That is not far fetched at all. That is the very nature of the subconscious mind.

 

[catlhere]

I neither know nor am concerned with what a "queer reading" is, but what I did do is show that the songs could be read as being about being gay if one is predisposed for one reason or another to look for gayness.

Exactly! For example:

"And you can swallow, or you can spit.
You can throw it up, or choke on it"

OMGWTFBBQ! Bano is teh gayz0rs!1!!eleven!!!!

Seriously, if you find any gay messages in someone's song without them telling you it's a reference to homosexuality, it's your own mind finding some sort of innuendo that is/isn't meant to come off as such.

Close topiX

 

[financeguy]

You didn't need it to be, but there was something specific in your experience which gave those words a connotation that they would not have for most people.

With respect, who appointed you to speak for 'most people'? As Irvine already said, it is possible to perceive gay themes or interpretations without actually being gay oneself.

As I recall it, I had read the book 'The Unforgettable Fire' before I ever bought this particular album, and this book interprets some of the lyrics in Twilight as describing, or at the very least, hinting at a sexual encounter between an older and a younger man, so my impression of the song might have been coloured by that. I do think it is one valid interpretation, and not necessarily as far off base as you imply.

 

[financeguy]

OMGWTFBBQ! Bano is teh gayz0rs!1!!eleven!!!!

 

[Niceman]

With respect, who appointed you to speak for 'most people'? As Irvine already said, it is possible to perceive gay themes or interpretations without actually being gay oneself.

As I recall it, I had read the book 'The Unforgettable Fire' before I ever bought this particular album, and this book interprets some of the lyrics in Twilight as describing, or at the very least, hinting at a sexual encounter between an older and a younger man, so my impression of the song might have been coloured by that. I do think it is one valid interpretation, and not necessarily as far off base as you imply.

Again and again throughout my posts I have made comments such as "In my opinion," and "to me". I don't think that I need to write that at the end of every sentence.

IN MY OPINION most people will not hear Boy and think the theme is gay. Some will, but I don't buy that it's in the text so much as in their own person reading.

I think I said this all pretty clearly a dozen posts ago, didn't I?


Aaargh!!!!!!!

 

[joyfulgirl]

With respect, who appointed you to speak for 'most people'? As Irvine already said, it is possible to perceive gay themes or interpretations without actually being gay oneself.

As I recall it, I had read the book 'The Unforgettable Fire' before I ever bought this particular album, and this book interprets some of the lyrics in Twilight as describing, or at the very least, hinting at a sexual encounter between an older and a younger man, so my impression of the song might have been coloured by that. I do think it is one valid interpretation, and not necessarily as far off base as you imply.

Exactly. I think it'squite limited to assume that "most people" don't have something like that in their experience or their realm of knowledge that would lead them to a gay reading of it. It's not an uncommon experience at all.

To me the interpretation of an enounter between an older man and younger man is practically a literal interpretation because it says they meet in the shadows, the older man tried to walk him home. I could just as easily argue that it's a stretch to make that symbolic of the process of boy growing into man, that you have to look for that because that's not what it says at all! Now I know that Bono isn't a simple writer like that, that his lyrics are often deliberately ambiguous, but I sure didn't know that in 1980. No one did. We didn't know who this person was then.

 

[catlhere]

Again and again throughout my posts I have made comments such as "In my opinion," and "to me". I don't think that I need to write that at the end of every sentence.

IN MY OPINION my people will not hear Boy and think the theme is gay. Some will, but I don't buy that it's in the text so much as in their own person reading.

I think I said this all pretty clearly a dozen posts ago, didn't I?


Aaargh!!!!!!!

Don't turn into an Angryman, Niceman! I understood what you meant!

 

[Niceman]

Don't turn into an Angryman, Niceman! I understood what you meant!

Thanks. I'm just slightly frustrated man right about now......

 

[If you shout...]

I neither know nor am concerned with what a "queer reading" is, but what I did do is show that the songs could be read as being about being gay if one is predisposed for one reason or another to look for gayness.

Niceman, I first of all want to apologize for coming out and flaming you, earlier. I still find myself offended by what you said and what you're saying, but it wasn't fair of me to make an example of you for, if nothing else, the face that other people haven't even TRIED to engage the text and have instead just resorted to gay-bashing. I hope I'm seeing correctly and that you're not criticizing the gay community.

I do, though, think that a post like this one has a rather disturbing element to it: if you "neither know nor [are] concerned" with what a queer reading actually is, then why are you in the thread? I know that you've been trying to defend yourself and such (and that's valid enough), but if you don't even want to acknowledge what you're defending yourself against, then you aren't engaged in self-defence or even in argumentation or debate. You're just preaching.

I may be reading, as I did before, a bit too much into what you've posted, but as is the case with the album in question, your language is allowing me to make this conclusion. I promise that this isn't meant to be an attack, but PLEASE try not to say something like that if you're going to stick around in this thread.

I, for one, am VERY interested in non-queer, so-called "standard," readings of these songs; I think that the queer readings have just as much merit, though. In fact, I think they're much more important readings in a broader, social context. But that doesn't mean that it would be okay for me to go around saying that I don't care about trying to understand the other side. If I was saying that, I wouldn't even be here...

Does that make sense? I'm sorry if I was rude or anything. Again, I just find what you're saying here to be more than a bit troubling from, at the very least, a logical/argumentative perspective.

I really wish I wasn't so busy, right now, or I'd be trying to engage in the debate, as well. I'll try to be around later, if anybody cares anymore...

I really think this topic is important, and I feel that I've learned a lot about a lot more than the album by reading and partaking in this discussion, no matter how offended I may sometimes feel (and that's not a dig, Niceman--I promise, it isn't) by what I read.

 

[Niceman]

Niceman, I first of all want to apologize for coming out and flaming you, earlier. I still find myself offended by what you said and what you're saying, but it wasn't fair of me to make an example of you for, if nothing else, the face that other people haven't even TRIED to engage the text and have instead just resorted to gay-bashing. I hope I'm seeing correctly and that you're not criticizing the gay community.

I do, though, think that a post like this one has a rather disturbing element to it: if you "neither know nor [are] concerned" with what a queer reading actually is, then why are you in the thread? I know that you've been trying to defend yourself and such (and that's valid enough), but if you don't even want to acknowledge what you're defending yourself against, then you aren't engaged in self-defence or even in argumentation or debate. You're just preaching.

I may be reading, as I did before, a bit too much into what you've posted, but as is the case with the album in question, your language is allowing me to make this conclusion. I promise that this isn't meant to be an attack, but PLEASE try not to say something like that if you're going to stick around in this thread.

I, for one, am VERY interested in non-queer, so-called "standard," readings of these songs; I think that the queer readings have just as much merit, though. In fact, I think they're much more important readings in a broader, social context. But that doesn't mean that it would be okay for me to go around saying that I don't care about trying to understand the other side. If I was saying that, I wouldn't even be here...

Does that make sense? I'm sorry if I was rude or anything. Again, I just find what you're saying here to be more than a bit troubling from, at the very least, a logical/argumentative perspective.

I really wish I wasn't so busy, right now, or I'd be trying to engage in the debate, as well. I'll try to be around later, if anybody cares anymore...

I really think this topic is important, and I feel that I've learned a lot about a lot more than the album by reading and partaking in this discussion, no matter how offended I may sometimes feel (and that's not a dig, Niceman--I promise, it isn't) by what I read.

First of all, thank you for taking a deep breath and thinking what I was saying, rather than what you may have expected/ been worried that I might be saying.

I am not criticizing gay people, or gay literature or anything like that. Thank you for noticing that. I read into the fact that you felt that you HAD TO notice that about me that this is a sensitive issue for you. I understand.

As far as the specific passage of my text that you quoted, it was in reaction to a quick and patronizing response to my demonstration that The Joshua Tree could be read as gay just as easily as BOY. I took "queer reading" to be a phrase that was being used as a technical term and I was more interrested in talking in plain english than playing semantic games.

As far as why I've posted in this thread. There were two reasons for that. First of all because (as I've mentioned) I do have some interrest in poetry. I am a poet and lyricist myself. I have studied quite a bit of literature, written papers on it and can sometimes enjoy debating it.

But more than that. I logged onto my U2 website and saw a thread which I did not agree with and wanted to explain my reasons why, not to rain on anyone's parade, but to engage other U2 fans in a respectful way. I was then attacked pretty unexpectedly for posting what I thought would be just a truism (people look around the world and just see a mirror)

Does that all make sense?

 

[Irvine511]

First of all, thank you for taking a deep breath and thinking what I was saying, rather than what you may have expected/ been worried that I might be saying.

I am not criticizing gay people, or gay literature or anything like that. Thank you for noticing that. I read into the fact that you felt that you HAD TO notice that about me that this is a sensitive issue for you. I understand.

As far as the specific passage of my text that you quoted, it was in reaction to a quick and patronizing response to my demonstration that The Joshua Tree could be read as gay just as easily as BOY. I took "queer reading" to be a phrase that was being used as a technical term and I was more interrested in talking in plain english than playing semantic games.

As far as why I've posted in this thread. There were two reasons for that. First of all because (as I've mentioned) I do have some interrest in poetry. I am a poet and lyricist myself. I have studied quite a bit of literature, written papers on it and can sometimes enjoy debating it.

But more than that. I logged onto my U2 website and saw a thread which I did not agree with and wanted to explain my reasons why, not to rain on anyone's parade, but to engage other U2 fans in a respectful way. I was then attacked pretty unexpectedly for posting what I thought would be just a truism (people look around the world and just see a mirror)

Does that all make sense?

this is going to sound like an attack, but it isn't meant to be so.

it's clear to me now that you haven't the faintest clue of what we are talking about.

a Queer Reading is a critically astute tool of textual analysis that is practiced in universities across the country. Queer Studies is a valid area of scholar ship that falls under the larger umbrella of Cultural Studies -- i very nearly pursued a PhD in Cultural Studies, though it would have been American Studies.

the stuff that joyfulgirl talks about is so obvious and so fundamental to the archetypical gay "narrative" (though that's changing today, as homosexuality becomes normalized and part of mainstream culture) that for anyone with even a passing familiarity with gay culture and what is known as "cruising" the lyrics to "Twilight" are essentially describing this phenomenon. it's thuddingly obvious, even to a straight girl in 1980. if you are unaware of these things, that's fine, but please don't dismiss other interpretations -- especially with tossing up mocking, nearly insulting "readings" of the joshua tree, which spoke volumes about your ignorance of the subject -- when there are people who are clearly (at least from what we can tell by your posts) far more versed in the subject than you are, a subject which, by your own admission, you really don't care about. i have never once thought that you were homophobic or were making homophobic comments. my frustration was your dismissal of, well, entire academic departments.

for everyone's edification:

[q]Queer studies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Queer studies is the study of issues relating to sexual orientation and gender identity. In some universities, the field is called sexual diversity studies.

At Smith, the college catalog states:

Queer Studies is an emerging interdisciplinary field whose goal is to analyze antinormative sexual identities, performances, discourses and representations in order ultimately to destabilize the notion of normative sexuality and gender.
There are a growing number of college courses in this area, and at least five institutions in the United States offer an undergraduate major (this includes Brown University, Berkeley, UCLA, Amherst College, and San Francisco State University); a growing number of similar courses are offered in countries other than the USA. The first Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Department was created at City College of San Francisco.

One of the main points of this field is to set LGBT (as well as, according to some, other practicers of so-called non-normative sexual acts) as a focus for study and potentially, empowerement, as it tends to take these individuals' probable repression as an important issue. The field embraces the academic study of issues raised in literary theory, political science, history, sociology, ethics, and other fields by an examination of the identity, lives, history, and perception of queer people.

Some primary scholars in Queer studies include Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, Audre Lorde, John Boswell, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick and Judith Halberstam. Precisely because of some of its major strands of analysis and work on public perception, a great emphasis is placed on the integration of theory and practice, with many programs encouraging community service work, community involvement, and activist work in addition to academic reading and research.

Techniques in Queer studies include the search for Queer influences and themes in works of literature; the analysis of political currents linking the oppression of women, racialized groups, and disadvantaged classes with that of queer people; and the search for Queer figures and trends in history that queer studies scholars view as having been ignored and excluded from the canon.

Queer studies are not to be confused with Queer theory, an analytical viewpoint within Queer studies that is concentrated within the humanities—particularly the fields of literary studies and philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_studies
[/q]



[q]Queer theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Queer theory is an anti-essentialist theory about sex and gender within the larger field of Queer studies. It proposes that one's sexual identity and one's gender identity are partly or wholly socially constructed, and therefore individuals cannot really be described using broad terms like "homosexual," "heterosexual," "man," or "woman." It challenges the common practice of compartmentalizing the description of a person to fit into one particular category.

In particular, it questions the use of socially assigned categories based on the division between those who share some habit or lifestyle and those who do not. Instead, queer theorists suggest complicating all identity categories and groups.

Additionally, queer theory also analyzes the "queer" aspects of a humanist work (such as in literature, music, art, etc.) that are not necessarily sexual. In this regard, "queer" is used to mean "strange" or "different" in the sense that a particular work does not fit within the general rules of a particular genre or category, yet is still classified as being a part of that genre or category.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_theory
[/q]

 

[catlhere]

this is going to sound like an attack, but it isn't meant to be so.

it's clear to me now that you haven't the faintest clue of what we are talking about.

the stuff that joyfulgirl talks about is so obvious and so fundamental to the archetypical gay "narrative" (though that's changing today, as homosexuality becomes normalized and part of mainstream culture) that for anyone with even a passing familiarity with gay culture and what is known as "cruising" the lyrics to "Twilight" are essentially describing this phenomenon. it's thuddingly obvious, even to a straight girl in 1980. if you are unaware of these things, that's fine, but please don't dismiss other interpretations -- especially with tossing up mocking, nearly insulting "readings" of the joshua tree, which spoke volumes about your ignorance of the subject
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_theory
[/q]

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.