Question or Passage for Wednesday, September 16, 2015
After reading the first act of Angels in America, "Bad News," please post a question about the reading that you'd like us to discuss in class tomorrow. Or, if you prefer, post a brief passage you'd like us to explore together. Thanks!
And I'll go ahead and start. One of my favorite scene is the shared dream/hallucination scene with both Harper and Prior. I'd love to take some time to reflect on this moment, when Harper says to Prior, "Deep inside you, there's a part of you, the most inner part, entirely free of disease. I can see that."
He responds, a moment later, talking to himself, "I don't think there's any uninfected part of me. My heart is pumping polluted blood. I feel dirty" (40).
I'd be curious to see what sense we can make of this moment and this passage in particular. I look forward to seeing what questions or passages interest you.
I really like this new book! It really seems to put what we read last time into action. One of the characters Roy quotes as he admits he is homosexual that "Not ideology, or sexual taste,but something much simpler: clout" (Kusher, 46). Basically I see it as labeling people according to power. My question is: How can we label others without being limited in our claims?
On page 38 Louis says, “ Jews don’t have any clear textual guide to the afterlife; even that it exists. I don’t think much about it. I see it as a perpetual rainy Thursday afternoon in March. Dead Leaves.” Is this how Louis sees death? Because of Louis’s faith he seems to focus more on life than afterlife, does he not see afterlife as a big deal? Just a rainy day in March?
The play is placing real people and situations in context to some of the theory we just read, but adding in another element of a life changing era- the introduction of AIDS.
There is looking at the labeling of identity- homosexual, Mormon, Jew, housewife, clerk, husband, wife, boyfriend, etc. When I think about the use of language and labels we’ve discussed, I wonder if we could do without them in this telling of stories? Do we need to situationally have the labels to know our characters? It seems yes, their identities are who they are and how we know what to expect of them, so this is a moot question. But then there is also the struggle of identity for a few, Joe, Harper, and Roy. I haven’t figured out Louis and Prior yet, it’s almost in relation to identity they struggle with identifying as a couple as one unit or as healthy vs. sick. Anyway just me thinking back to what we had previously discussed.
There seem to be quite a few powerful scenes just in the short excerpt we've read. The dream/hallucination sequence is one that I would like to see how there are parallels or similarities in Harper and Prior sharing the sequence. Both are ill, but in different ways but can see glimmers of things in each other. Is their struggle shared or the same?
I don't think it's an accident that so many of these characters are facing really deep questions about identity and AIDS, and then there's Harper -- a Valium addict squawking about the depletion of the ozone layer. There is an obvious parallel here, particularly because the threat of the ozone layer disappearing caused just as much hysteria as the reality of AIDS.
I wonder what we can make of this, especially when Harper says, "Then they went on to a program about holes in the ozone layer. Over Antarctica. Skin burns, birds go blind, icebergs melt. The world's coming to an end" (34). What is the difference between fact and fear, when it comes to the ozone layer and when it comes to AIDS and homosexuality?
We can complicate this obvious connection by wondering about barriers and walls. For example, when confronted by Harper, Joe gets angry and says, "Does it make any difference? That I might be one thing deep within, no matter how wrong or ugly that thing is, so long as I have fought, with everything I have, to kill it. What do you want from me?" (46).
What is the danger in seeing what you are underneath, in tearing away the ozone layer, in being destructive in order to construct a healthy, honest picture of the self?
I'd really like to explore the passage that reads: "Homosexuals are not men who sleep with other men. Homosexuals are men who in fifteen years of trying cannot pass a pissant antidiscrimination bill through City Council. Homosexuals are men who know nobody and who nobody knows. Who have zero clout. Does this sound like me, Henry" (Kushner 46)?
Roy's statement that "homosexuals are not men who sleep with other men" mirrors the sentiments Jagose explores in her chapter "Theorizing Same-Sex Desire."
Tristian, I also thought of the connections between Roy's speech about what homosexual identity meant to him and Queer Theory and that chapter "Theorizing Same-Sex Desire." This question of identity and how someone personally identities versus the actual sexual actions they do continues to stump me. I feel like if Roy were a close friend of mine, I wouldn't want to push labels on him, but at the same time I wouldn't buy his declaration that he is "A heterosexual man who fucks around with guys."
When I was reading I especially enjoyed Scene 9 and the conversation that takes place between Henry and Roy.
This is a very serious scene as we learn that Roy is diagnosed with AIDS and that his diagnosis is devastating. The tone however between the characters is increasingly interesting as rather than being something sorrowful Roy's anger fills the space and Henry responds in anger as well. Perhaps this is frustration and from a place of love but I thought it was important to see what everyone else makes of that tone and how it came across to them as they were reading.
Also, I especially find Roy's long analysis of labels and how, "Like all labels they tell you one thing and one thing only: where does an individual so identified fit in the food chain, in the pecking order?" (46). I think this is interesting because in class we have had a lot of discussions about what labeling is and using labeling as a way of identification. However, here Roy is equating labels with power and therefore labels himself as a heterosexual man who sleeps with men.
So, do we agree with Roy's argument that labels are power and we are placed in societal hierarchy depending on what we are labeled? If so, could Roy's identification and label be harmful to his own emotional well-being?
I really love ready this play. It is amazing and a bit heart breaking from only the first act. My question would be at this period in time being gay was very wrong, well consider wrong by society, what would have happened to a lawyer if they were found out to be gay? When they have been bared from practicing law?
The passage that i found really interesting is on page 51. "I pray for God to crush me, break me up into little pieces and start all over again". This passage shows the inner turmoil that joe feels because he could possibly be attracted to men. It demonstrates how in some cases religion can be closely tied to many aspects of our lives and this could sadly create hate for ourselves.
After reading scene 1, i was very confused by act 7 and would like to discuss that in class. I was confused about the dream/ hallucination and how that worked with harper and prior.
In multiple scenes just in the first chapter, men resist the label homosexual, based on the idea that it would ruin their reputation. Joe, in particular, will not come out to his wife, Harper, who is insisting he admits to his homosexuality. Joe doesn’t deny the claim, but refuses to say it, “…I am a very good man who has worked very hard to become good and you want to destroy that…I’m not going to let you,” (41). I’d like to discuss the importance that the characters seem to put on accepting (or denying) their true identity, as if they’d be speaking it into reality?
I found Joe to be a very interesting character particularly because of his extreme religious beliefs and the dissonance with his practices. I found it particularly interesting when he said, "Does it make any difference? That I might be one thing deep within, no matter how wrong or ugly that thing is, so long as I have fought, with everything I have, to kill it" (40). I find it interesting to understand how those who experience self hate and internalized oppression can be incorporated into the struggle for LGBTQ rights.
I think one of the major questions I had when we first began the play was “What is this play really going to be about?”. I couldnt understand the significance of the beginning scene, where they have the actors at a funeral. One of the major things I could pick up was the idea of how people identify, which became one of the major themes of the play. I wish I could look back at this post and discuss more about how we label and identify.
And I'll go ahead and start. One of my favorite scene is the shared dream/hallucination scene with both Harper and Prior. I'd love to take some time to reflect on this moment, when Harper says to Prior, "Deep inside you, there's a part of you, the most inner part, entirely free of disease. I can see that."
ReplyDeleteHe responds, a moment later, talking to himself, "I don't think there's any uninfected part of me. My heart is pumping polluted blood. I feel dirty" (40).
I'd be curious to see what sense we can make of this moment and this passage in particular. I look forward to seeing what questions or passages interest you.
Here's Koe's response:
ReplyDeleteI really like this new book! It really seems to put what we read last time into action. One of the characters Roy quotes as he admits he is homosexual that "Not ideology, or sexual taste,but something much simpler: clout" (Kusher, 46). Basically I see it as labeling people according to power. My question is: How can we label others without being limited in our claims?
On page 38 Louis says, “ Jews don’t have any clear textual guide to the afterlife; even that it exists. I don’t think much about it. I see it as a perpetual rainy Thursday afternoon in March. Dead Leaves.” Is this how Louis sees death? Because of Louis’s faith he seems to focus more on life than afterlife, does he not see afterlife as a big deal? Just a rainy day in March?
ReplyDeleteThe play is placing real people and situations in context to some of the theory we just read, but adding in another element of a life changing era- the introduction of AIDS.
ReplyDeleteThere is looking at the labeling of identity- homosexual, Mormon, Jew, housewife, clerk, husband, wife, boyfriend, etc. When I think about the use of language and labels we’ve discussed, I wonder if we could do without them in this telling of stories? Do we need to situationally have the labels to know our characters? It seems yes, their identities are who they are and how we know what to expect of them, so this is a moot question. But then there is also the struggle of identity for a few, Joe, Harper, and Roy. I haven’t figured out Louis and Prior yet, it’s almost in relation to identity they struggle with identifying as a couple as one unit or as healthy vs. sick. Anyway just me thinking back to what we had previously discussed.
There seem to be quite a few powerful scenes just in the short excerpt we've read. The dream/hallucination sequence is one that I would like to see how there are parallels or similarities in Harper and Prior sharing the sequence. Both are ill, but in different ways but can see glimmers of things in each other. Is their struggle shared or the same?
I don't think it's an accident that so many of these characters are facing really deep questions about identity and AIDS, and then there's Harper -- a Valium addict squawking about the depletion of the ozone layer. There is an obvious parallel here, particularly because the threat of the ozone layer disappearing caused just as much hysteria as the reality of AIDS.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what we can make of this, especially when Harper says, "Then they went on to a program about holes in the ozone layer. Over Antarctica. Skin burns, birds go blind, icebergs melt. The world's coming to an end" (34). What is the difference between fact and fear, when it comes to the ozone layer and when it comes to AIDS and homosexuality?
We can complicate this obvious connection by wondering about barriers and walls. For example, when confronted by Harper, Joe gets angry and says, "Does it make any difference? That I might be one thing deep within, no matter how wrong or ugly that thing is, so long as I have fought, with everything I have, to kill it. What do you want from me?" (46).
What is the danger in seeing what you are underneath, in tearing away the ozone layer, in being destructive in order to construct a healthy, honest picture of the self?
I'd really like to explore the passage that reads: "Homosexuals are not men who sleep with other men. Homosexuals are men who in fifteen years of trying cannot pass a pissant antidiscrimination bill through City Council. Homosexuals are men who know nobody and who nobody knows. Who have zero clout. Does this sound like me, Henry" (Kushner 46)?
ReplyDeleteRoy's statement that "homosexuals are not men who sleep with other men" mirrors the sentiments Jagose explores in her chapter "Theorizing Same-Sex Desire."
Tristian,
DeleteI also thought of the connections between Roy's speech about what homosexual identity meant to him and Queer Theory and that chapter "Theorizing Same-Sex Desire." This question of identity and how someone personally identities versus the actual sexual actions they do continues to stump me. I feel like if Roy were a close friend of mine, I wouldn't want to push labels on him, but at the same time I wouldn't buy his declaration that he is "A heterosexual man who fucks around with guys."
When I was reading I especially enjoyed Scene 9 and the conversation that takes place between Henry and Roy.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very serious scene as we learn that Roy is diagnosed with AIDS and that his diagnosis is devastating. The tone however between the characters is increasingly interesting as rather than being something sorrowful Roy's anger fills the space and Henry responds in anger as well. Perhaps this is frustration and from a place of love but I thought it was important to see what everyone else makes of that tone and how it came across to them as they were reading.
Also, I especially find Roy's long analysis of labels and how, "Like all labels they tell you one thing and one thing only: where does an individual so identified fit in the food chain, in the pecking order?" (46). I think this is interesting because in class we have had a lot of discussions about what labeling is and using labeling as a way of identification. However, here Roy is equating labels with power and therefore labels himself as a heterosexual man who sleeps with men.
So, do we agree with Roy's argument that labels are power and we are placed in societal hierarchy depending on what we are labeled? If so, could Roy's identification and label be harmful to his own emotional well-being?
I really love ready this play. It is amazing and a bit heart breaking from only the first act. My question would be at this period in time being gay was very wrong, well consider wrong by society, what would have happened to a lawyer if they were found out to be gay? When they have been bared from practicing law?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe passage that i found really interesting is on page 51. "I pray for God to crush me, break me up into little pieces and start all over again". This passage shows the inner turmoil that joe feels because he could possibly be attracted to men. It demonstrates how in some cases religion can be closely tied to many aspects of our lives and this could sadly create hate for ourselves.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading scene 1, i was very confused by act 7 and would like to discuss that in class. I was confused about the dream/ hallucination and how that worked with harper and prior.
ReplyDeleteIn multiple scenes just in the first chapter, men resist the label homosexual, based on the idea that it would ruin their reputation. Joe, in particular, will not come out to his wife, Harper, who is insisting he admits to his homosexuality. Joe doesn’t deny the claim, but refuses to say it, “…I am a very good man who has worked very hard to become good and you want to destroy that…I’m not going to let you,” (41). I’d like to discuss the importance that the characters seem to put on accepting (or denying) their true identity, as if they’d be speaking it into reality?
ReplyDeleteI found Joe to be a very interesting character particularly because of his extreme religious beliefs and the dissonance with his practices. I found it particularly interesting when he said, "Does it make any difference? That I might be one thing deep within, no matter how wrong or ugly that thing is, so long as I have fought, with everything I have, to kill it" (40). I find it interesting to understand how those who experience self hate and internalized oppression can be incorporated into the struggle for LGBTQ rights.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the major questions I had when we first began the play was “What is this play really going to be about?”. I couldnt understand the significance of the beginning scene, where they have the actors at a funeral. One of the major things I could pick up was the idea of how people identify, which became one of the major themes of the play. I wish I could look back at this post and discuss more about how we label and identify.
ReplyDelete