When first published in England two years ago, Neil McKenna’s The Secret Life of Oscar Wilde won universal critical acclaim. The praise was more than deserved, for this stunning piece of investigative historiography reveals for the very first time how Wilde was a militant precursor of the modern gay liberation movement long before his famous speech from the dock in… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (28)Page 1 of 1 pagesWhat? No editorial commentary? Liberal, Lefty, Kuya, volvillain, where are you? Wwod, chopper,scorpio—good grief, scorpio, where are you when the rightwing conservatives need their red-blooded American hero? Oh well. I guess it’s too early to drum up conservative support for the upcoming congressional elections. My money’s on a flag-burning amendment, conflated with homosexual treason. Our neocon, formerly Trotskyist, conspirators could be persuaded to call it the “Fags Burning Flags” amendment.
Posted by Major Major on Aug 27, 2005 at 2:11 PM Yeah, MM, it IS too early to think about elections.
BTW, your comment is (almost) worthy to (bitingly) kneel below Wilde’s ‘secret life’.
How’s that?
Huhn?
Posted by lbyland on Aug 28, 2005 at 4:37 AM Major Major -
Are you related to Major Major Major Major, the character in the non-fiction book, Catch 22?
I have long admired Wilde’s writing, if not his lifestyle, and at one time I read several of his works. Informative and entertaining writing is always in demand, regardless who writes it. Regretfully, there is just too much of it to keep up.
If a pun is the lowest form of humor, as Samuel Johnson maintained, what do you call your contribution above?
Posted by scorp on Aug 28, 2005 at 6:04 AM Interestingly this article leaves out the fact that Wilde converted to Roman Catholicism shortly before his death. It would be hard to see this as anything other than a repudiation of his previous lifestyle.
Posted by chopper on Aug 28, 2005 at 6:50 AM I call it a heads-up, scorp. Last year we had the gay marriage amendment which, in a culture as homophobic as our own, galvanized the fundamentalist Christian conservatives to make their annual pilgrimage to the ballot booth. Next year we’ll have the flag-burning amendment, or some suitably appropriate equivalent, conflated with homosexuality, to accomplish the same purpose. Homophobia is a central staple to Republican political strategy. The Republicans could have impeached Clinton for a variety of high crimes and misdemeanors, but they chose to impeach him for getting a blowjob. Quod erat…
Good grief, chopper. Everybody converts to Catholicism just prior to kicking the bucket. Just because there are no atheists in foxholes is no reason to denigrate atheism, or homosexuality.
Denigrate, by the way, is another one of those words with racist roots which perpetuates our white supremacist cultural attitudes.
Posted by Major Major on Aug 28, 2005 at 7:44 AM Major Major -
Do you have a paranoid personality, by chance? Do you feel that others are persecuting you, or that they are out to you get you in some way? Why else would you promote offensive ideas that have been thoroughly rejected by the electorate?
The principle Democratic candidates in the last election both made a point of emphasizing VP Cheney’s daughter. Both of them looked petty, mean, and irrelevant, and raised the anger of a significant number of voters. We place a premium on our values, both marriage and family. I defy you to produce a rational defense of your charge of homophobia. There is nothing in the Republican values or political platform that can justify your charge, and it comes from your perversity, not from my values.
Denigrate comes from the Latin root ‘niger’ meaning black. If you have any evidence that the term is racist, please cite your justification.
I am certain that President Clinton deserved to be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and I am gratified that you agree. But he was not impeached for getting a blow job, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. Even though Clinton was not found guilty by the Senate on the impeachment charges, he was brought before the Arkansas Committee on Professional Conduct and had his law license suspended for five years and was fined $25,000, for the same activities for which he was found innocent in the impeachment proceedings.
Posted by scorp on Aug 28, 2005 at 10:48 AM Well Major Major, are you including yourself in “Everybody”? And what about Scorp’s question? Are you related to Major Major Major Major from Catch 22?
Posted by chopper on Aug 28, 2005 at 10:50 AM Good points scorp. What everyone (or more accurately certain liberal elites) seem to forget is that people they call “fundamentalist Christian conservatives” have views on homosexualty that were just considered mainstream a couple of decades ago. They (conservative Christians) generally aren’t proposing that we jail homosexuals or harass them. They just don’t agree with a radical homosexual agenda that wants “gay marriage” given legal status. In fact, that is still the majority view of Americans today outside of some liberal elites.
Posted by chopper on Aug 28, 2005 at 11:07 AM Oy vey, chopper. Racism, anti-Semitism and sexism “were just considered mainstream a couple of decades ago.” I hope you’re not advocating a return to our conservative mainstream values.
There’s nothing radical, or even liberal, about equal rights for all Americans, including gay rights. It’s as American as, oh, cherry pie.
Posted by Major Major on Aug 28, 2005 at 6:53 PM Yes Major Major, that is the typical reaction from those on the left, any hint of opposition to “gay marriage” is immediately equated to racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, etc. Try looking into the attitudes of ordinary blacks, however. They tend to be more socially conservative than ordinary middle-class whites.
Posted by chopper on Aug 28, 2005 at 8:01 PM If Doug Ireland can’t spell “supersede”, and his spellchecker can’t, and his editor can’t be bothered, why should I get all hot and bothered about Mr. Ireland’s review?
Posted by feld on Aug 28, 2005 at 8:09 PM It’s not just the “hint” of opposition to gay rights, or abortion, or affirmative action which bothers us. It’s the administration’s blatant consession to Sharon’s deliberate destabilization of the West Bank in order to shamelessly exploit the hatred and fear which currently exists between the Israelis and the Palestinians which bothers us.
It’s a typically reactionary response to a typically neoconservative foreign policy.
Posted by Major Major on Aug 28, 2005 at 10:27 PM That however, Major Major, is a seperate issue, and should be argued seperately.
Posted by chopper on Aug 28, 2005 at 11:03 PM Major Major,
The monkeys called.They said flinging crap is their thing and want you to stop it.
Posted by wwoods on Aug 29, 2005 at 7:33 AM Oh, that’s mature wwoods.
And chopper, what are you basing this “ordinary blacks” statement on? What exactly is an “ordinary black.”
African-American communities tend to be largely Christian and I do not believe that is a coincidence.And regardless of that, what is the relevance to the argument you’re trying to make? How does this differentiate between Anti-gay, Anti-semiticism, racism, or sexism. These are all philosophies of descrimination because of the belief that those who are discriminated against are unworthy of equal treatment. As far as I’m concerned, the majority of you who have posted have made yourselves look like judgemental, closed-minded, insecure people who feel threatened by something you don’t understand or that is different from your own preference.
Posted by eka99 on Aug 30, 2005 at 2:33 PM eka99- Are we supposed to be entirely non-judgemental? There is no difference, for instance, between a bank robber and a man who goes to work every day to support his family? Most Christians, or for that matter most people don’t want to persecute gays, throw them in jail, or deny them jobs or the right to vote. What they do object to is granting things such as “gay marriage” equivalent status to marriage between a man and a woman, the norm for the last several millenia.
Also, homosexuality is behavior specific in a way that the other things are not.
Posted by chopper on Aug 30, 2005 at 6:16 PM “Interestingly this article leaves out the fact that Wilde converted to Roman Catholicism shortly before his death. It would be hard to see this as anything other than a repudiation of his previous lifestyle.”
Posted by chopper on August 28, 2005 at 7:50 AM
Yeah right! More like he wanted to be a priest so he could diddle little boys like a good catholic.
Posted by Leftist on Aug 30, 2005 at 8:14 PM “If Doug Ireland can’t spell “supersede”, and his spellchecker can’t, and his editor can’t be bothered, why should I get all hot and bothered about Mr. Ireland’s review?”
Posted by feld on August 28, 2005 at 9:09 PM
Anyone ever notice that conservatives always put form over substance? And BTW, Mr. FOS, “supercedes” is the correct spelling. Try a Google search for “intervening, superceding cause.”
Posted by Leftist on Aug 30, 2005 at 8:31 PM Leftist -
Ummm, no.
Supersede is the correct spelling. Ask any dictionary. Wikipedia specifically lists supersede as correct and supercede as incorrect in its list of common misspellings in the English language.
Google is a match finder, not a spell checker. The fact that Google can find a match for a commonly misspelled word does not change the spelling of the word. Apologize to feld, and try to avoid both arrogance and ignorance. Arrogance and ignorance are popular among leftists, but they do not become you and your ilk.
Posted by scorp on Aug 30, 2005 at 10:21 PM OK, say perhaps YOU don’t want to persecute gays or throw them in jail, but the more people speak out about why gays do not deserve equal rights (relating to marriage), the more other, more prejudice people feel it’s OK to speak of hate and intolerance. Did you read the article of the couple whose trailer was burned to the ground in Florida?
It isn’t so much that gays want to shake up the whole foundation of what a marriage means. It is more related to the rights given to married couples, i.e. issues related to hospital rules (denying anyone who is not family to visit), issues relating to wills (families can challenge a will if the will gives all the money to the gay lover), tax breaks, and more.
If there were a way for these rights to be granted to gay couples, I believe there may be less of a fervent demand to legalize gay marriage.
AS far as your argument that marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman, that can be challenged by the traditions of denying blacks and women the right to vote and all those other things that you swear up and down have nothing to do with the issue. Basically, these rules were made to reflect the beliefs of the society, but is it not clear that society is beginning to perceive things differently? Yes there are still a large group of people who do not believe this is OK, but I think that there is a growing number who adamently believe otherwise. The times are changing and perhaps if you don’t change with the times, you may end up like one of those racist back-woods hillbillies who grumble about women and blacks in power. Do you really want to look that ignorant 20 years from now. I promise, many will view you that way.
Also, are you equating the gay population to bank robbers, or the person who works hard to support his family?
Posted by eka99 on Aug 31, 2005 at 9:56 AM I don’t even see it as an issue as equal rights, gays can get married presently, it just has to be someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. Marriage wasn’t instituted just for the benefit of the two people concerned, it was primarily instituted to provide a stable structure for the rearing of children. You post about the beliefs of society, but this is an institution that is in virtually all cultures and societies. And it is not clear that attitudes are changing except among certain mostly leftwing elites.
No, I wasn’t equating the gay population to bank robbers. I was trying to make a point that tolerance is not the most important virtue, and can be carried way to far.
Posted by chopper on Aug 31, 2005 at 6:13 PM Leftist, or Lefty, whatever you are going by these days, your response to me is a complete nonsequitur. Post some evidence for such an absurd claim!
As usual most of your posts are filled with insults and taunts, and little substance.
Posted by chopper on Aug 31, 2005 at 6:22 PM Lefty, on further reflection, I think you are actually a misguided rightwinger who is trying to make leftists look bad.
Posted by chopper on Aug 31, 2005 at 6:55 PM Chopper is Michael Hardesty, the conservative internet troll.
Posted by Leftist on Sep 1, 2005 at 7:43 AM Ha ha ha!! Major Major (no relation to John are you?) Never mind Fags, ex-trotskyists, OR flags - I know what will bring down BUSH!! The hand of Mother Nature herself, as expressed by KATRINA. That - and rising oil prices US-wide! BUSH HAS HAD HIS CHIPS!!!
Hello Lefty, long time no see, how’s tricks??
Are you SURE about Chopper? I had a talk with the webmaster at the end of July. He’s changed the posting system; you have to log in properly, with e-mail and details and all… HOW possible is it for Michael Hardesty to continue as before… UNLESS he is loony enough to set up about a million e-mail accounts - with different service providers?? (The webmaster was pretty fed-up so he might not accept Hotmail!)
Posted by Liz on Sep 2, 2005 at 9:38 PM Lefty, who is Michael Hardesty? You continue to throw out mindless insults. Why don’t you grow up?
Posted by chopper on Sep 3, 2005 at 8:26 AM Liz, I can assure you I’m not Michael Hardesty. My name is Joe Lammers. Chopper is a college nickname, which came from lambchops, a play on my last name. Inevitably it was corrupted until it became chopper.
Posted by chopper on Sep 3, 2005 at 8:31 AM chopper-
Your ideas about gay marriage seem to echo those of Lee Harris in his popular article on tradition, in which he, a gay man, opposes the idea of gay marriage. I’m not persuaded by the idea that simply because a practice has always been one way it cannot be modified. I’m trying to think of historical precedents that have remained b/c of that argument: women’s sufferage, absolute monarchy, slavery, etc. Mating is a genetic practice, but not marriage, and I think we’d be hard-pressed to find a “wedding” gene. By saying that you don’t want homosexual unions to have “equivalent” status as heterosexual unions, I assume you would say there is something fundamentally different about the two unions beyond providing a model of a stable, caring, committed relationship--hopefully involving empathy, courage, mutual regard, etc. (attitudes which would then be passed on to the next generation). I could agree with you if all you’re saying is that religions should have the right to solemnize the unions they choose. However, in a secular society, the issue becomes not one of divine sanction, but of the vision we have of society, and how we are going to forge laws to make it. So is a law encouraging all “couples” to behave in this “stable” manner really all that bad?
Posted by toaster on Sep 6, 2005 at 8:54 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Doug Ireland
- The Royal Road to Irrelevance
The 'French Hillary' is squandering the Socialists' presidential hopes - The Tragedy of Gary Webb
Hounded out of Journalism and pushed to suicide, the Gary Webb story is a cautionary tale about the dangers in speaking truth to power - Iran Exports Anti-Gay Pogrom to Iraq
- The Lies of Bernard-Henri Lévy
- Irans Anti-Gay Pogrom
American gay rights groups are ignoring systematic persecution in the Islamic Republic - Vidal--Never More Vital
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
