She Who Became the Sun by Shelley Parker-Chan

Although only Sam, Yisheng and Aaron showed up, it was a fruitful discussion. S. told us that she borrowed it from Queenstown Library, which had a display for queer YA post-377A. Say what you will about the repeal, but the effects are palpable. YS noted that the novel is part of a wave to introduce Asian history to the western world; and admired it for its vividness and innovation as if watching historical drama on TV. It’s precisely because its dramalike action that A. didn’t like it, bringing the cliff scene and the ending scene as examples of cliches in c-drama.

A. also didn’t like the awkward writing—

“Feels something at the pit of the stomach. It was angry.”

“He never felt layers of feelings before. Love and hate.”

—although A. also noted that there are some brilliant metaphors like “offended like a wet cat.”

We also discussed:

-the significance of ghosts (is there meaning? What are their functions? Why do they surround Ouyang?);

-the sense of manhood (Xu Da, Ouyang, Isen, Lord Wang); why are there so many unlikeable male characters?

-sexuality (what does it mean to be forcibly castrated for Ouyang and Zhu? Why did the lack of an appendage prevent Ouyang-Isen from romantic love but aid in Zhu-Ma’s relationship?);

-is there misgendering of Zhu? or is it fluidity? S. informed us that the author identifies with being nonbinary (they/them)

-gender- is it possible to reimagine women in power in a patriarchy?

-ableism? Ouyang’s pov that a disabled person is worse than death.

-love: sequences between Ma and Zhu are good

-violence – is violence necessary for social progress? Is fighting for survival better than fighting for ideology? Are they the same?

-ethics- as Zhu makes bigger and bigger gamble to survive and thrive, how much of humanity is one willing to sacrifice to get power?

When the Tiger Came Down the Mountain by Nghi Vo

Alexis, Raj, Kim, Sharad and Aaron discussed this book by the Vietnamese-American writer who imbues Vietnamese myths and poems into the novella. We were confused in the beginning of the narrative because of the lack of grounding and while we appreciate the nonbinary pronoun, the writer should use it clearly, instead of causing confusion to the story. Some of us were appreciative that the story-within-the-story is told vaguely without much details because it allows possibilities; but others believed that the lack of descriptions depends too much on the reader’s imagination and doesn’t delve into the psychology of the characters.

A notable scene is the fox spirit scene and some of us would have taken the blue pill and stayed with the hot fox spirit and eat abundant delicious food.

We also talked about the toxic relationship of how the tiger stalks the scholar and how the tiger threatens to starve to death if the scholar doesn’t feed her. If the tiger were male, the reader wouldn’t have given so much leeway to the tiger.

Overall, despite that the book comes highly reviewed, most of us, except one, did not especially like it.

Let’s Love Hong Kong (2002), dir. Yau Ching

This was one of the best discussions ever, funny and adding to knowledge, attended by Alexius, Yen, Dorcas, Natalie, Xinyu, and Aaron. We spoke about the obsession with and the inclusion of animals in city life especially giraffes (“giraffes are cute,” said Alexius) and fat stray dogs VS skinny people; that tender relationships occur between mother-daughter or human-animal but not between lesbians, and wondered if that’s homophobic; identity of Hong Kong citizens especially lesbians in light of capitalism, the return to China, scarcity of land, intimacy mediated through media, technology, colonialisation, and globalisation (Nicole being mixed race).

Somehow, almost every scene is sexualised in the movie such as nun eating apple (recalling to the Adam and Eve scene), “banana fingers,” long necks of giraffes and their tongues, mom sucking on chicken feet, Chan holding coke can against her neck.

All the factors (mentioned in previous paragraphs in bold) have created intense loneliness in the characters, manifest in different ways such as insomnia, paying for sex, etc.

We talked about exterior factors such as the funding of the film and, unlike Monsoon which is a travelogue of Vietnam, Let’s Love Hong Kong (LLHH hencefore) embraces the country for all its filth and dirt, showing the underbelly of the housing estates, but also revealing a nostalgia which may be seen in the yellow filter used for the film.

Regarding the film’s style, it is noted how the camera is placed closed to the edge, mimicking a claustrophobia of the country. As for editing, the transitions are confusing and the plot narration isn’t straight forward but this intentionality is to link LLHH to the other global queer films’ narration techniques all the way back to the 70s.

This style announces itself in the title of the film (the director said in an interview that “let’s” is a stand-in for “les” as in “lesbian,” so you can read the title as “Les love Hong Kong.”) The porn website that Chan Kwok-chan (meaning “made-in-China”) worked at is called “Let’s Love” so ironically it seems like the title could be “let’s love China” or “Les love China.” Also ironically, the main leads, Nicole and Zero, love Chan, but Chan couldn’t love them back, perhaps a metaphor here? Especially when seen from the chronology that HK returned to China in 1997 and this film was conceptualised in 1999.

The Cantonese title, Ho Yuk, means “move quickly” as in the speed of HK society, but the camera contrasts this movement by keeping still.

Also still was Chan who was the only person in HK to feel the earthquake because she was standing still on the MTR platform while lovers kissed behind her and a cleaner kept sweeping the floor around her. Clearly there is symbolism at work in this scene, as there are plethora of symbols in the film.

Chan’s standing still is mirrored in the narrative and character development; there is none, leading to Hollywood Bitch Slap (HBS) concluding “Yet another lesbian movie that tries very hard to avoid lesbianism.” Clearly HBS is using Western lens and neglecting Asian culture. We disagreed with him and discussed how Asian sexuality is expressed through the body and how the mother tacitly acknowledges Chan’s sexuality.

That said, we made the same mistake as HBS. Although we all like the character Zero for her lucky-go-happy ways and insouciance towards homophobia, we were disturbed by her stalkish behaviour until Natalie reminded us that Asians generally don’t know how to express their admiration and love and Zero does it by offering “lobang” to Chan.

Nicole, as a character, seems to stick out and her scenes could be cut away without much harm to the movie. What was Nicole’s purpose? We suggested that Nicole represents a different type of lesbian from Zero and Chan; and a different socioeconomic class.

Because of this stillness — nothing gets resolved in the film, there is no escape from this China dream — we pondered if this movie was too long and could have been made into a short film to express the same meaning.

Whatever the case, despite Alex still adamantly disliking the film while Dorcas switched from dislike to neutral, the film has provided much fodder for thought. Although it may not have been commercially successful and not make much of an impact culturally, it is a cerebral and interesting film that gives insights to the Hong Kong society.

Postcolonial Lesbian Identities in Singapore: Rethinking Global Sexualities by Shawna Tang

At the start of the discussion, we polled if we would (1) recommend the book, (2) not recommend the book, or (3) remain neutral. Two persons said they would recommend the book only to academics, and one said they wouldn’t. We polled again at the close of the discussion and the results remained the same.

As usual, we kicked off by saying how the book could have been better. Dorcas and Aaron thought the text is boring. Yisheng (YS) said that even though the book traced some form of lesbian history, Tang neglected the 70s and 80s and did not mention the new wave of nonbinary or trans- youths who are more confrontational. YS also pointed out that Tang didn’t research into the different and oppositional perspectives that lesbian activists have.

Aaron observed 5 flaws of the academic study:
1. It is super dated with old references. The book was published in 2018 but has references from 2009, such as the IMF economic figure. The book talks about 2009 AWARE case and Pink Dot (2009-2011) when other academics have done it better and sooner.
2. Ahistorical. Tang treats lesbianism in Singapore the same throughout the decades and doesn’t specify a date for her research.
3. Double standards: Tang isn’t afraid to judge others when they go against her theory (see activist who had a FB argument with her) but when people agree with her theory, she doesn’t point out their internalised homophobia. For example, the women in the documentary (mentioned in Chapter 1) obviously contradict her findings in Chapter 6, but Tang ignored the evidence.
4. Lack of originality: the whole of chapter 3 is rehashing what other people said in detail. Her main thesis, which will be explored later, isn’t original too.
5. Bad writing: repetition all over the place. Could have done with some good editing.
6. Anecdotal evidence: Aaron questioned the validity of Tang’s research in Chapter 6. How representative was it? What was the sample size? How old are the participants? Will their generation make a difference to the research? Since the research is quite different from what we experience now in Singapore, when was this research done? Academia frowns on anecdotal evidence – how did she find the participants and how did she ensure a fair representation? YS was kinder, saying that he was confident about the participants’ responses as they seemed to speak confidently, instead of being mouthpieces.

Related to Tang’s idea of Singapore being influenced by Western thought, Dorcas brought up the influence of US media. Aaron jumped on it: during Tang’s etymological history of Singapore’s lesbians, she didn’t mention the obvious influences of The L Word (though not screened in Singapore, many Singapore’s lesbians watched it illegally). YS brought up Ellen Degeneres and Rachel Maddow. Aaron said sexuality is about performativity (Bulter), and the way some lesbians perform their sexuality is affected by trends, especially those on media, something that Tang neglects to bring up.

One reason, according to Tang, why she studies Singapore’s lesbians and why they are unique is how Singapore doesn’t a lesbian history like other Asian countries. YS questioned whether we have no history or whether the history is hidden, hard to dig up, invisible. In any case, queer history is often discontinuous, and few queer people, even the average white people in America, know about their history, so why is history even relevant? In addition, Aaron questioned if it was true that Singapore has no lesbian history: what about majie? Or the Indian lesbian history? By neglecting the Indian history, Tang exhibits Chinese privilege, taking Chinese as the default in Singapore, even though she did interview a Malay woman in Chapter 6.

In chapter 2, Tang advances that the Altman’s Developmentalist theory (gender inversion => emotional same-sex relationship) and Plummer’s cartographic theory (other countries absorb developmentalist theory and transform it with their individual cultures) assume the West to be the centre and all other forms of sexualities are copies and thus inferior. Tang aims to decentralise the power through decolonisation. We all agreed that we should divest power from the West. Yet it is factual that the West holds the epistemic center of knowledge that radiates elsewhere, that is, Tang is reading against the grain and not presenting what is rooted in reality. YS said kindly that her theory is aspirational.

Furthermore, we wanted to understand Tang’s theory to divest the Western power, but in the end, she is merely parroting Plummer’s cartographic theory albeit with a minor change imbued from postcolonialism.

In Chapter 5, on Pink Dot, YS shared that the first few Pink Dot actively rejected western ideas and brooked no rainbow flags and shirtless men, although Aaron remembered that while organisers might have frowned upon the idea, it didn’t stop people who came from taking off their shirts and dressing flamboyantly. Tang’s reading that Pink Dot was strictly “family friendly” is the dichotomy that she hates in the first place; why can’t Pink Dot be “family friendly” with colourful characters at the same time?

Tang writes on Pink Dot:

It is something of an irony, in its mimicry of a national carnival, that Pink Dot had unwittingly reproduced the disciplinary regime of the state, preserving state power on the one hand, as it attempted to resist it on the other (104).

But why “unwittingly”? Learning from the Nation Party, Pink Dot needed to be smart strategically and thereby using the State’s language against the State itself. It is a strategy to make State accept gay people. You attract more flies with honey than vinegar – that’s what Pink Dot is doing. Why does Tang not consider this point?

One reason why Tang doesn’t consider Pink Dot to be strategic is that she believes Pink Dot is not politicised. But every act is a political act. It’s strange that she would think it is not political.

Chapter 6 is really the crux of the research and too bad we had to wade through 5 chapters to read it. Dorcas spoke from her own experience which coincided with Tang’s study that
1. as a teenager, Dorcas felt that relationship between females was unclear, whether it was friendship or love, until she came in contact with men,

2. historical development from passive/active => butch/femme => andro.

Aaron found it mystifying that Tang is against Altman’s Developmentalist theory but is advocating a Singapore’s lesbian trajectory herself.

We also discussed about coming out, which is a major theme in Chapter 6 of the study. Tang advocates a not-coming out. YS said coming out or staying in the closet is about power, privilege, and personal choices. But people of influence could have helped the community by coming out. Aaron exemplified it with Lee Hsien Yang’s son. Where was he when activists were fighting so hard for rights? He showed up at the 11th Pink Dot, reaping the results of past activism, and people were cheering for him? People really set a low bar for him.

Aaron also noted that Tang couldn’t get away from the idea that coming out = political act. But Aaron was more concerned about being able to be oneself in front of friends and family. Wouldn’t you want to give your family and friends a chance to know the real you?

As we like to end the book club positively, we said positive things: Dorcas and Aaron liked Chapter 6 because it gives voice to many women. YS like the women’s voices because they are interestingly inconsistent. He explained that oftentimes we are scared to let our guard down in case a homophobe may find what we say and use it against us, but the women in the book spoke freely. He also like the book because it rethinks queer identity in not tying it with heritage and that an identity with many foreign imports does not invalidate it.

117th Discussion: The Bermudez Triangle by Maureen Johnson

Moderator: Asy
Attendees: Ron, Dorcas, Timmy

“Have you ever had a crush on, or fell in love with your best friend/s?” Asy asked, kicking off this month’s chill discussion.

114th Discussion: Laura Dean Keeps Breaking Up With Me by Mariko Tamaki

Moderator: Timmy
Attendees: Aaron, Chris, P, Ron, Hazel, Asy, Raj, Dorcas

What is an 80s-themed party without songs from that era? Following the book’s first pages, Timmy started this discussion by asking everyone about their favourite song/s from that decade, further revealing how old we truly are.

100th Discussion: Eight Plays by Ovidia Yu

Attendees: Asy, Joyce, Rachel, Yi Sheng, Pamela, Timmy
Moderator: Vicky

All of us completed the required reading and were raring to go! 

Movie Discussion: The Chinese Botanist’s Daughters (2006)

Attendees: Raj, Timmy, Asy, Fiona, Mya, Vicky, Reynard, Shawn, Aaron, Henry, Olivia.

We discussed The Chinese Botantist’s Daughters, directed and written by Dai Sijie, a French-Chinese, who writes in French, although he is a Chinese national. The themes that we talked about: nature/location, religion, music/soundtrack, rebellion, politics, race, and family.

In particular, we looked closely at the drug scene in the steamroom where hallucinogens are used to induce buried memories (of the Western mother), prompting Liming to cut her hair short and don a man’s uniform; why are drugs associated with homosexuality? And why does Liming fall into a heteronormative narrative of being a “man”?

We also talked about the phallic symbols in the movie and how male sexual desire needed to be extirpated in order for lesbian love to rise.

We also reached a conclusion that the rebellious actions are sometimes pointless and, coupled with the paradisal locale, the Western corruption into a carefully cultivated isle can be read allergically as serpent destroying Eden (Liming as the serpent, An as Eve, her brother as Adam, and the father who created the isle as God) or politically as Pro-China. The political aspects, we concluded, are so patent in the movie that we didn’t believe Dai Sijie when he claimed that his movies aren’t political.

Furthermore, in the last scene, which moved many of us, an educator and religious leaders support the lesbian couple; we read this as a form of resistance against the state laws. We thought the “Bury the Gays” theme deserves 10000 eye-roll, but, like all tragedies, their deaths make the movie more poignant.

 

 

Book Discussion: Sappho’s Fables by Elora Bishop and Jennifer Diemer

Sappho’s Fables is a collection of three revisionist fairy tales (Snow White, Rapunzel, and Hansel and Greta) given a lesbian twist. Timmy, Shawn, Reynard, and Aaron thought that although it’s not written in a literary form, it is enjoyable. The authors have changed much details from the fairy tales, making it unexpected.

We talked about the sexualisation of the fairy tales and normalisation of sex, removing sex as taboo, providing a safe space in the fairy tales.

Most characters are complex without a clearcut morality. Shawn particularly disliked Greta who is a brat and couldn’t defend herself.

Like most lesbian novels, we wondered why men are portrayed as useless or evil. Perhaps, Shawn suggested, it is lesbians’ way to reclaim power. Seen in this light, the ragers with their physical prowess could be a symbol of hypermasculinity, threatening civilisation.

Interestingly, the stories could be read as the protagonists recovering from various medical conditions: schizophrenia a la Fight Club in Snow White; bipolarity and hallucinations in Rapunzel; paranoia, hysteria and eating disorder in Greta.

Book Discussion: Ann Bannon – Odd Girl Out

Zoe, Raj, and Aaron discussed Ann Bannon’s Odd Girl Out, which is the second bestselling paperback in 1957. We discussed about the significance of the title, and how the three women, Emily, Beth, and Laura, are “odd” in their own ways.

Emily is a strong, loyal, independent friend who doesn’t deserve her ending. (Actually what is her ending? we pondered.)

Beth is sexually ambiguous. She is portrayed as a butch, attractive to both men and women, but she refuses to make any decisions about her life until the end. Although she is a “leader,” she is not a good friend to Emily, not advising her to stay away from Budd.

Regarding Laura: We questioned about the stereotypes of a possessive, jealous lesbian. We also talked about the circumstances of portraying a lesbian in the 50s: it was prohibited to have a happy ending for LGBTQ. But Bannon circumvented the censorship law by creating a strong and independent character in Laura, although how Laura grows out of her moroseness and morbidity is not clearly shown.

The character development of Laura is one of the many plot holes we found in the novel. Who sabotages Emily’s double stitching of bra? What happens to Emily in the end? How come the perspectives in the novel shift suddenly? These are some of the narrative weaknesses in the novel.

However, it’s refreshing to see a positive male character (Charlie) in a lesbian novel, a rare sighting among the lesbian novels we have read so far.