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. Continue reading
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. Continue reading
Filed under Bisexuality, Coming of Age, Family, Lesbian, Love, Maureen Johnson, Queer, USA, Young Adult
Moderator: Timmy
Attendees: Ron, Raj, Deborah, Hazel, Aaron, Zoe, Dorcas
This is the third young adult book that we are discussing for the year; clearly we are on a roll in spite of everything going on in the world. Unfortunately, the good mood stopped there. Continue reading
Filed under Coming of Age, Family, Gay, Jeffery Self, Love, Race, USA, Young Adult
Attendees: Asy, Joyce, Rachel, Yi Sheng, Pamela, Timmy
Moderator: Vicky
All of us completed the required reading and were raring to go! Continue reading
Attendees: Asy, Pamela, Kenny, Maya, Timmy
All of us read the book, but the abstractness left us perplexed. Pamela said reading the book was like reading “random words strung together”. Kenny was left frustrated, as he really tried to find resonance with the collection; this ultimately marred his enjoyment of the book. Asy shared that the sense of fulfilment after reading was missing, since they didn’t get what the poems meant. Maya admitted to Googling his poems to find any interpretations of them. We collectively agreed that the book is an esoteric collection not meant for the masses.
There were a lot of things to unpack and decipher with this book: Continue reading
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.
Attendance: Henry, Daniel, Alexis, Timmy, Mya, Zoe, Vicky, Pierre, Raj, Aaron.
“Hopeful and optimistic.” — Timmy.
“It’s in the details!” — Vicky.
“But it’s the mid-west! It’s the mid-west!” — Pierre.
“Billy is the pet dog, right? Woof woof!” — Pierre.
“The space between the lines is huge… which makes reading easy.” — Alexius.
“Praise the author, not the characters!” — Zoe.
“We went in knowing this book is trashy.” — [I forgot whom]
“The book feels very noisy.” — Alexius.
We also discussed themes such as parenting, family, and diversity; and characters including Toni, Tara, Jayson with a Y, Helene, and Davin.
Filed under Disability, Family, Gay, Josh Kilmer-Purcell, Race, USA, Young Adult
The book has been nominated for several important awards, but we–Chiams, Aaron, Alexis, and Juan–wondered why. It was an easy and gripping read, but there are many flaws. The writing is problematic such as the narratives of Harold and the incoherence of the narrative. It’s also not realistic in many parts, such as Jude’s incessant misfortune; the implausibility of diversity; and Willem suddenly turning “gay.”
We also talked about Yanagihara ignoring chronology (40 years in the narrative but no reference to the times); about the novel being “torture porn,” taking pleasure in pain; about the art inspiration behind the novel (images above); the friendship between the 4 men; the lack of woman characters; the architecture and food; and the likely-to-be-unconscious homophobia in the book (the HIV inspiration; the death of Willem; and homosexual pedophilia.)
All in all, this is a fun book to read but unfortunately, it is not good.
Filed under Class, Disability, Family, Food, Gay, Hanya Yanagihara, Love, Race, USA
A cozy, intimate discussion between Timmy and Aaron, like when the book club first started.
We discussed about:
-the run-on, stream-of-consciousness sentence structure.
-whether it’s dated (Timmy said parts are, Aaron thinks it’s refreshing).
-the sex: there are all kinds of sex, they can initially be sexy but eventually become farcical and comedic. It also seems like the sex acts define the person; we remember the character by recalling what sex acts he engages in. Sex is also separated from love, but it is also sex without shame.
-characters are doubles of each other, no distinct personality (Winnie and Timmy, Wyatt and Bon Bon, etc). They become one-dimensional, commercialized images, but there is also an insistence on the body.
-the issue of gay men with their fathers.
-although the gay men seem to be in living hell, the ending is a silver lining with Fred Lemish having a epiphany of what he wants.
Timmy concluded that although he didn’t like the book, he urged everyone to read it once as an initiation into the gay world.
Attendees: Veronika, Raj, Aaron, Ben, Bien, Thomas.
We all like the movie very much. All characters are likeable; it’s a movie full of likeable and strong characters, a sympathetic portrayal of all of them. There is much joy and humor in the film, just as there is sadness, as if the director wants the viewers to cry; there is so much sadness that you are bound to identify with one of the character’s plight. We also talked about social class; the treatment and affirmation of sexuality; the feminism; and who is cuter: Arjun or Rahul?
Thanks Edwin for hosting us at DYMK.