31st Discussion: Maurice Sendak’s Where the Wild Things Are and Dave Egger’s The Wild Things (15 Mar)

Moderator: Isaac
Minutes and Notes: Helmi
Attendees: Timmy, Alex, Alexius, Joshua, Gavin, Javin, Aaron.

We discussed Maurice Sendak’s children’s classic Where The Wild Things Are, and Eggers’ novel adaptation of it titled The Wild Things. Sendak is gay but made an official admission of his orientation in 2008. He’s lived with psychoanalyst Eugene Glynn for 50 years.

On the whole, the book club felt that Eggers, while a good writer of prose, did not capture the vivid and magical world conjured by Sendak’s short children’s book. Some members, such as Joshua and Gavin, felt the fleshing out of the characters and the “heavy-handed” commentary on war and violence killed the seemingly innocent charm of the original. However, Eggers’ biggest crime, some say, is his failure to capture the gay subtext inherent in the original.

Timmy found Sendak’s version dark and evocative, allow your imagination to run wild and fill in the gaps. He did not enjoy Egger’s detailed “deconstruction” of Sendak’s original. Like many others, he feels Eggers’ verbose writing style detracts rather than adds to Sendak’s much-beloved characters. When fleshed out, Max appears pesky and the monsters become unloveable. Javin says the events on the island are rendered meandering and “plotless” in Egger’s hands. Helmi calls them a “patchwork of incidents that don’t build on each other for a satisfying climax”.

Aaron spent much time explaining why Sendak’s Where The Wild Things Are is really a gay fable clothed in a child’s tale. Max’s foray into the island represents a gay man’s jaunt in Central Park where staring incidents and “wild rumpuses” take place. Alex is convinced that Max has entered a gay sauna – what with all the dark spaces and furry plus-sized monsters (bears) who want to “eat you up”. The wolf suit that Max dons, says Aaron, is a specific reference to the term “wolf”, which in the gay lingo of the 1960s, stands for unbridled sexuality.

Ultimately though, Aaron felt the books’ ending is a cop-out because it propagates the idea that the “gay life”, as symbolised by the wild forests, is not as safe, comfortable and desirable as a conventional home. Joshua took a different view – the idea that you can return home suggests you can be gay and still be part of conventional family arrangement. Alex/Alexis pointed out that a subversive power of any work lies in its ability to plant non-conventional ideas within a conventional narrative.

When Aaron began discussing Sendak’s style, the run-on sentences and the lack of punctuation, the discussion took a turn for the campy as Alex, Alexis and Joshua speculate (jokingly or not) that the circularity of the prose reflects Max being neither top nor bottom – but a flex!

 

28th Discussion: Christian Burch’s Hit The Road, Manny

Biggest turn out in the history of the book club. Thank you, Raj, for the wonderful pre-Chinese New Year BBQ. Timmy moderated the discussion.

Characters:

1. Manny: Timmy liked how Manny forms a social family that is unrelated to him. Aaron couldn’t stand how meek the Manny is, unable to stand up for himself when faced with homophobic slurs. Melissa, however, thought that Manny is a realistic portrayal because he obviously has issues he needs to deal with. Glenn and Ernest were convinced that Manny is a sad person and uses humor to mask his melancholy. Helmi asked, “How sad can he be when he has a family who accepts him and when he is married?” Aaron claimed that although it is true Manny may have experienced some sad incidents in his life, it doesn’t mean that he cannot deal with it happily and it doesn’t mean he cannot be happy: your situation doesn’t dictate your fate. Ernest liked Manny because he represents both the masculine and feminine side: he can be nurturing to the kids and yet he is not afraid to play the role of a disciplinarian with regards to Belly’s behavior towards another girl.

2. Belly: Melissa’s favorite character. Timmy said that Belly reminded him of Mel and Teri.

3. Keats: Alexius found Keats annoyingly immature.

4. Lulu: Ernest detested her because she’s a mean bitch. Timmy said, “But she’s just like a fag hag.” Aaron disagreed with Ernest because Lulu is just authoritative and follows rules but when she is fun, she is really fun. Lulu simply acts as a contrast to chill India.

Themes:

1. Acceptance of family:

(a) Raj felt that the acceptance of Manny’s parents of his sexuality is too facile. Aaron agreed, stating that it is only after Manny helps the birthing of a calf that the father accepts him. Immediately after the calving when the cow accepts the calf–usually they don’t accept after difficult births as explained in the book–Manny yells, “There will be no rejection of children by their parents today!” (182) And at this moment, “He and his dad looked at each other eye to eye, like they were speaking telepathically” (182). Aaron felt that it is silly that the father accepts his son’s sexuality after he helped him in the delivery. Helmi, Glenn and the rest of the group disagreed that this is the watershed moment and postulated that perhaps Keat’s mom and Manny’s mom have spoken to the Father prior to the birth.

(b) Raj insisted that Keats’s parents should have spoken to the kids about Manny’s sexuality although the rest of the group (such as Mel, Helmi and Aaron) didn’t feel like there is a need on the parents’ part. Manny and Max kiss in front of the kids; the parents trust Manny to be the kids’ manny — isn’t that enough?

2. Sexuality: Is Keats gay? Teri said no, he’s just a campy straight boy, while Helmi said yes, he’s a campy gay boy who shows no interest in girls. Mel said he is just a kid coming to maturity. Aaron said that the question is important because it would make the novel more complex by making a statement about gay parenting/ gay influence.

3. Family:

(a) Ernest appreciated that this is a family that give gifts that multiply… like herpes. For instance, India is given a present of a sewing machine, which she in turn uses to make clothes for the family.

(b) Timmy brought up the issue of weak/absent father-strong/caring mother.

(c) Alexius liked the social aspect of the family, of how Keats’s family could interact well with other families, such as at the RV park.

(d) Mel liked to be brought up in such a loving and open-minded family but Aaron thought the family is very ANTM, you’ve to have a fierce personality to stand out or you’ll be neglected and unloved.

Literary Devices:

1. Names: Why is Manny’s name revealed only much later? Timmy explained that Manny VS Matthew is like J Lo VS Jennifer Lopez. Ernest elaborated that the Manny is slowly actualized as a real person.

2. Realism VS Idealism: Raj contended that the plot is cliche and stereotypical. “Really? A wedding at the end?”

3. Humor: Roy and Aaron liked the humor.

4. Target Audience: Helmi questioned what the target audience is, and, in turn, questioned the efficacy of the novel. Straight people wouldn’t pick up the book and teens may not get the pop culture references although some members (such as Melissa) contended that people do grow up with such a culture and the pretty cover is attractive to all kinds of people.

5. Road Trip: Teri noticed that the road trip symbolizes a journey of growth while Glenn noted pragmatically that if there is no road trip, there is no story.

6. Narrator: Aaron said that the author is very manipulative to use a child’s voice so that the readers could trust the point of view of the narrator. The other members–such as Mel and Raj–said that if other voices were used, the novel wouldn’t be as effective or as easy to write.

7. Silver Money Clip: Ernest read out a passage: “My silver money clip doesn’t have any moeny in it, just phone numbers and old movie tickets. And Sarah’s and Scotty’s school pictures” (31). He found it a poignant symbol of childhood: as you grow up, these memorabilia will be replaced with money.

Ernest argued that the insidious novel presents complex ideas in a simplistic form and liberates the minds of the narrow-minded. A hook-and-catch method. On the other hand, Helmi thinks that this is merely a feel-good book without much depth.

Just want to mention a few other people who came and socialized with us: Gavin, Isaac, Gil, Estee, Javin, Roy, Sejin, G-an, and Lydia. Thank you very much, your presence made the affair more jovial and convivial. Your presence is much appreciated. We hope we got everyone down. Please tell us if we miss out your name.

27th Discussion: Kathleen Jeffrie Johnson’s Target (15 Dec)

Our general response to the book was dislike. Isaac thought it was too mild and full of stereotypes. Timmy, Raj and Roy thought it was too slow. In addition, Timmy didn’t feel for the character perhaps because, as Alexius suggested, the depression was exaggerated although Alex said, “But if I were raped by women, I would die.” The abrupt ending fueled Timmy, Alex and Glenn’s disapproval of the novel. In defense of the book, Roy said that the style is easy and immediate; Alex enjoyed it; Melissa felt the atmosphere is well-written, conjuring a raw and uncomfortable mood. Ernest and Teri came to lend their moral support.

Themes

1. Sexuality: Grady – Gay or Not? A few evidence that he is gay: he doesn’t retaliate in the rape (Alexius’s point) but perhaps Grady doesn’t want “his anus to be torn” (Timmy, 2011). Grady dreams of Fred (Roy’s point); Grady lets Mr Howell touch him (Alex). But he’s also not gay in the sense that he is always in love with women. Alex brought up an excellent point that perhaps the rape is too traumatic and Grady cannot reconcile that his (gay?) sexuality can be so monstrous. Alex also stated that Grady’s sexuality is ambiguous. Roy suggested that perhaps the author wants us to think through the ambiguity.

Aaron claimed that the novel precludes the possibility of Grady being bisexual. Why? Because, he further argued, the novel makes it very, very hard for us to see that gay is normal. Grady’s struggles are partly struggles over his sexuality; if he could think that it is alright to be gay, then he wouldn’t struggle so much. Grady is presented to the readers as a very “straight” teenager, always in love with girls, and it is the rape that screws him up. Only in homophobic societies is heterosexuality taken a criterion for normality. Aaron also brought up several examples of homophobia: no one who is homophobic is punished for it. For instance, the homophobic cop receives no censure. Grady’s parents are more worried about Grady’s sexuality than his well-being. Even Jess, who arguably is punished by getting into a fight with gay Fred, gets off rather lightly and is unrepentant of his homophobia. The rapists, who set out to punish “faggots,” get away. What are the rapists, anyway? If they are gay, isn’t it a homophobic  stereotype that gay people rape? If they are straight, the message behind the book seems to be, “Be homophobic anyway, you won’t get punished.”

The rest of the group disagreed. Melissa, Alex, Timmy, and Raj all voiced that the novel is a realistic portrayal of homophobic society in general. Isaac claimed that there is a positive portrayal of gay people (Fred). The reason why Aaron was ambivalent about the novel in the first place is the confused garble. What is the author trying to say? On the surface, there is positive portrayal but if you look deeper into the plot, homophobia surfaces: this is the same for issues of gender and race.

2. Gender: Aaron claimed that the major female characters in the book are colorless and known only for their beauty or art. Art for girls? That’s a stereotype. Melissa countered that it is because the girls are seen from Grady’s perspective. But, Aaron said, how does the fact change anything? The message seems to be that it is alright to objectify women. But the group disagreed.

3. Race: Timmy notes the stereotypical behavior of a fast-talking black boy is racist. Alexius notes that Jess may be putting on a brave front to hide his vulnerability.

Characters:

1. Timmy let out a high-pitched wheeee when talking about Fred.

2. Aaron felt very strongly that Jess has no redeemable qualities, a point the rest of the group disagreed. Aaron claimed that Jess’s sarcasm is overboard, unwarranted and hurtful. And, as Gwendolyn rightly points out, Jess is still homophobic and sexist despite his minority status.

3. Raj and Alex liked Pearl. Timmy asked, “Why? Is it because she’s a magician? Can wear 2 layers and not sweat?”

3. Timmy and Aaron had no sympathy for Grady who is like bad actress Joanne Peh and couldn’t decide what role he is: is he a rape victim or a nutcase? Alex found it interesting that most of us cannot stand Grady’s depression. Isaac claimed that it is because the rape scene is handled too mildly. If it’s more hardcore, we can feel more for Grady.

Literary

1. Ending (I): Alex elucidated that Grady’s breakthrough comes when he can reconcile the past and the future, to accept, confess and face the fact that he is raped. In a way, like gay people coming out, Grady is coming out as a rape victim. Aaron wondered whether this was patronizing, as if Grady is in AA’s 12-step recovery program.

2. Ending (II): Alexius had a unique interpretation of the ending. He claimed that Fred’s boyfriend may be one of the rapists. Aaron saw the usage of the word “shimmer” as homophobic–why couldn’t the author use “unfix” or “fluid” instead of such a disco-ball description?

3. Birds: What’s up with the ubiquitous bird metaphor? Roy claimed the bird may represent the mental trauma. Alex asked if there are birds during the rape. “Three,” Aaron answered.

4. Self-eroticizing: Why does Grady keep touching himself? Melissa said it’s a mental thing; Alex claimed it is the only comfort he has; touching himself is a blue blanket, commented Isaac.

5. Rape Divided: Roy asked why the rape is slowly flashed out throughout the book. Raj replied Grady doesn’t want to think about it but the memory keeps resurfacing.

6. Depth of character: We all found that there is no depth to the characters, even for Grady. Melissa explained that perhaps we are meant to read the novel as such, that Grady is distanced from the reader and this distance emphasizes the alienation he faces.

In the end, our opinions of the book remained unchanged. Alex still enjoyed the book although he admitted there are some stereotypes. Timmy was XXX Fred. Glenn felt for Grady. Roy said there is no plot. Ernest claimed it is Prozac Nation meets St Augustine and was glad he didn’t read this. He said, there are moments of beauty in our other book club books, but this one doesn’t. Aaron concluded that it seems that the author has good intentions and tries to be as generous and liberal as she can but her work cannot transcend the ideology she’s trapped in, showing slippages of homophobia, sexism and racism.

We’d like to thank Raj for hosting us and Timmy for helping us access the book.

22nd Discussion: Perry Moore’s Hero (15 July)

It’s half-and-half vote for the book. Timmy, Alex, Alexius, Raj liked it because of the idealism although Timmy admitted the novel isn’t original. Jason was on the fence. David, Nicole and Aaron didn’t like it. Javin and Leo lent their moral support.

1. Themes: 

a. Daddy Issues: Alex pointed out that Thom gives Hal, his father, new hands–a metaphor which we didn’t explore. David pointed out that there is certainly some sexual tension between Thom and Hal. For instance, Thom jerks off to Uberman who is, Thom informs the reader, a superhero of his father’s age, quite like his father. The metaphor of wearing his father suit is wanting to be IN his father, although as Timmy pointed out, Thom is a bottom. What Thom does is to substitute one father figure for another: from his father to Uberman to Goran, who is a father figure, teaching Thom boxing, training him, and taking care of his younger brother. Obviously, the father issue isn’t resolved yet.

b. Mummy Issues: We were surprised about the relatively unimportant role of Thom’s mother in his life since gay novels usually revolve weak father/strong mother stereotypes. Jason noted how appalling it is to kill off the mother in a single sentence.

c. Gender: Continuing on how cruel the author is to the Mom, Nicole, Raj, Timmy et al pointed out that there are no strong woman figures in the story. In fact, the powers of the women are stereotypical of female superheroes. (This being said, Alexius observed that Thom’s power is feminine and passive. Timmy said, It’s because Thom is a bottom.) Even motherhood is portrayed negatively, with Mom instructing Thom to retrieve the ring, slicing his body up. What sort of mother would do that? While some of us thought that the book was sexist, others disagreed. Some say that perhaps this is a book written in a male prospective, for boys, gay boys.

d. Race: Aaron thought that the book is racist in the portrayal of Goran, as if every non-White has to excel in sports, studies and do volunteer work. Furthermore, Goran is metaphorically silenced since he never speaks in his superhero guise. To recognize Goran, Goran has to place Thom’s hands, one covering the forehead, and one the lower half of the face, leaving only the eyes, effectively effacing Goran’s identity. Alexius thought the gesture is romantic, and shouldn’t be misconstrued.

e. Love: Aaron hated the idea that teenagers are made to believe in a fairy tale ending when they should be taught to be realistic and taught that it takes hard work to maintain a relationship. For example, why should Invisible Lass be demonized just because she falls in love with the wrong man? Timmy argued that perhaps Invisible Lass’s sudden and unsentimental death comes from a punishment of not manning up to her mistake. Besides, most members in the group like a happy ending.

f. Media/glamour: Nicole and Jason mentioned the fast pace, action-packedness of the novel; both can envision the novel as a movie. The pace and action are definitely related to Hollywood. For example, in the scene whereby Thom is held captive in the pantry, there are product placement everywhere. Or the superheros themselves are movie-stars, glorifying muscles, and all want to be A-listers. This world, Aaron felt, was contemptible. Jason believed that perhaps the novel is trying to show that superheroes are as superficial and human and liable to err as humans.

g. Ageism: The older generation has to be screwed-up and died to pave the way for a new generation, full of hope.

h. Sexuality: Why do every character know that Thom is gay? Some of us believed that it is just taunting Thom, but, Aaron pointed out, Gary Coleman does it in such a matter-of-factly way that it isn’t a jibe but an observation. David said people just know because there is a difference in thinking between gay and straight people. Some of us questioned if this is really true since gay people can pass very well, a basic skill for survival. But if Perry Moore is suggesting there is indeed a difference between gay and straight people, then, as Nicole claims, isn’t it detrimental to gay people, i.e., gay people are outcasts and weird?

2. Characters: Timmy and Raj liked Ruth because she’s a layered character and has spunk and is accepting of others.

Alex liked Larry because he’s vulnerable and finds it hard to get close to people. Timmy said that Larry is ernest.

Alexius liked Golden Boy because of his immaturity.

David liked Goran because of his painful and dark past.

Jason persuaded Aaron that Justice is the most complex character who struggles between the good and bad within him; Justice wants to go back to the planet that isn’t even there but by doing so, by using Earth’s energy and destroying the planet, there will not be Earth for him to return to. Jason contemplated on the agony of such trauma.

Nicole didn’t have a favorite character. Aaron thought all the characters are one-dimensional and flat. For instance, Ruth only have one issue, and that screws her up for life. Everyone has one issue that screws him/her up in the book – but surely, Aaron thought, they could move on and grow, something the characters haven’t considered.

3. We all concluded that it’s a fast-paced book, easy to read, and we shouldn’t put much thought while reading it because we would end up indignant like Aaron who thought the book is racist, sexist, and ageist. Old curmudgeon fart, he is.