Started the debauched evening with African wines and negativity for the book. K wished she understood the illustrations; F wanted more lesbian stories; Pe thought the sex should be less explicit, more symbolic; Pi had nothing to critique; Aa believed it to be egoistic and narcissistic, all stories told in the same voice, and hence unimaginative; T, R, and B agreed that the stories are Teflon and don’t stick to memory; and in addition, T thought the stories to be miserable with little triumph, all about oppression from racism, “refugee-ism,” Islamophobia, homophobia.
1. Corporeality: B quoted the last two sentences, “We own our bodies. We own our lives,” and informed us that criticism on the book revolves around the embodiment of sexuality. Sexuality is about bodies, graphic and corporeal, as evident in the story with two dancers. K wondered if a person doesn’t have sex, will they still be considered as homo/bi/trans? R and P claimed that thinking defines a person; R gave examples that nobody in the stories comes out because of the sex and most acts are not comfortable anyway whereas P evinced that the sex is just for release, people just “is”.
2. Religion: Ab, B, and F shared their religious experiences. Aa argued that the book presents a lose-lose situation: the book shows that you can either be glbtq or Muslim, but sexuality and Islam are mutually exclusive. P said that the book is based on the writer’s experience and doesn’t need to answer the sexuality/religion conundrum while B cautioned against universalizing the author’s experience.
3. Refugee: B asked what we made of the refugee theme in the book. Aa dismissed it as the author playing on liberal White guilt.
4. Sex: While Pe thought the sex is excessive, K liked the guiltless sex. R reminded us of the homophobic discourse that gay men are promiscuous, all about the bass. B explained that the sex challenges notions of stability.
5. Others: B pointed out the conundrum that silence about one’s sexuality leads to suffering, but if you’re honest, it leads to exile from the community. He also championed the book for its anti-heteronormativity, and anti-homonormativity.
B informed us that critics say the book has an “abundance of style.”
T riposted, “Style what style?”
1. Pi, Pe, and Aa felt that the style is very Singaporean from a post-colonial tone, although K cautioned that post-colonial literatures are diverse.
B suggested that the Creole mixture of language might explain the similarity with Singapore literature.
2. Aa hated the voice because it’s jejune, narcissistic and egoistic—as if it is written by a very talented 18 year-old blogger—and as a result, it’s unimaginative. Although P agrees that all stories speak like they are one person, it’s imaginative in a schizophrenic manner.
Pe and Pi had none.
“Watering the Imagination” (T) because positive
“Pavilion” (T, R, Aa): empowering
“If I were a Dance”: empowering, rising out of the fire (F), comedic and sad (B)
“Earthling”: discusses schizophrenia/mental illness in GLBTQ community (K)
“Shoga”: because of the uninhibited sex (B)
Pe, T, R had none.
Hot gardener in “Shoga” (Pi)
Dad in “Fairytales for Lost Children” (B)
Dancer in “If I were a dance” (S)
Nurse in “Pavilion” (K)
Curvy guy in “The Other (Wo)Man” (Aa)
Things we like about the book:
R had none.
Arabic title (T)
Culture mash-up (Pe)
Growing pains and angst, like an emo Singaporean kid (P)
it’s fuck-up, so it makes our lives seem better. It’s a feel-bad, feel-good book (F)
Sex (K and B)
Ab, who didn’t read the book, said he would read it after listening to our discussion.