[Tyr Zalo Hawk]: 712.Essays.Response Papers.Lessons in Lesbianism

Oh, how reading about lesbian and gay criticism brings me such immense joy. Joy… and just so much of it. Can you tell? You can tell, can’t you? God, I knew this would happen. I knew I’d get so emotional that I couldn’t hide it at all. Sarcasm aside, I was almost interested in what this chapter had to say. Almost. I’ve gotta say it was close. Really close. Then again, I’ve been close to a lot of things that I never really got into.
It seems that no matter how many times I’m forced to write this essay the end result is always the same. It doesn’t matter if I’m ‘having a conversation’ with feminism, or post-structuralism, or even lesbianism, in the end all I’m really interested in is telling the whole lot to just get over themselves. So, for future reference, this is the start of a war. Actually, this is my strongly worded, 2-3 page essay about a topic which will, in the event of the revival of the author just not being good enough, become my final thesis. I’m tired of all of these opposing factions, who have all either died, moved on, or make the exact same claims with a few different words. I’m sick of having to argue why I’m not a feminist, why I’m not a queer theorist, why I’m still a white, Caucasian male of European descent between the ages of 18 and 24 who’s just, freaking fine with the way things were going before this falling into theory. In short: I don’t get why we just can’t hit the reset button, make a new canon/definition of literary studies, and then just GET ALONG. Really, I don’t understand it at all, and so here’s my plea for some answers.
In this chapter, lesbianism was regarded as the advancement of feminist theory. It filled a hole which theoretical evolution left, and started doing its own thing. The lesbianists (can I call them lesbianists for short? Screw it, I’m going to) claimed that there branch of criticism wasn’t just a hole-filler though, no, it was post-feminism, because “Feminism assumed, they argued, that there existed an essential female identity which all women had in common irrespective of the difference of race, class, or sexual orientation” (Barry 135). Hmm… now where have I heard that argument before? Could it be early feminism? Could it? Or could it even be what post-structuralists said about structuralists? Let’s check and see: “post-structuralists accuse structuralists of not following through the implications of the views about language on which their intellectual system is based” (Barry 59). So, everyone’s a rebel; I get it. Everyone thinks that everyone before them had the right idea, and then did something wrong with it. So, instead of waiting for post-post-post-modernism to take hold of the reins, I suggest we just tear it all down and say ‘Okay, agree on something.’
Is this the impossible ideal of a tired college student? Is it the ramblings of a jaded individual, hell-bent on getting out of this realm of theory? If a tree falls in the woods and lands atop a mime, does he make a sound? I don’t care what the answers to these questions are, I just care about results. I get the point. Everyone has their own opinions, their own ideas of what’s important, and damned be the rest of the universe if your special interests don’t get as televised as all of the others. But come on! Please, have mercy on all of us! I beg you, oh lords of what does and does not constitute as competent literary theory, take pity on those of us who have to write two essays a week on all of this and just make it one thing. I don’t need or want to understand what modernism is if it’s dead, I’ll accept that the movements after it accepted certain ideals and left others behind if you’ll just give me a list and say, ‘Here you go, boy. Study!’
Okay, I’m sorry about all this. Let’s start over.



Lesbian and gay criticism is a symbol of the times. It’s a product of the fall of the first branch of feminism and the acceptance of queer theory in the larger world. It’s a symbol of the progress that we’ve made and that we will make. But, what exactly is lesbian criticism as far as literature’s concerned? Who practices it? Why do they practice it? And what does this have to do with me? All very good questions, so let’s start from the top, or, since that’s a difficult question to answer without some background, we’ll just start on page 1.
What is lesbian criticism? Well, according the Barry, it’s a diverse range of things, as might not be expected. For example, Barry points out that there are “two major strands of thinking within lesbian theory itself” (135), and this isn’t even mentioning the dichotomy between lesbian and gay criticisms. Neither of the branches of lesbian theory are particularly surprising in their origins, or what they say. In fact, had I been asked to define lesbian criticism before reading this section, I probably would’ve just given a combination of the two branches, assuming them to be one and the same. There are differences between these two lesbian factions, and the first is detailed as lesbian feminism. In short, this was the movement that took the “radical ground vacated by feminism” (135) and made its own stand. Lesbian feminism is all about rebelling against the chains of a patriarchal system and emphasizing the special relationships women have with other women (which is in no way limited to sexual relations). Then, we move on to libertarian lesbianism, which is the faction that many, or so I’d believe, would think of when first confronted with the term ‘lesbian criticism.’ Yes, this is the camp that’s focused on sexuality, the one which allies itself with queer theory when it comes right down to it. It’s the difference between sex and sexuality that separates the two camps, and so any lesbian theorist worth her (or his!) mettle has to ally herself (or himself!) on one side or the other. So, those are the two different camps, but what do camps even have to do with literary criticism?
As far lesbian criticism goes, it’s really about being the sexual equivalence of feminism. Lesbian critics try to establish a classical lesbian/gay canon, they “expose the ‘homophobia’ of mainstream literature and criticism” (143), and even manage to call attention to neglected literary genres and “homosexual aspects of mainstream literature” (143). With such a wide range of expectations for lesbian theorists, it’s incredible that they continue to flourish today, especially since 20 years (in the modern day) is quite a long time for anything to stay around.
What’s more fascinating to me than anything though is the revelation about WWI poetry, written by actual soldiers with such strong homosexual themes. Firstly, although I’ve always known that poetry never had a dying out period, I suppose I never even considered soldiers being the types to write poetry. Yes, Elvis was a proud soldier and a heartbreaker known throughout the world, but I guess I just never thought of soldiers that way; there’s my ignorance showing again. Secondly, and more importantly, the intensely obvious undertones are something which I’m amazed anyone could’ve ignored before. As Barry says that Lilly says, poetry of that era, written by soldiers, was viewed as the better alternative to heterosexual love, this is demonstrated quite clearly in the poem on page 146 entitled ‘Passing the Love of Women.’ I was shocked, to say the least. Shocked and yet, strangely not so. I suppose I always knew that there was a sexual tension that came from spending years in the company of only men during periods of war, but, like I said, it was never something I figured anyone had expressed in poetic form before. I guess that’s what prejudices and assumptions about anything will. Nothing was the way it seemed it would be when I first picked up and opened to this reading. I wonder what else it out there to learn?

(P.S. The last line gives away my hidden rage, I think. It’s too cheesy to be honest. Oh well. That’s life for ya.)