Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Recommended Posts

Arthur Laurents says he had no idea he had written in "West Side Story" "the supreme encoded queer Broadway musical" but James McCourt says, well, he did it anyway. Page Six reports, with a picture of a beaming Laurents. (Nice to see him looking so chipper, by the way):


This dispute raises an interesting question or two, it seems to me. Laurents takes "encoded" to mean that the alleged I-love-Tony subtext was something he (and the other begetters of the show, Bernstein, Robbins, and Sondheim) put in there, or had in mind; McCourt responds that "encoded" refers to how the show is perceived ("it doesn't matter what they think they were writing").

Further on down in the column, for those who are interested, Tony Kushner faces off with John Simon.

Link to comment

Anyone can see something in anything. If someone sees it as "queer," well, then that's the way they see it. But I think to assume that the authors are winking at you is a big assumption. Several people involved in that production were gay. How can we assume they were "encoding" or "subliminating" -- i.e., really wanting to make a gay story but being "forced" to make a straight story? It was a different time. The line about casting an actor whom everyone in New York knew was gay made me shiver -- that's exactly why so many gay actors were forced to remain in the closet. If they were "out" everyone would assume they A, "couldn't" make love to a woman and B, were turning every role they played into a gay role. And that's not what actors do.

Thanks for posting this dirac -- it will be interesting to have a discussion about it. I'm sure there are other views!

Link to comment

Well, the other big "gay" topic recently has been regarding the relationship of Frodo and Sam in LORD OF THE RINGS. People love reading it into their close friendship. But the stories to me are totally without sexual undercurrents. There are the 2 big love affairs, and Wormtongue's lusting after Eowyn, but all very above-board.

What will they think of next? That Rhett was really in love with Ashley Wilkes?

Link to comment

Actually, oberon also hit a good one when he mentioned the Frodo/Sam relationship in LotR. Tolkien on interpretation: "I cordially despise allegory in all its guises." He disbelieved in the tyranny of the author to force interpretation onto the reader, and championed unrestrained interpretation, even if the author had never had a particular meaning in mind. "If the reader says it's there, then for him, it's there."

Link to comment

There's a good discussion from 2002 on this topic, Interpreting Ballet?, but warning, the board software in its infinite wisdom has decided to scramble the posts so they are out of date order! Check the dates and times of posting to read it logically.

I'm another one who thinks it's fine for the viewer or reader to find anything he or she desires in a text. Just don't ascribe these intentions to the author, please. Something may be encoded for you, but that doesn't mean the author did the encoding.

Link to comment

Peter, Paul, and Mary used to do* a terrific riff on the fact that "everyone knew" that Puff the Magic Dragon was really a drug anthem, pointing out that there are other songs that can be so interpreted:

"Oh, say can you see" ("C" is for "cocaine")

"By the dawn's early light" (The time at which junkies are traditionally known to shoot up)

"And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air" (Oh, wow, man....)

"Gave proof through the night...." (...That you can force any work of art into any tortuous misinterpretation that you please)


* And, for all I know, may still do

Link to comment

Leslie Fiedler has been there and done that. His big book, written in 1960 and still in print, is “Love and Death in the American Novel” which was based on an article he wrote for the Partisan Review, “Come Back to the Raft again, Huck Honey.” His thesis (or at least one of them) was that our literature did not and could not deal with adult sexuality of any type and was obsessed with death. It is learned, beautifully written and a joy to read.

Fiedler looks closely at the relationship between Ishmael and Queequeg in Moby Dick, starting with the night they spend sharing a bed in a crowded inn with Ishmael waking to find Queequeg's arm about him. He has a lot to say about race and sex in America, refracting it through the relationship of Huck and Jim in “Huckleberry Finn” and of Natty Bumppo and Chingachgook from Cooper’s “Leatherstocking Tales”. In each case there is what Fiedler sees as a barely concealed homosexual relationship between men of different races—a “chaste marriage” is his term.

Fiedler very much a Critic. He used the terms “low brow” “middle brow” and “high brow” to describe various texts. He made it clear that while it might be interesting to see how American myth was expressed in popular novels and television shows, the only Literature worth studying for itself was “high brow”. I don't disagree with him.

There was a flurry of interest in Fiedler’s work a year ago—he died in January of 2003 at the age of 85. He was part of a forgotten world, one in which professors of literature had to actually read and know literature.

Link to comment

:wink: Whoa, whoa, WHOA....

As someone who studies literature "professionally" (and I despise anecdotal introductions) I would like to assure everyone that we actually do still read literature as training for our educational and critical practice. More than you can probably imagine - when I only spend six hours a day reading it means that I'm on vacation...

I understand the resistance to what one might call "overreading" West Side Story. But why does this offend people? One of the best things about studying literature is that it is not empirical or positivisitic; that is, it's not the DNA double helix. You are entitled, of course, to disagree. But the people who have queer readings of WSS are no less "right," just as one is no less right about the respective merits of a favorite performer. Authorial intention is not really the issue - (public domain? Roland Barthes?) a creative work is going to be interpreted, regardless of authorial intent.

Anyhow, bashing literary critics hardly seems productive, when there are so many writers who enjoy thinking and writing critically on this board. Part of the current fascination with the queer reading of WSS is because this has been a banner year for gay rights - certainly, that is going to affect the interest of mass media. Few would assert that WSS is definitively queer, but maybe it does bear some cultural marks that can be read as queer. I don't know (haven't seen it for awhile) but I'd be interested to hear someone's thoughts on how it could be queer.

A final note - if J.R.R. Tolkien hated allegory as much as he professed, he must have had a miserable career at Oxford, where he was a professor of Anglo-Saxon (Beowulf is largely allegorical) and his thinking and writing was admittedly much influenced by his close friend and colleague C.S. Lewis, who was a Spenser (arguably the greatest allegorist of the Elizabethan period) scholar. Oh well.

Link to comment

That would mean that when someone sees "Serenade" they would have to read everything Balanchine wrote about it before looking, and then they would still be interpreting what Balanchine wrote. No, that is not it. There is no text, no ballet, no film, no piece of music without the reader, the spectator or the listener. It is not a one-way street. Art is not created in a vacuum, it is created in a culture, and interpretation is an important part of that culture. To say that "that is what the artist means" is to espouse a fundamentalist viewpoint; it is no longer au courant to say that the world was created in seven days. That is because of interpretation.

Link to comment

This all started with a GOSSIP column in hte Post, right?

I DO wait for the day someone choreographs "There's a Place for us" as a gay pas de deux --

Gays are not hte only ones who could see West Side Story as being "about them" -- an Arab in love with a Jew, or a Korean in love with a Japanese, a Hutu in love with a TUtsi, just to begin a LONG list of ethnic conflicts we could pick appealing young people from, and hte list is growing longer these days, and fast....

As a queer myself, I certainly DO feel the appeal of hte story as one that "appeals to my condition" -- and I certainly think it gave Jerome Robbins a medium for expressing feelings he'd suffered for. (He was draftable during World War II, and His draft physical found him 4-F -- unfit for service; not much is known about what happened at his physical, except that it was traumatic; I believe knowledgeable persons think he was refused on account of homosexuality. And within a short time he had choreographed and was dancing an exemplary sailor in "Fancy Free.")

Link to comment

Off the top of my head, I recall hearing many writers and other artists attribute interpretation to the reader/viewer/listener and very few saying, "That's not what I meant."

I remember, too, Edward Villella's final "Watermill"s with NYCB. A couple years later, I had the fortunate opportunity to tell him that I thought it seemed much sadder than it had when it was new. He replied that he was older and that he saw it as his opportunity to have a formal farewell to the place where he'd spent so much of his career. I took that to mean that he didn't consciously try to make it sadder, but some of what he unconsciously brought to it probably seeped through. In other words (I infer), if I saw it, it was there. (Oh, and incidentally, I was older, too. :wink:)

As to WSS, a gay, male friend once made the reference, specifically citing the lyrics of "Cool."

Link to comment

As to Tolkien, some context may be instructive. He was writing the line I quoted about the writing of allegory, not the reading of it, or even its performance. It is from the foreword to the first authorized American edition of LotR (Ballantine, 1966), and debunked the idea that he had depicted various persons (Hitler, Stalin, Kaiser Wilhelm, Cecil Rhodes, Lyndon Johnson(?!) ) or events (WWI, WWII, the General Strike of 1926) in the story. He had not written it with any intent to portray any actual event. Life has an odd way of imitating art.

Further, Tolkien's "Beowulf" lectures were hot tickets on the Oxford scene, as the rumpled and tweedy Professor took the lectern, shuffled about a bit, and then instantly transformed with a mighty "HWAET! wae gar-dena..."

Lewis was the unabashed allegorist, "Pilgrims' Regress" and all, and while he and JRRT enjoyed a vital friendship and colleagueality, they did not write at all the same way.

Link to comment
To say that "that is what the artist means" is to espouse a fundamentalist viewpoint

No, it's showing respect for the artist.

You're implying that the artist's intent is completely irrelevant; that, to paraphrase Humpty Dumpty, "Art means what I mean it to mean." It relegates art to being merely a source of someone's Ph.D dissertation or tenure defense.

This, to me, seems illogical.

... But then, that's just my interpretation.

Link to comment

It depends on your relation to the artwork.

It's not up to the reader/viewer/audience member to have respect for the creator of a work. Once the work is out there, it's out there to be interpreted as it strikes the person taking it in. If the author is still around, s/he has the right in turn to refute as seen above. And so starts a dialogue (of sorts!)

The story changes if you're the work's editor, restager or lighting designer. Then I'd argue that your position ought to be one of advocacy (but that's my schooling and belief, it isn't everyone's, look at the many radical productions that overlay their own story on Shakespeare's text out there.)

A point made in the earlier thread (see link above) for me is that my judgment of an analysis is based on whether it enlarges or diminishes the original work for me, but even that is different for everyone. For example, in Schiff's article on Copland referred to in the previous thread, his historical analysis put the work in context for me, his psychological analysis diminished it for me by narrowing the horizon of the work to sublimated passions, which doesn't put anything in context for me.

Apropos WSS, I do recall Arlene Croce's one glancing, dismissive comment on a queer viewpoint in WSS' source, Romeo and Juliet. San Francisco Ballet's R&J under Michael Smuin came to NYC and Croce posited that it was the ballet gay men could watch without sublimation. I found it depressing to think that a gay man couldn't watch a ballet for its sheer beauty of design or deeply expressive emotion no whatter who was dancing, but we had to watch them all as if we were masturbating in the dark. Obviously, Croce is no queer theorist, (she's pretty much the opposite, eh?) but I found reducing the motivation for art to physical attraction (another example, Schiff positing the Cowgirl was a substitute for a cowboy) as foolish as denying physical attraction. And it leaves one open to refutation: Is Schiff taking into account who wrote the libretto? Of course, in every school of interpretation, there's good work and bad work.

But Paul's comment above shows how the same analysis that doesn't explain a work to me could for someone else. He also made an excellent comment previously about how most anyone creating works will reject psychological interpretation of their work almost as a matter of survival, much the same you would as a custodian of a work, Jeff.

Link to comment


I think that's an excellent point - it does of course matter what one's relationship to the work is, and, I think there are even levels to this relationship. For example, a dancer's job is both to function as a medium of expression for the choreographer but also (arguably, and I imagine, depending greatly on the particular choreographer) to bring something of his or herself to the role. What role the spectator has is a complex and interesting one - I am (right now, believe me this could change) a believer in the fact that they do influence a works meaning over time, whether for better or for worse is certainly up for debate.

And, Mr. Salzberg, I am sorry you have such a negative view of the academic profession. While it is certainly true that there are many jargony, anxious (about many things such as the two you mentioned) individuals, there are also many incredible teachers, who do much important work both in education and research, and who do what they do because they love it and they love and respect the authors and texts they work on. I find your answer interesting, though, because the profession has certainly incurred a lot of negative PR in the decades since the 70's, and I think much of it is, unfortunately, self-generated. At any rate, it's good for those of us who wish to enter it to be aware of; maybe that can change.

Thanks for the Tolkien references, and the WSS bits as well.

Link to comment

I'd echo what britomart has said, but I don't think I can put it any better! :)

As an aside, I used to read much literary theory from academic sources with great interest and profit, and learned a great deal from those of my professors who were well versed in same.

Link to comment
Actually, oberon also hit a good one when he mentioned the Frodo/Sam relationship in LotR.  Tolkien on interpretation:  "I cordially despise allegory in all its guises."  He disbelieved in the tyranny of the author to force interpretation onto the reader, and championed unrestrained interpretation, even if the author had never had a particular meaning in mind.  "If the reader says it's there, then for him, it's there."

I have used this quotation in writing about Merce Cunningham. Same deal, but substitute "viewer" for "reader." It's an interesting correspondence.

Link to comment

OK, I think my position's been misinterpreted here; I don't deny the audience member's (be it a viewer, a reader, or a listener) right to see in a work whatever symbolism he/she...well, sees in it.

My complaint is with those who would artificially impose their agenda, whatever it may be and for whatever reason they might have, on a work. These aren't people who react to what's in the piece; they decide what they're going to see (I was thinking about this today while watching Casablanca, in which the symbolism is fairly unambiguous; when Louie drops the Vichy water into the garbage or when the band drowns out the Nazi marching song with La Marseillaise, it's pretty obvious what the filmmakers intended).

Last May, my joke was that the opera I was lighting was a labor allegory in which an honest working man is cheated out of his wages by an unscrupulous employer and in desperation becomes an urban terrorist. In truth, I would like to do a version of The Pied Piper like that, but this version was decidedly not such a work and it would have been dishonest to impose such a concept upon it.

Link to comment

I see your point; it is indeed unfair to impose upon THE AUTHOR meanings derived from the viewer's interpretation. To continue with Tolkien (oh, stop the groaning out there!), he admitted a total innocence of reason as to why he left the Tom Bombadil and Scouring of the Shire story arcs in the final version of LotR for printing. He wrote to his publisher that "perhaps some clever fellow will know why, and then HE will tell ME."

Link to comment

I know exactly how Tolkien felt; I usually know exactly why I do something on stage, but I sometimes go with a gut feeling that something is right, without analyzing it. If an audience member or critic (well, hopefully the critic was also an audience member, although I know of one writer who once reviewed a ballet that wasn't performed) wants to later tell me that my stark shaft of light was "a searchlight beam, pinning the dancer to the stage", that's fine.

...IF that's what the piece really said to her/him.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...