No, it isn’t the obscurest conspiracy theory ever. Just me throwing out a few links before the week completely escapes me.
By now, you’ve seen the Was Lincoln Gay? story. Most notably, Salon argued for obscurity based on what they see as author C.A. Tripp’s poor interpretation of meager evidence while Andrew Sullivan argues there’s plenty of “unhappy queer trapped in het marital and going on the down low world” evidence (with well-argued addendi on the fly over at his blog) while the arch-right Weekly Standard brings on board a jilted co-author who goes apoplectic over Tripp’s book. (It’s only a matter of time before more anti-Kinsey ballistics fire off, methinks.)
The whole thing sure makes for good blog-ivision.
I’m certain the project was not without its controversies and maybe Tripp did take ill-conceived shortcuts, but I intend to read the Lincoln book with his pivotal Homosexual Matrix in hand. I suspect that if you read The Intimate Life of while using the Matrix as a template, you’ll get a more lucid read of a murky possibility. I don’t think we’ll get anything close to a definitive answer, only insight into Tripp’s approach.
Unlike much of America, I wouldn’t freak if something definitive about Lincoln did come along. It wouldn’t change the fact that he was a great president who faced a painful time in our history with poignant and at times grim grace. And it might do the Republican right some good to have to face definitive evidence about their party hero. Anything that makes them re-evaluate themselves would make me happy. Anything that moved the party towards true inclusiveness would make me happy.
Elsewhere, there’s yet another historical incident under fire, but one that unravels in the light of modern day, namely that of Vic-Brit cultural critic John Ruskin’s long purported burning of J.M.W. Turner’s erotic art. It’s a tale of Victorian prudery and pornography. What was long thought to have been act of prudish horror might actually have been a case of CYVA (cover your Victorian ass). The story’s been floating around in international media waters for a week or so, but now that it’s made shore at the NYT, I figured it’s time to mention it.
I’m not sure I agree with Wildman’s assertion that, by attending Oxford, Ruskin was probably exposed to plenty of laddish porn and prostitutes. If I remember correctly, Ruskin’s mother went to college with him, renting an apartment for them both to occupy during his years there. But otherwise, I find the story a fascinating intrigue.
It’s not due out until March, but you can get a good account of Roderick Edward “Legs” McNeil’s The Other Hollywood: The Uncensored Oral History of the Porn Film Industry from my local alt-weekly.
And if all of that’s too difficult to wrap your mind around, try an excerpt from the UK release of Belle De Jour: Intimate Adventures of a London Call Girl. Yes, I’m suggesting it’s a light read, but that doesn’t mean it won’t be insightful. I’m game to wait and see.
