In the reading, the bit that really caught my attention was in the Bennett and Royle essay entitled “Queer”. They quote Leo Bersani in saying “Unlike racism, homophobia is entirely a response to an internal possibility”. While it makes sense that the two are different in that way, I wonder the extent to which homophobia is similar to other forms of prejudice in that it merely preys on some element of difference to set one group of people above another. I was also left with the question of whether, if what Bersani says is true, a heterosexual person can better understand the view of a homosexual person as opposed to one being able to understand the view of someone of a different race. If we inherently understand that it is possible for us to be gay, does that both fuel fear and understanding? And what does this say about how we read? Discussing methods of queer reading, how much of an effect does sexuality have on the way we perceive a text and the meaning we attribute to it?
Author Archives: bbug8
I was really intrigued by the idea brought up on page 113 of Eagleton’s essay, which discussed the concept that writing allows meanings to escape from the author’s control by being “at one remove from [his] consciousness”. Eagleton then goes on to argue that the same could be said of speech, because once it is released, speech, like writing, can be distorted and taken to mean things that were not the intention of the speaker. I was wondering what everyone makes of this, and whether it means that speaking and writing can never be satisfactory forms of communication in that one is never fully able to express what he or she actually means.