Bloom wasn't closeted. It was common knowledge in the 80s in Hyde Park. A friend my roommate's —my roommate at the time was David Graeber—delivered a pizza to Bloom's home and the door was opened by a teenage boy with towel wrapped around his waist.
"Bloom bonded closely with his male students and infrequently with female ones. But he didn't fit into contemporary categories of "closeted" or "out," because in some sense he didn't live in the present at all. "Allan saw himself as an ancient Greek," said a friend."
Maybe you should do something about reactionary politics and homosexuality. Peter Thiel, Richard Grenell, Jörg Haider. Fascism begins in self-hatred.
"On and on it goes. If you inter-railed across Europe, only stopping with gay fascists, there aren’t many sights you’d miss. France’s leading post-war fascist was Edouard Pfieffer, who was not batting for the straight side. Germany’s leading neo-Nazi all through the eighties was called Michael Kuhnen; he died of AIDS in 1991 a few years after coming out. Martin Lee, author of a study of European fascism, explains, “For Kuhnen, there was something supermacho about being a Nazi, as well as being a homosexual, both of which enforced his sense of living on the edge, of belonging to an elite that was destined to make an impact. He told a West German journalist that homosexuals were ‘especially well-suited for our task, because they do not want ties to wife, children and family.’”
However, I think the distinction between methodological Straussianism and normative Straussianism should be more carefully delineated here (the KYE guys need to mind this distinction better too.) the former has great benefits as a method of close reading a text and extracting timely vs timeless significances from it, whereas the latter is a largely indefensible reactionary suite of political ideas. One can appreciate and use methods from the Straussian toolkit without holding any normative socio-political views commonly associated with a “Straussian.”
In sum, one can think “Persecution and the Art of Writing” has valuable insights into how to approach canonical texts in the history of political thought and not automatically transform into Bill Kristol!
But, definitely, more podcasts on Strauss and Straussianism please!
One more responding more directly to Sedgwick and "western hegemonic culture".
"[Matisse] told her a cautionary tale about a friend in Nice who wrecked his chances of being a serious painter by ending every session in bed with his model." https://tinyurl.com/2e3ua25u
In that context think also of Huysmans: "After such a book, it only remains for the author to choose between the muzzle of a pistol or the foot of the cross. The choice has been made."
Or maybe Paul. "To the pure all things are pure" Titus 1:15
If you read Sedgwick then you should read Paglia, and maybe Dworkin and Mackinnon: varieties of indulgence from the 80s.
That was a great book, in its time, as a conservative but not reactionary. I am not surprised he thought of himself outside, of Greek standing. But not surprised by his lifestyle either.
Her comments about the snobbery of the pines, the misogyny, the contempt for liberalism, on all sides. She was there; you weren't. Her observations are sharp; her own bigotry is open.
Bloom wasn't closeted. It was common knowledge in the 80s in Hyde Park. A friend my roommate's —my roommate at the time was David Graeber—delivered a pizza to Bloom's home and the door was opened by a teenage boy with towel wrapped around his waist.
"Bloom bonded closely with his male students and infrequently with female ones. But he didn't fit into contemporary categories of "closeted" or "out," because in some sense he didn't live in the present at all. "Allan saw himself as an ancient Greek," said a friend."
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000416mag-ravelstein.html
Maybe you should do something about reactionary politics and homosexuality. Peter Thiel, Richard Grenell, Jörg Haider. Fascism begins in self-hatred.
"On and on it goes. If you inter-railed across Europe, only stopping with gay fascists, there aren’t many sights you’d miss. France’s leading post-war fascist was Edouard Pfieffer, who was not batting for the straight side. Germany’s leading neo-Nazi all through the eighties was called Michael Kuhnen; he died of AIDS in 1991 a few years after coming out. Martin Lee, author of a study of European fascism, explains, “For Kuhnen, there was something supermacho about being a Nazi, as well as being a homosexual, both of which enforced his sense of living on the edge, of belonging to an elite that was destined to make an impact. He told a West German journalist that homosexuals were ‘especially well-suited for our task, because they do not want ties to wife, children and family.’”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-strange-strange-story_b_136697
And then you can can reconsider your mocking the idea that Philip Roth —"Celine is my Proust"—was a self-hating Jew.
More on Straussianism please! Love this stuff.
However, I think the distinction between methodological Straussianism and normative Straussianism should be more carefully delineated here (the KYE guys need to mind this distinction better too.) the former has great benefits as a method of close reading a text and extracting timely vs timeless significances from it, whereas the latter is a largely indefensible reactionary suite of political ideas. One can appreciate and use methods from the Straussian toolkit without holding any normative socio-political views commonly associated with a “Straussian.”
In sum, one can think “Persecution and the Art of Writing” has valuable insights into how to approach canonical texts in the history of political thought and not automatically transform into Bill Kristol!
But, definitely, more podcasts on Strauss and Straussianism please!
Thanks for the kind words. In my conversation with Will Wilkinson we go ab it bit on that distinction
One more responding more directly to Sedgwick and "western hegemonic culture".
"[Matisse] told her a cautionary tale about a friend in Nice who wrecked his chances of being a serious painter by ending every session in bed with his model." https://tinyurl.com/2e3ua25u
Bloom's is the standard argument in favor of getting anything done, but institutionalized and made pompous, and compounded by self-hatred. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/09/18/closing-american-mind-20-years-later
In that context think also of Huysmans: "After such a book, it only remains for the author to choose between the muzzle of a pistol or the foot of the cross. The choice has been made."
Or maybe Paul. "To the pure all things are pure" Titus 1:15
If you read Sedgwick then you should read Paglia, and maybe Dworkin and Mackinnon: varieties of indulgence from the 80s.
That was a great book, in its time, as a conservative but not reactionary. I am not surprised he thought of himself outside, of Greek standing. But not surprised by his lifestyle either.
This is by Midge Decter from 1980.... sharp essay on gay life.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/midge-decter-3/the-boys-on-the-beach/
"Sharp" might not be the word I use for this.
Her comments about the snobbery of the pines, the misogyny, the contempt for liberalism, on all sides. She was there; you weren't. Her observations are sharp; her own bigotry is open.
See the great quote from the actor former sex-worker, opponent of gay marriage, and monarchist, Rupert Everett, and think of Foucault. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/02/22/tina-brown-diaries-new-york-hustle/
I should add that Everett is a contemporary exemplar of homosexual conservative cosmopolitan anti-fascism.
A very interesting thought experiment
I look forward to listening to this today, along with the KYE podcast on Ravelstein.