Laura T. Smith: Teaching

Chapter 3, titled "That Old Catastrophe," of Alison Bechdel's graphic novel, Fun Home: A Family Tragicomic, involves Alison's coming-out, her realization of the type of relationship her parents had, and portion of her father's life and death.

Within the first act of Tony Kushner's Angels in America the audience has a good idea of what kind of person Roy is; he's bossy, rude, in your face; he's a man that likes to be in charge of every part of his life and he will even lie to himself in order to hear what he wants to hear. Roy is in denial about a lot of things. He claims that he is not a homosexual. He is in denial about his disease and continuously refuses to accept what is happening to him. He even tells his doctor "Roy Cohn is not a homosexual. Roy Cohn is a heterosexual man…who fucks around with guys" (Kushner 52).

The idea that anything can be art allows for an interesting analysis of a work and a fascinating topic of conversation. A specific example can be seen in Felix Gonzalez-Torres' Portrait of Ross in L.A. (1991). This piece of "art" consists of candy piled on the floor. (http://www.queerculturalcenter.org/Pages/Felix GT/ross.html) When I first saw a photograph of this piece I thought, "Umm…ok, anyone could have done that." It was during the curator's explanation of the piece that I found Portrait of Ross in L.A. to be very moving, a romantic gesture and sad story all at once.

Not having been exposed to a lot of poetry, I find poetry to be difficult to get my attention, much less fascinate me. When I first read the Shakespeare sonnets that were assigned I wasn't really interested in what they were about; I just wanted to get through them and be done with it. After the class discussion, I have a better understanding of what Shakespeare was saying and now I enjoy the sonnets.

The vernacular(s) that Sharon Bridgforth uses in love conjure/blues is brilliant. It is more than just slang; it is the way the characters communicate not only with each other, but with the reader as well. Also, the way that Bridgforth uses different fonts to indicate which characters are speaking is very helpful in setting the tone and mood of the novel. I think Bridgforth uses different fonts, instead of names, so the reader remains engaged in the novel.

In Act 3, Scene 3, Harper's hallucination discussion with Mr. Lies revolves around her describing her surroundings in Antarctica. On page 108, Harper mentions that "there isn't anyone…maybe an Eskimo. Who could ice-fish for food. And help me build a nest for when the baby comes" (Kushner). The fact that Kushner would have the same actor that plays Harper's husband, Joe, playing the Eskimo is interesting. It is interesting since the traits that Harper assigns to the Eskimo are the same traits that one would expect her husband, Joe, to possess.

The relationship between Joseph Porter Pitt and his wife, Harper Amaty Pitt, in Angels in America is similar to the relationship between David and Hella in Giovanni's Room. For example, both couples seem to spend more time away from each other than they do together. It seems that both couples are together because it is the socially acceptable thing to do. Both lack the kind of physical relationship that most couples tend to have. Both couples claim to love their significant others, but this is more of I care for you as a person rather than I'm in love with you, type of love.

Throughout my reading The Picture of Dorian Gray, a few things sparked my interest and made me wonder if there were deeper meanings in the text. How much of an influence does Lord Henry Wotton have on Dorian Gray? Why does Dorian blame Basil Hallward so much? Is Dorian really gay?

First of all, I didn't expect the Riki Wilchins talk to be anything like it was. She was really laidback about the whole thing. For me, this helped to lighten the mood for how some of these talks can be. I think that her humor helped to ease any tensions that could have formed around the topics which she discussed.

At first, I didn't understand what Halperin meant by "sexuality," but then I realized that he's distinguishing it from sex/sexual. I haven't really given this much thought in the past and after reading this article I have questions and would like to discuss the things he noted in the article.
In the article, Halperin writes "sex has no history...sexuality...does have a history." I think that this definitely makes sense. Sex is "a natural fact, grounded in the functioning of the body," whereas sexuality is "a cultural production." I couldn't have said it better myself.