Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Serrated Savior

Knowledge is suffering
Ignorance is bliss
But those who suffer
Are those who live

Because to live is not so sweet
It is to pass down empty streets
And you run, run, run
With rabid dogs at your feet

There is no water
No bread of life
No milk of human kindness
Just a saving knife

Serrated savior
Lay rest to this labor
Mingle with red rivers
Beneath the flesh
This blackened heart
Lives to disort


Creative Commons License
Serrated Savior by Joshua Alan Blodgett is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at verboseprose86.blogspot.com.

Dead in Me

Drew my first breath
Gagging on a silver spoon
But the enemy inside of me
Greedily consumes

Darkness falls fast
On the brightest stars
In the madness
We all lose our spark

I pine for rest
Crawling towards solitude
But the dead in me are running free
All my pain exhumed

Darkness falls fast
On the brightest stars
In the madness
We all lose our spark


Creative Commons License
Dead in Me by Joshua Alan Blodgett is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at verboseprose86.blogspot.com.

Sunday, June 7, 2009

All Roads Lead to Identity

William Shakespeare once wrote, "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and their entrances; each man in his time plays many parts." Indeed, the lives we lead seem to mirror those of actors upon a stage. Bound to a script of space and time, though the pages are not that which we read but that which we compose and direct from from cradle to grave, we live and die, making our entrance at birth, inexperienced and untrained in the ways of the world, and following nature's cue, we exit in death as connoisseurs of countless roles. We are not, however, mere puppets on a string, willed by an omnipotent force. To deny our hand in the creation of what we once were, what we have become, and what we will be, whether one is a student of religion or that of science, is to refute all advancement in the philosophy of modern psychology and to relinquish all responsibility for our actions.

Of course, it is not solely the choices of an individual that determines his or her identity. In the course of a lifetime, one will undoubtedly face hardships as well as successes that continually shape the evolution of that person. This goes to say that our experiences and the relationships we form with those around us are crucial in defining a concept of self. Human beings are creatures of purpose. Unlike our animal cousins we do not simply rely upon instinct to direct us. On the contrary, we feel it is necessary to construct a reason for existence. The formation of identity is what lends us this sense of purpose and direction. Over time, as we continue to grow and evolve both physically and mentally, as we are increasingly immersed deeper into all that life has to offer, our concept of self is subject to change.

Since the emergence of literature in early agrarian societies, the formation of identity has been the central subject of exploration in countless literary works. One such work entitled, The Namesake, written by Indian-American author, Jhumpa Lahiri, grapples with the formation of identity as experience through the eyes of an immigrant couple and their American-born son. On the heels of an arranged marriage, Calcutta natives, Ashima and Ashoke, depart from their Indian homeland and embark upon a new life in America. Settling in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where Ashoke studies towards a doctoral degree in engineering at MIT, Ashima and Ashoke struggle with a sense of divided loyalties that is inherent within the imigrant experience. Though they possess a longing to assimilate into American culture, the desire to honor tradition still pulls at their heartstrings.

The birth of their first child, a son to whom his father Ashoke has bestowed the name Gogol, results in both the joy that new life brings and the uncertainty that understandbly comes with the prospect of raising a child in a foreign land virtually unknown to the parents and in the absence of the love and support of their families. The name these novice parents give to their infant son possesses great meaning for Ashoke, but as Gogol grows older, his name becomes a perpetual source of embarrassment throughout his adolescence and into early adulthood. Gogol views his name as being obscure and absurd for it is neither American nor Indian, but of all things, Russian. Before entering college, Gogol decides to legally change his name and it is not until years later that his father reveals to Gogol the true significance of his name.

The story is, in large part, centered upon Gogol's life and his search for identity, though hardly marginalized are the stories of his parents and their own struggles in defining a concept of self. Lahiri not only speaks to the formation of identity as it pertains to the immigrant experience but to the formation of identity as it pertains to the human experience as a whole. By calling upon the power of symbolism, metaphor and plot structure, Lahiri paints an eloquent portrayal of the death of former identities and the birth of new identities as they pertain to both the immigrant experience and the human experience.

Lahiri's use of symbolism to portray the death of former identities and the birth of new identities is revealed to readers in several forms throughout the novel. Trains, typically regarded simply as being means of transportation from one physical place to the next, become vehicles of change as they usher characters between different cultures and into new stages of life. As a teenager, on route to visit his ailing grandfather in Jamshedpur, Gogol's father, Ashoke, is nearly killed in a train wreck that leaves him paralyzed for over a year thereafter. Mere hours prior to the crash, Ashoke shares words with an older Bengali man named Ghosh who urges him to leave India. At the time, Ashoke has no desire to leave his home and responds saying that his teachers have suggested such a course of action on several occasions but that he has an obligation to his parents and younger siblings. As he lies in bed recovering from his injuries, immobile for over a year, he recalls the prophetic words of the man whom he had met on the train that fateful night and resolves not only to walk once again, but to walk away "as far as he could from the place in which he was born and in which he nearly died" (Lahiri 20). Upon graduating from college, Ashoke applies to continue his studies abroad, much to the dismay of his parents and younger siblings.

Prior to his brush with death, Ashoke harbors no intentions of leaving India. Having nearly lost his life and having been paralyzed for over a year, Ashoke has experienced the fragility of life firsthand. Though he has not perished in the literal sense, the train wreck marks the death of his former identity as a boy bound to a sense of duty to his family and the birth of his new identity as a man who will chart for himself a course to explore the world beyond his homeland.

Like his father, Gogol, too, experiences a shift in identity that is influenced by his experience on a train. On the Thanksgiving of his senior year of college, Gogol takes a train to Boston to visit with his family. Midway through the trip, the train comes to an abrupt stop and is delayed for over an hour. Gogol later discovers that a suicide had been committed; a person had jumped onto the tracks. The delay causes him to miss his commute rail connection and when he finally arrives in the suburbs, his fathe has been waiting for hours, worried that Gogol has been injured in an accident. When they arrive back home, Ashoke is compelled, in light of the recent event, to reveal to Gogol the significance of his name.

Gogol learns that rescuers were able to pull his father from the wreckage of the train crash in India because they had seen Ashoke's book of Nikolai Gogol's short stories in their lantern light. Taken aback by this newly acquired knowledge, Gogol feels as though his father is a stranger with a secret past, that he has been lied to all these years. "I've always meant for you to know, Gogol" his father says. Now, hearing his father refer to him by his pet name, it has acquired a new meaning. "And suddenly the sound of his pet name, uttered by his father as he has been accustomed to hearing it all his life, means something completely new, bound up with a catastrophe he has unwittingly embodied for years" (Lahiri 124). Gogol asks his father if he reminds him of that night. Ashoke responds saying that Gogol reminds him of everything that followed, that it was in celebration of life that he named him so.

Throughout his adolescence, Gogol's name was a perpetual source of embarrassment. After learning about the tragic life and death of his namesake in high school, Gogol came to detest his name even more. Having discovered the true meaning of his name and the significance it possesses in connection to his father's life, Gogol has, in a sense, formed a new indentity for his name no longer symbolizes death, but rebirth and life. Though Gogol's shift in identity is not directly caused by the suicide on the train, it is the delay that causes Ashoke to fear for his son's safety, this compelling him to reveal to his son the true nature of his name. Lahiri's use of trains is symbolic of life. As with the progression of time, trains do not travel in reverse but in a forward unwavering motion. When outside forces work against the train, only then are they kept from moving or caused to derail, much like outside forces affect and redirect us as people on our life path. It is by trains themselves that characters experience change and by their passage on trains that they are brought to places in their life where change occurs.

Lahiri also uses the symbol of home to portray the death of former identities and the birth of new identities. When examined closely, the concept of home develops a complexity the eludes narrow definition. For some, home is an individual's physical dwelling, whether it is an apartment, a condominium, a two-story colonial or a greek revival. As Americans, we pride ourselves on the aesthetics of our homes. We associate our homes with economical success and power, with the American dream. For immigrants attempting to assimilate into American culture, the ownership of a home and a piece of land is essential in this process. Lahiri writes, "In the end they decide on a shingled two-story colonial in a recently built development, a house previously owned by no one, erected on a quarter acre of land. This is the small patch of America to which they lay claim" (Lahiri 51). Ashima and Ashoke have purchased their first home. More importantly, they have made this purchase as Americans. In a literal sense, they have literally made claim to a home and a parcel of land. On a symbolic level, by purchasing the typical American colonial home and a plot of land, they have further assimilated into American culture, adopting a small piece of the American ideal.

The symbol of home emerges once again near the novel's end as Ashima prepares to sell the Ganguli family home on Pemberton Road. The Ganguli children have long since grown up and are no longer living at home. Ashoke has passed away and Ashima does not wish to live by herself. She has decided to live for six months out of the year with relatives in India and for the other six months she will return to America, dividing her time between her children and her Bengali friends. Lahiri writes, "True to the meaning of her name, she will be without borders, without a home of her own, a resident of everywhere and nowhere" (Lahiri 276).

Lahiri uses the absence of a home to portray a shift in Ashima's identity. Her home was symbolic of her assimilation into American culture. It was in her home on Pemberton Road that she raised her children and it is where she came to know and love her husband. To leave her home is to leave behind a part of who she is. As she travels back and forth from India to America, she will once again be caught between two worlds, as she had been when she and Ashoke first settled in Cambridge many years ago.

When developing a particular theme, an author uses tools of comparison in order to give a tangible form to abstract concepts. Metaphor is a powerful tool of comparison that Lahiri uses to portray the loss and formation of identity. Before entering college, Gogol decides to legally change his name. When presented with the idea, his mother and father are at once opposed to such a suggestion. In the end, Ashoke gives in to his son's wishes and signs the form of consent. In describing Ashoke's sentiments towards Gogol's wishe to change his name, Lahiri writes the following; "He'd brought the form to his father who glanced at it only briefly before signing his consent, with the same resignation with which he signed a check or a credit card receipt, eyebrows slightly raised over his glasses, inwardly calculating the loss" (Lahiri 100). By comparing the loss Ashoke feels in regards to Gogol's change of name to the loss he feels when signing for a monetary deduction, Lahiri has given shape to an otherwise abstract concept.

Lahiri calls upon the power of metaphor once again in the final scene of the novel when Gogol stumbles upon a book of Nikolai Gogol's short stories that had been given to him by his father as a birthday gift years before. It is the Ganguli's final night in their home on Pemberton Road and Ashima organizes one last Christmas party for her many Bengali friends. She asks Gogol to fetch his father's camera so that he may take pictures of their last night together in their home of twenty seven years. While searching for a new roll of film and a fresh battery, Gogol stumbles upon the book of Nikolai Gogol's short stories. Lahiri writes, "Until moments ago it was destined to disappear from his life altogether, but he has salvaged it by chance, as his father was pulled from a crushed train forty years ago" (Lahiri 290). Recalling Ashoke's brush with death on the train ride to visit his grandfather, it was that defining moment that had propelled Ashoke to leave his home in search of an education abroad. It was the train crash that opened Ashoke's eyes to the fragility of life thus transforming his very identity. In a sense, Gogol has salvaged his former identity for it was because of that book that he acquired this name. Though it is a name that had haunted him until this point, we see Gogol in this final scene coming to terms with his past.

The sequence in which events are described or the plot stucture of a literary work is yet another tool authors will use when developing a particular theme. Lahiri uses plot structure to develop Gogol's search for identity as it applies to the relationships he forms with women throughout the novel. Gogol's relationships with women closely parallel his movement away from and back towards his Bengali roots. While working as a corporate architect in New York City, Gogol meets Maxine, a young blue blood who has recently returned home to live with her parents after a failed courtship. Within a day of their meeting, Gogol is invited to Maxine's parent's home for dinner. There, he indulges in exquisite cuisine and superficial pleasantries. In describing Gogol's immersion into Maxine's world, Lahiri writes the following:

From the very beginning he feels effortlessly incorporated into their lives. It is a different brand of hospitality from what he is used to; for though the Ratcliffs are generous, they are people who do not go out of their way to accomodate others, assured, in his case correctly, that their way of life will appeal to him. (Lahiri 136)

Gogol is attracted to the lifestyle Maxine and her parents lead for he does not experience the same sense of obligation and responsibility as he does with his own family. As observed by Christopher Ruddy, "Maxine and her parents, in particular, embody the cultured ease and self-absorption that is so different from his parents' practicality and sense of duty" (Rudy 18). Lahiri uses Gogol's relationship with Maxine to develop his search for an identity that is separate and detached from the world in which his family lives.

Following the death of his father, Gogol begins to gravitate back towards his Indian roots. Gogol sees his relationship with Maxine as a betrayal of his family for it was in rejection of his family and his Indian heritage that he had sought to incorporate himself into Maxine's life. Within months of his father's passing, Gogol steps out of Maxine's life for good. At the suggestion of his mother, Gogol begins to see a Bengali woman by the name of Moushumi, a family friend whom until this point has remained nothing more than a footnote in Gogol's past. Lahiri writes, "He struggles but fails to recall her presence at Pemberton Road; still, he is secretly pleased that she has seen those rooms, tasted his mother's cooking, washed her hands in the bathroom, however long ago" (Lahiri 200). It is Moushumi's familiarity that has drawn Gogol to her. Initially, Gogol wished to separate himself from his Indian heritage and this was reflected in his relationship with Maxine. The relationship Gogol begins with Moushumi signifies his movement back towards his family and his Indian roots.

The search for identity is a path we must all walk for it is this search that gives us purpose and direction to our existence. Throughout life, decisions will be made that both reflect and shape who we are. Outside forces will inevitably cause us to derail, opening our eyes to the fragility of life or guide us to a moment of revelation. Through her use of symbolism, metaphor, and plot structure, Lahiri represents the common struggle of defining a concept of self that we all share in a new and unique light.

Works Cited

Lahiri, Jhumpa. The Namesake. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2004.

Ruddy, Christopher. "Strangers on a Train." Commonwealth 130.22 (2003): 18-20. Academic Search Premier. April 2006. http://search.epnet.com/.


Creative Commons License
All Roads Lead to Identity by Joshua Alan Blodgett is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at verboseprose86.blogspot.com.

The Indifference of Survival

These eyes, witnesses to the miracle of birth and the devestation of untimely death, these ears, sonic scribes of past, present, and future whispered secrets, unbridled laughter, and passionate cries, these feet, seasoned athletes never yielding to an ever evolving terrain, these hands, time worn messengers to the generations of impressionable minds still to follow, now gliding over perforated pages of recycled arbor and ink, have existed for mere decades, a fraction in astronomical terms, a brief moment of faint incandescence burning defiantly against the existential vastness of space and time. Yet, from a journey of such infinitesimal proportions, revelation, discovery, and enlightenment of magnitude both great and small have been spawned. Their origins span the divide stretching from the unconscious to the conscious mind. As the body lay in silent slumber, an intricate web of neurons transmitting electrical signals formulates a seemingly indecipherable series of images in an attempt to reconcile past events or apprehensions of the future. Through this nocturnal laboring of the unconscious mind one's eyes are opened, so to speak. The iron curtain of daily trivial matters is pulled back and the sunlight of truth shines upon a once darkened perception.

Revelation, however, has never confined itself to the dreamworld of Freudian thought. Deeply rooted in conversations with kindred spirits, concerning the meaning of life and its aspects that continue to allude our comprehension, are my greatest moments of self-discovery. Perhaps my most profound awakening was given birth through heated debate within the halls of ivy. It was late summer and the oppressive heat of the midday sun could spark fiery intolerance within the soul of a saint a moment's notice. For several months I had been employed at the Harvard Law School by the Department of Facilities Management. With classes on recess there were many days when work orders were scarce. Aside from the occasional box delivery or the rearranging of a professor's office, my good friend, Dave, and I would pass the time contemplating life, debating global issues, or simply dreaming of our future fame and success as screenwriters.

One quiet afternoon, while mulling over a cup of coffee in the break room, Dave and I stumbled upon an article in the Boston Globe. The headline read, "Young woman dies in tragic suicide." She had leapt to certain death from the twenty fourth floor of her downtown apartment building. Having lost a former girlfriend to suicide less than a year prior, this tragic tale struck within me a dissonant chord of residual pain. Unable to continue reading the article, I gently placed the newspaper on the coffee table. Conflicting emotions swarmed furiously beneath my breast. Without uttering a single word I turned to Dave and his eyes seemed to study the sadness permeating from my own. Unnerving silence soon gave way to the typical debate our workdays could not go without. Both disturbed and intrigued by this recent news of this young woman's death, we began debating the issue of depression among American youth and the increasing rate of anti-depressant use. Dave felt as though the prevalance of depression in this country and the subsequent over prescribing of anti-depressants were unwarranted, that this depressed American youth was pampered aristocracy who would cut their wrists having acquired sand in their shoes. His words, callous and devoid of pity, rendered me speechless. His flagrant complacency to the plight of millions invaded my soul like an unholy spirit. Frighteningly familiar was its malevolence, an evil from the darkness of my past.

We, the self-proclaimed pinnacle of evolution, masters of earth, sea, and sky, sovereign stewards of the natural order by divine right, distant kin of the australopithicus africanus, the youngest constituent in an ancient lineage predating civilization, through millenia of death and rebirth, scientific advancement and spiritual enlightenment, have achieved existence far surpassing that once present upon our ancestral stomping grounds, now classified by modern man as sub-Saharan Africa. Undoubtedly superior is humankind in its current mold. Opposable thumbs and the power of invention have catapulted our species into a reality untouched by the presaging of ancient prophets. Yet the very resilience and ingenuity that defines our superiority is a double edged sword inflicting deep lacerations in the flesh of our vanity. What may in fact be our greatest strength has in turn become our most deleterious weakness. As Lewis Thomas has observed, "Although we are by all odds the most social of all social animals - more interdependent, more attached to each other, more inseperable in our behavior than bees - we do not often feel our conjoined intelligence" (Lives of a Cell).

It has ever been the concern of humankind to insure the longevity of the individual, to retain the vital heat, to achieve success at all costs. As time progresses, so do the demands upon the individual. Often times we find ourselves being tossed amidst a stormy sea of trivial matters. What is perceived to be of monumental significance triggers a metamorphosis from man to beast. The inherent primate in hibernation beneath the cover of an enlarged cerebral cortex awakens. The issues of others are no longer of consequence to the individual. Survival does not empathize nor does it offer assistance. Survival is blind to the tears of another and likewise deaf to their cries.

As I struggled with the words of my good friend, the walls of the break room appeared to slowly converge upon my position. Sweat ran profusely from every pore in my body and a sinking feeling clutched my heart with piercing claws. Suddenly, like a cat backed into a corner, I swung at Dave with a fistful of judgement.

"How could you be so callous as to dimiss the suffering of so many?" I asked. "What authority do you possess on the subject at hand that would allow you to pass such judgement?"

At that moment, in all my anger and frustration, it occurred to me that not so long ago my perspective had mirrored his from every angle. As I battled with depression and a severe dependency upon narcotics, my eyes were blind to the tears streaming down my lover's face, my ears deafened to her cries for help. What I lacked in compassion I surely compensated for with bitter indifference. Ashamed at this realization I became silent, receding back into my chair, hoping to seep into the fabric, as not to be seen. Surely this is not the culmination of eighteen years of self-evolution, I thought to myself.

Several months prior to this earth shattering revelation, I had received my high school diploma, ready to embark upon a new chapter in the book of life. I knew that there was so much more to learn, so much more to see and yet the troublesome voice of a newly healed self-esteem stood like a devil upon my shoulder, whispering fallacies that threatened to corrupt all the wisdom for which so much had been sacrificed. Replaying every adversity behind these distant eyes, my conscience reverted to its prerequisite narcissism. Life, I thought, had dealt me countless blows and yet I stood unscathed. I was an impenetrable fortress. I had acquired knowledge far beyond my years. It was this paradigm that lent me the false pretense which I used in judgement of Dave's perspective. I am neither better nor worse than he. His indifference was my indifference. My indifference was that of all humankind.

Works Cited

Thomas, Lewis. Lives of a Cell.

Creative Commons License
The Indifference of Survival by Joshua Alan Blodgett is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at verboseprose86.blogspot.com.

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Imre: A Tale of Love and Self-Acceptance

In twenty first century western civilization, homosexuality, the terminology used to discuss it and the controversy in which it is mired are inseparable aspects of our culture. For people of the late nineteenth and the early twentieth century, however, this was not the case. Although homosexuality was most certainly of equal prevalence in relation to today, it was not something that was talked about openly. Men and women alike who desired physical intimacy with members of the same sex most often lived in quiet despair. Those who acted upon such desires did so in secrecy for the discovery of one’s homosexuality meant disenfranchisement and public disgrace. In an exact parallel with the controversy of homosexuality in today’s society, social puritans of the nineteenth century believed homosexuality to be a threat to the godly institution of marriage and therefore fought vehemently against it. Though it had not always been the case, homosexuality was deemed a sin by Christianity on the grounds of its non procreative nature. To be a homosexual was, in essence, to rebel against God.


With the unprecedented theories of men such as Sigmund Freud and Charles Darwin at the forefront of the western psyche during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, there arose a great yearning to gain a greater, more scientifically based understanding of human behavior, specifically the seeming phenomenon of homosexuality. Not surprisingly, this exploration sprang forth not out of mere curiosity but from a desire to somehow eradicate the “homosexual problem”. No longer simply branded as a sin, homosexuality quickly began to be regarded as a psychological disease. Homosexuals were no longer depraved and sinful creatures but rather misfortunate souls who nature held dealt a poor hand and for whom it was necessary to find a cure.


In the following excerpt taken from one of the first openly gay American novels entitled Imre by Edward Prime-Stevenson, the narrator and protagonist Oswald ponders to himself the sexuality of his newfound friend, Imre, while at the same time recognizing the narrowness, the coldness, the oppressiveness of the terminology he is using to define the man in question.


Uranian? Similisexual? Homosexual? Dionian? Profound and often all too oppressive, even terrible, can be the significance of those cold psychic-sexual terms to the man who – ‘knows’! To the man who ‘knows’! Even more terrible to those who understand them not, may be the human natures of which they are but new and clumsy technical symbols, the mere labels of psychiatric study, within a few decades of medical explorers (Stevenson 64).


The lack of concrete terminology and understanding exhibited by the novel’s homosexual protagonist concerning homosexuality is immediately apparent and shows that even to a homosexual man, homosexuality is not so simply defined or recognized especially when the person whose sexuality is in question hides their true identity behind what Oswald defines as “The Mask – the eternal social Mask for the homosexual! – worn before our nearest and dearest, or we are ruined and cast out!” (Stevenson 101) Though he deems himself “a man who knows”, he cannot even be certain of Imre’s sexuality and he attempts to define this sexuality in terms that are rooted in ignorant myths concerning the origin or cause of homosexuality. This excerpt represents the limited contemporary understanding of homosexuality even by those who are a part of it, the necessity for a language with which to develop an openly accessible discourse upon the subject and thereby work to demystify and depathologize homosexuality. This is also the goal of the text as a whole. Much more than simply a tale of homosexual male love, Imre follows two homosexual men on a journey to self-acceptance and eventual happiness with each other. Although they do not remove their social masks they reveal their true selves to one another.


Before they arrive at self-acceptance, Imre and Oswald pathologize their homosexuality. Oswald as a young man struggling with the reality that he is physically attracted to men feels he is diseased and must be cured. He seeks the aid of an American physician who tells him to marry at once. Marriage serves as a part of the “social Mask” that Oswald claims homosexuals put on for the world. Quite expectedly, this marriage cure does not “cure” Oswald of his homosexual desire and he comes to the realization that there is nothing to be cured, that it is simply who he is.


I had no disease! No. I was simply what I was born! – a complete human being, of firm, perfect physical and mental health; outwardly in full key with all the man’s world: but, in spite of that, a being who from birth was of a vague, special sex, a member of the sex within the most obvious sexes; or apart from them. I was created as a man perfectly male, save in the one thing which keeps such a “man” back from possibility of ever becoming integrally male: his terrible, instinctive demand for a psychic and a physical union with a man – not with a woman. (Stevenson 96)

Imre equates his homosexuality to possessing a “psychic trace of the woman” within him of which he is ashamed. Oswald tells him not to speak of women as lesser beings and to think of all the great women in history. Think of your mother as I think of mine, he says. However, he chastises gay men whose gender presentation exudes flamboyance and femininity. “To think of them shamed me; those types of man-loving-men who, by thousands, live incapable of any noble ideas or lives. Ah, those patently depraved, noxious, flaccid, gross, womanish beings, perverted and imperfect in moral nature and in even their bodily tissues!” (Stevenson 86).


At several moments throughout the text, Oswald speaks of homosexual men who, despite their sexual desire for other men, represent the apogee of conventional masculinity. He himself claims to be such a man. He does so in an attempt to justify homosexuality to society at large, to prove that one can be homosexual yet retain his masculinity. Further than merely retaining their masculinity, he claims that men such as himself may be too much man, that no women could ever satisfy them. He raises such men to the level of an elite class above heterosexual men. In this sense, Oswald is attempting to create a language, to develop a discourse on, to give a shape to true homosexuality. True homosexuals love men both body and soul. The desire for the body is second to the love for the spirit. In other words, sex with another man is a consummation of the love they have for what lies inside their lover. Oswald truly values the intellect above the flesh and this can be seen when Imre embraces him sensually upon his return from camp. Oswald describes his attraction as a “sex demon” rising up within him and he flees from Imre’s arms.


Much more than simply a tale of homosexual male love, Imre serves to create a language with which to develop an openly accessible discourse upon the subject of homosexuality and thereby work to dismantle its pathologization within the western mind. Unlike novels about gay male love that preceded Imre, the novel bestows upon its two protagonists the happy ending that homosexual romance had long been denied in literature. They are not punished for acting upon a desire that society has deemed repulsive and what religion has claimed to be rebellion against the Almighty. Rather the novel ends with both men having accepted themselves for who they are and together looking forward optimistically to a future with one another.

Works Cited


Prime-Stevenson, Edward. Imre A Memorandum (Broadview Literary Texts). New York: Broadview P, 2003.



Creative Commons License
Imre: A Tale of Love and Self-Acceptance by Joshua Alan Blodgett is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at verboseprose86.blogspot.com.

Moloch and the Lamb: The Holy War of Conformism and Proto-Counter Culture in Allen Ginsberg’s Howl

During the 1950’s a large movement of American writers, artists, and musicians achieved considerable notoriety for creating literature, works of art and music that dissented from what they deemed the prejudiced and oppressive mainstream American ideals of conformism and materialism. Out of this movement, which soon became known as the “Beat Generation,” a counterculture manifesto entitled Howl by Allen Ginsberg was spawned. Since Ginsberg brought his groundbreaking work to the forefront of the American consciousness, it has become a defining work of beat literature.

Howl is written in free verse, a form of poetry that does not adhere to a uniform rhyme or meter. According to Robert Henson in his article entitled “Howl in the Classroom”, the authorial decision to write in this fashion demonstrates Ginsberg’s personal belief that the “mind is shapely” and when “practiced in spontaneity” it “invents form in its own image” (Henson 8). Howl in and of itself is a repudiation of adherence to uniform rhyme and meter as the sole path to creating poetry that can be considered art. Literary criticism has also defined works such as Howl as stream of consciousness narrative, a term adopted from psychological discourse. Stream-of-consciousness narrative is a mode of narration meant to represent the thought process of the narrator. Therefore not only is Howl a protest against conformity but an authorial confession in which Ginsberg bears his heart and soul for all the world to see.

The poem was originally written in three sections with a fourth section written some time later. Much more than a mere protest, Howl can easily be defined as the chronicle of a holy war that was waged between conformist, materialist, mainstream American culture and the burgeoning proto-counter culture movement of the 1940’s and 1950’s. The first three sections can be read as three waves of attack. Drawing from Ginsberg’s personal experience and that of other poets, artists, dissidents, musicians, junkies, and psychiatric patients, the first section offers a deeply troubling portrayal of the marginalized, pathologized and essentially beaten down members of society whom Ginsberg would refer to as the “lamb” in later reflections upon the poem. In the poem’s opening line Ginsberg tells us “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness” (Norton Anthology 2576). Those who Ginsberg defines as the “best minds” would have been perceived by the mainstream culture as societal rejects. As Mark Doty points out in his article entitled “Human Seraphim: Howl, Sex, and Holiness”, these marginalized members of American society were under the constant threat of being jailed, medicated, or hospitalized because those who refused to adhere to a binary system of heteronormativity, those who exercised their right to political dissent, those who sought enlightenment through experimentation with illicit drugs were deemed deviant and deranged (Doty 7). For Ginsberg to define people who have been driven to insanity as “the best minds” is an audacious and deliberate subversion of conventionality and an attack against what the “Beat Generation” deemed a conformist and materialistic society.

Of the people whom mainstream American culture perceived to be a generation of degenerates, homosexuals and drugs addicts were considered most perverse. Homosexual imagery and experimentation with illicit drugs abound in this first attack. Not only does Ginsberg portray homosexual acts and drug use with shameless candor, he employs religious terminology and mythological allusions in an effort to make these aspects of the human condition holy. Mark Doty echoes this sentiment when he defines Howl as “a chronicle of friends seeking…transcendence…through whatever means they find at hand” (Doty 7). Drug addicts experiencing withdrawals are suddenly transformed into “angelheaded” figures yearning for an “ancient heavenly connection”, homosexual men performing filatio become “human seraphim” and anal sex is “saintly”. In terms of war, homosexuality and drugs become Ginsberg’s artillery as they obliterate preconceived notions of heteronormativity and what it means to be a respectable human being.

The second section of Howl, which was inspired during a drug-fueled hallucinatory experience, attacks the destructive forces of materialism and conformism. Ginsberg opens with the following rhetorical question: “What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination?” (Norton 2581). Ginsberg immediately answers with “Moloch…unobtainable dollars! Children screaming under the stairways! Boys sobbing in armies! Old men weeping in the parks!” (Norton 2581). The true state of America, Ginsberg claims, is one of perverted faith, oppression and neglect. It is the capitalistic idolatry of materialism and conformism, which Ginsberg characterizes as “Moloch”, that has transformed the American psyche into an inhuman mechanism perpetually and fruitlessly pining after the almighty buck, that abandons starving children in the streets, that requires young men to perish on the battlefield in service of “democracy”, and that proclaims members of elder generations dead before their time.

This culture, in which skyscrapers, factories, laboratories, and asylums mark the otherwise barren landscape like altars to technological and scientific advancement, subdues the masses into blind acceptance of a hollow existence or drives them to insanity and rebellion. “Moloch” frightens us out of our “natural ecstasy”, transmogrifying the sexual passion of men into “granite cocks”. We “Wake up in Moloch” for it has stolen our dreams and replaced them with its nightmarish visions of death and insanity. In the Old Testament of the Bible, it is written that Moloch was a Hebrew idol that required the sacrifice of children as burnt offerings. “And you shall let any of your seed pass through the fire to Moloch, and so profane the name of your God; I am the Lord” (Leviticus 18:21). By likening the mechanized state of industrialized civilization to “Moloch”, Ginsberg condemns the false idols of materialism and conformism to which he perceives “the lambs” of society are being sacrificed. His condemnation of these false idols is a clarion call for all those under the oppression of materialism and conformism to take up arms.

The third section of Howl is addressed to Carl Solomon, a man Ginsberg befriended while both were patients at the Columbia Psychiatric Institute in Rockland, New York. This is perhaps the most powerful section of Howl. Like those “who broke down crying in white gymnasiums naked and trembling before the machinery of other skeletons” (Norton Anthology 2578), Solomon embodies “the lamb” brought to complete mental ruin by the oppressive force of the psychiatric hospital that seeks to “cure” homosexuals and drug users of their perversity. Ginsberg writes, “I’m with you in Rockland where fifty more shocks will never return your soul to its body again from its pilgrimage to a cross in the void” (Norton Anthology 2583). In this disturbing image of electroshock therapy, Solomon becomes a casualty of war. He has paid the ultimate price for insurrection against conformist society – his freedom and sanity. Comparable to his efforts in the first section to sanctify homosexual acts and experimentation with drugs, Ginsberg employs religious imagery in his depiction of Solomon’s descent into spiritual death. Solomon makes a “pilgrimage” to a “cross” shaped table upon which he will receive “treatment”. This image is reminiscent of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion. Ginsberg is likening Solomon’s demise to a messianic sacrifice, one that will result in the redemption of humankind. However, Ginsberg does draw a difference between Solomon and Christ. Whereas Christ rose from the dead, Solomon’s body will never regain his soul. He is trapped within a “concrete void of insulin metrasol electricity hydrotherapy psychotherapy”, spiritually dead (Norton Anthology 2580). The sole redemption that can be derived from Solomon’s suffering is that the world will be awakened to the barbaric practices of mental institutions and the prejudiced, intolerant nature of the society which allows for such crimes against humanity to occur.

In the fourth and final section of the poem, entitled “Footnote to Howl”, Ginsberg claims “Everything is holy ! everybody’s holy ! everywhere is holy !” (Norton Anthology 2583). This can be read as Ginsberg extending an olive branch to “Moloch” or industrialized civilization. It is essentially an armistice drafted by Ginsberg on behalf of the Beat Generation, inspired by the transcendentalist notion that transcendence or holiness can be discovered in every aspect of the human condition.

Works Cited

Doty, Mark. "Human Seraphim: Howl, Sex, and Holiness." American Poetry Review 35 (2006): 6-8.

Ginsberg, Allen. "Howl." The Norton Anthology of American Literature, Seventh Edition: Volume E 1945 to the Present. Ed. Nina Baym. New York: W. W. Norton, 2007. 2576-584.

Henson, Robert. "Howl in the Classroom." CEA Critic 23 (1961): 8-9.

The New English Bible. NY: Oxford University Press, 1972.


Creative Commons License
Moloch and the Lamb: The Holy War of Conformism and Proto-Counter Culture in Allen Ginsberg’s Howl by Joshua Alan Blodgett is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at verboseprose86.blogspot.com.

Gender and Sexual Politics in Ann Bannon’s I Am a Woman

With the onset of World War II, conservative societal conventions of sexuality and gender that had long persisted as essentially de facto tenets of mainstream American culture began to undergo an unprecedented metamorphosis. The tremendous surge of professional opportunities for women stateside and the development of the women’s military organizations aided in bringing lesbian women in particular to the forefront of the American consciousness. When World War II finally came to an end, mainstream American culture regressed back into a paradigm of perpetuating conservative conventions of sexuality, gender and family. Images of the nuclear family (the industrious, perfectly coiffed housewife; the tall, dark and handsome, bread winning husband; the happy, obedient son and daughter) were disseminated through many mediums and ingrained once again within the American psyche. As lesbian women became more public about their sexual orientation and their desire for coexistence in a vehemently biased hetero-normative culture, the contemporary powers saw this as a clear act of defiance against conservative conventions of sexuality and gender.

The greatest impediment that has prevented and continues to prevent LGBT people from fully realizing their inherent human right to life, liberty and happiness is that which is undeniably a product of condemnation and marginalization at the hands of our dominant patriarchal, heterosexist culture and is one that has evolved over time into an internal conflict. Within the souls of LGBT people, so long as they are condemned for who they are, there will always exist a conflict of two equally powerful and opposing desires; the desire to assimilate into, to find validation within the dominant heterosexist culture that largely condemns them and the desire to find validation within themselves, amongst individuals who share their experience, to develop a sense of pride through their marginalization.

From this condemnation and marginalization, a vast body of literature has sprung forth. Stemming from both a conscious and unconscious effort of LGBT people, this literature seeks to enlighten those unlike themselves, to find a place within the dominant patriarchal, heterosexist cultural framework and to communicate their experience with those like themselves so that those others will know they are not alone, to give themselves and others a voice where before they lived in silence. Within the grand scope of what is now termed as LGBT literature there exists a sub-genre known as lesbian pulp fiction. Quite ironically, it was during the tumultuous, McCarthyist, post-World War II era that lesbian pulp fiction planted a strong foothold and flourished in the face of zealous hetero-normative antagonism aimed at homosexuality.
What is immediately striking about this genre is its designation as “pulp.” It is a very curious choice for prior to one even experiencing the substance of a publication within this genre they are met with a negative qualification. “Pulp” denotes sensational or deplorable subjects. A great deal of criticism lesbian pulp fiction has received centers upon the argument that lesbian pulp fiction merely capitalizes upon the desires of voyeuristic heterosexual men and that because such publications offer stereotypical representations of homosexuality and gender and employ homophobic, sexist language, they actually perpetuate rather than dispel conventions of homophobia and sexism.

What must be stressed is that contrary to modernist work such as Imre by Edward Prime-Stevenson or The Well of Loneliness by Radclyffe Hall, works of lesbian pulp fiction neither codify homosexuality nor attempt to cower beneath symbolism, metaphor or classical allusions. Lesbian pulp fiction, Suzanna Walters claims, “insists on uncoded lesbian sexuality, devoid of…elaborate codings…or the tedious use of nature metaphors to describe female to female sex” (Walters 86). Instead they offer earnest, raw emotion and physicality. It is because they hide nothing and reveal everything that they are qualified as being of a lesser value to society. With concern for the lesbian pulp novel entitled I Am a Woman in particular, it has been argued that author Ann Bannon offers representations of homosexuality within a heterosexual, homophobic, sexist framework. The following examination of I Am a Woman aims to counter this claim by revealing the true liberating, revolutionary intent of various aspects of the novel which have been deemed to be sexist or homophobic.

Though some works of lesbian pulp fiction were created by men using female pen names, they were by and large authored by lesbians for a lesbian audience. Lesbian authored pulp fiction, Suzanna Walters claims, diverges from those of a male authorship that used “lesbian sexuality” for “traditional voyeuristic titillation” as they reached lesbians who not only perceived them as pleasurable but as recognition of a shared experience (Walters 84). Due to the demands publishers faced from censors, narratives often culminated with either reform (the dissolution of a lesbian relationship and the entrance into a heterosexual one) or punishment (the mental breakdown and/or death of a lesbian character) even when written by lesbian authors (Nealon 745). Were lesbian protagonists to be granted a fairytale ending and walk off together into the sunset, there would be a great probability that the narratives could be construed as lurid content. Conversely, if the narratives were to end in tragedy it was more likely that censors would overlook what could have been deemed as obscenity and publication was thus permitted.
This conflict that arose between authorial desire to offer portrayals of successful, happy lesbian relationships and the necessity to reform or punish lesbian sexuality in order for narratives to achieve publication is perhaps the most intriguing characteristic of lesbian pulp fiction and is one that many critics have labeled as compromising authorial integrity and a betrayal of lesbian solidarity. In response to this criticism Sherrie Inness has argued that pulps implied “lesbians were driven to insanity or death because of the society around them that condemned them as abnormal, not because they were inherently psychologically disturbed” (Inness 2005). In other words, the pathologizing of lesbian sexuality represented in pulps is, in truth, the effect of hetero-normative bigotry rather than homosexuality itself.

Though it is undeniable that a significant source of motivation to write lesbian pulp fiction came from the ability to make a profit off of the voyeuristic desires of heterosexual men, publication was also owed to the common perception of these novels as cautionary tales for young women of the tragedy that befalls lesbian sexuality. Regardless of this fact, lesbian pulp fiction acknowledged lesbian sexuality as a reality when it was otherwise dismissed as ridiculous because without a penis entered into the equation sex was impossible and was therefore read voraciously by many lesbians of the 1950’s and 1960’s. Not only was lesbian sexuality largely dismissed, it was also against the law and often considered a symptom of mental instability. Women could be put in prison or a mental institution. As Carol Seajay has conveyed in her article “Pulp and Circumstance,” these novels are testaments to the “courage it took in the fifties and pre-feminist sixties to pursue a life with women, and how utterly thrilling it could be to discover these secret, underground worlds” (Seajay 2006).

Unlike pulps whose lesbian sexuality resulted in reform or punishment for lesbian protagonists, the ending of I Am a Woman bestows upon Laura Landon and Beebo Brinker the successful, happy relationship that had been so often denied homosexuals in literature. This ending was absolutely paramount in producing the “double effect” of Bannon’s narrative as it went against the contemporary conventional belief that homosexual love must end in tragedy. Laura seeks out Beebo at the Cellar, a frequent haunt for the two lovers, and at first Beebo is callous. Laura has hurt her and acts as if she wants nothing to do with her. Beebo leaves Laura at the bar on the verge of tears and just when we are led to believe that we are being presented with the stereotypical dissolution of yet another lesbian relationship, Laura follows Beebo outside and finally reveals her true feelings. “I love you Beebo. Darling, I love you” (Bannon 232). Beebo replies “I can’t hate you anymore…I’ve given up. There’s nothing left but love” (Bannon 232). With these words the two women embrace, kissing each other passionately and eventually walk off down the street together in loving reconciliation. The decision of the publisher not to alter this ending was risky business and certainly a political act.

Cover art was another aspect of lesbian pulp fiction over which authors had no control and typically adhered to stereotypical depictions of butch-femme roles. Butches were illustrated as brooding, masculine presences with short hair, wearing pants while Femmes were portrayed as exceedingly feminine figures with long flowing hair and scantily clad. Such is the case with the cover art for I Am a Woman. The femme figure dominates the frame. She has long flowing hair and sports a halter top that is beginning to slip off of her shoulders, revealing a tantalizing pair of large, full breasts. Even her facial expression is sexually suggestive as she appears to be in a state of ecstasy, her head tilted back and eyes barely open. The butch figure stands at a distance with a stoic expression, arms straight at her side and appears to have locked the femme figure in her crosshairs. She has short curly hair and is wearing a far less revealing shirt as well as pants. Now these images may seem to be merely endorsing the stereotypical butch-femme role distinction but in actuality they follow very closely to the descriptions given of Laura Landon and Beebo Brinker in the text.

The stereotypical butch-femme role distinction, both in fictional literature and in real world lesbian communities, has had many feminists and homophile organizations up in arms since lesbian sexuality became a topic of public debate. Feminists and homophile organizations have claimed that such a distinction adheres to the hetero-normative system of binary gender. By relying solely upon this argument one might be misled by certain aspects of particular lesbians’ gender presentation and categorize them as either masculine or feminine, butch or femme. According to Judith Butler, gender is not an innate, unalterable aspect of one’s being but rather a continual process of “performative acts” that are merely influenced by societal conventions (Butler 270). In other words, there is no normative body, no essential gender that exists prior to one’s social existence. Butler does not subscribe to the system of binary genders which insists upon categorizing individuals as either feminine or masculine. One’s gender presentation, whether or not it is influenced by societal conventions, is ultimately the decision of the individual.
The first instance of what could be construed as homophobic language that readers are presented with comes when Laura begins to feel an attraction towards her roommate Marcie. It is implied that she has been with a woman before and that the relationship failed. Marcie reminds Laura of a former girlfriend. She insists to herself that she must not fall for Marcie. “That happened a million years ago. I’m not the same Laura anymore. I can’t – I won’t love like that again. I’ll work, I’ll read, I’ll travel. Some people aren’t made for love. Even when they find it, it’s wrong. I’m one of those” (Bannon 19). By the omission of a fairytale ending the reader is lead to believe that LGBT people are incapable of finding love because their attraction to people of the same sex is merely animalistic and sexual with no deeper spiritual basis. Critics may argue that Bannon is perpetuating the belief that homosexual love cannot have a happy ending. However, Laura’s words sound like those of a woman who has had her heart broken and not necessarily one who believes her physical attraction to women is something to deny and be ashamed of. Even if one could prove that Laura is internalizing this homophobic belief, that fact alone does not betray authoritative position on the matter. Of course, as a lesbian herself, it is quite possible that Ann Bannon is drawing upon the emotions of her own experience. Despite that possibility, it is fair to say that when an individual or group of individuals is endlessly subjected to condemnation and marginalization by the majority, they begin to experience self-doubt and develop a sense of resignation with regard to their station in life. Bannon is simply representing a realistic account of what people go through, heterosexual and LGBT alike, when subjected to oppression. It does not mean she herself subscribes to this belief. What it does is subvert censorship and allows the kind of narratives Bannon writes to be accepted by the mainstream culture.

When Laura, Marcie, Burr and Jack go for drinks at The Cellar, Burr speaks condescendingly about the presumably lesbian patrons and readers are once again presented with homophobic, sexist language. “All those gals need is a real man. That’d put them on the right track in a hurry…Any girl who doesn’t like men is either a virgin or else some bastard scared the hell out of her. She needs gentling” (Bannon 34). Now this is clearly language deeply steeped in prejudice. Burr is of the school of thought that lesbianism is caused by a woman’s experience with men or her lack thereof. What must also be taken into account is Laura’s response to Burr. “We’re human beings…We have no right to sit here and laugh at them for something they can’t help” (Bannon 34). As homophobic and sexist as Burr’s beliefs may be his attack against the lesbians in the bar provides Laura with the opportunity to defend homosexuality. Laura seizes this opportunity and nearly risks revealing her own homosexuality when she claims “You talk about us as if we were horses” (Bannon 34).

What is also very interesting and deserves attention is when Laura poses the hypothetical scenario of a father being the cause of a girl’s lesbianism. “What if the bastard is her father...And he scares the hell out of her when she’s five years old?” (Bannon 34) This belief can be traced back to Freudian psychology which claimed that women who experience trauma in childhood at the hands of a male figure, namely their fathers, are more prone to becoming lesbian. Now this is once again clearly an androcentric belief as the female’s sexual destiny is subject to her experience with her father or another man. In I Am a Woman, Laura’s tumultuous relationship with her father alludes to the contemporary school of thought that homosexuality was possibly the result of childhood trauma. In other words, the emotional abandonment and physical abuse Laura experienced with her father following the death of her mother and brother has driven her away from the society of men and into the arms of women.

Fast forward to Chapter 14 of the novel when Laura finally comes face to face with her father after over a year of estrangement and admits to him that she is a lesbian. He responds by asking, “Did I do that to you, Laura?” (Bannon 206). Although she confirms his inquiry, it is very interesting and important to point out that from the narrator’s relating of Laura’s inner thoughts we learn that she is not quite certain that her father is the cause of her homosexuality. She responds “without certain knowledge” and merely “the urge to hurt him” (Bannon 206). This small bit of narration is an authorial hint that Bannon does not subscribe to Merrill Landon’s androcentric point of view but hides it well enough that censors would have passed over it.
Another example of Bannon’s use of language that could be construed as homophobic is when Laura and Beebo Brinker have sex for the first time. The passage that begins with “Laura felt such a wave of passion” through the paragraph that begins with “No, no, no, no,” is significant to the novel as a whole because the language used to describe Laura and Beebo’s passion can be construed as representing the nature of homosexuality as instinctual, animalistic sexual desire, which would be one of many aspects of lesbian pulp fiction that would cause censors in the 1950’s to allow publications such as Ann Bannon’s novels to exist.

However, this passage can also be read in another way. We learn earlier on in the novel that it has been over a year that Laura parted with her former girlfriend Beth and that for over a year Laura has remained sexually abstinent. For a grown woman who has already experienced the profound pleasure that sex can bring a person, a year is quite a long time to go without sexual gratification. Without a doubt Laura’s libido is going to be raging, begging to be satiated. Perhaps she does not love Beebo and the sex that the two women engage in with one another is purely physical for Laura, at least in beginning. When heterosexual partners engage in sex purely for the physical gratification they may be condemned by certain religious zealots but certainly not by society at large. What Bannon is subversively revealing here is heterosexist hypocrisy. She is trying to convey with this scene that homosexuals have just as much right as heterosexuals to have sex for fun.

Though publications of lesbian pulp fiction employed stereotypical cover art in order to attract heterosexual male readers, have been edited in order to circumvent the watchful eyes of McCarthy era censors, and their narratives have been interpreted by ignorant critics as homophobic, sexist denunciations of lesbian desire, fledging and veteran lesbians alike were profoundly influenced by publications like Ann Bannon’s I Am a Woman. Not only did they inform lonely and closeted women that others like them existed in the world but also overtly and covertly challenged societal and political conventions of sexuality and gender. Undoubtedly, American culture has since evolved into one of greater tolerance and understanding since the days when lesbian pulp fiction was new and unchartered territory. Be that as it may, while pseudonymous male authors purveyed lesbian sexuality to voyeuristic male readers in which lesbian relationships resulted in reform or punishment, lesbian authors like Ann Bannon with their courage and optimism were influential in lesbians seeking out one another and forming communities. Despite sexual and gender oppression that lesbian women continue to face to this day, lesbians of the post World War II era experienced a radical evolution in their collective consciousness which has led to an enduring sense of both pride and community.

Works Cited

Butler, Judith, and Sue Ellen Case. "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory." Performing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre. Baltimore: John Hopkins UP, 1990. 270-82.

Inness, Sherrie A. "Novel: Lesbian." GLBTQ gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender & queer encyclopedia. 15 Apr. 2009
http://www.glbtq.com/.

Nealon, Christopher S. "Invert History: The Ambivalence of Lesbian Pulp Fiction." New Literary History 31 (200): 745-64.

Seajay, Carol. "Pulp and Circumstance." Women's Review of Books 23 (2006): 18-19.

Walters, Suzanna D. "As Her Hand Slowly Crept Up Her Thigh: Ann Bannon and the Politics of Pulp." Social Text 23 (1989): 83-101.


Creative Commons License
Gender and Sexual Politics in Ann Bannon's I Am a Woman by Joshua Alan Blodgett is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at verboseprose86.blogspot.com.