Talk:Queer theory

If there is any point to that article beyond promoting gender confusion as pervasive, I don't see it. That certainly doesn't seem like any sort of "conservative" viewpoint to me. It seems rather like liberal propaganda.DavidDeering 11:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

I quite agree. And even if one can swallow its moral unwholesomeness, it deserves to be deleted for its use of 'lit crit' jargon. Bugler 16:20, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Au contraire, Bugler. It is not a reason to delete the article, but rather a reason to keep the article as another example of professor values and the homosexual agenda at work. I've rewritten it to take out most of the excessively liberal viewpoint and now think the article reflects reality better. The only thing I wasn't sure about was the Ernest Hemingway point, but but one exception does not a trend make. -Foxtrot 15:55, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Shakespeare?

It is also criticized for bringing analyses of homosexuality and gender confusion to classic texts that are hardly suggestive of any genderbending or homosexual themes, such as Shakespeare... Um, am I reading this right? That it is saying there is no genderbending in Shakespeare? Referring to those plays in which girls' parts were performed by boys, and in many of which various characters are disguised as the opposite gender? So there would be boys playing girls who are pretending to be boys? No genderbending? Just checking. --Hsmom 22:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Twelfth Night comes to mind. HelpJazz 23:00, 13 November 2008 (EST)

I notice there aren't any citations for this page. I've never heard of queer theory, so it's hard for me to tell what is right and what is made up. HelpJazz 23:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)

You're probably lucky enough to have gone to a conservative enough college (or gone to college long enough ago) that you wouldn't have heard of queer theory. It's a revisionist approach to literature -- the professors do it to have an edgy and new approach, but all it does is facilitate a reading of homosexual themes into places where they don't belong, nor were they intended by the authors. Shakespeare, Lewis Carroll, Jane Austen, etc, all these great world literary figures didn't intend any homosexual themes in their literary works, yet these queer theorists are purposefully misinterpreting the texts to have these themes. -Foxtrot 03:06, 15 November 2008 (EST)

If you think literary scholars should be looking for authors' intended meanings, you were born a couple of centuries too late. Most critics had discarded authorial intention as a hermeneutic goal by 1940 or so. Evidently Conservapedia needs articles on New Criticism and the intentional fallacy AngusF 14:25, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

I went to an extremely liberal college, but I was in the engineering program. (My only English class involved reading science fictuion.) But I did see Twelfth Night in high school, and there was a lot of generbending going on, and history (the non-revised kind) tells us that when the plays were performed men played all the parts. HelpJazz 12:46, 15 November 2008 (EST)

I am aware that in Greek theater and the theater of Shakespeare's time, all the roles were played by men. This was the standard, because the men held the respectable jobs and women (for the most part) stayed at home and tended to the numerous domestic duties -- don't forget that it was a full time job! However, just because all the roles were acted by men, does not mean that there was a homosexual context to the acting, and moreover, it doesn't mean that Shakespeare wanted homosexual themes in his plays. I don't suppose you think Julius Caesar's cabal of conspirators was some homosexual love pact, do you? -Foxtrot 15:52, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Foxtrot, have you seen Twelfth Night? the professors do it to have an edgy and new approach, but all it does is facilitate a reading of homosexual themes into places where they don't belong, nor were they intended by the authors In the case of Shakespeare, we really have no way of knowing what he, the author, intended, except through examining the text. (We actually know very little about Shakespeare, the man.) I agree that just because all the roles were acted by men, does not mean that there was a homosexual context to the acting, on the other hand, it doesn't mean there wasn't one either. I don't think Julius Caesar's cabal of conspirators was some homosexual love pact, but I do think there is quite a bit of genderbending in plays like Twelfth Night, contrary to what the article claims. In other examples, was Nancy Drew's tomboy friend George (tall, with short black hair) intended to be a subtle lesbian character, or not? Was Enid Blyton's Famous Five series's tomboy, also named George (short for Georgina), who dressed like a boy and often passed as one, intended to be a subtle lesbian character? I have no idea. I don't think we should completely discount queer lit theory as a whole - surely it's a possibility that some of those authors knew exactly what they were implying and did it purposefully? Sorting out which ones, and in which works, is pretty much the idea of queer lit theory, as I understand it. (In addition, there's the whole idea that part of literature is what the author intended, and part is how the text is read by others, which may or may not be the same thing. I wasn't a lit major, so I'm far from an expert at this stuff.) --Hsmom 17:20, 15 November 2008 (EST)

what then of plays like Peter Pan , done in the English Pantomime tradition where the role of Peter is played by a woman ? Is this to be interpreted now as transvestitism ? Markr 17:48, 15 November 2008 (EST)