Strange Company: Uncovering the Queer Anthology

Author(s): Penelope J. Engelbrecht

Source: NWSA Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1, Sexual Orientation (Spring, 1995), pp. 72-90
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4316379 .
Accessed: 20/05/2014 03:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
NWSA Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.221.71.48 on Tue, 20 May 2014 03:31:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
StrangeCompany:Uncoveringthe QueerAnthology
PENELOPEJ. ENGELBRECHT

De Paul University

The "Call for Submissions" has assumed iconic, even ironic proportionsin
lesbian circles. A recent issue of the venerable lesbian (literary)journal
Sinister Wisdom posted six anthology notices under its regular column
"Calls for Submission" requesting materials on such disparate topics as
"multicultural lesbian relationships," "Arab feminists," "'eating out'
while dining in," "women with facial hair," "brother-sisterincest," and
"gay/lesbian/queerprison anthology. '' These various Calls are representa-
tive of those found in anthologies displayed at the local "alternative"
bookstore; what they have in common is the condition of topicality. No
theme, issue, or "special interest group" is immune to the allures of
collective publication. I myself published two poems in a highly specific
anthology indicatively titled Cats (and their Dykes), after responding to
the siren "Call." Irene Reti and Shoney Sien, the editors of that collection,
have published at least three others between them-making a veritable
careerof anthologizing. They are not alone. Lesbian (andgay male) readers
buy these communal texts. What is the allure? This essay scrutinizes the
"anthologistic principle," through textual and cultural manifestations, as
a quasi-radicalyet efficacious "queer phenomenon."
The relative virtues of the anthology as a generic entity are suggested by
parsing the term "anthology": it stems from two Greek roots, anthos
(flower) and logia (collecting), rendering the New Latin anthologia, a
collection of epigrams. The modern anthology, then, consists of a "se-
lected" collection of texts, usually circumscribed by a single genre or
theme. In this textual garden, each work stands as an attractive bloom
worthy of individual (aesthetic) consideration. The horticulturalistic
editor weeds, selects, prunes, and displays the verbal flowers within the
context of a grand schema, a grounds plan often intimated by a prefatory
text. The readeris intended to understand that the editorial selection and
presentation process has resulted in an amalgam of only blue-ribbon texts,
organized into a volume which in some way "readswell" cover to cover.
The particular organizational schema of an anthology depends on the
purposes and "vision" of the editor(s);the principle may be item-to-item
variety, chronological order of composition, comprehensive coverage of a
topical field, and so on. Overall, each anthology effects two simultaneous
yet divergent (readerly) impulses: the foci on discrete texts and the
panoramic view of the melange.
The general "quality" of an anthology thus appears to hinge on the
talents of its editor(s) to select and arrangematerials. The editor acts in

This content downloaded from 195.221.71.48 on Tue, 20 May 2014 03:31:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
STRANGECOMPANY 73

proxyfor the reader,to fulfill her presumed(textualand topical)desires,

and the readerextends an implicit trust to the editor's discretionary
"authority."What'sobscuredby this exchangeequationarethe authorsof
the collectedtexts, who answeringa temptingsummonsmust "submit"
to the phallogocentriceditorial authority,which adjudgestheir work
eitherworthyorunworthyof inclusion,whicheitherdoesordoesnot alter
or shortentheirtexts, which eitherwill orwill not mete out a sharein the
financialrewardsfortheirauthorialofferings.The editorcontrolsnot only
the selection processbut also the (qualitative)criteriaby which it func-
tions. Vis-a-visthe authors,The Editorexercisesabsolutepower,whether
wielded by a personageor (as in some lesbian journals,such as Sinister
Wisdom) a collective entity.2 Anthologistic products range from popular
magazinesto volumes of academicarticles;short stories are commonly
collected. The Anthologyis necessarilya "genericgenre"with a wide
embrace,each corporatetext displayingmultiple writing subjects to a
multiplicityof readingsubjects.
The anthologyoccupiesan especiallyinterestingposition in the acad-
emy,both providingforthe timely publicationanddistributionof signifi-
cant "short"worksandenablinga classicprofessionalgoal,the additionof
an importantpublicationto the editor'svita, without the editoractually
havinghad to write a book. I've observedwhat is apparentlya patternof
academicprofessionaldevelopmentin the "publishorperish"footrace:a
buddingprofessorpublishesseveralarticles,then publishesa first book
(preferably well received),then compilesan anthologyof articles(prefer-
ablycutting-edge),as has DianaFuss. Of course,the authorswhoseworks
areanthologizedderivea similar,if somewhatlesser,professionalbenefit.
The welcome spate of recent anthologypublicationsin so-calledlesbian
and gay studies, or gay and lesbian studies, or genderstudies bespeaks
severalless than high-mindedmarketplaceconditions. Lesbianand gay
scholarshave achieveda measureof academicrespectabilityand can get
theirtexts underpublishingcontract;lesbianandgay(and"sympathetic")
readershavedemonstratedinterestin such texts throughtheirpurchasing
power;and publishershave rapidlydevelopedthis underexploitedprint
market.Withinthis typicalacademiceconomy,no one loses, surprisingly
enough, and so the anthologycontinues to be a mainstay of academic
discourseas well as a popularformat.
As I notedinitially,the lesbianbookbuyerhasbeeninundatedby a vast
arrayof anthologies,evidently following the example set by feminist
publishing.3Gay men, too, have consumedtheir shareof literaryomni-
buses-for example,GeorgeStambolian'sMen on Men. Foryears these
two readingaudienceshavesupportedtheirrespectivemedia"intandem."
LesbiansmythologizedNaiadPressnovels anddevouredsuch periodicals
as Conditions;gay men madeArmisteadMaupina householdname and
cruisedthe Advocate. Andthen came OUT/LOOK,the "nationallesbian
andgay quarterly."Althoughmany local/news mediahave long blended

This content downloaded from 195.221.71.48 on Tue, 20 May 2014 03:31:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
74 PENELOPEJ. ENGELBRECHT

coverageof both lesbian and gay male news, plus the occasionaljoint
interestitems (oftenlegalistic),an individualpublication'sbalancetended
to tilt towardone groupor the other.4The nationallesbianandgaymedia
hadmaintainedgender-distinctprofiles. OUT/LOOKbridgedthe gender
gap,thoughnot without hostilities. Perusinglettersto the editoroverits
not quite twenty issue lifespan,I notedlesbianscomplainingof gaymen's
graphicmaterial(e.g.,by Tom of Finland)andgay men decryinglesbians'
political correctitude(e.g.,re Tom of Finland).Yet the hybridizedmaga-
zine did manageto printroughlyequivalentquantitiesof writingsgeared
specificallyto lesbians and to gay men along with articles of collective
interest, all of roughlyequivalentliteraryand intellectual "quality,"for
aboutfouryears. OUT/LOOK succumbedin 1992,to financialpressures
ratherthan to genetic defects, but not beforehaving had a noticeable
impacton lesbianandgay (serial)publishing.
This essayneednot presenta detailedhistoryof lesbianandgayactivity
even duringthe past decade;however,I must note that OUT/LOOK's
pioneering"dualformat"arosein the late 1980s,a decadecharacterized by
the (ongoing)AIDScrisis andcoalition-buildingAIDSactivism. Numer-
ous AIDSorganizations,particularlyACT-UPchapters,have countedgay
men and lesbiansamongtheirmembers,and"suddenly"lesbiansandgay
men discoveredcommonground,commonissues, andcommongoals(i.e.,
overcomingmutual oppressions).5The National Gay and LesbianTask
Forcehasbecomea powerfulinclusiveorganization,as haveLambdaLegal
Defense Fund and the Human Rights CampaignFund. However,the
political ups and downs of "thirty- or forty-something,"mostly white,
middleclass lesbian/gayactivists in the eightieshave not told the whole
story. While we babyboomershave been caughtup with AIDSand civil
rights, a youngergenerationof lesbian and gay youth has reachedits
majority,forgingtrendsin outsizedclothes,brashmusicalstyles, andever
bolder activist modes, moving from punk to grungeto hip-hop. The
coalescenceof Queer Nation is loosely attributedto discontentwithin
ACT-UP;the newer group sports a younger,hipper (punker?),louder,
angrierimage,exemplifiedby its very name.6
Twenty-fiveyears ago "queer"was a vulgar synonym of "homo,"
"bulldagger,""fag,""dyke,""fruit,"and "lezzie"uttered only in con-
temptuous condemnation,most often by straights.7 Since Stonewall,
mainstreamactivistshavechampionedthe use of "gay"-with its positive
connotations-to signify "homosexual,"thoughthe wordhas contracted
to meanprimarily"gaymen." Many(ifnot all)gayfemaleshavepreferred
the term "lesbian." Now, QueerNation has undertakento reclaimthe
word "queer"fromthe homophobes,a difficultrecuperationdesignedto
empowerus by means of our "otherness."Yet this new "us"denotesa
new, differentpopulationas well. QueerNation and like-mindedindi-
viduals have adoptedthe term "queer"to indicate not only its "tradi-

This content downloaded from 195.221.71.48 on Tue, 20 May 2014 03:31:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
STRANGECOMPANY 75

tional" homosexual referents, lesbians and gay men, but also bisexuals and
transsexuals of both sexes, transvestites of all genders, sadists and masoch-
ists, fetishists of various stripes, even "friendly" straights: a veritable
horde springing from the cultural substrata.8 Postmodern novelist Kathy
Acker and perennial Beat provocateurWilliam Burroughs,raucous colum-
nist Michelangelo Signorile and critic/theorist Teresa de Lauretis have all
appeared under the "queer" rubric. Already famous for her gay (male)
criticism, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick now identifies herself as a "perverse
reader"and attempts to delineate the theoretical and practical semiotics of
"queer"in a recent essay (242). In its new currency "queer"has come to
signify anyone "other," different, marginal, or (especially sexually) per-
verse, identifying the "abnormal" as positive element via a (perverse)
binaristic relation to "normal" society.
Clearly, a self-identifying "queer"constituency exists. However, I am
ambivalent about whether I am myself a member of this amoebic group,
other than in the opinion of rabidhomophobes who remain ignorant of the
reinvested usage. At some chimerical moment since adolescence, I may
have ceased to be an "AngryYoungMan" type (neverhaving been a "young
man" at all surely hastened the transformation).9Unaware of current pop
bands, I am suddenly two fashion fads behind ... indeed, I am over thirty.
Quelle horreur. What'sworse, I'm somewhat comfortable. Having learned
to utter "lesbian" aloud in nearly any social situation without turning
green, I confront a new sociolinguistic challenge. In 1978, my sister
responded to my request for a goodbye kiss with the tongue-in-cheek
"what are ya, queer?" "Yeah,"I replied. "Gimme a kiss." We laughed.
Subsequently, I've told this story to illustrate object lessons ranging from
familial open-mindedness to in-group contextualization of language. I
have called myself "queer."
But saying "queer" is one relatively easy thing; believing it is quite
another. Alisa Solomon has defined the current sociopolitical "split in the
lesbian community [sic]-between women whose analysis of sexuality
was based on a model of oppression and victimization, and [younger]
women whose model is Madonna[,jan emblem of autonomy and sexual
taboo. [The older] generation rebelled against patriarchy;the 'new' lesbi-
ans are rebelling against us" (213). PerhapsI "betray"my lesbian-feminist
roots-or even my bar-dyke upbringing-when I admit suspicion of the
"queer" conclave; can I honestly pronounce my political and social soli-
darity with everyone that "queer"now implicates? The pending ambiva-
lence expresses a function of the politics of collective marginality, for
"queer"gathers together groupsand individuals precisely by virtue of their
difference, from "normal" society and from each other. Is "difference"a
sufficient basis for social identity, for group coherence?
The most widely accessible (textual) artifacts of the queer constituency
include-no surprise-three anthologies published in 1991 and '92. Exam-

This content downloaded from 195.221.71.48 on Tue, 20 May 2014 03:31:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
76 PENELOPEJ. ENGELBRECHT

ining these texts, particularlytheir facades and editorial manifestos,

facilitates the interrogationof "radical"queer sociopoliticalalliance(s)
and ambivalence(s)while exposingthe inherent conventionalityof the
texts themselves. Most clearly conventionalis the anthologyformat,
which the editors of High Risk (Scholderand Silverberg),Indivisible
(Wolvertonand Drake),and Discontents (Cooper)have utilized more or
less uncritically. Eachcollection of over two dozen works (overwhelm-
ingly short stories)was compiledand broughtto press by editors,who
included such standardapparatusesas epigrammaticdedications, ac-
knowledgments,tables of contents, contributor"blurbs,"and of course,
introductions.Butthis genericapproachis not unexpected,fortwo of the
three anthologies were publishedby the mainstreamhouse Plume, a
divisionof Penguin,while the thirdis an AmethystPressproduct. Curi-
ously, both mainstreamPlume offerings,High Risk and Indivisible,dis-
play standardlibel disclaimers on their copyrightpages; small press
Discontents does not.'0 The presenceor absenceof a disclaimerseems
uncorrelatedto the actualcontentsof a particulartext-all threeinclude
material that critics might term "incendiary." Rather,Plume's libel
disclaimersseem generatedby a legalisticparanoiaanticipating(negative)
public receptionof the works'contents, a conservativeself-defensema-
neuver.
If Plumeexperiencessuch qualmsaboutpublishing"queer"or lesbian
and gay fiction, why have they contractedto do so? The imprinthas a
"Lesbianand Gay Studies"line; in fact, morethan a thirdof this essay's
directsourceswerepublishedby Plumeorits parent,Penguin.As anyone
acquaintedwith the publishing business knows, social conscience is
insufficientto stimulatemass marketing. Only corporaterecognitionof
mass marketpotential-salability-motivates a publisherto undertakea
"risky"venture.Plume/Penguinobviouslyrecognizesthatthereis money
to be madefromlesbian,gay,and queerwritersandreaders." Likewise,
Routledgehas identifiedand tappedthe queer (andfeminist) academic
market. Another interesting differencebetween the mainstreamand
small-presstexts is editorship: each Plume volume was coeditedby a
lesbianand a gay man, accredited"ladiesfirst"("Scholder& Silverberg,"
in the case of High Risk, is also alphabetical)-the implication:benign
power equity and subject balance. Dennis Cooperedited Amethyst's
Discontents,a fact creditedon the coverin minusculegold letteringon a
redground-almost invisible. In a dramatic"proletarian" move, a flyleaf
titled "Discontents"alphabeticallylisting all the authorsappearspriorto
the title pageof the text, suggestingan (unconventional)authorialsignifi-
cance. But oft-publishedCooperdid edit the book.
Granted,the frontcoverof Plume'sHighRisk doeslist six of its better-
knownauthors("and19 others,"unnamed)abovethe editors'credits,but
the editors'namesappearin type two times larger,in a morevisible color

This content downloaded from 195.221.71.48 on Tue, 20 May 2014 03:31:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
STRANGECOMPANY 77

(hotpink on a blue-over-blackbackgroundvs. light violet on black).12All

HighRisk'sauthorsarelisted alphabeticallyon the backcover,which also
presentsa critic'sblurb(byJosephPapp)anda description,all in smallish
type, uniformlywhite on black. The front cover of Indivisible promi-
nently displays (only)the editors'names in large gray type on a black
ground,emphasizingeditorialauthority. It displaysone critic'sblurbon
the frontin tiny white type(MalcolmBoyd's)andtwo on the rear(top,Joan
Nestle's;bottom, Eloise KleinHealy's),both in small black type.'3 Even
Discontents'backcoverfeaturesa critic'sblurb(byMichaelBronskiof the
Advocate)in largishblacktype,toppinga simplifiedversionof the promi-
nent front-covergraphic.Likewell-knownauthors,critics standforthon
these coversto beckonto us moreordinaryreaders,to enhancea volume's
"name recognition,"to urge us towardthe cash registerby promising
future readingpleasures. The critics' authorityhere rivals that of the
editors, at least postpress,reassuringthe readerthat her trust in the
editorialauthorityhas been well placed.
The anthologies,the physicalproductsthemselves, are distinguished
from surroundingbooks by brashcover designs. With the "black-and-
white-and-red-all-over" color scheme of crudejokes, and even in precise
physicaldimensions,Discontentsreplicatesthe much earlierlesbians/m
anthology Coming to Power (first publishedin 1981 by the collective
entity SAMOIS).Comingadvertisedits transgressivenatureby meansof
a coverphotodepictinga patched,be-Levi'drearend,black-belted,whose
left pocket holds a white lace hankie. On Discontents'front cover,an
unsexed, black and white skull and crossbonesis overprintedwith the
main title's monstrous,quasi-gothic,tattoo like lettering in black-bor-
deredcrimson;an exclamationdeviceconnectsthe largetitle figureto the
muchsmallereditor'screditbox,with the boxedsubtitle(i.e.,"NewQueer
Writers")appendedto the bottom of the figure. The hypercompressed,
elongated "DISCONTENTS" forms bloody prison bars in front of the
fleshless graphic,proclaimingthe "badcontents" within. The queer
Discontents makes the lesbian Comingto Powerlook positively Victo-
rian;NaylandBlake'scoverdesignevokes the vampiristic,body-altering
"outsider"motifs of pop "queer"(youth)culture. It is eye-catching,if not
shocking,bold enoughto stimulateimpulse-buyersales.
The mainstreamPlumeanthologiesdisplayno less market-savvybook
designs,althoughwith far less provocativegraphics. The cover of High
Risk:An Anthologyof ForbiddenWritings,frontandrear,is itself covered
by the blackground,a close-upshot of leather,probablya jacket,the grain
andstitchedseamsvisible. At firstglance,it resemblesroughliving skin.
The secondaryassociationsare s/m, punk, even fifties bikerstyle: "Bad
BoysandGirls." The centeredmaintitle appearsin a pairof mirror-reverse
boxes, "High"in black type on a mottled gold ground,"Risk"below in
gold on black. The variegatedgold resembleseither marbleor a micro-

This content downloaded from 195.221.71.48 on Tue, 20 May 2014 03:31:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
78 PENELOPEJ. ENGELBRECHT

scopic slide preparation,suggestinga medical chilliness correlatedwith

the AIDS-era,male-centeredsignificanceof "highrisksexualbehaviors.14
The peripheraltypefacesin pink and purpleengageclassic queer color
symbolism. The rearcover uses starkwhite type on the black leather.
Altogether,RexRay'sminimallyriskycovergraphicqualifiesHighRiskas
visuallytastefulandunderstatedbut vaguelydisconcerting,with the ever
presentbackgroundof anthropomorphically menacinghide. The imagery
emphasizestexture. This coverclearlyintendsto attracta wide rangeof
readers,from leatherfolkto agedBeatsto yuppieswith designertattoos
even swimsuitsdon'treveal,perhapscapitalizingon a voyeuristicreaderly
desireto enjoytextuallythose risksone wouldnot pursue"inreallife,"or
would pursueonly undercover.The Indivisible cover,designedby Paul
Buckley,opticallyscreamsto a shopper.The colorscheme of hot lemon-
yellow andequallyhot melon-orange,in abutting,mirror-reverse rectan-
gularsets of alternatingverticalbars,sits "on"a white spaceacrossthe top
that shadesdown the sides into a black spaceacrossthe bottom. "INDI-
VISIBLE" poiseson the centraledgeof the focal,coloredfigure.The whole
deviceresemblesa flammableTV test pattern,downrightirritatingto the
eye, ora garishstripedcabana,gesturingwith its "sunnyCalifornia"motif
and coloring to the West Coast habitat of the anthologizedauthors.
Indivisible appealssubtly to a readerwho associates "gay and lesbian
fiction"by "WestCoast . .. writers"with somethingimpreciselyshock-
ing; the shock value is subliminallyforwardedby the hightech visual
medium. The back cover proclaimsIndivisible a "LANDMARKAN-
THOLOGY,"characterizingthis "daringand timely collection" as "at
once shockinglygraphic[likethe cover,perchance?], scathinglyfunny,and
deeplymoving." The authorshave "freshvision"-like the citrinecover
colors?-and count amongthem lesbians,gays,blacks,SoutheastAsians,
Latinos,Native Americans,and Anglo whites, writing in various sub-
genresof shortfiction,the anthologiccommonground:"mystery,mythol-
ogy, and contemporaryand historical fiction." Demographically,the
groupingparallelsCalifornia'smajorpopulationsectors;generically,the
worksreplaypop standards.
Despite its claims to "landmark"status, Indivisible boasts only one
"atypical"aspect,and that one determinedby mainstream(commercial)
convention:bothlesbians'andgaymen'stexts areincorporated, broaden-
ing the sales base. Yet even Plume'sown High Risk, which came out in
March1991,six monthsbeforeIndivisible(September1991),hadalready
accomplishedthat "feat." Wherelies the groundbreaking achievement,
when the old lit-class standbythe Norton Anthologyincludes both, if
subsumed? The back cover descriptionof High Risk notes that the
"writersand artists featured. . . are black, white, and Latino;gay and
straight."The authorblurbsrevealthat they residealmostexclusivelyin
Californiaor New York-or both,by turns- situationsexpectedto signal

This content downloaded from 195.221.71.48 on Tue, 20 May 2014 03:31:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
STRANGECOMPANY 79

"hip, avant-garde" to Middle America. Superficially, then, these two

Plume anthologies encompass similar authorial territory, an area not
dissimilar to that of Discontents, with its distinctly urban authorship (if
not just coastal). The collective authorships are marketed as novel from
and to a straight, mainstream perspective-whether identified as "queer"
or so multiply labeled that "queer" furnishes the only accurate catchall
term. The writers are not even "new" per se; many are well known to
lesbian and gay, even mainstream, readers. What then distinguishes and
sets these three anthologies apart? The focus of inquiry must turn to
contents, substance, the texts.
But here again the anthology covers attempt to condition a reader's
response to the volumes' contents. Book-marketing strategies demand
that covers insinuate not only the topics within but also the meaning and
value of the text(s), while simultaneously promoting the reader'sdesire to
see for herself by buying the book. The hyperbole is not limited to the
cover description;the (selected, edited) critics' blurbslean to sycophantism
as well. Indivisible posits itself as a "daring and timely collection ...
[concerned with] the conflicts of gender, race, and sexuality from the West
Coast's cutting edge" (back cover). Literary conflict was a device well
known to Aristotle. The description goes on to say, on the opposite tack,
that "at a point where lesbians and gay men are moving beyond political
division"-away from the aforementioned gender conflict?-this very
text, Indivisible, "represents unity and the need to transcend human
differences." The "re-" may be premature. The titular play on the
democratic Pledge of Allegiance aside, Indivisible's editors may strive for
"unity" between different groups of people in the corporation of authors,
but like "queer,"the product inscribes a multiplicity of divisions. In their
overscrupulous attempts at "unity" and gender parity, editors Terry
Wolverton and Robert Drake in fact draw attention to differences. The
critics' cover blurbs attempt categorical parity;the flyleaf cites two stories
by men and two by women. The sequence of the contents alternates
stories by men and women; just once do two works by men succeed one
another. Following the epigram, "ONE NATION, INDIVISIBLE,"that
evokes "QueerNation," the editors' introduction strikes a gender-neutral,
pseudo-objective tone, where the pronoun "we" may have directly signi-
fied "we two editors" but permits a remove from the objectifying discus-
sion of "them," the groups "lesbians" and "gay men."
This divisive introduction poses some remarkablecontradictions. The
first brief paragraph,"Indivisible, we say, despite evidence to the con-
trary,"predicates the assertion that "we never set out to make a political
statement with this book" (xiii). How absurd,this juxtaposition. Despite
their reference to the conjoint format as "a sensibility of 'one people, one
volume' (please)," even this introduction makes explicit the political
nature of the venture, for it proceeds to recap the politicohistorical

This content downloaded from 195.221.71.48 on Tue, 20 May 2014 03:31:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
80 PENELOPEJ. ENGELBRECHT

experiencesof lesbiansandgay men over the past twenty five years(xiii-

xiv). The bold declarationsof solidaritygive way to a somewhatmore
realistic assessmentof lesbian/gayrelationsby the last two paragraphs,
noting "unequalaccess to money andpower"andlingeringmutual "mis-
trust" (xiv). The next statement belies the initial, adamanteditorial
exclamationsof "unity":

Ifthe communityis to trulyunite, therewill be muchworkthathasto be done.

But whethera momentarytruceor the beginningof rapprochement, it is the
firsttime sinceStonewallthatgaymenandlesbianshavefelt so muchcommon
ground.
It is this historicalmoment[19901,this perhapstemporarycease-firein
the genderwars,that makesthis collectionpossible. (xiv-xv;my emphasis)

Textualcollaborationdoes not an "indivisiblequeernation"make, I'm

afraid.
Despite their efforts,WolvertonandDrakehave not accomplishedthe
genderparity they tout, and nowhere is this more plain than in their
introduction. One time, the introductioncites "both lesbian and gay
writers"(xiii);in everyotherinstanceof the coupling,on the coversandin
the intro,the phrase"gaymen andlesbians"occursmakingmen primary.
Again, the editorialuse of such third-personreferencesas "lesbians...
they" suggestsobjectivity,but does violence to the introduction'sautho-
rial subject(s).Does Wolvertonregularlyreferto otherwomen as "they,"
or Drake to men as "them"? Doubtful: the effect is impersonaland
distancing. Moreinsidiousare the verbalconstructionsused to describe
pastandpresentintergenderrelations.Considerthe sexist connotationsof
the statement "Forthe most part, gay men seemed content to let the
lesbians go their own way [post-Stonewall]" (xiv;my emphasis). Could
they,shouldthey,havestoppedus? Andalthoughthe editorsobservethat
"atits verybirthin 1969the gayliberationmovementwas alreadytornin
two, as lesbiansrespondedto the urgentcall of the feminist movement"
(xiii),still they remarkthat duringthe AIDScrisis,lesbianshavechosento
"reinvestenergy in" and "realignthemselves with gay men" (xiv; my
emphasis). These semantic instances, insignificant though they may
seem, underscorethe continuing(social)inequalityof lesbians and gay
men. The Indivisibleintroductionalso mentionsthe (recent)openaccess
of gay men to mainstreampublishing,a situationcontrastedto network-
ing "lesbianand feminist publishers"as the (lesser)apex of femaleprint
aspirations(xiv). TerryWolvertonmay be the principaleditorhere-the
title pageactuallysays "withRobertDrake"ratherthan "and"(ason the
cover)for some unspecifiedreason-but she has not suffusedthis joint
introductionwith a vital lesbian (orfeminist)presence: what's "indivis-

This content downloaded from 195.221.71.48 on Tue, 20 May 2014 03:31:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
STRANGECOMPANY 81

ible" in Indivisible is lesbians' attachment to women's second class

status, relative to (gay)men. Men constitute the relational baseline
standardhere.
The Indivisibleintroduction'ssecondparagraph revealsthe realmotive
behind this collective anthology: money. It was compiled "to provide
editorswith what they have been askingthe agentfor a numberof years
[sic]:'Wefeel surethe bravenew writingis out therein California,we just
don'tknowhow to get to it"' (xiii).This subquoted"we"is not coidentical
to the editorial"we." The publisher'seditorsandthe literaryagentstoo
unfamiliarwith lesbian and gay writing to seek it out by themselves
without veritablequeer "stooges"embodythe straight,capitalist ven-
ture(s),andI would suggestthat only their mercenaryincentivesaccount
forthis "amazing"first-timecollaborativeanthology(seexiii). One must
wonderwhy no lesbian/gaypublishingteamhadtakenindependentinitia-
tive to develop such a project,why the straightmarkethas financially
constructedthis queerproject. Couldthe zoological,anthologicalratio-
nale be the straightperceptionthat "allhomosexualsarealike,"irrespec-
tive of genderorsex? HighRisk'sself-descriptionalmostmanagesto avoid
this misconception,by statingits authors'commongroundas "onestrong
conviction: that artmust be boundonly by the limits of the imagination"
(backcover);as Papp'sblurbphrasesit, HighRisk battlesfor "freedomof
expression."Admirable.
However,the High Risk descriptionthen transliteratesthis motive as
expressing

the so-calleddarksideof life beckoningin all its manifestations-sadomasoch-

ism, prostitution,incest,druguse, bondage,transsexuality.Filledwith tender-
ness andbrutality,. . . [tlhisis writingthat daresto give voice to the shadow
regionsof the heart,to the most subversivedesiresof the body,andto a politics
that unabashedlydefiesconvention. (Backcover)"5

Tounpackthe politicalandpsychologicalunderpinningsof this statement

is instructive. The qualification"so-called"does not negate the racist
usage"darkside." Implyingthatthesevulgar"manifestations"ofhuman-
ity can only now be addressed,throughgreat"daring,"ignoresthe histori-
cal presence of such topics, even in Shakespearealone! Considerthe
violence in King Lear and the transvestismof TwelfthNight, just for
starters,not to overlooknumberlessdog-earedpornopaperbacksstashed
under mattresses in more recent decades. These things are not new,
thoughthey do seem to challengethe premisesof WASPsocial "conven-
tion." However,the "challenge"lies in one's interpretivevaluationof
theseperformative"desires."Whatis "beckoning"orattractiveorimplic-
itly "good"about quasi-heterosexualdynamicsin (sexual)violence? A-

This content downloaded from 195.221.71.48 on Tue, 20 May 2014 03:31:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
82 PENELOPEJ. ENGELBRECHT

bout men's (sexual) exploitation of women in prostitution? About the

sexual and emotional abuse of children in what Susan Stregaprefersto call
"father-daughterrape" (5)? Have feminist analyses of phallogocentric
imperatives and ordinary brutality made no impression on our culture?
These are classed "forbiddenzones of sex and transgressive behavior" for
good reason, I think (High Risk back cover; my emphasis). In the name of
freedom of expression, High Risk takes the very small risk of publishing an
amalgam of (often illegal but nevertheless common) textual perversions; a
market exists, and always has. Why? Who peoples this market?
More troubling to me is the implied coidentity between these described
behaviors, which I abhor, and the social group(s) to which I ostensibly
belong, the "queernation." The flyleaf of High Risk claims that such so-
called forbidden material, associated with the "culture of 'otherness' . . .
gives us our deepest sense of who we are and what we believe" (my
emphasis). Who is this all-inclusive "we"? By this logic, I can only deduce
that by knowing my abhorrence for some of High Risk's contents, I learn
what I believe by determining (i.e., reading)what I do not believe. Am I
thus excluded from this "culture of 'otherness"'? Am I outside of the
"queer nation"? Has a new, ultra "outside of the outside" group been
constructed, or am I in fact a member of the "normal," dominant phallo-
cratic society I disdain precisely for its tacit approval of the perverse
behaviors here described as "other"? This tautology constructs more than
(my personal) ambivalence; it submerges the very real differences, even
diametric oppositions between the (sub)groups that the rhetoric of "queer
unity" purports to conjoin. In her editorial introduction to the Summer
1991 issue of differences, "Queer Theory: Lesbian and Gay Sexualities,"
Teresa de Lauretis explains that

the term "QueerTheory"was arrivedat in the effortto avoidall of [the]fine

distinctionsin ourdiscursiveprotocols,not to adhereto any one of the given
terms [i.e., "gay,""lesbianand gay,""gayand lesbian,"etc.], not to assume
theirideologicalliabilities,butinsteadto bothtransgressandtranscendthem-
or at the veryleast problematizethem. (v)

Not only have the "ideological liabilities" been retained; they have multi-
plied. To "transgress,"to "walk over," is not the same as "flying above and
beyond," "transcending."
Textual praxis can, in a sense, artificially "transcend"material praxes,
because text inhabits a "different"space; mutual influences are possible,
but the materiality of texts has no independent affective power. Texts can
only affect or alter material "reality"through a reader'sagency. In "queer"
textuality, we see an ultimate example of semantic "problematiz[ation]":
shifting, multiple referents lumped under a single, (negatively) marked
sign, resulting in multiple sociopolitical, material, "readerly"dilemmas.

This content downloaded from 195.221.71.48 on Tue, 20 May 2014 03:31:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
STRANGECOMPANY 83

If I, for example, opt to self-identify with the social "Discontents" whose

writings emerge from "the margins of lesbian and gay male culture" yet
"who refuse . . . to make the kinds of compromises necessary for main-
stream success" (I, too, am often discontented with the status quo), and if
I show my solidarity by buying the text, literally putting my money where
my (impolitic) mouth is, do I validate in its entirety the "vast, digressive,
and growing anti-assimilationist queer movement" (Cooperxi)? But how
could I validate the multiplex of "digressions"when it's nearly impossible
to specify that from which "we" digress? Within the intangible queer
nation, we may come together, but we digress individually, "forreal." As
my analysis of the High Risk introduction implies, I must "essentially"
digress from myself to tolerate the collective (queer)worldview.
Cooper's editorial relationship to/with the volume Discontents does
employ an unconventional pose which attempts to resolve such issues of
alignment. In an extraordinarily brief introduction of less than a page,
Cooper describes the anthology, its subtexts, and its authors as intention-
ally and inherently diversified, celebrating the queer principle of "to-
gether-in-difference." He limits his prologue to avoid "smooth[ing] off
Discontents' edges" and democratically presumes to let the texts speak for
themselves. They do. "Naked Lunch,"a transcriptedconversation among
three contributors-Johnny Noxzema, G. B. Jones, and Jenavon Brucker-
makes expository comment on Cooper's production and on the queer
anthology as a (sub) cultural phenomenon. The title ironically (and with
considerable sarcasm) alludes to the Burroughs/Beat/hippie milieu, al-
though in-text, the "speakers" display considerable ignorance of who or
what that milieu entailed, railing against this "historical thing" enacted
by men "at least 50 years ago" (Noxzema et al. 241-42). Denying the
influence of literary movements, they confirm what one already suspects,
when Noxzema "says," "Well, who reads?Who reads books anymore? I
don't. I mean, why?" (242). Some of us still read books, even 'zines, to
gather information. Von Brucker later identifies the anticipated reader-
ship of Discontents as "stupid old balding homos reliving their youth by
pouring over this anthology of so-called alternative writing that they read
a review of in one of their rich white man's magazines," to which Jones
adds, "I hate people over thirty," eliciting the following comment from
Noxema: "So why are we writing this article? We hate whoever's reading
it, and it's not for the money" (245).16 I begin to feel grateful at my
exclusion. Furthermore, this transcript exposes Cooper's difficulty in
soliciting lesbian/female-authored manuscripts for the collection: "Those
boys, they scoured the continent to find girls," some of whom the speakers
describe as "monsters" (243). Why the girl trouble?
The transcriptauthors are mistaken in their assessment of Discontents'
readership, at least in part, for I am neither bald nor a reader of men's
magazines, nor do I count myself "old." I am not so naive as to expect
today's postadolescents to be any less disdainful of the "over-thirty"crowd

This content downloaded from 195.221.71.48 on Tue, 20 May 2014 03:31:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
84 PENELOPEJ.ENGELBRECHT

to which I now belong than I was when in their position. Yet I detect that
this "new" ageism is a specious, selective one-Cooper, the forty-year-old-
male editorial authority, is okay-and I am alarmed to observe this
youthful bias correlated with proud ignorance of history, offhanded mi-
sogyny, and a generalized, nonspecific hatred ... of unknown persons. If
this is the new "unity" of the "queer" collectivity, supposed to valorize
difference, it is a sham. This particulate "unity" comprises just one more
xenophobic example of the "Us vs. Them" mentality; the only evident
difference is that the "us" has skipped a generation. That is, this "queer
us" in-group has unknowingly adopted a radical position counter to what
is perceived as the conservative "lesbian and gay" (andstraight) Establish-
ment by allying with if not the persons, then assuredly the ideas of the
radical generation one step removed. Though they don't know it, they're
saying "fuck the hippies, the gay libbers, the lesbian feminists" of the baby
boom and "hurrahfor the doped, violent, woman-hating beatniks" of the
preceding generation: hence the inclusion of William Burroughs'swork in
High Risk and the allusive Discontents transcript title "Naked Lunch."
What's queer here in this cluster of (literaryand cultural)phenomena is the
"queernation" perception that "their" (cynical) ideals are new. Old news
is no news, as "they" say.
So I confront a most difficult issue. When I buy and read these queer
anthologies, economically supporting both mainstream publishing and
the writers and editors of texts I sometimes find politically offensive and
aesthetically disgusting, do I simply fulfill the cynical suspicions of
younger "queers" who reject my age-enabled consumerism? Do I now
echo my own parents' condemnations of the counterculture of twenty five
years ago? Or is this situation (sociohistorically) different? I think so. My
parents still perceive me, their lesbian daughter, as a compulsive radical.
They never read Malcolm X or listened to JeffersonAirplane or absorbed
feminism. That stuff was alien, truly other to them, by choice. Today,I am
keenly aware of a youth culture in which I cannot be a full participant, and
I am influenced by the new "queer"agenda, the "queer theory," the most
recent rejection of capitalist, dualist material culture. But I don't like it,
not all of it. I cannot condone without reservations a divided, even divisive
queer "unity" that freely embraces hate; I might prefer to maintain a
primary identification with the lesbian nation to which I truly belong-if
one could only define who is a "true lesbian," that is. The materiality of
texts permits production of the "queeranthology" as a "coherent" whole,
but life cannot always follow art. The "queer anthology" does not offer a
viable sociocultural model for identity per se.
Yet that is precisely what the queer anthologies are selling-particu-
larly to the general public. A mainstream reader of Discontents, High
Risk, or Indivisible who is unaware of lesbian or gay community realities
may easily draw the conclusion that these broadly inclusive texts do
articulate the "state of the (queer)union." What a lesbian readerinterprets

This content downloaded from 195.221.71.48 on Tue, 20 May 2014 03:31:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
STRANGECOMPANY 85

as erotic, hypertextual fantasy, such as Dorothy Allison's story "Colder

than Her Eyes" in Discontents, the mainstream reader may construe as
describing actual lesbian sex practices, ignoring the sci-fi mode and im-
probable telepathy, while extending credence to the equally improbable,
flesh-mauling "mandible" as a (potentially) real lesbian technology."7
Texts that a lesbian readermay interpret as calling for political solidarity
between (different)groups of lesbians and gay men and bisexuals et al. on
the basis of the relatively minor, perfunctory commonality of mutual
oppression under the dominant culture, the mainstream readerinterprets
as calling for solidarity-in-unified-queer-identity.
By collecting texts from all extremities of the fringe, and by proclaiming
all-encompassing "queer" (textual) unity, the anthology editors suggest
that life on the margin is not homosexual but (qualitatively) homogeneous
(see Smyth 25). "Yousee," I can hear the radical right-wingers saying even
now, as they eagerly examine these books (from a strictly "scientific"
standpoint, to be sure), "those queers are just as bad as we always thought,
and worse, and they say so right here!" To those "in the center" of the
dominant culture, the margin is homogeneous, essentially monolithic; all
possible sins are committed by each and every sinner. Thus the all-
inclusive imprimatur of the queer anthologies does not render any new
social (mis)perceptionbut simply underlines the status quo. To "Them,"
we are all queer in every imaginable way ... already.
So I'm queer. And yet to myself, I'm in no way queer-I'm only me,
myself. "Queer"forms just one more reified, externally defined label I can
use to communicate my sociopolitical situation, to articulate a narrow
common ground where I have no intention of being fenced in. Yet a
rejuvenated "queer"label adamantly evades essentialistic fixation and no
less vehemently insists on endless reinterpretation. I need not "give up"
or deny the label "lesbian" to accommodate this additional sign, because
"lesbian" already means "queer" in heterosexist parlance, as well as
"pervert,"even to those too "polite" to put it that way. The advantage of
such multiple reference lies in the capacity of "queer"to resist indelible
signification, tokenism, to deny the very binarism that engenders it,
ostracism. The complex of meaning(s) inherent in "queer" overwhelms
any attempt to divide and dismiss... even my own. Whether or not I agree
with Andrea Dworkin about pornographydoes not determine whether I
call myself or her a lesbian. Likewise, if I call myself queer and a member
of the North American Man-BoyLove Association also calls himself queer,
I do not by correlation become a gay man or a pedophile; yet we both break
rules laid down by the dominant society. Not the same rules, of course,
and not with the same effects or consequences, but we confront the same
legalistic hegemony.
As a heterogeneous sociopolitical movement, the queer collective ad-
heres to an operative abstraction: the polymorphic desire to subvert that
epicentral authoritarian structure that unilaterally enforces our puritani-

This content downloaded from 195.221.71.48 on Tue, 20 May 2014 03:31:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
86 PENELOPEJ.ENGELBRECHT

cal social code, in which each suppressedact concurrentlyembodiesa

covert thrill.'8 Thus the pedophile both reinforces and offends the
phallocracy.Thus the lesbiansimultaneouslyenticesand enrageshetero-
doxy. Thus those mainstreamreadersarebuyingit and us, snappingup
those surreptitiouslyreadcopies of Plume'squeeranthologies. To shout
our acceptanceof the (sexual)taboosfascinates(andendangers)the dour
puritans and the secretly voluptuous hypocrites alike. Publicly and
literallyenactingourqueerpraxesripsasunderthe two-facedfabricof the
dominantcode, forcingdominantcultureto look itself in the eye. Why
shouldthe obscuringcurtainbe reconstructed?Do we need to hangonto
ourshame?Ortheirshame?The queeranthologiesareshroudedwith the
words of this omnipresentshame. It sells. But we have been hanging
ourselvesby proxyfromthe ropesof their secretguilt too long.
No morecoverstories. I'mtiredof the titillatingsins of the Fathers.If
the violationsof my fatherandthe indulgencesof my motherconstructed
my middle-classethics just as surely as they constructedmy personal
perversities,how much longershall I obscuremy desire,for the sake of
propriety?How much longerdo I have to pretend,for them? How long
beforeI canreally come out of their closet, andcan slam the doorbehind
me so hard the walls crumbleand the phallogocentricrod falls down?
Until I can admit, until we can admit, that we are members of this
predominatingcultureandthat,in part,"they"have made us who we are.
Pogothe Possumput it best: "Wehave seen the enemy,andthey is us."
Altogetherqueer-it's no surrenderto say we're happywith the out-
come. They may see us as queer,call us queer,punishus foractingqueer,
even makeus queer,but they don'tmakeus like it. Yetwe do like it. And
they'rein on it with us, all along. Rightin the face of convention,we've
brokenall the rules,turnedthe piecesaroundass-backward, andgiventhe
rules the lie. The crucialdifferencein this "revolution"?To rejectthe
covert,conventional,hegemonicsupportof self-betrayal,andto do so out
loud,implicateseveryone.I'mhere,andI'mqueer,andI'mnot a bit sorry.
Nor ashamed. Rightbackatcha,Daddy.
And I'm not here alone.
"Queer"is a correlative,not an identity. Perhapsonly by banding
togetherall alongthe margincanwe createa seeminglyseamlessboundary
to hedgethe heteropatriarchy into that entrappedpositionfromwhich it
can no longerdominatebut must accept(our)terms. Vis-a-visthe status
quo, "queer"is so far out, it's in-almost imperceptibly,the center is
moving. Here'shopingthe heteropatriarchy findsthe "queernation"itself
to be an anthologyso utterlyscarifyingin its collectivity,andso damned
confusingin its fractionalitythatwhile they'restill desperatelysortingus
all out, we will have changedthe whole fuckingworld.

This content downloaded from 195.221.71.48 on Tue, 20 May 2014 03:31:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
STRANGECOMPANY 87

Correspondence should be sent to Penelope J. Engelbrecht, Dept. of

English, DePaul University, Chicago, IL 60614. An earlier version of this
essay, entitled "StrangeCompany: Conventionalizing the Queer Anthol-
ogy," was presented to the annual meeting of the Midwest Modern
LanguageAssociation (November 1993, Minneapolis, MN). My thanks to
the two anonymous NWSA Journal reviewers whose comments have
enabled me to clarify and to articulate crucial portions of this final
version.

Notes

1. See Sinister Wisdom 47 (Summer/Fall 1992): 151-52.

2. Although the (personal)diversity of an editorial collective could engender a

parallel diversity of texts in the anthological product, the contrary seems
typical, perhapsbecause a collective can only function (monolithically) on the
basis of strictly enforced "rules of similitude." When majority or consensus
agreement authorizes selection, the rule of the "lowest common denomina-
tor" obtains, with a politic(al) homogenizing effect.

3. For example, the early, ubiquitous Images of Women in Fiction: Feminist

Perspectives, ed. Susan Koppelman Cornillon (Bowling Green, OH: Bowling
Green U Popular P, rev. ed. 1973), or Women and Fiction, ed. Susan Cahill
(New York:Mentor/New American Library,1975), among others. JaneGallop
dissected the feminist urge-to-anthologize in Around 1981 (New York:Rout-
ledge, 1992).

4. In Chicago today, for example, it's generally perceived that the Windy City
Times, a weekly paper, caters to the gay male reader, while Outlines, a
monthly paper, and its weekly sibling Nightlines appearto favor the lesbian
reader-nonpartisan disclaimers notwithstanding. One reliable guide to
readershipis the gender/sex breakdown of a publication's Personals section.

5. While gender-inclusive "gayliberation" activism followed Stonewall, it's well

known that many lesbian activists (re)aligned their efforts "within" the
feminist movement during the early 1970s.

6. For a detailed discussion of Queer Nation's genesis in the US and the UK, see
Smyth 17-28. This pamphlet also provides a review of "queer" politics for
approximately the past century.
7. The word "queer"is of unknown origins; the OED dates it to 1508, Webster's
Ninth to 1812 as a noun signifying "homosexual." Key words in the principal
Webster's definition specify its negative, "marked" denotations: eccentric,
unconventional, odd, mildly insane, obsessed, worthless, counterfeit, ques-
tionable, suspicious: "1 d: sexually deviate; HOMOSEXUAL-usu[ally] used

This content downloaded from 195.221.71.48 on Tue, 20 May 2014 03:31:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
88 PENELOPEJ. ENGELBRECHT

disparagingly," etc. Hugh Rawson claims that "queer" in its homosexual

sense is an early-twentieth-century Americanism, with a history similar to
that of "gay." Rawson cites Julia Penelope (Stanleyl's observations that in
1970, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike recognized the term as having
"unpleasant connotations," but homosexual informants "felt that ['queer'is]
more properly to be regardedas heterosexual slang ... [and that homosexual
use of thisi hetero [term] is always understood as an insult and has no
nonpejorative meaning" (318).
8. Despite the syntactic similarity, "Queer Nation" has not occupied the lexical
or political slot once filled by "Lesbian Nation." The similarity derives, I
believe, from appropriatingthe denotations of dominant white culture's usage
"X nation" to refer to Native American tribes (e.g., "Sioux Nation"). The
usage therefore implies an indistinct genetic basis for the group identity,
augmented by adopting a collective (marginal)position recognized as indi-
vidual and distinct from the dominant point of view. Thus, the usage also
connotes the "savagery"attributed to such independent, marginal, "interior"
groups.

9. There are, perhaps, those who would disagree with my self-assessment.

10. Two other differences merit attention: Discontents registers copyrights to

individual authors; the Plume anthologies are copyrighted by their editors.
Discontents also appearsto be printed on acid-free (or at least a good-quality)
paper,yet the Plume volumes' pages are alreadyturning beige at three years of
age-clearly not acid-free, hence readily perishable.

11. In line with their corporate size, Plume sells these two trade-paperback
anthologies for $9.00 (High Risk) and $10.95 (Indivisible); the Amethyst book
is $12.95, perhapsreflecting higher overheadfor materials and marketing and/
or a limited distribution network-it's also about 75 pages longer than the
others' 300-page average. Plume enjoys wide mainstream distribution.

12. The six "notables"named on the cover of High Risk are KathyAcker, William
S. Burroughs, Mary Gaitskill, Dennis Cooper (of the later Discontents),
Dorothy Allison, and Essex Hemphill: boy-girl, boy-girl. These authors hold
wider reputations in the mainstream, perhaps, than "the 19 others," though
GaryIndiana,Pat Califia, and KarenFinley are certainly not unknown figures.
Authorial "cross-fertilization" occurs among the three books: High Risk
(1991) shares one author with Indivisible and seven with Discontents, includ-
ing editor Cooper, of 25 authors (32%);Indivisible includes one present in
High Risk and two in Discontents, of 24 authors (one of its editors also appears
as an author);Discontents: New Queer Writersincludes six writers previously
published in High Risk alongside editor Cooper, and two who appeared in
Indivisible, of 59 authors. Indeed, I'd hardly call "new" such lesbian "discon-
tents" as Dorothy Allison, Alison Bechdel, or SarahSchulman, among others,
who have published books!
13. Does high-visibility front cover position for the one male critic balance the
back cover status of the two female critics? Maybe.

This content downloaded from 195.221.71.48 on Tue, 20 May 2014 03:31:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
STRANGECOMPANY 89

14. As Amber Hollibaugh points out in Deneuve, there are HIV-positivelesbians,

bisexuals, and other women living with AIDSwho aregetting short shrift from
the federal government and lesbian activists alike (Goldstein 42-43). No one
is immune to HIV infection, not even dykes.

15. The AIDS-oriented title High Risk posits a specious association between
dangerous (gaymale) sexual behaviors and (anyone's)illicit social behavior(s),
enacting a flip-flop positive valuation of modern death culture.

16. Noxema et al. note that Cooper split a $1000 fee among the writers, amount-
ing to $20 each.

17. Perhaps it is enough for us to recognize and negotiate our (multiple) differ-
ences from each other-not that we've done this successfully so far. Dorothy
Allison's work appears in two of the three queer anthologies this article
examines, and her nonfiction essays have exerted a powerful influence on my
thinking. In Skin: Talking about Sex, Class and Literature Allison reiterates
the sad fact that "even" among lesbians, the differences between "sub-sub-
groups"have been stultifying, volatile, impossible to resolve even for the sake
of political solidarity. The vicious battle still ragingbetween lesbian/feminist
"pornographers"and feminist "censors," the never-ending "Sex Wars,"illus-
trates how the (received)meaning of texts exceeds control. Authorial inten-
tions undergo erasure once the text is subjected to readerlyintentionality; no
cover blurb or editorial introduction can entirely condition and delimit the
reception and interpretation of texts.
Responding to my recommendation of Skin, a lesbian-feminist acquaintance
recently informed me that she had no intention of reading Dorothy Allison's
new book, indeed had not readher last book, and did not anticipate readingher
future books-the refusal impartedin a voice drippingwith disdain. The back
cover copy of Skin remarksthat "[Allison] addresseswhat it means to be queer
and happy about it in a world that is still arguing just what it means to be
queer." I suspect my acquaintance has no desire to learn just what Allison
means by saying she's "queerand happy," which strikes me as conventionally
(hegemonically?) narrow-minded.

18. In Gender Trouble:Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, Judith Butler

has excruciatingly explained how the holy hell of dualism, the +/- of binarism,
the opposition of hetero- and homo-sexualities exist in utterly symbiotic,
essential interrelation.
Here too, I must note Judith Butler's trenchant "Critically Queer," first
published alongside Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's "Queer Performativity: Henry
James'sThe Art of the Novel" in 1993, then (re)appearingas the final chapter
of Butler's Bodies that Matter later that year (223-42). These works have
heavily influenced revision of this essay, particularly its conclusions.

This content downloaded from 195.221.71.48 on Tue, 20 May 2014 03:31:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
90 PENELOPEJ. ENGELBRECHT

WorksCited

Allison, Dorothy. "Colder than Her Eyes." Cooper 9-25.

. Skin: Talking about Sex, Class and Literature. Ithaca, NY: Firebrand,1994.
Butler, Judith.Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex." New York:
Routledge, 1993.
. "Critically Queer." GLQ 1.1 (1993): 17-32.
. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York:
Routledge, 1993.
Cahill, Susan, ed. Women and Fiction. New York:Mentor/New American Library,
1975.
Cooper, Dennis, ed. Discontents: New Queer Writers. New York:Amethyst P,
1992.
Cornillon, Susan Koppelman,ed. Images of Women in Fiction: Feminist Perspec-
tives. Rev. ed. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green U Popular P, 1973.
de Lauretis, Teresa. "Queer Theory: Lesbian and Gay Sexualities: An Introduc-
tion." differences 3.2 (Summer 1991): iii-xviii.
Fuss, Diana. Essentially Speaking:Feminism, Nature and Difference. New York:
Routledge, 1989.
ed. inside/out: Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories. New York:Routledge, 1991.
Goldstein, Nancy. "TradingShame for Power:Amber Hollibaugh and the Lesbian
AIDS Project." Deneuve 4.4 (July/August 1994): 42-43.
Noxzema, Johnny, G. B. Jones, and Jena von Brucker. "Naked Lunch." Cooper
240-51.
Rawson, Hugh. Wicked Words.New York:Crown, 1989.
Reti, Irene, and Shoney Sien, eds. Cats (and their Dykes). Santa Cruz: HerBooks,
1991.
SAMOIS, ed. Coming to Power: Writings and Graphics on Lesbian SIM. 3rd ed.
Boston: Alyson, 1987.
Scholder, Amy, and Ira Silverberg, eds. High Risk: An Anthology of Forbidden
Writings. New York:Plume/Penguin, 1991.
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. "Queerand Now." Wild Orchids and Trotsky.Ed.Mark
Edmundson. New York:Penguin, 1993. 238-66.
"Queer Performativity: Henry James's The Art of the Novel."` GLQ 1.1
(1993): 1-16.
Smyth, Cherry. Lesbians Talk Queer Notions. London:Scarlet P, 1992.
Solomon, Alisa. "Dykotomies: Scents and Sensibility." Sisters, Sexperts, Queers:
Beyond the Lesbian Nation. Ed. Arlene Stein. New York: Plume/Penguin,
1993. 210-17.
Stambolian, George, ed. Men on Men. New York:Plume/Penguin, 1986.
Strega, Susan. "Breaking the Ties that Bind: Healing as a Political Process."
Lesbian Ethics 4.3 (Spring92): 4-16.
Wolverton, Terry,and Robert Drake, eds. Indivisible: New Short Fiction by West
Coast Gay and Lesbian Writers. New York:Plume/Penguin, 1991.

This content downloaded from 195.221.71.48 on Tue, 20 May 2014 03:31:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions