No, really, y'all. It's just a matter of interpretation . . . Lynne Chaney's interpretation. However, at the risk of boring you with her pseudo-Cather-cum-Jamesesque drivel, here's an excerpt from her novel Sisters--as if such a title wasn't suggestive enough--so you can decide whether the novel depicts a lesbian relationship, which is precisely what Wolfe Blizter asks her in the interview above and which Lynne Chaney denies by evasion:
[Sorry, it's kind of long, but you get the point.]
Suddenly Sophie knew what she'd been trying to think of ever since she'd read the letters at Amy Travers' house. That peculiar novel of Henry James', "The Bostonians" it was called, and it had been serialized in The Century Magazine last year. Everyone had whispered about it, scandalized that James would satirize a gentle philanthropical lady like Elizabeth Peabody. But Sophie hadn't been surprised by that so much as by the passionate relationship James had depicted between two of the women reformers in his book. How could he so openly set forth such an attachment? And why was no one buzzing about that? "Sometimes these... friendships are quite passionate," she said to Lydia.
"Decidedly so."
"But still, no one sees anything wrong--"
"Oh, no, of course not!" There was shock in her voice. "These are women. The flame they nurture has no heat or smoke. It's a sublime kind of ardor."
So that explained why James' female lovers hadn't scandalized. Quite the contrary, society encouraged such pairings in the belief sex couldn't be involved, not where nice women were concerned. With women, attachment couldn't be physical, it had to be spiritual and pure. It was immortal, uplifting, beyond the flesh. "Helen and Amy Travers...?"
"Ah, yes," Lydia answered. "Theirs was one of the most beautiful friendships I've seen."
Sophie was startled to realize she had lived so set apart from other women that she had failed to recognize a way of bonding together obviously central to many of their lives. But if her experience had blinded her to some things, it had made her clear-visioned about others. Society as a whole might conclude that women were sexless creatures, but she knew otherwise. And she also knew that claiming a relationship was not erotic, thinking it could not be, would not keep it from being so. Oh, doubtless such convictions dictated limits one could not go beyond without without destroying the myth. There could be no tearing off one's clothes and lustily hopping into bed, not if one would preserve the love-religion. But the loving words and the warm embrace were permitted, and the kiss before sleep, the arousal gentle enough so that its nature would not have be acknowledged.
"A sublime kind of ardour" . . . " the love-religion." Hmm . . .
Naaah. So let's get back to talking about children's books!
Goodnight Lydia. Goodnight Sophie. Goodnight Girls and Boys.
Just watched CNN, which obtained audio of Dick Cheney saying waterboarding (or did they call it "dunking") is a "no-brainer."
They followed it immediately with Lynne Cheney insisting her husband said nothing of the kind and that CNN was using Democratic talking points to mischaracterize what the Dick said.
No, really, y'all. It's just a matter of interpretation . . . Lynne Chaney's interpretation. However, at the risk of boring you with her pseudo-Cather-cum-Jamesesque drivel, here's an excerpt from her novel Sisters--as if such a title wasn't suggestive enough--so you can decide whether the novel depicts a lesbian relationship, which is precisely what Wolfe Blizter asks her in the interview above and which Lynne Chaney denies by evasion:
ReplyDelete[Sorry, it's kind of long, but you get the point.]
Suddenly Sophie knew what she'd been trying to think of ever since she'd read the letters at Amy
Travers' house. That peculiar novel of Henry James', "The Bostonians" it was called, and it had been serialized in The Century Magazine last year. Everyone had whispered about it, scandalized that James would satirize a gentle philanthropical lady like Elizabeth Peabody. But Sophie hadn't been surprised by that so much as by the passionate relationship James had depicted between two of the women reformers in his book. How could he so openly set forth such an attachment? And why was no one buzzing about that? "Sometimes these... friendships are quite passionate," she said to Lydia.
"Decidedly so."
"But still, no one sees anything wrong--"
"Oh, no, of course not!" There was shock in her voice. "These are women. The flame they nurture
has no heat or smoke. It's a sublime kind of ardor."
So that explained why James' female lovers hadn't scandalized. Quite the contrary, society
encouraged such pairings in the belief sex couldn't be involved, not where nice women were
concerned. With women, attachment couldn't be physical, it had to be spiritual and pure. It was
immortal, uplifting, beyond the flesh. "Helen and Amy Travers...?"
"Ah, yes," Lydia answered. "Theirs was one of the most beautiful friendships I've seen."
Sophie was startled to realize she had lived so set apart from other women that she had failed to
recognize a way of bonding together obviously central to many of their lives. But if her experience had blinded her to some things, it had made her clear-visioned about others. Society as a whole might conclude that women were sexless creatures, but she knew otherwise. And she also knew that claiming a relationship was not erotic, thinking it could not be, would not keep it from being so. Oh, doubtless such convictions dictated limits one could not go beyond without without destroying the myth. There could be no tearing off one's clothes and lustily hopping into bed, not if one would preserve the love-religion. But the loving words and the warm embrace were permitted, and the kiss before sleep, the arousal gentle enough so that its nature would not have be acknowledged.
"A sublime kind of ardour" . . . " the love-religion." Hmm . . .
Naaah. So let's get back to talking about children's books!
Goodnight Lydia.
Goodnight Sophie.
Goodnight Girls and Boys.
Just watched CNN, which obtained audio of Dick Cheney saying waterboarding (or did they call it "dunking") is a "no-brainer."
ReplyDeleteThey followed it immediately with Lynne Cheney insisting her husband said nothing of the kind and that CNN was using Democratic talking points to mischaracterize what the Dick said.
Uh-huh.