What do you think?
Rate this book
The Queer Art of Failure
Unknown Binding
Published September 19, 2011
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 12, 2026
*Book for school*
lots of good points but also i feel like by moments we were loosing the main subject of this book, I don't think the deep explanations of photographies and paints were that worth it, I might just be a hater.
While i understand his point about "forgetting to learn more stuff" I wish more nuance were made between personal and collective failure. I understand his point were victims of colonisation or genocide (Holocaust) can actually gain by forgetting what happened, aka they can move on with their lives, by forgetting the past there is more stuff to learn in the future. However, forgetting is a colonial tactic and always has been, he does mention it in his book, but despite this I just think this idea is in bad taste overall. It might be bc of the political context of today (this book was published in 2011 - I don't think banning books about history in libraries were that popular back then) but I feel like this point should be reviewed. He does mention that forgetting doesn't equal denial (looking at you holocaust deniers) but i dont think people are intelligent enough to understand this nuance, therefore we should just not mention it at all, lets forget it (yes i think im funny)
This also ties with his mention of An Autobiography of my mother by Jamaica Kincaid (Which I have not read but now planning to), in it the FMC has to choose between staying alive (participating in the colonizer goal) or dying (erasing herself from the narrative and being free from colonizer). She chooses the latter, which ties with Halberstam point that there's success in failure. I mean, yes there is, by dying she does save herself from her colonizer and their narrative. So this idea works on a personal level. However I don't think the same could be said about a collective level. If every person of a group chooses death as their way of freedom, wouldn't that mean that the colonizers won in the end? The colonizers goal is to eradicate a population, dying would simply make their jobs easier. Im aware that this a bit bleak but thats honestly how i see it.
Overall I would say the first 3 chapters were the most interesting.
lots of good points but also i feel like by moments we were loosing the main subject of this book, I don't think the deep explanations of photographies and paints were that worth it, I might just be a hater.
While i understand his point about "forgetting to learn more stuff" I wish more nuance were made between personal and collective failure. I understand his point were victims of colonisation or genocide (Holocaust) can actually gain by forgetting what happened, aka they can move on with their lives, by forgetting the past there is more stuff to learn in the future. However, forgetting is a colonial tactic and always has been, he does mention it in his book, but despite this I just think this idea is in bad taste overall. It might be bc of the political context of today (this book was published in 2011 - I don't think banning books about history in libraries were that popular back then) but I feel like this point should be reviewed. He does mention that forgetting doesn't equal denial (looking at you holocaust deniers) but i dont think people are intelligent enough to understand this nuance, therefore we should just not mention it at all, lets forget it (yes i think im funny)
This also ties with his mention of An Autobiography of my mother by Jamaica Kincaid (Which I have not read but now planning to), in it the FMC has to choose between staying alive (participating in the colonizer goal) or dying (erasing herself from the narrative and being free from colonizer). She chooses the latter, which ties with Halberstam point that there's success in failure. I mean, yes there is, by dying she does save herself from her colonizer and their narrative. So this idea works on a personal level. However I don't think the same could be said about a collective level. If every person of a group chooses death as their way of freedom, wouldn't that mean that the colonizers won in the end? The colonizers goal is to eradicate a population, dying would simply make their jobs easier. Im aware that this a bit bleak but thats honestly how i see it.
Overall I would say the first 3 chapters were the most interesting.
May 27, 2025
wow !!!
“At the same time the empty pools stand like ruins, abandoned and littered with leaves and other signs of disuse, and in this ruined state they represent a perversion of desire, the decay of the commodity, the queerness of the disassociation of use from value.” p. 111
“At the same time the empty pools stand like ruins, abandoned and littered with leaves and other signs of disuse, and in this ruined state they represent a perversion of desire, the decay of the commodity, the queerness of the disassociation of use from value.” p. 111
January 20, 2025
Largely absurd. Everything interesting and imaginative is "queer", apparently. It's probably best not to think too much about this. Most of her examples are from cartoons, so she gives an example of the monster in the bedroom scaring the children in Monsters Inc as a powerfully queer scene. Er... Mate, have you really thought this through?
Weirdly the very transgressive, very imaginative film Trainspotting is just about the only movie she discusses that she thinks isn't queer. Why?
Well, as near as I can tell, because they're working class.
There's a weird tangent where she breaks off to talk about the role of gay men in the development of fascism. I have no point if reference with which to gauge whether she has a point, but I have to admit the er... ballsiness... Of the attempt.
Weirdly the very transgressive, very imaginative film Trainspotting is just about the only movie she discusses that she thinks isn't queer. Why?
Well, as near as I can tell, because they're working class.
There's a weird tangent where she breaks off to talk about the role of gay men in the development of fascism. I have no point if reference with which to gauge whether she has a point, but I have to admit the er... ballsiness... Of the attempt.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews