What do you think?
Rate this book
The Gay Metropolis by Charles Kaiser
Charles Kaiser's The Gay Metropolis: 1940-1996, a history of gay life centered in New York, is packed with tales of writers and literature. Kaiser provides a kaleidoscope of details and stories that create a vision of how gay people lived, and illuminates a culture that had enormous influence on both New York and American society. Kaiser writes about such luminaries as Gore Vidal, Edward Albee, Truman Capote, and James Baldwin, but the real drive of The Gay Metropolis is how gay art and writings transformed the lives of everyday gay people. By the end of the book it is clear that gay artistic influence has transformed the American metropolis for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Hardcover
First published November 17, 1997
106 people are currently reading
2160 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews
October 29, 2021
At times social history mixed with oral history, this is a chatty romp through the decades with a minor focus on New York City. Ends on a very optimistic note in 1996.
I loved Otis Bigelow, supposedly the most handsome man in New York. There are pictures, including one of Otis, an actor and stage manager (the touchstones of beauty were different then, and the standards much kinder).
I loved Otis Bigelow, supposedly the most handsome man in New York. There are pictures, including one of Otis, an actor and stage manager (the touchstones of beauty were different then, and the standards much kinder).
June 30, 2011
Kaiser has written a history of gay life in America from WW 2 to 1996 that is sure to grip the reader. Focusing on New York City, he moves through each decade with a combination of a dispassionate history of events and interviews with people who were actually there and lived through it. This technique humanizes the book, making it far more approachable than the average history book. And it’s a very lively book, full of reminiscences, headlines, ground breaking events and gossip.
Different eras emphasize different aspects of the gay experience: in WW 2 we have gays in battle (amazingly well tolerated for the time- so much for gays breaking down military cohesiveness); in different eras it’s the literary set, the theater (the groundbreaking premier of ‘The Boys in the Band’, for instance), Stonewall, the bars and bathhouses, the beginning of the AIDS epidemic and the horrifying number of deaths that followed. I enjoyed this approach; it gives the reader a rounded view of gay history. My only complaint is that lesbians barely make an appearance in the book.
Originally written in 1997, Kaiser wrote a new afterword in 2007 with a brief update. I found it fitting that I was reading that update while listening to the news about the NY vote on gay marriage.
Different eras emphasize different aspects of the gay experience: in WW 2 we have gays in battle (amazingly well tolerated for the time- so much for gays breaking down military cohesiveness); in different eras it’s the literary set, the theater (the groundbreaking premier of ‘The Boys in the Band’, for instance), Stonewall, the bars and bathhouses, the beginning of the AIDS epidemic and the horrifying number of deaths that followed. I enjoyed this approach; it gives the reader a rounded view of gay history. My only complaint is that lesbians barely make an appearance in the book.
Originally written in 1997, Kaiser wrote a new afterword in 2007 with a brief update. I found it fitting that I was reading that update while listening to the news about the NY vote on gay marriage.
August 23, 2015
WAY too focused on the white male gay experience to really be a good, all-encompassing kind of ~gay history~ text. that said, i learned a lot about the movement and how different actions and social/political attitudes changed through the latter half of the 20th century. and the sections devoted to the aids crisis were really, really well done. very appropriately visceral.
August 13, 2015
Gossipy, sexual, culturally sensitive, committed and engaged, political, accurate—Kaiser has written a thoroughly informative and entertaining history. Highly, highly recommended for everyone to see how we got here, and to realize how easy it would be to lose it all again.
Read
November 13, 2011It’s almost funny to read how Otis Bigelow (famous to be the most handsome man of the ’40s in New York City, and coveted by millionaires and artists) reported as being gay “was an upscale thing to be”, but at the same time the author reports as just “across town from Park Avenue swells who entertained him so lavishly in their duplex apartments, a completely different kind of gay life was thriving in Times Square”. This was and is New York City, and as in the ’40s, also now there is a melting pot of cultures, and each culture wants to reclaim their identity. Otis Bigelow was not wrong as they were not wrong the obvious fairies of Times Square, they were simply navigating in different circles.
The “hidden in plain sight” approach was apparently pretty common in the ’40s, and so we learn from the memory of a fund boy from New England who wants to remain anonymous as he went to school with John Fitzgerald Kenney, and between the two, the outcast was Kennedy; but there is also the inside news of how JFK’s roommate, Lemoyne Billings, was gay and how he remained family friend even after the president election.
And from the words of many gay men who was there and lived that ’40s atmosphere the general opinion is that, you could be gay since you simply didn’t flaunt it. One of them cite a certain Mrs. Patrick Campbell who said “My dear, I don’t care what people do as long as they don’t do it in the street and frighten the horses”. That is basically what Otis Bigelow and those other anonymous voices implied, you were free to be gay as far as you were gay inside “private” locations.
And maybe that is the reason why, in a period when civil rights were starting to be a common agenda of many politicians, it was not the same when those rights regarded LGBT people. You were free inside your private home, btw if you were wealthy enough to have that safe home, but you were also captive of your own golden cage.
There is a long session devoted to the gays in the military during the WWII. A nice introduction probably explains how the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was introduced, but mostly it’s about those men who remained (or went back) into the closet, not for the fear of being discovered, but to avoid to be refused the chance to protect their country as soldiers.
In the post-war stories, the one I liked the most is the friendship between Paul Cadmus and E.M. Forster, and how Cadmus was aware of Forster’s novel Maurice, a novel the author refused to publish until after his death to not damage his policeman “friend” (who was married).
The ’50s is a period of euphoria but apparently it also started the period when being gay was dangerous, and so it should be hidden; if in the ’40 you could be gay inside private walls, in the ’50s even that freedom was a danger, and the walls of a room became the more confined space of a closet. As for many others, gays became the target of a witch hunt. Maybe for this reason, late in the ’50s the main tendency was to “blend” and you see gays people getting married, with or without the knowledge of the wife.
The ’60s see a surge of consciences, in all the level of society, and so also among gays and lesbians. New York saw not only the first religious congregation for gays, but also Columbia University became one of the first colleges to give formal recognition to a gay students organization. Homosexuality exited from the closet and arrived in television, with a ground-breaking documentary, The Homosexuals.
The bridge between the ’60 and the ’70 is Stonewall, and so from that moment on there will be always a pre and post-Stonewall gay and lesbian movement and culture: “although millions would remain in the closet, within a year after Stonewall, thousands of men and women would find the courage to declare themselves for the first time”. Not only, being gay, or at least bisexual, was almost “fashionable”, and in many media, television, cinema, publishing, the gay characters not only started to make their appearance, they were also, sometime, positively accepted by the mainstream public. And also Forster’s Maurice came out of the closet. The ’70 see the sexual revolution, a sexual revolution that happened also within the LGBT community.
The ’80 and the beginning of the ’90 is the Dark Ages of the LGBT community, the AIDS plague killed so many, that almost completely deprived the world of an entire generation. There is visibly a jump, if you browse the net for notably LGBT characters, those born in the ’50 and ’60 are almost all among the victims. As reported “New York had far more AIDS cases than any other city in America”. One man stated “I know 450 people that died of AIDS that I can count. Thirty to 40 of my close friends that I had made from 1967 to today died from this disease”. It’s painful to read this part of the books, even more painful if you compare it to the energy that you had just felt in the stories of those men of the ’50 and ’60 and ’70, men who were eager to claim their homosexuality.
Maybe due to the imperative of being more mainstream to protect their rights among the massacre that was the AIDS catastrophe, the ’90 see the LGBT community enters politics and starting to put their weight on who has to represent them.
It was a long ride to arrive to the end of this book, but it was a very enlightening ride. Charles Kaiser managed to always bring alive the men he is talking about, with their dreams, fears, love and betrayals. It’s a wonderful essay that you read like a novel, with the easiness of a collection of short stories, only that the characters in those short stories are real life men and women.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0802143172/?...
The “hidden in plain sight” approach was apparently pretty common in the ’40s, and so we learn from the memory of a fund boy from New England who wants to remain anonymous as he went to school with John Fitzgerald Kenney, and between the two, the outcast was Kennedy; but there is also the inside news of how JFK’s roommate, Lemoyne Billings, was gay and how he remained family friend even after the president election.
And from the words of many gay men who was there and lived that ’40s atmosphere the general opinion is that, you could be gay since you simply didn’t flaunt it. One of them cite a certain Mrs. Patrick Campbell who said “My dear, I don’t care what people do as long as they don’t do it in the street and frighten the horses”. That is basically what Otis Bigelow and those other anonymous voices implied, you were free to be gay as far as you were gay inside “private” locations.
And maybe that is the reason why, in a period when civil rights were starting to be a common agenda of many politicians, it was not the same when those rights regarded LGBT people. You were free inside your private home, btw if you were wealthy enough to have that safe home, but you were also captive of your own golden cage.
There is a long session devoted to the gays in the military during the WWII. A nice introduction probably explains how the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was introduced, but mostly it’s about those men who remained (or went back) into the closet, not for the fear of being discovered, but to avoid to be refused the chance to protect their country as soldiers.
In the post-war stories, the one I liked the most is the friendship between Paul Cadmus and E.M. Forster, and how Cadmus was aware of Forster’s novel Maurice, a novel the author refused to publish until after his death to not damage his policeman “friend” (who was married).
The ’50s is a period of euphoria but apparently it also started the period when being gay was dangerous, and so it should be hidden; if in the ’40 you could be gay inside private walls, in the ’50s even that freedom was a danger, and the walls of a room became the more confined space of a closet. As for many others, gays became the target of a witch hunt. Maybe for this reason, late in the ’50s the main tendency was to “blend” and you see gays people getting married, with or without the knowledge of the wife.
The ’60s see a surge of consciences, in all the level of society, and so also among gays and lesbians. New York saw not only the first religious congregation for gays, but also Columbia University became one of the first colleges to give formal recognition to a gay students organization. Homosexuality exited from the closet and arrived in television, with a ground-breaking documentary, The Homosexuals.
The bridge between the ’60 and the ’70 is Stonewall, and so from that moment on there will be always a pre and post-Stonewall gay and lesbian movement and culture: “although millions would remain in the closet, within a year after Stonewall, thousands of men and women would find the courage to declare themselves for the first time”. Not only, being gay, or at least bisexual, was almost “fashionable”, and in many media, television, cinema, publishing, the gay characters not only started to make their appearance, they were also, sometime, positively accepted by the mainstream public. And also Forster’s Maurice came out of the closet. The ’70 see the sexual revolution, a sexual revolution that happened also within the LGBT community.
The ’80 and the beginning of the ’90 is the Dark Ages of the LGBT community, the AIDS plague killed so many, that almost completely deprived the world of an entire generation. There is visibly a jump, if you browse the net for notably LGBT characters, those born in the ’50 and ’60 are almost all among the victims. As reported “New York had far more AIDS cases than any other city in America”. One man stated “I know 450 people that died of AIDS that I can count. Thirty to 40 of my close friends that I had made from 1967 to today died from this disease”. It’s painful to read this part of the books, even more painful if you compare it to the energy that you had just felt in the stories of those men of the ’50 and ’60 and ’70, men who were eager to claim their homosexuality.
Maybe due to the imperative of being more mainstream to protect their rights among the massacre that was the AIDS catastrophe, the ’90 see the LGBT community enters politics and starting to put their weight on who has to represent them.
It was a long ride to arrive to the end of this book, but it was a very enlightening ride. Charles Kaiser managed to always bring alive the men he is talking about, with their dreams, fears, love and betrayals. It’s a wonderful essay that you read like a novel, with the easiness of a collection of short stories, only that the characters in those short stories are real life men and women.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0802143172/?...
June 25, 2025
One problem (and there are many) that I have with this book is the description on the cover flap of my 1998 Weidenfeld & Nicholson hard back edition (not listed on Goodreads) which reads:
'(This is)....a compelling social, cultural and political history of gay life in America since 1940. While focused on the United States, Kaiser explores many of the social and political events which advanced the cause of gay liberation in Britain...(and)...includes stops in Paris, Berlin, Cairo and Jerusalem to illuminate the progress of gay life around the world...'
Well it isn't anything of the sort - it is a New York centric look at gay life in America - honestly from this book you wouldn't imagine there was any gay life except for New York and a passing visit to San Francisco and the the role of Britain, never mind Paris, Berlin, etc. doesn't amount to more then tourist stop overs and very superficial ones at that. Write a book about gay New York (I think a rather good book with that title was written by George Chauncey at least two years before this one was published) but don't call it a gay history of America, let alone the rest of the world.
There is a lot more I object too in this book but most of what I have problems with is the result of the time it was published in - not long after the Supreme Court decision which made possible gay marriage in the USA - with the result that the story is framed as one of out of the darkness and persecution of the past into today's world of acceptance. I do not accept this 'storyline' as anything more then a 'fairytale' invention of what has happened in the US and is only peripherally relevant to the rest of the worlds gays.
Before going into specifics I want to stress that the gay rights movement in the US was absolutely crucial in galvanizing gay rights elsewhere - what happened in places in the US - particularly New York in the 1960s and 70s was absolutely liberating in terms of lifestyle, self image, etc. But that does not mean that since the 1980s the continuing battles for gay rights in the US reflect or even are concurrent with the battles of gays elsewhere - particularly in Europe. For example much is made of the UK 1961 'Victim' but of the equally significant 1985 film 'My Beautiful Laundrette' (financed and produced by Channel 4 TV in the UK for cinemas release and then TV broadcast - back then the time lag between the two was much greater than today) not a mention is made - possibly because the matter of fact way that the gay theme was treated reflected a society that had taken on board and was very much more relaxed with gay issues then the US. Examples can be found from many countries - I remember being particularly struck by the outrage of the NY Catholic diocese and many Irish American groups in 1990 (I think) over the request by a group of gay Irish men and women to march in the St. Patrick's day parade. The year before in Ireland the grand martial for the St Patrick's Day parade in Cork (a city renowned for its conservatism) in the Republic of Ireland was a gay man who was also a transvestite - and nobody bated an eyelid.
Also the book trumpets the way large corporations were targeting the US gay market - particularly through a new gay magazine 'Out' which did not carry gay sex advertisements - but doesn't reflect that those advertisers had never had such squeamishness with regards to publications such as Playboy. In fact what they were heralding so happily was, despite the books protests to the contrary, was the homogenization of gay culture so that it could be presented to straights as non threatening - and really not very gay at all.
Finally I find it utterly astounding that they give so much space to quoting the architect Phillip Johnson - he was an unrepentant apologist for the Nazis throughout the 1930s and well into the 1940s - he actually accompanied the German army on its invasion of Poland and announced to anyone who would listen that the invasion was the best thing that happened to Poland.
The quotations from the memories and experiences of so many gay men and women are of course fascinating but do not prevent this from being a deeply flawed and problematic book that I can only recommend one skip.
'(This is)....a compelling social, cultural and political history of gay life in America since 1940. While focused on the United States, Kaiser explores many of the social and political events which advanced the cause of gay liberation in Britain...(and)...includes stops in Paris, Berlin, Cairo and Jerusalem to illuminate the progress of gay life around the world...'
Well it isn't anything of the sort - it is a New York centric look at gay life in America - honestly from this book you wouldn't imagine there was any gay life except for New York and a passing visit to San Francisco and the the role of Britain, never mind Paris, Berlin, etc. doesn't amount to more then tourist stop overs and very superficial ones at that. Write a book about gay New York (I think a rather good book with that title was written by George Chauncey at least two years before this one was published) but don't call it a gay history of America, let alone the rest of the world.
There is a lot more I object too in this book but most of what I have problems with is the result of the time it was published in - not long after the Supreme Court decision which made possible gay marriage in the USA - with the result that the story is framed as one of out of the darkness and persecution of the past into today's world of acceptance. I do not accept this 'storyline' as anything more then a 'fairytale' invention of what has happened in the US and is only peripherally relevant to the rest of the worlds gays.
Before going into specifics I want to stress that the gay rights movement in the US was absolutely crucial in galvanizing gay rights elsewhere - what happened in places in the US - particularly New York in the 1960s and 70s was absolutely liberating in terms of lifestyle, self image, etc. But that does not mean that since the 1980s the continuing battles for gay rights in the US reflect or even are concurrent with the battles of gays elsewhere - particularly in Europe. For example much is made of the UK 1961 'Victim' but of the equally significant 1985 film 'My Beautiful Laundrette' (financed and produced by Channel 4 TV in the UK for cinemas release and then TV broadcast - back then the time lag between the two was much greater than today) not a mention is made - possibly because the matter of fact way that the gay theme was treated reflected a society that had taken on board and was very much more relaxed with gay issues then the US. Examples can be found from many countries - I remember being particularly struck by the outrage of the NY Catholic diocese and many Irish American groups in 1990 (I think) over the request by a group of gay Irish men and women to march in the St. Patrick's day parade. The year before in Ireland the grand martial for the St Patrick's Day parade in Cork (a city renowned for its conservatism) in the Republic of Ireland was a gay man who was also a transvestite - and nobody bated an eyelid.
Also the book trumpets the way large corporations were targeting the US gay market - particularly through a new gay magazine 'Out' which did not carry gay sex advertisements - but doesn't reflect that those advertisers had never had such squeamishness with regards to publications such as Playboy. In fact what they were heralding so happily was, despite the books protests to the contrary, was the homogenization of gay culture so that it could be presented to straights as non threatening - and really not very gay at all.
Finally I find it utterly astounding that they give so much space to quoting the architect Phillip Johnson - he was an unrepentant apologist for the Nazis throughout the 1930s and well into the 1940s - he actually accompanied the German army on its invasion of Poland and announced to anyone who would listen that the invasion was the best thing that happened to Poland.
The quotations from the memories and experiences of so many gay men and women are of course fascinating but do not prevent this from being a deeply flawed and problematic book that I can only recommend one skip.
August 4, 2020
For a school assignment, I wanted to expand my knowledge on LGBTQ+ history. So I chose this book, thinking that it being called a landmark history would mean all inclusive. I did not like finding the white male focus of this book. It was not common for a woman (lesbian or contributer to history) to have a quote or be talked about for more than a few paragraphs. Much less a gay person of color. Much less any gay transgender individuals at all. It was frustrating that the white male still held the center spotlight, even in a book about the history of a marginalized group. This book was too focused on the gay, white male experience to be called an all inclusive telling of a gay America. I would have loved to hear any stories from transgender homosexuals and more of the lesbian experience in America throughout the decades.
Also, at times, I found myself bored with the amount of detail that was thrown into the book. There were times where I really wanted to skip over pages, knowing that if I did I probably wouldn't miss too much. There was a lot of political drama and accusions that at the time, yes, would have been pretty big and seemingly scandalous, but the retelling of that history did not give that perspective of being gay having been a huge awful thing back then.
I also would have loved if the origin of specific terminology was mentioned. Such as the butch and femme lesbian terms. Or people getting comfortable from calling themself queer. That transition of language would have been neat to read about.
Stonewall was recounted for about 5 pages then referenced to orient events on a timeline. I would have loved to hear primary sources from that night. There were a few quotes, but to have more in person perspective would have enhances the book more. I wish Stonewall was dwelled on longer with all of its significance. I was looking forward to learning more about the roots and was disappointed in the small amount of information presented.
Overall, I did not enjoy this book as much as I thought I would. Nonetheless, I am grateful it exists and is telling the stories of some gay individuals at least. We've got to start somewhere in the telling of gay history.
Also, at times, I found myself bored with the amount of detail that was thrown into the book. There were times where I really wanted to skip over pages, knowing that if I did I probably wouldn't miss too much. There was a lot of political drama and accusions that at the time, yes, would have been pretty big and seemingly scandalous, but the retelling of that history did not give that perspective of being gay having been a huge awful thing back then.
I also would have loved if the origin of specific terminology was mentioned. Such as the butch and femme lesbian terms. Or people getting comfortable from calling themself queer. That transition of language would have been neat to read about.
Stonewall was recounted for about 5 pages then referenced to orient events on a timeline. I would have loved to hear primary sources from that night. There were a few quotes, but to have more in person perspective would have enhances the book more. I wish Stonewall was dwelled on longer with all of its significance. I was looking forward to learning more about the roots and was disappointed in the small amount of information presented.
Overall, I did not enjoy this book as much as I thought I would. Nonetheless, I am grateful it exists and is telling the stories of some gay individuals at least. We've got to start somewhere in the telling of gay history.
February 13, 2009
A lively account of the U.S. gay subculture as it began to acquire a sense of community in New York City and other large cities after World War 2, and then, in the 60s, to move out of the closet and claim political rights. The title is misleading -- this book is about much more than the Big Apple, although much of its anecodotal material comes from there. I especially liked the chapter on "The Forties" -- I hadn't realized how the mass mobilization of World War 2 brought together gay guys (and to some extent lesbians) and allowed them to form their own little sub-groups within their units. The detailed recounting of the Stonewall Riots also was interesting, and is especially relevant in 2009, the 40th anniveresary year. Some might find the book too gossipy, but I thought it was useful to find out how pioneers of the gay movement evolved as individuals over the decades.
December 4, 2021
Moving oral history of gay life in New York City since 1945. It made me miss New York terribly (I worked in Manhattan from '82 to '92.)
Kaiser does a nice job. Sure, the book mostly focuses on gay males, and there are some notable people missing (for example, Eric Garber a.k.a Andrew Holleran, Robert Mapplethorpe, Keith Haring, and David Wojnarowicz), but I still found these deeply personal stories gripping, inspiring, and enlightening. Great stories about Otis Bigelow, Harry Hay, Frank Kameny, Arthur Laurents, Philip Johnson, Lincoln Kirstein, Leonard Bernstein, Judy Garland, Larry Kramer, Walter Clemons, Howard Rosenman, Merle Miller, Ethan Geto, Tom Stoddard, Steve Rubell, Xax, and countless others.
Kaiser does a nice job. Sure, the book mostly focuses on gay males, and there are some notable people missing (for example, Eric Garber a.k.a Andrew Holleran, Robert Mapplethorpe, Keith Haring, and David Wojnarowicz), but I still found these deeply personal stories gripping, inspiring, and enlightening. Great stories about Otis Bigelow, Harry Hay, Frank Kameny, Arthur Laurents, Philip Johnson, Lincoln Kirstein, Leonard Bernstein, Judy Garland, Larry Kramer, Walter Clemons, Howard Rosenman, Merle Miller, Ethan Geto, Tom Stoddard, Steve Rubell, Xax, and countless others.
July 1, 2012
This book offers a fascinating history of the gay "experience" from the 40s to the 90s. I thought at times, though, that the serious was replaced by the salacious. But I guess the gritty/dirty details make any book interesting, right? But in all seriousness, you have to give credit to the early pioneers of the gay movement who were only able to experience their identities in secret. We've come a long way! Full Disclosure: I didn't read the book all the way through. I skipped around, much like one might do with a reference book/textbook. :)
May 7, 2013
I don't read nonfiction a lot, but I am glad I read this. I learned a lot.
August 10, 2024
i finally finished this.. it took so long.. where to even begin...
would i recommend this book? no. does it offer me something i've never gotten from any other book on gay history? yes. this hyper specific focus on cis white gay men in new york throughout history confirms the common sense thesis that they are the worst people in the world. the author included! be ready for a heavy dose of zionism, even comparing the 6 day war to the gay rights movement. neoliberalism is alive and well, but you can tell exactly what kind of person he is by his personal anecdotes. being friends with ed koch alone is like well. so many of the author's takes just suck so bad, constantly comparing the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement while barely acknowledging that there are black gay people! AND A LOT OF THEM! AND THEY BUILT THE MOVEMENT HE'S WRITING ABOUT!
despite all that, i did find the anecdotal nature super interesting. i've also never read something so in depth about gay people pre-60s, so those chapters were very interesting. the chapter about the 80s was also pretty well done, it was as heartbreaking as expected.
there were weird grammatical errors or typos throughout the book, and maybe that could be excused if it weren't for factual errors as well. i can't remember a lot off the top of my head but i remember him referring to who i assume is marsha p. johnson as a drag queen named marsha (no last name given, because she's not significant in his story), continuing to misgender her & emphasizing her "male" traits in a paragraph about some white ppl and never mentioning her again. however the error that stuck with me the most is referring to judy garland's daughter as LISA MINNELLI. LISA. YOU ARE WRITING A BOOK ABOUT GAY HISTORY AND GET JUDY GARLAND'S DAUGHTER'S NAME WRONG. HOW DO YOU EXPECT ME TO TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY.
i think all the high reviews are from straight ppl who don't know any better or are just afraid to critique anything gay tbh. there are MUCH better books out there and i definitely don't think this is the best one to start with, but if you're already deep into the genre & wanna try something different, maybe you'll find something good here. you just have to be able to think critically about what you're reading/not have it bother you when reading something not in line with what you know to be true. i'm a philosopher at heart, it's in my nature to question everything i read and treat it not as ideals for me to adopt but for an opportunity to challenge and/or strengthen my own beliefs. also it's really good in the sense that it doesn't give the gay community or icons of it too much reverence, which is a problem i've encountered in the past. this is a good read if you've read too many of those books, cause it reminds you that a lot of gay people are straight up evil! i feel like almost every profile in this book showcases some of the nastiest behavior throughout human history. i remember someone said truman was completely right to drop the a-bomb cause it meant he got to go home. LIKE WHAT?! BUT if you have critical thinking, which i know many people lack, it's kinda great to be reminded that gay ppl are super flawed. it's very honest in a way a lot of queer history books aren't, and i don't think the book means to put gay ppl in that light, but to me it does. definitely a unique book that isn't for everyone, it wasn't really for me even, but you can still get a lot out of it if you know how.
would i recommend this book? no. does it offer me something i've never gotten from any other book on gay history? yes. this hyper specific focus on cis white gay men in new york throughout history confirms the common sense thesis that they are the worst people in the world. the author included! be ready for a heavy dose of zionism, even comparing the 6 day war to the gay rights movement. neoliberalism is alive and well, but you can tell exactly what kind of person he is by his personal anecdotes. being friends with ed koch alone is like well. so many of the author's takes just suck so bad, constantly comparing the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement while barely acknowledging that there are black gay people! AND A LOT OF THEM! AND THEY BUILT THE MOVEMENT HE'S WRITING ABOUT!
despite all that, i did find the anecdotal nature super interesting. i've also never read something so in depth about gay people pre-60s, so those chapters were very interesting. the chapter about the 80s was also pretty well done, it was as heartbreaking as expected.
there were weird grammatical errors or typos throughout the book, and maybe that could be excused if it weren't for factual errors as well. i can't remember a lot off the top of my head but i remember him referring to who i assume is marsha p. johnson as a drag queen named marsha (no last name given, because she's not significant in his story), continuing to misgender her & emphasizing her "male" traits in a paragraph about some white ppl and never mentioning her again. however the error that stuck with me the most is referring to judy garland's daughter as LISA MINNELLI. LISA. YOU ARE WRITING A BOOK ABOUT GAY HISTORY AND GET JUDY GARLAND'S DAUGHTER'S NAME WRONG. HOW DO YOU EXPECT ME TO TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY.
i think all the high reviews are from straight ppl who don't know any better or are just afraid to critique anything gay tbh. there are MUCH better books out there and i definitely don't think this is the best one to start with, but if you're already deep into the genre & wanna try something different, maybe you'll find something good here. you just have to be able to think critically about what you're reading/not have it bother you when reading something not in line with what you know to be true. i'm a philosopher at heart, it's in my nature to question everything i read and treat it not as ideals for me to adopt but for an opportunity to challenge and/or strengthen my own beliefs. also it's really good in the sense that it doesn't give the gay community or icons of it too much reverence, which is a problem i've encountered in the past. this is a good read if you've read too many of those books, cause it reminds you that a lot of gay people are straight up evil! i feel like almost every profile in this book showcases some of the nastiest behavior throughout human history. i remember someone said truman was completely right to drop the a-bomb cause it meant he got to go home. LIKE WHAT?! BUT if you have critical thinking, which i know many people lack, it's kinda great to be reminded that gay ppl are super flawed. it's very honest in a way a lot of queer history books aren't, and i don't think the book means to put gay ppl in that light, but to me it does. definitely a unique book that isn't for everyone, it wasn't really for me even, but you can still get a lot out of it if you know how.
dnf
December 3, 2018I have NOTHING against this book, and it was exactly what I wanted it to be, but due to semester-related exhaustion, I can't finish it right now. I'm hoping to come back to this at some point in the future and finish it, but I can't keep staring at it in my 'currently reading' list because it's stressing me out.
June 9, 2024
Despite the cover description that this is "the landmark history of gay life in America since World War II," this focuses almost entirely upon prominent gay men in New York City, with (at least for me) too much detail about their sex lives. It is generally well written, makes extensive use of interviews the author conduced with those men, and has some excellent information.
February 9, 2019
Entertaining, breezy, gossipy (and sometimes bitchy) history of gay culture in the US from the 1940's through the mid-1990s.
The biggest shortcoming is its narrow scope. It focuses almost entirely on the history of gay white men. The "gay" part of it can be forgiven a little bit, since it's called the "gay" metropolis and not the LGBT metropolis. The author himself admits to that narrowness of scope.
What he doesn't address, and this is by far the book's biggest shortcoming, is that it's most heavily focused on white gay culture, with hardly any mention of POC. There are brief mentions of gay Harlem nightlife (but this is largely told from a white perspective, which, obviously, is...less than ideal, shall we say). There's no mention whatsoever of Bayard Rustin, for example, a Civil Rights hero who was not only black, but also openly gay. There were no stories told from a Latino or Asian perspective, for example.
I'm also regretting that the book was written in 1996, and has an afterward in 2006 or 2007, because so much LGBT history has taken place afterwards. Don't Ask, Don't Tell gets a very brief note at the end. The Defense of Marriage Act gets skimmed over in the afterward. Will and Grace gets a larger discussion than Ellen DeGeneres' coming out; Matthew Shepard doesn't get mentioned at all. And, of course, the afterward was written almost 10 years before Edie Windsor's case struck down DOMA, or James Obergefell's case legalized gay marriage; to say nothing of the (slowly) growing awareness of trans rights and all the culture wars that have been waged since.
Having said all of that, this is still a great read. Like I said in the beginning, it's gossipy and bitchy, and offers plenty of salacious anecdotes and stories, such as when General Eisenhower asked his secretary to root out all the lesbians in the army, and his secretaries told him that they could do that, but he'd find their names atop the list, upon which Eisenhower told them to forget that idea, then. Or the story of Storme DeLarverie, who ignited the Stonewall uprising, by explaining, "The cop hit me, and I hit him back." Or the tidbit about Bette Midler and Barry Manilow performing together at the Continental Baths. And so on.
So, this is a good read, despite the serious gaps in terms of coverage. I'd say this is a great starting point for anyone interested in gay history that covers how World War 2 inadvertently incubated a nascent gay movement, through the emergence of a gay subculture in the 50's, a muscular response through Stonewall in the 60's, the hedonistic 70's, the AIDS crisis of the 80's and the gay community's resurgence in the 90's.
The biggest shortcoming is its narrow scope. It focuses almost entirely on the history of gay white men. The "gay" part of it can be forgiven a little bit, since it's called the "gay" metropolis and not the LGBT metropolis. The author himself admits to that narrowness of scope.
What he doesn't address, and this is by far the book's biggest shortcoming, is that it's most heavily focused on white gay culture, with hardly any mention of POC. There are brief mentions of gay Harlem nightlife (but this is largely told from a white perspective, which, obviously, is...less than ideal, shall we say). There's no mention whatsoever of Bayard Rustin, for example, a Civil Rights hero who was not only black, but also openly gay. There were no stories told from a Latino or Asian perspective, for example.
I'm also regretting that the book was written in 1996, and has an afterward in 2006 or 2007, because so much LGBT history has taken place afterwards. Don't Ask, Don't Tell gets a very brief note at the end. The Defense of Marriage Act gets skimmed over in the afterward. Will and Grace gets a larger discussion than Ellen DeGeneres' coming out; Matthew Shepard doesn't get mentioned at all. And, of course, the afterward was written almost 10 years before Edie Windsor's case struck down DOMA, or James Obergefell's case legalized gay marriage; to say nothing of the (slowly) growing awareness of trans rights and all the culture wars that have been waged since.
Having said all of that, this is still a great read. Like I said in the beginning, it's gossipy and bitchy, and offers plenty of salacious anecdotes and stories, such as when General Eisenhower asked his secretary to root out all the lesbians in the army, and his secretaries told him that they could do that, but he'd find their names atop the list, upon which Eisenhower told them to forget that idea, then. Or the story of Storme DeLarverie, who ignited the Stonewall uprising, by explaining, "The cop hit me, and I hit him back." Or the tidbit about Bette Midler and Barry Manilow performing together at the Continental Baths. And so on.
So, this is a good read, despite the serious gaps in terms of coverage. I'd say this is a great starting point for anyone interested in gay history that covers how World War 2 inadvertently incubated a nascent gay movement, through the emergence of a gay subculture in the 50's, a muscular response through Stonewall in the 60's, the hedonistic 70's, the AIDS crisis of the 80's and the gay community's resurgence in the 90's.
June 23, 2009
A New York Times Notable Book of the Year and winner of a Lambda Literary Award, The Gay Metropolis is a landmark saga of struggle and triumph that was instantly recognized as the most authoritative and substantial work of its kind. Filled with astounding anecdotes and searing tales of heartbreak and transformation, it provides a decade-by-decade account of the rise and acceptance of gay life and identity since the 1940s.
From the making of "West Side Story," the modern Romeo and Juliet tale written and staged by four gay men, to the catastrophic era of AIDS, Charles Kaiser recounts the true history of the gay movement with many never-before-told stories. Filled with dazzling characters — including Leonard Bernstein, Montgomery Clift, Alfred Hitchcock and John F. Kennedy, among many others — this is a vital telling of American history, exciting and uplifting.
To learn more, visit The Progressive Book Club: http://www.progressivebookclub.com/pb...
From the making of "West Side Story," the modern Romeo and Juliet tale written and staged by four gay men, to the catastrophic era of AIDS, Charles Kaiser recounts the true history of the gay movement with many never-before-told stories. Filled with dazzling characters — including Leonard Bernstein, Montgomery Clift, Alfred Hitchcock and John F. Kennedy, among many others — this is a vital telling of American history, exciting and uplifting.
To learn more, visit The Progressive Book Club: http://www.progressivebookclub.com/pb...
August 31, 2015
I really had high hopes for this book, but it turned out to be kind of a slog. It's less a narrative and more an oral history, focused around gay men living in New York City from the 50s on. That focus means that sometimes the book feels like listening to your gay uncle tell you boring stories about all the hook ups he had back in the day, and other things get missed - Harvey Milk is hardly mentioned at all, for example. The writing felt really disjointed in some places for the same reason.
That said, one thing that delighted me, reading this the summer that gay marriage was legalized: this was written in the 90s, and the author and his interview subjects were so convinced that gay people had Made It and were so optimism and proud. Oh friends, you have no idea how much is yet to come!
That said, one thing that delighted me, reading this the summer that gay marriage was legalized: this was written in the 90s, and the author and his interview subjects were so convinced that gay people had Made It and were so optimism and proud. Oh friends, you have no idea how much is yet to come!
August 3, 2011
A fascinating book. I haven't spent enough time reading gay history as I should. Kaiser's depiction of the sexual "revolution" of the 1970's, followed by the decimation of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980's is especially poignant. He does an amazing job of devoting equal time to the "big picture" political stories, juxtaposed with the intimate stories of real people and real lives. The latter really helped me understand the terror and sadness of the AIDS epidemic.
July 12, 2010
This book was absolutely amazing! Even now I tend to think of American gay culture as a "modern" phenomenon, something that only entered the cultural consciousness after the Sonewall Riots of 1969. It's fascinating to read about how sex and love among men functioned pre-sexual revolution. I love historical nonfiction and this book is certainly one of my favorites.
December 6, 2012
Read it to supplement a recent obsession with The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay. There were a lot of scandalous bits about already dead people, but significantly less analysis, which probably wasn't the point anyway. If you like that approach, my copy is yours.
February 21, 2008
The account of the early days of the AIDS crisis are nothing short of chilling.
April 2, 2014
This book presents voluminous research in a style that is...lacking.
July 18, 2019
5 stars was very gay
February 2, 2024
This was a fun romp of a read, but overall more concerned with being salacious than being informative
May 27, 2022
"History cannot give us a program for the future, but it can give us a fuller understanding of ourselves, and of our common humanity, so that we can better face the future." ~Robert Penn Warren
The author, Michael Crichton, once said that “If you don’t know history, then you don’t know anything. You are a leaf that doesn’t know it is part of a tree.” Knowing our history gives us roots and stability. Learning a history that few of us were taught gives us a better and fuller understanding of our country.
As I write this review it is the end of May, just days before the start of LGBTQ Pride Month. For many people, June is just another month on the calendar, but for many of us who are LGBTQ+, it is a month of recognizing ourselves as a community, remembering where we have been, recalling the resistance of Stonewall, and finding new hope and strength for continuing the struggle for equality and liberation. It is a good month to reflect upon the history of the LGBTQ rights movement.
This year, as we see an alarming increase in the number of legislative bills that silences and erases those who identify as LGBTQ, and as hate crimes against LGBTQ+ persons rapidly increase in number, and as political rumblings put marriage equality at risk, Pride Month takes on more meaning and even urgency.
Journalist Charles Kaiser’s landmark book, The Gay Metropolis, is a highly readable, and even chatty account of gay life in the United States. However, even though the book is well researched, readers should know that it only covers the USA--with a focus on New York City—between the mid-1940s to the mid-1990s, and only focuses on the white cis gay male population.
In an interview in 2019, however, Kaiser did explain that he “Originally, wrote the book as a survivor of the AIDS epidemic. I felt an obligation to bear witness to what we had all lived through since I was part of the lucky 50 percent of my generation that survived [the AIDS epidemic]…I wanted to write a book that would include AIDS, but not be overwhelmed by it, so the solution was to start at 1940 and originally end at 1997.”
Even with its limited scope, The Gay Metropolis offers readers a look at gay life in the United States beginning at a time when LGBTQ communities began to form following World War II, to the witch hunts that dramatically increased and ruined lives in the 1950s, to the 1969 riots at the Stonewall Inn in New York City, to the sexual freedom of the 70s and then the decimation of the community by AIDS in the 80s and 90s. The reissue also includes an updated introduction focusing on the fiftieth anniversary of Stonewall and the 2015 marriage equality ruling.
So often I find history books “dry.” This one was not. Recognized as one of the most authoritative books on the subject when first published, it is full of anecdotes and is often entertaining to read. It is one I recommend reading.
June 16, 2020
This is a superb cultural history. It's written by a journalist as opposed to a professional historian, but that ends up being a strength of the book, mainly because Kaiser relies on so much anecdotal history--people telling their own stories--to create a broad picture of customs, decades, neighborhoods, and movements. It's kind of like This American Life across a several decade span. That said, the author does overtly highlight signal moments in politics and media that were significant to their time periods: books, editorials, court cases, laws, movies, television shows. He blends this information and commentary rather fluidly with the personal stories. I can't say that I was terribly surprised by the book, except for maybe the chapters on the 40s and 50s. Most surprising was to read about a relatively active gay culture in the army during the Second World War, and almost--almost--a kind of acceptance of it. At least among certain straight individuals and officers. (There's a hilarious story about Eisenhower and his determination at one point to rid the WACs of all lesbians. No spoiler here, but I will say that Ike gets quite the surprise.) The 40s come across as a fairly liberal decade, believe it or not, compared to the 1950s, which was--and here Kaiser only reinforces a broad perception--quite a conservative decade, all things considered. But even in the 50s, an active gay culture remained, at least in and around NYC.
The book is titled "Gay Metropolis" and for the most part this means New York. Almost every chapter dwells significantly on gay life as it existed in the NYC, but in doing so Kaiser manages to paint a picture of the country as a whole. In other words, "metropolis" does often mean NYC in the book, but not exclusively. And what happened in NYC and other cities tends to mirror movements and changes going on throughout the country. The chapters on the 70s and 80s discuss San Francisco in some depth too. The only chapter where Kaiser seems to leave behind both his anecdotal method and his focus on New York is the 90s chapter, the shortest in the book. Given the book's publication date, the shortness of this chapter isn't a surprise; and I wonder if at the time Kaiser wrote his history the decade seemed all too current to need much storytelling about. But it's a noticeable switch. The Gay Metropolis is an excellent and very readable popular history, but one wishes it could be updated to include developments in the 00s and 2010s, which were quite eventful decades as we all know.
The book is titled "Gay Metropolis" and for the most part this means New York. Almost every chapter dwells significantly on gay life as it existed in the NYC, but in doing so Kaiser manages to paint a picture of the country as a whole. In other words, "metropolis" does often mean NYC in the book, but not exclusively. And what happened in NYC and other cities tends to mirror movements and changes going on throughout the country. The chapters on the 70s and 80s discuss San Francisco in some depth too. The only chapter where Kaiser seems to leave behind both his anecdotal method and his focus on New York is the 90s chapter, the shortest in the book. Given the book's publication date, the shortness of this chapter isn't a surprise; and I wonder if at the time Kaiser wrote his history the decade seemed all too current to need much storytelling about. But it's a noticeable switch. The Gay Metropolis is an excellent and very readable popular history, but one wishes it could be updated to include developments in the 00s and 2010s, which were quite eventful decades as we all know.
August 17, 2025
Honestly, this book had me bored most of the time!
I was expecting some great things here but Kaiser's book falls way short.
Although the book is called The Gay Metropolis, the metropolis didn't feature enough for me. I was hoping for some insights into real New York venues, neighbourhoods, hidden secrets but I was disappointed.
The chapters about the 40's and the 50's were boring and repetitive, like listening to an old pisshead at the bar telling you about "back in my day"! There are only so many times you can read about a man trying to hide his sexuality but getting it on behind closed doors. Also it felt like New York featured very little, except perhaps mentioned by gay men joining the army or navy and passing through the city.
I was excited for the 60's/70's/80's chapters but they were much of the same. I was hoping for insights into the disco/vogue ballroom scenes and the influence of Latinx culture but no. It was Stonewall (predictable and heavily covered elsewhere), politics then AIDS!
Formulaic, repetitious and ultimately tedious. It feels like its taken me an age to get through.
If you're looking for an interesting book about LGBT history then this isn't it.
I was expecting some great things here but Kaiser's book falls way short.
Although the book is called The Gay Metropolis, the metropolis didn't feature enough for me. I was hoping for some insights into real New York venues, neighbourhoods, hidden secrets but I was disappointed.
The chapters about the 40's and the 50's were boring and repetitive, like listening to an old pisshead at the bar telling you about "back in my day"! There are only so many times you can read about a man trying to hide his sexuality but getting it on behind closed doors. Also it felt like New York featured very little, except perhaps mentioned by gay men joining the army or navy and passing through the city.
I was excited for the 60's/70's/80's chapters but they were much of the same. I was hoping for insights into the disco/vogue ballroom scenes and the influence of Latinx culture but no. It was Stonewall (predictable and heavily covered elsewhere), politics then AIDS!
Formulaic, repetitious and ultimately tedious. It feels like its taken me an age to get through.
If you're looking for an interesting book about LGBT history then this isn't it.
April 15, 2018
The Gay Metropolis covers queer history from the end of WWII through the '90s, hitting the high notes of Stonewall, Studio 54, and AIDS. It also delves into issues with which and people with whom I was unfamiliar (I was previously unaware of the New York Times' homophobia). I read it out of order, but this did nothing to dim the sparkle and optimism of author Charles Kaiser's prose.
As with all histories of this breadth, it's limited in its very nature. Only the broad strokes are covered. The AIDS epidemic, in particular, is brief, and queer people of color only make the occasional appearance.
I took off a star for the appalling editing. A cursory proofread would have caught the numerous and obvious typos (the number one used instead of the letter t is just one such mistake) that litter this otherwise fine book.
As with all histories of this breadth, it's limited in its very nature. Only the broad strokes are covered. The AIDS epidemic, in particular, is brief, and queer people of color only make the occasional appearance.
I took off a star for the appalling editing. A cursory proofread would have caught the numerous and obvious typos (the number one used instead of the letter t is just one such mistake) that litter this otherwise fine book.
August 25, 2022
I read /The Gay Metropolis: The Landmark History of Gay Life in America since World War II/, by Charles Kaiser:
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/11/ny...
Fascinating. As the book states, "No other group has ever transformed its status more rapidly or more dramatically than lesbians and gay men... [G]ay people have completed the first stages of an incredible voyage: a journey from invisibility to ubiquity, from shame to self-respect, and, finally, from the overwhelming tragedy of AIDS to the triumph of a rugged, resourceful, and caring community."
The book is excellent, though the title is a little misleading, as it's actually about gay history and gay life in New York City (the metropolis in question).
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/11/ny...
Fascinating. As the book states, "No other group has ever transformed its status more rapidly or more dramatically than lesbians and gay men... [G]ay people have completed the first stages of an incredible voyage: a journey from invisibility to ubiquity, from shame to self-respect, and, finally, from the overwhelming tragedy of AIDS to the triumph of a rugged, resourceful, and caring community."
The book is excellent, though the title is a little misleading, as it's actually about gay history and gay life in New York City (the metropolis in question).
May 22, 2018
Fascinating book about gay life in New York City (mostly) from World War II to the end of the 20th century. Thoroughly researched. I lived in New York for a while in the 1970s and knew some of the people mentioned in this book. It really brought back memories. However, I notice in the acknowledgements that there is a David White listed. I think that must be a different David White, because as far as I know, I never met this author or contributed anything to this book, unless he read something that I wrote for some other publication.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews