What do you think?
Rate this book
The Gay Year
Originally published in 1949.
JOE HARRIS, at twenty, enters the sordid world of New York's "third sex," a secret world spoken of only in whispers. With keen insight and rare perception, the author traces Joe's movements as a member of the gay life, a barren existence, rootless and without future.
JOE HARRIS, at twenty, enters the sordid world of New York's "third sex," a secret world spoken of only in whispers. With keen insight and rare perception, the author traces Joe's movements as a member of the gay life, a barren existence, rootless and without future.
267 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1949
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
July 8, 2022
3.5, rounded up.
This is another of those books that is cringe-worthy in many respects, due to the awful stereotyping of gay men and some really rancid prose - but taken another way, as a glimpse into gay culture in 1949, when it was first published, it is truly astonishing. The frankness and openness with which the author approached his subject I haven't seen in any other novel from the period.
As a theatre buff, the milieu of the '40's Broadway theatre scene was also a big boon for me. What keeps this from any higher rating is the occasional aforementioned unfortunate prose styling, and the abysmally downbeat ending - which at least does not end in murder or suicide, but instead with the protagonist deciding his 'gay year' was just a momentary aberration on the way to heterosexual bliss. Yuck.
This is another of those books that is cringe-worthy in many respects, due to the awful stereotyping of gay men and some really rancid prose - but taken another way, as a glimpse into gay culture in 1949, when it was first published, it is truly astonishing. The frankness and openness with which the author approached his subject I haven't seen in any other novel from the period.
As a theatre buff, the milieu of the '40's Broadway theatre scene was also a big boon for me. What keeps this from any higher rating is the occasional aforementioned unfortunate prose styling, and the abysmally downbeat ending - which at least does not end in murder or suicide, but instead with the protagonist deciding his 'gay year' was just a momentary aberration on the way to heterosexual bliss. Yuck.
October 14, 2012
Kind of a mixed reaction over this book.
I don’t feel the characters were fully fleshed out, although part of it could be I found it hard to relate to them. This kind of dark, moody pre-Stonewall literature, it seems in some ways as if it was written by a homophobe. If it was written today the person would be considered homophobic, writing a book containing two suicide attempts, one successful, and enough self-loathing homosexuals for a lifetime.
Part of the disconnect for me is that people must have really thought like this. There were suicides, even I at 35 can remember a time when every gay person you met had attempted suicide. In a lot of ways I don’t want to go back there, and perhaps that’s why there is such a mass rejection of pre-Stonewall literature, it’s that we as a group are not ready.
There’s plenty of forties lingo in the book:
It was good to be with Lou having a mug of coffee and chewing the rag. After what had happened to him this afternoon, Joe needed to chew the rag plenty.
But when someone falls in love, it’s instantly in love. It’s melodrama:
Joe sat beside the boy on the sofa. He pulled the sobbing head out of the pillows and slapped Harold’s face smartly.
I find nowadays very few face slaps.
And going back to the homophobia in the book, everyone is always so down:
…tiny, dark, ‘gay’ bars jammed with men and boys who, like themselves, were on the endless hunt for something to bring a little happiness into the bleakness called ‘the gay life’.
“I’ll never go for treatments—none of us ever will. I’d be afraid of what he might tell me—besides I don’t really want to help myself. I’m just weak and stupid and dumb and queer—that’s all. Weak and stupid and dumb and queer—.”
One of the guys meets a woman after trying suicide of course, who thinks she can turn him:
She recognized some of the familiar marks in this young man, but there was present another quality that told her this one was not meant for ‘the gay life’. She wondered if she could help him realize it.
“Joe, you know the story of Lucifer? If God’s brightest Angel fell from Grace, can we expect man to behave more judiciously?”
This equation of a gay life with Lucifer? I just don’t see why anyone would think someone chose to be gay with all these oppressive, negative connotations. Even this is later rationalized away:
Who created homosexuals? Maybe parents who failed to understand their sensitive sons, maybe the boys created themselves, maybe too stringent taboos on natural impulses—whatever it was, Joe concluded, it wasn’t God.
This idea seems popular from the time. To me, if gays were born gay it’s not their fault, if their parents made them gay it’s not their fault, so the answer is to say they made themselves, that way it can be their fault:
If the aggregate ‘they’ he’d hated so fiercely through his youth, had made him ‘gay,’ he had let them. He had given in to them. His coddling family couldn’t be blamed; he had allowed himself to be coddled.
So much self-hatred. It was all overwhelming for me.
And then, at the end of the book, to wipe it all away. As the title suggests, it’s simply a “Gay Year”. Then back to straight:
“I’m not really ‘gay’,” Joe repeated. “I’ve never really been homo. I’ve only been lonely.” It was as simple as that.
Most cases of homosexual love, Joe thought, were closer to bisexual than people recognized. Generally, one of the participants was womanly in his mental and emotional attitudes. If a man should be attracted to such a person, where is the homosexuality?
Yes so it turns out our hero was never really gay at all.
An interesting time capsule but not really a great reading book.
I don’t feel the characters were fully fleshed out, although part of it could be I found it hard to relate to them. This kind of dark, moody pre-Stonewall literature, it seems in some ways as if it was written by a homophobe. If it was written today the person would be considered homophobic, writing a book containing two suicide attempts, one successful, and enough self-loathing homosexuals for a lifetime.
Part of the disconnect for me is that people must have really thought like this. There were suicides, even I at 35 can remember a time when every gay person you met had attempted suicide. In a lot of ways I don’t want to go back there, and perhaps that’s why there is such a mass rejection of pre-Stonewall literature, it’s that we as a group are not ready.
There’s plenty of forties lingo in the book:
It was good to be with Lou having a mug of coffee and chewing the rag. After what had happened to him this afternoon, Joe needed to chew the rag plenty.
But when someone falls in love, it’s instantly in love. It’s melodrama:
Joe sat beside the boy on the sofa. He pulled the sobbing head out of the pillows and slapped Harold’s face smartly.
I find nowadays very few face slaps.
And going back to the homophobia in the book, everyone is always so down:
…tiny, dark, ‘gay’ bars jammed with men and boys who, like themselves, were on the endless hunt for something to bring a little happiness into the bleakness called ‘the gay life’.
“I’ll never go for treatments—none of us ever will. I’d be afraid of what he might tell me—besides I don’t really want to help myself. I’m just weak and stupid and dumb and queer—that’s all. Weak and stupid and dumb and queer—.”
One of the guys meets a woman after trying suicide of course, who thinks she can turn him:
She recognized some of the familiar marks in this young man, but there was present another quality that told her this one was not meant for ‘the gay life’. She wondered if she could help him realize it.
“Joe, you know the story of Lucifer? If God’s brightest Angel fell from Grace, can we expect man to behave more judiciously?”
This equation of a gay life with Lucifer? I just don’t see why anyone would think someone chose to be gay with all these oppressive, negative connotations. Even this is later rationalized away:
Who created homosexuals? Maybe parents who failed to understand their sensitive sons, maybe the boys created themselves, maybe too stringent taboos on natural impulses—whatever it was, Joe concluded, it wasn’t God.
This idea seems popular from the time. To me, if gays were born gay it’s not their fault, if their parents made them gay it’s not their fault, so the answer is to say they made themselves, that way it can be their fault:
If the aggregate ‘they’ he’d hated so fiercely through his youth, had made him ‘gay,’ he had let them. He had given in to them. His coddling family couldn’t be blamed; he had allowed himself to be coddled.
So much self-hatred. It was all overwhelming for me.
And then, at the end of the book, to wipe it all away. As the title suggests, it’s simply a “Gay Year”. Then back to straight:
“I’m not really ‘gay’,” Joe repeated. “I’ve never really been homo. I’ve only been lonely.” It was as simple as that.
Most cases of homosexual love, Joe thought, were closer to bisexual than people recognized. Generally, one of the participants was womanly in his mental and emotional attitudes. If a man should be attracted to such a person, where is the homosexuality?
Yes so it turns out our hero was never really gay at all.
An interesting time capsule but not really a great reading book.
June 13, 2015
The inside jacket cover of this book says, "The Gay Year has genuine social significance. It is an incisively depicted segment of New York society, not an indictment or a vindication but an attempt to understand--and perhaps instruct."
I agree wholeheartedly. Some of the views on homosexuality are outdated and cringe-worthy, but much of the book resonates; it deals with issues still plaguing queer culture in 2015. This book is an extraordinary act of bravery--Michael Jean de Forrest writes openly about facing yourself in a society of cheap hookups, self promotion, ambition, delusion, denial, hate crimes, and fame. It makes me reconsider how much things have actually changed since the 1940s.
If you allow yourself to consider the social and political climate of the 1940s while reading this book, instead of dismissing it outright because the many politically incorrect ideas we might gawk at in 2015, it becomes this gift to anyone in search of a little peace.
I agree wholeheartedly. Some of the views on homosexuality are outdated and cringe-worthy, but much of the book resonates; it deals with issues still plaguing queer culture in 2015. This book is an extraordinary act of bravery--Michael Jean de Forrest writes openly about facing yourself in a society of cheap hookups, self promotion, ambition, delusion, denial, hate crimes, and fame. It makes me reconsider how much things have actually changed since the 1940s.
If you allow yourself to consider the social and political climate of the 1940s while reading this book, instead of dismissing it outright because the many politically incorrect ideas we might gawk at in 2015, it becomes this gift to anyone in search of a little peace.
May 14, 2020
Really fascinating look into gay culture in New York City twenty years pre-Stonewall. Is it chock-full of stereotypes? Of course. Are there more than a fair share of cringe-worthy terms and thoughts by today's standards? You bet. Is it still worth the read? Absolutely.
As other reviewers have mentioned, this must be read with an understanding of the period and attitudes of the day. I was honestly surprised at how openly it described the "gay lifestyle" of the time - there is nothing even close to pornographic, but there is plenty more than innuendo. When you consider that Ricky & Lucy Ricardo couldn't even be shown sleeping in the same bed on TV a few years later as a straight married couple in the 50's, you'll be surprised to see the frankness with which the different characters' relationships are dealt with in this novel.
Unfortunately the novel should have ended about two chapters earlier to avoid a bit of a sermon on gay darkness and straight light. Perhaps this was necessary to include in order to get the novel published? Regardless, there are plenty of other valid ideas and themes to take away from reading this book without the final 'revelation'.
As other reviewers have mentioned, this must be read with an understanding of the period and attitudes of the day. I was honestly surprised at how openly it described the "gay lifestyle" of the time - there is nothing even close to pornographic, but there is plenty more than innuendo. When you consider that Ricky & Lucy Ricardo couldn't even be shown sleeping in the same bed on TV a few years later as a straight married couple in the 50's, you'll be surprised to see the frankness with which the different characters' relationships are dealt with in this novel.
Unfortunately the novel should have ended about two chapters earlier to avoid a bit of a sermon on gay darkness and straight light. Perhaps this was necessary to include in order to get the novel published? Regardless, there are plenty of other valid ideas and themes to take away from reading this book without the final 'revelation'.
August 29, 2020
Have you ever finished a book and thought that the main character was the least interesting person in it? That's how I felt about Joe Harris, the main character of The Gay Year. He was probably the least interesting person in this book, yet the author chose to focus the bulk of the novel on him, for some reason. I would have rather read a novel about Teddy or Nella, two of the minor characters featured. Aside from tales of woe from Joe the sad sack, The Gay Year dragged on and introduced too many characters to keep track of. Still, it raised some issues that are still timely today about gay men being conflicted over their sexuality, younger men being "kept" by older men, mental health issues, etc. This isn't a bad book, but it's not a great one either.
January 27, 2022
Found the original 1949 hardcover in an antique store. Definitely not a great book but a fascinating glimpse into NYC gay men at the time. Totally readable however and hard to believe it was published then. More than innuendo, definite stereotypes and guilt galore... but still recognizable themes after more than the 70 years which have passed since.
September 5, 2026
Five stars until the absolutely dreadful ending.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews