What do you think?
Rate this book
Gays Malos: una historia homosexual
Goodreads Choice Award
Winner for Readers' Favorite History & Biography (2022)Too many popular histories seek to establish heroes, pioneers and martyrs but as Huw Lemmey and Ben Miller argue, the past is filled with queer people whose sexualities and dastardly deeds have been overlooked. We all remember Oscar Wilde, but who speaks for Bosie? What about those ‘bad gays’ whose unexemplary lives reveals more than we might expect?
Part revisionist history, part historical biography and based on the hugely popular podcast series, Bad Gays subverts the notion of gay icons and queer heroes and asks what we can learn about LGBTQ history, sexuality and identity through its villains and baddies. From the Emperor Hadrian to notorious gangster Ronnie Kray, the authors excavate the buried history of queer lives. This includes fascist thugs, famous artists, austere puritans and debauched bon viveurs, imperialists, G-men and architects.
Together these amazing life stories expand and challenge the mainstream assumptions of sexual identity. They show that homosexuality itself was an idea that emerged in the nineteenth century and that its interpretation has been central to major historical moments of conflict from the ruptures of Weimar Republic to red-baiting in Cold War America.
Amusing, disturbing and fascinating, Bad Gays puts centre stage the queer villains and evil twinks in history.
Part revisionist history, part historical biography and based on the hugely popular podcast series, Bad Gays subverts the notion of gay icons and queer heroes and asks what we can learn about LGBTQ history, sexuality and identity through its villains and baddies. From the Emperor Hadrian to notorious gangster Ronnie Kray, the authors excavate the buried history of queer lives. This includes fascist thugs, famous artists, austere puritans and debauched bon viveurs, imperialists, G-men and architects.
Together these amazing life stories expand and challenge the mainstream assumptions of sexual identity. They show that homosexuality itself was an idea that emerged in the nineteenth century and that its interpretation has been central to major historical moments of conflict from the ruptures of Weimar Republic to red-baiting in Cold War America.
Amusing, disturbing and fascinating, Bad Gays puts centre stage the queer villains and evil twinks in history.
Paperback
First published May 31, 2022
999 people are currently reading
57824 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 992 reviews
August 13, 2025
queer villains and evil twinks you say? i’m in 😏
October 28, 2022
I only found out about this title because it popped up on my newsfeed. It is certainly not the kind of book I would stumble upon in my local vanilla bookstore, so thanks to my Goodreads friends for their consistent forays into the weird and wonderful!
I had just finished a book about Jeffrey Dahmer, probably the epitome of a ‘bad gay’, but curiously he is not included here. That points to a fundamental problem. With a title like ‘Bad Gays’, you’d expect a juicy rundown of a rogues’ gallery of horrible people who just happened to be gay. Well, yes and no. The problem is with that second part of the title, ‘A Homosexual History’.
It all begins as expected when the authors question why Oscar Wilde’s legacy endures as opposed to that of “the Machiavellian, anti-Semitic, and louche” Lord Alfred Douglas, or ‘Bosie’ as he was fondly known. They continue: “…[W]hy do we assume that Wilde’s life and attitudes shaped the track record of the project of homosexuality better than Bosie’s?” That phrase ‘project of homosexuality’ immediately raised my hackles.
The authors state that by examining the lives and sexualities of a range of “evil and complicated queers from our history”, the book “investigates the failure of homosexuality as an identity and a political project.” Note the conflation of ‘evil’ and ‘complex’, probably a half-baked attempt to explain what Lawrence of Arabia and Margaret Mead (incidentally the only woman here) have in common in terms of ‘badness’.
Below is the authors’ attempt to define their notion of ‘failure’:
The failure, however, of mainstream, actually existing white homosexuality to enact liberation and its embrace instead of full integration into the burning house of the couple-form, the family unit, and what we might hopefully call late-stage capitalism is real, and it is arranged on three primary axes: first, its separation from and fear of gender non-conformity; second, its simultaneous appropriation of the bodies and sexualities of racialised people and denial of those people’s full humanity, political participation, and equality; and third, its incessant focus on the bourgeois project of ‘sexuality’ itself.
There is a lot to unpack in that statement from the Introduction, and I am unconvinced that the book lives up to its premise. For one thing, it is difficult to deduce what Hadrian and Pim Fortuyn, firstly, have in common and, secondly, how they contribute to the so-called failure of the homosexual project.
I am aware that this book is based on a popular podcast, but therein lies its greatest weakness. The individual chapters are entertaining enough, if not offering anything new that even a casual student of gay history is likely to not already know. The heart of the book is in the above statement, and the authors seem to do a lot of unsuccessful shoehorning to come up with a unifying hypothesis.
What would have seemed an obvious approach is barely addressed, except for a stock statement in the Conclusion that “we are not just the protagonists, but also the products of history”: How do the authors themselves fit into the Great Homosexual Project, and how do their own (invariably privileged) positions in terms of class, wealth, sexual choices, politics and history influence their ultimate selection of ‘bad gays’. After all, there are only 14 listed here. Surely you could come up with a completely different argument by selecting another, diametrically opposed bunch of gay idiots.
There is value to the argument that the leaders of the so-called ‘gay movement’ “were often not working-class or people of colour, but instead members of the emerging bourgeoisie who sought to assign positive values to their sexual acts within the prevailing value systems of their time.” Yes, Stonewall was a protest by marginalised drag queens. If you look at progress since that tipping point, especially regarding the treatment of trans people, the path has not always been on the straight and narrow. And the resurgence of right wing attitudes and general extremism and intolerance globally is of huge concern.
However, while the authors rightfully point out that the Great Homosexual Project has “failed to live up to its utopian promises of liberation” – a statement that clearly is going to read differently in Africa or the Middle East than it does in the US – it is a bit of a leap to claim that homosexuality itself does not exist at all outside of the white picket fences of a fiercely controlled and regulated social construct.
The authors conclude, rather alarmingly, that “The history of homosexuality is a long history of failure – failure to understand of ourselves, failure how we relate to society, and the failures of racism and exclusion.” They unpack this broad statement a bit further:
It is not always so easy, especially when subjects are marked by whiteness and other forms of power and privilege, to neatly separate the good from the bad, the right from the wrong. The answer, though, is not to simply stan our heroes and shush up about their flaws and faults; rather, it’s to understand how people have made and been made by history, how and why they have failed, and how and why we might succeed.
That is a welcome, if cautious, note of optimism in an otherwise pretty dismal and dour book. It seems contrary to their idea of history straitjacketing or pigeonholing the present that the authors quote a seminal text from 1977, a completely different world in gay years. This, of course, is ‘The Faggots and Their Friends between Revolutions’ by Larry Mitchell: “Since the men are always building as many empires as they can, there are always one or two falling and so one or two places for the faggots and their friends to go.”
I had just finished a book about Jeffrey Dahmer, probably the epitome of a ‘bad gay’, but curiously he is not included here. That points to a fundamental problem. With a title like ‘Bad Gays’, you’d expect a juicy rundown of a rogues’ gallery of horrible people who just happened to be gay. Well, yes and no. The problem is with that second part of the title, ‘A Homosexual History’.
It all begins as expected when the authors question why Oscar Wilde’s legacy endures as opposed to that of “the Machiavellian, anti-Semitic, and louche” Lord Alfred Douglas, or ‘Bosie’ as he was fondly known. They continue: “…[W]hy do we assume that Wilde’s life and attitudes shaped the track record of the project of homosexuality better than Bosie’s?” That phrase ‘project of homosexuality’ immediately raised my hackles.
The authors state that by examining the lives and sexualities of a range of “evil and complicated queers from our history”, the book “investigates the failure of homosexuality as an identity and a political project.” Note the conflation of ‘evil’ and ‘complex’, probably a half-baked attempt to explain what Lawrence of Arabia and Margaret Mead (incidentally the only woman here) have in common in terms of ‘badness’.
Below is the authors’ attempt to define their notion of ‘failure’:
The failure, however, of mainstream, actually existing white homosexuality to enact liberation and its embrace instead of full integration into the burning house of the couple-form, the family unit, and what we might hopefully call late-stage capitalism is real, and it is arranged on three primary axes: first, its separation from and fear of gender non-conformity; second, its simultaneous appropriation of the bodies and sexualities of racialised people and denial of those people’s full humanity, political participation, and equality; and third, its incessant focus on the bourgeois project of ‘sexuality’ itself.
There is a lot to unpack in that statement from the Introduction, and I am unconvinced that the book lives up to its premise. For one thing, it is difficult to deduce what Hadrian and Pim Fortuyn, firstly, have in common and, secondly, how they contribute to the so-called failure of the homosexual project.
I am aware that this book is based on a popular podcast, but therein lies its greatest weakness. The individual chapters are entertaining enough, if not offering anything new that even a casual student of gay history is likely to not already know. The heart of the book is in the above statement, and the authors seem to do a lot of unsuccessful shoehorning to come up with a unifying hypothesis.
What would have seemed an obvious approach is barely addressed, except for a stock statement in the Conclusion that “we are not just the protagonists, but also the products of history”: How do the authors themselves fit into the Great Homosexual Project, and how do their own (invariably privileged) positions in terms of class, wealth, sexual choices, politics and history influence their ultimate selection of ‘bad gays’. After all, there are only 14 listed here. Surely you could come up with a completely different argument by selecting another, diametrically opposed bunch of gay idiots.
There is value to the argument that the leaders of the so-called ‘gay movement’ “were often not working-class or people of colour, but instead members of the emerging bourgeoisie who sought to assign positive values to their sexual acts within the prevailing value systems of their time.” Yes, Stonewall was a protest by marginalised drag queens. If you look at progress since that tipping point, especially regarding the treatment of trans people, the path has not always been on the straight and narrow. And the resurgence of right wing attitudes and general extremism and intolerance globally is of huge concern.
However, while the authors rightfully point out that the Great Homosexual Project has “failed to live up to its utopian promises of liberation” – a statement that clearly is going to read differently in Africa or the Middle East than it does in the US – it is a bit of a leap to claim that homosexuality itself does not exist at all outside of the white picket fences of a fiercely controlled and regulated social construct.
The authors conclude, rather alarmingly, that “The history of homosexuality is a long history of failure – failure to understand of ourselves, failure how we relate to society, and the failures of racism and exclusion.” They unpack this broad statement a bit further:
It is not always so easy, especially when subjects are marked by whiteness and other forms of power and privilege, to neatly separate the good from the bad, the right from the wrong. The answer, though, is not to simply stan our heroes and shush up about their flaws and faults; rather, it’s to understand how people have made and been made by history, how and why they have failed, and how and why we might succeed.
That is a welcome, if cautious, note of optimism in an otherwise pretty dismal and dour book. It seems contrary to their idea of history straitjacketing or pigeonholing the present that the authors quote a seminal text from 1977, a completely different world in gay years. This, of course, is ‘The Faggots and Their Friends between Revolutions’ by Larry Mitchell: “Since the men are always building as many empires as they can, there are always one or two falling and so one or two places for the faggots and their friends to go.”
June 15, 2022
Although I enjoyed this book, I was left wishing more than just one woman was profiled. I know that lesbians aren't, perhaps, the primary academic subject for the authors. But I'd think they'd encounter a few more "bad gay" women or trans people over the course of their research. And, paradoxically, the book suffers from a lack of diverse, queer representation.
October 31, 2022
sick ass radical queer examinations of complicated queer histories !!!
June 21, 2022
1.5 stars.
The only way I can explain this book is if you imagine your teacher taking about an upcoming subject that you find really interesting and actually look forward to. Then when the time comes the teacher takes that really interesting subject and makes it the most boring thing ever. You know the kind of lesson where you have to focus on wiggling your toes so you don't fall asleep and then you leave the class remembering nothing and feeling disappointed. Yeah, that's how I feel right now.
The only way I can explain this book is if you imagine your teacher taking about an upcoming subject that you find really interesting and actually look forward to. Then when the time comes the teacher takes that really interesting subject and makes it the most boring thing ever. You know the kind of lesson where you have to focus on wiggling your toes so you don't fall asleep and then you leave the class remembering nothing and feeling disappointed. Yeah, that's how I feel right now.
June 16, 2022
1.5 stars rounded up. Where to begin? First, the good: some interesting profiles of gays who are notable that I had never heard of. That's about all the good I can say.
For a book about "bad gays" (and there are no shortage of them around!) there sure were a lot of gays who are either ambiguously bad and only bad read in very modern light. The author basically suggests every queer in history who wasn't radically anti-capitalist, anti-imperial, and fully intersectional was "bad." I'm not sure I agree.
A final point: there are ways to write books that are simultaneously academic AND readily accessible. Throwing in a bunch of fancy words and then adding "you go girl!" isn't one I support.
For a book about "bad gays" (and there are no shortage of them around!) there sure were a lot of gays who are either ambiguously bad and only bad read in very modern light. The author basically suggests every queer in history who wasn't radically anti-capitalist, anti-imperial, and fully intersectional was "bad." I'm not sure I agree.
A final point: there are ways to write books that are simultaneously academic AND readily accessible. Throwing in a bunch of fancy words and then adding "you go girl!" isn't one I support.
July 7, 2022
Messy gays for days.
Let’s start with the fact -if this had less graphic descriptions of sex- it would be so bloody perfect as material to be used and taught in schools. This book covers so much history, especially for Europeans and English folk, that our historians usually try to hide or barely mention beneath piles of text.
Whilst I enjoyed the brief comedic moments, and queer humour we can all bask in, it was also surprisingly hard hitting.
Though this book primarily focussed on the tales of white, queer males; it’s mostly from an aspect of looking at how their actions had severe consequences for others like the trans, BIPOC and other queer communities. Or how situations like the aids epidemic were catered to healing the rich white elite.
Entries like those that discuss the English implemented, enslavement of people en masse in the Congo. History that is devoid of us in schools for fear of making us look barbaric that NEEDS to be taught. It was passages like this that had me incredibly thankful for this books existence. I will say it is fairly graphic, and incredibly shocking, and I am glad it’s being brought more so to light.
It mentions the Pits and Perverts benefits, history I’m wildly intrigued by and aware of, but also more out there tales I had no idea of.
There is also a lot of mentions how Jewish people were affected by the actions of certain queer men & how prevalent the antisemitism was within the queer community.
Overall I was really taken aback by this in the best way, I was expecting something piled with humour and got something so entirely eye opening that really shines a light on how singular gay culture was in the light of acceptance. Whilst it also displayed struggles, as queer and trans people, it greatly demonstrated that being queer does not exempt you from harming others. Quite often in history it showed the willingness to throw other at risk groups under the bus for one’s acceptance or benefit.
I would seriously recommend this.
Thank you to verso for sending me a copy, this was a brilliant read.
TW’s listed below, please skip if you want no spoilers/info.
TW’s / CW’s I noted: Mentions of physical and mental abuse of children, SA, homophobia, colonisation, enslaved people, SA , torture and forced work of enslaved people, racism, antisemitism, holocaust mentions, corrective surgery and conversion therapy mentions of both gay and trans people, grooming mentions, mentions of hanging, beheading, scarifices, gore, amputation scenes, witchcraft, parental abuse, graphic sex, group sex mentions, bodily mutilation, starvation, Islamaphobia.
Let’s start with the fact -if this had less graphic descriptions of sex- it would be so bloody perfect as material to be used and taught in schools. This book covers so much history, especially for Europeans and English folk, that our historians usually try to hide or barely mention beneath piles of text.
Whilst I enjoyed the brief comedic moments, and queer humour we can all bask in, it was also surprisingly hard hitting.
Though this book primarily focussed on the tales of white, queer males; it’s mostly from an aspect of looking at how their actions had severe consequences for others like the trans, BIPOC and other queer communities. Or how situations like the aids epidemic were catered to healing the rich white elite.
Entries like those that discuss the English implemented, enslavement of people en masse in the Congo. History that is devoid of us in schools for fear of making us look barbaric that NEEDS to be taught. It was passages like this that had me incredibly thankful for this books existence. I will say it is fairly graphic, and incredibly shocking, and I am glad it’s being brought more so to light.
It mentions the Pits and Perverts benefits, history I’m wildly intrigued by and aware of, but also more out there tales I had no idea of.
There is also a lot of mentions how Jewish people were affected by the actions of certain queer men & how prevalent the antisemitism was within the queer community.
Overall I was really taken aback by this in the best way, I was expecting something piled with humour and got something so entirely eye opening that really shines a light on how singular gay culture was in the light of acceptance. Whilst it also displayed struggles, as queer and trans people, it greatly demonstrated that being queer does not exempt you from harming others. Quite often in history it showed the willingness to throw other at risk groups under the bus for one’s acceptance or benefit.
I would seriously recommend this.
Thank you to verso for sending me a copy, this was a brilliant read.
TW’s listed below, please skip if you want no spoilers/info.
TW’s / CW’s I noted: Mentions of physical and mental abuse of children, SA, homophobia, colonisation, enslaved people, SA , torture and forced work of enslaved people, racism, antisemitism, holocaust mentions, corrective surgery and conversion therapy mentions of both gay and trans people, grooming mentions, mentions of hanging, beheading, scarifices, gore, amputation scenes, witchcraft, parental abuse, graphic sex, group sex mentions, bodily mutilation, starvation, Islamaphobia.
August 6, 2023
This has to be one of the worst books I have come across, I won't say written because it's origins as a collection of pod casts is abundantly clear in its appalling prose, there is a difference between spoken and written prose! You can't transcribe the spoken word and reproduce it! I also won't say read because after reading four of the chapters/essays/segments I was having problem restraining myself from physically assaulting the book and as I was reading a library copy I didn't feel right doing so - though I was tempted.
I hate books with misleading titles and 'Bad Gays' is a whopper of a misleading title. It is hard to understand why most of the individuals are here. Even the authors don't make attempts to define why most of those included are 'bad'. Clearly all of them are likely to found wanting by the standards of a coffee klatch of urban gays searching out each others failure to comply with whatever is deemed correct with the assiduousness of someone searching out lice. Under that sort of scrutiny none of them would pass as 'good'. They certainly wouldn't have the correct jargon when it came to framing their beliefs but are they bad? Why chose, from all the less than likeable choices who held the title Roman emperor, the figure of Hadrian as a bad gay? What of Heliogabalus? As an Irishman I found the inclusion of Roger Casement in this book offensive in almost unimaginable way.
It is clear that the authors haven't even read most of the, admittedly few books, referenced in their bibliography. Certainly not books by or about their subjects. For example they tie themselves in knots and quote various stodgy 'queer theory' at times when discussing Casement working within the British Imperial system and how this could affect how he viewed colonial subjects. If they'd actually read Casement's diaries in any depth, or any biography of him, they would have found plenty of his writings not only sympathetic to colonial peoples and harshly anti-colonial and was almost unique for his time in believing that indigenous peoples should not acclimatise themselves to or adopt 'western' ways, attitudes, clothing, etc. He did not see them as inferior, and certainly didn't think that the west had anything to offer them. To denigrate him in the way this book does amounts to another character assassination one that I find unforgivable.
The same lack of real understanding or research is even more apparent on Margaret Mead (again a bad gay? Was she even gay? The authors refer to her as bisexual, queer and gay interchangeably and confusingly). The most extraordinary thing about Mead and homosexuality was that in her works on Samoa and elsewhere she claims there was no homosexuality, particularly amongst males, because the young are reared free of the sexual hangups and taboos of the west. If children in the USA and elsewhere were brought up like Samoan children there would be no homosexual 'problem'. Of course the truth was she was blind to the very lively and open manifestations of homosexuality in the cultures she studied. The authors are so busy obsessing over Mead's personal life that they have missed the most significantly 'anti-gay' theme in Mead's writings but then it is clear that the author didn't even read a Wikipedia article worth of information about Mead's anthropological work.
This is particularly true in their dismissive and condemnatory references to Mead's mentor the anthropologist Franz Boas. You would never know from the way his work and research is presented that this was the man who successfully demolished the theories race as spouted by eugenicists. Boas studied the children of immigrants in the USA and demonstrated that they were physically and mentally different from their parents. That rather than there being fixed physical and mental which were determined by what 'race' you were it was your environment which was the major influence on physical and mental development so they changed with each generation. Environment was the key and his work prevented eugenics becoming established within academia. He is denounced by many far right white supremacist groups in the USA and elsewhere as a hate figure and traitor to the 'white' race to this day.
Was Boas perfect? No. Was the anthology done by him and others flawed? Of course. But the very tools he developed to study other cultures were also used to show the flaws in his work and develop new ways (clearly it has escaped the author's notice that a definition of any scientific theory is that it is disprovable). But Boas and Mead were dedicated to finding the truth. That they failed in many ways is true but that doesn't make a person bad.
It is annoying to write so much about such a bad book - but when another popular cultural commentator describes this collection of mediocre pod cast transcripts as 'revelatory' I can not help being annoyed and also shocked. Are readers really astounded that king James VI and I of Britain, Frederick the Great of Prussia and the Roman emperor Hadrian chose partners of their own sex? The same can be said of Yukio Mishima, Philip Johnson and Roy Cohen. That some of these people held unpleasant jobs, did unpleasant things and weren't always nice people is hardly news? Have I missed something? Have youngsters over the past twenty years or so grown up believing or being taught that being homosexual, queer, or 'gay' was a sign of being automatically a good person?
Let me say it again - this book is rubbish and an insult to anyone's intelligence.
I hate books with misleading titles and 'Bad Gays' is a whopper of a misleading title. It is hard to understand why most of the individuals are here. Even the authors don't make attempts to define why most of those included are 'bad'. Clearly all of them are likely to found wanting by the standards of a coffee klatch of urban gays searching out each others failure to comply with whatever is deemed correct with the assiduousness of someone searching out lice. Under that sort of scrutiny none of them would pass as 'good'. They certainly wouldn't have the correct jargon when it came to framing their beliefs but are they bad? Why chose, from all the less than likeable choices who held the title Roman emperor, the figure of Hadrian as a bad gay? What of Heliogabalus? As an Irishman I found the inclusion of Roger Casement in this book offensive in almost unimaginable way.
It is clear that the authors haven't even read most of the, admittedly few books, referenced in their bibliography. Certainly not books by or about their subjects. For example they tie themselves in knots and quote various stodgy 'queer theory' at times when discussing Casement working within the British Imperial system and how this could affect how he viewed colonial subjects. If they'd actually read Casement's diaries in any depth, or any biography of him, they would have found plenty of his writings not only sympathetic to colonial peoples and harshly anti-colonial and was almost unique for his time in believing that indigenous peoples should not acclimatise themselves to or adopt 'western' ways, attitudes, clothing, etc. He did not see them as inferior, and certainly didn't think that the west had anything to offer them. To denigrate him in the way this book does amounts to another character assassination one that I find unforgivable.
The same lack of real understanding or research is even more apparent on Margaret Mead (again a bad gay? Was she even gay? The authors refer to her as bisexual, queer and gay interchangeably and confusingly). The most extraordinary thing about Mead and homosexuality was that in her works on Samoa and elsewhere she claims there was no homosexuality, particularly amongst males, because the young are reared free of the sexual hangups and taboos of the west. If children in the USA and elsewhere were brought up like Samoan children there would be no homosexual 'problem'. Of course the truth was she was blind to the very lively and open manifestations of homosexuality in the cultures she studied. The authors are so busy obsessing over Mead's personal life that they have missed the most significantly 'anti-gay' theme in Mead's writings but then it is clear that the author didn't even read a Wikipedia article worth of information about Mead's anthropological work.
This is particularly true in their dismissive and condemnatory references to Mead's mentor the anthropologist Franz Boas. You would never know from the way his work and research is presented that this was the man who successfully demolished the theories race as spouted by eugenicists. Boas studied the children of immigrants in the USA and demonstrated that they were physically and mentally different from their parents. That rather than there being fixed physical and mental which were determined by what 'race' you were it was your environment which was the major influence on physical and mental development so they changed with each generation. Environment was the key and his work prevented eugenics becoming established within academia. He is denounced by many far right white supremacist groups in the USA and elsewhere as a hate figure and traitor to the 'white' race to this day.
Was Boas perfect? No. Was the anthology done by him and others flawed? Of course. But the very tools he developed to study other cultures were also used to show the flaws in his work and develop new ways (clearly it has escaped the author's notice that a definition of any scientific theory is that it is disprovable). But Boas and Mead were dedicated to finding the truth. That they failed in many ways is true but that doesn't make a person bad.
It is annoying to write so much about such a bad book - but when another popular cultural commentator describes this collection of mediocre pod cast transcripts as 'revelatory' I can not help being annoyed and also shocked. Are readers really astounded that king James VI and I of Britain, Frederick the Great of Prussia and the Roman emperor Hadrian chose partners of their own sex? The same can be said of Yukio Mishima, Philip Johnson and Roy Cohen. That some of these people held unpleasant jobs, did unpleasant things and weren't always nice people is hardly news? Have I missed something? Have youngsters over the past twenty years or so grown up believing or being taught that being homosexual, queer, or 'gay' was a sign of being automatically a good person?
Let me say it again - this book is rubbish and an insult to anyone's intelligence.
June 6, 2022
Currently binge-listening the podcast - I mean, episode 1 already references Klaus Theweleit, and the show goes on citing tons of sources, so it's super scholarly, but also evidently relevant and damn interesting.
March 1, 2024
While I found the content of this book incredibly fascinating and very much enjoyed learning more about the historical figures profiled, I found myself getting a bit frustrated by the mismatch between the title, subtitle, and premise of the book and its actual content. Some of the historical figures were not particularly bad (or bad at all), or if they were, their badness was not actually explained in the chapter and was only discovered when I did further research on my own. There were also a few figures included, who were not, in fact, homosexual but bisexual, and the erasure of their bisexuality as they were folded into homosexuality for the purposes of simplicity in this book rubbed me the wrong way.
Overall, I enjoyed learning about the selected figures and found the commentary on the development of both our understanding and societal treatment of members of the LGBQIA+ community quite interesting. I do, however, believe that this book didn't quite live up to the premise nor its potential.
Trigger/Content Warnings: death, torture, homophobia, violence, anti-semitism
You can watch me review this book & all of the other 2022 Goodreads Choice Awards Winners here: https://youtu.be/fFKXJ1gsZA8
You can watch me talk about all the books I read in February as I set up my reading journal here: https://youtu.be/NY7bgSmoggM
You can find me on...
Youtube | Instagram | TikTok
You can join our book club over on Patreon...
PBB Book Club
Overall, I enjoyed learning about the selected figures and found the commentary on the development of both our understanding and societal treatment of members of the LGBQIA+ community quite interesting. I do, however, believe that this book didn't quite live up to the premise nor its potential.
Trigger/Content Warnings: death, torture, homophobia, violence, anti-semitism
You can watch me review this book & all of the other 2022 Goodreads Choice Awards Winners here: https://youtu.be/fFKXJ1gsZA8
You can watch me talk about all the books I read in February as I set up my reading journal here: https://youtu.be/NY7bgSmoggM
You can find me on...
Youtube | Instagram | TikTok
You can join our book club over on Patreon...
PBB Book Club
January 8, 2023
welcome to 202-Queer 🌈✨, the year where i only read queer books and finally have fun 🌈✨
i went an entire year without reading any nonfiction (unless you count the articles i have to read for work) but there's a lot of queer nonfic on my tbr this year which makes me nervous as, full disclosure, i am quite stupid 🥺
i enjoyed the gay little history lesson. it wasn't really what i expected and i am unsure on how the decision on which gays are "bad" was made - some where like literal nazis while some didn't really... do much.
i also sometimes felt like the structure of the history lesson was all over the place and we were jumping from a random point to another and it was hard to follow.
but i still enjoyed listening to the audiobook and some of the quotes in this were wild!!
i went an entire year without reading any nonfiction (unless you count the articles i have to read for work) but there's a lot of queer nonfic on my tbr this year which makes me nervous as, full disclosure, i am quite stupid 🥺
i enjoyed the gay little history lesson. it wasn't really what i expected and i am unsure on how the decision on which gays are "bad" was made - some where like literal nazis while some didn't really... do much.
i also sometimes felt like the structure of the history lesson was all over the place and we were jumping from a random point to another and it was hard to follow.
but i still enjoyed listening to the audiobook and some of the quotes in this were wild!!
June 26, 2022
I'm not sure what definition of bad is being used here. Legally bad at the time? Then Casement counts. In service to an Empire? Then yes to Lawrence. But it is very confusing. There is only one lesbian, and only one person who is not a white European or American. And must of the entries are well known.
But it is an entertaining read.
But it is an entertaining read.
May 26, 2023
Rating: ⭐⭐⭐
Genre: Nonfiction
Huw Lemmey and Ben Miller's book "Bad Gays: A Homosexual History" explores the lives of fourteen bad gays, from the Hellenistic emperor Hadrian to the Far Right Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn. In the book, gay people from history who do not appeal to us or who we cannot elevate to heroic status are discussed. It examines the definitions of badness, and homosexuality, and how historically we have understood the connection between the two while creating an alternative "homosexual history" from the lives of difficult and troublesome queers.
The writers contend that too many popular histories aim to build heroes, pioneers, and martyrs while ignoring the sexualities and evil deeds of the numerous gay people who lived in the past. This definition is extremely broad. It is possibly too broad and inevitably subjective, depending on how you look at the different circumstances in each case. This book is about those people you may not have heard about. It is about those bad people who exhibited some or many traits that one could call problematic and questionable.
Since this is a work of nonfiction, I always look for the knowledge and new information it provides rather than the entertainment it may offer. The authors featured a lot of historical figures that were unfamiliar to me, and even though I was familiar with some of them, I now have a fresh perspective on them after reading about their other side. There were some of these men who were very awful and who can be categorically labeled as "bad gays," but there were also some of these men whose stories or situations were not that clear or the proof was not that significant to label them as evil people. The book's writing style is not particularly engaging, yet it does not detract from the overall experience of reading it. In general, I liked reading this book, and I am grateful to the writers for including a list of all the resources they used in case any reader is interested in learning more about the subject.
Genre: Nonfiction
Huw Lemmey and Ben Miller's book "Bad Gays: A Homosexual History" explores the lives of fourteen bad gays, from the Hellenistic emperor Hadrian to the Far Right Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn. In the book, gay people from history who do not appeal to us or who we cannot elevate to heroic status are discussed. It examines the definitions of badness, and homosexuality, and how historically we have understood the connection between the two while creating an alternative "homosexual history" from the lives of difficult and troublesome queers.
The writers contend that too many popular histories aim to build heroes, pioneers, and martyrs while ignoring the sexualities and evil deeds of the numerous gay people who lived in the past. This definition is extremely broad. It is possibly too broad and inevitably subjective, depending on how you look at the different circumstances in each case. This book is about those people you may not have heard about. It is about those bad people who exhibited some or many traits that one could call problematic and questionable.
Since this is a work of nonfiction, I always look for the knowledge and new information it provides rather than the entertainment it may offer. The authors featured a lot of historical figures that were unfamiliar to me, and even though I was familiar with some of them, I now have a fresh perspective on them after reading about their other side. There were some of these men who were very awful and who can be categorically labeled as "bad gays," but there were also some of these men whose stories or situations were not that clear or the proof was not that significant to label them as evil people. The book's writing style is not particularly engaging, yet it does not detract from the overall experience of reading it. In general, I liked reading this book, and I am grateful to the writers for including a list of all the resources they used in case any reader is interested in learning more about the subject.
March 21, 2024
Unfortunately, this didn't work for me.
Bad Gays: A Homosexual History has a couple of interesting premises: To investigate the "gay identity" as it has formed and shifted over time, and to uncouple the idea of morality from queerness. It's a more academic and theoretical text than I originally expected, but without being dry or otherwise dull. There's this great thing where the book will have an extended passage diving into the historical record, then punctuate it with a quippy phrase (something like "This is proof that discrimination against bottoms has a long history."). This sense of humor really worked for me, and I think adds a nice thread through the book to compare/contrast attitudes from history and the modern day.
But the larger execution of this book was, frankly, a flop. Bad Gays isn't really committed to its stated thesis; instead, it provides a social history of a very narrow subsection of white gay men. This it does well - it's obviously well-researched and presents this history as clear and engaging to the reader. But, well...it's not exactly what the book says it's doing. I've talked before about how I think you have to meet a book on its own terms; in other words, don't turn to a book about apples and ask why there's no chapters on oranges. But if a book says it's about apples and then provides 12 chapters on Gala Apples and 1 chapter on Granny Smith and 1 chapter on Red Delicious then I think it's fair to go ?????
This book has 1 chapter on a lesbian (?) woman, 1 chapter on a Japanese man, and the rest of the book is about white gay men. I say "gay men" even when the book does talk about bisexuals because the authors make the odd choice to ignore this bisexuality completely in favor of speaking only on their relationships with men. And yes, this book is about how same-sex relationships were perceived, but it consistently argues about constructed and shifting identities concerning queerness, and I just don't see how you don't bring bisexuality into that conversation when historically attested to by the book's subjects. My point here is that this book isn't really providing an overview of the vastness of queer identities, it's really only looking at one kind of identity, which is fine if you say that's what you're going to do, but this book is kind of saying that it's doing the opposite. There's an argument here about the availability of historical records and the ethics of arguing historical identities, but this is a conversation Bad Gays is constantly embroiled in and still fails to really address in regards to its blind spots.
I'm also confused by the "Bad" part of "Bad Gays." It's not clear why these figures in particular are being outlined - why Hadrian over Alexander the Great (a famously worse gay?) What do we gain by highlighting other figures here who weren't actual immoral - and in fact relatively progressive - but who were in violation of the law? The chronology of these figures makes for a very neat story of white gay men in society, so that's my guess, but it's still not in service of the stated purpose of the book. Even when we do get to the Actually Bad People, the book feels...distracted. It's less focused on those actions and more focused on the historical context. Again - fine, there's value in that, it's what the book adds that a Wikipedia article can't - but it's still only tangential to the thesis.
The chapter about Roger Casement is what really made me set this down. I was a bit torn on the ethics of providing full excerpts from Casement's personal diaries (detailing his sexual encounters) when these were used to garner support for his eventual execution. On one hand, I understand the value of providing evidence of queer history and experience from the mouths of those who have lived it. On the other, this felt gratuitous and disrespectful. Furthermore, the discussion of race and sexuality in this chapter was...off-putting. Again, I get the argument that yes, people may find comfort and common understanding when othered by society, regardless of the stated reasoning for that othering. But the perspective that appears to supersede that here is that Casement learned to Be A Better Gay Person because he was paying 18-year-olds in South America for sex (See page 122: "Casement was part of a group of gay men - not a group that understood itself necessarily as such, but a group we can definitely think of as relatively coherent in hindsight - who understood their homosexuality as part of a broader project of metropolitan anticolonial radicalism...In contrast to narratives of the Amazon as a woman to be deflowered, Casement's Amazonian sex was connected to anti-imperialism.") Oh, okay. Hm. I don't know about that one. It's worth noting that the book doesn't present that this as part of the 'Bad Gay' narrative, but instead presents this as a positive, and highlights Casement as the "most uncomplicatedly good man that we are discussing in this book."
Many of my takes here are couched in "Look, I GET IT, but-" because I think this book is doing a decent job of something else than what it says it's doing. And maybe if I'd actually finished this book lol I would have a different perspective (though based on other reviews uhh I don't think so). If you're looking for a well-written, contextual book about the history of gay identity of white men in Western culture, this is a good one. But beyond that - I'd look elsewhere.
Bad Gays: A Homosexual History has a couple of interesting premises: To investigate the "gay identity" as it has formed and shifted over time, and to uncouple the idea of morality from queerness. It's a more academic and theoretical text than I originally expected, but without being dry or otherwise dull. There's this great thing where the book will have an extended passage diving into the historical record, then punctuate it with a quippy phrase (something like "This is proof that discrimination against bottoms has a long history."). This sense of humor really worked for me, and I think adds a nice thread through the book to compare/contrast attitudes from history and the modern day.
But the larger execution of this book was, frankly, a flop. Bad Gays isn't really committed to its stated thesis; instead, it provides a social history of a very narrow subsection of white gay men. This it does well - it's obviously well-researched and presents this history as clear and engaging to the reader. But, well...it's not exactly what the book says it's doing. I've talked before about how I think you have to meet a book on its own terms; in other words, don't turn to a book about apples and ask why there's no chapters on oranges. But if a book says it's about apples and then provides 12 chapters on Gala Apples and 1 chapter on Granny Smith and 1 chapter on Red Delicious then I think it's fair to go ?????
This book has 1 chapter on a lesbian (?) woman, 1 chapter on a Japanese man, and the rest of the book is about white gay men. I say "gay men" even when the book does talk about bisexuals because the authors make the odd choice to ignore this bisexuality completely in favor of speaking only on their relationships with men. And yes, this book is about how same-sex relationships were perceived, but it consistently argues about constructed and shifting identities concerning queerness, and I just don't see how you don't bring bisexuality into that conversation when historically attested to by the book's subjects. My point here is that this book isn't really providing an overview of the vastness of queer identities, it's really only looking at one kind of identity, which is fine if you say that's what you're going to do, but this book is kind of saying that it's doing the opposite. There's an argument here about the availability of historical records and the ethics of arguing historical identities, but this is a conversation Bad Gays is constantly embroiled in and still fails to really address in regards to its blind spots.
I'm also confused by the "Bad" part of "Bad Gays." It's not clear why these figures in particular are being outlined - why Hadrian over Alexander the Great (a famously worse gay?) What do we gain by highlighting other figures here who weren't actual immoral - and in fact relatively progressive - but who were in violation of the law? The chronology of these figures makes for a very neat story of white gay men in society, so that's my guess, but it's still not in service of the stated purpose of the book. Even when we do get to the Actually Bad People, the book feels...distracted. It's less focused on those actions and more focused on the historical context. Again - fine, there's value in that, it's what the book adds that a Wikipedia article can't - but it's still only tangential to the thesis.
The chapter about Roger Casement is what really made me set this down. I was a bit torn on the ethics of providing full excerpts from Casement's personal diaries (detailing his sexual encounters) when these were used to garner support for his eventual execution. On one hand, I understand the value of providing evidence of queer history and experience from the mouths of those who have lived it. On the other, this felt gratuitous and disrespectful. Furthermore, the discussion of race and sexuality in this chapter was...off-putting. Again, I get the argument that yes, people may find comfort and common understanding when othered by society, regardless of the stated reasoning for that othering. But the perspective that appears to supersede that here is that Casement learned to Be A Better Gay Person because he was paying 18-year-olds in South America for sex (See page 122: "Casement was part of a group of gay men - not a group that understood itself necessarily as such, but a group we can definitely think of as relatively coherent in hindsight - who understood their homosexuality as part of a broader project of metropolitan anticolonial radicalism...In contrast to narratives of the Amazon as a woman to be deflowered, Casement's Amazonian sex was connected to anti-imperialism.") Oh, okay. Hm. I don't know about that one. It's worth noting that the book doesn't present that this as part of the 'Bad Gay' narrative, but instead presents this as a positive, and highlights Casement as the "most uncomplicatedly good man that we are discussing in this book."
Many of my takes here are couched in "Look, I GET IT, but-" because I think this book is doing a decent job of something else than what it says it's doing. And maybe if I'd actually finished this book lol I would have a different perspective (though based on other reviews uhh I don't think so). If you're looking for a well-written, contextual book about the history of gay identity of white men in Western culture, this is a good one. But beyond that - I'd look elsewhere.
September 29, 2022
Okay… I am DNFing this primarily because I just know it’s not going to interest me. WHICH SUCKS! Because I love books about people in history, and I love gay bullshit, so this should have been everything I wanted but god damn I’m bored with it. How do you make this topic boring.
March 1, 2023
While there are interesting elements, I found this a scattered, self-contradictory book where the contents didn't match the framing. The introduction claims that these "bad gays" prove the "failure of homosexuality," but also that there is no throughline of identity between time periods. And the people included range from literal Nazis to people whose main claim to "bad" is being lewd. Also, why is just one woman included? It just doesn't hang together for me, or prove the point they're claiming.
August 1, 2023
This book probably deserves a more thorough review than I'm about to give it. I wasn't planning to review it at all, but I need to express some thoughts!
-This book is about the gays that the queer community does not really want to claim as part of its own because they were "evil or complicated" or both. The authors use the term "bad gays" as an umbrella but know its imperfect.
-The overall mission of the book, aside from exploring these rejected gays, is purportedly to trace the evolution of our modern conception of what it means to be gay or queer through the lens of these "bad gays," many of whom were white and inextricably part of the patriarchal white supremacist systems that birthed our modern culture.
-I've seen a lot of criticism about there not being representation of non-white folks or those who identify as something other than male in this book, but these criticisms miss the point, or at least don't take their criticisms the right point. The book isn't aiming to explore marginalized gays, but the bad gays who were front and center of culture, politics, and the sciences, those who wrote the narrative. So of course there won't be many marginalized bad gays in here, because their voices weren't shaping the dominant culture. Those would be the white, male ones (for the most part; there is one woman in here, Margaret Mead, and one Japanese man, Yukio Mishimi).
-Each individual chapter was well-written, thoughtful and thought provoking, well-researched, and well-argued on its own. Some were amusing and some were horrifying.
-I do not think, however, the book did a good enough job bringing each chapter into the whole. It felt really disconnected, and it didn't do enough to justify its focus on these bad white queers by tracing their ideas and contributions to culture and the conversation to our modern conceptions of queerness, in relation to women, those outside the gender binary, non-white and non-Western queers. There needed to be more connecting threads between chapters and to the point of the book as a whole.
-I still think it's worth reading. I actually learned a lot, and rethought some concepts I'd taken as given. The authors are not writing in a vacuum, and all of the chapters consider those non-bad queers who don't get their own chapter titles, but who are always directly affected by the actions of the bad, evil, complicated queers.
-I would read another book by these authors for sure.
-I liked the audiobook, but just know going in that it wasn't proofed properly, there are a couple sections where multiple takes of the same line were left in.
[3.5 stars]
Read Harder Challenge 2023: Read a nonfiction book about BIPOC and/or queer history.
-This book is about the gays that the queer community does not really want to claim as part of its own because they were "evil or complicated" or both. The authors use the term "bad gays" as an umbrella but know its imperfect.
-The overall mission of the book, aside from exploring these rejected gays, is purportedly to trace the evolution of our modern conception of what it means to be gay or queer through the lens of these "bad gays," many of whom were white and inextricably part of the patriarchal white supremacist systems that birthed our modern culture.
-I've seen a lot of criticism about there not being representation of non-white folks or those who identify as something other than male in this book, but these criticisms miss the point, or at least don't take their criticisms the right point. The book isn't aiming to explore marginalized gays, but the bad gays who were front and center of culture, politics, and the sciences, those who wrote the narrative. So of course there won't be many marginalized bad gays in here, because their voices weren't shaping the dominant culture. Those would be the white, male ones (for the most part; there is one woman in here, Margaret Mead, and one Japanese man, Yukio Mishimi).
-Each individual chapter was well-written, thoughtful and thought provoking, well-researched, and well-argued on its own. Some were amusing and some were horrifying.
-I do not think, however, the book did a good enough job bringing each chapter into the whole. It felt really disconnected, and it didn't do enough to justify its focus on these bad white queers by tracing their ideas and contributions to culture and the conversation to our modern conceptions of queerness, in relation to women, those outside the gender binary, non-white and non-Western queers. There needed to be more connecting threads between chapters and to the point of the book as a whole.
-I still think it's worth reading. I actually learned a lot, and rethought some concepts I'd taken as given. The authors are not writing in a vacuum, and all of the chapters consider those non-bad queers who don't get their own chapter titles, but who are always directly affected by the actions of the bad, evil, complicated queers.
-I would read another book by these authors for sure.
-I liked the audiobook, but just know going in that it wasn't proofed properly, there are a couple sections where multiple takes of the same line were left in.
[3.5 stars]
Read Harder Challenge 2023: Read a nonfiction book about BIPOC and/or queer history.
October 17, 2022
Sorry, but this "homosexual history" entails a bizarre look at just over a dozen "bad gays" from the perspective of modern bad gay writers. Most of the book is based on hearsay (which means some of it is unsubstantiated and therefore must be considered fiction) and the authors admit that there isn't specific evidence that some of the people included even were homosexual. I'd even add that not all named were that "bad." Lawrence of Arabia seems a good example of all those problems.
What's worse is that these writers are jerks that think they are qualified to make moral judgments on others, such as saying things like "the mostly good gay Larry Mitchell." Whose objective scale are they using for what's good and bad, and can we place the authors in the bad column for thinking they have a right to make such judgments?
It's simply a gimmick used to sell books and push an agenda--filtering the stories of a few unknown or long-forgotten people through the lens of the modern LGBT movement. As with most of these type of volumes, it's part rewriting history and part promoting immoral modern leftism by putting dead figures in their place based on contemporary interpretations. If the writers are going to use the "bad gay" gimmick, at least they could include more contemporary examples that would be honest about the horrible things done within the movement, because there are a whole lot of bad gays today infringing on others' rights, practicing intolerance, and writing warped historical books.
What's worse is that these writers are jerks that think they are qualified to make moral judgments on others, such as saying things like "the mostly good gay Larry Mitchell." Whose objective scale are they using for what's good and bad, and can we place the authors in the bad column for thinking they have a right to make such judgments?
It's simply a gimmick used to sell books and push an agenda--filtering the stories of a few unknown or long-forgotten people through the lens of the modern LGBT movement. As with most of these type of volumes, it's part rewriting history and part promoting immoral modern leftism by putting dead figures in their place based on contemporary interpretations. If the writers are going to use the "bad gay" gimmick, at least they could include more contemporary examples that would be honest about the horrible things done within the movement, because there are a whole lot of bad gays today infringing on others' rights, practicing intolerance, and writing warped historical books.
September 18, 2024
I liked this more than I was expecting to, though with caveats. I was anticipating a full-throated critique of the queer community's dogged insistence on "positive representation only" & portraying our history as a relentlessly affirmative forward-march toward liberation. As is rightly pointed out in the introduction, we don't grapple nearly enough with the fact that Lord Alfred Douglas is just as key to a historical understanding of ourselves as Oscar Wilde. Indeed, we willfully overlook deeply problematic behaviors in our canonization of the former, & conveniently forget that latter coined "the love that dare not speak its name," one of our most enduringly beautiful euphemisms. Put another way: we are willing to ascribe inevitable human fallibility in some situations, but not all.
What I wasn't quite expecting was the invitation to reconsider the term "bad" in & of itself—or at least embrace its ambiguity & imprecision. What we consider "bad" as a society at this particular moment in time can be very different than in others, a reality that we as a community, like all marginalized groups, have been both victimized by and wielded to our benefit at various historical junctures. Once again we collectively tend not to wrestle with these dynamics too deeply, & in that sense Bad Gays attempts a much appreciated corrective—& provocation.
But if the book club I read this with is any indication, this underlying argument unfortunately gets a bit muddy in execution, & so our discussion ended up just being mostly about why certain figures were included here, with "X just doesn't seem that bad" a constant puzzled refrain. I think this directly ties to my own personal criticism—which believe me I'm deeply sympathetic to—is that it gets awkwardly suspended between academic & popular writing modes.
So on the one hand for those who are interested in the more theoretical claims they can often feel more signaled than fully articulated (it certainly helps to have some previous knowledge of, say, the extensive scholarly debates around the idea of "queer failure"), but then at the same time are also deployed just enough to cause confusion for those who want to focus primarily on the otherwise engagingly written biographical accounts. It's an underlying tension I sensed as a reader that never manages to feel fully resolved, & in the end compromised the overall impact of the reading experience.
It is not simply that these are fascinating, complex lives that compel us towards understanding homosexuality. They also ask us to pose the question of the whole notion of gay heroes: why do we choose to remember, and why do we choose to forget?
What I wasn't quite expecting was the invitation to reconsider the term "bad" in & of itself—or at least embrace its ambiguity & imprecision. What we consider "bad" as a society at this particular moment in time can be very different than in others, a reality that we as a community, like all marginalized groups, have been both victimized by and wielded to our benefit at various historical junctures. Once again we collectively tend not to wrestle with these dynamics too deeply, & in that sense Bad Gays attempts a much appreciated corrective—& provocation.
But if the book club I read this with is any indication, this underlying argument unfortunately gets a bit muddy in execution, & so our discussion ended up just being mostly about why certain figures were included here, with "X just doesn't seem that bad" a constant puzzled refrain. I think this directly ties to my own personal criticism—which believe me I'm deeply sympathetic to—is that it gets awkwardly suspended between academic & popular writing modes.
So on the one hand for those who are interested in the more theoretical claims they can often feel more signaled than fully articulated (it certainly helps to have some previous knowledge of, say, the extensive scholarly debates around the idea of "queer failure"), but then at the same time are also deployed just enough to cause confusion for those who want to focus primarily on the otherwise engagingly written biographical accounts. It's an underlying tension I sensed as a reader that never manages to feel fully resolved, & in the end compromised the overall impact of the reading experience.
It is not simply that these are fascinating, complex lives that compel us towards understanding homosexuality. They also ask us to pose the question of the whole notion of gay heroes: why do we choose to remember, and why do we choose to forget?
![Profile Image for laurel [the suspected bibliophile].](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gr-assets.com%2Fimages%2FS%2Fcompressed.photo.goodreads.com%2Fusers%2F1645808644i%2F7494844._UX200_CR0%2C6%2C200%2C200_.jpg&w=128&q=75)
November 2, 2023
I'm down for any trashing of J Edgar Hoover, and this book delivered.
Overall, some of the "bad gays" mentioned weren't...actually all that bad? The levels of badness were generally on a sliding scale from meh to OH NO THAT'S REAL BAD.
Also, reading the 1-star reviews made me chuckle. There's one dude out there defending noted architect and Nazi sympathizer Philip Johnson for...being rich and eating at the Four Seasons. Nothing mentioned in that review about his rampant racism (he notoriously stalled/stopped the careers of numerous Black architects), misogyny and, ya know, fascination with Nazism and fascism.
It's a fun book that doesn't take itself too seriously while examining history through an LGBT (99% G and 95% white) lens.
Overall, some of the "bad gays" mentioned weren't...actually all that bad? The levels of badness were generally on a sliding scale from meh to OH NO THAT'S REAL BAD.
Also, reading the 1-star reviews made me chuckle. There's one dude out there defending noted architect and Nazi sympathizer Philip Johnson for...being rich and eating at the Four Seasons. Nothing mentioned in that review about his rampant racism (he notoriously stalled/stopped the careers of numerous Black architects), misogyny and, ya know, fascination with Nazism and fascism.
It's a fun book that doesn't take itself too seriously while examining history through an LGBT (99% G and 95% white) lens.
May 6, 2023
Bad Gays is yet another book that is being severely misunderstood on Goodreads. I don't know whether people didn't read the introduction of the book before they wrote their review but some of the things that people are saying are making me mad. At the beginning of the book the authors clearly define what they mean by "bad" and they explain why they lump in dictators with people who are just kind of "bad". Why point that out as a flaw in the book? They also explain why there is such little representations of queer women or non-white people as they try to establish the failure of queerness as a socio-political project centred around white male hegemony so the critique of the book not being diverse is also weird to me.
I will say that I think the authors were a bit in over their head with this thesis of the book. I might have enjoyed it more as just a history book that just aimed to chronicle the stories of several morally grey or morally black people in history. I think trying to tie it to the project of establishing queerness within white hegemony a la Roderick Ferguson was interesting but not executed that well. The connections between the figures they profile seem extremely tenuous.
I would also agree that sometimes the way the history is structured is questionable.
All in all, I would recommend this book because I found it to be a very enjoyable read but I wish it was just pruned more to not try to be something that is outside of its scope.
I will say that I think the authors were a bit in over their head with this thesis of the book. I might have enjoyed it more as just a history book that just aimed to chronicle the stories of several morally grey or morally black people in history. I think trying to tie it to the project of establishing queerness within white hegemony a la Roderick Ferguson was interesting but not executed that well. The connections between the figures they profile seem extremely tenuous.
I would also agree that sometimes the way the history is structured is questionable.
All in all, I would recommend this book because I found it to be a very enjoyable read but I wish it was just pruned more to not try to be something that is outside of its scope.
April 24, 2022
What can evil and complicated queer people from history teach us about shaping and understanding modern queer identity? Quite a lot it turns out! Meticulously researched, well written and fun to read it doesn't skimp on any of the salacious or rude bits either
June 21, 2023
"A principle of understanding our status as gay people both within our culture and within wider society is this: we are not just the protagonists, but also products of history."The above principle guides the work of authors and podcasters Huw Lemmey and Ben Miller in this new and wildly liberatory work of queer historiography which seeks to reveal new insights on LGBTQ history, sexuality, and identity through fourteen hitherto buried examples of homosexual evil and brutishness through the ages. Indeed, while "Be Gay, Do Crimes" may be a catchphrase easily uttered today on social media, there is a deeper relationship between queerness (which has been considered a form of villainy for a large part of history, and continues to be seen as such in several places), criminality, and political power. This book manages to systematically highlight these links while also challenging mainstream assumptions about structures of power and about sexual identity and deviance.
The cast of baddies featured in this landmark study are definitely a surprising lot: far from the heroic figures and pioneers favoured by most queer scholarship, the subjects of Bad Gays range from weighty emperors like Hadrian and Frederick the Great to fascist thugs, literal nazis, imperialist explorers, architects, gangsters, writers, anthropologists, and, most tellingly too, the likes of the notorious first Director of the FBI J. Edgar Hoover (and here I was, expecting a drug-trade kingpin at worst). The trajectories of these figures highlight the fact that being queer, in and of itself, does not belie a progressive political association – gay is, indeed, "no good at all on its own," without solidarity and empathy and an inclusive understanding of power; and the figures in this book highlight how homosexuality can equally be concealed and disclosed (the latter particularly clear in the case of the Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn) as a means towards unjust control and domination.
Indeed, as Bad Gays brings to light, a certain power imbalance has been coded into the manner in which homosexuality has been construed from the very beginning, at least in the West: from the ancient empires of Rome and Greece to the court of King James V in Scotland, considerations of class, rank, and sexuality played a part in male homosexuality being construed as a pedagogical relationship between man and boy, master and protégé; with sexuality itself being defined by sex acts rather than any fixed notions of gender or identity.
Further, even the earliest examples in the book make clear that the criminalisation, accusation, and persecution of homosexuals was not an ab initio attitude but a tool that developed, historically, as above all a means of consolidating political power: it allowed the elimination of otherwise formidable political rivals, facilitated the enclosure of land, and has been central to major historical conflicts, from the ruptures of the Weimar Republic and the Red-baiting terror in Cold War America to the wider projects of colonialism and anti-immigrant sentiments in an ostensibly post-colonial world. Tracing all these historical trysts with power also allows us to bear witness to our notions of homosexuality and queerness being products of historical shifts and change; fluid, contingent identities, "developed through a slow accrual of meaning over the centuries" that are not fixed today and have never been, and may well be due for redesign and redefinition in our current moment.
The degree of new, revisionist information in Bad Gays could be disorienting to some, but the authors do their best to connect with readers and keep their work engaging: I particularly liked how this otherwise scholarly project makes itself accessible and enjoyable to readers by making use of the distinct linguistic register of urban anglophone gays today, with ample "slay"s and "good on you, queen"s thrown in for effect. Parts of the book really do read like gossip, which has long been seen as an effective tool of queer and feminist community-building, and the authors are not shy of being cheeky. Consider this description of Hadrian's Hellenic education:
"Like every gay who goes on holiday to Greece, Hadrian grew a beard (distinguishing himself from the clean-shaven Romans), wined and dined with Athenian society, took in lectures and talked with philosophers, and became smitten with the culture"
and this aside from describing the ascent of Robert Carr, a 'favourite' of James V's who amassed considerable influence:
"There is power in being the king who sits upon the throne, but sometimes there is more power in being the throne on whom the king sits."
All that being said, Bad Gays also suffers from several limitations. The most glaringly obvious is focus on white and hegemonic male homosexuality: of the dozen baddies whose dastardly acts have been profiled here, only one concerns a woman (the anthropologist Margaret Mead), with the only non-white subject being the Japanese author Yukio Mishima. Surely, this reduces the project's ability to generalise and speak of homosexual villainy on more universaling terms (nevermind that this, too, would be problematic, especially since this is a history measuring a broad social impulse from the top down).
Keeping these limitations – and the limitations imposed by the authors' own positionality and privilege as white and male researchers operating in the first world, albeit those identifying as homosexual– in mind, Bad Gays is still a valuable and much welcome history lesson that succeeds in shining a light on the faults and faultlines of queer culture, and the incontrovertible willingness of some players to throw other or more at-risk groups under the bus if it brings personal power and immediate benefits. Considering that last fact, which really is the central thread running across the book, the overwhelming presence of upper-crust white men here makes a whole lot of sense!
Many thanks to Verso for providing me with a neat reading copy in exchange for absolutely nothing.
December 23, 2022
Although it has an interesting premise, Bad Gays is ultimately a bit of a mess, alternating between portraits of complicated historical figures and an excess of confused political sloganeering.
Although I personally admire some aspects of contemporary "woke" politics, the authors of this book seem conflicted as to how much those modern values can be used to judge their subjects, and some of the personalities they profile get a pass entirely, while others (such as the Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn) are so rabidly demonized that little objective information is contained in the relevant chapters. This unevenness of approach is the book's undoing, and robs a good idea of the considerable interest it should have been able to capture.
Although I personally admire some aspects of contemporary "woke" politics, the authors of this book seem conflicted as to how much those modern values can be used to judge their subjects, and some of the personalities they profile get a pass entirely, while others (such as the Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn) are so rabidly demonized that little objective information is contained in the relevant chapters. This unevenness of approach is the book's undoing, and robs a good idea of the considerable interest it should have been able to capture.
August 8, 2024
if the pretty cover and title tricks you into thinking this book is going to be super fun, please know you are going to LEARN today. can't wait to drop some knowledge about the political landscape of the Netherlands post-9/11 on my befuddled wife.
September 25, 2022
A fascinating look at some famous figures from history prone to a bit of a villainy alongside their queerness. It was eye-opening to get a much closer look at figures and events from history that I knew of.
I also very much appreciated the emphasis and exploration of how our understanding and the concept of homosexuality and queerness has adapted and changed over the years, but how it can still be linked back to the understandings of the Greeks and Romans, the Weimar Republic, the colonial anthropologists et al. It was so interesting to see our current understanding of queerness directly linked back to these individuals and periods.
Most importantly, I thought it excellent the way the authors chose to directly address the historic suffering caused by white (usually male) queers against more marginalised queer people in society. I won’t lie, I find it a bit odd so many reviews have complained about the lack of diversity in the 14 chosen individuals to discuss when the entire thesis of the book is basically to examine and critique the white male model of homosexuality. And I think they do this very well - from the AIDS crisis to racist anthropology to the Congo to far right politics, the authors raise again and again the awful harm white queerness has caused, and it’s legacy continues to cause, across the world.
I thought this was a fascinating read, it showed such a different side to queer culture and a side that I think it is vitally important we remember now as we draw ever closer to fascism.
Content warnings: pedastry, racism, homophobia and homophobic violence, conversion therapy, colonisation, slavery, fascism, anti-semitism, Nazism, Islamophobia, sex
I also very much appreciated the emphasis and exploration of how our understanding and the concept of homosexuality and queerness has adapted and changed over the years, but how it can still be linked back to the understandings of the Greeks and Romans, the Weimar Republic, the colonial anthropologists et al. It was so interesting to see our current understanding of queerness directly linked back to these individuals and periods.
Most importantly, I thought it excellent the way the authors chose to directly address the historic suffering caused by white (usually male) queers against more marginalised queer people in society. I won’t lie, I find it a bit odd so many reviews have complained about the lack of diversity in the 14 chosen individuals to discuss when the entire thesis of the book is basically to examine and critique the white male model of homosexuality. And I think they do this very well - from the AIDS crisis to racist anthropology to the Congo to far right politics, the authors raise again and again the awful harm white queerness has caused, and it’s legacy continues to cause, across the world.
I thought this was a fascinating read, it showed such a different side to queer culture and a side that I think it is vitally important we remember now as we draw ever closer to fascism.
Content warnings: pedastry, racism, homophobia and homophobic violence, conversion therapy, colonisation, slavery, fascism, anti-semitism, Nazism, Islamophobia, sex
September 29, 2022
From the cover alone, I was excited to read this book. I've read quite a bit of queer nonfiction; however, most of them have centered queer people in the United States of America. I was glad to see that this book took a more global approach to its subject matter.
I will say that we lacked a bit of diversity both in race AND gender identities (out of fourteen "Bad Gays," only one is a lesbian, and only one isn't white); however, I think that the authors did do a great job at critiquing these white, gay men and the disgusting actions they took against more marginalized people within the queer community. Though this is evident throughout the book, I think it still would've benefited from the inclusion of more diverse, "gay" voices because there were a few of these people that I was quite familiar with. I would've enjoyed learning a bit more about the "gays" that aren't so commonly discussed; shining the spotlight on more marginalized queers would've allowed for a more in-depth discussion of the varying approaches to "gay" identities and the different societal structures that labeled them "bad."
Now, you may be wondering why I've been putting "gay" in quotation marks. The reason for that is explained within the book, but it's because the authors are speculating about the sexual identities of the people on whom the chapters focus because many of them, at the time that they were alive, didn't have the cultural or societal understanding of what homosexuality is today. Therefore, these men had sexual relations with men (or, in the case of Margaret Mead, women), and the authors are considering them "bad gays" based off of that fact. Is this the perfect answer? No, but they address the complexities within the first chapter quite well.
Overall, this was a very insightful book, and I'm glad to say that I left it with a greater knowledge about queer history than I went into the book with; that's all I could've hoped for. I will say that the book does get a bit repetitive in the commentaries on these queers in history, and that's why I deducted a star. There were some parts that seemed like a bit of a slog, but I really did enjoy the book as a whole.
I will say that we lacked a bit of diversity both in race AND gender identities (out of fourteen "Bad Gays," only one is a lesbian, and only one isn't white); however, I think that the authors did do a great job at critiquing these white, gay men and the disgusting actions they took against more marginalized people within the queer community. Though this is evident throughout the book, I think it still would've benefited from the inclusion of more diverse, "gay" voices because there were a few of these people that I was quite familiar with. I would've enjoyed learning a bit more about the "gays" that aren't so commonly discussed; shining the spotlight on more marginalized queers would've allowed for a more in-depth discussion of the varying approaches to "gay" identities and the different societal structures that labeled them "bad."
Now, you may be wondering why I've been putting "gay" in quotation marks. The reason for that is explained within the book, but it's because the authors are speculating about the sexual identities of the people on whom the chapters focus because many of them, at the time that they were alive, didn't have the cultural or societal understanding of what homosexuality is today. Therefore, these men had sexual relations with men (or, in the case of Margaret Mead, women), and the authors are considering them "bad gays" based off of that fact. Is this the perfect answer? No, but they address the complexities within the first chapter quite well.
Overall, this was a very insightful book, and I'm glad to say that I left it with a greater knowledge about queer history than I went into the book with; that's all I could've hoped for. I will say that the book does get a bit repetitive in the commentaries on these queers in history, and that's why I deducted a star. There were some parts that seemed like a bit of a slog, but I really did enjoy the book as a whole.
July 2, 2022
Bad Gays is a welcome corrective to the shallow version of gay history as an uncomplicated narrative of heroic struggles by heroic gays. Not only is their subject matter fascinating, but Lemmey and Miller write with erudition, lucidity, and delightful splashes of wit. They meticulously describe the social, political, and economic milieu in which each of the "bad" gays lived, so readers are treated to a series of concise little history lessons as well as intriguing biographies. My only quibble is that the authors' intersectional leftwing politics are globbed in throughout the book in a manner that will convince nobody on the right of anything (as it presumes they are malevolent rather than misguided) and even comes across as tedious cant to leftists (like me) who largely agree with them. That, however, is only a small flaw in an enlightening and entertaining read.
August 21, 2022
So by "gays" they mean "queer men" (iirc there is one single queer woman) and by "bad" they mean... "not as widely known," I guess? Because, if you're comparing Oscar and Bosie, for example, I think most people would agree that the former was more morally questionable than the latter, or at least the surviving documentation certainly suggests that. By "history" they really mean "Western and/or European history," because it's basically allllll white people all the way down, which, I'm not complaining per se, I'm just saying the advertising is a bit off. But what should I expect from a couple of, well, Westerners? (One of them is from Germany and the other is from Spain, but they're both speaking and writing in English, so, hey.)
July 12, 2022
Cool concept, easy to read. The first half of the book was better than the second one, and I enjoyed some chapters way more than others. I’m still not sure what makes these people “bad” per se, all I know is that we were lacking diversity! But now I’ll definitely check out the authors’ podcast!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 992 reviews