So, are we just all gonna ignore the fact that Dery is being acephobic? He clearly has an agenda.
Page 136: "If such articles are to be believed, then 'Gorey wasn't necessarily gay, even though he was a lifelong bachelor who dressed in necklaces and furs....he was just asexual, a kind of lovable eunich.'"
Page 138: "Gorey kept perfectly mum about his true nature to the press; he only spoke about it in his art. And in a way, to be honest, the glass closet was appropriate to his artistic persona, which was neither here nor there, but locked in a kind of alienated stasis."
Page 139: "In New York, Gorey came closer to self-identifying as gay--IF ONLY IN HIS MIND AND TO A FEW CLOSE FRIENDS (emphasis mine)--than any other time in his life."
Page 174: "Gorey, of course, would've let out a theatrical groan at the suggestion that he was some sort of agent provocateur for the incipient counter culture." (Oh, cool, Dery admits even Gorey wouldn't have been on board with all this.)
Gorey himself has, fairly famously, publicly stated that he was generally sexless and asexual. From Ascending Peculiarity: "I'm neither one thing nor the other particularly. I am fortunate in that I am apparently reasonably undersexed or something ... I've never said that I was gay and I've never said that I wasn't ... what I'm trying to say is that I am a person before I am anything else ... "
Yeah, yeah, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it might be a duck, but isn't that up to the maybe-duck to decide? Gorey might have been gay. Or not. Either way, it wouldn't have mattered, because it was up to him to decide how public he wanted to be with something as private as his sexuality. Dery very clearly overstepped a boundary. Dick move, man. You don't out another person, ever.
Dery spends nearly the entire book pushing an agenda that purports Gorey is an underappreciated gay icon, which he might be...if he ever self-identified as gay. WHICH HE NEVER DID. First of all, asexual is a valid identity, and to steamroll over Gorey's declaration as such does a disservice and is incredibly disrespectful to those who also identify as asexual--an identity wholly misunderstood and underrepresented. Secondly, BIOGRAPHIES SHOULDN'T HAVE AGENDAS. Biographies are based in fact. A good biographer tells the story of a person's life, all based in truths. Wanna start espousing *theories* about a subject? Write a theoretical art history book. Write cultural criticism. You could literally take this exact book and just change the title to not imply this was a biography. But none of that happened. Dery took information, developed a loose theory his subject was conveniently too dead to refute, and ran with it. That is not a biography. This should never have been called a biography. And frankly, I couldn't get past Dery so blatantly pushing an incorrect agenda--I after the first hundred pages, I hate-read the rest of this book, because I love Edward Gorey so damn much, and you, Mark Dery, RUINED IT. Who cares if Gorey was gay?! For a writer like Gorey, his sexuality, or lack thereof if you follow his own comments rather than Dery's, is wholly irrelevant to the collected body of work. Honestly, based on Gorey's childhood and his comments about children, I'd say looking at his views on family in relation to his work would be way more interesting, and *relevant*. Gorey clearly wanted to keep his sexuality private, for whatever reason, and that was his prerogative. For someone who claims to admire Gorey as much as he does, Mark Dery sure was disrespectful of him.
A book about a great subject does not make that book great.
As much as I want to give this book one star, I can't. It's still relatively well-written and well-researched, even if it completely disregards what a biography should be by bastardizing facts to support a personal narrative. The second star is also to maybe give Dery the benefit of the doubt and hope that maybe, just maybe, he wasn't the one who picked that title. His back-flap bio indicates he has a history of cultural criticism--which would make a Gorey-as-gay-icon treatise make a lot more sense. Just as photographers sometimes get blamed for retouching gaffes they didn't make (spoiler alert: most of the time, the magazines do their own retouching, and it has nothing to do with the photographer), maybe Dery is the victim of a bad title someone else picked? In any case, Dery massaged the truth to support a personal agenda, and that's inexcusable.