The first book I've read that can be accurately called a catty gay picaresque. Not sure how many of those the world needs, to be honest, but I wanted something fluffy to balance the textbooks, and Rupert Everett's novel fit the bill.
Everett, you should know, is an excellent British actor who never quite received the fame and career he deserved -- probably because he is a proudly gay man, and that still scares (unenlightened) people. The book's protagonist, Rhys, known also as Dorhys, Dorita and Lady Beth Fraser, would be an excellent role for Everett, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn he had intended this story to become a screenplay rather than a novel. It reads like a movie, with snappy/bitchy conversation and fun throwbacks to classic Hollywood movies like Sunset Boulevard, Auntie Mame and The Sound of Music.
I enjoyed the book but have a few complaints:
1. It's too deliberately "cute". Rhys's multiple names, the bevy of nicknames Rhys has for everyone else, the pencil sketches, the chapter subtitles (which, like Winnie-the-Pooh, all start with "in which...") -- I am not opposed to any of these per se, but eventually I stopped paying attention to them, and that's the problem with stylistic flourishes/idiosyncrasies: Like Swiss Cake rolls, they're hard to stomach in multiples.
2. I am perplexed that in so many books, homosexuals are depicted as prostitutes and junkies. Hello Darling, ... doesn't annoy me in this way as badly as other books have, and that's probably due to Everett's obviously satirical tone and the incongruous but well-intentioned references to serious topics facing the "gay world" -- AIDS, gay marriage, etc. Yet the fact remains: Rhys and his friends are constantly drinking, smoking joints, snorting cocaine, popping valium and Ecstacy, and shooting heroin, and often at the same time. Addiction is a reality of certain quarters of the homosexual community -- not that there aren't plenty of nonhomosexuals who are addicts -- but why must fiction so often associate drugs and gay people?
3. The conclusion. I won't spoil it for you here, but WTF.
Anyway. I picked this book up because, like I said, I wanted a distraction from the heavier coursework. And yet as I read it I couldn't help but wonder how a professor would approach it. Do students already read this book in their queer theory courses? What does the book, with all its addiction and sexual irresponsibility, tell us about the world in which even aristocratic gay men must live? A hundred years from now, when the battle for gay equality has been won, will scholars look back at Rupert Everett as a once-marginalized "pillar" of gay fiction?
The book is a bit scatterbrained to be called a "critique", yet many critical elements are present. Whether or not that was Everett's intention, we may never know.