Anushka’s review of Giovanni’s Room > Likes and Comments
93 likes · Like
Thank you. Another reader who realises what is actually written. I threw this hateful shite in the bin.
I understand where you're coming from :), but I think David is a just fictional character made to convey a message, not to reflect what the author really thinks. So any of David's actions and beliefs can't be taken literally, but are there to serve a purpose. I believe David's being misogynistic, transphobic, homophobic and obnoxious was not because James Baldwin himself was like that, or to rationalize these ideas, but rather to exemplify a large population of American men at that time struggling with their own masculinity and egos.
I strongly agree with Chi. This book shows the struggles many men of that time had with their masculinity and ego. Baldwin included these traits to critique them, not to justify them.
These are not morally righteous characters. You are not supposed to agree with David or his thought process. If anything his transphobia and disgust for the drag queen in this scene only goes to show his struggle with his own masculinity and sexuality. This disgust that he feels for himself, that he wrestles with throughout the entire book. You can’t expect a fictional character to be a perfect person that you’d want to be friends with in real life, the character is meant to represent something and to tell a story.
That’s literally the point. David is a hypocrite who hates what he can’t accept in himself. He judges other gay men while being involved with them, and Baldwin isn’t asking us to like him. The misogyny and transphobia reflect David’s internalized homophobia, not the author’s views. The book is commentary. You’re not supposed to feel comfortable. He’s a flawed character.
Chi is correct… it’s wild to me that people will read this novel… clearly not know Baldwin very well at all.. and then presume that the entire novel is merely about misogyny and transphobia…. going further to insinuate that Baldwin himself was both of those things. Oh my days am I worried about society if even the people reading novels like this lack the capacity to understand 1. that this is a work of fiction… 2. that this is not some 2010+ feel-good queer utopia schlop with no actual teeth based on an imaginary hindsight 2020 version of gay life in the 1950s 3. while semi-autobiographical in a way… it it literally a novel written by a black American gay man about an *admittedly problematic* married white American gay man having an affair with Italian gay man in the 1950s… like for the love of gay god… please stop nitpicking and policing queer literature with standards not even contemporary non-queer literature is held to. This is not some instruction or promotion of how to be a member of the LGBTQ+ community in 2025. Its is a fictional novel about the complexity and contradictions of relationships, love, and sexuality.
This is my problem with today's readers: that every fictional character has to have perfect moral consciousness (no misogynistic thoughts, no xxx-phobic ruminations). But these are the character's thoughts, they're a device for the writer's to convey something, and it's not necessarily in line with the writer's own thoughts.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Rosed
(new)
Apr 02, 2022 01:01AM
Thank you. Another reader who realises what is actually written. I threw this hateful shite in the bin.
reply
|
flag
I made those observations as well. However, I do think this is one of those books where the time frame has to be considered. Baldwin is truly a product of his times and not necessarily ahead of his time. One would think that post World War II there would be optimism and Hope but not the case for these characters. And sadly, these situations still exist today. This is not a romantic love story at all. I am not sure of the positive female relationships that Baldwin experienced . But there might be relationships that definitely formed his relationships about women in this book. And sadly, those tropes regarding women still exist today.
I understand where you're coming from :), but I think David is a just fictional character made to convey a message, not to reflect what the author really thinks. So any of David's actions and beliefs can't be taken literally, but are there to serve a purpose. I believe David's being misogynistic, transphobic, homophobic and obnoxious was not because James Baldwin himself was like that, or to rationalize these ideas, but rather to exemplify a large population of American men at that time struggling with their own masculinity and egos.
I strongly agree with Chi. This book shows the struggles many men of that time had with their masculinity and ego. Baldwin included these traits to critique them, not to justify them.
These are not morally righteous characters. You are not supposed to agree with David or his thought process. If anything his transphobia and disgust for the drag queen in this scene only goes to show his struggle with his own masculinity and sexuality. This disgust that he feels for himself, that he wrestles with throughout the entire book. You can’t expect a fictional character to be a perfect person that you’d want to be friends with in real life, the character is meant to represent something and to tell a story.
That’s literally the point. David is a hypocrite who hates what he can’t accept in himself. He judges other gay men while being involved with them, and Baldwin isn’t asking us to like him. The misogyny and transphobia reflect David’s internalized homophobia, not the author’s views. The book is commentary. You’re not supposed to feel comfortable. He’s a flawed character.
Chi is correct… it’s wild to me that people will read this novel… clearly not know Baldwin very well at all.. and then presume that the entire novel is merely about misogyny and transphobia…. going further to insinuate that Baldwin himself was both of those things. Oh my days am I worried about society if even the people reading novels like this lack the capacity to understand 1. that this is a work of fiction… 2. that this is not some 2010+ feel-good queer utopia schlop with no actual teeth based on an imaginary hindsight 2020 version of gay life in the 1950s 3. while semi-autobiographical in a way… it it literally a novel written by a black American gay man about an *admittedly problematic* married white American gay man having an affair with Italian gay man in the 1950s… like for the love of gay god… please stop nitpicking and policing queer literature with standards not even contemporary non-queer literature is held to. This is not some instruction or promotion of how to be a member of the LGBTQ+ community in 2025. Its is a fictional novel about the complexity and contradictions of relationships, love, and sexuality.
This is my problem with today's readers: that every fictional character has to have perfect moral consciousness (no misogynistic thoughts, no xxx-phobic ruminations). But these are the character's thoughts, they're a device for the writer's to convey something, and it's not necessarily in line with the writer's own thoughts.
