chapter one: wear dark, wear layers

the theme for this week's english class was henry james, who was bisexual.

here is what I would like to know. here is what I would love: for somebody to explain to me- maybe an english professor- maybe even a classics or geo-sci professor, at this point I find it hard to distinguish- I would like them to explain how, why, to what extent, and exactly which areas of my liberal education are directly affected by henry james's bisexuality.

that would be fantastic.

in the meanwhile, it only makes sense to ignore all other things said about henry james, this week, at least, while the theme of the class is "henry james: a bisexual person from a hundred years ago." and I know, absence of presence is not presence of absence. I'm not saying it's unimportant. I'm saying I don't know why it's important. the two statements are not the same.

fast forward to next week's fine selection, "raymond carver: a tough guy exterior masking a lifelong obsession with having sex with the rectums of men." followed by "franz kafka: the metamorphosis was really a later draft wherein the word 'penis' was replaced by 'beetle.'"

do I want to blame it on freud? yes. yes I do. how convenient would that be? to pin every logical fallacy of the twentieth century on sigmund freud. he fucked up one generation, didn't he? well, jesus, obviously he must've influenced eugenics in some sinister way. no wonder roe v. wade was founded on such a bullshit compromise! look at the interpretation of dreams, it's right there!

here is my thesis: a biographical interpretation of a text devalues it of any importance or pertinence to the society it critiques. if understood primarily as a symptom of the author's psyche, a text becomes too personal to mean anything past that. it's a lazy way to read, the only goal of which is to say, "hmm, that's interesting." nothing more is even attempted.

there's a paper I'm in no hurry to write.