Bret Easton Ellis on GLAAD...."In the Reign of the Gay Magical Elves"
What do you guys think about this? Its somewhat lengthy but worth the time I think. I'll admit its made me reconsider a couple of my opinions.
http://www.out.com/news-opinion/2013/05/13/bret-easton-ellis-gay-men-magical-elves
Was I the only gay man of a certain demo who experienced a flicker of annoyance in the way the media treated Jason Collins as some kind of baby panda who needed to be honored and praised and consoled and—yes—infantilized by his coming out on the cover of Sports Illustrated? Within the tyrannical homophobia of the sports world, that any man would come out as gay (let alone a black man) is not only an LGBT triumph but also a triumph for pranksters everywhere who thrilled to the idea that what should be considered just another neutral fact that is nobody’s business was instead a shock heard around the world, one that added another jolt of transparency to an increasingly transparent planet. It was an undeniable moment and also extremely cool. Jason Collins is the future. But the subsequent fawning over Collins simply stating he is gay still seemed to me, as another gay man, like a new kind of victimization. (George Stephanopoulos interviewed him so tenderly, it was as if he was talking to a six-year-old boy.) In another five years hopefully this won’t matter, but for now we’re trapped in the times we live in. The reign of The Gay Man as Magical Elf, who whenever he comes out appears before us as some kind of saintly E.T. whose sole purpose is to be put in the position of reminding us only about Tolerance and Our Own Prejudices and To Feel Good About Ourselves and to be a symbol instead of just being a gay dude, is—lamentably—still in media play.
The Gay Man as Magical Elf has been such a tricky part of gay self-patronization in the media that you would by now expect the chill members of the LGBT community to respond with cool indifference. The Sweet and Sexually Unthreatening and Super-Successful Gay is supposed to be destined to transform The Hets into noble gay-loving protectors—as long as the gay in question isn’t messy or sexual or difficult. The straight and gay sanctimoniousness that says everyone gay needs to be canonized when coming out still makes some of us who are already out feel like we’re on the sidelines. I’m all for coming out on one’s own terms, but heralding it as the most important news story of the week feels to me, as a gay man, well, kind of alienating. We are apart because of what we supposedly represent because of… our… boring… sexuality—oh man, do we have to go through this again? And it’s all about the upbeat press release, the kind of smiling mask assuring us everything is awesome. God help the gay man who comes out and doesn’t want to represent, who doesn’t want to teach, who doesn’t feel like part of the homogenized gay culture and rejects it. Where’s the gay dude who makes crude jokes about other gays in the media (as straight dudes do of each other constantly) or express their hopelessness in seeing Modern Family being rewarded for its depiction of gays, a show where a heterosexual plays the most simpering ka-ween on TV and Wins. Emmys. For. It? Why isn’t the gay dude I have always known and the gay dude I have always wanted to be not front and center in the media culture now? But being “real” and “human” (i.e. flawed) is not necessarily what The Gay Gatekeepers want straight culture to see.
***
I was invited to the GLAAD media awards last April by one of my agents. The agency had bought a table, and she asked me to be her date. The night was going to honor Bill Clinton—bizarre since Clinton had signed DOMA and 'don’t ask, don’t tell,' but GLAAD has also honored Brett Ratner this year after he had innocuously said “Rehearsals are for fags,” and was forced to repent. So, whatever. But I accepted and started to worry about what I was going to wear. At the time I received the invitation I really had no idea that GLAAD harbored any resentment against a gay man who sometimes expresses his distaste with the stereotypical way Hollywood represents gays in transgressive language on my Twitter account. (GLAAD had even nominated The Rules of Attraction as movie of the year in 2003—it lost to The Hours, where of course a tormented gay dude with AIDS commits suicide by throwing himself out of a window in front of Meryl Streep, whereas in Rules, cool-with-being-gay college student Ian Somerhalder only falls in love with James Van Der Beek and becomes bummed by his rejection.) It’s dumbly obvious to state, but ever since I realized I was gay I have always supported gay rights—as a gay person it just becomes part of your DNA. I have not, however, supported the way gay people have been portrayed in the media, and that’s where the Twitter rancor expresses itself. But since I know so many gay men who feel like I do—that they are represented in some kind of unending gay minstrel show in movies and on TV often created by gay writers and producers, or just conveniently ignored (not a single Best Picture nominee last year had a gay character in it)—I assumed that the community I was supposedly a part of was as inclusive as I was harmlessly critical—it’s a Twitter account, gays, move on. Certainly I hadn’t fucked-up as many gay lives as Bill Clinton had. So: I was going to the GLAAD awards. Cool, I guess.
The day before the event my agent texted me and told me that GLAAD was “furious” with my tweets and that I had been disinvited. I was sitting in the ArcLight with my boyfriend of four years about to watch a matinee of Oblivion (I don’t even want to get into the layers of gay irony surrounding that) when I got the news. The agent had sent me part of GLAAD’s email along with their “instructions,” saying that they hoped I wasn’t disappointed by the news (I was a little disappointed, but thinking it through, I guess not that surprised considering how literal-minded and irony-free GLAAD always seemed). They also said they hoped that I would not go public or tweet about this decision. They suggested, like they are prone to do (especially with dudes who have somehow “transgressed” the GLAAD Rules of Humorless Social Etiquette), that they have a “sit down” with me. As a gay man, I could only think: Where in the hell are we? Gay Elementary School? I apologized to the agent for any embarrassment this might have caused her and tweeted about the news.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Regardless, I have heard his name, of course, but I've never read any of his works, and I'm reminded why I have never been to keen to read any of his works from the tone of this - it's kind of snarky and, as joeybee said, a little too self-consciously ... something - L.A.? Above It All? Something. That kind of tone does nothing for me.
At any rate, this op-ed seems like a bipolar attempt to claim that he's always been a gay trailblazer, and at the same time, aren't we all - in this day and age - beyond gay trailblazing? 'I mean,' he seems to imply, 'I did it because I was born a hero; people who do it today ... mean well, but are just being opportunistic, and the MSM is just exploiting the progress gay people have made.'
Just weird.
On edit, this is from his wiki:
>>When asked an interview in 2002 whether or not he was gay, Ellis explained that he does not identify himself as gay or straight. He explained that he is comfortable to be thought of as gay, bisexual, or heterosexual and that he enjoys playing with his persona, identifying variously as gay, straight, and bi to different people over the years.[7]
In a 1999 interview, the author puts forward that his reluctance to definitively label his sexuality is for "artistic reasons". He commented "if people knew that I was straight, they'd read [my books] in a different way. If they knew I was gay, 'Psycho' would be read as a different book."[8] In an interview with Robert F. Coleman, Ellis refers to his as an "indeterminate sexuality", and said "any other interviewer out there will get a different answer and it just depends on the mood I am in".[9] In a 2011 interview with James Brown, Ellis again states that his answers to questions about his sexuality have varied from interviewer to interviewer, citing an example where his reluctance to refuse the label "bi" had him labelled as such by a Details interviewer. "I think the last time I slept with a woman was five or six years ago, so the bi thing can only be played out so long," he clarifies. "But I still use it, I still say it."[10] Responding to Dan Savage's It Gets Better campaign, aimed at preventing suicide among LGBT youth, Ellis tweeted "Not to bum everyone out, but can we get a reality check here? It gets worse."[11] In a 2012 op-ed for The Daily Beast, while apologizing for a series of controversial tweets, Ellis identified himself as a gay man.[12]<<
So there you go. 
What a gay trailblazer he was/is/will be/depending on his mood/the stars...
provoke some interest. From the response (and lack thereof) its pretty clear I was mistaken. But if having a thread sink on DU is the worst thing that happens to me today then I am a lucky, lucky man.
On the plus side, we had city elections here today and I got a new mayor and new alderman-both of whom I respect MUCH more than the people they defeated. So on the whole I'd call it a pretty good day, this thread notwithstanding!
