▲ 16 points
back
24 comments
The quotes academics use for proving his in closet status haven't really convinced me as definitive proof. They always feel slightly like academics reading into things too much when it's totally possible they were meant platonically or like a brotherly type of love.
> They always feel slightly like academics reading into things too much when it's totally possible they were meant platonically or like a brotherly type of love.
Why on earth are you looking for definitive proof of specific claims when it comes to history? That just seems like a fool's errand.
I think you should strive for definitive proof and also acknowledge that you will probably never get there.
To be honest, the title did seem click baity leading to one to assume there was a possible misreading of the era. But I think this should be unflagged because as foldr points out downthread [0], the family wanted the passages removed not some editors generations later?
> I think you should strive for definitive proof
I think only mathematicians and computer scientists can deliver this.
Yeah - but I'm more bothered by it being some quotes here & there, from a huge body of work. Clever & creative "characters" can say all sorts of things, for little reason beyond showing that they're clever & creative, enjoy the reactions, and can get away with it.
Too, there's the "anything's better than a well-born straight white man" bias in most of modern academia, and The Guardian's audience. Saying "Henry James was straight" would sell about as well as "2 + 2 = 4".
The Guardian's final 2 paragraphs acknowledge that the case is weak:
> But the book that made all the difference was published in 1990. Epistemology of the Closet by Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick became the bible for gay studies and queer theory in universities. It proposed an entire new way of reading James as a gay writer whose efforts to remain in the closet gave him his style and may, in fact, have been his real subject, all the more present for being secret and submerged.
> Kosofsky Segdwick’s argument is dense and brilliant, and, at times, far-fetched and unconvincing. But it removed James from the realm of dead white males who wrote about posh people. He became our contemporary. Thus James’s artistry, his skill at creating scenes and drama, his sly sexuality, his wonderful prose style, his genius with form and tone and structure, make him a subject of fascination not only for ordinary readers but also for students and teachers of literature, and indeed for many, if not all, of the novelists who have come after him. James’s dying words – “Tell them to follow, to be faithful, to take me seriously” – continue to resonate a hundred years after his death.
I think the far-fetched part of Segdwick's argument is the claim that James's sexuality is an interpretative key to his work. That James was sexually interested in other men to some extent is pretty obvious. That does not necessarily make him 'gay' or 'bisexual', as those are all anachronistic labels (as indeed would be 'straight'). But it's certainly an aspect of his character that his family wanted to hide after his death.
+1 to "far-fetched" for claims that his sexuality is an interpretative key.
I'm ambivalent on his actual sexual interest in men. Wikipedia concludes that direct evidence is nonexistent. "In private correspondence" doesn't somehow force the baring of his true soul. And the article notes his propensity to burn manuscripts and letters - so his preserving so much evidence of an actual dire (by standards of the time) character flaw seem pretty dubious.
Yes, obviously his family wanted to prevent scandal. But that'd be true whether or not the scandal had any basis in fact.
The Wikipedia article doesn't conclude any such thing. It notes that he sent lots of sexually suggestive letters to his gay friends. It also argues, somewhat unconvincingly, that he didn't do this only with men — but that just shows that he may also have been sexually interested in women, not that he wasn't sexually interested in men.
> And the article notes his propensity to burn manuscripts and letters - so his preserving so much evidence of an actual dire (by standards of the time) character flaw seem pretty dubious.
People obviously received the letters, and may have kept them whether James retained copies of them or not.
Direct evidence would be, what, exactly? Nude paintings?
> so his preserving so much evidence of an actual dire (by standards of the time) character flaw seem pretty dubious.
Another explanation would be that he didn't consider it a character flaw.
> That does not necessarily make him 'gay' or 'bisexual', as those are anachronistic labels.
What labels would work to describe his sexuality, do you think?
I don't see the need for a label as those are primarily used by living people to self-identify. He seems to have flirted with other men. Whether he had sex with them, or was primarily sexually interested in men, is something that we can probably only speculate about.
I suppose that resisting the application of a modern label could be read as a kind of erasure of gay/bi people from history. That's why in an edit I added the qualification that it would be equally anachronistic to call him 'straight'.
I really don't think using such labels as descriptors of a historical figure's sexuality is "anachronistic" - particularly when they're not even that old. The concept of heterosexuality and homosexuality surely existed when James did.
> I don't see the need for a label as those are primarily used by living people to self-identify.
Are they...? Labels are used by... everyone... straight or not. And I can assure you I wasn't the first one to apply certain labels to myself as a child...
I think the concept of a stable gender-based sexual preference that’s part of your personal identity is relatively recent. Of course people were aware that there were men who liked having sex with other men, but that’s not really the same thing.
And yeah I mean people obviously use labels as part of homophobic abuse, but that’s not going to be helpful as part of an argument that such labels are useful or valuable. I don’t really see why it’s necessary to decide whether Henry James is straight bi or gay just because those are the major classifications in our present social context.
I have never invited a person to take a walk with me and invited that there is space on the bench for some lips unless I was aiming to get some tail.
Well that might be just you.
"I hold you, dearest boy, in my innermost love, & count on your feeling me—in every throb of your soul"
Throbbing platonic love.
I earnestly feel like that's our modern language coloring our reading of it. The heart throbs blood. I have a lot of brotherly heartfelt love for friends without it being sexual.
We know that it's not just our modern language coloring our reading of it because Henry James's family wanted these passages removed from the published versions of the letters, precisely because they didn't want them to be 'misconstrued' as expressions of sexuality. The first volume of letters referred to in this article was published in 1920.
Retro Streisand effect in action.
> I earnestly feel like that's our modern language coloring our reading of it.
You are reading modern language. Sexual identity was already a thing at this point in history and had been for several decades.
It's always important to be earnest...
Amazing how your comment is voted down. Here in a discussion about queer erasure.
"Internet comment tries to keep him in the closet (2025) (news.ycombinator.com)"