Thesis for final paper

First, I'd like to store some of my sources so I don't lose them. 
Zines: A Personal History by Elizabeth O'Brien
Zines, Half-lives, and After-lives: On the Temporalities of Social and Political Change by Janice Radway
The Bustin' and Bitchin' Ethe of Third Wave Zines by Brenda M Helbrecht
Auto/Assemblage: Reading the Zine by Anna Poletti
I've been searching for some work on the issue of transsexual men, but frankly it's been very hard to find a commentary on something relevant to what the author of my primary source has experienced.

Previously I had discussed Short and Queer by Kelly and possible research questions.  After re-reading some of the publications, and going through some sources, I should focus on how the openess of the zine, especially in regards to Kelly, contributes to the discussion of sensitive issues where some voices are less heard.  That said, my thesis as of now is:
Unlike the speculative nature of a scholarly article, the intimate details and unrestricted level of free speech in Kelly's zine, Short and Queer, provide a small yet valuable insight into the experiences of a transsexual man.
I have concerns about how concise, or lack thereof, this is, since it has to be a much longer discussion than the previous papers, but of course I don't want my argument to lose strength.  That said, I'm planning on first discussing the some of the ways zines offer a close discussion between people of similar interest while still retaining the privacy of those involved, thus opening the door for unhindered conversation.  Next I plan to go over Short and Queer and how her zine is very much like the others in terms of having a close relationship between the author and audience.  Then, I thought I might talk about how scholars have understood transgender people in the past briefly, and contrasting it with how Kelly discusses it.  This is all I have so far, but I think it's a start.

Final writing assignment: zine and questions

As much as I LOVE writing essays with all my heart, I am posting to announce the topic of my final and hopefully greatest paper for Queer Writing Practices.  This paper will focus on a zine, or series of zines in my case.  I know what you might be thinking: ..the hell is a zine, Steve?  Good question.  A zine is essentially a cheaply made and self published booklet which allows for open discussion of topics by the author, much like a blog.  Zines also allow for communication between the author and the interested audience, as most zines give contact information.  They are very paper based, as they incorporate a wide array of shapes and artistry.  The zine I would like to talk about is "Kelly's Short and Queer" collection.  Kelly is a young individual who was born female and came out as a man, though still attracted to other man, but his writing does not focus exclusively on that aspect of his life.  In fact, part of what I find intriguing about this zine is the random nature of topics, as well as the variety of ways Kelly chooses to discuss them.

As for my research question, I really wanna figure out how people reacted to this work.  How big was his audience?  Was he well received/?  How much feedback did he normally get?  Furthermore, I'd like to know why he started and also stopped (actually not sure if or when this happened, but seeing the number of zines and the date of the first one leads me to believe Kelly no longer writes).  

Sidenote: if for one reason or another this falls through, like there is very little to write about (which I doubt) or there is little to no relevant secondary material, I would like to change to "Positron 3" by Sean Capote.  This is a much less lighthearted zine involving queer politics and the straight edge movement, but unfortunately it's unclear if it will be available to me.

IGNORE LAST POST new secondary source

Sorry for the mix up but I found a source I like even better than the last one.  It's called "Alien Bodies and a Queer Future: Sexual Revision in Octavia Butler’s “Bloodchild” and James Tiptree, Jr.’s “With Delicate Mad Hands” by Amanda Thibodeau.  This is a really great source for me personally because it first elaborates on the idea of sci-fi as having parallels to queer theory and illustrating new Dystopian or Utopian societies that provoke questions on sexual norms. Many of these ideas are almost identical to one of our earlier readings, "Queer Universes," which is no surprise since said article is referenced numerous times by Thibodeah.  Then, the article moves to Bloodchild, first claiming that it challenges "the idea that the future (and thus utopia) relies on heteroproductivity; rather, utopia can demonstrate a rejection of present constructions for a future vision."  It later moves onto the issues of gender roles, power, and social pressures, all of which are very crucial to my argument.  Thibodeau goes over the multiple ways in which Gan and T'Gatoi's relationship is a reversal of sexes and how Bloodchild as a whole undermines heteronormativity in more than just the gender swap.  The article continues to dissect the different themes and claims of significance present in the story, mainly in the portrayal of the Tlics and the scene in which Gan threatens to kill himself in front of T'Gatoi, most of which are all related to my thesis fortunately.  The one variation between my thesis and this article is that Thibodeau focuses on what Bloochild says about heteronormativity, which is similar to what I'm discussing, but it does suggest that Butler is necessarily critiquing society in her story.  That said, I think one could interpret this article in that way, which is good because that helps me a lot.

Secondary Source

My main secondary source as of now seems to be "The Afterlife of Slavery and the Problem of Reproductive Freedom"  While I plan on reading and hopefully incorporating "Conversations with Octavia Butler," "Alien Construction: Science Fiction and Feminist Thought," and "Strange matings : science fiction, feminism, African American voices, and Octavia E. Butler," and maybe others, Weinbaum's article is very pertinent to my argument.  It first makes the claim that although others suggest there is a growing need to reevaluate cultural norms due to changing situations, Octavia Butler's works bring about serious discussion on contemporary reproductive issues and ideas.  Furthermore, Weinbaums states,

"Through contextualization of Butler’s fiction within a discussion of reproductive politics, it becomes possible to recognize in Butler’s work not only a prescient assessment of the reproductive landscape that was beginning to emerge as Butler wrote in the 1970s and 1980s, but also, and as importantly, a proleptic critique of what has now become a well- established cultural dominant in the new millennium. For Butler’s fiction addresses our time as much as its own"

This is very much a crucial aspect of my entire thesis as well as a key idea in studying science fiction: while these dystopian societies are purely imagination and bear no outward resemblance to today's world, they can stay raise questions about what we take to be fact.
Also, this article takes the same stance as I do regarding the view of the method Tlic reproduction as surrogacy and slavery, despite both the supposed "symbiotic" nature of the relationship between the Tlics and the Terrans and Butler's own claim that Bloodchild is a love story, not about slavery.  The source says that slavery is simply harder to decipher as the lines become blurred since now there is no race or group but the entire human race.  Surrogacy is the norm.  Another very important aspect to my own thesis surfaces when Weibaum says, "The upshot is that even though Tlic ideology prevents humans from recognizing themselves as racialized and feminized slaves, readers readily perceive the human surrogates’ real  relationship to the imaginary conditions under which they labor."  This is big time because I'm arguing that Butler forces the reader to see another society where man has been made into simply a machine, a means to creating more Tlics, and thus she raises questions about whether or not certain groups in today's time are similarly valued.
Overall, this article is very good in terms of showing how the relationship between the Tlics and Terrans is not symbiotic and thus questions how symbiotic relationships in our own society, namely between man and woman, but from what I can see it does not say much on today's time period but rather compares the world of Bloodchild to surrogacy and slavery in general, which is, as the article does make clear, a more historical issue, not a present one.  Still, it is very helpful to my argument.

Thesis for 2nd Paper

For my next paper, I will be writing about Bloodchild.  My thesis will be:

In this science-fictitious world, the presence of the Glicks as a dominant species and the societal pressures faced by Gan illustrate Octavia Butler's critique on accepted present day gender roles.

I have no set number of body paragraphs, but my argument will go as follows.  First, I'll make comparisons to the stable but unbalanced relationship between the terrans and their alien oppressors and today's relationship between man and woman.  This will have two parts: one, that the Glicks do not have to deal with any setbacks from being with the terrans, while the terrans face extreme pain and even death, and two, that the Glicks are far stronger and have control of the entire household,  Next, I'll show how even though Gan is not coerced into taking T'Gatoi's young, he essentially has to because of pressure from society, much like the way women feel pressure to bear young as well.  The last part I'm not totally sure on, but I think the "love story" between Gan and T'Gatoi could be a factor in my argument.  This is all very liable to change, and in fact, I'm ready to scrap this entirely, so in case this fails.  I'd write about identity in Angels in America and how Kushner demonstrates the poetically disastrous results of denying identity.

Angels in America: first thoughts

Hey everyone, I'm just gonna get right into it here: this book is HEAD AND SHOULDERS above The Price of Salt.  There is no contest.  Open and shut case.  I understand one's a play and one's pulp fiction and everything so it's hard to compare but come on!  The characterization!  The depth and dimensions! The language!  Night and day compared to Price of Salt.  Every character has so much going on here.  They're so pronounced yet at the same time so multifaceted.  I'm excited.  This is big time.

Getting into the text, we have a lot that's been given to us in a short amount of time.  There's Joe and Harper, Louis and Prior, and my favorite Roy Cohn.  Joe is a mild mannered Morman nice guy in the law world with a valium addicted wife Harper.  We learn soon that the reason for Harper's drug addiction and mental health problems comes from the complete lack of sexual interaction and intimacy in their marriage, which we also discover stems from the fact that Joe, unknowingly, is a homosexual.  Louis and Prior are passionate gay lovers but Prior is revealed to have a terminal disease, soon to be known as the AIDS virus.  Roy is very much his own person, having no long term, monogamous relationship and instead a hugely successful career.  He is confident and thriving in his cut-throat job.  However, he has found out that he, too, has contracted AIDS.

Now we have an interesting setup.  What will come from Joe and Harper's marriage?  All Joe wants is to be normal, to fight what he feels is an disgusting flaw in his soul.  Harper is just falling apart at the seams, so nothing good can come out of this; furthermore, there may be an interesting future for Joe and Louis.  Next, other than a seemingly inevitable death, what will happen to Prior and his relationship with Louis?  No answers there, but something is bound to change soon.  Lastly, what about Roy?  The business man big shot, living the dream.  Yet now, he has a disease known to the public as "gay cancer."  I really liked his speech to the doctor.  It was so characterizing, so visceral.  It has Roy Cohn written all over.  The man's got "clout" dammit!  But besides how much I like that scene, it really speaks to a very modern day concept of labeling and grouping.  Roy will not accept being labeled as a homosexual.  Why?  Because at this time, homosexuals are weak.  Unimportant.  Soft.  Bottom of the society's barrel.  And what is Roy?  The epitome of strength, connections, crude, and top of the top.  He may have sex with men, but he sure as hell isn't in that group.

Overall, very interested.  I want to pay special attention to Joe and Roy because I think they say the most and have the most significant implications of the characters in this book in regards to homosexuality.

Bloodchild and Aye, and Gomorrah

Sorry for the late post everyone, but I thought I should share some of my thoughts on the last two readings.

To start, wow.  Just like holy crap.  I have never read anything like these two stories here, especially not Bloodchild.  But moving on, I want to look at the implications of these works starting with Aye, and Gomorroah.  The premise here is that in this society, set in Houston, Texas, certain children determined to be permanently retarded sexually are set aside and neutered to avoid the harmful effects of radiation in order to work as "spacers."  Another group that develops are the "frelks" who are sexually attracted to the spacers.  This gives way to a very interesting dynamic to the sexual class system.  There are varying levels of acceptance in the different groups in this society, as clearly it is very common for spacers to prostitute themselves to frelks, but it is somewhat frowned upon, at least by other spacers.  Furthermore, one of the spacers, Bo, tells a story how he saw a man and a woman pretending to be spacers to pick up frelks, so he and his friends beat the crap out of them.  The spacers are overall very well received by the rest of society, as the frelks are intensely drawn to them out of both sexual desire and almost a form of awe and the other heterosexual individuals generally just admire them or feel indifference.  The frelks are considered to be perverted, and even the frelks themselves feel that way, but they are apparently so common it is accepted in the society.  That doesn't stop the spacers from taking advantage of whom they see as bizarre and deviant.

I can't help but wonder whether this story is making a statement regarding prostitution, homosexuality, neither, or both.  In some ways, the frelks are like our time's homosexuals.  They're deviations from the norm, and tend to be seen as deviants, even sometimes by themselves, but also common enough to be accepted as a group in its own right.  But what is this story saying by making this parallel in a futuristic society?  I can't really find an answer, partly because I don't really see them as much like our homosexuals.  Their sexual desire is much more complicated than simple attraction to a particular sex; it is rooted in the inexplicable want for something that doesn't reciprocate, and never will.  The frelks do not want the spacers or anyone else to be sexually attracted to them.  Maybe this is due to an attraction by the frelks to what they see as pure or untainted, but to be honest I can't explain it.  

The next story is Bloodchild where things only get a whole lot weirder.  Here, in addition to the normal humans, there is another species that has taken the people of Earth essentially as slaves, although they live together fairly peacefully.  This new species requires a human host for the maturation of fertilized eggs until they reach an age where they can live on their own; in case you missed it, THEY LIVE IN YOUR SKIN UNTIL THEY GET BIG ENOUGH TO EAT THEIR WAY OUT.  However, the new species, for both the sake of their hosts and the benefit of the people, have devised a system to save the lives of the hosts where the larva/wormy baby things are taken out right as they would begin to eat the host from the inside and placed into a dead animal of some kind.  But when I say taken out, I mean the person is cut open, without anesthesia, and they are forcefully removed.  Clearly, this is less than pleasant, and the new species do not grow to be as strong, but ultimately, the people of Earth are safe and the species can continue to reproduce.  The tricky part comes in the fact that the host is normally a male child, meaning one well under what we would consider the age of consent.  The only reason the male agrees to this is pretty much under the pressure of society.  It's unclear what would happen if a person did refuse, but considering that humans are no longer allowed to drive cars, it can't be good.  Furthermore, these new species don't all care about their hosts the way T'Gatoi cares for Gan.  By far their bigger concern is the survival of their young, and sometimes they kill their host during the removal of grubs without much thought.  Even T'Gatoi is shown as less than compassionate with Lomas.

So, what the hell is going on here?  For one thing, I'm suddenly very uncomfortable.  But more importantly, what is this saying about love in regards to the relationship between T'Gatoi and Gan?  Is this truly a love story?  I can see it by the caring and affectionate way Gan describes T'Gatoi throughout the story, and although he initially agrees to carry the young for the sake of Hoa, I think the final scene shows he has some more connection to T'Gatoi than just concern for his sister.  Overall, truly bizarre but a cool glimpse into sci-fi.  Makes me intrigued but also nervous as to what will come next.  Peace out