Lou
Each chapter is a biography of a historical queer person: long enough to be pretty detailed, but short enough not to be boring. I don't think the book always stuck to it's premise of "bad" gays, that is, figures who aren't usually remembered in terms of their gayness and aren't claimed by the queer community because they would make us look bad. Some, like Aretino, were by the authors' own admission not particularly "bad", and others, like Röhm, while definetly "bad", are very much talked about in terms of their gayness. I also think this book was pretty light on analysis and oftentimes the analysis that was there, while always true and good, didn't really contribute to a larger argument. Still, the conversational tone makes this a pretty easy read for a nonfiction book and it would probably have been far more impactful for someone who hasn't already done a lot of reading about queer history. I feel like most of my criticism comes from already having read about certain historical figures in more detail elsewhere, which I can't really fault the book for. If you're on the fence, I'd give it a go since it was certainly enjoyable.
Each chapter is a biography of a historical queer person: long enough to be pretty detailed, but short enough not to be boring. I don't think the book always stuck to it's premise of "bad" gays, that is, figures who aren't usually remembered in terms of their gayness and aren't claimed by the queer community because they would make us look bad. Some, like Aretino, were by the authors' own admission not particularly "bad", and others, like Röhm, while definetly "bad", are very much talked about in terms of their gayness. I also think this book was pretty light on analysis and oftentimes the analysis that was there, while always true and good, didn't really contribute to a larger argument. Still, the conversational tone makes this a pretty easy read for a nonfiction book and it would probably have been far more impactful for someone who hasn't already done a lot of reading about queer history. I feel like most of my criticism comes from already having read about certain historical figures in more detail elsewhere, which I can't really fault the book for. If you're on the fence, I'd give it a go since it was certainly enjoyable.
The Price of Meat
Underrated little novella based on sweeney todd. I love it when KJ Charles messes around with different genres and there's some genuinely horrifying descriptions in this book. Great world building too, reminiscent of something I might have read and loved as a kid.
Underrated little novella based on sweeney todd. I love it when KJ Charles messes around with different genres and there's some genuinely horrifying descriptions in this book. Great world building too, reminiscent of something I might have read and loved as a kid.
At first I didn't like the writing style and felt like it was trying too hard to be cryptic and mysterious, but then the mystery hooked me. I read the entire thing over the course of a transatlantic flight.
At first I didn't like the writing style and felt like it was trying too hard to be cryptic and mysterious, but then the mystery hooked me. I read the entire thing over the course of a transatlantic flight.
Beautifully illustrated graphic novel with a dreamy tone. Clearly written with a trans audience in mind. I'm not sure I "got" everything (probably because my french isn't perfect), but worth picking up for the illustrations alone.
Beautifully illustrated graphic novel with a dreamy tone. Clearly written with a trans audience in mind. I'm not sure I "got" everything (probably because my french isn't perfect), but worth picking up for the illustrations alone.
Each chapter is a biography of a historical queer person: long enough to be pretty detailed, but short enough not to be boring. I don't think the book always stuck to it's premise of "bad" gays, that is, figures who aren't usually remembered in terms of their gayness and aren't claimed by the queer community because they would make us look bad. Some, like Aretino, were by the authors' own admission not particularly "bad", and others, like Röhm, while definetly "bad", are very much talked about in terms of their gayness. I also think this book was pretty light on analysis and oftentimes the analysis that was there, while always true and good, didn't really contribute to a larger argument. Still, the conversational tone makes this a pretty easy read for a nonfiction book and it would probably have been far more impactful for someone who hasn't already done a lot of reading about queer history. I feel like most of my criticism comes from already having read about certain historical figures in more detail elsewhere, which I can't really fault the book for. If you're on the fence, I'd give it a go since it was certainly enjoyable.
Each chapter is a biography of a historical queer person: long enough to be pretty detailed, but short enough not to be boring. I don't think the book always stuck to it's premise of "bad" gays, that is, figures who aren't usually remembered in terms of their gayness and aren't claimed by the queer community because they would make us look bad. Some, like Aretino, were by the authors' own admission not particularly "bad", and others, like Röhm, while definetly "bad", are very much talked about in terms of their gayness. I also think this book was pretty light on analysis and oftentimes the analysis that was there, while always true and good, didn't really contribute to a larger argument. Still, the conversational tone makes this a pretty easy read for a nonfiction book and it would probably have been far more impactful for someone who hasn't already done a lot of reading about queer history. I feel like most of my criticism comes from already having read about certain historical figures in more detail elsewhere, which I can't really fault the book for. If you're on the fence, I'd give it a go since it was certainly enjoyable.
Each chapter is a biography of a historical man who had sex with men (and therefore by modern standards could probably be described as gay). I don't think the book always stuck to it's premise of "bad" gays, that is, figures who aren't usually talked about in terms of their gayness because they would make us look bad. Some, like Aretino, were by the authors' own admission not especially "bad" and others, like Röhm, while "bad", are very much talked about in terms of their gayness. I also think this book was pretty light on analysis, despite the claims made in the introduction. Still, the conversational tone that makes it pretty easy to read for a nonfiction book and it would probably be a good entry point for someone who hasn't done a lot of reading about queer history. I feel like most of my criticism comes from already having read about certain figures in more detail elsewhere, which I can't really fault the book for.
Each chapter is a biography of a historical man who had sex with men (and therefore by modern standards could probably be described as gay). I don't think the book always stuck to it's premise of "bad" gays, that is, figures who aren't usually talked about in terms of their gayness because they would make us look bad. Some, like Aretino, were by the authors' own admission not especially "bad" and others, like Röhm, while "bad", are very much talked about in terms of their gayness. I also think this book was pretty light on analysis, despite the claims made in the introduction. Still, the conversational tone that makes it pretty easy to read for a nonfiction book and it would probably be a good entry point for someone who hasn't done a lot of reading about queer history. I feel like most of my criticism comes from already having read about certain figures in more detail elsewhere, which I can't really fault the book for.
This book would have been better if it were one third of the length. At first I was really liking the surreal tone and working out what was actually going on. It felt like a solvable puzzle. But then it dragged on and I realized that nothing was ever going to become clearer. There are huge sections of this book that are just rambling dialogue with no plot relevance. The brief chapters that do seem to be leading up to something are hardly followed up on. I have no issues with a book that keeps the reader in the dark, but this one went a little too far to the point where it hindered my enjoyment.
This book would have been better if it were one third of the length. At first I was really liking the surreal tone and working out what was actually going on. It felt like a solvable puzzle. But then it dragged on and I realized that nothing was ever going to become clearer. There are huge sections of this book that are just rambling dialogue with no plot relevance. The brief chapters that do seem to be leading up to something are hardly followed up on. I have no issues with a book that keeps the reader in the dark, but this one went a little too far to the point where it hindered my enjoyment.
Added to listOwnedwith 37 books.
I picked this book up because of the beautiful cover and because I'm facinated by the interwar period in europe. The highlight for me was Hrabal's stream of consciousness writing style, which conveys motion in an an exaggerated, almost comical manner. I'm sure the translator is also owed some credit here. This is a page turner and I finished it in under a week. For anyone that loves hotels, it's definitely worth a read.
I picked this book up because of the beautiful cover and because I'm facinated by the interwar period in europe. The highlight for me was Hrabal's stream of consciousness writing style, which conveys motion in an an exaggerated, almost comical manner. I'm sure the translator is also owed some credit here. This is a page turner and I finished it in under a week. For anyone that loves hotels, it's definitely worth a read.