Friday, September 13, 2024

"Show me a happy homosexual and I'll show you a gay corpse": The Retro Homphobia of Francis Nevins' Cornell Woolrich Biography First You Dream, Then You Die (1988)

This piece is largely culled from my 55-page article at Crimereads from a few years ago, but I wanted to highlight here the raging homophobia in this book, given my recently publicized assertion that a certain retrograde comment by Otto Penzler, publisher of Dream, suggests how a homophobic book like Dream won an Edgar in 1989.  (This offended Otto so he apparently bounced me from doing an intro for Mysterious Press on gay crime writer Rufus King.)

Penzler's comment was actually a claim that men supposedly write better than women because men try to write literature, so it wasn't about homosexuality at all. Yet retrograde sexism and retrograde homophobia frequently go hand-in-hand.  Though actually I said it was Nevins' bio that was homophobic, not the publisher of the book.

But what I was trying to get at and maybe not conveying in a one sentence comment, was that there must have been an obtuseness on the part of Otto and other people (like the Edgar Award committee) not to see the dreadful homophobia in the book, assuming they really read it.  Or maybe they simply shared Nevins' attitudes.  I don't know.  I think people just easily bought into the "self-hating homosexual" cliche which is the keystone of Nevins' Woolrich thesis.  This cliche was dutifully trotted out for decades by people writing about Woolrich and it still is even today, so it's been a hardy perennial.

Writer Barry Malzberg has said that Nevins regards homosexuality as a "pathological" condition.  It does appear that way from his writing, because Nevins seems convinced that to be gay (a term he never uses) is to be self-hating.  If you're interested in this subject read below the excerpt from my article.  It still amazes me how the nasty anti-gay attitudes emanating from the book never drew any offended notice, with a few exceptions like Malzberg and Bill Pronzini, until my article appeared.  Malzberg and Pronzini are straight guys and they definitely managed to notice it. Anyway, here's the article excerpt.  Gird your loins and grab your wig for this look at homophobia in the Eighties AIDS era!

Self-hating, tearful Catholic homosexual and supportive friend in the original film version of
The Boys in the Band (1970)

How is the self-loathing homosexuality which Francis Nevins believes to have been the black wellspring of Cornell Woolrich’s unique writing genius reflected in the author’s voluminous crime fiction?  Here are examples from Dream of what Nevins terms "homosexual symbolism" in Woolrich's work:

"I was carrying Death around in my mouth," the reporter tells us near the end [of the story "Death Sits in the Dentist's Chair," where a dentist fills cavities with cyanide], and if one is determined to find subtle traces of Woolrich's homosexuality everywhere in his work, one might as well begin here. (p. 129)

While struggling with Cook over a gun, the hobo is shot in the mouth (here we go again, homosexual symbol seekers!) (p. 141)

....they arrange for a pickpocket accomplice to take a ride on the same train that is bringing Bull to the state pen, sit in the seat behind the mobster and quietly puncture Bull's rear end with a hypodermic full of germs (homosexuality symbol hunters take notice!) (p. 157)

All these instances seem reductive to my mind--not to mention remarkably puerile and in dubious taste. Since Woolrich was a gay man, so the reasoning seems to run, inevitably any time in his tales when poison, bullets or germs enter a man's mouth or buttocks it symbolizes homosexuality. In this juvenile egg hunt for "homosexual symbols" Nevins focuses relentlessly on sex acts.  Is it Woolrich who associated gay sex with death or is it Nevins who has imposed this meaning on Woolrich's texts?  Dream appeared in 1988, at the height of the AIDS epidemic in the United States, something which may have influenced Nevins' take on this matter.  Yet unless he was endowed with second sight, like his seer character in Night Has a Thousand Eyes/"Speak to Me of Death, Woolrich could not have foreseen this calamity.

I have read my share of Woolrich (granted, Nevins has read everything, as Dream makes abundantly clear) and for my part I cannot say that in the author’s work I am strongly struck by intimations of same-sex attraction on his part.  Woolrich often does write well from a woman’s viewpoint, but he writes convincingly from a tough male viewpoint as well.  Seemingly absent from Woolrich’s fiction is the sustained interest in the male body which I have found in the work of gay male vintage crime writers like Hugh Wheeler and Richard Webb (aka Patrick Quentin/Q. Patrick/Jonathan Stagge), Rufus King, Milton Propper and Todd Downing. 

am powerfully struck in Woolrich’s work by an aching depiction of loneliness, despair and doom, yet, Nevins notwithstanding, this is not a state of mind which is specific to gay men. Any person, whatever his or her sexual orientation, might have these feelings and give expression to them in fiction.

Given Nevins’ writing about Woolrich, it is not surprising to see that he authored an 1977 article about Milton Propper, identifying him as another “tragic” homosexual, and that in a 2010 Mystery*File article he condemned Patricia Highsmith along the same lines as Woolrich, whom he passingly denigrates in his harshest terms yet: “If you think Cornell Woolrich was something of a psychopath and a creep, you don’t know the meaning of those words till you’ve encountered Highsmith.  Both, of course, were homosexual.  I gather from [Joan Schenkar’s biography] that Highsmith…was never terribly comfortable with being a lesbian….Woolrich was perhaps the most deeply closeted, self-hating homosexual male author that ever lived.”

If you are sensing an invidious theme here, I would hazard to guess that you are right.  Elsewhere in Dream Nevins refers passingly to “the special agonies of the homosexual whose religious roots are Catholic” (Woolrich’s father had been a nominal Catholic and Woolrich adopted the faith, at least nominally, near the end of his life); and he speculates that Woolrich and Catholic film director Alfred Hitchock, who adapted a Woolrich short story as his renowned flick Rear Window, shared the same pessimistic worldview--that the world was “a hideous and terrifying place”--on account of their “longing for physical relationships which the obesity of the one man and the homosexuality of the other seemed to put forever out of reach.” Evidently both stoutness and queerness constituted crippling hurdles to human happiness in Nevins’ mind.

When gathering such black pearls of wisdom about members of the queer community in my basket of literary boners, I am frequently reminded of the morbid line from the pioneering if at times problematic queer film The Boys in the Band, which premiered in March 1970, just a year-and-a-half after Cornell Woolrich’s death.  “Show me a happy homosexual and I’ll show you a gay corpse,” pronounces one of the film’s characters.  (Yes, this character is a self-loathing, lapsed-Catholic gay man.)  In his writing about Woolrich and other crime writers whom he deems to have been queer, Nevins seems to have drawn this dismal credo deep into his heart.

8 comments:

  1. Raimo Kangasniemi commented on ""Show me a happy homosexual and I'll show you a gay corpse": The Retro Homophobia of Francis Nevins' Cornell Woolrich Biography First You Dream, Then You Die (1988)"
    2 hours ago
    Nevins seem to have been blinded by Woolrich's sexuality to the seeming fact that it was not the latter's sexuality but his personality that caused his social and relationship problems. As heterosexual he would have likely been as unhappy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bingo, Raimo! Thank you. That is a perfect, tight statement of the problem. Nevins became obsessed with Woolrich's supposed sexuality, when like you say it was his personality. Whether he homoexual, hetterosexal or asexual, Woolrich had personality problems, in fact disorders. I feel sympathy for him. You don't find a shred of sympathy for him from Nevins, quite the opposite in fact. He's like the beach bully kicking sand in the face of the 98 pound weakling.

      Delete
  2. "Pathological" sounds about right. From my own experience of reading Woolrich and the 1988 biography, I get the impression that Nevins is the one with the insecure hang-ups about masculinity, and everything else is projection on his part. He clearly has issues with women (judging from the rampant misogyny that peppers the book), and relatedly, he seems to have issues with men who don't meet his standards of manliness (and thus might be termed "womanly"). If Woolrich had been a serial philanderer, for instance, who kept a scorecard of all the chicks he banged, I wonder if Nevins would have more respect for the guy, even if he was still pale and skinny. First You Dream, Then You Die is truly such a bizarre dual character study, because it tells you just as much about its author as it does about its subject.

    What's perhaps even more frustrating, though, is that there is room for serious queer interpretations of Woolrich's work, but Nevins can't be bothered with that because he's too busy reaching for juvenile ass-shots, as it were.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, yes, you could do queer readings of Woolrich, but Nevins' actual queer readings are grade school level, all having to do with anal and oral sex amd ew! He actually misreads Story to be Whispered as anti-trans when it's actually arguably pro-trans. Nevins decided Woolrich was queer and he thinks of all queer people as self-hating it seems (he wrote the same way about Milton Propper and Patricia Highsmith) so it colored his whole analysis. His literary analyses are like gay bashings. He did the same thing to Milton Propper in an article. There are straight men who can write about gay men, just as vice versa, but Nevins is not one of them, cause he evidently has issues.

      Delete
    2. I think Raimo made a great point about how Woolrich would have been unhappy whatever the sexuality. Nevins completely misses that Woolrich has crippling disorders that would have made his life hard in any case. Of course Nevins probably thinks homosexualty is a disorder. But in my article I mentioned how he was surely agoraphobic likely to have had celiac disease. Nevins has no sensitivity at all in his approach. Like the proverbial blunderbuss.

      Delete
    3. Indeed! If therapy had been in a better state, back when he was alive, it probably could have done him a world of good.

      By the by, you've inadvertently reminded me that I have a couple Woolrich things on the backburner that I really should get around to finishing, so thanks for that, heh.

      Delete
    4. I reviewed Nevin's biography of Woolrich when it first appeared and found the book flawed in numerous ways, one of which was its heavy emphasis on Woolrich's alleged sexuality. I can't remember all that I said now, but the piece is probably floating around online and is also available in my book of essays, "Bound to Please." I've always liked the triple wordplay of that title.--md

      Delete
    5. Michael, indeed it is and I have read it. You made a lot of judicious good points, pro and con. Sometimes I think I sound churlish, for the book is a mine of useful data, both bibliographically and in terms of personal interviews. It's the interpretations that are put on things that are so regrettable, and the fact that Nevins refused to make the stylistic compromises necessary to make the book actually readable.

      Delete