Larry Kramer’s *The American People*

This sprawling comic novel cum history is likely to go down as one of the books of the year.  I thought Lawrence D. Mass’s review was excellent, here is one excerpt:

Conversely, is The American People the War and Peace or Gone With The Wind of LGBT history? The American People is so many disparate things that comparisons will inevitably fall short. It’s a Swiftian journey through an America we never knew; a Voltairean satire of American life and ways; a literary offspring of Gore Vidal’s Lincoln and Myra Brenckenridge; a pornographic American history through the eyes of a Henry Miller; a Robin Cook medical mystery. It’s a Sinclairean expose of American industrial and corporate skulduggery, and otherwise breathtakingly testimonial to the art of muckraking. It’s a treasure trove of historical findings, especially of the history of sex in America — of prostitution, communal living, of STD ‘s, of medicine and infectious diseases, of sanitation and health care, of medical and historical institutions, research, opinion, publications, figureheads and testimony. It’s an ultimate coming together (pun intended) of the personal with the political. And it’s the grandest telling yet of Kramer’s own story.

But as you can see from the above description, a significant chunk of readers will reject the book’s premise, language, and topics altogether.  I think it is very, very good, you can order it here.

Comments

None dare mention dementia.

'When the going gets weird, the weird get going.'

Never heard of Larry Kramer 'til now. Thanks for the recommendation, Professor Cowen--or "Tyler" if you prefer. I'll definitely be checking out his work.

I think Hunter Thompson's formulation was, "When the going gets tough, the weird turn pro".

You both have it wrong: "when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."

Netizen beware: Steve Sailer is a bot.

Ban it only if MB = MC.

From Mass's review:

"Kramer wants to make an even stronger case than in the heyday of ACT UP for Reagan ("Peter Reuster") being every bit as culpable, as evil, as Hitler."

That's merely a more florid version of what's bog standard among ACT UP veterans. I was floored at some of the commentary on Mayor Koch at the time of his death, nearly 25 years after departing office. Mayor Koch was never an antagonist of the homosexual population or its political organizers, but the man had a budget to prepare, worked in a matrix wherein there were competing claims on resources, and did not have an unlimited revenue stream. He sad 'no' to some requests and 'yes' to others. The ACT UP types thought balancing their interests against others interests intolerable because Special.

I'll wait for the movie.

Larry Kramer is a classic example of how Freud was right about at least one thing: "projection." Kramer projects all the hate inside himself onto healthy personalities like Reagan.

Ronald Reagan was a professional actor who hid his own coldness behind an invented stage personality of avuncular folksiness, and self-justified it by adopting an intellectual framework of self-reliance to avoid thinking clearly about how the system chews up the less fortunate. Not only that, the emotional fantasy was so complete that he thereby misled an entire party of similar knuckleheads, who call themselves the GOP, down the primrose path into its current nonsense. Nothing healthy about any of it.

[All off topic but:] What you say is probably true, but you misinterpret its relevance. All presidential candidates are actors. The current officeholder for example plays a church-going Christian on television. He had to play-act his supposed deep reflection and epiphany over homo marriage licenses. He also took on the acting role of a dove who would get American forces out of places where they do not belong.

This is not to compare him with Reagan (though as to their personal shortcomings, it's really no contest); it's to say that the whole thing is a stage. Yes, GOP voters are constantly misled and hoodwinked; for many generations they have not been allowed to run candidates that actually support their interests or share their values. With all of the (misplaced) faith I assume you have in the idea of democracy, that should earn them your sympathy, not your scorn.

I happen to like almost all of the Presidents. They all did good things, and they all did things I don't like. But it is you who have misinterpreted the relevance. The statement was that Reagan did not engage in "projection", and was a healthier personality than is Larry Kramer. Now you add more nonsense: that there is "no contest" about "personal shortcomings".

Lee A. Arnold was a arm-chair psychotherapist who hid his own coldness behind an invented persona of caring and knowledge of other people and self-justified it by adopting an intellectual framework of interdependence to avoid clearly thinking about how people of his type actually treat those around them and even prominent people they have never met. Not only that, the emotional fantasy was so complete that he was able to mislead himself about his apparent motives and actual public behavior, although he was able to mislead absolutely no one else.

Stubbs was an arm-chair partisan who applied his criticisms only to one type of person and not another, thereby misleading himself into thinking that he was making a point.

was a professional actor who hid his own coldness behind an invented stage personality
==
He was congenially married for 52 years and the woman who had papers served on him would not say a word against him. He had no history of notable trouble with any 1st or 2d degree relation other than his younger daughter. Some of his employees (Donald T. Regan, David Stockman) found him a fantastic disappointment, but most did not, and he had no history of stoking people's worst instincts (which, alas, Richard Nixon did).

Oh for god's sake, this is just tragic. Even I could defend Reagan better than that. But the question is, was Reagan a "healthy" personality whereas Larry Kramer is not, and the answer is still "no." Probably quite the reverse, considering all that Larry Kramer has gone through.

What has Kramer "gone through" that is out of the ordinary? He did not actually get aids you know.

Your comments on the GOP does not show any kind of open mind though I am sure you think otherwise

Kramer is a tortured author. Not exactly original. More of a stereotype.

Oh for god’s sake, this is just tragic. Even I could defend Reagan better than that.

You're a serial BS artist, which isn't tragic. It's just creakly floorboards.

The only creaking floorboards here are the chirps of Reagan idolatry. When you are ready to extend your similar moral absolutions to someone like, say, Obama, then wake us up.

Larry Kramer wants us to agree with him that Reagan = Hitler.

I suggest that Kramer is projecting much of the rage and vileness within his own psyche upon Reagan.

Ronald Reagan wanted us to agree with him that Medicare = Hitler: the irrevocable beginning of "statism" and the end of freedom in the US.

I suggest that Reagan was projecting much of the emotional distrust of his own alcoholic father and the resulting armoring against his own vulnerability, upon a system that would help the weak, the needy, and the dependent.

See? I can even armchair-psychologize better than you!

From the review lauded by Tyler:

"“Kramer wants to make an even stronger case than in the heyday of ACT UP for Reagan (“Peter Reuster”) being every bit as culpable, as evil, as Hitler.”

"...One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism has been by way of medicine….one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was like in American when men were free..."

"[Medicare will usher in] federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have know it in this country."

"...it's a short step to all the rest of socialism... He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do."

Etc. etc., ad nauseam.

--Ronald Reagan, all in 1961

Good job, dummy, making Reagan look like a prophet.

Except it never happened. There was no complete move to socialism. People will only accept as much government interference as is required to correct for market failure.

Reagan was utilizing Hayek's "road to serfdom", and it has never come true anywhere.

It never even came true in the Soviet Union, where there was NO psychological change into dependency and weakness as Hayek predicted there would be. The Soviets needed secret police to keep people in line, and even that didn't work in the end.

Or maybe Reagan really didn't believe in it? Perhaps he was using Hayek's "slippery slide to socialism" nonsense, in order to get the nescient nudniks to vote for him?

In which case, Reagan was guilty of intellectual corruption + cold political expediency, to gain power.

But if not? Well then, he believed in the Hayekian psychological baloney!

Thusly, we return to my point A, which is that he adopted the intellectual framework of "self-reliance" in order to defeat the hatred of his own early emotional insecurity and nakedness.

Let's see.. What's just about the first thing he did? He went into acting; he projected images of himself.

Next, he went into politics and preached the baloney, perhaps to subconsciously self-justify his supporting role in the destruction of others' market incomes in Hollywood.

Well, by golly, they deserved it: they must have been real commies, hell-bent on twisting the American psyche!

But that's a theory which presupposes that any American beyond the age of 10 is fooled by movies.

And this itself is evidence of an astonishing lapse of psychological judgment on Reagan's part, although I guess, it is not only restricted to him. After all: 1. we know how effective that war propaganda is upon the infantile mind, and there was the Cold War hysteria going on, so we can put this part down to mob psychology. As well as, 2. the usual "cold war" in Hollywood, i.e. lots of intramural competition for big-paying market-jobs in movies. Yet even now, 3. the 1940's Hollywood blacklisters' market-based motivations remain curiously unexamined! Probably because by now, 4. almost everyone has come to believe in the phony power of movies, since by the 1980's the whole culture mutated into babbling about it inanely. Curiously, Reagan was elected President in 1980... I report, you decide! Last but not least, though really it should be first: 5. Only if you yourself are overdetermined by projections of images, do you automatically suppose that everybody else is, too. Another restatement of the ancient truth.

See? Any way you look at it: Not healthy!

But by golly, he made YOU feel good about yourself...

So what does THAT tell us?

On and on it goes: Armchair-psychology-completeness!

Lee A. Arnold April 13, 2015 at 3:53 pm

Except it never happened. ... It never even came true in the Soviet Union, where there was NO psychological change into dependency and weakness as Hayek predicted there would be. The Soviets needed secret police to keep people in line, and even that didn’t work in the end.

Sorry Lee but Russia is a poster child for dependency and weakness. Where are all the Russian entrepreneurs? The entire Russian male population is collecting welfare checks and drinking themselves to death. We know Russia had a lot of small business activity in 1914 and even as late as the NEP. We know that Russian farmers were enterprising and, by and large, progressing nicely when they were collectivized. What are they doing now? Protesting the closing of the collective farm. Russian workers are so dependent, they turn up for work even when they are not paid.

Lee A. Arnold April 13, 2015 at 4:07 pm

But if not? Well then, he believed in the Hayekian psychological baloney!

Rightly so. A place like Scotland has gone in two generations from an incubator of numerous companies to complete welfare dependence. It is a very real phenomenon whether you like it or not.

Thusly, we return to my point A, which is that he adopted the intellectual framework of “self-reliance” in order to defeat the hatred of his own early emotional insecurity and nakedness.

Actually no. Like Kramer we are just back at *your* psychological problems. Not Reagan's.

4. almost everyone has come to believe in the phony power of movies, since by the 1980’s the whole culture mutated into babbling about it inanely.

The Left certainly believes in the phony power of movies. That is why movies and TV cannot be honest about crime and who commits it. Why there are more Black doctors on the big and small screen than in real life. Why police chiefs are always Black and so on. It probably does work - after all, we may not have had Gay marriage without Will and Grace.

On and on it goes: Armchair-psychology-completeness!

But the issue remains what are you compensating for?

You are confusing economic problems with psychological explanations. (Although alcoholism is certainly an acknowledged part of what is going on.) But the Russians were glad to get rid of communism, although they are having second thoughts now, because the West never came through with initial aid to help fire the thing up, a sad fact which I was surprised to read Sachs blame on Cheney in the recent interview with Tyler Cowen.

In fact, there is a lot of entrepreneurial spirit in Russia, as even Forbes reported just a month ago. The Russians are a highly spirited people. What there has not been until now, is a lot of opportunity. This can be due to technological change; it can be due to government regulation; it can be due to other things.

The same thing is true in the United States. The usual conservative explanation here is your Hayekian-Reaganoidal "culture of dependency" bafflegab + the additional argument that government debt is crowding out private investment. It's ALL baloney. Rates have been falling for 35 years and there a surfeit of investment capital.

The basic problem -- in the US, Scotland, and the rest of the advanced world -- is that it is VERY difficult to start a small business in the service sector that has any opportunity for serious profit growth and productivity growth. In fact it's becoming almost impossible. Add up the numbers and it is often a losing prospect, even for something as traditional as starting a restaurant or a corner grocery store. Regulation is not the deciding factor; people change those. It's the productivity ceiling on most kinds of work. This condition is now endemic to the only business sectors that remain for most people to move into. (That is one reason why Obamacare is may be a good thing in the long term, because it may reduce that overhead cost for new small businesses.)

But the issue remains what are you compensating for?

He's playing games and throwing chaff in your face, my face, and that of everyone else. His motives are not interesting.

Why don't you show us how weak and dependent people are. Just take the time to give us a list of 10 or 20 small businesses that people could start thinking about tomorrow. It doesn't have to be laborious or failsafe. Just do it quick, off the top of your head.

Please try to guess, after each business: 1. a rough estimate of the numerical size of the customer base; 2. a rough estimate of how many people it could employ; 3. a rough estimate of the likely profits for the owner (even if it's just the income quartile or quintile it would be likely to place them in); and 4. an idea of where the continuous productivity improvements can be found in the production process, in order to keep each firm going as a competitive concern.

Neither of us get paid to listen to you free associate.

And there it is. The right-wing echo chamber, caught in its own contradictions, refuses to respond.

Even when they are PAID to fill the comments sections of major blogs with misdirection and gibberish.

Lee A. Arnold April 13, 2015 at 7:44 pm

You are confusing economic problems with psychological explanations.

You introduced dependency and cited Russia as an example of where it did not happen. Except it did. I am not confusing anything. I am pointing out you are wrong. As you are. Welfare creates welfare dependency.

But the Russians were glad to get rid of communism

This is a massive irrelevance aimed at changing the topic. Reagan was right about the Soviet Union and he was right about welfare. We are left with the basic problem of your problem with reality.

In fact, there is a lot of entrepreneurial spirit in Russia, as even Forbes reported just a month ago.

Such as? There is remarkably little evidence of it. Even when it comes to looting the state and buying British football clubs all but one (or close to it) of the Russian oligarchs are not Russian. They do not have the spirit to do that.

Rates have been falling for 35 years and there a surfeit of investment capital.

And the US population is by and large highly entrepreneurial. The African American community is not.

The basic problem — in the US, Scotland, and the rest of the advanced world — is that it is VERY difficult to start a small business in the service sector that has any opportunity for serious profit growth and productivity growth.

It has always been very difficult. But Asian immigrants still do.

Regulation is not the deciding factor; people change those.

Actually regulation is often a problem. When it takes 2,500 pages of regulations to comply with just to open a sandwich bar, regulation is a problem. But it still does not seem to bother Asian immigrants. Just people who grew up on welfare.

So basically you have nothing to say about the topic? But you are still certain of your hate?

On February 15, on this very blog, Alex Tabarrok presented a paper co-authored with Norman Goldschlag showing that regulation is NOT a primary cause of the 3-decade decline in business start-ups in the US. In fact some sectors with higher regulation have done better on start-ups.

The EU and many other studies have consistently shown that small and medium-sized entrepreneurship has been growing steadily in Russia, despite the economic problems of this transition period including lack of financing. It is actually quite a remarkable story, considering the adverse conditions they face.

SAGE just published a survey of 19,000 respondents in 18 European countries shows that the commitment to work is HIGHER in the countries with bigger welfare systems.

Your analysis of the old Soviet economy is wrong. It did not cause dependency. It was inefficient because it ignored the better way that markets solve supply and demand information problems. It also required a police state to keep people in line, because they did not change psychologically to accept it.

Reagan's analysis of Medicare was wrong. It does not cause dependency and has not led to government ownership of the means to production.

Your theory of psychology is incorrect. How people act and react in a society is caused by their perception of whether the system is fair and just. It has nothing to do with free-riding and dependency, except among a small minority on Skid Row and on Wall Street.

What is happening now in the developed countries appears to be an acceleration of the globalization/automation process which displaces labor into jobs, and entrepreneurs into small businesses, that do not admit of rapid productivity growth (service sector, etc.) This is causing a reliance on transfers and welfare (and credit bubbles) to make up for the lost income levels, because wages, prices, and real estate values are sticky downwards, and when they are not, the deflation causes an even worse outcome.

But this has nothing to do with causing, or being caused by, dependency.

Freud was right about a lot of things, despite what your guru Cochran says.

He was also wrong about a lot of things.

CIVILIZATION & ITS DISCONTENTS is a &*#)ing masterpiece.

Conversely, it's implied, had the American people been even somewhat less selfish, arrogant , ridiculous, stupid, bigoted, thieving, lying, hypocritical, marauding, pillaging, plundering, dumb and dumber, hating, hateful, murderous, mass-murderous and evil, one of recorded histories worst global catastrophes, the plague, might never have happened as it did. It's an unarticulated but spectacular premise that can be as difficult to swallow as it is to refute.

So, basically, he is claiming that AIDS was not the fault of Gay people, especially not those in bath houses having sex with thousands of people a money, but everyone else - all the boring normal straight people are to blame?

You don't say. The things you learn on the internet.

Kramer goes much much further, alleging that not only Lincoln but Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Presidents Jackson, Pierce, Buchanan and perhaps other presidents, as well as Lewis and Clarke, de Tocqueville, LaFayette, Burr, John Wilkes Booth, Samuel Clemens, George Custer, Oliver Wendell Holmes, visitors to America such as Sigmund Freud and his alleged lover Wilhelm Fliess, virtually every actor in Hollywood past and present, including one who became president, and so many others, were gay or did it with men at some point.

At some point this looks like a psychological problem more than history or even a novel. Why precisely must this man assume his sexual preferences are everyone's unless he is very uneasy about his sexual preferences?

Does this book have a single redeeming feature? Doesn't sound like it.

Kramer is close to 80 and he has been infected with HIV for decades. Virulent hatred for people who aren't like him is what he keeps him going.

"Conversely, it’s implied, had the American people been even somewhat less selfish, arrogant , ridiculous, stupid, bigoted, thieving, lying, hypocritical, marauding, pillaging, plundering, dumb and dumber, hating, hateful, murderous, mass-murderous and evil"
One could perhaps then use the incidence of AIDS in a place as an index for how much the population has those traits. So sub-saharan Africa would be #1, but the presence of Islam would be negatively correlated with it. As a matter of fact, I now remember some quasi-nazi type kept going on about the correlation of AIDS with Jews in US cities according to some "laboratory of the states" site. A useful site, I'd imagine, although it wasn't there when I tried seeing if it could be used like the GSS.

And Lawrence Maas concludes that paragraph you quote with: "It's an unarticulated but spectacular premise that can be as difficult to swallow as it is to refute. "
-

Here's a question: how kooky does a book review have to get before Tyler Cowan deems it something other than 'excellent'? Or is it only book reviews by members of the Anointed's mascot groups that get this indulgent treatment?

My guess is that Tyler is a nice straight guy who doesn't understand what seething rage-filled misogynist* gay creeps like Larry Kramer are made of.

*I apologize for using this used-to-death word, but in this case, the Magli really does fit. Kramer's viciously distorted adaptation of Lawrence's WOMEN IN LOVE is a misogynist abomination.

We're all victims, now. It all depends on who you are: self-identity is expanding and, in the process, becoming narrower. Who hasn't suffered. Even the rich suffer - the curse of having much is having more to lose. Jews suffer, blacks suffer, native Americans suffer, Southerners suffer (Scarlett O'Hara would always have Tara - her identity, not the place), old people suffer, gays and lesbians suffer. Of course, the history of humanity is a history of inhumanity. I spent Friday and Saturday visiting a family member at what is known as a rehabilitation hospital (an odd description - rehabilitation - given that there's no rehabilitation (cure) for old age). Do the old people in that facility suffer? It seems like a fine place, with good care provided to the old people there, the expense for which is mostly paid by society, although I couldn't help but notice how few had visitors. Why is it that people wish to ease the suffering of old people - by having society pay for relief of their suffering - but few others? Self-identity: whoever you are (rich or poor, Jewish or Gentile, black or white), one day you will be old (if you are (un)fortunate). That's the paradox of expanding self-identity: there's fewer (a narrower class of people) who have sympathy for your suffering.

All the reviews I've glanced at indicate this book is more hallucinatory projection than History. It seems absurd that you could recommend this with a straight face Tyler.

Gay-rights activist and award-winning author Larry Kramer is 79 and in failing health, but that won’t defuse the impact of his latest bombshell project: the first 800-page instalment of a two-part history of America that tells of the secret gay life of figures from Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln to Mark Twain, Herman Melville and Richard Nixon."

What's Kramer's evidence that any of this is true? From his own words this entire work is projection.

"“It may look like fiction, but to me, it’s not,” Kramer told the New York Times last week. ... The American People, Volume I: Search for My Heart is causing consternation among historians, who say there is little evidence to back Kramer’s claims."

What's with the bizarre standard, whereby a Gay Progressive is allowed to write such utter malarkey and yet get praised for it?

And in ten years our kids will be forced to read this shit.

Ten years after that, we will be boycotting Indiana if some pizza owner implies it is not true.

While Tim Cook gives a speech in front of Apple's 100th store in Riyadh, poor gay kid swinging from a scaffold in the background, as he castigates the insidious evil of homophobic pepperoni and cheese.

Cook will demonstrate a cool new feature of the iPhone 15, an app allowing you to call in a drone strike on any homophobic pizza parlor in the state of Indiana from the comfort of your limo in Saudi Arabia.

None dare mention dementia.

Maybe Tyler's just trolling his own commenters.

Hmmm: Tolstoy and Margaret Mitchell, Swift and Voltaire, Gore Vidal and Henry Miller, plus Robin Cook and Upton Sinclair, PLUS Larry Kramer, all within the covers of one book.
I still have Hunter Thompson, Faulkner and O'Connor, Baudelaire and Jarry, Bulgakov and Dostoevsky, Gogol, Vico and Moliere to get to, quite apart from Lucian and Juvenal, and I haven't even started my autobiography properly . . . .

Conservatives understand that appeasement doesn't work in foreign conflicts, yet consistently fail to apply this logic to cultural matters. So our culture just gets weirder and weirder.

+1

this will be gospel and taught to your grand children in 30 years

It's already almost complete heresy to mention that the main cause of the AIDS epidemic among American gays was the preceding era of Gay Liberation.

The view that Ronald Reagan caused AIDS is close to conventional wisdom, although not yet dogma.

It is? I seem to recall this being acknowledged in the Washington Post Book World ca 1996 by a writer named Chris Bull, reviewing a work by another homosexual on the 'sexual ecology' of that population. I hadn't seen much written on that point since. The abuse of Ronald Reagan and Ed Koch by ACT UP types was well-established years earlier.

Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men Paperback – May 1, 1998
by Gabriel Rotello (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Ecology-AIDS-Destiny-Gay/dp/0452277191

It was completely obvious at the time, but as the years have gone by, history has gotten retconned grotesquely.

I do not understand how they can demonize Reagan and canonize his Surgeon General (C. Everett Koop) simultaneously.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/02/26/c_everett_koop_understanding_aids_former_surgeon_general_became_a_hero_to.html

"C. Everett Koop, the Ronald Reagan-appointed surgeon general who would go on to become a hero to AIDS activists, died yesterday in New Hampshire at the age of 96."

This is from Slate, the online NY Times arbiter of all that is holy & PC.

The Surgeon-General is the chief of the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service, an old and odd agency with lots of archaic traditions whose primary responsibility is to second manpower to various other agencies. I think any responsibilities other than that have to do with public relations. There was a great deal of complaint about Koop at the time of his appointment, ostensibly because there had to be a special dispensation for him due to advanced age and ostensibly because he was a pediatric surgeon and not a public health maven. The real complaint was that he was an associate of Francis Schaffer and a vociferous advocate for life.

I suspect what appealed about Koop was that he was in office rolled to some extent, and ended up by 1986 advocating practices which were morally dubious and also criticizing quondam allies. He also paid attention to the gay lobby and talked up their agenda. It was of scant importance, really, but some people are motivated by strange things.

I was being sarcastic/ironic (is there really a difference?), which doesn't come across on the 'net.

I remember how much they hated Koop, and how he got strangely respected when he began to megaphone the GMHC line about how to contain AIDs. And that's why the "AIDs Community" reveres him and hates Reagan.

More sarcasm: I would bet that most members of the "AIDs Community's" eyes go all gooey at the sound of the word "Cuba" or "Fidel." Of course Fidel contained AIDs in Cuba by draconian measures that they would never countenance in the West. They are the most ignorant stupid cusses on earth.

Naturally, they are the ones who set policy, style and manners in this country.

OK, jokes aside, this is a very important issue that deserves to be disinfected in the sunlight.

I think Sailer is correct here. When Rotello wrote his book, there was a fair amount of anguished introspection about gay male behavior in the "Cruising" era. For a short time, this became semi-acknowledged publicly. Shilts' AND THE BAND PLAYED ON was viciously slagged by the screaming queens, as well as Rotello's book. Remember: we still had guys like Norman Mailer around, who said heresies like, "there is no such thing as safe sex." Because of his enormous prestige as a writer, he could get away with saying stuff like this. By 1996-2000, there was a tacit admission that gay men had goofed, and if they wanted to survive, they'd have to change their behavior. For the most part, the smarter ones did, although HIV (and other viruses) runs like a current forced underground throughout all gay male life.

Anyway, in recent years, with the triumph of the LGBT movement and its complete hegemony over American cultural life, this hard-won knowledge has been tossed into the trash bin and the old ACT-UP propaganda has been resuscitated in pristine entirety.

With respect to the movie CRUISING, it was terrible, really laughably terrible, movie, but it provided an accurate view of the era and behavior Larry Kramer wrote about in FAGGOTS. This stuff actually happened. If an enemy of a group of people wanted to write a book entitled HOW TO GET SICK AND KILL OTHER PEOPLE WITH A DEADLY VIRUS, you could not do worse than what gay men did in the early AIDs era.

Years ago, I read a book by James Elroy entitled "American Tabloid." As I read the book, its premise was to assume that tabloid versions of historic events were true. I thought it was a very good book, although not historically accurate. It is well within the bounds of fiction to write about historic events through the lens of conspiracy theory, for example, or alternative history. The only real way to tell whether or not the book's premise works is to read it, and I will give the Kramer book a go.

Of course, you can't force people to read a book that they don't feel inclined to ( in most situations, that is ). One of my favorite authors is Tom Sharpe, and my own fiction veers closest to Tom Sharpe. However, over the years, I've had a hard time getting people to read Tom Sharpe, or, if they do, to enjoy it. I don't think the events he portrays are generally based upon real events. One of the most enjoyable aspects of writing my comic mysteries is that I make the science up. Anyway, I think Samuel Johnson said something to the effect that, if a book offends your sensibilities, you should read it. Or maybe it's the opposite. Or not even Samuel Johnson. Magic Johnson, maybe?

"American Tabloid" is Ellroy's finest novel - kind of the flip side of Truman Capote's so-called nonfiction novel, "In Cold Blood". I'm skeptical that Kramer can walk the fine line required to replicate Ellroy's feat though.

I have not read the book, but liked this bit, from the review by Dwight Garner:

“The American People, Volume 1” is uneasy reading, in ways intentional and not so much. It’s a frantic novel that builds up little to no narrative momentum. There are multiple narrators and dozens of characters. Like an old toilet, it is easily clogged.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/27/books/review-the-american-people-volume-1-by-larry-kramer-retells-history-with-passion.html?_r=0

I thought Lawrence D. Mass’s review was excellent,
--
Actually, the review makes the book sound like a madcap mess and the reviewer sound like a man incapable of thinking outside the box into which he's elected to climb.

Well, if you read through to the very end, you're informed that the reviewer "is a co-founder, with Kramer, of Gay Men's Health Crisis". He may not be fully impartial.

Ah dear Larry Kramer and dear Gay Men's Health Crisis, which he helped found. I remember them well, how they tried to stop the "Baby AIDs" bill from passing the NY State Senate. How many black and brown babies died as a result of this?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/011/076bxwaz.asp

"Unfortunately, strict confidentiality rules enacted at the behest of AIDS activists who fetishize "privacy" meant that mothers could not be informed about their babies' HIV status unless they asked."

"I was visited by the Gay Men's Health Crisis and they asked me to withdraw the legislation. I said to them, 'Your community has been so devastated by the disease; so many young lives have been lost. Why wouldn't you support this?' And they said, 'Privacy is our main concern.'"

Is it fair to say that Larry Kramer has blood on his hands?

The vehemence with which he accuses others of murder is probably directly related to the blood on his own hands. Accepting the falsehood of the former would mean admitting the truth of the latter.

The Gay lobby refused to allow even San Francisco's bath houses to be closed. It is psychologically necessary to blame Reagan.

Right, Freudian projection. Lots of gay men of Kramer's age killed men they had sex with. It's a lot of guilt to have to live with, so they make up bizarre fantasies about it being all Reagan's fault. That's understandable, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should agree with their vile displacement fantasies.

I think an enhanced tendency to hold other people at fault for your various and sundry discontents, scars, and failures is kind of a gay male signature (or at least a signature of the vociferous minority therein). Kramer is louder and more florid than most, but he was the guru of ACT UP. He was not supplying the manpower.

I don't think gay men were as tendentiously politicized in the 1980s as in the 2000s. Back then, gay men tended to look down upon lesbian feminists as stridently political, boring, and unwitty.

I suspect that the current mindset may have originated once treatments for AIDS began appearing in the early 1990s (when Magic Johnson declared he had AIDS in 1991, pretty much everybody assumed he'd dead soon, but, as a celebrity, he got revolutionary state of the art care). During the 1980s it was pretty obvious that gays had inflicted this giant tragedy upon themselves due to Gay Lib, but once cures started to appear due to everybody dropping everything to work on this new epidemic, it became somehow easier to argue that everybody should have dropped everything else even sooner to work on the self-inflicted gay epidemic. Which by the way caused by Ronald Reagan.

It's all nuts, but the nuttier the argument, the more appeal it has.

"I don’t think gay men were as tendentiously politicized in the 1980s as in the 2000s."

I beg to differ. ACT-UP and GHMC started in the 1980s by very tendentiously politicized gay men, who were far more effective in achieving their goals than the lesbian dullards, who accomplished nothing much. (The achievement of feminist goals on the campuses - to choose but one example - was the result of many things, the lesbian component being the least.)

ACT-UP and GHMC on the other hand succeeded brilliantly in hamstringing a variety of sensible public health measures, all of which resulted in needless deaths.

In addition to actually killing each other, the Baby AIDS bill (which was bogged in the NY State Senate until the state got a Republican governor), saved many lives. How many babies died from the advent of AIDS until the bill was enacted in 1996? We'll never know.

I read somewhere that 50% of the hemophiliac population died as a result of tainted blood. It's too awful to contemplate.

"Back then, gay men tended to look down upon lesbian feminists as stridently political, boring, and unwitty."

They still do, but that doesn't and didn't stop them from pursuing their political goals with relentless focus and drive. You can be fabulous and ferocious at the same time, as many a femme fatale proves.

Thanks, and lately the "transgendered" (whether men claiming to be women, or women shooting up with testosterone) are shoving poor lesbian feminists around on the Seven Sisters campuses.

Testosterone, it's a helluva hormone.

"Testosterone, it’s a helluva hormone."

So is estrogen. It just depends what you want to accomplish in life.

Is this Prof. Cowen's coming-out announcement?

Perceptive review:

http://tinyurl.com/o8tas74

"It also owes a lot of its inventiveness to other sources. I’ve mentioned Thomas Pynchon, but Mr. Kramer has borrowed a great deal both stylistically and substantively from Ishmael Reed, whose masterpiece, “Mumbo Jumbo,” an Afro-Futurist deconstruction and reimagining of Western history, is a virtual template for the structure and invention in “The American People.”

“Mumbo Jumbo” even includes a semi-personified contagion called “Jes Grew”; “The American People” includes a semi-personified contagion called “The Underlying Condition.”"

Virtual template....nice way of saying "ripoff."

"it invents primary and secondary historical documents; it invents whole Native American nations "

You mean a gay Jew is allowed to appropriate Native American history for his purposes? Isn't this hegemonic privileged whiteness? It's practically a macro-aggression!!

Comments for this post are closed