Status
Call number
Collection
Publication
Description
'Queer: A Graphic History Could Totally Change the Way You Think About Sex and Gender' Vice Activist-academic Meg-John Barker and cartoonist Julia Scheele illuminate the histories of queer thought and LGBTQ+ action in this groundbreaking non-fiction graphic novel. From identity politics and gender roles to privilege and exclusion, Queer explores how we came to view sex, gender and sexuality in the ways that we do; how these ideas get tangled up with our culture and our understanding of biology, psychology and sexology; and how these views have been disputed and challenged. Along the way we look at key landmarks which shift our perspective of what�s �normal� � Alfred Kinsey�s view of sexuality as a spectrum, Judith Butler�s view of gendered behaviour as a performance, the play Wicked, or moments in Casino Royale when we�re invited to view James Bond with the kind of desiring gaze usually directed at female bodies in mainstream media. Presented in a brilliantly engaging and witty style, this is a unique portrait of the universe of queer thinking.… (more)
User reviews
Speaking of lazy and uninspired, I always like to find my own thoughts on a work summarized within it: "Perhaps the most well-known criticism of queer theory is that it is inaccessible....There's a serious point here that if a theory is too abstract, complex, and opaque it will exclude those outside academia from engaging with it. It may also be regarded as elitist and class-biased." I did not engage with this work, but I do appreciate the exposure to ideas that are new to me even if the presentation is lacking.
The word queer is something I use to protect me, to identify me, to celebrate myself. I understand that other people may not use it or be offended by it, and that I totally understand. I try not to use the word around them and respect them and their boundaries and choices. I also use the words gay / bi / pan to identify myself because those are all spaces I occupy and feel that multiple labels aren’t a hindrance on me.
And the first thing I was disappointed about with this book was its one-sentence discussion on how the word queer was a hurtful term to some people. That’s it. That’s all.
… okay?
This also doesn’t feel very cohesive at all. There are separate headings on each page, discussing one or two items or theories or people at a time and I get no sense of continuity when I read. I don’t feel a strong argument, there’s just lots and lots and lots of definitions of things I already know or have studied. That’s not to say I’m pretentious but I’ve heard of Freud before and I know his basic theories.
So to go into this graphic history with an open mind, an open heart, ready to learn and to find I could’ve written some of these pages myself was really a let-down. This might’ve been useful for me ten years ago, when I was starving for genuine queer thought but at the same time, some of its content really doesn’t fit with me. The way they define queer is not how I define queer but somehow, despite always insisting that the queer identity is fluid and is different to different people, they’ve… managed to tell me this is what queer is and this is what it means and if you’re outside of that then you’re performing as something else?
It’s weird and hard to explain or to give an exact quotation, but it feels odd considering the authors go to great lengths to discuss subjectivity without ever critiquing their own definitions.
I like my queer theory and critical feminist theory to challenge me. I read feminist books published by trans people, people of colour and first nations people for this reason. I try to push my own boundaries away from what I’ve learned and try to be inclusive as much as possible. I am the first to admit I need to be more active in my activism. I need to stop passively re-tweeting or sharing images and to take part in marches, protests, sit ins and to write letters to my representatives. I need to use my white privilege better.
However, this didn’t challenge me, it was perplexing. The two authors constantly talk about subjectivity without mentioning their own, deconstructing others’ biases and not their own. They seem to champion academia while only ever mentioning its pitfalls within academia itself, with one single page limited to “Queer theory should be open to all". The first real mention of trans people, by the way, is on page 80 of 175, which is “You might be wondering how trans people fit into this. We’ll get back to this soon.”
On page 83, which talks about disrupting binary / sexuality / gender norms, the three people pictured are Miley Cyrus, Ruby Rose and Kristen Stewart. I have nothing against these women but (I believe) they are all bisexual or gay and, as far as I know, all identify as cisgender. No trans people are included. No non-binary or asexual people are included. Non-binary people are not even mentioned until page 160 .
I feel as though this is confirming some deep-rooted neoliberal biases I’ve been trying very, very hard to get rid of and after page 83, I got tired of this book. The rest of the pages were just a total chore. This is a shame because there were many voices I was interested in hearing from (Julia Serano, Cordelia Fine and so on) that were included in this theory book. That said, I did learn things and wrote down a few names I’d be interested in looking up. Because of this, I kept reading because I kept discovering new names of people who sounded interesting and have contributed a lot to queer theory. Feels a lot like intermittent reinforcement.
With asexuality, crip / discussions around disabled people and discussions around fat phobia all lumped together on the one page, I can’t help but wonder if they could’ve done better. So many of these pages almost feel like afterthoughts, and for my body queer body to be considered an afterthought in a book about queerness is… othering, and sad. They did well in regards to discussing race and queerness and intersectionality multiple times throughout the book, so I know they could do it, but… it was just depressing to see them discuss how queering others happens in theory to have them do it in their own book.
It feels like a bunch of mismatched infographics rather than a graphic novel. This might be a great book to some people and that’s fine, but it’s not a book for me.
This was too broad and not critical enough. I learned a lot, but it was work.
I had such high hopes for this.