Talk:Guy Davenport

On Feb 18, someone added a link to the page "gay writers;" this suggests that Davenport was himself a "gay writer," a classification that is highly questionable and to which Davenport would strongly object. Homosexuality figures heavily into his fiction and is surely a topic relevant to his work, but that no more suggests classifying him as a "gay writer" than his plentiful allusions to ancient Greece make him an ancient Greek writer. I suggest removing this link. Any thoughts, anyone?

I am also curious about the "homophobic reviews" of Davenport's work mentioned in article; I have never encountered any, though I am not intimately familiar with earlier reviews. Can anyone provide a basis for this statement?

EG

The link was been removed, along with reference to homophobic reviews, in course of extensive editin on April 23, 2005.

Having read some of Davenport's work, i think that we should classify him as a gay, South Carolinian, ancient Greek, artistic, non-driving, writer. (Did i leave anything out?)

JN

Damn. I did leave something out. Davenport was a gay, straight writer and, simultaneously, a straight, gay writer.

JN

I think it is appropriate not to classify Davenport as either a straight or a gay writer. Does anyone know which two books were banned by Canadian Customs? Also, can anyone actually cite a homophobic review that appeared in print? I have never seen one.

EG

Gay tweaking

EG, let's just label all writers "gay". Aren't they, anyway? of course, I agree w/ you about removing labels in re G.M.D. & would take it further: No writer should be labeled. Remove "women"; remove "female"; remove "regional"; remove "gay"; remove "straight"; remove "children's"; remove "mystery"; remove "Asian"; remove "Native American"; & so on & so forth (remove "Romantic", "Victorian", "modernist", & "post-modernist", too).

And while we're removing things, could we perhaps remove the constant tweaking that this entry keeps getting? I’d love for Fontgirl and these anonymous numbers (numnymous?) to explain the need for all this tweaking. Certainly, GMD was a painter, but should we rank that appellation with intellectual, writer, and teacher? if we add painter, then shouldn’t we include illustrator, too? his illustrations were disseminated much farther a field than his paintings, after all. We could include Marlboro smoker or victim of toe fungus, too. Where does it end?

JN