Posted on 01/05/2005 9:23:50 AM PST by dennisw
DE-GAYING SONTAG: Here's Daniel Okrent's defense of why the New York Times omitted the fact that Susan Sontag was a lesbian:
Spurred by challenges and queries from several readers, I looked into the charge that The Times had willfully suppressed information about Susan Sontag's relationship with Annie Leibovitz. (The famous rock and roll and Vogue magazine photographer who has also photographed in GWBush's White House) My inquiry indicates that the subject was in fact discussed before publication of the Sontag obituary, but that The Times could find no authoritative source who could confirm any details of a relationship. According to obituaries editor Chuck Strum, "It might have been helpful if The Times could have found a way to acknowledge the existence of a widespread impression that Susan Sontag and Annie Leibovitz were more than just casual friends. But absent any clarifying statements from either party over the years, and no such corroboration from people close to her, we felt it was impossible to write anything conclusive about their relationship and remain fair to both of them." Ms. Leibovitz would not discuss the subject with The Times, and Ms. Sontag's son, David Rieff, declined to confirm any details about the relationship. Some might say that such safely accurate phrases as "Ms. Sontag had a long relationship with Annie Leibovitz" would have sufficed, but I think anything like that would not only bear the unpleasant aroma of euphemism, but would also seem leering or coy. Additionally, irrespective of the details of this particular situation, it's fair to ask whether intimate information about the private lives of people who wish to keep those lives private is fair game for newspapers. I would personally hope not.The closet remains intact. Privacy? Sontag informed the world about her cancers and even an abortion. And her relationships with several women were not state secrets. Recall also that Sontag's career took off with her rightly celebrated essay on camp, an essay that she would had a hard time writing without intimate familiarity with gay life and culture. The golden rule here is to ask what the NYT would have done if Sontag had lived with a man for a couple of decades on and off, and had written essays on various aspects of sex, love and heterosexuality. Do you think they would have never mentioned her actual love life? Or if she had had serious relationships with a variety of male artists and thinkers, some of whom had influenced her work. Would this be regarded as an invasion of her privacy? The question answers itself. (More discussion here.)
She says she has been in love seven times in her life, which seems quite a lot. "No, hang on," she says. "Actually, it's nine. Five women, four men." She will talk about her bisexuality quite openly now. It's simple, she says. "As I've become less attractive to men, so I've found myself more with women. It's what happens. Ask any woman my age. More women come on to you than men. And women are fantastic. Around 40, women blossom. Women are a work-in-progress. Men burn out." She doesn't have a lover now, she lives alone. The rumours about her and the photographer Annie Leibovitz are, she says, without foundation. They are close friends." Maybe it sounds foolish, she says. "Maybe everyone will think I have an aberrant life, or a low sex drive. Maybe I am consigning myself to the asexual here. But speaking candidly, and only for myself, there are so many things in my life now that are more important to me than my sexuality. My relationship with my son, David. My writing. Even my moral passions seem to me to be far more defining than my erotic life. People can conclude from this what they want."Why be so queasy after her death when she was not when she was alive?
MORE ON SONTAG: I'm not the only one to notice how the big media has essentially lied by omission about Susan Sontag's life. An op-ed in today's L.A. Times notes the following:
An unauthorized biography written by Carl Rollyson and Lisa Paddock and published by W.W. Norton in 2000, reports that Sontag was, for seven years, the companion of the great American playwright Maria Irene Fornes (in Sontag's introduction to the collected works of Fornes, she writes about them living together). She also had a relationship with the renowned choreographer Lucinda Childs. And, most recently, Sontag lived, on and off, with Leibovitz.Even Hitchens mentions only her ex-husband. Privacy? From a woman who detailed every aspect of her own illnesses? From someone whose best work is redolent with homosexual themes? But, of course, Sontag understood that her lesbianism might limit her appeal in a homophobic culture - even on the extreme left, where she comfortably lived for decades. That was her prerogative. But that's no reason for the media to perpetuate untruths after her death. And it's certainly reason to review her own record in confronting injustice. Just as she once defended the persecution of gay people in Castro's Cuba, she ducked one of the burning civil rights struggles of her time at home. But she was on the left. So no one criticized.
I did not read the Times' OBIT..did it mention her insane comments after 9/11?
More at the LA Times--->>
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-moore4jan04,1,722391.story
Since when has the NY Times been interested in writing anything fair about anyone on the right? But the left gets a pass. Why didn't they go to their sources in the Village who have "gaydar" to confirm?
Around 40, women blossomIs that a euphemism?
life on the democrat plantation.
the boomers in the sixties decided that the rules did not apply to themselves. the rules never applied to bill 'n hill, baba streisland, and their ilk. wasn't bob dylan's song "she belongs to me" about baba? that was the rumor on the east coast in the sixties.
so, whatta ya have?
a privileged group of bolsheviks at the top of the university, hollywood, nyc, and wa wa d.c. food chain.
She can say that again. Oops, I forgot, she has assumed room temperature...
"But absent any clarifying statements from either party over the years, and no such corroboration from people close to her, we felt it was impossible to write anything conclusive about their relationship and remain fair to both of them."
Interesting that MSM would be so restrained here but not in the case President Bush's National Guard Service. Hypocrites ALL!!!
Andrew Sullivan is obsessed with his gayness. He has allowed it to define who he is. Most articles about people, especially obits, don't discuss a person's sexuality........when Ronald Reagan died, did Mr. Sullivan expect all newspaper articles to include the information that President Reagan was heterosexual? Of course not.
Could it possibly be, that they didn't want to portray Sontag as a flake? I know in Andrew's world, just being homosexual is akin to godhood, but Sontag's approach to sexuality screams "I've got issues!"
The rumours about her and the photographer Annie Leibovitz are, she says, without foundation. They are close friends.So there wasn't anything. Big whoop!
Why does anyone bother to post his articles? He is a homosexual who bashes republicans and denounces the marriage amendments for no reason other than his pursuit of male genitalia. He is irrelivant.
As for her being a homosexual, that was a big obvious duh.
Why did this omission have to be defended? Who would have benefitted by its inclusion?
The article speaks of "the great American playwrite Maria Irene Fornes." I must confess that I never heard of her. Nor have I ever heard of any of her plays after looking her up, although she seems to have won eight Obies.
Well, as we know, winning such prizes in these days of the leftist elite is a mark of political correctness, not of greatness. For basic details on her:
http://www.signaturetheatre.org/playwrights/mariaFornes/mariaFornes.html
I take it by your comment that you hate Sontag. So does that mean you are wasting your life in hate? And deserve no lamentation? Now I don't believe in lamenting every life but most lives have those who lament them when they leave. No one expects us to lament every single life. But what civilized people do is not declare other's lives not worthy of lamentation unless they have earned that with crimes beyond all telling. And Sontag was no criminal. And people did love her and lament her passing. Not too many freepers and not me but it is downright inhuman to declare what you did. Just my opinion.
Which didn't prevent the Times from stating that J. Edgar Hoover was partial to wearing dresses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.