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?
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?
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.
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.
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
Which didn't prevent the Times from stating that J. Edgar Hoover was partial to wearing dresses.
Once again a homosexual shows us that it is all about sex.
In case you missed it, my favorite Sontag obit: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1312290/posts
What the Times should have done would depend on whether they were writing an obituary or a "Remembering Susan Sontag" piece, but if she didn't consider Leibovitz her "partner" herself, there's no reason why the newspapers should do so.
Roger Kimball, at The New Criterion, has written a good assessment of Sontag's career. He is very critical, but a bit less emotional than some of the other critics. Sontag was writing to create the maximum effect in the moment. She aimed to be a trend-setter, that is, to be about 15 minutes ahead of her era. So her work isn't going to last. Indeed, the ill-feeling produced by her writing will probably be better remembered than her ideas or her novels.
Most of what's said against her is true. But the "piling on" after her death probably won't endear the right to some apolitical souls. There's something to be said for the older, slower media cycle that leaves time for the dead to be buried, rather than one so fast that commentators don't have time to think out their responses. For those used to the older, slower way of doing things, it's a bit like people show up at the funeral to badmouth the dead.