If the rumours about Gore Vidal are true,

If the rumours about Gore Vidal are true, what does this mean for his work?

Click to expand...

I put this question here because it is probably a 'non-judgmental' crowd.


Gore Vidal aged 21. The writer stated in his memoir Palimpsest that he was 'attracted to adolescent males'. Photograph: Jerry Cooke/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Image

In connection with a new book about Vidal, his half-sister and a nephew have hinted that he may have had a secret passion for underage boys. And Vidal more or less admitted it himself, writing in his memoir Palimpsest that he was "attracted to adolescent males".

Given this context, an incident in 1977 will also now bring literary cops running. Martin Amis, interviewing Vidal for the Observer, was required to give him copy approval, and was asked to change Amis's description of "homosexual" to "pansexual". Vidal was prissily fastidious about the meaning of words and his suggested substitution can be taken as a confession that nothing and no one was erotically off-limits.

Click to expand...

So he was a little queer, I'll not cast the first stone.

But what about Wagner?
He was an anti-Semite, but few seem to shun his music? Can music be racial?

This is something that has been bothering me about continuing to write.

Out of context for my writing is correct for another.

What it would take is an investigation into whom the man was as a whole and a reading of his writing.

Should his Moral Compass be set to neutral then it could go either way.

This is purely theory as I do not know the man personally nor am I a fan.

I am going to go read some and check back to this thread for posterity as the concept holds premise.

JackLuis said:

So he was a little queer, I'll not cast the first stone.

But what about Wagner?
He was an anti-Semite, but few seem to shun his music? Can music be racial?

Click to expand...

There's a disconnect between what you cite and what you write. You write that he was "a little queer." Well, Duh. Have you been under a rock?

What you cite is suggesting he was a pedophile for underage boys.

"A little queer" and a "pedophile for underage boys" aren't the same thing.

I think pansexual was pretty much on, so, no I'm not surprised about what you cited. I'm just not sure that you understand what you cited.

JackLuis said:

I put this question here because it is probably a 'non-judgmental' crowd.

Click to expand...

Got that right...don't even care about him or anything associated to him. That non-judgmental enough?

What, if any, is the difference between being 'bi-sexual' and 'pansexual'? I mean, both mean a switch hitter don't they? Of course Pan was half goat and liked to fuck both women and goats which would lead one to surmise if Vidal was pansexual he liked to fuck guys, girls and goats?

Just wondering.

TE999 said:

What, if any, is the difference between being 'bi-sexual' and 'pansexual'? I mean, both mean a switch hitter don't they? Of course Pan was half goat and liked to fuck both women and goats which would lead one to surmise if Vidal was pansexual he liked to fuck guys, girls and goats?

Just wondering.

Click to expand...

Something like that, yes. And knotholes in fences. And cross-dressing and transvestite. The whole nine yards.

PayDay said:

This is something that has been bothering me about continuing to write.

Out of context for my writing is correct for another.

What it would take is an investigation into whom the man was as a whole and a reading of his writing.

Should his Moral Compass be set to neutral then it could go either way.

This is purely theory as I do not know the man personally nor am I a fan.

I am going to go read some and check back to this thread for posterity as the concept holds premise.

Click to expand...

"Congress no longer declares war or makes budgets. So that's the end of the constitution as a working machine."

I could see how people get Vidal wrong.

sr71plt said:

There's a disconnect between what you cite and what you write. You write that he was "a little queer." Well, Duh. Have you been under a rock?

What you cite is suggesting he was a pedophile for underage boys.

"A little queer" and a "pedophile for underage boys" aren't the same thing.

I think pansexual was pretty much on, so, no I'm not surprised about what you cited. I'm just not sure that you understand what you cited.

Click to expand...

Actually the allegations, implied, are consistent with his general reputation, but his attraction to adolescent males, may have been Platonic with the underaged. He did not strike me as a slavering beast, but I'll bet he was attracted by college boys.

However that does not answer the question, should we disregard the artistic output simply because he sucked a few dicks? Should we burn his works?

A few things we know for certain about Gore Vidal:

He was a brilliant intellect.
A brilliant wit.
A master of words.

And I suspect he knew, firstly, exactly what he was saying, secondly the indignation it would cause for certain people, and thirdly he would have walked away laughing at their expense.

If you start

with his works, can you stop or do you have to start banning Truman Capote's or any other non-straight author or authoress?
Because he stated he had "an attraction" to adolescent males doesn't mean he had sexual relations with any.
I have attractions to women of all ages, types, and races, but I'm not having sex with any of them. I love one woman and she loves me and I can live with the thoughts without actually acting upon them.
He was human like the rest of us with all the good and bad that are in all of us.
I have a gay nephew who I love as much as my two straight ones and I try and treat him the same although I must admit I don't always succeed.
Once you start down the road of censorship, you can't ever go back.

JackLuis said:

Actually the allegations, implied, are consistent with his general reputation, but his attraction to adolescent males, may have been Platonic with the underaged. He did not strike me as a slavering beast, but I'll bet he was attracted by college boys.

However that does not answer the question, should we disregard the artistic output simply because he sucked a few dicks? Should we burn his works?

Click to expand...

Well, according to sr, Vidal also fucked knotholes, goats and anything else that moved and some that didn't. He was also a cross dressing transvestite that didn't
wash his hands after taking a poop.

Disregard him, I say!

JackLuis said:

However that does not answer the question, should we disregard the artistic output simply because he sucked a few dicks? Should we burn his works?

Click to expand...

Of course not. Who is this weak-brained "we" you refer to?

<shrug>

I liked some of his books, disliked a few, didn't read others.

I don't tend to delve into authors' (or musicians' or artists') personal lives on my own. Some of them have that thrust into my cognizance by the press, themselves, or my next door neighbor. Whatever...creative people are often quirky in one or several ways (I could look in the mirror to tell you that!). I'm generally much more interested in the product than the producer.

"In connection with a new book about Vidal, his half-sister and a nephew have hinted that he may have had a secret passion for underage boys. And Vidal more or less admitted it himself, writing in his memoir Palimpsest that he was "attracted to adolescent males"."

So basically, his relatives, to cash in on his legacy are making sure the most salacious details of his life are trotted to the fore to they can sell as many books as possible.

For myself, I draw a line between what you think about and what you do. Vidal thought about it? None of my business. If he had acted on it, e.g., Roman Polanski drugging and raping an underage girl in a hot tub, well, that's something different. I do make a policy not to give my dollars to purchase the works of a child rapist.

As far as the analogy to Wagner goes, there's ample evidence that Gore Vidal was far more anti-Semitic than Wagner every thought of being. (We should of course take into account that people aren't always careful to bifurcate Wagner's own anti-Semitic writings with the uses to which his music was put by the Nazis. It is, I think, unfair to blame him for the latter, what with him being dead at the time and all.)

Given how many things Vidal was against, being anti-Semitic was just a footnote. Near as I can tell, the only thing he really did like was Gore Vidal.

People's personal lives and their art are usually separate. I try to keep it that way. I think Tom Cruise is a tool, but if one of his movies looks good, I'll go see it.

But...

When you start talking about molesting children, that's a hard disconnect.

Probably going to be less backlash on his work because he's dead.

Gore Vidal may have been attracted to underage teen boys but that doesn't mean he did anything about it. There's a big difference between being homosexual and being a paedophile. Homosexuality is a mutually consenting relationship of equals, paedophilia is about grooming, control, & power.

On the question of whether a fall from grace by an artist can turn you off their work, in my experience the answer is yes. However, it depends on what is the reason. As someone said above Tom Cruise's nutbag Scientology antics don't turn me off his movies. Yet once I first learnt that Michael Jackson was paedophile I shunned him and his music completely.

In Gore Vidal's case, you could have shunned him and still have read his many excellent books (especially those on American history, I thought) by checking them out of the library rather than buying them.

Besides finding him a brilliant writer, both as Vidal and Edgar Box (except I thought Creation was just plain weird), he always made me laugh by being the "bad boy" of the extended Kennedy clan. His chorus girl mother was married to Jackie's stepfather at one time and the Gores (Tennessee politics) and the Kennedys mingled a lot. For many years they'd invite Gore Vidal to family gatherings and while they were all being tight-assed (think Al Gore) and pretending that they weren't just second generation crooks and con men, he'd lay a turd in the middle of the dining room table with an outrageous (but telling) balloon-popping comment or two.

He was a pretty boy sent to boy's prep schools, and I'd bet my old Mercedes that he was on the other end of pedophilia before he ever left that life. He wasn't just gay, though. Anis Nin wrote of an affair they had and he was engaged to and living with Joanne Woodward before she slipped off with Paul Newman (and then slipped back, Newman in tow, to Vidal's house, where they all lived together for a while--which would make a nifty celebrity MFM story here, I'll bet).

JackLuis said:

Actually the allegations, implied, are consistent with his general reputation, but his attraction to adolescent males, may have been Platonic with the underaged. He did not strike me as a slavering beast, but I'll bet he was attracted by college boys.

However that does not answer the question, should we disregard the artistic output simply because he sucked a few dicks? Should we burn his works?

Click to expand...

As controversies go, this looks like a tepid non-starter to me. Slow day at the office or something?

Oh, probably. I mean, how long has this guy been dead?