Lynne Cheney's "Sisters"

[alterego]

This isn't some steamy debate thread. This isn't me telling the world to fuck off. This is just me shaking my head in disgust and pitting the Bush administrations blatent disrespect for human rights.

I bring you Lynne Cheney's "Sisters" (purchase), "The novel of a strong and beautiful woman who broke all the rules of the american frontier," written in 1981.

The women who embraced in the wagon were Adam and Eve crossing a dark cathedral stage--no, Eve and Eve, loving one another as they would not be able to once they ate of the fruit and knew themselves as they truly were. She felt curious moved, curiously envious of them. She had never to this moment thought eden a particularly attractive paradise, based as it was on naivete, but she saw that the women in the cart had a passionate, loving intimacy forever closed to her. How strong it made them. What comfort it gave.

I mean, come on...

[kambuckta]

So, Lynne Cheney writes a really tacky Mills and Boon-type novel back in 1981, and this is meant to be a reflection of the current Bush admin attitude towards human rights?

I mean, come on.........

[alterego]

Cheney's daughter is a lesbian and his wife write's lesbian fantasy. My point is that this isn't a policy issue. It's a family issue. It's a personal issue. It's a people issue. It's not "the gay people over there in the corner". These are real people that are really a part of our lives and they deserve the freedom to do what they want. Any two people should be able to come together and enjoy the same freedoms and benefits as any other two people.

This Administration....haha..

[kambuckta]

I'm aware that Cheney's daughter is a lesbian (from the current crop of pit threads dealing with the issue, who could fail to be aware ), but I still cannot see how LYNNE Cheney writing a fantasy novel about women loving each other should have any bearing on policy initiatives of the sitting government (or the opposition for that matter).

What the fuck difference does it make WHAT Lynne writes about?

And just by-the-by, I am a semi-rabid socialist who finds just about all conservative ideals repugnant.

But I still can't see what you are bitchin' about. :wally

[alterego]

Originally Posted by kambuckta

But I still can't see what you are bitchin' about. :wally

OH COME ON! You know that if Cheney's wife is having lesbian fantasies then Cheney is probably having them too...

[Miller]

So... the idea here is that writing a novel featuring a (surprisingly) positive portrayal of a lesbian couple, somehow means that Lynne Cheney is harboring sexual fantasies about her gay daughter?

Please, for the love of all that's Holy, tell me I'm totally misunderstanding you here, because I do not want to believe that I'm sharing this world with someone as stupid as you

[alterego]

Originally Posted by Miller

So... the idea here is that writing a novel featuring a (surprisingly) positive portrayal of a lesbian couple, somehow means that Lynne Cheney is harboring sexual fantasies about her gay daughter?

Please, for the love of all that's Holy, tell me I'm totally misunderstanding you here, because I do not want to believe that I'm sharing this world with someone as stupid as you

Actually dude, you just completely made all those connections yourself. I guess you can call it a freudian slip?

Back atcha' brother.

[Miller]

Okay then... what the fuck are you talking about? You're not making any sense. Are you angry at Lynne Cheney for having lesbian fantasies? Are the Cheneys too homophobic for you, or not homophobic enough? Seriously. What the hell?

[alterego]

Originally Posted by Miller

Okay then... what the fuck are you talking about? You're not making any sense. Are you angry at Lynne Cheney for having lesbian fantasies? Are the Cheneys too homophobic for you, or not homophobic enough? Seriously. What the hell?

In case you don't follow politics or modern religion, the Bush Administration believes that homosexuals are sinners and do not deserve the same rights as their equal heterosexual equals.

[Necro Romancer]

We all know that WhiteHouse.org is a parody site, right?

[alterego]

Originally Posted by Necro Romancer

We all know that WhiteHouse.org is a parody site, right?

Buy the book?

[Necro Romancer]

Huh, thanks alterego, I should've clicked on the Amazon link. This is interesting.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by alterego

In case you don't follow politics or modern religion, the Bush Administration believes that homosexuals are sinners and do not deserve the same rights as their equal heterosexual equals.

Eminently pitable. So... it's the hypocrisy angle you're gunning for, here?

[kambuckta]

Yeah, dude, I've got the clear picture about what the Bush Administration holds dear to their quaintly regressive hearts, but I DON'T see what Lynne Cheney's soft-erotic writings have to do with any of that.

Can you help ease my Antipodean ignorance here?

[Tuckerfan]

Originally Posted by alterego

In case you don't follow politics or modern religion, the Bush Administration believes that homosexuals are sinners and do not deserve the same rights as their equal heterosexual equals.

And what, exactly, is the Vice President's wife supposed to do about this? Last time I read the Constitution, the VPs wife had zero authority to do anything as far as setting the policy of the Administration. Has there been an amendment to the Constitution changing this?

So she banged out some cheezy lesbian porn, big fuckin' deal. At least it wasn't the nutbag uberconservative crap that Marilyn Quayle spewed out.

Or maybe you'd prefer if Lynne Cheney was another Anne Coulter. I dunno. Because it seems to me that with the Cheneys being sympathetic to homosexuals, they're probably slowing down a lot of Bush's efforts to strip homosexuals of their rights.

[alterego]

Originally Posted by kambuckta

Yeah, dude, I've got the clear picture about what the Bush Administration holds dear to their quaintly regressive hearts, but I DON'T see what Lynne Cheney's soft-erotic writings have to do with any of that.

Can you help ease my Antipodean ignorance here?

I said it above. It's not a policy issue it's a people issue. And that's what I have demonstrated. The only responsibility the government has here is to tell us that we are all equal and give us all equal rights.

[kambuckta]

But as Tucker reiterated, Lynne is not a member of the guvmint.

What is it that you have demonstrated again?

[iampunha]

Originally Posted by kambuckta

What is it that you have demonstrated again?

That he doesn't know what Antipodean means

[alterego]

Originally Posted by kambuckta

But as Tucker reiterated, Lynne is not a member of the guvmint.

What is it that you have demonstrated again?

I demonstrated that this is a people issue and a family issue. Not a policy or government issue. The Bush Administration is outraged because both of our beloved John's have used Cheney's daughter as a political platform. I agree with them that it is none of their business. However, this political platform is a monster of their own creation because they insist that peoples private lives are a policy issue and not a private people issue meant to stay behind doors and in families.

I reiterate, the government's only responsibility in this situation is to tell us we are equal and make the law reflect as much. I hope this is starting to click.

[alterego]

Originally Posted by iampunha

That he doesn't know what Antipodean means

I have a very good friend whose nickname is Antipodes. I have another good friend whose name is Webster

[Tuckerfan]

Originally Posted by alterego

I demonstrated that this is a people issue and a family issue. Not a policy or government issue. The Bush Administration is outraged because both of our beloved John's have used Cheney's daughter as a political platform. I agree with them that it is none of their business. However, this political platform is a monster of their own creation because they insist that peoples private lives are a policy issue and not a private people issue meant to stay behind doors and in families.

I reiterate, the government's only responsibility in this situation is to tell us we are equal and make the law reflect as much. I hope this is starting to click.

Uh, the fact that you're an idiot clicked a long time ago. I fail to see what a crappy novel, written over two decades ago, by someone not elected to public office has anything to do with what the Federal government does. What you're doing is the same as blaming december for the actions of the GOP. Bad porn novels have fuck all to do with this Administration.

[alterego]

Originally Posted by Tuckerfan

Uh, the fact that you're an idiot clicked a long time ago. I fail to see what a crappy novel, written over two decades ago, by someone not elected to public office has anything to do with what the Federal government does. What you're doing is the same as blaming december for the actions of the GOP. Bad porn novels have fuck all to do with this Administration.

Tuckerfan your ability to reason intelligently astounds me. I'm not sure who this december character is though. As touchy as you are perhaps it's an ex-lesbian lover? Ok Ok. I'll be fair, I know he was some clown who was banned. I'm not sure though, that if I was you I would waste my big guns on small fish. I only dip into GD every few months or so. That is, unless you're inherently frivolous?

I made my point. Don't make me say it a third time. If you fail to see connections perhaps it's because you don't have any in that dehydrated pool of synapse sludge dripping down through your cranial cravity and out your ass.

[kambuckta]

Originally Posted by alterego

I made my point. Don't make me say it a third time. If you fail to see connections perhaps it's because you don't have any in that dehydrated pool of synapse sludge dripping down through your cranial cravity and out your ass.

I fear you might have to tell us a third time alterego because the other two claims slipped through my head too. (They're backed up in my arse at the moment because I dare not shit them out without offending my other sensibilities)

So, what's your point again?

[Tuckerfan]

Originally Posted by alterego

Tuckerfan your ability to reason intelligently astounds me. I'm not sure who this december character is though. As touchy as you are perhaps it's an ex-lesbian lover? Ok Ok. I'll be fair, I know he was some clown who was banned. I'm not sure though, that if I was you I would waste my big guns on small fish. I only dip into GD every few months or so. That is, unless you're inherently frivolous?

Wow, that's got to be the most offensive insult I've seen on these boards in a long time. Really. You claim to be an advocate for gay rights and then you insult homosexuals by putting december in their ranks? Dude, that is seriously fucked up.

I made my point. Don't make me say it a third time. If you fail to see connections perhaps it's because you don't have any in that dehydrated pool of synapse sludge dripping down through your cranial cravity and out your ass.

You've made no point. All you've said is that somehow a lesbian porn novel written 23 years ago by someone not serving in the US government is responsible for the Bush Administration's anti-gay stance. Pardon me, and every other poster to this thread for being dense, but how can a book, which apparently praises the joys of lesbian relationships be responsible for a homophobic Administration some 23 years later, of which the author of the said book is not a member of?????

[kambuckta]

Originally Posted by Tuckerfan

Pardon me, and every other poster to this thread for being dense, but how can a book, which apparently praises the joys of lesbian relationships be responsible for a homophobic Administration some 23 years later, of which the author of the said book is not a member of?????

Wot he said.

And I don't vote for Bush or Kerry.

[Earthling]

I have no idea whether Sisters has any causal relationship with the G.W. Bush's anti-gay campaign stance, but you guys might want to read a bit about Lynne Cheney's influence within the American cultural landscape. If you don't feel like wading through an ad just to read the article (yeah, sorry), it basically describes how, even though she no longer holds any official position, Mrs. Cheney is still pulling strings at the National Endowment for the Humanities (which she chaired from 1986 to 1992) to ensure its projects and policies align with right-wing orthodoxy. Specifically on the novel in question, we see:

Perhaps because of the novel's sympathetic treatment of lesbianism, Cheney has dropped mention of the inconvenient "Sisters" from her résumé....She has also suppressed the book so that it is no longer in print.

Why she had this apparent change of heart regarding the book since it was written, I can't say.

[kambuckta]

[quote}Why she had this apparent change of heart regarding the book since it was written, I can't say.[/quote]

Now that it is fetching $500 for one of the original copies, I could prolly hazard an educated guess.

[Tuckerfan]

Originally Posted by Earthling

I have no idea whether Sisters has any causal relationship with the G.W. Bush's anti-gay campaign stance, but you guys might want to read a bit about Lynne Cheney's influence within the American cultural landscape. If you don't feel like wading through an ad just to read the article (yeah, sorry), it basically describes how, even though she no longer holds any official position, Mrs. Cheney is still pulling strings at the National Endowment for the Humanities (which she chaired from 1986 to 1992) to ensure its projects and policies align with right-wing orthodoxy. Specifically on the novel in question, we see:Why she had this apparent change of heart regarding the book since it was written, I can't say.

Well, perhaps it was because she's more concerned about maintaining a cushy job than anything else, especially since her career as a pornwriter didn't seem to be panning out very well, and if she wanted her husband to be able to keep his cushy job, then she wouldn't want to anger TPTB by appearing to be overtly sympathetic to issues the GOP had taken a hard stance against.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by alterego

I demonstrated that this is a people issue and a family issue

Now, how exactly did you demonstrate that?

Not a policy or government issue.

Well, it certainly shouldn't be, but the fact of the matter is that it is a policy issue. Say it isn't doesn't make it so.

The Bush Administration is outraged because both of our beloved John's have used Cheney's daughter as a political platform. I agree with them that it is none of their business. However, this political platform is a monster of their own creation because they insist that peoples private lives are a policy issue and not a private people issue meant to stay behind doors and in families.

So, you're saying that the Bush campaign has no business complaining about Kerry making a private matter public, because that's what the Bush campaign does every time it tries to score political points by denigrating homosexuals? Great. Excellent point. I totally agree.

What does this have to do with Lynne Cheney's novel writing?

I reiterate, the government's only responsibility in this situation is to tell us we are equal and make the law reflect as much. I hope this is starting to click.

Yes, I think I'm following now, except for what Lynne Cheney has to do with any of this. A+ for content, D- for presentation.

[alterego]

I feel a need to reiterate what I have said above since none of you are apparantly getting it. I admit I leave a bit of mystery to what I write, but it is only in the hope that people have the opportunity to put 2 + 2 together for themselves. Whether or not you agree with me I have made a fucking point in this thread.

Originally Posted by Here we go again

I demonstrated that this is a people issue and a family issue. Not a policy or government issue. The Bush Administration is outraged because both of our beloved John's have used Cheney's daughter as a political platform. I agree with them that it is none of their business. However, this political platform is a monster of their own creation because they insist that peoples private lives are a policy issue and not a private people issue meant to stay behind doors and in families.

This book has no connection to the Bush Administration. I am demonstrating an example in the very family of the second highest cabinet of our government, which at the highest levels is at this time of the opinion that homosexuals are sinners and as couples do not deserve equal rights to heterosexuals. The Bush Administration was disturbed that our left wing Johnny's would dare violate their family privacy. A disgrace!

Perhaps they will slowly begin to understand that this is how we all feel. And writing a lesbian novel 23 years ago is no small matter. She really had to understand that aspect of herself to write those words. She had to empathize with what it is like to have that preference. She wrote an entire novel about it! It's not something you forget.

Indeed, the hypocricy angle is that angle I was going for. Thank you Miller, thank you Earthling.

[RedFury]

So they are a bunch of fuckin' hypocrites, that's news, how? And WTF does it have to do with "human rights"?

In other news, Cheney lied, his lips were moving. And the sun will come out tomorrow.

Seriously, dude, you need to step aside and let the professional Bush Bashers do their thing. Amateur Hour was rightly cancelled after the bombs started dropping for real. No time to lay a turd now.

[Tuckerfan]

Originally Posted by alterego

I feel a need to reiterate what I have said above since none of you are apparantly getting it. I admit I leave a bit of mystery to what I write, but it is only in the hope that people have the opportunity to put 2 + 2 together for themselves. Whether or not you agree with me I have made a fucking point in this thread.

That you're an idiot. Right, we got that.

This book has no connection to the Bush Administration.

So why bring it up?

I am demonstrating an example in the very family of the second highest cabinet of our government, which at the highest levels is at this time of the opinion that homosexuals are sinners and as couples do not deserve equal rights to heterosexuals.

So, given that the number two folks have almost no say in the setting of policy, WTF does this have to do with anything?

The Bush Administration was disturbed that our left wing Johnny's would dare violate their family privacy. A disgrace!

Yeah, well a lot of people who plan on voting for Kerry find it pretty disgraceful too.

Perhaps they will slowly begin to understand that this is how we all feel. And writing a lesbian novel 23 years ago is no small matter. She really had to understand that aspect of herself to write those words. She had to empathize with what it is like to have that preference. She wrote an entire novel about it! It's not something you forget.

Philip K. Dick is quoted as not remembering books he wrote. Paul Bowles in his autobiography describes hearing a piece of music that he enjoyed, and when he went to find out who wrote it, discovered that he had. And it's entirely possible to write a novel and not understand it with the depth that you seem to think it requires. If the damn thing was any good, it'd still be in print. Most likely she just wrote the first draft as a straight romance novel, and then when it wasn't picked up by any of the publishing companies, she quickly rewrote it and changed the names of a couple of male characters to female characters.

Indeed, the hypocricy angle is that angle I was going for. Thank you Miller, thank you Earthling.

So why the fuck didn't you just say so? There's a term for folks who post cryptic threads which seem to have no point to them.

[alterego]

Referencing a couple of fucking lunatics that can't remember writing novels or musical pieces doesn't lend your much credence.

[Really Not All That Bright]

No, he's right. The OP was a big fucking mess.

Everything you've said is true, but the book has fuck-all to do with it.

Incidentally, I clearly heard Cheney say, "if it were up to me, I'd leave it up to the states to decide," during the VP debate. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned his apparent 180 on the gay marriage thing.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by alterego

I feel a need to reiterate what I have said above since none of you are apparantly getting it. I admit I leave a bit of mystery to what I write, but it is only in the hope that people have the opportunity to put 2 + 2 together for themselves. Whether or not you agree with me I have made a fucking point in this thread.

The problem is, you haven't made it well. Next time, avoid the mystery.

This book has no connection to the Bush Administration.

Then you probably shouldn't have brought it up. From what I can tell, it's done nothing but confuse the issue, and has no real current significance, except as evidence that Lynne Cheney was, at one point, not completely revolting.

I am demonstrating an example...

Okay, stop right there: an example of what? The rest of this:

...in the very family of the second highest cabinet of our government, which at the highest levels is at this time of the opinion that homosexuals are sinners and as couples do not deserve equal rights to heterosexuals.

says where you found this example, but it doesn't say what it's an example of. This sentence doesn't really say anything at all.

Also, an example is not demonstrated, an example demonstrates.

Perhaps they will slowly begin to understand that this is how we all feel.

Define "we." All Americans? All Democrats? All liberals? All people who support gay rights? I don't think you could reliably say that a majority of any of those groups support gay rights. Excepting the last, obviously.

Which sucks. The shitty thing is, Bush is smart to make a play for the homophobia vote. It'll probably win him the election. Even Kerry has courted it. It's what works in the current political climate in the country. But it won't always work. Sooner or later, someone's going to go to that well one too many times, and find out it's all dried up.

God grant that time will be this November.

And writing a lesbian novel 23 years ago is no small matter.

Actually, it kinda is.

She really had to understand that aspect of herself to write those words.

Mmm, not really. First of all, I don't buy into the idea that everybody is a little gay. And I say that as a bisexual. Second, you don't have to be something to write convincingly about it. And lastly, Lynne Cheney's lesbians aren't all that convincing. That's some pretty idealized lesbian action going on in that book. It sounds pretty much like what I'd expect from a straight woman with no particular talent for writing.

She had to empathize with what it is like to have that preference.

Not really. If she'd had more empathy for the plight of frontier lesbians, she'd probably have written a better book.* My impression of the book is that it was basically exploitative. She had lesbians in it because lesbians are "hot" (in the sense of both "sexy" and "trendy") and would sell more books if she stuck a pair. Now, two decades later, she'll make more money if she hates gays, so she suppresses the book and throws a hissy fit whenever anyone points out that her daughter is gay. So, in a way, she's not really a hypocrite, since her central motivation (make more money) appears to be unchanged.

She wrote an entire novel about it!

Now, I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the lesbians were a subplot to the book, not the central plot. Am I incorrect?

It's not something you forget.

No, it's not, but Lynne Cheney will pay you cash money if you do.

Indeed, the hypocricy angle is that angle I was going for. Thank you Miller, thank you Earthling.

That's what I'm here for.

*In total fairness, I haven't read the book, so I probably shouldn't be dismissing it like this. But based on the excerpts I've read here and elsewhere: yeeesh.

[Miller]

Oh, and you should really read Philip K. Dick sometime. Great stuff. You'd really appreciate his writing style. Start with Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? It's the book Blade Runner was based on.

[Tuckerfan]

Originally Posted by alterego

Referencing a couple of fucking lunatics that can't remember writing novels or musical pieces doesn't lend your much credence.

And writing an elliptical OP about something that has nothing to do with what you're upset about does?

Do you even know who Philip K Dick or Paul Bowles are? I don't see how you could call Bowles a lunatic. He's one of the finest writers I've ever encountered, and I say this as a lover of Joyce, Shakespeare, Homer, and Burroughs. (And the fact that he was also a classical composer who studied under Aaron Copeland, hung out with Orson Welles, Salvadore Dali, William S. Burroughs, and a host of other high talent folks, says that if he was a lunatic, then we'd all be better off if there were more like him.) It's pretty fucking easy to forget things in 23 years. Can you tell us what you were doing 23 years ago?

[alterego]

How dare you compare him to Homer. You mean to imply that Homer could have forgotten about writeing The Iliad? Come on now. And James Joyce, don't you even get me started.

Anyway, i'm not big on Blade Runner or electric sheep.

[alterego]

And I apologize for my spelling/grammar/punctuation throughout. It's been pretty damn bad.

[Tuckerfan]

Originally Posted by alterego

How dare you compare him to Homer. You mean to imply that Homer could have forgotten about writeing The Iliad? Come on now. And James Joyce, don't you even get me started.

Well, seeing as how we've no concrete evidence that Homer wrote The Illiad or The Odyssey, only Greek tradition that those two books which are radically different in style were written by the same man (who lived in a preliterate society), I'd say that if anyone should be insulted, it's Bowles, since we know that he authored those works which bear his name. And I reread The Odyssey at least once a year.

Also, The Iliad's a vastly superior work to the cheap trash Lynne Cheney wrote, so while I doubt Homer (if he existed) would have forgotten The Illiad (since people in pre-literate societies tend to have excellent memorization techniques), I think it's entirely possible for Lynne Cheney to have forgotten about some turd of a novel she wrote 23 years ago.

As for Joyce, well, shit, man, the guy was a fucking genius, even a sot like Hemingway was jealous of Joyce's talent. Great singer, too, apparently. Amazing how an appreciation of fine music and great writing go together.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by alterego

How dare you compare him to Homer. You mean to imply that Homer could have forgotten about writeing The Iliad?

Considering that there was no single person named Homer who wrote The Iliad, but rather a vast number of poets reciting the poem in public over and over, each adding and subtracting to the work as the muse took them, until centuries later it was finally formalized in written words, then yes, "Homer" probably forgot great chunks of the Iliad over the years.

[alterego]

Originally Posted by Miller

Considering that there was no single person named Homer who wrote The Iliad, but rather a vast number of poets reciting the poem in public over and over, each adding and subtracting to the work as the muse took them, until centuries later it was finally formalized in written words, then yes, "Homer" probably forgot great chunks of the Iliad over the years.

Hearsay. I find it amazing that you both purport to know anything about Homer when not even the scholars who study him can come to a conclusion.

[Tuckerfan]

Originally Posted by alterego

Hearsay. I find it amazing that you both purport to know anything about Homer when not even the scholars who study him can come to a conclusion.

Huh? There's several generally accepted theories on who Homer was and how the works were composed. You think that when someone brings up Homer experts on Greek literature suddenly start shouting, "I know nutzing!" like Sgt. Schultz? Jesus! Even the crappy college professors I had weren't so dense as to make such a claim.

[DaphneBlack]

Originally Posted by alterego

Hearsay. I find it amazing that you both purport to know anything about Homer when not even the scholars who study him can come to a conclusion.

It's actually pretty well agreed upon by the "scholars who study" Homer that the poems were originally oral compositions, accreted over many years until finally written down. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a major, well-respected classical scholar in the past quarter-century who thinks otherwise. At any rate, this is the majority opinion.

Cheers,
Daphne

[Miller]

Originally Posted by alterego

Hearsay. I find it amazing that you both purport to know anything about Homer when not even the scholars who study him can come to a conclusion.

Hearsay? No more than any other theory about the author of The Iliad and The Odyssey. Sure, there are some scholars who still hold to the idea that there really was an elderly blind man who composed these two (vastly dissimilar) poems, just as there are still some scholars who are convinced that the plays of William Shakespeare were not written by William Shakespeare. In both cases, I find their arguments unpersuasive, as does the majority of academia.

Incidentally, I think the word you were looking for was "consensus," not "conclusion." As Tuckerfan pointed out, every scholar who studies Homer comes to a conclusion. They just don't necessarily all come to the same conclusion.