From Drake Hunter, whose excellent "A Yule Tale" and "Through
Different Eyes" are linked from our Stories page.
Let's get the big stuff out of the way first:
Fag. Breeder. Dyke. Homo. Queer.
Words.
Each of us lives and breathes in a world made up of words. They are all around
us. They are in our heads. We cannot escape words. Most of our thoughts are
encoded in the language we hear, read, speak, and write every day. A good
portion of our memories are housed in the words we have heard. There are
pictures in our heads, but we relay them to others through our language. Nearly
all of us do not have cogent memories from the time before we learned to truly
speak and understand our daily language. Life took on a different meaning
when we learned to express ourselves with words and to hear what others had
to say. What is more, we spend a good deal of time speaking to ourselves in
our heads: self-speak as it is called. There is a vast cacophony of language that
surrounds us nearly each moment of our lives.
I began with the words I did because they reveal the power of language. Some
people will find insult in those words. Others will consider it distasteful to utter
those words. A few will hold it as reprehensible to even think the words.
However, they are there, and I will not retract them. Many of us hear those
words every day. Some people use them regularly. Others will say them in
moments when they think it safe to utter them. A few even may believe in the
intent in the words. This is the importance and strength in language, even in a
single utterance. Words are so incredibly powerful that we often lose sight of
the fact. They may seem commonplace, yet that is the misconception. There
are, in my opinion, three important facets of language that underline this idea
about language, and they center around the person.
You must begin with a frame of reference, and here you can use yourself. This
is the first facet, and it is housed in your skull. Your brain is the fulcrum upon
which language rests. It filters everything that goes in your ears and out your
mouth. Without going into too fine detail, let's stick with two small parts of
the brain: Broca's Area and Wernicke's Area. Paul Broca did landmark
observations in the mid-1860s wherein he described patients who could fully
understand what they heard, yet what they said or wrote was often completely
unintelligible. Conversely, Carl Wernicke found in the early 1900s a set of
patients who could beautifully articulate their thoughts in speech or writing, but
could not make sense of or understand what they heard or read, even just
moments afterwards. When the parts of the brain that controlled these
language skills were identified, they were named after the scientists who first
noted the symptoms of the unusual disorders. The disorders are known as
Broca's Aphasia and Wernicke's Aphasia. The interesting aspect is the areas of
the brain are both located on the left-hand side in close proximity. Hence, this
region is called the “speech center” of the brain. I mention these two areas
because they are how we translate what goes into our ears and out of our
mouths. Thus, this part of the brain is the fulcrum for our ability to shape our
thoughts into language. I grant that there's a lot of stuff that goes on in
between, but this relatively simple model will serve nicely.
Why is it one of the first words a child learns in English is 'No'? It is probably
because that is what they hear most often. Children take in words, learn the
meaning, and then mimic the word. Even more fascinating is that they are
actively studying the effect of the word on those around them. They will play
with pronouncing the word with various inflections to gauge the results. Guess
what? This process never stops throughout life. What is important about this
point is that it shows how words begin to define our world in our young minds.
As we grow older, the process becomes more complex, but the process is still
pretty much the same. Consider the list of words first presented. They evoke
strong reactions in one form or another. We have all heard these words. We all
understand the basic definitions, but the context – or connotation – is colored
by our personal experiences. The point can be illustrated by another word with
which we are all too familiar: Gay.
Gay originally meant “joyful” or “happy”. Somewhere along the way, it took on
an added meaning. Gay came to be associated with “homosexual” and, in
particular, homosexual men. Since the 1950s and 1960s, it has seen a more
generalized meaning for anyone who is homosexual. Within the last ten years
or so, the word gay has revealed a darker connotation born of its association
with homosexuality. “Gay” is now commonly used to describe something as
being “stupid” or “unpleasant.” This is literally a one-hundred and eighty degree
turn from its original meaning. Moreover, it is socially significant because it is
used both as a personal pejorative and a cutting adjective. There is a war over
the use of this word, and only time will declare a victor. However, the people on
the front lines are every person who uses the word.
I picked the word “gay” because it shows how the language fulcrum of the brain
is operating. The manner in which you use the word says whether you are
employing Broca's Area or Wernicke's area. For those of us who have come to
use the word as a definition of some part of our life, the use originates from
Broca’s Area. Those who of us who are using it for more nefarious purposes are
activating Wernicke's Area. It is the brain that decides the use and, more
importantly, it is the mind-set of the person that determines what the word
means when being spoken. In both cases, it is a deep expression of the
individual. How a person chooses to utilize the word stems from a series of
both external and internal forces. These are the other two facets of the power
of words. Once again, the brain lies in between. What is more, the very person
lies at the heart of the word.
The word “gay” is, for some of us, a label. Unfortunately, this label can be both
good and bad. The determining factor is found in how the individual has come
to accept the label. It deals with an area of life so intensely personal that even
more power is added to the word. Let's dispense with niceties and say it for
what it means: it is the common definition of the manner in which a person is
sexually aroused. Yes, this is sexuality. It is the biological nature of the person
as they reach adolescence displayed by emotional, physical, and psychological
reactions. Sexuality is seen as a defining characteristic of the person. It is, as
stated, intensely personal. The word draws a sharp distinction between people.
Someone who is heterosexual can say the word in a myriad of ways without
feeling an extremely close connection to the meaning. The various definitions
can be applied at a whim. Someone who is gay says the word in a far different
manner. They are not applying a label to a thing: he or she is applying a label
to himself or herself. A simple inquiry as to whether a person is gay can have
one of three general reactions: acknowledgment, indifference, or hostility. This
is the corollary to the three facets I mentioned earlier (the brain, Broca, and
Wernicke). The fashion wherein a person intuitively reacts depends on how they
have come to internalize the meaning of the word.
I will follow with a model of operation from two different perspectives. It will
employ the two threesomes of circumstances. This gets kind of muddy along
the way, so bear with me as I spell it out.
A heterosexual person can hear the word (and the question), and the first item
that comes into play is the Broca's Area. Their history of coming to understand
the multitude of meanings for the word takes affect. This, then, causes the
internal reaction and what will be said through the Wernicke's Area. If a person
has been trained to view the word as nothing more than a label for one form of
sexuality with a sense of understanding that it is a real and sensitive human
state, then the heterosexual can answer the question with a simple
acknowledgment: “No, I am not gay.” It is a statement of fact about the
person, and not a reflection upon him or her. Next, people can answer with
indifference. They do not apply the physical nature of being homosexual to
themselves in any conceptual manner at all, and they may not even know gay
people (or at least admit that they do). Hence, their answer is indifferent: “Me?
Gay? No.” Finally, someone who has been trained to view homosexuality as
something entirely negative will have a hostile response because they see it as
an insult placed against them: “Up yours! I'm not gay!” These are very broad
generalities, and the distinctions may be hard to discern. However, I believe
that the heterosexual person is first affected by how they learned the word. The
brain lies in the middle, but Broca's Area thus becomes the weighted side of
the fulcrum.
A homosexual person can hear the word, and it is a far different set of
conditions. I do not diminish the importance of how a person has heard and
learned the word, but the considerable difference lies in the association with
the labeling effect. What a gay person hears and how it is translated is best
understood through how they answer. In this respect, Wernicke's Area plays the
integral role. We can use the similar answers as given by the heterosexual, but
the context is vastly different. We start with acknowledgment: “Yes, I'm gay.”
This is a statement of acceptance. It is not denoting whether the person is
comfortable with making the statement, but it is said with the clear
understanding that he or she knows they are gay. When we next move to
indifference, it speaks of another condition: “Me? Gay? You think so?” The
person knows he or she is gay, but they are uncomfortable with admitting it to
either themselves or the outside world. They will not answer directly, and return
the question back to the questioner. Finally, there could be a hostile response:
“Up yours! I'm not gay!” Flat-out refusal to be labeled as such, and presented
with the same hostility as we would see from a homophobe. The effect of the
word is not translated by how they hear it, but by how they have to respond in
their given state of mind. Once more, these are broad generalities, and the
distinctions may be subtle. However, the brains lies in the middle, but this time
we see Wernicke's Area at work.
All of what has been presented was meant to lay a foundation for what I will
state next. I will wait until you are finished groaning. You may fear there is
going to be another long, drawn-out academic romp, and it could be depending
on what my Broca's Area hears. Seriously, I wanted to move into a realm where
we are thinking about how the mind works with language and words. These are
theories of mine, and they were presented in very broad brush strokes.
However, you must keep in mind that I am a writer, and my stock-in-trade
deals with words every step of the way. I have to think about how the words I
am writing down are going to affect the reader. I also have to think about how
the words I use are going to color and shape the messages I am trying to
convey. I needed to bring you to a place where you have some idea about the
importance that language and words hold for me. This is serious business for
me when I sit down to write. When I am crafting a story, and it is indeed a
craft, I am employing my Wernicke's Area to a high degree as it has been
formed by my Broca's Area. What I have to remember is that it is going to
impact both areas of the reader as well. Once the work is released for public
consumption, I cannot sit and monitor how the audience is reacting. I cannot
engage in a constant dialog to explain what I meant when I wrote it. Thus, two
minds are employed that are separated by a wide gulf. This is why I say the
mind is a fulcrum with input and output as the weights on either side of the
balance.
I write stories about people. Specifically, I write many stories about gay
people. Even more specifically, I write and have written stories about young gay
people. Anyone who has read my work knows I like to take a swan dive from a
high board straight into the heads of my characters. My tales often center
around sexuality, but not around sex. Nearly everyone has a very good idea of
what constitutes gay sex, both for males and females, so I do not have to spell
it out. I’m very glad I am spared that because the actual act of sex is fairly
meaningless in several regards. I do not want to waste my time trying to depict
what people are doing to each other. Everyone can figure that out on their own,
and they can most likely do a much better job imagining it than I ever could
trying to depict it in writing. What I find most compelling in a story is what is
happening inside the heads of the characters. I like to see how they are
distilling their experiences in their thoughts. Sometimes I enjoy experimenting
with how their self-perceptions drive their actions and reactions. More often
than not, my stories center on the evolving self-awareness and self-perception.
The only tool I have to delve into these characters and concepts is words. I
look at life, I think about the various turns and twists is can take, and then a
story pops out of my head. There is one question I have never publicly
answered in full, and I will do so now. I will also try to be as succinct as
possible.
Why do I write these stories?
Part of the answer is that I am investigating myself. Part of the answer is that
I am investigating society. Part of the answer is that I am making an
investment in the future. I grew up in a time when gay rights was first getting
a toehold. I was five years old when the Stonewall riots took place in New
York's Greenwich Village. I was eight when the American Psychiatric Association
took homosexuality off the list of mental disorders. I was eighteen when AIDS
first was diagnosed (although not with that label) as a killer disease in the gay
community. I was twenty-six when I first began to accept my sexuality. I was
thirty-two by the time I fully accepted it and became comfortable with it. I was
thirty-eight when I embarked on my first novel dealing with being gay as a
young person. I had a history that was deeply affected by my sexuality, and
this was often in dual reaction to myself and society. Parts of my life and my
observations took and still take shape in the themes I explore in my writing.
The works often contain a single character who feels outside of the mainstream
and is struggling to find some form of self-definition against the backdrop of
society. In writing terms, I rely on the three big themes in literature: “Man
versus Self”, “Man versus Society”, and “Society versus Society.” I have spent a
good portion of my writing career for the last two years telling myself it was
okay that I was a gay kid. I cannot remake the past, but I can learn from it and
lead a happier life. Through my writing I got to act out the part of my growing
up years. I have wrestled with the questions about society. I have tackled the
ideas regarding the nature of being gay both physiologically and
psychologically. I have struggled with the questions about God and religion. I
have fought with the notions about how a gay person should think about
himself or herself. I have considered the concepts of the interactions between
the person and society on varying levels. Basically, I have turned around and
thought about life. Then, I turn around again and think about the future.
My past was not wasted. I do not feel cheated. I found the power in words, and
I chose to use that power for the future. I know that my reading audience is an
older crowd, starting in the early twenties. However, I have also been sent
word that a number of people have passed on my work to teenagers.
Regardless of who or how old the person is that reads my stories, this is my
investment for the future. I want people to know it’s okay to wrestle with
questions about sexuality. I want them to know there are others out there who
have had the same thoughts, often the same fears, and then I want them to
realize it is perfectly natural to be gay. Being gay only defines one portion of
the person, and it really should not be that big of a defining concept. The
recent scandal in the Roman Catholic Church could have been avoided if our
society practiced real acceptance, real tolerance, and real understanding. I find
it interesting that the clergy accused of or who carried out these terrible deeds
appear to fall into a specific age bracket. These are people who came of age in
the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Society repressed them and taught them to hate
themselves as gay individuals, and they found themselves having to hide in the
clergy. They were stunted emotionally and psychologically, and this is the
reason, in my estimation, why they did what they did. Do not misunderstand
me: I have no tolerance for an adult taking advantage of a child in any manner.
What they did was wrong, but society must accept some responsibility in
helping to bring about this crisis. Gay kids who grew up in the 1980s, 1990s,
and the new century have been fortunate that they are able to express
themselves more openly as gay people. It is not perfect, and there is still a
long road ahead, but the change is beginning to take hold. The recent backlash
against the gay community tells me the old order is dying and a new frontier is
beginning to take shape. I want my work to be a stepping stone, albeit a small
one, that helps create the new road. I can use the lessons of my past to assist
others in avoiding the same mistakes. This is my investment in the future.
The end result should come down to a simple set of standards. First, it is
perfectly all right to be heterosexual. There is nothing wrong with being
straight. It's not a disease, and you shouldn't worry about it. Second, it is
perfectly all right to be homosexual. There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's
not a disease, and you shouldn't worry about it. Being bi-sexual is fine, too. As
Woody Allen said: “... [It] immediately doubles your chances for a date on
Saturday night.” A transgender person is just acknowledging that nature didn't
quite get it right on the first try, and it needs a little tweaking to make it
perfect. Furthermore, it is completely natural to be young and confused and
unsure of who you are or what you are. That is what growing up is all about.
Sexuality, and I highly doubt any scientist will ever find evidence against this
point, is built into the person. It is hardwired into our systems somewhere
along the way. A person cannot pick the gender to which he or she is attracted.
It just happens. A person cannot choose not to learn to talk: it just happens.
The language they learn depends entirely upon where they grow up, but the
drive to learn words is purely instinctual. This is where I feel I come into the
picture. I can take what I have observed about myself, about society, and
about human nature, and then weld them together in the form of a story. I
want to be a small piece of the societal mind that helps forge a better
understanding of the diversity and uniqueness that is the human creature. I
want to help nudge the societal mind in whatever manner I can in the right
direction.
Fag. Breeder. Dyke. Homo. Queer.
These are words. We are lucky in the fact the English language can and does
mutate the meaning of words. I, however, prefer some of the older definitions,
and this is why I refuse to retract the words or stop myself from saying them.
Fag: short for “faggot”, meaning a bundle of sticks.
Breeder: someone who raises a specific line of animals.
Dyke: a wall made of earth to hold back water.
Homo: short for “homogenize”, meaning to make things blend together into a
single unit.
Queer: a term meaning “funny”, “odd” or “strange” (and this applies to anyone
regardless of sexuality).
Gay: Joyful. Happy.
I think I chose to be gay, and not because of my sexuality. When I write about
people being gay, I write so that the characters can be happy in the end. I want
everyone to be happy, but I don't want everyone to be either heterosexual or
homosexual. I want people to simply be, to accept who they are without fear,
and to accept others without fear as well. Words have the power to make that
happen.
Drake Hunter
8 February 2004
(CL) CopyLeft 2004 RDH, Ltd.
This piece is published under the strictures of CopyLeft. This work may be
reproduced in whole or in part without the express consent of the author. The
only requirement is that the CopyLeft designation be left in place as well as the
CopyLeft holder (RDH, Ltd.). This work also subscribes to the precepts of the
Creative Commons license.