heelturn2's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
funny
informative
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
fun and thoughtful expansion on the podcast. i’ve been saying it for years but bad gays is excellent public history!!! histories of sexuality are discussed so differently in academia than they are in like, regular queer life (and imo this is a good & valuable thing!) & bad gays is really great at bringing that academic way of thinking about sex & sexuality to a non-academic audience.
however: not to be a cunt but this book needed another editing pass before going to print though. many typos and some structural/syntax quirks that didn’t help flow & comprehension. it was totally fine! but present enough that i noticed & commented. cmon verso!
however: not to be a cunt but this book needed another editing pass before going to print though. many typos and some structural/syntax quirks that didn’t help flow & comprehension. it was totally fine! but present enough that i noticed & commented. cmon verso!
daffodill37's review against another edition
3.0
(Audio)
2.5 stars
This book started out dry and I wasn't sure I'd actually make it through. It picked up after a couple of chapters and I enjoyed hearing about some interesting characters from (gay) history.
I was disappointed there was only 1 chapter about a woman.
The audio version I had was poorly edited and had many errors that weren't removed.
2.5 stars
This book started out dry and I wasn't sure I'd actually make it through. It picked up after a couple of chapters and I enjoyed hearing about some interesting characters from (gay) history.
I was disappointed there was only 1 chapter about a woman.
The audio version I had was poorly edited and had many errors that weren't removed.
peteski_au's review against another edition
Mindset changed. Will return to it though
jonwesleyhuff's review against another edition
3.0
Perhaps, inevitably, this book was never going to be enough for some reviewers. I’ve seen some interestingly conflicting reactions, meaning the reviews have been fascinating to read too. It’s not entertaining enough or it has too many jokes. It’s too dense and boring or it’s too shallow. Some people seized on the subtitle (which was admittedly probably a bad idea) of this being a queer history versus the “Bad Gays” main title. And so on.
I picked this up on vacation not knowing it was based on a podcast, as I was just intrigued by the title and premise. My knowledge of queer history is decent, though not robust. So while some of the subjects I knew, some I did not. I understand and empathize with a lot of the reactions by reviewers, but expecting a rather slim book to be some comprehensive queer history is a bit unrealistic. I’m not quite sure I get the call for more lesbians and people of color to be called “bad gays” either. At the same time I think these criticisms showcase the issues with the book. The scope is off. What works in a podcast setting (with the implied understanding that future episodes will cover more topics in an ongoing way) works less in a finite book. Especially with that subtitle.
I think the book might have set up reader expectation better if it’d dropped Mead and focused on men. Having one lone woman does feel odd. If the book’s focus were more limited to just men who were “bad” and focused it’s central thesis on that then I think it’d have been stronger. It might have helped organize the book better, too. There is a tendency to whip from the personal to broader context in chapters that are largely named after their subjects (except when they aren’t) and, at times, the titular subject gets kind of swept away in the process.
Despite these structural flaws, there was a lot of interesting information here, and it made me want to read more about some of the figures mentioned. So, as a broad overview of such figures, I think it’s works well. The writers wear their particular biases on their sleeves. While I’m sympathetic to this POV, and liked a lot of what they had to say, I think it’s important to recognize they’re looking through a particular lens and making some connections and assumptions that it’s good for the reader to explore further.
I picked this up on vacation not knowing it was based on a podcast, as I was just intrigued by the title and premise. My knowledge of queer history is decent, though not robust. So while some of the subjects I knew, some I did not. I understand and empathize with a lot of the reactions by reviewers, but expecting a rather slim book to be some comprehensive queer history is a bit unrealistic. I’m not quite sure I get the call for more lesbians and people of color to be called “bad gays” either. At the same time I think these criticisms showcase the issues with the book. The scope is off. What works in a podcast setting (with the implied understanding that future episodes will cover more topics in an ongoing way) works less in a finite book. Especially with that subtitle.
I think the book might have set up reader expectation better if it’d dropped Mead and focused on men. Having one lone woman does feel odd. If the book’s focus were more limited to just men who were “bad” and focused it’s central thesis on that then I think it’d have been stronger. It might have helped organize the book better, too. There is a tendency to whip from the personal to broader context in chapters that are largely named after their subjects (except when they aren’t) and, at times, the titular subject gets kind of swept away in the process.
Despite these structural flaws, there was a lot of interesting information here, and it made me want to read more about some of the figures mentioned. So, as a broad overview of such figures, I think it’s works well. The writers wear their particular biases on their sleeves. While I’m sympathetic to this POV, and liked a lot of what they had to say, I think it’s important to recognize they’re looking through a particular lens and making some connections and assumptions that it’s good for the reader to explore further.