A review by jonwesleyhuff
Bad Gays: A Homosexual History by Ben Miller, Huw Lemmey
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.