For Your Post Assignment:
I am interested in hearing about your reactions to the novel and what exactly has stood out to you thus far.
I want you to select a brief passage from the chapters you are reading this weekend of about 3 to 7 lines. This should be a passage that seems significant, strange, provocative, problematic, or otherwise interesting to you in some way. This passage, for example, might:
- Provide a rather striking and/or telling portrait of our narrator (David).
- Provide a rich description of a particular setting or character.
- Reveal on the part of David or another character particular attitudes toward queerness/homosexuality.
- Offer a striking image or set of images (In other words, are there any places where you feel the language of the novel allows you to see vividly a particular thing, place, character, or something else?).
- Relate to any one of the themes we have discussed thus far: happiness, loss, mourning, melancholia, and more.
- Do something else you find interesting and worthy of discussion!
After typing out the passage in full, please compose approximately two paragraphs of analysis, with each paragraph containing at least six to seven sentences. In your analysis, I want you to explore your chosen passage, explicating what exactly about this passage seems to be so significant.
(E.g. What was the image that you found so striking? Why? How exactly does your passage relate to our discussion of happiness? What does this passage reveal about our narrator? What kind of portrait of queerness does your passage offer? Might you relate something from your passage to Freud’s model of mourning vs. melancholia?)
Submit your response below as a comment.
COMPLETE BY TUESDAY, 9/26 @ 5 PM.
“I did not want to be his buddy; I wanted to be his son. What passed between us as masculine candor exhausted and appalled me. Fathers ought to avoid utter nakedness before their sons. I did not want to know—not, anyway, from his mouth—that his flesh was as unregenerate as my own. (…) But I wanted the merciful distance of father and son, which would have permitted me to love him” (16-17).
This passage, specifically the line referencing nudity, admittedly, first caught my attention, not so much because of the novel’s context itself, but because of the throughline between it and Baldwin’s previous novel, “Go Tell it on the Mountain”, in which Baldwin also references the error of a father’s nakedness (Here is the passage from that novel for reference: “Yes, he [John] had sinned: one morning, alone, in the dirty bathroom, in the square, dirt-gray cupboard room that was filled with the stink of his father. Sometimes, leaning over the cracked, ‘tattle-tale gray’ bath-tub, he scrubbed his father’s back; and looked, as the accursed son of Noah had looked, on his father’s hideous nakedness. It was secret, like sin, and slimy, like the serpent, and heavy, like the rod. Then he hated his father, and longed for the power to cut his father down.”). It piqued my interest on the matter of how a parent can be lost to a child, and what even is lost between them.
On page 15, after overhearing his father and Ellen fight, David mentions beginning to despise his father and not knowing why. However, it’s made clear almost immediately afterwards that it’s the secrecy around David’s sexual encounter with Joey that’s driving the greatest wedge between them. This is generally understandable given the father’s declaration that “all I [he] want[s] for David is that he grow up to be a man” (15) and David’s homosexuality is shown to conflict severely with his notions of manhood. At a first glance, it’d be very easy to simply tag David’s hatred toward his father as the result of his homosexuality and the obvious threat of bigoted rejection/abuse his father’s traditional conceptions of manliness represent. However, the narrative doesn’t support this reading. David, despite being tormented by the contradiction between his understanding of masculinity and his sexuality, never actually expresses hatred towards present social conceptions of masculinity or even argues with them. Instead, he wants to be able to identify with them as much as possible. Furthermore, this hatred doesn’t extend to his mother. Given that she serves as a face of watching moral judgment to David, conflict between her and him is certainly warranted, but it’s all inflicted onto David while words like “hate” and “despise” are never applied to her. On the contrary, despite his intense shame under her gaze, David holds her in such high regard that he dare not “seem disloyal” to her even when discussing the contents of dreams beyond his control (11). All this combined demonstrates that mere opposition/rejection is not enough to spark this hatred.
It’s here that I circle back to the theme of nudity, because a significant difference between what David sees from his father and what he sees from his mother and societal masculinity is disgrace. In the fight David overhears, his father is being scolded for his routine getting drunk and sleeping around. (Though it’s never stated directly, if David viewed simply speaking ill of his mother in a dream as disloyal, it wouldn’t be surprising if he looked unfavorably on this too, especially considering that he supposedly never looked at women the same after learning of his father’s behavior (15)). Worse, David explicitly mentions feeling that this argument was about him (13) and felt personally slighted by Ellen’s criticizing of his and his father’s relationship (14), as though his father’s behavior reflects onto him.
One major advantage David’s mother has as a moral compass is that, morbidly, her death early in David’s life leaves her open to perpetual veneration due to a lack of known failures to muddy the waters. For better or for worse, she can remain a stable source of “rightness”. In this scene, David tacitly loses the ability to do the same with his father. Though it’s not referenced all that often, given how nakedness continues to develop as a thematic element in the novel (“It is terrible how naked she makes me feel, like a half grown boy, naked before his mother” (); “I would never dare to see it. It would be like looking at the naked sun” ()), It’s clear that nudity is being used to refer to a complete reveal of something or someone with nowhere to hide, especially when it comes to that thing/person’s ugliness. With his father appearing naked before him, that last pillar of stable veneration falls. This passage suggests that the distance between a father and son, beyond a simple “want”, is actually vital in the relationship’s ability to stand as it functions, and with the news that “his [his father’s] flesh was as unregenerate as my own” coming “from his [his father’s] mouth”, David’s father is almost an all too willing participant in his own relational destruction.
It’s a sin that David can never commit, though, as that personal distance between his homosexuality and the rest of the world he wishes to fit into, and indeed, between his homosexuality and his own father, is critical to his ability to be respectable (and, in America, not a target of the law). Given David’s sense of pride around willpower, this position almost asks him to be a greater man than his father.
I forgot the page numbers for the quotes further concerning nakedness. Pgs. 70 and 92.
“I invented in myself a kind of pleasure in playing the housewife when Giovanni went to work. I threw out the paper, the bottles, the fantastic accumulation of trash; I examined the contents of the innumerable boxes and suitcases and disposed of them. But I am not a housewife- men can never be housewives.” – 2nd/3rd page of Chapter 2 Part two
David is portrayed as a complex character who realizes he’s going against the societal expectations of masculinity and traditional gender roles. He finds himself having satisfaction in performing domestic tasks typically associated with women (especially in the 1950’s), such as cleaning and organizing, while his “lover” Giovanni is at work. This reveals David’s inner struggle with his identity and the societal pressures that confine him to a narrow definition of masculinity. Additionally, in the same page he shouts to himself “Don’t fight it Don’t fight it” which shows us that David is confused and is often torn between conforming to societal norms and pursuing his true desires. His internal conflict and his relationships with Giovanni and Hella reflect the societal stigma and internalized shame associated with being queer during that era, as it could be inferred that the only reason he was with Hella was to convince himself as well as others that he was “normal” by dating a girl. The quote itself underscores the notion that men like David felt compelled to hide their true selves and conform to traditional gender roles, highlighting the challenges and prejudice faced by queer individuals in society.
This quote is significant because it highlights the theme of gender and identity. David’s willingness to “play the housewife” reflects his struggle with traditional gender roles and societal expectations, which play a central role in the novel. It underscores the idea that one’s identity can be deeply intertwined with societal roles and expectations. Additionally, David’s statement that “men can never be housewives” also reveals a degree of internalized homophobia. He’s associating his deviation from traditional gender roles with his homosexual desires, implying that being a housewife or embracing domestic roles is somehow linked to queerness. This shows the complexity of how societal expectations about gender and sexuality can become internalized and influence one’s self-perception. The quote hints at the scrutiny of society and its judgment. David’s actions of cleaning and disposing of trash when Giovanni is away suggest that he’s concerned about how his domestic behavior might be perceived by others. This shows the theme of societal pressures and how they impact one’s sense of self and identity.
“We were going to Les Halles for breakfast. We piled into a taxi, the four of us, unpleasantly crowded together, a circumstance which elicited from Jacques and Guillaume, a series of lewd speculations. This lewdness was particularly revolting in that it not only failed of wit, it was so clearly an expression of contempt and self-contempt (45)…Jacques and Guillaume were exchanging speculations, unspeakably less good-natured, concerning every passing male. (48)…I reached for my wallet but Giovanni sharply caught my hand, conveying to me with an angry flick of his eyelash the intelligence that the least these dirty old men could do was pay” (49).
In the previous half of the novel, Guillaume’s bar was a place where David was exposed to cross-dressing and other kinds of masculinity that were in sharp contrast to his American ideals leading him to view these men as deviants. This attitude from the previous scene carries into the scene above. Here, it becomes apparent that the bar is a setting that does not make David feel liberated to be himself without apprehension like one might expect, nor is the bar responsible for creating new self-contempt in David, but rather this setting serves as a backdrop for his pre-existing belief that masculinity coincides with a rigid type of morality that necessarily excludes homosexuality for its resistance to stabilization and rigidity in general.
The conflict arises within David when he realizes that in contrast, Giovanni seems much more at home in a space like this and since David loves him, that makes it difficult to separate himself from this space and it makes him ‘one of them’ who likes men. This setting, then, reveals the binary thinking of homosexuality as immoral and heterosexuality as moral and men and women as clear opposites that David harbors.
“I perhaps don’t like women very much, that’s true. That hasn’t stopped me from making love to many and loving one or two. But most of the time – most of the time I made love only with the body.”
“That can make one very lonely,” I said. I had not expected to say it.
This quote, from page 80 of the novel, brings up many different perspectives regarding romantic orientation as well as the influence of sexuality and our openness about it on our sense of well-being, happiness, and discriminatory viewpoints. Giovanni’s previous statements regarding female characters or women, in general, do not indicate or portray very high opinions about them. This view is certainly painted by societal standards, for instance, the setting in 1950s Paris takes place very close to when women were given the right to vote in France. In addition to this, French as a language is binary and this influences the way that French individuals think about and classify things and people, in regard to gender. But, Giovanni’s view towards women is also certainly influenced by the expectation that he must end up with one or love one. Giovanni seems to push aside many societal norms, seeming very social and interested in other characters’ stories. As a bartender, he is shown to be a very gregarious character, one who you’d think would try to value and represent everyone. I assume that it’s the standards that he and David are expected to fall into that paint Giovanni’s view towards women; similarly, it’s the forced avoidance of stigma and discrimination that acts as context or backdrop for this novel and the relationship between Giovanni and David clouding and ascending their judgment.
This quote also acts as a segue into discussing romantic identity, something that to this day is under-considered and represented. This lack of representation has been maintained despite the seriously positive potential impact it could have on the understanding of how to grace your partner with pleasure and contentment. There are different types of relationships: those that are purely sexual, romantic, or both. Those that are emotionally based or attraction based. These are just some examples; knowing about your partner’s preferences strengthens your understanding of them and their happiness. Giovanni seems to be interested in women as a body, someone to be with physically (at least that is what is indiciated by this particular quote). But when looking at his relationship with David, it extends far beyond that. Earlier in the novel, Giovanni talks to David about the pressures and aching loneliness that come with waking up from a night out without a person by his side and how Giovanni doesn’t want that for David. Giovanni definitely builds their relationship based on emotional connection and wants to support David in a way that David is scared of, but simultaneously craves. When Giovanni and David have sex David writes that the experience was, “With everything in me screaming No! Yet the sum of me sighed Yes.” (page 64). This contradicting and vacillating view that David has of relationships with men most likely comes from the fragmentary and relinquishing relationship with Joey earlier in the novel. Ultimatley, Giovanni and David have relationship preferences that don’t necessarily align especially with Hella’s ultimate return.
“But Joey is a boy, I saw suddenly the power in his thighs, in his arms, and in his loosely curled fists. The power and the promise and the mystery of that body made me suddenly afraid. That body suddenly seemed the black opening of a cavern in which I would be tortured till madness came, in which I would lose my manhood.”
The paragraph from James Baldwin’s “Giovanni’s Room” is essential because it expresses the inner conflict and terror that David, the narrator of the book, feels about his sexuality and the expectations of manhood. In this section Joey is being observed by David, who quickly realizes how strong Joey’s body is. He calls it having “power,” “promise,” and “mystery,” all of which example a strong allure and interest in Joey. However, David experiences anxiety and fear as a result of this desire.
The social norms of masculinity that are present in this time was what makes him fearful. He worries that his attraction to Joey could harm his ability to be a man in the eyes of the community. The passage captures the inner conflict David experiences as he struggles with his desires, which go against social expectations. The “black opening of a cavern” represents his fear and doubt about his sexual identity, illustrating the conflict between cultural standards of masculinity and his true nature. This section deepens David’s character and the novel’s examination of identity and sexuality by providing a representation of the complexities and reservations of queerness in a culture that frequently prohibits and suppresses “unconventional” sexual orientations.
“At the same time — it was part of my turmoil and also outside it — I felt the muscles in my neck tighten with the effort I was making not to turn my head and watch that boy diminish down the bright avenue. The beast which Giovanni had awakened in me would never go to sleep again; but one day I would not be with Giovanni anymore. And would I then, like all the others, find myself turning and following all kinds of boys down God knows what dark avenues, into what dark places?” -page 84
I found this passage at the end of part two, chapter two striking because, following David’s narrative, was it not Joey who awakened this gay interest in him? His attraction to men was never exclusive to Giovanni; perhaps the fascination was that it had not occurred in his adult travels, or that for some time he had been “on” women, garnering more experience with women than men at this point. But it does truly seem that the most impactive experiences with intimacy, the ones that most shook him to his core of understanding what passion can be, have been with Joey and Giovanni, at different times but seemingly similar importance. In reading this passage about being magnetized by attraction for this random cute boy walking down the street, I wonder why this shakes David so much to realize Giovanni may not be where his interest in men ends.
Another question of mine is, how come David’s interpretation of his relationship with Giovanni is such an insult to the memory of Joey? It’s as if he wishes to erase the connection from his mind; as if it was too intense to ever give thought to again. I fear that when he and Giovanni (inevitably) are not together anymore, the same flippance of integrity awaits the memory of Giovanni. In the early chapter of the book, the scene where David and Joey came together was so outright passionate that I can’t believe he doesn’t bring it up throughout the book more often. There is undoubtedly a sincere beauty to first love, particularly (albeit, I’m biased) one’s first queer experience when unsure of one’s sexuality and initially figuring it out.
This fleeting attraction for the boy passing by on the street alludes to, perhaps, a more permanent realization of David’s own attraction to men. It is not a slight upon his relationship with Giovanni, considering 1. it’s just a passing look, and 2. they are not in a defined monogamous situation; however, this passage reveals an unfairness in his memory, in my opinion, toward the interaction he once had with Joey. “First love never dies,” as they tend to say. It is clear that David has pushed his first love from his mind, for now, as I truly hope he does not to Giovanni.
“Giovanni had awakened an itch, had released a gnaw in me… We were both insufferably childish and high-spirited that afternoon and the spectacle we presented, two grown men jostling each other on the wide sidewalk and aiming the cherry pits, as though they were spitballs, into each other’s faces, must have been outrageous. And I realized that such childishness was fantastic at my age and the happiness out of which it sprang yet more so; for that moment I really loved Giovanni, who had never seemed more beautiful than he was that afternoon” (83)
The narrator, David, has proven himself to be a complex character that can be described in simple terms. Considering the time period of the novel, it was understandable that he worried about even secretly liking men, however, as a result of his indecisiveness, he causes harm upon himself and his loved ones. David is consistently describing emotions and even people as grotesque or revolting. Even so, there are moments in which David is happy, specifically with Giovanni. Of course, due to David’s views on queerness/homosexuality, he is both hesitant and tempted to “give in”; to surrender to his lust and affection for Giovanni. Despite being able to idly love him and enjoy his company outside (as stated above in the quote), like Giovanni’s room, David feels as though the domesticity and genuineness of their relationship is suffocating, only meant to live and die in that room.
David experiences the “loss” of his masculinity with Giovanni, due to them both being men and David being the one who stays home, which results in David losing both Giovanni and Hella. Despite leaving Giovanni to regain his sense of masculinity with his fiancée, Hella suspects that David has changed and later finds out about his attraction to men. David’s sense of melancholia in relation to his masculinity causes him to ruin the relationships he held dear. Afterwards, he does not allow himself to feel happy, only guilty for hurting both Giovanni and Hella. David feels that Giovanni will be executed because of him and, to some degree and a specific chain of events, one could consider him to be at fault. Other characters, like David’s father and Jacques, tell David to be happy, specifically by finding someone to love and settling down. As shown in the quote above, happiness for David was simply being in Giovanni’s company, doing “childish” things and not living the life that’s expected of him just yet. He acknowledges that he loved Giovanni and that the aforementioned gave him experiences and emotions one experiences when they are, at the moment, nothing short of joyful; yet all of that turns into nothing but pain as all three characters meet their end in different ways.
“Love him,” Said Jacques with vehemence. “Love him and let him love you. Do you think anything else under heaven really matters? And how long, at best, can it last? since you are both men and still have everywhere to go? Only five minutes, I assure you, only five minutes, and most of that, Hélas! in the dark. And if you think of them as dirty, then they will be dirty—They will be dirty because you will be giving nothing, you will be despising your flesh and his. But you can make your time anything but dirty; You can give each other something that will make you better—forever—if you will not be ashamed, if you will not play it safe.”
This quote from Jacques was really striking to me for multiple reasons. The themes of happiness and melancholia came to mind immediately when reading this. Jacques describing the impermanence of true happiness and love experienced by David and Giovanni felt like there was implied melancholia afterwards if David didn’t fully embrace it. The remark about how they still have everywhere to go seemed to silently describe a set track for Davids life in line with heteronormative standards. Which is why Jacques told him to fully embrace the love of Giovanni while he could before he was to go back to the expected “happiness” of heteronormativity. Urging David to fully experience this so that long term melancholia and shame wouldn’t set in afterwards because he played it safe.
This felt confirmed by the conversation between the older woman and David later on in the book. She interrogates hm about his relationship status and why there isn’t a woman with him ini his home. She urges him to find a good woman and have children because it’s what he ought to do. This woman and Jacques felt like the physical representations of love vs happiness in the heteronormative sense. Jaques describes love knowing that it might not be good all the time and that it will be short, but it will be worth it and make them better for it, while the woman describes the expectation what David should do to be happy just because it’s what’s expected.
When reading this paragraph, it immediately brings to mind Carl Jung’s concept of “the shadow” – that suppressed aspect of our ego influenced by societal pressures and parental values. Jung believed that dreams serve as a primary channel for the unconscious, including the shadow, to communicate with our conscious mind. In dreams, the shadow often manifests as strange or unsettling figures, characters, or scenarios.
As Jung put it, “The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the entire ego-personality. Becoming conscious of it requires significant moral effort, involving the acknowledgment of dark aspects of one’s personality as real. This is essential for self-knowledge.”
These dream symbols represent elements of ourselves pushed into the unconscious due to societal norms and personal repression. The novel recurrently alludes to darkness and shadows, both literally in its settings (like Giovanni’s room and Paris at night) and symbolically, reflecting the narrator’s confusion about his identity, particularly his homosexuality. This darkness symbolizes the secrecy, shame, and repression tied to his sexuality.
Death is a prevalent theme in the novel, symbolizing the decay of relationships, the loss of innocence, and Giovanni’s ultimate demise. It underscores the idea that hidden desires, such as suppressed homosexuality, can lead to emotional decay. This passage foreshadows the narrator’s inner conflict and self-contempt related to his sexuality. David’s reluctance to share his disturbing dream and his desire to protect his mother’s memory reveal a sense of guilt and shame for deviating from societal norms.
“I knew that what the sailor had seen in my unguarded eyes was envy and desire: I had seen it often in Jacques’ eyes and my reaction and the sailor’s had been the same. But if I were still able to feel affection and if he had seen it in my eyes, it would not have helped, for affection, for the boys I was doomed to look at, was vastly more frightening than lust.” pg. 92-93, Part Two, Ch. 2
In this scene, while absent-mindedly staring out at a young blonde sailor, David sees reflected in how the sailor looks at him the same contempt that he and Giovanni have for the “despicable” lives of older gay men like Jacques (pg. 55). This moment of self-awareness and recognition frightens him, because it bears out the wisdom of Jacques’ earlier warning in Part One, Ch. 4 that “the way to be really despicable is to be contemptuous of other people’s pain” (pg. 55). The gist of Jacques’ warning is to be more empathetic towards people like him and to David himself, since, according to him, David and Giovanni are not different from him, but merely younger and more self-deluding. What lies before them, if they do not take an empathetic view, towards Jacques and towards themselves, is a miserable life of self-denial and recrimination that ruins what love they could have, without ultimately ever alleviating them of the homosexual desires they hold so ambivalently.
The original passage interests me because it calls back to the initial framing image of the novel of a window that one can look through, but that can also, at night, turn into a dim reflection—at once an easily ignorable barrier and a mirror. Both David and Giovanni are so used to looking at the world through the lens of society’s homophobia that they have internalized it. They cannot see their own futures reflected in it. It is too unbearable, and when it is revealed to them by their own feelings for each other, their first instinct is to repress it.
I also think that in general, David’s relationship with Jacques is characterized by ambivalence. On the conscious level, David sees himself as holding Jacques in contempt. But why does he spend time around Jacques in the first place? Consciously, within this narrative of contempt, it is to get the better of him, to have Jacques lavish David with money in pursuit of him, but to never “conquer” him sexually. Frankly, there seems to be more at play here than just desire for money and contempt. David’s “game” is rife with homoerotic titillation and the thrill of being pursued. If he were really not somewhat interested in Jacques, why would he not simply get a job? Why does he make no attempt to settle his financial affairs in the first place? In the case of both David and Giovanni, they seem to relish being desired by the older openly gay men who patronize them, and unconsciously seek out their company, wanting some kind of recognition from them while they consciously hold them at a level below themselves.
“I knew that what the sailor had seen in my unguarded eyes was envy and desire: I had seen it often in Jacques’ eyes and my reaction and the sailor’s had been the same. But if I were still able to feel affection and if he had seen it in my eyes, it would not have helped, for affection, for the boys I was doomed to look at, was vastly more frightening than lust.” pg. 92-93, Part Two, Ch. 2
In this scene, while absent-mindedly staring out at a young blonde sailor, David sees reflected in how the sailor looks at him the same contempt that he and Giovanni have for the “despicable” lives of older gay men like Jacques (pg. 55). This moment of self-awareness and recognition frightens him, because it bears out the wisdom of Jacques’ earlier warning in Part One, Ch. 4 that “the way to be really despicable is to be contemptuous of other people’s pain” (pg. 55). The gist of Jacques’ warning is to be more empathetic towards people like him and to David himself, since, according to him, David and Giovanni are not different from him, but merely younger and more self-deluding. What lies before them, if they do not take an empathetic view, towards Jacques and towards themselves, is a miserable life of self-denial and recrimination that ruins what love they could have, without ultimately ever alleviating them of the homosexual desires they hold so ambivalently.
The original passage interests me because it calls back to the initial framing image of the novel of a window that one can look through, but that can also, at night, turn into a dim reflection—at once an easily ignorable barrier and a mirror. Both David and Giovanni are so used to looking at the world through the lens of society’s homophobia that they have internalized it. They cannot see their own futures reflected in it. It is too unbearable, and when it is revealed to them by their own feelings for each other, their first instinct is to repress it.
I also think that in general, David’s relationship with Jacques is characterized by ambivalence. On the conscious level, David sees himself as holding Jacques in contempt. But why does he spend time around Jacques in the first place? Consciously, within this narrative of contempt, it is to get the better of him, to have Jacques lavish David with money in pursuit of him, but to never “conquer” him sexually. Frankly, there seems to be more at play here than just desire for money and contempt. David’s “game” is rife with homoerotic titillation and the thrill of the hunt. If he were really not somewhat interested in Jacques, why would he not simply get a job? Why does he make no attempt to settle his financial affairs in the first place? In the case of both David and Giovanni, they seem to relish being desired by the older more openly gay men who patronize them and unconsciously seek out their company, wanting some kind of recognition from them while consciously holding them at a level below themselves.
“I knew that what the sailor had seen in my unguarded eyes was envy and desire: I had seen it often in Jacques’ eyes and my reaction and the sailor’s had been the same. But if I were still able to feel affection and if he had seen it in my eyes, it would not have helped, for affection, for the boys I was doomed to look at, was vastly more frightening than lust.” pg. 92-93, Part Two, Ch. 2
In this scene, while absent-mindedly staring out at a young blonde sailor, David sees reflected in how the sailor looks at him the same contempt that he and Giovanni have for the “despicable” lives of older gay men like Jacques (pg. 55). This moment of self-awareness and recognition frightens him, because it bears out the wisdom of Jacques’ earlier warning in Part One, Ch. 4 that “the way to be really despicable is to be contemptuous of other people’s pain” (pg. 55). The gist of Jacques’ warning is to be more empathetic towards people like him and to David himself, since, according to him, David and Giovanni are not different from him, but merely younger and more self-deluding. What lies before them, if they do not take an empathetic view, towards Jacques and towards themselves, is a miserable life of self-denial and recrimination that ruins what love they could have, without ultimately ever alleviating them of the homosexual desires they hold so ambivalently.
The original passage interests me because it calls back to the initial framing image of the novel of a window that one can look through, but that can also, at night, turn into a dim reflection—at once an easily ignorable barrier and a mirror. Both David and Giovanni are so used to looking at the world through the lens of society’s homophobia that they have internalized it. They cannot see their own futures reflected in it. It is too unbearable, and when it is revealed to them by their own feelings for each other, their first instinct is to repress it.
I also think that in general, David’s relationship with Jacques is characterized by ambivalence. On the conscious level, David sees himself as holding Jacques in contempt. But why does he spend time around Jacques in the first place? Consciously, within this narrative of contempt, it is to get the better of him, to have Jacques lavish David with money in pursuit of him, but to never “conquer” him sexually. Frankly, there seems to be more at play here than just desire for money and contempt. David’s “game” is rife with homoerotic titillation and the thrill of the hunt. If he were really not somewhat interested in Jacques, why would he not simply get a job? Why does he make no attempt to settle his financial affairs in the first place? In the case of both David and Giovanni, they seem to relish being desired by the older more openly gay men who patronize them and unconsciously seek out their company, wanting some kind of recognition from them while consciously holding them at a level below themselves.
“But people can’t, unhappily, invent their mooring posts, their lovers and their friends, anymore than they can invent their parents. Life gives these and also takes them away, and the great difficulty is to say Yes to life”
This passage intrigues me, mostly because it holds true to humanity as a whole on a general level in an odd way. In life, we are given the gifts of relationships, lovers, or friends, and these connections often become our anchors in a quite chaotic world. However, the passage goes over how life as a whole is unpredictable while at the same time being able to give us experiences that we cherish, and it also has the capacity to take these cherished connections away from us, leaving behind an ache of loss and longing.
Furthermore, the quote underscores the profound challenge of embracing life fully, despite its nature. It encapsulates the struggle of letting go and finding the courage to say “Yes” to life, even when faced with the inevitability of loss. This challenge is a shared experience among all of humanity. It invites us to reflect on the fragility of our existence and the resilience required to embrace the fleeting moments of happiness and connection.
“Or I thought, but I am happy. And he loves me. I am safe. Sometimes, when he was not near me, I thought, I will never let him touch me again. Then, when he touched me, I thought, it doesn’t matter, it is only the body, it will soon be over. When it was over, I lay in the dark and listened to his breathing and dreamed of the touch of hands, of Giovanni’s hand, or anybody’s hands, hands which would have the power to crush me and me and make me whole again.” Page 88
This excerpt captures the ambivalence of Giovanni and David’s relationship. It’s the beginning of the melancholia that exists in David when he is remembering his time with Giovanni. David saying “but I am happy” in itself is a representation of the conflict that existed within himself surrounding the relationship. He had to make a counterpoint to a negative which is signaled by the word “but” and excuse his happiness. Then David mentions the love Giovanni has for him, still not quite acknowledging the love being mutual because of the fear and lack of security in himself to say it. It reveals a lack of intimacy which David cannot reach with the internalized homophobia that continues to rage inside of him even amid the affair.
Further, David justifies his actions by saying “it is only the body” as a way of minimizing what is happening and dismissing that there’s more to it than physicality. The line “it will soon be over” is particularly interesting because I don’t think it necessarily is referring to the moment will soon be over but also everything; the affair will soon be over and also the body is temporary. We all are faced with mortality and eventually it will soon be over, anything of physical nature will not last forever. Afterwards, David talks about the power that Giovanni holds over him but not just Giovanni but the desire he wants “anybody” to be able to ‘crush and make him whole again’. This line alludes to David’s view of himself living in a state of impermanence, wanting to feel relief from the shell that is the body constraining his intimate desires. Possibly this reference of the body, not only here but throughout the novel, may not just be about the body but the male body and the narrators view on what the male body means to him in relation to his relationships and feelings for other men.
From page 3, first paragraph you can get a telling portrait of David. The paragraph reads, “My reflection is tall, perhaps rather like an arrow, my blonde hair gleams. My face is like a face you may have seen many times”. From that paragraph I come to the conclusion that David might be a tall blonde hair blue eye guy we might see in everyday passing.
One particular setting that stood out to me was from page 7 and how David escribed the walking home from the movies. He goes on to say, “I remember walking own the dark, tropical Brooklyn streets with heat coming up from the pavement and banging from the walls of houses with enough force to kill a man.” This description stood out to me because it is a setting I myself have been in, the extreme heat of those NYC summer nights walking from where ever you came from.
In regards to a character’s particular attitude towards queerness, page 16 stands out to me. On page 16 when expressing how he feels about the incident with Joey David says, “I could not discuss what had happened to me to anyone. I could not ever admit it to myself and while I never thought about it remained nevertheless at the bottom of my mind as still and as awful as a decomposing corpse.” I think this is one of the many times so far he is questioning his sexuality and becomes ashamed of his encounter with Joey because I don’t think he really understands or has come to grasp with his sexuality.
Page 3 in the second paragraph I can get a good feeling thru the language of the novel that allows me to see and feel a particular situation. On page 3 the narrator goes on to say, “The train will be the same the people struggling for comfort and even dignity on the straight wooden third class seats.” I can relate to that statement because getting on the train here in NYC is the same. Most of us are struggling to find a seat or at least a section on the train where we will be as comfortable as we can during our ride.
The theme of loss and mourning is discussed in the novel when David talks about the passing of his mother. On page 11 in regards to the death of his mother after his nightmare David goes on to say, “They concluded that the death of my mother had had this unsettling effect on my imagination and perhaps they thought I was grieving for her. And I may have been but if that is so then I am grieving still.”
“But you can make your time together anything but dirty; you can give each other something which will make both of you better—forever—if you will not be ashamed.” Page 57
This passage stood out to me because it seemed significant to the story itself. In this particular scene, David is confronted by Jacques about his feelings and thoughts towards Giovanni. David is scared and feels ashamed to admit that he’s having all these feelings towards Giovanni but Jacques stood there for him as a friend and reacted in a really supportive way when he realized what was going on.
David is portrayed as someone who is stuck in the closet as one would say and afraid to come out.
He feels like liking men is a form of losing your manhood and feels ashamed to even have those thoughts crossing his mind. However, when Jacque noticed what was happening between Giovanni and David, he has a personal conversation with David and tells him to accept who he is because there’s nothing wrong with and and he shouldn’t care what others’ opinions are. Then way this scene is written helps you capture how deep this conversation was and as the conversation was happening, David was also describing where their companions were in the bar/restaurant and what they were doing. This scene relates to happiness because Jacques is trying to convince David to go for his gut feeling and be happy with Giovanni. Jacques states that he can either hide what he feels forever and live in a lie or risk it and make Giovanni and himself happy.
I had asked her to marry me before she went away to Spain; and she laughed and I laughed but that, somehow, all the same, made it more serious for me, and I persisted; and then she said she would have to go away and think about it. And the very last night she was here, the very last time I saw her, as she was packing her bag, I told her that I had loved her once and I made myself believe it. But I wonder if I had.”
This passage specifically to me is striking because it was one of the first signs of David questioning his sexuality in the novel. Or at least that is how I interpreted it. The fact that he is questioning his love for his fiance tells me that his desires may be elsewhere. He is not completely sure that this is the route he wants to take in his life by marrying this woman. Also he is subconsciously telling her that he loves her as if his brain is trained to do so. He blurts out those words and forces himself to believe them while being unsure of his true feelings. It’s as if he knows that this is what he is supposed to feel towards his fiance but since he doesn’t he tries to “fake it until he makes it” as one would say.
This passage reminds me of our discussion on happiness. We talked about how people tend to place a value on objects and life events and equate them to happiness. A traditional marriage is one of those events that many overhype. David asked Hella to marry him and the response was a shared laughter. This made it become more serious for him. I think that since he has internal conflict with himself, he believes that marriage may be the answer. It would seal the deal on everything he has been struggling with. I believe this is what made it so serious for David. This marriage may be his only hope in finally being happy with himself. I believe that this is something that many queer men do in hope that they will finally be happy. Or finally feel like they are doing the right thing.
“Love him and let him love you… only five minutes, and most of that, helas! in the dark. And if you think of them as dirty, then they will be dirty— they will be dirty because you will be giving nothing, you will be despising your flesh and his. But you can make your time together anything but dirty, you can give each other something which will make both of you better—forever—if you will not be ashamed, if you will only not play it safe.’ He paused, watching me, and then looked down to his cognac. ‘You play it safe long enough,’ he said, in a different tone, ‘and you’ll end up trapped in your own dirty body, forever and forever and forever—like me”(Baldwin, 57).
This passage has been the most significant to me reflecting a majority of the chapters. The passage is ominous and almost feels like a warning because we begin to see that Jacqueses’ words to David hold true. David in a way doesn’t come to terms with his own feelings and there is a constant inner battle in his mind. This battle also begins to reflect on his actions towards Gio. At times David wants to be open, be embraced, and loved by Gio, but instead resists and pushes him away. Jacques is implying that there is a chance of a lifetime of happiness, and he is the only one who holds the power of making it come true if he “will not be ashamed” or “ play it safe.” In these chapters though it is the opposite and Giovanni does play it safe using his mistress (Hella) as a crutch of what life would return to. It almost begins to feel like the time that David spends with Giovanni is a fairytale and that eventually one day he will be gone and wake up from that dream and shift into reality. At one point on page 88 he even says that he invented pleasure in playing housewife when Gio is at work, but then in an instant it’s like he wakes himself up from this fantasy and says that he isn’t a housewife and that men can never be housewives.
David is internally fighting between his own desires/happiness and the expected desires/happiness of society. We see this greatly with the idea of manhood and shame being constantly brought up. To David the idea of being a man is embedded in what he believes would make his father and dead mother proud. On page 69 David has an interaction with the woman who comes to his apartment. The woman asks him questions and begins to give him advice about marrying, having children and making his parents proud saying that she gives the advice as a mother. Then David suddenly doesn’t want her to leave and feels that he wants to apologize and receive forgiveness from this woman. In a way this drastically reflects his emotions and why David has such confusion. David’s fear and shame derive from a deeper level and are sown into his views on what it is to be a man, and what would please his dead mother. Jacques’ words to David basically sum up the constant turmoil occurring in David’s brain being one of the very few characters that sees right through David.
So far, I’m really enjoying Giovanni’s Room, written by James Baldwin. When I think about it, it’s been quite a long time since I’ve read a book for class that I ended up enjoying. I will say that it’s hard for me to envision this story at the time it’s supposed to be occurring within, but that’s just a “me-thing” as I’ve been envisioning this story in relatively modern times (some point within the last 40 years, not during the 1950s). So far, I think what’s stood out to me the most is how oddly relevant the story is to today’s time. This idea of a double life and this fear of being out and proud, or even comfortable with one’s self is something many people within the community I find still struggle with, of all generations (now and prior). The idea that older generations have this fear of coming out in a modern world, or even today’s youth who still struggle to feel safe and comfortable in a time where, in theory, they should feel safer than in years past, all still exist. I also find it interesting that the idea of living a queer life, and the internalized conflict, struggles, and aching it causes David, is something many queer people still struggle with today. Based on what we’ve read already, and the foreshadowing laid out, I also find this story fairly similar to many queer tragedies and tropes of falling in love, but never actually working out (etc: Call Me by Your Name), in which the one character similar to David is in a pre-existing relationship, but longs for the same-sex attraction, but knows he can never have it, whereas you have another character like Giovanni who also longs for the same-sex love, but is already “doomed” from the beginning to suffer a tragic ending. I found myself extremely engaged in the events that unfolded in Part II: Chapter 3, involving Giovanni’s breakdown at his place after being fired. I was on the edge of my seat reading that section, as I was able to feel the tension and rage that David describes coming from Giovanni (like shattering the glass cup) – which is always awesome when the author is able to captivate different emotions and display it in a way the reader is also able to feel.
The one, more than brief, passage from the chapters read this weekend, that I wanted to touch upon, is a scene from section I, chapter III – which I felt offers a striking image related to themes such as loss and melancholia, as well as offers perspective and meaning for some of the characters. During this scene, Jacques and David are conversing, before Jacques decides to play the role of “Uncle” by checking in on David, whilst also sharing some insight on the queer life for him, and how that might differ from David’s experience. Amid their conversation, Jacques proclaims “This is a very important day for you…[I feel] like a man who has seen a vision…You were the vision. You should’ve seen yourself tonight, you should see yourself now…You are – how old? Twenty-six or – seven? I’m nearly twice that and, let me tell you, you are lucky…that what is happening to you now, is happening now and not when you were forty…when there would be no hope for you and you would simply be destroyed” (pg. 48). David, now frightened by the despair in Jacques he hadn’t seen before, now noticing some of it in himself, is left with these parting words to a vulnerable conversation – “It’s not…what it is to me. It’s what it is to you”….‘You think’, he persisted, ‘that my life is shameful because my encounters are. And they are. But you should ask yourself why they are.… Because there’s no affection in them and no joy. It’s like putting an electric plug in a dead socket. Touch, but no contact. All touch, but no contact and no light.…‘That you must ask yourself…and perhaps one day this morning will not be ashes in your mouth’ (pgs. 48-49).
What I found so striking about this passage is the vulnerability of Jacques, who notices the attraction between our two main characters, but the denial of David’s ego. The connection between the two characters has undoubtedly spurred a reflection of Jacques’ past, in which he openly acknowledges the luck of David – to be alive in a “different” time to that of when Jacques was growing up. Jacques, when first introduced, is described as this man who craves the attention of younger men, constantly searching for someone new, when in reality, this intimate “something-more” he craves generally he acknowledges is hard to come by.
To connect us back to our conversation on melancholia and mourning, Jacques’ way of living – constantly looking for the attention of other men, is to compensate for the loss of love and time he’s yearned for throughout his entire life. This loss of time, the object at hand, and his inability to move on from the love he’s yearned for all his life have caused the anguish we read on pages 48-49, at which he describes David. He hopes to help David find it within himself to accept this bit of reality, that David is a queer man, and looks to protect his ego from the love he’d be denying with Giovanni – “Love him, and let him love you” (pg. 50).
“There was the boy who worked all day, it was said, in the post office, who came out at night wearing makeup and earrings and with his heavy blond hair piled high. Sometimes he actually wore a skirt and high heels. He usually stood alone unless Guillaume walked over to tease him. People said that he was very nice, but I confess that his utter grotesqueness made me uneasy; perhaps in the same way that the sight of monkeys eating their own excrement turns some people’s stomachs. They might not mind so much if monkeys did not—so grotesquely—resemble human beings.” (Part One, Chapter 2)
I found this passage particularly interesting as it showcases the conflict within David when it comes to his own sexuality as well as how he views the sexuality of others. His idea of homosexuality and masculinity very much clash with the boy from the post office, who dresses in a typical feminine fashion, while usually a man would not wear things like makeup and high heels. Nor would a masculine man usually be a homosexual, and in a sort of self-hate, David despises the visual of a more overt queerness in a man with how the boy from the post office dresses. The idea of what masculinity is supposed to look like is engrained within him, and the way he describes the grotesqueness of the boy to be similar to that of a monkey eating its own excrement, it speaks to how he’s almost unwilling to accept anyone, including himself, could be different from the established norm, or that they would want to be different. David is so focused on maintaining his masculinity that it causes him to view those who are perceived to be a threat to it as disgusting.
It also lends credence to David’s unwillingness to accept his homosexuality. With how focused he is in keeping his masculinity as it aligns to the image that his father portrayed, He – consciously or unconsciously – separates the body and the mind, coming to the conclusion that so long as the mind remains within the form of masculinity, it is okay if the body sometimes strays. While David’s mind views the boy as grotesque and similar to that of a monkey eating its own excrement, how the body reacts can be an entirely different story.