CNN runs the transcript of Booker Prize winner Alan Hollinghurst's recent Q&A with TalkAsia.
LH: Do you feel that you are being pigeonholed into being a gay writer? I mean is this a fair thing, are people sort of missing something here?
AH: Well the day after the Booker, that was of course the thing that tabloid headlines picked on -- "Gay novel wins Booker". One of them even said, "Gay sex wins Booker," which I thought, if only it was that easy. But that obviously is a point of interest about this book and about the other books that I've written. It now rather surprises me because I'm so used to the fact that that's where I'm writing from as it were. And I think from the start I always wanted to write from a presupposition of the gay position of the narrator. And to take that for granted as most novels...it's taken for granted that they're from the heterosexual position, but having done that to go on to talk about all sorts of other things. So I only chafe at the "gay writer" tag if it's thought to describe everything that's interesting about my books. Because actually the lives of gay people aren't just about being gay, they're about all their other human interests.


i think that virtually every chicano writer i know can relate to hollinghurst's comments. on the one hand, many of us are proud to be recognized as chicano. on the other hand, the very designation presumes that the "norm" in this country is the white writer while those outside that group must be defined. for example, i have been called "one of the best and most original hispanic american authors working today." but imagine if philip roth were referred to as "one of the best and most original white american authors working today." sounds a bit odd, doesn't it?
Posted by: daniel olivas | May 11, 2005 at 12:34 AM