The Center Cannot Hold: Nature's Slippery...Nature

This is going to be extremely difficult to talk about, but I'm going to give it a good try. I'm sorry if this post dissolves into contradictions.

Since the entire first chapter just begs discussion of the category of queer as a category and categories in themselves, I'm going there.

So first things first, there is a basic premise in a lot of queer theory that there is actually no such thing as "queer.". This is not to say that there is no such thing as homosexuality, or homosexual acts, but it is very difficult to have a positive connection to something that is "queer". It is not an inclusive space. The "queer" is, instead, what is not; queer is negatively relational. You cannot point to the "queer" aspects of a text and say "Here it is!" Instead you point to it and say "That is not me/inside/self."

This leads me to think of the thirty pages of description of Nature's clothes. I cannot help but think that the function of this is the setting up of a category. We know what is, literally, included with nature and the things that are not on the cloak are not. Nature is creating her own category of difference so that she may point to it. The extensive use of mirrors as a figure in here (most notably at the end of the Plaint, on pages 218 and 221) seems to bring this out, as well. A reflection in a mirror is false, it is not the self, it is simply something you can base your identity on.

Nature, however, is so much more encompassing than a herd of deer and some herbs. We spend the next fifty pages discussing things that are against Nature and there is no way to discuss it all. Nature, then, is the queer. One cannot point to Nature and say "There it is."

We then have Nature doing the unnatural, which is abdicating her position as Nature. Nature goes against...Nature. She commands a return to Nature through modest sex and good deeds and then opts to leave being Nature herself.

I guess, in short, Nature is located within the category of difference, of the "unnatural," that she created. Reasonably, the narrative should fall apart here, but it does not. I'm not sure why not, but if anyone has any ideas, that would be a help.

The Elephant in the Kitchen: Homoerotic Desire in Gawain

You might have noticed the homoeroticism present in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. You know, if you have eyes. What's interesting to me, however, is the role that the ladies play in enabling and conducting the homoerotic and homosocial play between the male characters.

To me, the first instance of homoeroticism is not the first kiss but the first meeting between Gawain and the Knight.

"Now hold your grim tool steady
And show us how it hacks.'
'Gladly, sir; all ready.'
Says Gawain; he strokes the ax.

The Green Knight upon ground girds him with care;
Bows a bit with his head, and bares his flesh;
His long lovely locks he laid over his crown,
Let the naked nape for the need be shown"
(25)

The first section, in Borroff's translation as well as Tolkein's, read like flirting. There is a give and take between The Knight and Gawain. The words are measured out and the cadence of the two lines indicates a kind of flirting. There's also the instance of the highly sexualized word choices of "tool" and "strokes."

Moving on, The Green Knight is feminized with his "long lovely locks." To top that off, in order to lay them over his crown, wouldn't he have to be bent over? He's also aligned with his wife, who is the only other character in the poem to bare her flesh - "her fair throat freely displayed" (56)

But how does a woman enable this behavior? This entire act is done for the benefit of Guenevere; one man to scare her and one man to defend her honor. More on this in a moment.

I'm going to gloss now over the kissing scenes because I think the sexualized nature of them is fairly obvious. In short, Gawain kisses the Knight because The Knight's Lady kissed him. The Lady is the conduit for the desire of Gawain and the Knight, as well as being the desire-object for both of the characters. In short, they are a love triangle. In the words of Eve Sedgwick "in any erotic rivalry, the bond that links the two rivals is as intense and potent as the bond that links either of the rivals to the beloved." (Between Men, 21)

What part do Guenevere and The Lady play, then? They are the mirror that reflects the men's desire for each other. Without the women to form that triangulated bond, the men probably couldn't make a spectacle of their homoerotic desire. At least, according to queer theory.