Scan barcode
briannareadsbooks's review against another edition
4.0
I'd heard of Harvard's Secret Court only recently and became automatically interested, so I had to read this book despite the mixed reviews. I thoroughly enjoyed this book and coupled with Amit Paley's articles in the Harvard Crimson, I now have a thorough understanding of the insane, underground events that happened at Harvard. I enjoyed how the events played out in my mind like a movie. While the author's voice was pretty neutral about the horrible mistreatment of Harvard's gay students, I didn't really find a problem with it. All I really cared about was that the story was as factual as possible. Also, I'm not sure if the author is gay or not, but his use of terms like "gayness" made me almost cringe at times, but besides that, I thought his account of the story was respectful.
My only complaint was the last few chapters. Sorry, but I honestly didn't care about the history of homosexuality and homophobia around the world, especially when I learned all this in an Intro to Sexuality course in college. I think it would have been enough just to talk about the culture of homophobia surrounding Harvard in the 20s. While the information was helpful, it didn't need to be in this specific book.
My only complaint was the last few chapters. Sorry, but I honestly didn't care about the history of homosexuality and homophobia around the world, especially when I learned all this in an Intro to Sexuality course in college. I think it would have been enough just to talk about the culture of homophobia surrounding Harvard in the 20s. While the information was helpful, it didn't need to be in this specific book.
hawkelf's review against another edition
dark
informative
slow-paced
1.75
I wish there was another book available about this event, written by somebody else. Like other reviewers, I can't tell if the author is straight or old school, and it shouldn't matter, but the attempt(?) to stay neutral about what happened didn't really work, and often leaned toward sounding like he agreed with Harvard instead of the targeted students. There was a lot of padding in this book, that made it feel like it wasn't going anywhere for chapters at a time. Including the tidbit that the then president of Harvard's sister was fat, outside of quotation, was a tonal Choice, I gotta say, that is unfortunately consistent with how he talks about the targeted students as well.
I don't actually remember if I technically finished, or gave up. I did go and read the articles available online about the secret court, and those felt more informative.
I don't actually remember if I technically finished, or gave up. I did go and read the articles available online about the secret court, and those felt more informative.
tymgabriel's review against another edition
5.0
Richard Wright does a phenomenal job of uncovering a secret long-held by Harvard's elite about the prestigious university's past. Wright explores Harvard's Secret Court from its origins to its after effects. Not only does he expand on the court, but he takes in-depth looks into the lives of those students, faculty, and community members affected by the court as well.
finesilkflower's review against another edition
2.0
The story of the "secret court" that attempted to purge Harvard of the homosexual blight in 1920 is totally up my alley as an connoisseur of early-20th-century college gays. The story is interesting but I found the writing hard to like. I can't tell if it's because of the writer himself or because I don't really "get" academic historical writing, but to me, Wright seems to try to take a middle-ground approach where a choice would have worked better:
* Present the story, or the story of uncovering the story?
Wright frequently alludes to the documents from which he got his information, notes the incompleteness or strangeness of the documents (for example, he explains that his transcriptions of the interviews are based on notes only on the answers, and he ponders at a letter home in which the author typed "(page missing)".) He does not explain how or in what order he himself obtained the documents. I think if Wright had glossed over the incompleteness of his documents a bit and just written, like, an almost fictionalized account (as he actually does in some weird parts, like the story of a first date between two undergraduates), it would have worked better as a story, BUT what I really wish he had done is to write the story of how he uncovered all this--it must have been a grand hunt and the remaining mysteries of his documents could be described in more detail without interrupting the story. Because the story would be him piecing together the story, not an attempt at telling a straight chronological historical incident with frustrating gaps and lingering questions in the narrative.
* Should the author be a character or invisible?
Wright never uses the pronoun "I" (as he would have to if he had written the "uncovering the story" story I wish he'd written), which really jumps out as awkward in some of the more compelling "story of the story" moments. The worst is when he says "X was tracked down at his home in [wherever]... when asked about his late father, he paused, and said 'My father spent the last twenty years of his life in a mental institution.'" I mean, wow! What a great moment for the story-of-the-story! It's just so bizarre as presented in the passive voice as if Wright himself didn't conduct this interview. Wright's reluctance to use the first person, to explain what this story means to him personally or what he thinks about it, is belied by his perennial comparisons of characters and incidents to things that happened in the life and work of Somerset Maugham and other fairly irrelevant bits of cultural canon he happens to enjoy; and his insistence on expressing plain righteous anger at some of the characters in the narrative. Wright gets into the story, despite his half-hearted adherence to the "invisible author" conventions of scientific writing, so it would work better if he would just go with it and make himself a character.
* Formal or informal?
Wright does that thing where he is usually formal (even stilted--he slips into antiquated speech from time to time, which is understandable considering he is a historian), but occasionally he slips in a snide aside. This is great when done well and embarrassing when done poorly.
* Question or analyze?
One of the most annoying things about this book is that it's full of questions and no answers. Wright will point out the questions that a particular document or piece of information raises, give some points on both sides, point out some weirdnesses, speculate about motives, all in the form of questions. He's hesitant to actually suggest any conclusions.
Also would have liked to see more descriptions of lavish furnishings.
* Present the story, or the story of uncovering the story?
Wright frequently alludes to the documents from which he got his information, notes the incompleteness or strangeness of the documents (for example, he explains that his transcriptions of the interviews are based on notes only on the answers, and he ponders at a letter home in which the author typed "(page missing)".) He does not explain how or in what order he himself obtained the documents. I think if Wright had glossed over the incompleteness of his documents a bit and just written, like, an almost fictionalized account (as he actually does in some weird parts, like the story of a first date between two undergraduates), it would have worked better as a story, BUT what I really wish he had done is to write the story of how he uncovered all this--it must have been a grand hunt and the remaining mysteries of his documents could be described in more detail without interrupting the story. Because the story would be him piecing together the story, not an attempt at telling a straight chronological historical incident with frustrating gaps and lingering questions in the narrative.
* Should the author be a character or invisible?
Wright never uses the pronoun "I" (as he would have to if he had written the "uncovering the story" story I wish he'd written), which really jumps out as awkward in some of the more compelling "story of the story" moments. The worst is when he says "X was tracked down at his home in [wherever]... when asked about his late father, he paused, and said 'My father spent the last twenty years of his life in a mental institution.'" I mean, wow! What a great moment for the story-of-the-story! It's just so bizarre as presented in the passive voice as if Wright himself didn't conduct this interview. Wright's reluctance to use the first person, to explain what this story means to him personally or what he thinks about it, is belied by his perennial comparisons of characters and incidents to things that happened in the life and work of Somerset Maugham and other fairly irrelevant bits of cultural canon he happens to enjoy; and his insistence on expressing plain righteous anger at some of the characters in the narrative. Wright gets into the story, despite his half-hearted adherence to the "invisible author" conventions of scientific writing, so it would work better if he would just go with it and make himself a character.
* Formal or informal?
Wright does that thing where he is usually formal (even stilted--he slips into antiquated speech from time to time, which is understandable considering he is a historian), but occasionally he slips in a snide aside. This is great when done well and embarrassing when done poorly.
* Question or analyze?
One of the most annoying things about this book is that it's full of questions and no answers. Wright will point out the questions that a particular document or piece of information raises, give some points on both sides, point out some weirdnesses, speculate about motives, all in the form of questions. He's hesitant to actually suggest any conclusions.
Also would have liked to see more descriptions of lavish furnishings.
mothwing's review against another edition
2.0
It's an account of the purges of gay students from the campus after the suicide of one of them that occurred in the nineteen-twenties. Very shocking, especially considering that the purges themselves led to more suicides and completely ruined the lives of the students in question. Not only did Harvard purge their names from the permanent records, they also sent out letters to explain why they dismissed this students if they chose to associate themselves with the university in any CV they wrote for an application to other schools or jobs. This meant that many of these students could not hope for further education at other schools at all or for jobs. The last of these letters was sent in the early seventies.
What struck me as very strange is Wight's last chapter which outlines the possibility that homophobia may be as genetically induced as homosexuality. While I get that he probably had to include something of the sort to stop him from being in trouble with the renowned university, it was still rather baffling to see him struggling to explain and absolve these decisions which had ruined the lives of some twenty students for decades to come, sometimes on the basis of mere association with gay students.
What struck me as very strange is Wight's last chapter which outlines the possibility that homophobia may be as genetically induced as homosexuality. While I get that he probably had to include something of the sort to stop him from being in trouble with the renowned university, it was still rather baffling to see him struggling to explain and absolve these decisions which had ruined the lives of some twenty students for decades to come, sometimes on the basis of mere association with gay students.
pmartyness's review against another edition
3.0
I was drawn to this book after seeing a press release about the story being developed into a podcast.
There are parts of this book that a great, particularly the story of Lester Wilcox. But the book can be long in the tooth and there are definitely a few extra paragraphs, pages and chapters than there needs to be to tell a fascinating story. That said I am glad I read the book, and am grateful for the education it provided.
There are parts of this book that a great, particularly the story of Lester Wilcox. But the book can be long in the tooth and there are definitely a few extra paragraphs, pages and chapters than there needs to be to tell a fascinating story. That said I am glad I read the book, and am grateful for the education it provided.
harperhugodarling's review
5.0
This book is one that is truly worth the read. The information is incredibly interesting and far from common knowledge, and the writing itself is incredibly engaging.
wai's review
2.0
I've owned this book for a very long time but never gotten around to reading it until now. I feel like this book is important to keep history alive - that Harvard would have done something like this, even in 1920, is something that should not be covered up or left unknown. Simple apologies are not enough for the pain that the Secret Court brought on gay/questioning male students in 1920. At the very least we should not forget or allow this information to be buried.
That being said...I wish this account had been written by someone else. I'm not sure if Wright is straight, or just an old school Gay not very in tune with the community, because there are so many times that he interjects his own opinion of things that just....doesn't make much sense to me. He also goes along with the Secret Court's idea that the boys who actually engaged in "gay sexual activity" = "guilty" vs the boys who were just friends/seemed to just be questioning over actually gay = "innocent". Even if this is done ironically, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. There were just too many times in which he presented information in a neutral way that seems to present the long term and violent homophobia of the Secret Court as like deserving of the same kind of understanding and sympathy as the gay men whose lives they ruined ?
In the final chapters, Wright goes on about homophobia in general and makes the claim that homophobia makes sense as an evolutionary trait innate in all of us. It's frustrating and gives violent homophobes an excuse and a ploy for sympathy - "it's not our fault, it's just our biology". Bigotry and hatred is not a biological component of humanity and oppression like homophobia is absolutely a social construction that we are raised within and learn, much like sexism, racism, etc. (He also at one point backs up the argument of biology by saying that homophobia is seen across history and across culture - then proceeds to list events that happen only over the course of a few centuries in Europe, primarily England. I have to laugh!)
The book did involve a lot of information about the lives of the gay men that were persecuted as well as direct quotations which I enjoyed. And for the preservation of LGBT+ history at least, that is important. But otherwise this book is rather disappointing and feels very out of touch with the LGBT+ community, even for a book written in 2005.
That being said...I wish this account had been written by someone else. I'm not sure if Wright is straight, or just an old school Gay not very in tune with the community, because there are so many times that he interjects his own opinion of things that just....doesn't make much sense to me. He also goes along with the Secret Court's idea that the boys who actually engaged in "gay sexual activity" = "guilty" vs the boys who were just friends/seemed to just be questioning over actually gay = "innocent". Even if this is done ironically, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. There were just too many times in which he presented information in a neutral way that seems to present the long term and violent homophobia of the Secret Court as like deserving of the same kind of understanding and sympathy as the gay men whose lives they ruined ?
In the final chapters, Wright goes on about homophobia in general and makes the claim that homophobia makes sense as an evolutionary trait innate in all of us. It's frustrating and gives violent homophobes an excuse and a ploy for sympathy - "it's not our fault, it's just our biology". Bigotry and hatred is not a biological component of humanity and oppression like homophobia is absolutely a social construction that we are raised within and learn, much like sexism, racism, etc. (He also at one point backs up the argument of biology by saying that homophobia is seen across history and across culture - then proceeds to list events that happen only over the course of a few centuries in Europe, primarily England. I have to laugh!)
The book did involve a lot of information about the lives of the gay men that were persecuted as well as direct quotations which I enjoyed. And for the preservation of LGBT+ history at least, that is important. But otherwise this book is rather disappointing and feels very out of touch with the LGBT+ community, even for a book written in 2005.
More...