Take a photo of a barcode or cover
vanessatheecreative's review against another edition
3.0
While I enjoyed the historic account and the to the point storytelling I feel that the whitewashing of the riots left me needing more. Everyone mentioned was a CIS White male who may dress up in drag occasionally. It lacked so much for me but left me with a more in depth understanding of what it was truly like to be Gay in this country (too bad we missed all the rest of the letters).
idilemmi's review against another edition
4.0
(3.5)
to say that i have mixed feelings would be an understatement. i picked the book up when i managed to turn one of my most recent research spirals into something viable for uni assignments (my new approach is that if i am not taught what i want i will find a way to teach myself and make it everyone else's problem) and i must say — the book is very exhaustive. it covers not only the events of the riots, but what led up to them, the socio-political situation not only of NYC but also of San Francisco, the legislations against and the grievances of the queer community in the sixties, the political organisations that followed.
however. this is the story of gay (caucasian) men, with some lesbians peppered in here and there. trans and poc folx take on a marginal role, when they are mentioned, depicting a version of the stonewall riots far different from the one i've grown accustomed to. the language is also far from ideal (e.g. trans women are addressed as "transgendered men") and while Carter does justify both linguistic choices and narratives in the conclusions, i think much can be said about inclusiveness and who is in charge of deciding what side of history gets told.
to say that i have mixed feelings would be an understatement. i picked the book up when i managed to turn one of my most recent research spirals into something viable for uni assignments (my new approach is that if i am not taught what i want i will find a way to teach myself and make it everyone else's problem) and i must say — the book is very exhaustive. it covers not only the events of the riots, but what led up to them, the socio-political situation not only of NYC but also of San Francisco, the legislations against and the grievances of the queer community in the sixties, the political organisations that followed.
however. this is the story of gay (caucasian) men, with some lesbians peppered in here and there. trans and poc folx take on a marginal role, when they are mentioned, depicting a version of the stonewall riots far different from the one i've grown accustomed to. the language is also far from ideal (e.g. trans women are addressed as "transgendered men") and while Carter does justify both linguistic choices and narratives in the conclusions, i think much can be said about inclusiveness and who is in charge of deciding what side of history gets told.
lacytelles's review against another edition
3.0
After seeing a play about the Stonewall riots, I was intrigued to know how much of it was accurate. This is a compilation of excerpts, quotes, and history that attempt to explain the hows and whats of the infamous Stonewall riots of 1969.
Loved the history and liked the photos, but wish there had been more.
Loved the history and liked the photos, but wish there had been more.
holatortuga's review against another edition
3.0
A very conflicting book. On the one hand it is a beautifully detailed story told through intimate accounts of the gay scene of the 60s and how stonewall came to be. in relation to the people interviewed, it was balanced and allowed all the different sides of the story to come through. this made the narrative so evocative and memorable. I dozed off reading it and had a dream about the GLF that's how immersive it was. so as an account of a time and a place, it's super.
however, as a work of history, it comes with some serious prejudices, which really come through in the authors notes at the end. David Carter REALLY wants us to know this was a movement of cisgender, white gay men. for a book that prides itself on plurality of opinion, I found this strange. wherever a lesbian is mentioned (especially in the initial fracas that sparked the riots), Carter is quick to say 'may have' or 'contentious' and totally trust the suggestions of his subjects that there just weren't any women about.
moreover, it's obvious carter is very uncomfortable with saying there were trans people involved - especially trans women. he argues the terminology then meant these people shouldn't be considered trans in the way they may be today. I find that argument weak. sure, gender expression has been in flux across the years, much less the decades, but that doesn't mean transgender people didn't exist because the terminology wasn't there. the same line of thinking has been used to deny the historic existence of gay people!
this brings me back to what I think is the foundational flaw of this book: the approach to sources. Any period in history, much less a time where so many were forced to lead double lives, requires us to reflect on the biases within our sources and how we can understand gaps and silences in the archives. gay men are not immune to the misogyny of their day. maybe there is a reason the interviewees sought to diminish the role of women - especially trans women - when the documentary evidence suggests otherwise.
Basically, the author didn't really interrogate or analyse the sources he presented and its just as well those sources are so rich in their own right - at least it makes a brilliant story. I appreciate that our understanding of gender and transness has come on a lot in twenty years. but that said, it's hard to fully get into the story of an oppressed people on the rise when it's committed to excluding those most on the margins.
however, as a work of history, it comes with some serious prejudices, which really come through in the authors notes at the end. David Carter REALLY wants us to know this was a movement of cisgender, white gay men. for a book that prides itself on plurality of opinion, I found this strange. wherever a lesbian is mentioned (especially in the initial fracas that sparked the riots), Carter is quick to say 'may have' or 'contentious' and totally trust the suggestions of his subjects that there just weren't any women about.
moreover, it's obvious carter is very uncomfortable with saying there were trans people involved - especially trans women. he argues the terminology then meant these people shouldn't be considered trans in the way they may be today. I find that argument weak. sure, gender expression has been in flux across the years, much less the decades, but that doesn't mean transgender people didn't exist because the terminology wasn't there. the same line of thinking has been used to deny the historic existence of gay people!
this brings me back to what I think is the foundational flaw of this book: the approach to sources. Any period in history, much less a time where so many were forced to lead double lives, requires us to reflect on the biases within our sources and how we can understand gaps and silences in the archives. gay men are not immune to the misogyny of their day. maybe there is a reason the interviewees sought to diminish the role of women - especially trans women - when the documentary evidence suggests otherwise.
Basically, the author didn't really interrogate or analyse the sources he presented and its just as well those sources are so rich in their own right - at least it makes a brilliant story. I appreciate that our understanding of gender and transness has come on a lot in twenty years. but that said, it's hard to fully get into the story of an oppressed people on the rise when it's committed to excluding those most on the margins.
solly's review against another edition
3.0
This was alright.
If you're doing research it's great, thoroughly researched, lots of details and points of view on the events. If you're researching around Stonewall, it's definitely a great read.
However, if you're someone just wanting to know more about the Stonewall Riots, I don't think you should pick this up. It's super dense and dry, difficult to read and remember the many people mentionned (I got through it okay because I had the physical copy AND the audiobook). Like, informative, but not a great time.
It still made me tear up a few times haha. It's a history book, so very much not written in an emotional way, but queer history has a unique way to make me emotional out of nowhere.
Also, it's very, very obviously written and researched by a white cis man. Wouldn't recommend it to trans readers especially, because it's full of "transgendered men" to refer to trans women, and it's pretty icky on all trans stuff. There was an attempt at inclusion at times, lol, but still lots of misgendering and deadnaming, erasure of well-known trans names of the movement (Marsha P. Jonhson is mentionned twice in passing, no mentions of Sylvia Rivera). There's a point of view of someone who is clearly a trans woman but who the author deadnames and misgenders until she's "dressed up" to go out to the Stonewall.
The author also contradicts himself in his conclusions. He makes it very clear through the book that trans women, gender non-conforming people, and lesbians were instrumental to the riots and still concludes that the movement was mostly white cis gays.
Anyway, it's probably a must if you're doing research around the subject, if you're just curious to know a little more about the riots without things like the geographical details, it's probably not the book for you.
If you're doing research it's great, thoroughly researched, lots of details and points of view on the events. If you're researching around Stonewall, it's definitely a great read.
However, if you're someone just wanting to know more about the Stonewall Riots, I don't think you should pick this up. It's super dense and dry, difficult to read and remember the many people mentionned (I got through it okay because I had the physical copy AND the audiobook). Like, informative, but not a great time.
It still made me tear up a few times haha. It's a history book, so very much not written in an emotional way, but queer history has a unique way to make me emotional out of nowhere.
Also, it's very, very obviously written and researched by a white cis man. Wouldn't recommend it to trans readers especially, because it's full of "transgendered men" to refer to trans women, and it's pretty icky on all trans stuff. There was an attempt at inclusion at times, lol, but still lots of misgendering and deadnaming, erasure of well-known trans names of the movement (Marsha P. Jonhson is mentionned twice in passing, no mentions of Sylvia Rivera). There's a point of view of someone who is clearly a trans woman but who the author deadnames and misgenders until she's "dressed up" to go out to the Stonewall.
The author also contradicts himself in his conclusions. He makes it very clear through the book that trans women, gender non-conforming people, and lesbians were instrumental to the riots and still concludes that the movement was mostly white cis gays.
Anyway, it's probably a must if you're doing research around the subject, if you're just curious to know a little more about the riots without things like the geographical details, it's probably not the book for you.
dannosaur's review against another edition
4.0
Funny, thrilling, and immersive. Carter switches between the perspectives of each major actor in the riots. His respect and love for the Village comes through, and his dedication to detail (great methodology in researching) is impressive. Some of the terms he uses are outdated now that there is more precision in queer labels. However, this is still a valuable and enjoyable read.
joymichaelellison's review against another edition
1.0
Carter claims explicitly that trans people and people of color were marginal to the Stonewall riots. I think that's all I need to say.
elsiebeane's review against another edition
5.0
This is a must read book. I had heard of the riots but never understood the impact or the what/ why of them. Wow. What a fascinating look at what happened.
dusty_folds's review against another edition
4.0
This in-depth analysis of the pivotal moment that marked the beginning of the modern Gay Rights movement is a must-read for anyone who thinks they know about the Stonewall Riots. I learned so much about the events leading up to the riots as well as the aftermath of the two-day event. Several things I thought I knew about Stonewall were challenged by Carter's research. The beginning of the book can get bogged down with its history of many people involved in the Stonewall Riots. The downside of this is that I forgot so much of that biographical information by the time the riots actually took place in the narrative. I think the strength of the book is its description of the riots and the aftermath because while the riots were noteworthy, what happened after that June weekend in 1969 ensured that they became the historical milestone they were instead of simply a footnote in history.