Scan barcode
A review by graveyardpansy
Queer: A Graphic History by Meg-John Barker
2.0
this was disappointing. i didnt find it boring like many others did but it is dry, and it feels more like a wikipedia-style summary of a bunch of significant actors in queer theory than it does “a graphic history.” my main criticisms are as follows:
- on literally page ten, they use the n-word as an example of reclaimed slurs. neither the author or illustrator are black. comparing slurs is a dangerous path in general, but it is certainly unacceptable for a nonblack author to fully write the n-word as an ‘example.’ it makes sense to me to compare reclamation of fag/dyke to reclamation of queer, especially as they are frequently reclaimed in the same circles, but…. the use of the n-word on literally page ten put a really awful taste in my mouth at the very beginning of this book.
- there is very minimal non-white history or theory discussed. audre lorde and bell hooks are both drawn and mentioned, but not given pages in the way that any of the white theorists are. the book even mentions that a common critique of queer theory/studies is that it’s white and eurocentric, but this book itself contributes to that problem.
- there’s an odd page that implies queer theory invented nonbinaryness in a way??
- very minimal mention of trans studies which was disappointing to me
i’m also unsure how effective this is as an introduction. the marketing makes you think it’s a book about queer history, but it’s literally only about queer theory. i didn’t learn anything, but i was able to easily understand the whole book. but for someone who’s using this as an introduction, I don’t know how easy it would be to read, as it tries to introduce you to dozens of theorists without any visual structure to really break it up.
- on literally page ten, they use the n-word as an example of reclaimed slurs. neither the author or illustrator are black. comparing slurs is a dangerous path in general, but it is certainly unacceptable for a nonblack author to fully write the n-word as an ‘example.’ it makes sense to me to compare reclamation of fag/dyke to reclamation of queer, especially as they are frequently reclaimed in the same circles, but…. the use of the n-word on literally page ten put a really awful taste in my mouth at the very beginning of this book.
- there is very minimal non-white history or theory discussed. audre lorde and bell hooks are both drawn and mentioned, but not given pages in the way that any of the white theorists are. the book even mentions that a common critique of queer theory/studies is that it’s white and eurocentric, but this book itself contributes to that problem.
- there’s an odd page that implies queer theory invented nonbinaryness in a way??
- very minimal mention of trans studies which was disappointing to me
i’m also unsure how effective this is as an introduction. the marketing makes you think it’s a book about queer history, but it’s literally only about queer theory. i didn’t learn anything, but i was able to easily understand the whole book. but for someone who’s using this as an introduction, I don’t know how easy it would be to read, as it tries to introduce you to dozens of theorists without any visual structure to really break it up.