Scan barcode
A review by finesilkflower
Harvard's Secret Court: The Savage 1920 Purge of Campus Homosexuals by William Wright
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.