Matt raises an interesting point in the comments to my post about labeling actors as gay in stage reviews -- as opposed, it's important to point out, to labeling them in other types of editorial content. He hits on something that I brushed by, but really goes to the heart of what it means to be a "gay publication."
The fact is, a major reason I read gay publications in the first
place is because I identify more with people when I know they're gay.
That's just the way it is. That's what help engender this whole
nebulous sense of "community" within myself. It's also why I prefer gay
bars and gay neighborhoods over straight ones.
One could argue about how tacked-on such a reference might seem in a
theatre review, but count me as one reader who likes to know.
To explain a bit again: At Metro Weekly, our arts coverage is, in general, broader than stage, film or music that can be tagged as "gay" or "lesbian." Hence, as Trey noted in his original post, we reviewed Jitney although its not related to gay issues in any real way. The same will be true tomorrow, when we publish a review of Woolly Mammoth's production of Vigils. We review most of the major Hollywood film releases without focus on gay content -- although we do go out of our way to pay special attention to gay films. We do this because we believe that gays and lesbians are a vibrant and important part of the arts and entertainment culture, both as producers and consumers of art. Gay people don't just go to gay plays or movies, so we take that into account. Sure, gay readers can go get reviews of non-gay plays at City Paper, but I'd just as soon have them reading us instead (no offense intended to Trey...).
However, we are a gay publication -- always have been, always proud to be, always will be. Like Matt, I identify more with people when I know they're gay. That's why we primarily focus on gays and lesbians in the magazine (transgenders, too) -- that's the community we serve, and the community we belong to. Of course, the challenge these days is that we're swimming in an abundance of gay media -- magazines and weblogs and newspapers compete for our constant attention. Mainstream media, newspapers in particular, are doing a better job than ever (though not good enough) including gay stories in their mix. With all that gay content on order 24-hours a day, what does a gay magazine do to be gay in a compelling way?
One thing I don't do is focus on national stories that are being beaten like a dead horse on every web page in the nation. It's easy to fill your news pages or home pages with links to "gay" stories elsewhere, but that doesn't provide any real service to readers. I like seeing locally-focused stories on the people who live and work in the community. I like compelling and creative columns from talented gay writers. I like reading community news that can't be found in the Washington Post. I like fun pictures of people enjoying themselves in gay nightclubs.
Those are some of the things that make a publication gay -- not simply noting that Joe Blow is gay without any further comment on the subject. To me, being called "gay" doesn't say that much any more, given the ever-growing variety of gay people who are out and about. If you simply note that I'm gay, it tells you nothing about my political beliefs (unless you assume some stereotypes, which would be wrong). It tells you nothing about my hobbies (videogames, cars, cooking and reading). It doesn't capture my coming out story (traumatic and best encapsulated by "that which doesn't kill us makes us stronger").
My point here is that slapping a label in a review doesn't convey much, and I don't think critical reviews are really the best place to be looking for affirmations of nebulous community. That's the job of features and news and profiles and photos and all the other things that make a magazine gay -- an "gay" in all the many ways that our readers are gay. I think there are always ways I can try to do it better; I hope I'm doing that right now.
Telling God to "
Recent Comments