Sunday, July 22, 2007

Michael Coveney and his queer preoccupations

I must confess that former Mail theatre critic Michael Coveney is an excellent blogger - do catch his Whatsonstage site when you're quite exhausted with me, I won't be bitter. Unlike about 98% of journalists he intuitively understands that a blog requires both news of a sort and signs of actual visceral temperament: your average journo has learnt to arrange words in a stately way for his or her overbearing editor (often confused for the mass audience) but somehow leaves one thinking that he or she is talking over one's shoulder (as is invariably the case should you encounter them at parties).

Only in one respect does Coveney - who has failed to date to confirm or deny my earlier story about the Curious Case of his Missing Lloyd Webber Book Chapter - let himself down: he appears to have a problem with sexual aberration. Recently he accused AA Gill of walking and talking like a "homosexual male model" (when as I said most male models walk like John Wayne for runway purposes). Now, in his current posting, he describes the Evening Standard's art critic Brian Sewell as "epicene".

Now, the matter here is not that Sewell may not be epicene (a dowager with testicles, more accurately). My concern is that he feels the need to draw our attention to the non-issues of Sewell's gender (male, plainly), sexual orientation (homo, plainly) and - what I call - psychic impression (a dowager with testicles, I suggest). The contemporaneity of the walking talking homosexual male model and the epicene Sewell in Coveney's blog leads me to suspect that he perhaps is making the mistake of comparing both Gill and Sewell to his theatre PR wife Sue Hyman whose masculine severity is a thing of wonder; and this may account for her husband's preoccupation with those who fall short of their catalogue-assigned gender energies.

It seems odd to me that anyone with such a preoccupation would be drawn to the theatre, even if only as a critic. As my late friend Truman Capote was wont to say, most English male actors of any quality are gay - and many of the female are camp. Put another way, I can't imagine why a vegetarian might want to work in an abattoir. A person's inner drives and prejudices maybe discerned by their reflexive insults and humour: I fear Coveney is revealing a little too much of his inner life, or nightmares.

Otherwise I commend his blog and shall be be scrutinising it with even greater care from now on.

12 comments:

The Daughter-of-a-Bitch said...

"As my late friend Truman Capote was wont to say"

Truman Capote, your friend?! Gimme a break, you arrogant name-dropping ho'!

Arcati said...

Well, you've got your Jasper (who?) and I've my Truman (via a medium these days).

Duralex said...

<< queer preoccupations >>

Ahem, I know I shouldn't use that taboo cliché, but my feeling is that the pot is calling the... OK, you get me.

<< my late friend Truman Capote >>

I very much doubt that viperish tongue ever had any friends, but would he, I'm sure Arcati would have been among the elect. ;-)

Arcati said...

Vipers have their nest.

Duralex said...

I'd say "their net". :-)

Capote's spirit will be quite interested (although saddened, I fear) in meeting the likes of Perez Hilton thanks to you, Madame. That fat douchebag badly needs Truman's lessons of wit, but I seriously wonder if he's not a desperate case.

Arcati said...

Perez does rather exaggerate his visitor figures by a million or two a day, and his "exclusives" tend to be gleaned from about a 1000 other ents websites all running the same stories and pics of Lindsay, Britney, Paris and all those other horribles bitches ... ooh dear I'm starting to sound like Perez ....

Arcati said...

And Perez should stop lifting pics from photo agencies and not paying for them. Plus he'll go bald with all that blue dye, and I hope he won't have to have that anal op that John Barrowman had, heh heh.

Duralex said...

<< Perez does rather exaggerate his visitor figures by a million or two a day >>

Hmmm, I presume you're projecting on him your own exaggeration of the huge crowd of addicts you blog is drawing every day...

From what I heard a few years ago, the ratio of contributors to lurkers is statistically estimated at 10%. It doesn't seem to have changed in the interval. Just have a look here :

http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2007/03/the_lurker_to_c.html

That gives an idea of the situation.

By the way, if you don't like Perez, why do you keep his link in your sidebar ? Is it your latent masochism, or the hope it will anger some of your frenemies ?

Arcati said...

I don't claim millions visit my site each day; but the audience is respectable and growing.

In oder to determine my audience you would first have to work out how many lurkers I have - but the report, so far as I can tell, does not factor in the ships that pass in the night (anons galore), who are more considerable in number than lurkers such as yourself.

As for Perez, he's there for my convenience so I can click through in a trice and find out what others are writing about.

Duralex said...

It seems that you and me don't have the same definition of "lurker".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurker

I'm not a lurker, the Devil knows, I'm a heavyweight contributor. :-)

Arcati said...

Yes, you should reveal yourself Duralex. Then we can weigh you.

Duralex said...

Reveal myself ?

Tirez les premiers, messieurs les Anglais ! :-)

Unless Lou - a great conceptual cyberartist and our (not so) hidden ringmaster - decides it's "game over", you'll never know. And even then...