Gore Vidal: There Is No Proof

The celebrated fight between the American writer Gore Vidal and the conservative author and intellectual William Buckley began in a television debate in 1968 and degenerated into an inconclusive legal dispute that cost Vidal $1 million he did not have.

A new biography of Vidal, who died last year, suggests a possible motive for the confrontation: Vidal was seeking to keep secret evidence that he was a paedophile. Vidal had called his adversary a “crypto-Nazi” and Buckley called him a “queer”. Suit and counter-suit followed. According to In Bed With Gore Vidal: Hustlers, Hollywood and the Private World of an American Master, by Tim Teeman, the celebrated man of letters may have feared that Buckley possessed material showing past relations with under-age partners.

It quotes Vidal’s half-sister, Nina Straight, who claimed he was “terrified” that “material Buckley had on him would come out”. Asked if she knew the details of the material, she replied: “I can guess what they are. Jerry Sandusky acts” — a reference to a former university football coach convicted last year of sexually abusing young boys.

Though Ms Straight said she was talking hypothetically and did not elaborate, she indicated that she believed Buckley had evidence that Vidal had sex with under-age males.

Ms Straight lent Vidal the money to finance the legal battle by paying his lawyer’s fees. He never repaid her and she is now challenging his will, which left out family, friends and a devoted housekeeper and bequeathed his entire estate to Harvard University.

Teeman remains wary. “There is no conclusive proof at this point either way,” he said yesterday. “Homosexuality and paedophilia have been conflated in people’s minds and in the media for far too long. As a gay man I’m extremely cautious about this in the book.”

The Times.

Tim Teeman works for The Times, one might add, so it's nice he got a pointless plug in The Times.

He also has a book to sell about Gore Vidal.
Though one might ask if he works for The Times how he has the time to write a book.
Odd how Gore's a hero for all the posh patrician gays, like Timothy Teacakes - as he was called at the Pink Paper, on account of his insufferable Enid Blyton poshness.

That line again; "There is no conclusive proof at this point either way."

So what is point?
And isn't "young boys" a sinister oxymoron?
And maybe you should look up "paedophile" in the dictionary.
Maybe you meant ebophile?
I'm so bored with all your ex-public school boys' obsession with buggering boys.
And Gore Vidal.
You big posh twits.

Anyway, Bill vs Gore, here we go...

PS More balls about Gore in the Daily Mail, 'A monstrous secret', apparently.

Update: Mark Lawson in the Guardian; If the rumours about Gore Vidal are true, what does this mean for his work? Includes references to Nabokov, Polanski, Wagner, and Jimmy Savile...

Beautiful Thing: The History Boys

“When it first went out on tour a few people made repulsed noises when the boys kissed,” Harvey says. “I also remember a woman in Leeds saying very loudly to her neighbour, ‘They’ve got the same carpet as you, Joan.’ ” 

Jonathan Harvey recalls some early reactions to his play, Beautiful Thing, in a lovely article by Tim Teeman in The Times.
A twentieth anniversary production is currently on at the Arts Theatre, London, then touring.
But you probably knew that. 

Just like Armistead Maupin’s equally, defiantly untragic novel cycle, Tales of The City — the TV version of the first novel also debuted in 1993 — Beautiful Thing is a modern gay classic. When it was first performed there was no equal age of consent (it was 21 for gays, 16 for heterosexuals) or civil partnerships. There was a ban on gays serving openly in the armed forces, “queers” were bashed and killed on the streets, Section 28, forbidding the “promotion” of homosexuality in schools, was in force, making the isolated gay teenager’s lot that much worse. Tabloids frothed with homophobia. There was fledgeling visibility in pop culture, but gays were still the bullseye on intolerance’s dartboard. 

Is it worth pointing out the obvious; that this was the (gay) world Thatcher created - and promoted?
After the last week, sadly it's clear some gay men need reminding.
The beautiful thing about Beautiful Thing is it's about people like us breaking free from all that.

“The changes have been massive,” Harvey says. “Some Tories have even turned pro-gay. You have to remember this play was written when there weren’t many gay characters on TV, and mostly gay characters died or they were kicked out of their house and sold their arses for 20 Woodbines. Visibility is immeasurably better. But, of course, homophobia hasn’t gone away.” 

Update: Jonathan Harvey was interviewed by HomoLab and talked about the inspiration for Beautiful Thing; "It was growing up under Thatcher with her Section 28. I had been a teacher and was very aware you couldn’t talk about being gay with kids.
"It seemed that any discussion about being gay was all about sex, or anal sex. That’s not how we define ourselves, so for me it was about readdressing that balance.
"I just wanted to tell a simple story about two young lads who fell in love."

Weekend: Next Weekend

The Weekend lovefest continues apace.
Here's Tim Robey metaphorically spunking over director Andrew Haigh's face in the Daily Telegraph;
'The new British movie 'Weekend’ depicts a romance between two men with such intimacy and optimism that it is drawing audiences of all persuasions.'
While Tim "Timmy Teacakes" Teeman shot his load in The Times yesterday;
'Could this small British movie be the best relationship film ever — and not just a gay one?'
(Tim also gives away the ending - SPOILER ALERT! etc).
Note how both pieces stress its appeal to non-homosexual types - is that how they pitched it to their editors?
Are we supposed to be surprised?
I've enjoyed many, many films about straight people falling in love...
November's Attitude asks on its cover "Weekend: The Best British Gay Film Ever?"
But then you realise the competition's not exactly that great, is it?
Which is a recurring riff in writing about Weekend.
Is it any good?
Don't ask me, I ain't seen it yet - but I will dutifully trot along to my local arthouse cinema when it opens next weekend.
Probably.
Obviously I won't pronounce forth until I've actually watched it, but seeing as most of the people who've been raving about it are posh gay tits I can't stick - and who thought "Wow! They made my boring bourgeois wannabe hipster life into a movie with two fit blokes!" - I'll almost certainly hate it.

Thought For The Day: Liza Minnelli

"Today is all we’ve got. If you’ve got one foot in yesterday and another in tomorrow, you’re pissing all over today.”

Enduring image, isn't it?
Liza Minnelli in a nice - otherwise... - profile by Tim Teeman for The Times.

The Princess Boy: "Look! He is adorable!!!"

There's a lovely piece on a lovely story by Tim Teeman in today's Times; 'Pretty in pink: the princess boy'
"Dyson, 5, wears dresses every day and he loves sparkly tutus. His parents explain why they decided to tell the world."
This has got quite a bit of coverage in the States - some of course wondering why the heck the kid hasn't been seized by social services.
But as there's been so much in the US media recently about gay and effeminate kids killing themselves, you'd think people would applaud and be moved by the acceptance and pride shown by the parents in their son, Dyson.
Would people prefer it if they stuck with tradition and tried to beat it out of him?
Mom has written a childrens book, My Princess Boy - which is being republished by big hitters Simon & Schuster next month.
My favourite quote comes from Dyson's dad.
"Dean, a sports-mad jock dad, whose “man cave” has its own TV and a wall of football jerseys, says that he was bought up to accept people for who they are. “I’ve had other dads say, why are you letting him dress like that? I look right past it. I see the happiness in his eyes. If, later, he looks at the pictures of himself now and says, ‘Dad, I can’t believe I did that but how cool was it that you supported me’, we’ll have won.”
Here's the local TV show that broke the story last month with an interview with the whole Kilodavis family.

Tim Teeman: A Class Apart

A textbook piece of gay snobbery by Tim Teeman in The Times today, No Cause For Pride.
Many years ago a young Mr Teeman was editor of The Pink Paper, colleagues found him so hilariously posh he reminded them of a character from an Enid Blyton book.
Hence his nickname "Timmy Teacakes".
He's recently witnessed Pride in his new home, New York.
And guess what?
That's right - it's just not like it was in the old days.
"Well, New York Pride was colourful, loud and smiley, but as ruthlessly corporate as a careers fair. People whistled, boogied on floats, waved rainbow flags but to what end? To fight for our right to dance to house music in the streets? Its witless hedonism was a thousand depressing miles from the Stonewall riots. We’re quick to blame bigots for obstructing gay rights, but what of those gays who, lulled by token characters in soaps and other glimmers of change, rolled over and went shopping? They tut and kvetch about nasty rightwingers, but ignore a sadder truth — gays have willingly overseen the removal of pride from Pride."
Like I said, it's a textbook example of the sort of toffee-nosed pseudo-radicalism peddled by Tim and his fellow ex-public school boys from the "anti-gay" brigade.
What side do you think someone like Timmy Teacakes would have actually been on during the Stonewall Riots?
When he says he thinks Pride's got "corporate" (as opposed to that well known workers' co-operative Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation), he means he thinks it's got terribly commercial, but then it's all so horribly brash and vulgar and common anyway.
But what do you expect? It's full of ordinary gay men, and Tim thinks they're their own worst enemy.
Well, they're are all so "witless", aren't they?
Just look at the silly buggers, too busy tutting and whistling and blaming "nasty" right-wingers and trying to have fun.
Fun? Yuk!