Customer Reviews

Something for the Boys: Musical Theater and Gay Culture

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

John Clum, whose unusally good book "Acting Gay" should have served as a model for this text, falls flat with his analysis of musicals and gay culture.

Individually, each chapter serves as its own essay on a topic (ranging from Divas to Sondheim to Gay Musials), but when put together in book form, serve the gods of redundancy and contradiction as the materials get rehashed throughout the book.

Furthermore, while crediting queer theorist Eve Sedgewick and author Ethan Mordden throughout his text, Clum makes the reader want to search out copies of Sedgewick's "the Epistimology of the Closet" and Mordden's "Make Believe" and "Coming Up Roses", rather than continue reading his text.

Factually, Clum makes a number of errors through the book, most of which such minor but obvious errors as listing The Boys in the Band with a 1958 date. If I, a casual reader and student of Broadway, can pick up on such obvious mistakes, what will his academic colleagues think?

Perhaps his biggest blunder occurs during his worshipful chapter on Divas. Mr. Clum continually praises such contemporary divas as Betty Buckley (who, aside from a supporting turn as Grizabella, has yet to originate a major and critically acclaimed Broadway role) while confessing his personal dislike and ignoring the achievements of Patti LuPone (whose name he mis-capitalized throughout). Clum's continual comparison of divas to drag queens becomes tiresome, and at times (see Carol Channing) offensive.

The text is a personal journey - not based in any true theatrical reality, and certainly not applicable to the "real world." I was born after A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC opened, and yet, have a better understanding of the discussed topic's historical significance and place in the theatrical canon than Mr. Clum seems to have. Why then, does every "Generation X-er" he describes have a dumb, vague and incomprehensible adulation of musical theatre? Are those of us under thirty incapable of truly appreciating Merman, Martin or Channing because we were not able to see them in person? Our (post-stonewall gays) experience is not based wholly in the diva musical, as he would assert, but in the ensemble. Names like Randy Graff, Rebecca Luker and Audra McDonald barely enter his text. Next-Generation Divae like Marin Mazzie, Donna Murphy and Faith Prince are mere footnotes. Where does the history go from MAME and FOLLIES? Unexamined.

Perhaps if Mr. Clum wants to rewrite his text from beginning to end, it might eventually make an academic document worth reading. As it stands now, it is merely a gossipy, cocktail-party conversation with little merit and no lasting value.

I was shocked at the shoddy level of fact-checking for this book. I counted nearly an error a page. Did Clum not bother to proofread? Did St. Martin's bother to copyedit? Aside from the fact that Clum keeps inserting his personal (and not very interesting) history into the narrative (the absolute nadir is his chapter on Sondheim shows and the men he was dating at the time), his book is almost free of original ideas. To put it in Broadway terms, this book falls somewhere between "Moose Murders" and "Saturday Night Fever."

Something for the Boys is easily the worst of the recent spate of books on musical theatre. It is, in fact, one of the worst books on musical theatre I have ever read. Clum seems to have written it in one quick draft from notes on the back of a cocktail napkin. The book is riddled with factual errors -- often several to a single page. Since most of these errors could have been corrected with a single look at a cast album, one can only assume that Clum does not care at all about the academic value of his book, which is probably wise of him since his analysis of specific authors and shows teeters between the facile and the absurd. I wish I could agree that the book is fabulous but surely fabulousness implies some degree of skill or originality. Instead Clum serves up endless helpings of ill-informed opinion, repetitive writing, and cheap-shot gay gossip, not to mention highly questionable taste (Betty Buckley a better Mama Rose than Ethel Merman? ). Those who know anything about the subject will find nothing of interest here, while those who know little will be unwittingly misled in countless ways by Clum's shoddy research.

I've often mused about the connection to musical theatre that frequently appears among members of our community and think it's a subject that bears examination - Why DO so many gay men find ourselves listening to and collecting showtunes from an early age, often before we're even self aware of our sexuality? Unfortunately this book is much more a personal biography about the shows he's seen and ranting about the state of musical theatre today, longing for the "good ol' days," rather than shedding any light onto the phenomenon, as the title suggests. While it offers some interesting tidbits here and there and can be a fun read at times, I feel most readers will come away disappointed, especially due to the bitter tone Mr. Clum takes through much of it. Read it without expecting an actual thesis or focus and you will most likely enjoy it, but if you're looking for some insight into the connection between musical theatre and gay culture, look somewhere else.

A reviewer below wrote: "if you're looking for some insight into the connection between musical theatre and gay culture, look somewhere else."

I agree, and would suggest D.A. Miller's PLACE FOR US, which delves deeply and originally into this question. Miller's book has taken a lot of flack for its difficult prose and complex ideas, but it is very rewarding. Be warned that unlike Clum's book, miller's is aimed at those who already know the subject well and are interested in delving deeper.

This is a fascinating book. Clum is an academic but his style is smooth, gossipy and delicious. It makes you want to dust off your Ethel Merman records and play them all night long...

My view of the effort was, in the words of the playwrite in Terrence McNally's IT'S ONLY A PLAY, mixed, and the One Star rating is generous.

A *potentially* intriguing book by John M. Clum of Duke University called SOMETHING FOR THE BOYS; Musical Theatre and Gay Culture is a near total failure in execution.

I have no idea what Mr. Clum's personal orientation is, but IF he is gay (given his stated preference for Walter Charles' whiney, apologetic Zaza in LA CAGE AUX FOLLES to George Hearn's UNapologetic dowager dame original there is reason to doubt it) he should be ashamed of himself.

The book (despite a triple index separately tracking shows, then composers lyricists and writers, and finally performers directors and choreographers) is virtually worthless as a practical reference or reasoned analysis, preferring to be instead a 282 page scree of dated dialectic which should appeal mainly to Act Up types and Jessie Helms types (funny how extremes at either end of the spectrum tend to come together) who like to think that there is a secret gay agenda.

If you think that *only* gay men can really appreciate musicals and that straights *can't* understand divas, this is the book for you.

Unfortunately, if you like or admire any of the openly gay musicals of recent years it may not be, since (with the exception of William Finn's genuinely fine FALSETTOS) he tends to be snide about most of them and their foibles.

As proof of Clum's minor academic status he has 10 pages of generally unilluminating notes piled on at the back, but to use them you have to figure out the NUMBER of the chapter you're in - chapter numbers are not listed on individual pages, and chapter titles are not listed in the notes - but after a few times doing so you'll realize it isn't worth the effort.

He also includes 13 pages of commentary about his own record (CD) collection (listing the companies which released the CD but no actually helpful call letters) which is nothing if not opinionated. There is a chance readers will find this section delightfully insightful and fun, but disagreeing with most of his artistic assessments, I did not.

If you're hunting for a Christmas gift for a gay hating old uncle who wants evidence that his biases are all true put SOMETHING FOR THE BOYS high on your list. It should be perfect.

If, on the other hand, the world of academia is still publish or perish, it would be a disservice to careful researchers and academic writers if Duke University viewed this as other than a blackmark on Mr. Clum's record, merely because someone at St. Martin's (probably rightly) thought he had a commercial title.

It's a little weird to see people below (friends of the author?) posting good notices about this embarrassing book. Trying to blame Clum's basic errors on the publisher's proof-reading department is misleading. Authors get proof copies of their books before they go to final press; if there are many errors in this book (and there are) it is because Clum put them there to begin with and then failed to correct them when he had the chance. And it's not just the factual stuff that's off. Clum's analysis of Broadway and of gay men is shallow and obvious throughout. His cultural reference points don't generally travel beyond last year's television season and his technical understanding of musical theatre is negligible. His book basically recycles conventional gay "wisdom" on the subject and synthesizes it into endless loops of doddering writing.

I read the first reader's comments below and I must completely disagree. I am a gay, musical-comedy fan from NYC and I think John Clum has written, probably, the best book on the subject that I have ever read. Having toiled in graduate school for many years and having received a number of degrees, it was refreshing to read a really smart book that uses all of the postmodern ideas that we've grown up with in a way that is accessible. I've become so TIRED of pomo-academy speak because, for all of its erudition, it really doesn't say anything. Here's a book that does in language that everyone can understand.

I bought this book because of the review in OUT that said reading it was like getting a call from a friend who says -- Hey, I saw the greatest show last night! -- and that's exactly what I experienced when I read it. When my parents took me to see the original production of HELLO, DOLLY at the tender age of 9, they never knew what they were creating. Gay men seem to worry about liking musicals these days because they worry about the stereotype of the musical comedy queen. Do I worry about being thought of as a musical comedy queen? No. My partner and I have been together for over twelve years. I go to the gym and lift weights just like everyone else. I have a good job. I love musicals -- gay, straight, whatever. I don't care what anyone -- especially the academic thought police -- thinks about that and I absolutely loved this book.

If you love musicals, and especially if you're gay, I'd give this one a try. And, yes, it will make a great Christmas gift for anyone on your list who cares about the state of the musical theater in America today.

I was deeply disappointed by this book -- too many inaccuracies and too few insights. And the organization of the material is -- to put it gently -- loose. This is a worthwhile topic that deserved far better fronm the author of ACTING GAY. You can find better resources for free on the internet. What a pity!