Queer and trans lives do not always follow the same timelines that cis and straight lives follow. We do not always hit the same milestones at the same times. Our lives are not always legible to those on the outside. This is one of the most beautiful things about queerness — the way it invites us to shed ways of moving through time that do not serve us.
I feel like this is trying too hard to claim for queer folks what is intrinsically, universally human. Is anyone’s life always legible to those on the outside? And come on, non-linear narratives are hardly new or unique to queer authors, lol. Plenty of folks have been bothered by that kind of narrative, it certainly doesn’t mean there’s anything special about that.
Of course I remain open to being corrected. It could well be that I’m just ignorant on the history and function of non-linear narratives. But this reads like the author is trying way too hard to lay claim to things that pretty much everyone experiences to varying degrees at one point or another.
I agree with you that straight people and cis people can also have confusing timelines in terms of experiences and growth and you of course don’t know what any person you meet has gone, or is going, through. Regardless of sexuality and gender.
I think the point made, the way I read it, is that because the general public still does not quite grasp the gender debate fully, there’s a tendency to think of transgender people in a very stringent way (to be transgender you must fit x, y, z standard). How can you be transgender if you didn’t know from being born? Why are you only coming out now? You’re not really transgender, etc. To be honest, similar to how gay people have been, and are being, treated too: Okay, we will “accept” you, but only if you fit a narrow definition that makes us the most comfortable (in this case a more chronological timeline to express yourself in).
I’m a genderqueer bisexual myself, just as an fyi.
Edit: I will say, however, of course you’re allowed not to like a certain writing style. Maybe this book just wasn’t for the people complaining about the lack of a chronological timeline and that’s also fine.
Personally i do like non-straight storytelling (yep, pun intended). But most folks i know irl are way out of their depth with any story not moving linearly.
Yeah, and I think that’s fair enough. I think the point is to just recognise whether it’s a bias or if it’s just due to that type of story telling. You know?
English isn’t my first language. So, do you mean that regarding this book in particular or in a more general sense?
I mean both, I’ll try to elaborate a bit, hopefully that helps!
- It’s okay to not be a fan of a certain type of story telling (in this case non-chronological)
However
- Do you struggle with the story telling because of the chronology or is it really because it’s outside of your comfort zone due to the content (a transgender person’s journey)?
Elliott wrote the story that way to make a point, that a transgender person’s journey is not linear.
Sometimes, I think we as people put the focus on something that isn’t the actual issue. But it takes a lot of reflection and introspection and can be uncomfortable.
I have not read the book, so I don’t know if I would consider it bad story telling or not, it’s just something worth considering, in my humble opinion.
Thanks for elaborating!
Most people who try their hands on this book probably know wether they like this kind of story telling (if they get that information before) and wether a trans persons biography is outside their comfort zone. Some will even read it because it’s outside of it. But i suspect biased people will use the non-linear story telling as a pretext to bash the book and thereby the story and person behind it.
Sometimes, I think we as people put the focus on something that isn’t the actual issue. But it takes a lot of reflection and introspection and can be uncomfortable.
Yes, that’s so true. I still have to work on it, despite many years of practice.
On another note, this conversation made me read the wikipedia article on Page and rather curious about the book. I barely knew their name before and never saw a film with him.
There’s very much a whole theory/literature around queer time (see the reference to Muñoz in the article) – being queer frees you from this sort of linear heteronormative progression through stages of life. This JSTOR blog post might be of interest. The argument isn’t that this sort of non-linearity is specific to queer people (see the bit in the JSTOR post tying the economic precarity of millenials to the notion of “adulting”), but rather that it is an extremely common queer experience precisely because the markers of “progression” through life are heavily rooted in hetero- and cisnormativity.
I’ll read that, thank you. I had no idea.
Linear and circular communication represent an axis of communication style! Culturally, linear communication seems to be favored in the US, but it’s not necessarily “better” or more valid. Linear is important if your narrative is causal or if time and sequence have a strong impact on outcome, but a circular narrative is more useful for presenting a “lay of the land” as a person knows it with structure around on themes and connections rather than time.
Interesting, I recently read Slow River by Nicola Griffith, a gay and disabled writer. That had similar criticism all over Goodreads for being non-linear. Interesting to see why the author may have done this now, the themes of the novel tie in with this theory.
I would add, as an ex fundamentalist, my deconversion absolutely followed this non linear route. I’ve often compared the process of deconversion to coming out, and although I’m straight cis, this is another aspect that resonates with my experience.
