Comments on: On One Particularly Well-Reasoned Reader Reaction to Our Gay Obituary of Arthur C. Clarke

By: Simon

Simon — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:13:42 +0000

The Sunday Telegraph colour supplement published a profile and interview with Arthur C. Clarke in 1979, on the occasion of the publication of The Fountains of Paradise. In it, the journalist reported that Clarke told him in a private aside (I think it was meant to be off the record) that he had been impotent since his illness in 1962.

By: The Gay Recluse

The Gay Recluse — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:51:58 +0000

Thanks for the comment, apple. I was also struck by the fact that ACClarke was a ping-pong champion until pretty late in his life, and while that doesn’t exactly equal libido, it kind of implies a certain mobility and physicality that I think Crispy’s response doesn’t really address. As for the “not interested in sex” comment, totally agree that it makes sense following a cancer treatment, but it’s also a pretty standard closet-case response, whether it’s used earnestly or coyly (Johnny Weir, for example, or even Morrissey in the 1980s.)

By: apple

apple — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:55:03 +0000

I hate to split hairs here, but he didn’t have polio per se for that long; people usually don’t. He recovered pretty well, from what I read, and did get post-polio syndrome eventually, as people typically do. But I have to tell ya, I had a friend who was left *devastatingly* more disabled than Clarke after his childhood polio, was in an iron lung for 43 years, and he had as much sex as he could manage, which wasn’t a lot, but he sure did try to manage it. He couldn’t move much but he was happy to be done to, and the same after he got post-polio (which is primarily a profound fatigue syndrome, and possibly one of viral reactivation, tho that’s poorly researched). Post-polio didn’t affect his libido any.

I did read that Clarke said he’d had little interest in sex since prostate cancer treatment. *That* I believe, given what radiation and surgery and hormone treatments for that cancer can do. But let’s just get our facts straight. He’d had the cancer treatment much later in life than his bout with polio.

By: The Gay Recluse

The Gay Recluse — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 01:15:46 +0000

The real question is whether Arthur C. Clarke would agree that these statues in L.A. are smokin’ hot. (We suspect he would.)

http://thegayrecluse.com/2008/03/20/on-hot-gay-statues-los-angeles-is-definitely-on-the-map/

By: crispy

crispy — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:33:40 +0000

Wow. Just wow. You follow-up your completely unnecessary and wholly uninformed trashing of a literary icon with utter speculation from someone who doesn’t even live in the same fucking country! Here’s a news flash for you and your Indian commenter: Arthur C. Clarke had debilitating polio for much of his life, which made sex difficult if not impossible. In multiple interviews, he said sex was something that didn’t interest him. So all those “sexy local men at his beck and call” were there for what, to mop floors?

Look, I get that the whole point of this was to satirize mainstream media who refuse to acknowledge Clarke’s homosexuality. Today’s AP report about Clarke’s burial plans, which mentions his “friend,” feels like a throwback to the era of “longtime companions.” Fire away. But sadly and unfairly, your target has consistently been Clarke himself. I can’t tell if you’re that shitty a writer or just that big of an asshole.