I get where you’re coming from as well. Just realize that not everyone is as sexually accepting as you, and that does not necessarily make them homophobic. I won’t take back the word “repel” because I think that lots of people are “repelled” by the thought of the sex they are not attracted to — and that does not imply homophobia – just natural preference.

By the way, what do you think of Kundera’s crazy eulogy of the asshole? Mostly it comes up in Slowness. Pretty eccentric.

I don’t hate Kundera, but my opinion of him has certainly been altered by his homophobic passage and I would probably read his fiction with a different eye than I would have fifteen years ago. I see him as something of a product of the post-war dark ages of homosexuality in which he came of age, so I tend to devalue him in much the same way I do a lot of other authors I once adored but who I now just sort of like (Pynchon comes to mind), who clearly have never felt comfortable broaching what is inarguably one of the most compelling narratives in modern literature (see Proust).

Oh and thanks for the scold: I will make the corrections on the Czech tag (I was working on a Nadas post at the time; hence the honest mistake.) Nadas btw is someone who I respect 1,000,000 times more than Kundera, and I don’t have any idea who he based his characters on, and I wouldn’t care if they were all straight. If you haven’t read “A Book of Memories,” I suggest you give it a try.

You make a compelling point about turning Albertine into a black woman, but I don’t buy it. Race and sexuality cannot be interchanged like that. If Kundera had said that about a black woman, then yes — he would have been exposing himself as a racist. But the same does not apply for homophobia. You said that Kundera showed a clear “fear of same-sex relationships” — and why shouldn’t he — as long as he did so personally? As a heterosexual man, it’s only natural that he’d be repelled by sexual thoughts of a man — why can’t you see this? If he had made a negative comment about anyone else’s same-sex relationships, THAT would expose his homophobia. But his personal rejection of a same-sex relationship is called HETEROSEXUALITY.

Just as it’s bothersome that Kundera might have thought less of Proust because of Albertine, it’s sad to think that you might think less of Kundera, who you clearly have enjoyed in the past, just because you think he expressed homophobia in this one instance. So I hope you still continue to love his crazy philosophical rants, because they are worth it. I mean it.

But I’m sorry you don’t have enough compelling material for your blog and that you need to fill it with “the wrath of Stephanie”, although I’m also honored that I got a whole entry about me. Hey, it’s even tagged with “drivel” and “stereotypes” — everyone’s favorite. Oh, and Milan Kundera is Czech, not Hungarian, so maybe you should change your tag that says “Writers – Hungarian”.

This passage reflects a fear of same-sex relationships, aka homophobia. It’s that simple. Kundera’s fear of same-sex relationships ruined the character for him — he’s very explicit about this — ergo, he’s homophobic. It doesn’t mean that he’s a horrible person or a bad writer, but in this passage in this book, he exposes himself, much the way you did when you used language like “taint” and “ruin” to describe the effect of a man replacing a woman in a man’s sexual fantasy. The fact that he has other passages where he seems to say the opposite is not really mitigating, and certainly doesn’t speak to any kind of cohesive strength (which makes sense, given that The Curtain felt very “dashed off”).

Or try this on for size: what if Kundera had same the same thing about Albertine after learning that the historical figure upon which she was based was black:

“I myself lost the privilege of that lovely ignorance, when I heard it said that Albertine was inspired by an African woman, a woman Proust was in love with. But what are they talking about!… [O]nce I’d been told that her model was a black woman that useless information was lodged in my head… A black female had slipped between me and Albertine, and was scrambling her image, undermining her purity. One minute I would see her with pretty white breasts, the next with a dark chest, and every now and then a dark stain would appear on the delicate skin of her face.”

It’s not really that different, and just as this passage would expose him as a racist, the actual passage does the same in terms of his homophobia.

If Kundera were a progressive and empathetic thinker, he would have said: when I learned Albertine was based on a man, it increased my admiration for Proust’s novelistic powers and also saddened me to think of the historical reality that forced such a great novelist to change the gender of his characters as a result of small-minded bigotry and the pressure of social norms, most of which sadly continue to this day.

It makes me laugh that you seem to be affiliated with an institution known for being progressive. (YIkes…I hope you’re not a professor!)

But in no way did Kundera intend to debunk Proust’s value! Kundera was influenced a LOT by Proust, and respected him enormously. The stupid reviewer that you excerpted here writes,
“Proust is thereafter relegated to less than a footnote in Kundera’s estimation of great novelists.” That is just ridiculous.

If you’ve read anything by Kundera, you’d know that he truly respected Proust. Maybe you should consider another passage from Kundera’s rant on Albertine as published in the Curtain (quoted in a review by Three Monkeys, another blog):

“No matter who inspired her, man or woman, Albertine is Albertine, and that’s that! A novel is the product of an alchemy that turns a woman into a man, a man into a woman, sludge into gold, an anecdote into drama! That divine alchemy is what makes for the power of every novelist, the secret, the splendor of his art!”

Do you see now that the reviewer in your entry is just as you said originally — utterly wrong? In his discussion of Kundera’s views of Albertine, he entirely cut out a very poetic and insightful passage on Kundera’s perception of Proust’s genius. How ridiculous for him to think that Albertine ruined Proust for Kundera! Albertine was merely an annoyance for Kundera, just like Anna Karenina’s “too soon” death in Tolstoy’s novel was an annoyance for Kundera — and we all know how much Kundera loves Tolstoy. Maybe you’re not aware, but authors tend to criticize and praise each other interchangably.

I’m willing to give you credit for thinking that this critic is pretentious and stupid, but I will not let your other comments slide. First of all, you are accusing me of “heteronormative insensitivty bordering on homophobia” because I said that Kundera’s image of female Albertine was tainted by the thought of a male physique? How can you seriously (oh wait, i mean “srsly”) think that this has ANYTHING to do with homophobia?? When did I even mention any homosexuals? I merely said that Kundera, as a HETEROSEXUAL man attracted to women, was bothered by the image of a naked man replacing his idealized, female Albertine. Kundera was NOT interested in picturing a naked man, and I recognize that. Please explain HOW that is even remotely homophobic?

I’d venture to say that if Proust had not been gay, you would have thought nothing of Kundera’s little rant. You would have simply recognized it as an author’s inconsequential rant on another author’s character.

Bottom line, Albertine did NOT ruin Kundera’s perception of Proust, as you saw in the passage I excerpted here. Let’s both agree — that critic sucks. I’m sorry you got misled by him, really.

And for your information, the “twin sister” reference was not supposed to invoke incest. It was supposed to parallel the split character of Albertine in Kundera’s mind — simultaneously man and woman in the same idealized shell. Twin. Double. Doppelganger. Get it?