Mia: So, Sky. What do you think
makes people gay? Don't answer that question, I'm just teasing
you. I came up with that question as a joke after reading your
article "Queer as freak" and found it hilariously
funny. I quote:
I was at a book launch the other day and a
perfectly nice straight white couple came up to talk to me.
(They really are very pleasant people; they would never knowingly
torture bunnies or crush defenseless bugs under their heels
for pleasure.) …We talked about this and that, but after
about five minutes the inevitable ineluctably occurred. "So,
Sky," she said, cocking her pretty blond head to one
side. "What do you think makes people gay?"
I think I understand your exasperation: If you're
gay, all of a sudden you're supposed to be the poster boy for
gay rights and the expert on homo sapiens, right? Good God,
who knows why anyone is gay or straight or otherwise. But the
question remains, why do people care what anyone's sexual orientation
is? You see, the problem I have with any comparative studies
in differences is that it sets people apart. Or as you say,
"Those researching the biological cause of difference may
claim to be doing pure science, but the work will be used for
one purpose only: to correct those differences. In other words
-- in support of fascism." (Giving Science the Finger).
Otherwise, why don't we look for similarities?
And in Lavender, this interview with Eddie
But you're a straight transvestite,
Right. It's weird, because straight transvestites
are more confusing than gay transvestites or bi transvestites
in my book. If I was bisexual, it would just make so much
bloody sense…. It's not like you're half-bloke, half-girl.
It's like you're complete bloke plus extra girl added, which
is really odd. I just tell people what's happening, and I
can't quite work it out.
I'm confused by Eddie's answer with his "complete
bloke plus extra girl" thrown in. What is that supposed
to mean? If he can't work it out, how he does expect other people
to? So here is what I want to know: You're a playwright who
happens to be gay who happens to wear dresses on occasion and
who directs, writes, acts, makes movies so what part of that
package constitutes being a freak? It sounds like either a long
history of ADD, or a huge dosage of talent. I'll opt for the
latter. But in your own words, Sky, who are you, exactly? Why
in the world would you renounce yourself as a freak, or queer
for that matter?
Sky: Of course I would define
myself differently for political purposes than for personal
ones. That is, I have a fictive self that I have put out there
queer, sexual drag queen, radical, etc. By fictive, I
don't mean fictional that it is untrue but let's
just say that it is not completely accurate. .I believe in all
those things in being queer, sexual, doing drag, being
lefty politically, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's
who I am. Of course I think we should claim words like queer
and freak for ourselves. Because I am, in reality, a large effeminate
gay man, I am treated like a freak and outsider and queer in
daily life, so rather than accept these terms as abuse, I own
them as positive things (the way many blacks own the word ‘nigger').
Who am I? I'm as I said, a large, effeminate gay man, fifty
years old (soon to be fifty-one) who lives with a 34 year old
video artist effeminate gay male whom he adores. I have just
moved to a small town and bought a house with my lover but we
have an openly open relationship and make frequent trips to
the big city (Toronto) for wild sex. I also am an assistant
professor of theatre studies at Guelph University. I love writing,
and that is the only place where I am truly happy, relaxed and
Eddie Izzard sounds fine. But it's a lot easier to say "I'm
not into categories" or what's the point of them, when
you are straight and white, because you don't wear your otherness
on your sleeve. And it's one thing to be a straight transvestite
performer, quite another to be a straight transvestite truck
driver. In other words he's been able to turn a quirk/fetish/lifestyle
into something more acceptable performance.
Mia: I read a review of your
book, Ejaculations from the Charm Factory. The review by Allan
Epburn was in the University of Toronto Quarterly. It was a
very bad review. I don't believe a "thumbs down" review
is bad, per se, when a reviewer/critic can supply credible reasons
to support a negative review. The problem I had with Epburn's
review is that he seems to attack the author, you, for your
beliefs rather than the book itself:
On the other hand, this memoir reads more
fruitfully as the elaboration of a persecution complex fuelled
by an overweening ego, in much the same way that Daniel Paul
Schreber's Memoirs of My Nervous Illness provided Sigmund
Freud with the material for an investigation into homosexual
paranoia. Gilbert frequently justifies his position with naïvety.
For me it would be this kind of "naiveté"
that would compel me to think that Ejaculations is not based
upon an "overweening ego." First, let me clarify I
have not read the book but that doesn't prevent me from questioning
Epburn's view. I could see no evidence of this overweening ego
in any of the ninety-eight articles written by you, in your
poetry, or in other book/play reviews I read. What I am lead
to believe is that Epburn brought in some of his own personal
prejudices and that, in my opinion, taints a book review. My
question to you, Sky, do you think Epburn reviewed your book
Sky: Sorry, I hadn't read it
until you pointed it out to me. I knew of it, but something
told me I might not like it. Anyway, I have now read it and
I think your analysis is pretty correct. I would suspect (to
play Allan's game of character assassination) that Allan is
a very uptight churchgoing fag. He is definitely a more conservative
fag than I am, and takes issue with my notion that to be queer
or gay is to be radical. Of course I don't believe that all
gay men are radical, lots of them are extremely boring. But
I think their sexuality is inherently radical and often forces
them to be at least a little interesting, if they allow it to.
There is a lot of opposition to me in the gay community. I am
not well liked (I am well fucked, but not well liked, by my
peers). I am the scapegoat, or perhaps I should say the lightning
rod for self-hatred. Sky is sexual, effeminate not me
I'm a good church going hard working fag that mummy and daddy
would love. Please don't let me be like Sky oh please... Oh
they just all hate me for being such a big success and having
so much fun. I’m sorry but that’s the way fags,
and most people are, it’s very depressing sometimes.
And you're quite right there is a problem with character assassination
as a basis for literary criticism, and the U of T Quarterly
should know better than to publish such rot. Some of the most
profound people in the world had (or have) big egos, there is
no direct relationship between the size of the ego and the smallness
of the profundity. I used to take classes with two great Canadian
writers Irving Layton and Robertson Davies in my student
days. Both were quite profound but had huge, very irritating
egos. To compare me with Freud's analysis of Shreber is kinda
funny. From what I know of that analysis, Shreber was the basis
for a very homophobic analysis on Freud's part. Anyway, only
an uptight old churchgoing fag would say I'm paranoid, as if
homophobia was over and Matthew Shepard was never murdered....
Mia: Which brings me to my next point. You've
often been accused of being controversial, negative, bitter
when you've taken a stand on unpopular views. Controversy in
my mind connotes aggression, confrontation, when in actuality
all it means is that someone disagrees with your views. And
there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone provided
those disagreements aren't based upon closed-mindednes. But
isn't accusing someone of being controversial a form of name
calling, a subversive tactic?
Sky: I don't know. I've often embraced the
term, in the same way I've embraced queer. I think you're right
to some degree. I think it's a euphemism, so that I can be discussed
in polite company. In other words, no judgment is implied, but
I think it is often inferred. I am not a nasty or bitter person.
I do have a lot of anger inside. It only comes out when I have
problems with the bank or Bell Canada, though. The rest of the
time I’m quite amiable, though I look at bit scary which
is not my fault (I’m big and my mouth turns down). Years
ago I used to have tantrums now and then but that was when I
was running Buddies and I was very unhappy in my job, and on
the road to being bitter. That’s why I quit and started
teaching. I really like my day job now.
Mia: What did you think of
Bowling for Columbine by Michael Moore? I ask for several reasons.
Moore brought up a very interesting point, "the culture
of fear." He proposes that there is much more violence
in the US than any other country because of our fear cultivated
by the media and the numerous commercials which prey upon people's
fears—simply put, exploitation. A prime example of this
would be the Y2K "scare." People have fears all the
time, real and unrealized; and if you don't have those fears,
then the media will manufacture ones for you. But I don't believe
it's fear that makes people go out on a killing spree. I think
it's just pure hate.
In several of your articles, especially, "Give us facts,
not fear" you mention the "politics of fear."
I got this much out it: fear is a catalyst for selling everything,
in the name of greed and business while AIDS victims, homosexuals,
blacks and other minorities become the target of consumerism
at the expense of their lives, literally. And let's face it,
Pharmaceutical companies have much to gain by illness as the
funeral parlor. Key difference is that pharmaceutical companies
are scarier than mortuaries—once you reach the funeral
home, you're dead and it's over. But, pharmaceutical companies,
health department, the medical industry is purgatory. You live
through a lot of lies, suffer a great deal in the hopes of getting
well. And by your articles, we don't know exactly what the nature
of that illness is. But I digress.
Sky: Digression is good. It's
usually what's most interesting in what people say. I loved
the movie. My partner and I saw it together, and were irritated
at first a lot of anti-gun jokes and anti-gun jokes
are a good thing in theory but rather thin and tedious after
awhile. But when he got to the part about the mother of the
boy who shot another boy, and the appalling working conditions
she had to endure (she could never see her children) it all
came together, and his argument made sense. I also agree with
him about the politics of fear. I think most hatred (except
in the case of psychotics you can't explain their hatred)
comes from fear of being ridiculed, of being lesser, of
being other. And so you lash out and find a scapegoat.
But since you did mention the pharmaceutical companies, I will
say that most of my AIDS diatribes are really about them. Most
of the radical people who challenge the HIV hypothesis are challenging
modern medicine in general. The toxic often lethal ‘cures'
that have been touted by the pharmaceutical companies for AIDS
are nothing less than money making ventures based on fear mongering.
AIDS, like any other disease, is related as much to genetics
and overall health as it is to this supposedly lethal virus
(If it's so lethal, then why do so many people who have it remain
alive for so long, and some never seem to die?).
I believe in practicing safe sex, because it makes sense to
me that promiscuous anal intercourse can give you lots of germs.
On the other hand, your chances of living or dying of anything
probably have more to do with how old your grandmother was when
she died, than anything else, and that's the depressing truth.
Mia: In your article, "AIDS
Dissidents must be heard," you say you don't believe HIV
is the cause of AIDS. I don't quite understand why you don't
believe HIV is the cause of AIDS just because a few people you
know have been living with HIV for so many years. I do want
to note that I'm not that knowledgeable about AIDS, the disease/syndrome;
in fact, I'm ashamed to say that I'm quite ignorant about AIDS
and its treatment. However my ignorance hasn't stopped me from
wondering about the nature of the disease. I also have my suspicions
about how effective the treatments may be. So if you don't mind,
can you clarify, or give us a synopsis of why you don't believe
HIV is the cause of AIDS?
Sky: I realize I started answering
this in the previous question. But it's important to realize
that statistics are often skewed and can rarely be trusted,
especially when they refer to ‘minorities'. It's completely
wrong to suggest that I know a ‘few' people who have been
living with HIV for so many years. I simply have to look at
the whole gay community and ask if HIV is so lethal and
sexually transmitted and that's the whole story why is
it that so many sluts are still living and so many nice, homegrown
churchgoing stay at home fags are dead? Because there are other
I have the same beliefs as those who are radical about Cancer.
I don't believe it's just about tumors. It's about lifestyle
and genetics, and how you take care of yourself and what drugs,
pharmaceutical or not, that you take and your attitude, and
happiness and stress. The medical establishment would have us
take a pill. I believe our health is more complicated and individual
than that, and that homosexuals are branded as being susceptible
to AIDS in the same way that women were branded as hysterics
in the 19th century and for the same reason it's a way
of pathologizing our fears about a dangerous group.
Mia: By the same token, you
also don't believe that people die of AIDS because AIDS is a
syndrome, not a disease. But a syndrome can be defined as a
collective group of symptoms that indicate or characterize a
disease. Of course, by that definition it doesn't mean that
AIDS IS a disease. It seems to me the government needs to define
what AIDS truly is and treat it accordingly, but I suppose that's
asking for too much. I remember reading the book, "And
the Band Played On" by Randy Shilts over a decade ago.
In trying to find out how AIDS, then called an epidemic, spread
in the North Americas, all the fingers finally rested on one
gay airline attendant responsible for spreading the disease.
I was appalled that they could come to that conclusion. One
person responsible for a whole epidemic!? Do you have any thing
further to say on AIDS, or even the book by Shilts?
Sky: Shilts is nuts, and a self hating gay
hysteric. It's very interesting though that some poor flight
attendant got blamed for it. Interesting that people are so
scared and jealous of the lifestyle of the gay flight attendant
(what a dream a life that is one big vacation lots
of fucking in different cities) that they must demonize him
for it. Whether HIV is the sole cause of AIDS or not (I suspect
it isn't) the attached moral disgrace should give us some idea
that a lot of fags and straight people are working out their
feelings about sex with this disease, and it all has little
to do, ultimately, with science or medicine.
Mia: You're passionate about
your political views: some of them which include, overzealous
government interference, homophobia, hypocrisy, conservative
middle class gays, art, books and writing. But before we go
onto your writing, I have a couple more questions for you. One
of your main complaints about middle class gays: "Why are
so many gay men politically lazy? Because, unlike effeminate
fags and transgenders, straight-acting gay men can often "pass"
-- and reap all the benefits of appearing to be butch white
males. So, hey -- why protest anything?"
Do you ever wonder if your passion is sometimes a little misplaced;
a little bit of the conspiracy theory, hysteria, or paranoia?
Sky: Quite simply no. If I
was a more political type, or into victim politics, I would
harangue you at this point. But let me say calmly that you don’t
know what it’s like to walk in my shoes. And you probably
don’t know what these horrible fags are like. We live
in a culture where it’s not okay to call homosexuals faggots
(unless you are one) a very politically correct culture, where
mainstream newspapers would never talk about a homosexual problem,
and yet where homophobia still exists, and affects all our queer
lives. There is something extra pernicious about homophobia
these days -- because everyone claims it’s over, or things
are much better, it can operate much more effectively and quietly.
These fags who deny there is a problem are not only in denial,
they are hoping that if they wish homophobia away it will be
gone. They also imagine that they will be accepted by straights
if they don’t challenge homophobia, and if they say that
homophobia is gone. I see it up front because the content of
my work is gay.
Now I’m pleased that you are doing this interview, and
I don’t mean to criticize you or your motives, so let
me speak generally -- in many interviews I am asked more about
my homosexuality than about my work. The fact that I am out
and gay and it forms the content of my work is still a huge
issue. This means, ipso facto, that I am not imagining anything,
and that there is, in fact, a lot of hatred out there. I’m
not saying you’re homophobic, but I’m saying that
you and I live in a homophobic culture where the fact that I’m
an out gay man is an issue, and needs to be discussed when in
fact in an ideal world, it ultimately shouldn’t be.
Mia: Let me offer an example.
In your article "The Law comes to hogtown" you likened
Julian Fantino, Toronto's Chief of Police, to a nazi when he
in error arrested 55 homosexual men for pederasty. It turned
out that all the men were of legal age, and yet Fantino never
apologized to the public for his blunder. You paraphrased a
quote by Martin Niemöller about the Holocaust: "First
they came for the Jews, and I said nothing. Then they came for
the Catholics, and I said nothing. Then they came for the blacks,
and I said nothing. And then they came for me…" I
just wonder if homophobia is as big of a threat as it's widely
misunderstood. People who misunderstand something like homosexuality
aren't always out to subvert, or conform others.
Sky: Hmm, I think I answered
this above. Let’s put it this way, I confront homophobia
every day, people are clearly afraid of my sexuality and don’t
want to hear about it (in general, not just the details) they
are clearly disgusted. I will say that this is sometimes related
to sex negative attitudes more than homophobia, but homophobia
is just a subset of sex negativity. Sure, our culture is subsumed
by sex, but it’s all about bad girls and bad boys and
sin, and excess and decadence. Sex is not just a good thing,
a real thing a part of life, it has to be apologised for, or
it is controversial. People are afraid of sex, and for many
people homosexuality is all about sex (which is true, in a way,
why have we made such a big deal out of sexuality if it wasn’t
important to us?)
Mia: In your article, "How
to be an ex-theatre person," you wrote, "The kind
of plays I'm interested in are well-conceived -- with fascinating
plots, ideas, characters, images and dialogue. They are sometimes
even entertaining. But they are not slaves to the audience and
they don't serve up a laugh every five minutes along with a
titillating but safe storyline." Amen to that! But can
you give me an example, title of a movie, that fits the kind
of plays that you consider are well conceived?
Sky: I liked Memento. It didn’t
respond immediately to expectations. It surprised us. I like
most all Ken Loach movies (Scottish director, about working
class people, especially one movie --Ladybird -- brutally real
and scary.) I’m a big fan of Joe Orton. Lots of laughs
but very dangerous undercurrents. I like art that doesn’t
simply congratulate the audience on their lives, but challenges
some of their assumptions. I really loved Robert David MacDonald’s
play Camille (Scottish hit in the eighties). Plays exist in
time, and tend not to weather different eras, except for say,
Shakespeare. I like Shakespeare. And The Homecoming, by Pinter,
very anti-patriarchal. And Fefu and Her Friends, by Maria Irene
Fornes -- radical in form and content, with a feminist message,
really my ideal play.
Mia: You were a student of
Irving Layton's poetry class. You admired Layton because he
was "politically incorrect, full of fire and music."
Was there any thing else about Layton, his writing, teaching
that you admired other than the fact that he introduced you
to Edward Field's poem on graffiti?
My own view of graffiti is that it's an intent to blatantly
deface property, and spit on the rights of others who own something
no matter how ugly it may be. For example, I'd be just as hopping
mad if someone sprayed graffiti on a trash can as if they sprayed
my house. I'm all for graffiti in the name of art, but why can't
they spray their own backyard? I'm going to go out on a limb
here and say that graffitists and rapsters aren't particularly
interested in promoting homosexuality. Am I completely unfounded?
Sky: But that’s the point.
It’s about agreeing with the right to speak, even if the
content is upsetting. Graffitists and rapsters have lots to
say, and some of it is offensive and stupid, but all of it is
usually from the gut. It’s a yell or a scream and I’m
into the impulse not necessarily the product. My attitude to
graffitti is a romanticisation of the impulse to rebel, to yell.
One doesn’t expect yells to be politically correct or
even pleasant, but people need to yell. I get upset when homeless
people piss in my yard or yell outside my door. But then I’m
awfully lucky to have a yard and a door.
What about Layton? He was simply very passionate and unapologetic.
It was lovely. He’d sit down with us and we’d look
at poems and he’d tell us why he thought they were good,
or bad. But he obviously cared about creativity and creation
and loved poetry.
Mia: In your article, "I
was a teenage objectivist", I wanted to interject something
of Ayn Rand's political views. Odd that you should bring up
Rand because I did entertain for a brief second that her books
might have influenced the incident at Columbine. The idea that
man "must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself
to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for
his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own
happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life."
Spoken like a true hedonist. Life is expendable, objectified
when one human kills another in the name of "righteousness."
But of course, I don't know the motives behind the killers so
this is a hypothesis. Personally, I didn't care for Rand's economic
or fictional writing. Yes, she does in some ways promote a sociopathlogy
of sorts with her objectivism: "Rand's vision of a perfect
egoist, a lone creative artist, intellectual." But her
ideals were too overly simplified. Man is not a rational creature
by any means. Just the fact that her books have sold over 400,000
can account for the irrational behavior of cultism or fanaticism.
And Fanaticism has never been a safe thing. If you don't "belong"
then create your own world and coerce everyone into it and isn't
this a form of conformity?
Sky: I was into Rand a long
time ago, now my interest is scholarly and sociological, I’m
interested in why her work (and the Bible -- it equals Rand
in sales!) are so popular. Both fundamentalist tracts that allow
people to believe that they have heard ‘the truth.’
Rand is a guru, a God to some, and people need that, although
I think it comes from an irrational, unhealthy impulse. As for
Columbine, I think that you’re correct in thinking the
things that lead kids to idolize Rand would lead people to shoot
others. These were unhappy kids, made fun of, in a gun culture,
alone in a mass culture that ignores real human needs. They
wanted an identity, something to make them special. They wanted
an escape. All this is offered by Rand and by shooting somebody.
Literature (even bad literature like Rand’s) is dangerous,
like a gun, and that’s what makes it interesting.
Mia: Would you care to discuss
a film that "actually reflects the details of our queer
existence." I myself haven't watched that many gay films,
I don't think. But you're right. Most of the movies made by
"straight" production companies tend to be very bad
and very few of them reflect men loving men, comfortably and
naturally as breathing. For one, they cast all the wrong actors—the
straight ones: Tom Hanks for the role of an AIDS victim in Philadelphia,
Matt Damon in the Talented Mr. Ripley, Brad Pitts and Tom Cruise
in Interview with a Vampire (except for Antonio Banderas), Brendan
Frasier in Monsters and Gods. They were awful, ruined the movie
for me almost every time. The list could go on and on, but why
don't they use gay actors for gay roles?
Sky: A lot of gay actors are
not very talented. A lot of gay actors are effeminate. Too effeminate,
too real. Producers don’t want reality, that’s too
scary, they want a man acting gay, putting it in parentheses
rather than being it. People don’t like to know that men
are really effeminate and girly, and not just playing that way,
that they ARE that way. It threatens their ideas of who they
are. I loved QUEER AS FOLK -- but only THE ORIGINAL British
version. The American version is a shit soap opera. The British
version is so real, not ‘issue’ oriented, just about
people. It accepts promiscuity as ordinary, and it’s about
the real human problems -- the details of homosexuality are
there --but they are taken for granted, not judged or turned
into an issue.
Mia: You’re turning
51 in December. Happy Birthday, Sky. Any plans on how you’ll
celebrate your birthday? I was very touched by your article,
“Age before beauty”:
Since I'm going to talk about being an old
fag, I'd better clear up some misconceptions. The first is
that gays are obsessed with youth in a way that straights
aren't. Give me a break. If you are old, sick or what is considered
"ugly," you will not see yourself represented in
the mainstream culture. Everyone -- gay or straight -- wishes
they were young, beautiful and healthy. And the horrible truth
we can't admit is that very few of us are.
And not all older gay men are interested
in having sex with younger ones. In fact, there's a whole
gay sexual scene that encourages sex between older, bigger,
hairier men. The Bears, as they call themselves, actually
make the young, skinny, hairless guys feel inadequate. Unlike
straight sexuality, which, in film and television at least,
romanticizes relationships between middle-aged yuppie men
and younger women -- and rarely anything else. But there's
one thing straights don't have to deal with when they confront
Mia: It’s true, straights
don’t have to deal with homophobia. Just a mass of other
phobias. But gays on the other hand have not much to look forward
to because as you say “there are so few positive, sexual
images of gay aging.” I’d like to see that change:
encourage more positive images of gays living a full life that
they’re entitled to as anyone else.
I could be castigated for being misinformed, but I think there
are more positive images for aging lesbians than there are for
gay men and I’m saddened by that for several reasons:
What does it tell us about our acceptance of the gay culture
as a whole? Lesbians are more acceptable because, well, they’re
women and they’re not really “gay”; they just
haven’t found the right man? Are gay men being discriminated
against more, well, because they’re men and men aren’t
capable of loving other men? I don’t know what to tell
you, but it seems to me something isn’t right about any
Sky: You’re right about
lesbians. But they are generally less body fascist than gay
men. There is much more acceptance of fat women or aging women
in the lesbian community, because to some extent being a lesbian
is about escaping the male, patriarchal gaze. Also, there is
nothing really threatening about older sexual women. There is
Mrs. Robinson, I suppose, but when they get really old, sexual
women are laughed at (which is cruel and inappropriate) whereas
dirty old men are not only laughed at, they are considered dangerous
(sure sometimes t hey are). This is because our misogynist culture
tends to value women as sex objects, and so when that cliched
attractiveness is gone, they become almost not human. Men, viewed
in our culture as hunters, predators, sexual aggressors, are
admired by the patriarchy when young. As they get older this
hunting becomes inappropriate and dangerous and sad. Except
it’s not. It’s just a reality.
Patriarchal culture sees value in having children, sees it as
in fact profound, and sees old age in terms of passing on insights
and love to a younger generation, the children. Men and women
who have no children are sad -- according to this view -- what
will they do in their old age? Then t here’s the lonely
homosexual, the idea that if you have lived a life of promiscuity
you end up lonely. Well there’s nothing very lonely about
promiscuity if you have your head screwed on right, if you know
how to love others and yourself. But our culture is afraid of
promiscuity so it has to make out that it’s a lonely desperate
dead end that leads to wasted lives.
I am a happy hunky horny fifty one year old,
and to paraphrase Noel Coward, I intend on continuing to have
sex with lots of people until they stop wanting to have sex
with me, at which point I’ll be perfectly happy to settle
down with an apple and a good book!
Mia: You’ve written
numerous books, poetry, plays, articles; directed several successful
plays, what’s next for you, Sky?
Sky: Two books this fall-- Temptations For
A Juvenile Delinquent (poetry) and An English Gentleman (fictional
biography of J.M. Barrie, author of Peter Pan -- a novel) I
am working on my PHD Thesis - Noel Coward and the Queer Feminine
-- which I hope will by published next year, as well as my next
novel which is titled (coincidentally enough) Kiki/Tryst.
Mia: Sky, thank you for such an engaging, provocative
interview. I appreciate your candor, your honesty and good luck
with the books.
For more information on how to order Sky Gilbert's
books, visit Sky's website: http://home.istar.ca/~anita/