poet, filmmaker, director, actor, and drag queen extraordinaire....
Sky Gilbert is one of Canada's most controversial artistic forces.
He was the co-founder and Artistic Director of Buddies in Bad
Times Theatre in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, for 18 years. Gilbert
was also a regular columnist for Eye Weekly from 1999-2003, providing
most of the material for this interview.
My mentor is Frank O'Hara. Everyone should read his poetry
philosophy in the essay Personism. It all has to do with wearing
tight pants. And getting up in the morning with coffee brewing
and someone lying in bed - then sneaking off to write. My other
mentor is William Blake. A poem CAN be a "thing" not
a "remembrance of things past."
TRYST INTERVIEWS SKY GILBERT
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
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
And in Lavender, this interview with Eddie Izzard:
But you're a straight transvestite, correct?
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 content.
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
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 objectively?
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
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
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 factors.
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 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
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
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
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 of this.
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/