The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 26 (2015)
Copyright © 2015 Akira Hongo. All rights reserved. This work may be used, with thisnotice included, for noncommercial purposes. No copies of this work may be distributed,
electronically or otherwise, in whole or in part, without permission from the author.

Family and Four American Gay Playwrights

Akira Hongo*

Introduction
Terrence McNally’s Mothers and Sons, which first opened on Broadway
in 2014, provides good material for considering gayness and family. On thestage the audience first sees a confrontation between Cal, a middle-aged gay
man who lives in an apartment that faces New York City’s Central Park, andKatharine, the mother of his former and deceased lover. Then Katharine
meets two other characters, Cal’s male spouse and their son. After ten years,
Cal has overcome his grief at losing his lover and has had a family now forten years, while Katharine has suffered from the loss of her son for twenty
years. She tells Cal, “People don’t change,” to which he responds, “People
have to want to change” (qtd. in Gardner).
Mothers and Sons is the first play “to portray a legally married gay couple
on a Broadway stage” (Sheward). The play challenges the still dominantbelief that “‘gayness’ and family are mutually exclusive concepts, a belief
that prevails because ‘the same-sex family, more than any other form,
challenges fundamental patriarchal notions of family and gender
relationships’” (Allen and Demo 112). The last scene of the play, whichshows the change in the mother’s attitude, suggests the possibility of*Professor, Tokyo Woman’s Christian University

121

122

Akira Hongo

reconciliation or beyond: she might become a member of the family; atleast, she “might come to know the family better” (Healy). The audience isencouraged to accept the possibilities and indeed seemed to do so in theperformance I attended on April 16, 2014.
According to Leopold Lippert in a 2010 article with the subtitle“Mainstream Gay Drama, Homonormativity, and the Culture of
Neoliberalism,” “McNally’s frank espousal of marriage as the ultimate
form of gay communion, paradoxically, includes a notable willingness tofeel backward as well” (55). Mothers and Sons can be criticized as a workthat affirms “homonormativity,” a term originally coined by Lisa Duggan tomean “a politics that does not contest dominant heteronormative assumptions
and institutions, but upholds and sustains them” (qtd. in Lippert 45). As
Diana M. Pash argues in her chapter that discusses “gay co-father families,”“their [gay co-fathers’] public presentation as a [gay] two-father family,
however, is unusual and they challenge traditional definitions of family inboth the gay and straight communities” (165).
Jeffrey Weeks argues that in relation to ideologies that has dominated theWestern view on homosexuality, “increasingly over the past hundred years
the reference point of anti-homosexual hostility has not been ‘religion’ or‘sin,’ but ‘family,’ and in particular, the roles that men and women are
expected to act out in the family” (5). Certainly “family” is one of the main
themes on which many gay playwrights have focused attention, and Mothers
and Sons is the most recent example. However, recent works by gay
playwrights portray the changes that have taken place in the social milieu inregard to “family.” Plays, especially ones staged on Broadway, are mirrorsthat reflect the times, for audience reaction strongly influences actors’
performances and can lead to revisions in the plays.
In this article I focus on how gay playwrights have tackled “family” intheir works. In order to emphasize the present situation and show the changethat has gradually taken place in America, I discuss in reverse chronologicalorder four plays by four gay playwrights that were staged on Broadway. I
will first briefly summarize the history of gays and family, and some usefultheories relating to them, from the latter half of the twentieth century to thepresent.
After Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage
in 2004, thirty six states followed suit as of March 3, 2015. Partly becauseof this, “gay” and “family” may not be such mutually exclusive categories
now. When the AIDS epidemic started in the 1980s, it accelerated thebacklash against the gay rights movement and was a serious blow to theFamily and Four American Gay Playwrights

123

promiscuous gay subculture. “Homosexual Diseases Threaten American
Families,” for example, was the headline of the Moral Majority Report in1983 (Weston 23). However, the epidemic had the effect of solidifying a
sense of community among gay people and turned their attention to gaining
legal rights for couples. Before the epidemic, a promiscuous gay subculture
flourished. It surfaced along with the gay liberation movement in the 1970s,
which followed the Stonewall riots in 1969. Harvey Milk, “the first openly
gay person to be elected city supervisor in San Francisco,” insisted on“coming out” as “a strategy designed to gain political power and promote
self-respect” (Weston 47). Simultaneously, there were many antigay
campaigns; for example, Anita Bryant, a popular singer at that time, was astrong campaigner whose 1977 autobiography was subtitled The Survival of
Our Nation’s Families and the Threat of Militant Homosexuality (Bergman
188). Before the movement, gay people were generally in the closet. “Thearmed forces’ antihomosexual screening” spread the homophobic
atmosphere in the early 1940s (Paller 25), and it was not until 1948 that
Alfred Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male became “the firstsignificant challenge to the prevailing ‘gay is sick’ orthodoxy” (Miller 249).
Historian Carl N. Degler in 1980 named five elements that define “family”
in his At Odds: Women and the Family in America from the Revolution to
the Present. A family begins with “a ritual between a woman and a man”;
they have “duties and rights of parenthood”; family members “live in acommon place”; “there are reciprocal economic obligations between
husband and wife”; and “the family serves as a means of sexual satisfaction
for the partners” (3–4). In 1991 Kath Watson in Families We Choose
provided a new framework for thinking about family. Weston “examine[d]the ideological transition that saw ‘gay’ and ‘family’ change from mutually
exclusive categories to terms used in combination to describe a particular
type of kinship relation” (22). Degler’s elements of family, as Katrina
Kimport observes in 2014, “institute[d] heteronormativity” (8), and now“same-sex marriage will transform the meaning of marriage and, with it,society by disrupting the dominance of heteronormativity” (7). Each of thefour gay playwrights I examine in this article—Terrence McNally, Harvey
Fierstein, Edward Albee, and Tennessee Williams—has challenged theinstitutionalization of heteronormativity and experimented with “family” inthe frame of their times.

124

Akira Hongo

Love! Valour! Compassion! and “An Extended Family”
Drama critic John M. Clum considered that in Terrence McNally’s 1995
Broadway production of Love! Valour! Compassion! “McNally’s charactershave forged a gay family” (“Where” 108). He quotes what McNally himself
said about the play:
I want to write about family. To me a very important line is when
Gregory says, “Are you going home to Texas?” Bobby says, “No,home is here. Texas is where my parents are.” Gay people do create asociety for themselves, an extended family. (108)When he wrote the screenplay for the 1997 movie version of the play,
McNally added the words “like a family” in the opening narration made by
one of the characters, Gregory Mitchell, to emphasize the theme. Both theoriginal play and the movie version start with the narration of Gregory, who
is hosting guests at his country house. When the movie starts, Gregory says,“I love my house. Everyone does. . . . I like to fill it with my friends. Overthe years, we’ve become more like a family. It makes me happy to have us
all together in our home. Mine and Bobby’s” (Love! 1997). Gregory’s
narration that follows is cut in with, or more precisely supported by, theother characters, whose responses make the audience feel they share
Gregory’s feelings.
Both the screenplay and the original play versions of Love! Valour!
Compassion! delineate the various relationships among eight gay men.
They come to visit at Gregory Mitchell’s summer vacation house that heshares with his lover Bobby Brahms, a blind man. The visitors include thecouple Arthur Pape and Perry Sellars; a single man, Buzz Hauser; and John
Jeckyll and his new young lover, Ramon Fornos. John’s twin brother, James
Jeckyll, joins the group later and becomes a couple with Buzz.
McNally’s “extended family” is equivalent to Weston’s “families wechoose.” The stage play consists of three acts. The time of the three acts
varies, but the place is fixed at Gregory’s house. That is, the stage is thehouse and vice versa. The friends, who visit Gregory’s house on Memorial
Day, the Fourth of July, and Labor Day weekends are like family members
who visit their parents’ homes on important holidays.
As Clum also comments (“Where” 109), Weston’s notion of “families wechoose” consists of “consciously incorporated symbolic demonstrations oflove, shared history, material or emotional assistance, and other signs ofFamily and Four American Gay Playwrights

125

enduring solidarity” (109). Those elements are shown in Love! Valour!
Compassion!
The characters are in their thirties and forties except Gregory’s lover
Bobby and John’s new boyfriend Ramon, who are in their early twenties.
The two younger characters have an important role as they introduce big
themes. Ramon says near the end of act 1, “We don’t love one anotherbecause we don’t love ourselves” (McNally, Love! 54). These words makethe characters and audience think about what love is. Ramon’s words are,however, ironic in a sense. He says “I love myself,” but as he goes on itturns out that his love for himself is conditional; he says, “I love myself
when I’m dancing well and no one can touch me” (55). Ramon does notlove himself unconditionally. His words connote that his love of otherpersons is also conditional.
In act 2, Bobby confesses to Gregory his affair with Ramon, which takes
place in act 1. He tries to be honest with his lover, but Gregory cannot
accept Bobby as he is. Left alone, Bobby confesses to the audience that heused to believe in the unconditional love of “lovers, friends, family” but henow has come to an understanding: “We love, but not unconditionally. Only
God is unconditional love” (87). Paradoxically, his words suggest that heformerly believed that lovers’ or friends’ love can be as unconditional asthat of family.
Here it is appropriate to be reminded of Weston’s view. She introduces
many instances of gay people who are disillusioned with parental
unconditional love. “The unconditional love recognized as both symbol andsubstance of kin ties has come under intense scrutiny by almost every gayidentified person” who has considered coming out to their parents (Weston64). Gay people have wrongly believed parental love is unconditional.
Unconditional parental love is a myth. The human love of “lovers, friends,
family” is “not unconditional.” Here, it should be noticed that in Love!
Valour! Compassion! Bobby juxtaposes the three words.
John, who is mentioned in Gregory’s journal as “John the Foul” (McNally,
Love! 65), confesses his resentment and shows ambivalence toward his twin
brother, “James the Fair,” who has just arrived from London and is dying in
act 3: “You had Mum and Dad’s unconditional love and now you have theworld’s” (124). Here is the parallelism of the two loves, “Mum and Dad’s”
and “the world’s.” If parental love is unconditional, so is the world’s: loveof lovers, love of friends, love of family. McNally, who says that “I’ve
learned as I get older, without unconditional love we never reach ourpotential” (qtd. in Clum, “Where” 114), believes “the world’s” love can be

126

Akira Hongo

unconditional. Although he seems to be disliked by the other visitors, Johnis always invited to stay with Gregory. He is also a member of the family.
This might indicate the possibility of the world’s “unconditional love.”
Buzz can be called a “musical queen.” He is the campiest character of thegroup. He is also an HIV carrier, and he knows it. He meets James. The two
fall in love and start dating in act 2. Near the end of act 3, he confesses his
fear of losing James, who suffers from some symptoms of AIDS, and of his
own dying alone. He imagines his own death bed dialogue with his bestfriend, Perry, after James’s death:Buzz: Can you promise me you’ll be holding my hand when I let go?
That the last face I see will be yours?
Perry: Yes.
Buzz: I believe you. (132)The backdrop for the scene should be mentioned here. In the 1990s,
same-sex marriage was not legal. It was probable that even a gay partner
could not even be at the bedside of his dying lover because relatives often
refused to allow in his partner. Accordingly, Perry should know that such apromise might not be able to be fulfilled. However, he dares to make thepromise. He wants to show his love to his friend as a family member.
Gregory thinks up a plan for an AIDS benefit. It is a dance of “the Swan
Lake Pas des Cygnes” by “six men, nondancers all” putting on tutus (47).
As Clum explains, the dance represents “an image of family” (“Where”
110), which symbolizes “enduring solidarity” (Weston 109). AIDS alsofunctions to indicate mutual assistance among the characters, as seen in theconversation between Buzz and Perry. As American playwright andjournalist Steven Drukman writes, “McNally celebrates the familial bonds
formed by gay men as friends” (132).
The structure of the play reinforces the theme of McNally’s challenge toprevailing notions of family. Act 1 has an engaging system of narration.
First, as mentioned, Gregory’s narration is aided by the other characters. It
gives the impression to the audience that Gregory is rehearsing the
introduction in front of the other characters or that they are trying to help
him finish his narration safely. Then other characters also play the role ofnarrator. Perry is the first to succeed Gregory. He tells the story of Bobby’s
love affair with Ramon that takes place after everyone is asleep. He says, “I
don’t know. I was upstairs, asleep with my Arthur” (11). It is strange that aperson who does not know the situation narrates it. He seems to be “the ‘all-Family and Four American Gay Playwrights

127

seeing’ character” and “acts as the narrator of events” (Drukman 121), but
it is evident that he has learned about the event later, because Buzz, whointervenes as the narrator, says, “I was upstairs, asleep with myself. All thisI heard later that summer” (11). Time on the stage is double; the characters
are experiencing the events and remembering them at the same time.
Therefore, the performance gives an impression that all the characters seemto know about the events that each one might not know firsthand and try todramatize it in collaboration. The narration gives the audience the impressionthat they share the history. In another instance of this unique narration
system, John, who narrates “I see things I shouldn’t” and “I overhear what
was better left unsaid” (21), is overheard by other characters when heconfesses his secret. As a result, his secret history comes to be shared bythem all.
Time, as experienced by the characters, who exist in the story’s time, andby the actors, who exist in the time of the performance, is consciously
manipulated. Consider the following instance:
Perry: Buzz, you weren’t awake for this.
Buzz: If I was, I don’t remember it.
Perry: You weren’t.
Buzz: Okay. (He rolls over and goes back to sleep.) (16)Everyone is asleep during the incident except Bobby and Ramon. The
latter seduces the former, and the two have a sexual encounter. Perrydescribes the incident as the narrator and also happens to mention John’smusical work. Buzz, who likes musicals, responds to the word “musical”
and starts talking. However, in the story’s time, he has to stay asleep. In thatsense, Perry also should be asleep because, as he says, “none of us were
awake for this” (17). Even if in the story’s time they are asleep, they are still
summoned to the stage as participants in the play. Each character has two
aspects: as a character in the story and as a participant in the play. Love!
Valour! Compassion! consciously shows that the play acting is double. At
the climactic scene of dancing “the Swan Lake Pas des Cygnes” in act 3,
each character stops dancing and tells the story of his death. It is not clear
whether it is his prediction or a statement of his actual fate. However, theaudience senses that the characters share their histories beyond the present
time. The structure of the play indicates the process of their sharing their
histories and the situations in which they share them.
This double structure can also be applied to the relationship between the

128

Akira Hongo

actors and the audience. It invites the audience to participate because theaudience also knows the process and the situation at the same time as theactors. The audience can thus feel like they share this same history. McNally
provides the reason why he wrote Love! Valour! Compassion!: “I think I
wanted to write about what it’s like to be a gay man at this particular momentin our history” (“Some Thoughts” xii). Then, the following words of
McNally as told to interviewer Toby Silverman Zinman indicate thechallenging effect of the play and the performance on the audience:
The most common comment I get is that by the end of Act One, they
forget they’re gay men and just think of them as human beings they
can identify with, and I take that as a compliment. . . . There’s ahumanity going back and forth between the actors and the audience—
you can feel it in the theatre. (12)Torch Song Trilogy and “Families We Choose”
Mothers and Sons might have been written by McNally as a sequel to his
earlier short play “Andre’s Mother.” It describes the memorial service ofCal’s late lover Andre. Andre’s mother gives a strong impression that she
cannot admit that her son died of AIDS. In Mothers and Sons Cal says tohimself, “God, how many of us live in this city because we don’t want tohurt our mothers and live in mortal terror of their disapproval” (qtd. in
Healy). “Mothers” in the title of Mothers and Sons may refer back to thisline of Cal’s, but it also reminds us of another play, Harvey Fierstein’s TorchSong Trilogy, first performed on Broadway in 1982, which also takes up thechallenge of dealing with marriage and gay family as the main topics. The
former may intertextually presuppose the latter that focuses on a motherson conflict.
The New York Times drama critic Stanley Kauffmann thought, as Clum
explains, that Torch Song Trilogy “places gay experiences squarely within
the patterns of heterosexual marriage child-rearing,” so it is a “nonvindictive
work” (Still 147). Conversely, James Leverett writes that “‘Torch Song
Trilogy’ may not look or sound revolutionary on first inspection, but they[the three plays of the trilogy] are—trenchantly and potently” (3).
Leverett briefly summarizes the historical significance of the play: “In
the trilogy, [Fierstein’s] focus shifts from the transitory sexual bond to
marriage and finally to the family. He explores these units, re-forms themand reveals them in the light of new possibilities” (4). Each one-act play inFamily and Four American Gay Playwrights

129

the trilogy focuses on an important aspect for considering gay in relation tofamily: loneliness in The International Stud, marriage in Fugue in a Nursery,
and family in Widows and Children First! The first delineates Arnold’s
meeting with and separation from Ed; the second tells the story of two
couples, the homosexual one of Arnold and Alan and a heterosexual one of
Ed and Laurel; and the third shows two mother-son relationships: Arnold
and his mother Mrs. Beckoff [Ma] and Arnold as mother to his adopted son
David.
As mentioned, gayness and family used to be thought of as incompatible
by society. There were homosexuals who internalized such a notion aboutgayness and family (Bergman 190). International Stud and Fugue in a
Nursery, the first two plays of the trilogy, suggest the internalized
homophobia or the despair of life without love. Arnold once has a relationshipwith a man who was “tall, handsome, rich, deaf” (15). He describes thisrelationship as having “everything you could want in an affair and more”(15), yet all he obtains from the relationship is “an affair,” not love. He
finally seems to find love with Ed, but Ed leaves Arnold for a relationshipwith a woman. Ed might love Arnold, but he tries to escape from living as agay man. In Fugue in a Nursery, as the title and the setting of a big bed on
which four characters stay symbolically show, the relationship of one couple
lights up mutually that of the other, in the process of which the truth of eachrelationship is revealed to the audience: the emptiness of their relationships.
The first two plays demonstrate, as James Fisher says in his article “FromTolerance to Liberation,” that “Fierstein seems poised to explain homosexual
promiscuity as a direct result of the exclusion of gays from ‘normal’heterosexual relationships.” However, Laurel and Ed are no exception to
the problem of “promiscuity”; they try to seduce Arnold’s young lover, so
Fierstein rather seems to relativize homosexual desire. Arnold by occupation
is a drag performer. He says he is “strictly Torch” (97). He loves torch songs
because “getting hurt is one thing we all have in common” (98). He includes
heterosexual people in “we all.” “Getting hurt” is no privilege of gay people.
Leverett summarizes the third play in the trilogy, Widows and Children
First!: “It attempts no less than to re-invent the family. The tenuous worldof Fugue has collapsed. Alan is dead, Ed’s marriage with Laurel is over,
Arnold is trying legally to adopt David—a gay adolescent pronounced
incorrigible by a parade of foster parents. Arnold’s widowed mother arrives
for a visit” (7). Interestingly, the stage direction says the stage is “the set ofa conventional sit-com with a convertible sofa, windows overlooking
Central Park.” (107). The setting reminds us of that of Mothers and Sons.

130

Akira Hongo

The confrontation between Arnold and Ma reveals their similarities anddifferences. As Arnold’s adopted son David says, Arnold resembles Ma inwords and deeds (157). Arnold himself admits to having the same personality
as Ma. For example, he says to Ed, “I can Mother-smother David, she [Ma]can Mother-smother me” (114). However, Ma tries to differentiate herself
from Arnold when the topic comes to the death of her husband, Arnold’s
father.
Arnold tries to explain their shared experience of losing their beloved
partners by using the word “widowing” (114). Ma refuses the equation. Shetries to differentiate the weight of the loss of her husband from what Arnold
experienced in losing Alan. Behind their conflict lies the thesis that all loveis conditional. Believing the myth that homosexual persons only use lovers
to satisfy their lust, are unable to experience true love, and cannot be afamily makes Ma’s love conditional. Ma believes that homosexual Arnold
wants to have sex with even his adopted son and tells him, “I had no intentionof having a homosexual for a son” (150). She loves him only when he iswhat she expects him to be. She, therefore, cannot love Arnold who is gay.
She also refuses to understand that David has been gay since he first becameaware of himself (149). Her imagination forbids her to go beyond themythical prejudice that no one is born gay. She somewhat resembles Ed,
who tries to believe that Arnold’s being gay is his “sexual preference” andthat homosexuality should be “in the closet” (120). Ma and Ed might
represent what Chrys Ingraham calls the “heterosexual imaginary” (qtd. in
Kimport 8). They try to hide the existence of homosexuality in the closet.
Accordingly, “hiding in the imaginary,” as Kimport explains,“heteronormativity does not require explanation or critique and its
institutionalization of inequality is perpetuated” (8). Fierstein here seems to
be confronting a theory about momism and homosexuality that was prevalentat that time he wrote his trilogy.
According to literary critic David Bergman, “Irving Bieber’s report,
Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study, issued in 1962 as an official
publication of The Society of Medical Psychoanalysts . . . codified thestrong mother/weak father theory of homosexuality and asserted that ‘allparents of homosexuals apparently had severe emotional problems’” (190).
Bergman continues, “In the straight myths, gays are so intimately attachedto the images of their mothers that they have made themselves unfit for life
within the family structure” (208). This image of mother is, as Alan Sinfieldsuggests (224–26), linked with “momism,” a term coined by Philip Wylie in1942 to mean, according to Oxford English Dictionary, “excessive

Family and Four American Gay Playwrights

131

attachment to, or domination by, the mother” (“momism”). Sinfield writes
that “in my view Momism was largely an attempt to scapegoat women forthe difficulties men experienced in living up to a contradictory andoppressive ideology of masculinity” (226). However, Fierstein seems to be
exorcizing this myth about momism and homosexuality.
Arnold came out to his parents when he was thirteen (116). For sometime they had “a healthy Mother/Son relationship” and kept “an open lineof communication.” Then something happens when his father dies; “theroot” of their present miscommunication lies in his father’s death (117). Hisparents have not had the problems that the Bieber theory would suggest.
However, after her husband’s death, Ma begins to feel “a duty to continue
the family name” (128). She thinks Arnold’s coming out “took a lifetime of
dreams” out of both herself and her husband (150). They might have had atheart the idea that their family name would continue, and the loss of her
husband seems to make Ma cling to the notion of a traditional family.
Arnold in Widows and Children First! is more openly proud of his
homosexuality than Arnold in the first two plays. He tells David about theOscar Wilde trial in front of his mother (139). He rejects Ma’s traditionalfamily values and says he only needs someone who gives him “love andrespect” (152). He says that adopting David is “a wonderful thing that I’mvery proud of” (142). Referring to A. J. Sbordone’s observation in his
unpublished doctorial dissertation, Charlotte J. Patterson writes in “Family
Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men” (2000), “Given that fathers had
higher self-esteem and fewer negative attitudes about homosexuality thaneither group of [gay] nonfathers [i.e., a group who said they wanted children
and another who said they did not, Sbordone suggested that gay fathers’
higher self-esteem might be a result rather than a cause of parenthood”(1058). Arnold might represent such a gay father ahead of his time.
Widows and Orphans First! delineates a type of “families we choose.”First, the family relationship is open to the person who wants to join. David
says to Arnold, “I stay with you because I want to. . . . You make me feellike I got a home” (158). Next, Arnold’s role in the family is “being mother,father, friend and confessor all rolled into one” (114). The roles in thisfamily are not fixed, unlike those in a traditional family. Furthermore,
Arnold invites Ma and his brother (who does not appear in the play) into the“family.” He says to Ma that his brother is “part of this family too” (171).
Weston’s theory should be recalled here: “By substituting images of creationand election for the logic of reproduction and succession, discourse on gay
families can—and does—remind people of their power to alter the132

Akira Hongo

circumstances into which they were born” (202). If Arnold changes Ma’s
way of thinking, the notion of family also changes.
Torch Song Trilogy portrays conflicts and possible integration of the two
families: Arnold’s biological family and the one he is building with Davidand Ed, who now lives in Arnold’s apartment as a lodger. While the “family”
in Love! Valour! Compassion! is based on friendship and gay community,
the “family” in Torch Song Trilogy is an integration of a biological family
and a gay family. The “family” in Mothers and Sons has two fathers: Caland his partner are called Pap and Pappy, while Arnold is “Ma” for David.
Although Kauffmann might have thought he could place the play “within
the patterns of heterosexual marriage child-rearing,” “the family” proposedin the play is far beyond the traditional definition of family. Arnold andFierstein believe that, in the phrase of Weston, “gay kinship offers anauthentic alternative” (198).

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and“Anxiety about the American Family”
Edward Albee “has been attacked from all sides” (Clum, Still 148) for
Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, which debuted on Broadway in 1962.
Stanley Kauffmann emotionally argued that in this play “the homosexualdramatist” distorts heterosexual relationships (Clum, Still 148). As Sky
Gilbert, a critic with “a militant gay point of view” (Clum, Still 147),
concludes, “the play is limited by the closet aspect,” and he argues that
Albee’s misogynist characterization and unrealistic descriptions of thecouples is the result of his homosexual bias (58). The attacks by critics on
all sides may be because of Albee’s spoofing and campy dialogue. Alan
Sinfield summarizes this point:
The principal rationale for the internecine taunting that constitutes the
dialogue of Albee’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?. . . is anxiety about
the American family. . . . What is revealed is a hysterical terror of notsiring and bearing offspring, and hence of failing to become fully
American. (226–27)
Many critics attack this play as a closet drama that is actually about ahomosexual relationship (Clum, Still 147–48). The play does have many
elements of a closet drama, which illuminates its intertextual relation with
Tennessee Williams’s A Streetcar Named Desire (Hongo 41–61). However,Family and Four American Gay Playwrights

133

this reading could cloud its incisive criticism of the American family myth
as seen from a gay playwright’s point of view, which may be the main pointof the play. Here, “camp” is important because “camp” is a kind of codedlanguage for homosexuals and can be used as a weapon against
heteronormativity. Many critics perceive camp in the play; for example,
Stephen Bottoms senses “a gay sensibility” in “the play’s occasionally
campy wit” (87). Just after George and Martha, the host and the hostess,enter the stage, she says “What a dump!” imitating Bette Davis in Beyond
the Forest (1949) (11). Davis is a gay icon (Babuscio 44). Wordplay,including rhyming and alliteration, is one of the characteristics of the play.
“Dump” slightly rhymes with “camp.”
George and Martha’s late return from a party hosted by Martha’s father
starts the play. Her father is the president of the college where George
teaches. At the party, he has ordered her to invite a young couple, Nick andHoney, to her house. When the couple appears, George and Martha create
various games to entertain the guests and compete against each otherfiercely. Nick and Honey become involved in the games, and the secrets ofthe two families are gradually revealed. Nick and Honey are young and notso keen or sharp witted as George and Martha, so they are sometimes preyof the latter’s campy wit. Martha and George ostensibly show off that they
are opponents, but they can easily cooperate when making Nick and Honeythe “butt” of their humor (Albee, Who’s Afraid 116), which might show acampy spirit. Martha seduces Nick to her bedroom in the end of act 2, but
he fails to perform sexually. In act 3, Martha makes fun of the failure andtreats Nick as a houseboy. George participates in the game. When Nickobjects to it and says “I’m nobody’s houseboy,” they sing in unison, “I’mnobody’s houseboy now. . . . [Both laugh]” (116), making fun of Nick andhis male vanity.
David Van Leer, who finds campiness in the play but concludes that
“Albee’s story is not camp” (20), writes that “camp quotation in the play isitself camped, performed ‘within quotation marks’ as a formal device, but
emptied of its customary meanings and used for purposes not common in
the gay tradition from which it derives” (25). Van Leer’s intention is todemarcate the border between camp in the gay tradition and camp “within
quotation marks.” In this he provides a clue to the very structure of Who’s
Afraid of Virginia Woolf?: camp as quotation. As Chuck Kleinhans argues,“camp always uses parody but, more importantly, it embodies parody as a
general mode of discourse” (188). The basis of parody lies in quotation.
Albee makes heterosexual characters parody what is, as Richard Dyer

134

Akira Hongoargues, “distinctly and unambiguously gay male” in “language and culture”(qtd. in Kleinhans 186–87). If camp can “challenge dominant culture”(Kleinhans 188), then parody of camp that is performed by the heterosexual
characters may be used to challenge their own dominant culture.
Albee uses a nesting structure in the stage setting of his later play Tiny
Alice (1964). Similarly, he used a verbal nesting structure in Who’s Afraid of
Virginia Woolf? Nesting structure has, as it were, the structure of a quote
within a quote. This structure, therefore, is linked to campiness, andwordplay contributes to constructing the structure in this play. The mostintriguing and important wordplay structurally and thematically concerns
Martha and George’s imaginary child.
The following exchange occurs after George knows that Martha has let
slip the topic of their “son” to Honey, although he entreated her to keep it asecret:Martha: I said never mind. I’m sorry I brought it up.
George: Him up . . . not it. You brought him up. Well, more or less.
When’s the little bugger going to appear, hunh? I mean isn’t
tomorrow meant to be his birthday, or something?
Martha: I don’t want to talk about it!
George [falsely innocent]: But Martha . . .
Martha: I don’t want to talk about it!
George: I’ll bet you don’t. [To Honey and Nick] Martha does not wantto talk about it . . . him. Martha is sorry she brought it up . . . him.
(Albee, Who’s Afraid 48, emphasis added)
The repetition of the phrase “bring it/him up” produces a strong impression
on the audience. It emphasizes the two meanings of the phrasal verb “bringup.” Simultaneously, the repetition implies that their son and the topic of theson are interchangeable.
The topic of their son is first introduced by George’s words “the bit” (18).
They have no children and have secretly enjoyed bringing up the imaginary
son with each other. “The baby” and “the bit” are interchangeable, but it
does not mean that the two are equivalent. Either can contain the other: it
either means baby’s bit or bit’s baby. Here, the wordplay has a kind of
nesting structure. Martha and George “bring up” various kinds of games on
the stage, and they “bring up” their “baby.” The words “bring up” connect
the games with “baby.” The games include “baby,” and “baby” includes thegames. The two words “bit” and “baby,” so to speak, quote each other.

Family and Four American Gay Playwrights

135“Baby” is seated at the core of the games and is absent. Campy wit focuses
the audience’s attention on the absence of the baby, which should be situatedat the core of “family.”
Nick and Honey are somehow involved in the bit in the nesting structure
because they got married to form a family when Nick learned of Honey’s
pregnancy, which turned out to be “a hysterical pregnancy” (60). The
nesting structure is not limited to a thematic aspect; it is also applied to thetheatrical structure. Matthew C. Roudané writes that “Albee’s dialogue
creates an uneasy intimacy between actor and spectator” (41). Quoting
theoretician of performance Herbert Blau’s “watchers watching the watchers
watch,” Roudané argues that “this is a play about those seeing and thoseseen” (41). Martha and George are watched by Honey and Nick, and all arewatched by the audience.
The relation between the watchers and the watched is not fixed; it can bereversed. Albee intentionally demonstrates interchangeability andreversibility by using the nesting structure. Roudané concludes that “Albee
subverts the authority of his own dramatic text by casting the seers (theaudience) into what is being seen (the performance). . . . He rejects theaudience as voyeur. He courts the audience as active participants” (46–47).
Applying here Albee’s nesting structure, the characters seem to be quoting
everyone, including possibly the audience. Here, as mentioned earlier, “theprincipal rationale for the internecine taunting that constitutes the dialogue”
is “anxiety about the American family” (Sinfield 226). When the reversibility
is linked with the “anxiety,” the family performed on the stage can represent
members of the audience. Here, the campy wit has power to subvert theheteronormative gender system. Many in the audience get involved in “thebit” because they share the myth of “the American family,” if not the“anxiety” about it.
As mentioned, Van Leer concludes that the play is not camp, observing
that “camp quotation in the play is itself camped, performed ‘within
quotation marks.’” These words bring to mind Judith Butler’s: “Thereplication of heterosexual constructs in non-heterosexual frames brings
into relief the utterly constructed status of the so-called heterosexual
original” (41). In the campy frame of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?,
having a baby in a family has an “utterly constructed status”—the “baby” isonly a “bit.” The heteronormative spirit of the times has, to use Butler’s
famous word, “performatively” induced the characters to believe they havea need for a baby in order to be a family. The traditional notion of “family”
is only constructed. The camp and nesting structure expose the deceptive

136

Akira Hongo

nature of the family myth.
Albee thinks people find “the unnaturalistic base” beneath “the naturalistic
overlay” in his play and that the minds of the people in the audience “workon both levels, symbolically and realistically” (Kolin 58). Camp is amethodology that can show “the unnaturalistic base” “symbolically andrealistically.” This reminds us of Christopher Isherwood’s comment about
camp: “You can’t camp about something you don’t take seriously. You’re
not making fun of it; you’re making fun out of it. You’re expressing what’s
basically serious to you in terms of fun and artifice and elegance” (110).
Quoting the words “What a dump!,” Martha says to George that theheroine of the movie is “discontent” in her married life (12–13). There isanother allusion to discontent in marriage: Blanche in A Streetcar Named
Desire is quoted and embedded. In Martha’s monologue at the beginning ofact 3, Martha says, “Up the spout, not down the spout; The poker night. Up
the spout” (273). “The poker night” is the subtitle for scene 3 of A Streetcar
Named Desire. The phrase “down the spout” can mean “bankrupt,” while
the phrase “up the spout” can mean “pregnant.” The phrases may refer toBlanche, who comes to her sister’s place for emotional and financial help,
but who is raped by her sister’s husband.
Martha’s notion of “family” might come from her father, for she says to
Nick, “We’re a close-knit family here . . . Daddy always says so. . . . Daddy
wants us to get to know each other . . . that’s what he had the party for
tonight” (98). Ironically, against the traditional family concept, Martha
seduces Nick into her bed. She tries to “get to know” him. When George
finds out how Nick came to marry Honey, he teases Nick, saying, “That’s agood healthy heterosexual beginning” (66). However, the “healthy
heterosexual beginning” is an illusion; he married Honey because of hermoney and pregnancy. However, in fact she does not have “a hystericalpregnancy”—she has chosen to have an abortion: “I . . . don’t want . . . any. . . children. I’m afraid! I don’t want to be hurt. . . . Please!” (105). Thenshe says, “I want my husband! I want a drink!” (106). She needs a marriage
and to be intoxicated in a family fantasy.
Heterosexist critics such as Kauffmann, as Clum argues, tried to confine
Albee’s bitter criticism of heteronormative myth of marriage to a closet(Still, 143–48). Albee’s criticism, indeed, is leveled at the illusion of thenuclear family stereotype. If Martha had not told their secret to these otherpeople, George might not have conceived the idea of their son’s death; thatis, making up a story of a telegram’s coming to inform them of the death oftheir son. Their being unable to keep the secret “bit” to themselves shows

Family and Four American Gay Playwrights

137

how George and Martha are obsessed by the illusion of a happy family.
Albee may have considered it a serious problem for the couples to beobsessed with the family fantasy. Therefore, he uses camping to expose the“anxiety.” It functions so well that Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? has
drawn negative emotional responses from heterosexist critics. Albee could
incisively criticize the traditional family myth with campy wit because he isa gay playwright.

The Glass Menagerie and “Family Conflicts”
The Glass Menagerie, first performed on Broadway in 1945, depicts
relationships in a family; the members are the protagonist and narrator Tom,his mother Amanda, and his older sister Laura. There are two Toms in theplay: the one who narrates his past story and the character in his story. The
narrator Tom first explains it is “a memory play” (145) and begins his
memoir with a scene of Amanda talking to Tom about table manners.
Amanda has been left by her husband, so the family mainly depends on Tom
for economic support. Laura is too shy to adapt herself to the world. Amanda
asks Tom to have a gentleman caller meet Laura and schemes to match her
to him in vain. The final scene shows Tom’s escape from the family. As
Albee’s quoting Williams in Whose Afraid of Virginia Woolf? indicates,
Tennessee Williams has been an inspiration to younger gay playwrights. He
is also a playwright who is interested in gayness and family. Even in The
Glass Menagerie, in which no overtly gay people appear, gayness andfamily are quite important topics.
The following discussion starts with a question: What illusions and truths
about family does The Glass Menagerie present? At the very beginning,
Tom as the narrator introduces what the stage shows: “I am the opposite ofa stage magician. He gives you illusion that has the appearance of truth. Igive you truth in the pleasant disguise of illusion” (144). Near the end of theplay, when Amanda is aware of her failing to find a man for her daughterand says to her son to go wherever he wants to go, she tells him: “You don’tknow things anywhere! You live in a dream; you manufacture illusions!”(235). Is Tom, who is accused of living in a dream, telling the truth in his
narrative about his family? If he is, the truth must be what Amanda is notaware of.
Stephanie B. Hammer links the play’s power with “Williams’s shrewd
utilization of the tradition of the bourgeois tragedy,” which is “serious
drama containing a tragic catastrophe brought about by family conflicts

138

Akira Hongo(often between father and daughter), and which consistently demonstrate‘middle class virtue’”(36). The Glass Menagerie indeed has “a tragic
catastrophe brought about by family conflicts”—in this play, between
mother and son. The conflict is between the mother’s desire for unconscious
continuation and the son’s conscious rejection of “family.”
In traditional literary criticism, Laura has been associated with Rose, thesister of Tennessee Williams. However, Hammer insists that Laura represents
Williams himself (43). This interpretation becomes more interesting when
we consider the possibility that Laura represents Williams’s past self andTom his present self. Reportedly, Tennessee and Rose were often mistaken
for twins (Paller 71), so it is no wonder that Williams superimposes his
personality upon his sister. Hammer concludes that “it [The Glass
Menagerie] dramatizes the attempt of a gay male artist to depict himself, hisdesire, and his mode of creation in the interstices of the feminine, but thisgambit tends to make the female characters at once scapegoat and sacrifice”(47). This interpretation, however, presupposes that the play is a closet
drama.
There is a quite different interpretation: “Tom is gay” (Paller 39). Michael
Paller insists that “it is not metaphorical or abstract” (39). He also writes
that “those who can read the signs, whose eyes do not fail them, will see
Tom’s gayness; those who cannot will not. Light and dark, truth and illusion,
are all of equal value in The Glass Menagerie” (40). According to Paller,
gayness is linked to truth and illusion, and so might be family. As mentioned,
gayness and family were formerly mutually exclusive concepts. Williams
shows truth and illusion about family through Tom’s gayness.
C. W. E. Bigsby argues that both female characters in The Glass Menagerie
are actresses (39). Hammer has a similar view; she argues that “the two
female characters spend large portions of the play in disguise—pretending,and playacting at being something that they are not” (42). They areplayacting because playacting can preserve their illusion of family: Amanda
as a mother and Laura as a daughter.
Amanda always boasts of having had gentleman callers who were “sonsof planters,” and as a young girl she was seemingly expected to get married
to one of them and raise her family on a large piece of land with plenty ofservants (204). She, however, chooses “a man who worked for the telephonecompany” (204). When she meets this man, she has malaria. The fever fromthe illness makes her “restless and giddy.” It was May, and the country was“literary flooded with jonquils!” and she has “an absolute obsession” forjonquils (194). “Malaria fever and jonquils,” so to speak, make her marryFamily and Four American Gay Playwrights

139

the man. In the language of flowers, jonquil has a meaning of “desire”(Diffenbaugh 314) or, according to the section “Flowers by Name/Meaning”
in Kate Greenaway’s Language of Flowers, “I desire a return of affection.”
Malarial fever reveals her latent desire, and she chooses a man who herparents would not want her to marry; she chooses a man, not according to
the tradition but following her desire. However, she now seems to denydesire and reduces family ties to economic needs. In both the Southern
tradition and in the 1930s, husbands were required to support the family
economically. “A family man” meant a son of a planter (204) or someone
who earns more than “eighty-five dollars a month” (185).
Laura wants to live up to her mother’s expectations, so she has been
“pretending” that she still goes to business college (154) even after she has
stopped going. She loves her family, so she plays the role of mediator andasks Tom to reconcile with their mother after he has a big fight with her.
A visit from the gentleman accelerates their playacting, especially
Amanda’s. Tom explains that “like some archetype of the universal
unconscious, the image of the gentleman caller haunted our small apartment”(159). The gentleman caller is “this image, this specter, this hope” for thefamily. Amanda explains to Jim, the long-awaited gentleman caller, that
Laura is “domestic” (204). After spending time with Laura, Jim tries to
excuse himself for kissing Laura and says that he is engaged to “a home-girllike you” (229). “Being in love” with a “domestic” girl has made him “anew man” (230). During the conversation between Laura and Jim, thecandlelight makes a big shadow of Jim. As the alliteration of Laura and lightand Tom’s words “blow out your candles, Laura” (237) show, candlelight isa metaphor of Laura. Laura as a “domestic” “home girl” metaphoricallymakes Jim look big. Amanda consciously and Laura unconsciously playact
to emphasize the significance of the gentleman caller, whose existence isnecessary for Laura to make a home and family.
Tom also uses the words “home girl” to describe Laura: “I guess she’s thetype that people call home girls” (174). In response, Amanda says to him,
“There’s no such type, and if there is, it’s a pity! That is unless the home ishers, with a husband!” (175). Here, the word “home” seems to have different
meanings for the two. Tom says to Amanda: “Laura seems all those things[lovely and sweet and pretty] to you and me because she’s ours and we loveher” (187). For him, “home” is a place with one’s “biological family” or“family of origin” (Degler 9). On the contrary, “home” for Amanda is a
“nuclear family” that is created with, as in Degler’s definition, “a ritual
between a woman and a man” (3). Children are only the result of it. Tom

140

Akira Hongo

insists on love among family members while Amanda insists “a familyman” must earn a lot of money. Love is enough to make a family for Tom,
while money is the most important requirement for Amanda. During theGreat Depression, Amanda’s insistence on having a provider must havebeen realistic, but her idea is based on the illusion that a family must be anuclear family.
The family, according to the stage direction that the reader of the text firstencounters, lives in “one of those vast hive-like conglomerations of cellularliving-units that flower as warty growths in overcrowded urban centers oflower middle-class population” (143). This description indicates that life ineach cell is the same. The direction also mentions the fire escape, “whosename is a touch of accidental truth” and which symbolizes an escape from“the slow and implacable fires of human desperation” (143). Of course, thedesperation is based on the financial depression of the time, but thedescription strongly implies that it is also based on the sameness of living in“hive-like conglomerations of cellular living-units.” Amanda might haveescaped the fate of living as a Southern lady, but she is trapped now inanother illusion: that of a nuclear family. In order to “properly feather thenest and plume the bird,” she tries to “rop[e] in subscribers to one of thosemagazines for matrons called The Homemaker’s Companion” (159). The
title metaphorically implies her strong desire for “family” even if it is notfor her but for her daughter.
Amanda’s effort to provide a home/family for Laura is strongly
emphasized, while she strangely seems indifferent to Tom as a family man.
In her analysis of Williams’s plays, Senata Karolina Bauer-Briski insiststhat Tom’s “lover instinct” to “take a girl out” and “start a family” is“blocked” (Bauer-Briski 22). This reading, however, does not solve thequestion of why Amanda has no interest in Tom’s getting married andhaving a family. It is as if she knows he is gay. When she asks him to bringa gentleman caller for Laura, she also says, “I mean that as soon as Laurahas got somebody to take care of her, married, a home of her own,
independent—why, then you’ll be free to go wherever you please” (175).
There are no signs of Tom’s having his own family in the period when henarrates his story. Tom as the narrator rejects the nuclear family whose
members live in a cell of a hive. He cannot give up his family of origin,however. “The nuclear family antedated the onset of industrialization,”
writes Degler. “A close-knit family, held together by ties of affection, isquite advantageous in a complex, mobile, and often personally threatening
industrial society” (196). The stage direction mentioned earlier indicates theFamily and Four American Gay Playwrights

141

situation of a “threatening industrial society.”
In an age before gay men could conceive of “families we choose,” they
could not help but reject having a nuclear family or heteronormative viewof family. Tom does not reject family in itself; he loves his family of origin.
However, the heteronormative environment does not recognize families
other than the nuclear family. Therefore, he has no choice but escape into aworld where he is not asked to have a nuclear family of his own.

Conclusion
The five plays that I have discussed were all staged on Broadway. They
fall into two groups: those written and produced after and before theStonewall riots. McNally’s Mothers and Sons and Love! Valour!
Compassion! and Fierstein’s Torch Song Trilogy belong to the first groupwhile Albee’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and Williams’s The Glass
Menagerie belong to the second. The Stonewall riots led to the gay liberation
movement. As a result, a new gay subculture was created with promiscuity
as one of its characteristics. In the subsequent period of the AIDS epidemic
this characteristic was used against the gay subculture. The first group ofplays respond to the challenge of presenting “families we choose” in an age
when AIDS was used against the gay liberation movement. The second
group took up the challenge of criticizing the trend to uniformalize andheteronormalize family and deprive family of diversity in a time when the
nuclear family was the social norm.
Love! Valour! Compassion! presents an “extended family,” a type of“families we choose” based on friendship, while the earlier Torch Song
Trilogy tried to resolve the conflict of family and gayness by integrating
biological family and gay family. Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? attacked
the heteronormative family illusion and unveiled the anxiety behind it
through the logic of camp and theatricality, while the earlier Glass Menagerie
challenged the ideal of a uniform nuclear family.
The reactions of the audience illuminate what lies underneath theperformance. “Those who can read the signs, whose eyes do not fail them,”
as Paller says, “will see Tom’s gayness.” Similarly, those who can detect
gayness in these plays might understand why the plays had to be created:
they are all challenges to the American family myth and the belief thatgayness and family are mutually exclusive concepts.

142

Akira Hongo

Works Cited
Albee, Edward. Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? London: Vintage, 2001. Print.
Allen, Katherine R., and David H. Demo. “The Families of Lesbians and Gay Men: A
New Frontier in Family Research.” Journal of Marriage and Family 57.1 (1995):
111–27. Print.
Babuscio, Jack. “Camp and the Gay Sensibility.” Camp Grounds: Style andHomosexuality. Ed. David Bergman. Amherst: U of Massachusetts P, 1993. 19–38.
Print.
Bauer-Briski, Senata Karolina. The Role of Sexuality in the Major Plays of Tennessee
Williams. Bern: Peter Lang, 2002. Print.
Bergman, David. Gaiety Transfigured: Gay Self-Representation in American Literature.
Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1991. Print.
Bigsby, C. W. E. “Entering The Glass Menagerie.” The Cambridge Companion to
Tennessee Williams. Ed. Matthew C. Roudané. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997.
29–44. Print.
Bottoms, Stephen J. Albee: Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Cambridge: Cambridge UP,
2000. Print.
Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York:
Routledge, 1999. Print.
Clum, John M. Still Acting Gay: Male Homosexuality in Modern Drama. New York: St.
Martin’s Griffin, 2000. Print.
———. “Where We Are Now: Love! Valour! Compassion! and Contemporary Gay
Drama.” Terrence McNally: A Casebook. Ed. Toby Silverman Zinman. New York:
Garland, 1997. 95–116. Print.
Degler, Carl N. At Odds: Women and the Family in America from the Revolution to thePresent. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1980. Print.
Diffenbaugh, Vanessa. The Language of Flowers: A Novel. New York: Ballantine, 2011.
Print.
Drukman, Steven. “You Got to Have Friends: Gay Reception of Love! Valour!
Compassion!” Terrence McNally: A Casebook. Ed. Toby Silverman Zinman. New
York: Garland, 1997. 117–33. Print.
Fierstein, Harvey. Torch Song Trilogy. New York: Gay Presses, 1979. Print.
Fisher, James. “From Tolerance to Liberation: Gay Drama in the Mainstream from TorchSong Trilogy and The Normal Heart to Angels in America, Love! Valour! Compassion!
and Take Me Out.” “We Will Be Citizens”: New Essays on Gay and Lesbian Theatre.
Ed. James Fisher. Jefferson: McFarland, 2008. Kindle file.
Gardner, Elysa. “Lessons in Family, Grief Bond ‘Mothers and Sons.’” USA Today.
25 Mar. 2014. Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 June 2014.

Family and Four American Gay Playwrights

143

Gilbert, Sky. “Closet Plays: An Exclusive Dramaturgy at Work.” Canadian Theatre
Review 59 (1989): 55–58. Print.
Greenaway, Kate. Language of Flowers. London: George Routledge, 2014. Kindle file.
Hammer, Stephanie B. “‘That Quiet Little Play’: Bourgeois Tragedy, Female
Impersonation, and a Portrait of the Artist in The Glass Menagerie.” Tennessee
Williams: A Casebook. Ed. Robert F. Gross. New York: Routledge, 2002. 33–50. Print.
Healy, Patrick. “A Playwright’s Status Report: McNally’s ‘Mothers and Sons’ Gauges a
Changed America.” New York Times. 27 Feb. 2014. Web. 15 June 2014.
Hongo, Akira. “Camp and Subjectivity in Edward Albee’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia
Woolf?” Essays and Studies 59.1 (2008): 41–61. Print.
Isherwood, Christopher. The World in the Evening. New York: Farrar, 2013. Print.
Kimport, Katrina. Queering Marriage: Challenging Family Formation in the UnitedStates. New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 2014. Print.
Kleinhans, Chuck. “Taking Out the Trash: Camp and the Politics of Parody.” The Politics
and Poetics of Camp. Ed. Moe Meyer. London: Routledge, 1994. 182–201. Print.
Kolin, Philip C. Conversations with Edward Albee. Jackson: UP of Mississippi, 1988.
Print.
Leverett, James. Introduction: “The Miracle of Modern Sex.” Torch Song Trilogy. By
Harvey Fierstein. New York: Gay Presses, 1979. 3–8. Print.
Lippert, Leopold. “‘How Do You Think We Get to Pottery Barn?’ Mainstream Gay
Drama, Homonormativity, and the Culture of Neoliberalism.” South Atlantic Review
75.3(2010): 41–59. Print.
Love! Valour! Compassion! Screenplay by Terrence McNally. Dir. Joe Mantello. 1997.
New Line Home Entertainment. DVD.
McNally, Terrence. Love! Valour! Compassion! and A Perfect Ganesh: Two Plays. New
York: Plume, 1995. Print.
———. Introduction: “Some Thoughts.” By McNally. Love! Valour! Compassion! andA Perfect Ganesh: Two Plays. New York: Plume, 1995. ix–xii. Print.
Miller, Neil. Out of the Past: Gay and Lesbian History from 1869 to the Present. New
York: Vintage, 1995. Print.
“momism, n2.” OED Online. Oxford UP, December 2014. web. 4 March 2015.
Paller, Michael. The Gentleman Callers: Tennessee Williams, Homosexuality, and MidTwentieth-Century Broadway Drama. New York: Palgrave, 2005. Print.
Pash, Diana M. “Gay Family Values: Gay Co-Father Families in Straight Communities.”
The Changing Landscape of Work and Family in American Middle Class: Reports
from the Field. Ed. Elizabeth Rudd and Lara Descartes. Lanham: Lexington Books,
2008. 159–87. Print.
Patterson, Charlotte J. “Family Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men.” Journal of
Marriage and Family 62.4 (2000): 1052–69. JSTOR. Web. 20 June 2014.

144

Akira Hongo

Roudané, Matthew C. Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?: Necessary Fictions, Terrifying
Realities. Boston: Twayne, 1990. Print.
Sheward, David. “Review Roundup: ‘Mothers and Sons.’” NEWYORK.com, EBG.
25 Mar. 2014. Web. 15 June 2014.
Sinfield, Alan. Out on Stage: Lesbian and Gay Theatre in the Twentieth Century. New
Haven: Yale UP, 1999. Print.
Stein, Roger B. “The Glass Menagerie Revisited: Catastrophe without Violence.”
Tennessee Williams’s The Glass Menagerie. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea,
1988. 7–20. Print.
Van Leer, David. The Queening of America: Gay Culture in Straight Society. New York:
Routledge, 1995. Print.
Weeks, Jeffrey. Coming Out: Homosexual Politics in Britain, from the NineteenthCentury to the Present. London: Quartet, 1977. Print.
Weston, Kath. Families We Choose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship. New York: Columbia UP,
1997. Print.
Williams, Tennessee. The Glass Menagerie. The Theatre of Tennessee Williams. Vol. 1.
New York: New Directions, 1971. 123–237. Print.
Zinman, Toby Silverman. “Interview with Terrence McNally.” Terrence McNally: A
Casebook. Ed. Toby Silverman Zinman. New York: Garland, 1997. 3–15. Print.