A Revolutionary Collage of Same Sex Attraction Stories

Tony E. Adams' (2011) book presents what could be considered a revolutionary, humanizing understanding of same-sex attraction. This is accomplished by providing a relational understanding of "the closet" and experiences of coming into, living in, and coming out of the closet. It is a production of significant social relevance, denouncing the marginalizing effects of the domains of heteronormativity. While highly scholarly, his evocative storytelling makes this book accessible to an interested reader regardless of his or her degree or area of specialization. Key words: Autoethnography, Same-Sex Attraction, Relational Perspectives. I am at the Ft. Lauderdale airport waiting to board the plane for a trip to San Diego. I am devouring Tony Adams' (2011) book, excited about the prospect of writing its review. Standing among a crowd waiting for the zone numbers to be called to board, I finally become aware that a man has been uncomfortably trying to lean down in front of me, trying to read the title of the book. His tags and shirt indicate he works at the airport. He finally says, "What are you reading?" Taken by surprise I respond by reading the title of the book: Narrating the Closet: An Autoethnography of Same-Sex Attraction by Tony Adams. I immediately continue, "It is a research story of a gay man about being a gay man." While preoccupied at first for not having given justice to Adams' linguistic specificity and care in choosing the term "same-sex" instead, as well as for my reference to a single story versus multiple stories, I am soon taken by this man's puzzling response to my description. This man seems unsure of how to respond. He places his gaze on the window, smiles with hesitation; simultaneously expressing what seems to be confusion about what to do with this information. If I am to speculate, I would say that at this point he would prefer to leave the situation but perhaps because I was staring at him he felt compelled to say something. He finally decides to speak, asking without any apparent investment in an answer: "And how is it?" Enthusiastically, I answer, "Promises a great read. I am just starting, but so far I find his story engaging and touching, and somewhat revolutionary." While this could suffice, his apparent confusion and, at this point, lack of interest motivates me to add a comment (one it is certainly too soon for me to make at that point in terms of a review): "Everyone should read it!" Prior to wishing each other a good day and going our separate ways, he explains that his curiosity was awakened by the design of the cover. We both agree it is a lively, colorful cover that easily catches anyone's attention. Together with Ron Chenail's (2010) article "How to Read a Review of a Book like a Qualitative Researcher," this encounter guided my review. This man's questions stayed with me probably in preparation for an inquiry from another potential curious bystander, like you, the reader. In addition, I was guided by my commitment to set myself to test what was truly a dramatic assertion on my part when rather loosely I advised, "Everyone should read it." I offered this comment mostly wondering at that moment how different, or not, this man's response to the topic of Tony's (Adams, 2011) book could have been if he read it. What Am I Reading? Adding to the publisher's location of this text within categories such as gay-lesbian studies, communication, and relationships, from my biases and prejudices (Chenail, 2010) as a family therapist interested in autoethnography, I situate this text as an evocative, transformative and autoethnographic production that makes a difference (Ellis, 2004, 2009). I consider it to be a book on cultural stories told personally that seem to construct, deconstruct, and reconstruct the cultures themselves by way of Tony's (Adams, 2011) and many others' stories of same-sex attraction and coming out. The cultures that are undergoing this transformation, in part thanks to this book, are LGBTQ cultures, which, as Tony interestingly discusses in the Appendix, "have no dominant place or space, no field, no here and no there, no definitive idea about what constitutes an insider and outsider" (p. …