Connect with us

News

30 Years Later, Gay Author Michael Nava Re-Imagines His 1st Mystery Novel

Published

on

“Little Death” Returns As “Lay Your Sleeping Head,” A Work Of Depth and Maturity

In a major LGBT literary event, 30 years after its original issue,  Michael Nava has published a revision–or more accurately, a re-imagining–of his first mystery novel, The Little Death. The new publication, entitled Lay Your Sleeping Head, is a mature novel that transcends the expectations of the mystery genre.

In the 1980s, Nava emerged as a leading practitioner of the gay mystery novel. In his acclaimed seven-novel series featuring Chicano lawyer Henry Rios — The Little Death (1986), Goldenboy (1988), How Town (1990), The Hidden Law (1992), The Death of Friends (1996), The Burning Plain (1997), and Rag and Bone (2001) — Nava established himself as a worthy successor to Joseph Hansen, who pioneered the gay mystery novel in the 1970s by presenting for the first time in the crime genre a rich variety of LGBT characters, unsensationally, as individuals with understandable desires, triumphs, and frustrations.

As Ted Pebworth has observed, Nava’s protagonist is conceived in the mold of the American hardboiled detective who stands outside society and, as a consequence, sees more clearly than most its corruption, injustice, and inequality.

Rios is doubly an outsider in all of the worlds in which he lives and works. First, he is a Chicano in an Anglo society and an Anglo-dominated profession. Although his brilliance as a criminal lawyer is widely recognized, he often feels uncomfortable with and condescended to by his clients and professional associates.

Second, he is a gay man, who faces homophobia both in his profession and in the Chicano society with which he identifies. Despised by his father for not being manly enough, and distrusted by other Chicanos because of his education, his profession, and what they perceive as his collaboration with the Anglo society at large, he is constantly aware of his difference, and of his failure to fit in.Â

Nava has explained his attraction to the mystery in terms of its function as a vehicle to explore his own “sense of ‘otherness’ and estrangement from mainstream culture — as a gay man in a straight world and a brown man in a white world.”

“In classic noir novels — by Chandler and Ross Macdonald, for example — you had an outsider hero who embodied the virtues the mainstream pretended to honor — loyalty, courage, ingenuity — but rarely demonstrated,” Nava has said. “This was the perfect setting for a queer Latino lawyer struggling to do the right thing in a hostile world. That’s why I wrote mysteries, not because I set out to be a mystery writer.”

A man who is obsessed with his work, often at the expense of his personal relationships, Rios is a relentless defender of outsiders who are otherwise defenseless, most of them young gay men who are victims of a homophobic or exploitative society. In the process of defending them, he proves himself a tenacious and insightful detective.

The seven novels are more than puzzles to be unraveled. Indeed, the novels are less plot-driven than character-driven. What sets them — especially the last five — apart from much detective fiction, in addition to their highly textured and allusive prose, is the depth with which Nava probes character and motivation.

In the series, Rios is gradually revealed to be more complex and more introspective than most fictional detectives, and his internal struggles and his often tortured relationships with others provide the major interest of the books and lift them above their formulaic genre. As Christopher Bram has observed, the series develops into “a large-scale moral portrait of one man’s life over fifteen years.”

In the course of the series, Nava grew from a competent mystery novelist to a writer of unusual insight.

And over the course of the series, Rios develops in convincing yet unpredictable ways. In Pebworth’s summary, he “moves from the Bay Area to Los Angeles; suffers from occupational burnout; succumbs to and eventually overcomes alcoholism; falls in love with a young man who is HIV-positive and subsequently loses him to AIDS; suffers a heart attack; slowly comes to terms with his homosexuality, his abusive father, his neglectful mother, and his emotionally distant lesbian sister; is nominated to a judgeship; and finally establishes an unusual but potentially nurturing family within his Chicano culture.”

As Garth Greenwell has noted, what comes to the fore in the later novels “are Rios’s relationships with his family and the queer and Latino communities, and with the horror wrought by AIDS and by the hatred of gay people that prevented an effective response to the epidemic.”Â

Nava’s decision to abandon the Rios series in 2001 was deeply disappointing to many. Hence, his return to the series with Lay Your Sleeping Head is a cause for celebration.

The Little Death, the first novel in the series, was initially envisioned as a “one-off” experiment rather than as the beginning of a series. It is an accomplished first-novel that tells an interesting story and introduces intriguing characters; but it lacks the complexity and depth that becomes apparent in the third volume of the series, How Town, and which also distinguish the final four.

In a recent interview, Nava explained that he undertook the revision of The Little Death for two reasons: “One, I’m a much better writer now than I was at 25 when I started writing that book and two, having written a series of books — which I hadn’t planned to do at the beginning — I now had a better idea of Rios’s character and motivations and what would become of him. So I treated the published book as a first draft of the first chapter of a single novel in seven parts.”

He added: “The revised work was so different, I thought it deserved a new title to signal that it is a very different version of the story.”

The new title is the first line of W.H. Auden’s “Lullaby,” one of the greatest love poems of the twentieth century. Naming the novel with a literary allusion brings it into conformity with Nava’s practice in other novels of the Rios series, whose titles allude to poems by cummings, Dante, Auden, Cavafy, and Homer. The allusions enrich the texts and place them in significant literary contexts. Nava’s allusions, both in the titles and within the novels, though subtle and unobtrusive, are nearly always meaningful, and they add to the moral seriousness of the works.

The allusion to “Lullaby” is particularly important because Auden’s poem places the relationship it celebrates in a context of mutability and decay that poignantly underlines the fragility of a love endangered from within by shame, promiscuity, and betrayal, and from without by the disapproval of homophobes — the “pedantic boring cry” of “fashionable madmen.” The speaker of the poem, as he cradles his lover’s head “Human on my faithless arm,” describes him as “Mortal, guilty, but to me / The entirely beautiful,” words that Henry Rios could also apply to Hugh Paris, the man whose murder propels the plot of Lay Your Sleeping Head.

Among the most significant re-imaginations of the original novel is the fuller development of Rios’s relationship with Paris and, after his death, with another young man, Grant Hancock. In the new work, the relationships are more convincing and more layered than in the original, where they functioned primarily as plot devices.

This development involves a greater introspectiveness on the part of Rios, and also includes the addition of explicit sex scenes. Although the explicitness of these scenes may be disconcerting to aficionados of the mystery, a genre that generally avoids sex scenes altogether,  they are justified by their illumination of characters and relationships.

The re-imagination of the original novel also includes a fuller sense of its setting in the early 1980s, especially a more acute awareness of the events of the era that threatened LGBT people. There is, for example, a recounting of the White Night Riots of 1979, the riots that occurred when Dan White, the murderer of gay City Supervisor Harvey Milk and San Francisco Mayor George Moscone, was sentenced to less than eight years of prison. There is also an allusion to the first reports of the “gay cancer” that was subsequently named AIDS.

The gay characters in the re-imagined novel feel deeply the precariousness of their careers and lives in a society in which they have few legal protections.

Since the publication of the original novel, LGBT people and Hispanics have made significant progress toward acceptance in mainstream American society. Hence, it is important to be reminded of the difficulties both groups faced in the 1980s. Lay Your Sleeping Head is, after all, a historical novel as well as a mystery.

Nava’s re-imagining of The Little Death also entails some clarification of various plot points, tying up some loose ends,  and expanding the scope of inquiry from solving a mystery to probing philosophical questions as well as personal relationships.

The major thematic difference between The Little Death and the new work is the latter’s emphasis on inequality in all its forms. All great fortunes are built on the backs of others, Rios realizes, as he explores the source of the great railroad fortune at the heart of the mystery, which was built in part upon the exploitation and sacrifices of Chinese workers.

As with other explorations in Lay Your Sleeping Head, the issue of inequality is more complex and multi-faceted than it might at first appear.

Lay Your Sleeping Head is published by Kórima Press, an independent publisher committed to Queer Ch/Xicana and Ch/Xicano literary art. The volume, which may be purchased here contains, in addition to the novel, a fascinating Afterword entitled “The Making of Henry Rios.” In the Afterword, Nava discusses the origins of the Rios novels and their autobiographical elements, and, among other topics, his relationships with Joseph Hansen and the publisher Sasha Alyson.

Michael Nava is author not only of the Rios novels, six of which won Lambda Literary Awards, but also of the acclaimed historical novel, City of Palaces (2014), which is set in the years before and during the Mexican Revolution of 1910.Â

City of Palaces is published by the University of Wisconsin Press. It was a finalist for the 2014 Lambda Literary Award for best gay novel and won the 2014 International Latino Literary Award for best novel.

In the video below, Nava reads from and discusses City of Palaces at UCLA.

 

Â

Â

Â

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Published

3 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was a U.S. president, and she delivered a strong warning in response.

Trump’s attorney argued before the nation’s highest court that the ex-president could have ordered the assassination of a political rival and not face criminal prosecution unless he was first impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

But even then, Trump attorney John Sauer argued, if assassinating his political rival were done as an “official act,” he would be automatically immune from all prosecution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, presenting the hypothetical, expressed, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”

RELATED: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.

“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act,” Trump attorney Sauer quickly replied.

Sauer later claimed that if a president ordered the U.S. military to wage a coup, he could also be immune from prosecution, again, if it were an “official act.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, was quick to poke a large hole in that hypothetical.

“If the president suspends the Senate, you can’t prosecute him because it’s not an official act until the Senate impeaches …. Uh oh,” he declared.

RELATED: Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the Trump team.

“The assassination of political rivals as an official act,” the New York Democrat wrote.

“Understand what the Trump team is arguing for here. Take it seriously and at face value,” she said, issuing a warning: “This is not a game.”

Marc Elias, who has been an attorney to top Democrats and the Democratic National Committee, remarked, “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador and White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform under President Barack Obama, boiled it down: “Trump is seeking dictatorial powers.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

 

Continue Reading

News

Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

Published

6 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Legal experts appeared somewhat pleased during the first half of the Supreme Court’s historic hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was the President of the United States, as the justice appeared unwilling to accept that claim, but were stunned later when the right-wing justices questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s attorney. Many experts are suggesting the ex-president may have won at least a part of the day, and some are expressing concern about the future of American democracy.

“Former President Trump seems likely to win at least a partial victory from the Supreme Court in his effort to avoid prosecution for his role in Jan. 6,” Axios reports. “A definitive ruling against Trump — a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume — seemed to be the least likely outcome.”

The most likely outcome “might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings. That would still be a victory for Trump, who has sought first and foremost to delay a trial in the Jan. 6 case until after Inauguration Day in 2025.”

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts and the law, noted: “This did NOT go very well [for Special Counsel] Jack Smith’s team. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh think Trump’s Jan. 6 prosecution is unconstitutional. Maybe Gorsuch too. Roberts is skeptical of the charges. Barrett is more amenable to Smith but still wants some immunity.”

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Civil rights attorney and Tufts University professor Matthew Segal, responding to Stern’s remarks, commented: “If this is true, and if Trump becomes president again, there is likely no limit to the harm he’d be willing to cause — to the country, and to specific individuals — under the aegis of this immunity.”

Noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf observed: “Feels like the court is leaning toward creating new immunity protections for a president. It’s amazing. We’re watching the Constitution be rewritten in front of our eyes in real time.”

“Frog in boiling water alert,” warned Ian Bassin, a former Associate White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. “Who could have imagined 8 years ago that in the Trump era the Supreme Court would be considering whether a president should be above the law for assassinating opponents or ordering a military coup and that *at least* four justices might agree.”

NYU professor of law Melissa Murray responded to Bassin: “We are normalizing authoritarianism.”

Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, argued before the Supreme Court justices that if Trump had a political rival assassinated, he could only be prosecuted if he had first been impeach by the U.S. House of Representatives then convicted by the U.S. Senate.

During oral arguments Thursday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes commented on social media, “Something that drives me a little insane, I’ll admit, is that Trump’s OWN LAWYERS at his impeachment told the Senators to vote not to convict him BECAUSE he could be prosecuted if it came to that. Now they’re arguing that the only way he could be prosecuted is if they convicted.”

READ MORE: Biden Campaign Hammers Trump Over Infamous COVID Comment

Attorney and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa warned, “It’s worth highlighting that Trump’s lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don’t apply to the President unless they specifically say so…this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can’t be impeached for conduct he can’t be prosecuted for.”

But NYU and Harvard professor of law Ryan Goodman shared a different perspective.

“Due to Trump attorney’s concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there’s now a very clear path for DOJ’s case to go forward. It’d be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further. Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.”

NYU professor of history Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert scholar on authoritarians, fascism, and democracy concluded, “Folks, whatever the Court does, having this case heard and the idea of having immunity for a military coup taken seriously by being debated is a big victory in the information war that MAGA and allies wage alongside legal battles. Authoritarians specialize in normalizing extreme ideas and and involves giving them a respected platform.”

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal offered up a prediction: “Court doesn’t come back till May 9th which will be a decision day. But I think they won’t decide *this* case until July 3rd for max delay. And that decision will be 5-4 to remand the case back to DC, for additional delay.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

News

Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

Published

9 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity early on appeared at best skeptical, were able to get his attorney to admit personal criminal acts can be prosecuted, appeared to skewer his argument a president must be impeached and convicted before he can be criminally prosecuted, and peppered him with questions exposing what some experts see is the apparent weakness of his case.

Legal experts appeared to believe, based on the Justices’ questions and statements, Trump will lose his claim of absolute presidential immunity, and may remand the case back to the lower court that already ruled against him, but these observations came during Justices’ questioning of Trump attorney John Sauer, and before they questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s Michael Dreeben.

“I can say with reasonable confidence that if you’re arguing a case in the Supreme Court of the United States and Justices Alito and Sotomayor are tag-teaming you, you are going to lose,” noted attorney George Conway, who has argued a case before the nation’s highest court and obtained a unanimous decision.

But some are also warning that the justices will delay so Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump will not take place before the November election.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“This argument still has a ways to go,” observed UCLA professor of law Rick Hasen, one of the top election law scholars in the county. “But it is easy to see the Court (1) siding against Trump on the merits but (2) in a way that requires further proceedings that easily push this case past the election (to a point where Trump could end this prosecution if elected).”

The Economist’s Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie appeared to agree: “So, big picture: the (already slim) chances of Jack Smith actually getting his 2020 election-subversion case in front of a jury before the 2024 election are dwindling before our eyes.”

One of the most stunning lines of questioning came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said, “If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into Office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is, from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She also warned, “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate because, OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents, from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning, but once we say, ‘no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.”

“Why is it as a matter of theory,” Justice Jackson said, “and I’m hoping you can sort of zoom way out here, that the president would not be required to follow the law when he is performing his official acts?”

“So,” she added later, “I guess I don’t understand why Congress in every criminal statute would have to say and the President is included. I thought that was the sort of background understanding that if they’re enacting a generally applicable criminal statute, it applies to the President just like everyone else.”

Another critical moment came when Justice Elena Kagan asked, “If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?”

Professor of law Jennifer Taub observed, “This is truly a remarkable moment. A former U.S. president is at his criminal trial in New York, while at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing his lawyer’s argument that he should be immune from prosecution in an entirely different federal criminal case.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.