Maugham's gay life

Michael Wood, in his introduction to Liza of Lambeth quotes Maugham's nephew, Robin as writing: "Maugham appears never to have felt that being a writer was a respectable profession, and of course his own homosexuality can't have helped much." Maugham told Robin that his greatest mistake was to have persuaded himself that he was "three quarters normal and---only a quarter---queer---whereas really it was the other way round."
Why, do you think, there are no recognizably (or even hinted at) gay characters in Maugham's fiction. (Please chime in if you know of any---I haven't read much Maugham).

I will have to think about this question further. But I happened to notice in Maugham's Ten Novels and their Authors, he is frank about the seeming crush Hermann Melville had on Nathaniel Hawthorne, and the embarassment it may have caused the latter. I was surprised to read this, since I'd thought that the preoccupation with Melville's sexual interests was a product of the modern age.

I can think of at least a couple stories where a bit of a homoerotic element is apparent, such as "Red", and others where a given character was probably meant to be homosexual by the description given. Maugham of course had to be careful not to call attention to his own sexuality, so it's easy to see why he was careful what he wrote. After all, his early career coincided with Oscar Wilde's prosecution and imprisonment.

I see a strong parallell with EM Forster, who was careful to disguise struggles over sexuality by making his characters safely heterosexual. The Longest Journey was (by his own admission) autobiographical, and therefore about a homosexual relationship. One would only know this from other sources, not the book itself. His one explicitly gay novel, Maurice, he dared not publish, and it only came out after his death. The same goes for those of his short stories with gay themes (see here for a review of a collection)

http://www.librarything.com/work/330550/reviews/28553728

I guess I'd like to think more about your question as applied to Maugham however.

Interesting. I didn't know he was gay. It doesn't surprise me that Maugham didn't set off my gaydar. It's just I first read Maugham when I was in high school and my dad loved telling me various famous writers and artists were gay. I have no idea how he knew, but I later confirmed all his allegations.

My theory is similar to Daniel's. If Maugham was busy trying to convince himself that he was three quarters normal, part of convincing himself included stuffing his writing into the closet. After all, even Wilde was very careful about writing about homosexuality. The Picture of Dorian Gray was about as close to bringing your writing out of the closet that was allowed late 1800s, early 1900s.

That's of course a slightly educated opinion. I haven't made a study of the matter.

It very much depends on whom you're asking.

If you ask Maugham's biographers (Mr Calder, especially), they'll tell you that Maugham's works are full of homosexual stuff under cover. Few examples:

- the androgynous Mildred from Of Human Bondage - clearly a homosexual relationship under cover, maybe something Maugham had amidst the promiscuity of the public school, maybe a passionate affair from Heidelberg, maybe... who knows.

- the description of Red in the eponymous short story: it's dead obvious that no homosexual writer can write such a description of male beauty.

- The Narrow Corner: completely homosexual stuff, the only ''crypto-fag'' novel of Maugham (as wisely pointed out by Gore Vidal). The relationship between Fred and Erik: homosexual. The relationship between Dr Saunders and his boy servant, Ah Kay, too, is terribly homosexual in nature.

- But there is a second ''crypto fag'' novel, Selina Hastings shrewdly points out, and that is Christmas Holiday. Why? Because there are few words about passionate relationship of Simon in his youth.

- The Razor's Edge: obviously a novel with a lot homosexual stuff inside. Elliott Templeton is a perfect queen and Larry Darrell himself has been described as a ''discreet homosexual'' by no other than Anthony Curtis himself (normally, the most perceptive and sympathetic critic of Maugham).

Now, if you ask me (supposing you do), everything above is a farrago of nonsense. I myself have never been able to accept such claims seriously. For my part there is absolutely no hint of any hidden homosexuality in any of Maugham's works. The reason is simple: Maugham may well have been a promiscuous homosexual, but in his writings he had other fish to fry, much bigger and much more important than the naughty games in the pool of Villa Mauresque. The emphasis that biographers have laid of Maugham's homosexuality is a pure abomination.

Indeed, I should have thought that one's homosexuallity is likely to be expressed in one's fiction only if it in some way repressed in his private life - and that Maugham's homosexuality, for pretty much all his life as his biographers have informed us, never has been.

I daresay Maugham might have had something of the kind in mind when he created some of his characters. If one looks carefully, from a highly prejudiced angle and with a firmly formed preconception in mind, one might discover some hidden homosexuality. But it is so slight and so insignificant - and it so often has been discussed in a much greater detail than other themes that Maugham did explore in his works far more extensively. Typical example: Elliott Templeton. He does look like a queen all right, but there is so much more in this character, surely one of the most perfectly realised characters in all of Maugham's oeuvre, that even to mention that stuff is to grossly misrepresent the character.

By the way, pretty much the same is the case with Maugham's notorious misogyny. Here there are better grounds to make a case that Maugham was a misogynist, but it is a poor case all the same. Sure there are many detestable females in Maugham's fiction, but there are also a number of very charming ones, who often are of great beauty too. And why nobody bothers to notice that Maugham virtually never condemns his women, no matter how disgusting they may look; even the most extreme cases, Fanny and Mildred in Of Human Bondage, are not drawn without sympathy.

As far as Maugham's non-fiction is concerned, he spoke openly of homosexuality but twice: firstly, in Don Fernando about El Greco and, secondly, as pointed by Daniel as well, in the chapter about Melville from Ten Novels and Their Authors. I can't say I find either convincing. About Melville Maugham lapsed into the same sort of inanity as his biographers when claimed that Red's description is homosexual in nature. Nonsense! Is there no aesthetic value in male beauty which is sexually disinterested? Believe me or not, but I am not a homosexual at all. but some of the most beautiful things I have ever seen are male bodies (Prometheus, Heracles) made of marble or bronze - I don't want to go to bed with either. It's pretty much the same with those in flesh. So what's all fuss about?

Maugham's passage on El Greco is much more interesting and revealing about himself. He describes a very cynical attitude which was very much his own attitude, but he also mentions passion for decoration and detail which certainly was not typical for him at all. But that's another story, and a long one, which I will address in more detail in my attempt for a review of Don Fernando.

Anyway, when a man has been given - by God, if you believe - supreme gifts of expression, who cares whether he is homosexual or not? I am much more well versed in music, so let's talk about homosexuality in music: we may start with Tchaikovsky and finish with Freddie Mercury. But it would be such an awful waste of time.

Indeed, when I read these already famous words of Maugham - the quantitative assessment of his homosexuality quoted by Robin Maugham - I am reminded of Freddie Mercury's no less memorable words: ''People ask me if I am a homosexual. That's something I have to find out.'' (this is probably misquotation, but the sense is absolutely the same). I have yet to read Robin Maugham's two books about (mostly) his uncle. From what I have heard I am afraid to do so and his claims should be taken cum grano salis. But I daresay this remark may well have been true and Maugham may well have tried to convince himself in that - but he did so in his youth and in his private life. As far as I am concerned he never did in his works, simply because one's sexuality is not of such paramount importance as obscene biographers would have us believe.

PS It is a great pity that Robert Calder's Willie: the life of Somerset Maugham should suffer so severely from its author's pathological obsession with homosexuality. It is certainly the only biography of Maugham which tries - as it should be done - to examine his life together with his works, for they are one, and not emphasising Maugham's private affairs and throwing Maugham the writer in the dustbin.

PPS Mr Calder is the only one among the gang of Maugham biographers who has actually written a separate critical study of some of his works, if not his complete oeuvre: W. Somerset Maugham and the Quest for Freedom.

Well said Wallstein. Thanks!

Wallstein,

(You wrote)
"For my part there is absolutely no hint of any hidden homosexuality in any of Maugham's works. The reason is simple: Maugham may well have been a promiscuous homosexual, but in his writings he had other fish to fry, much bigger and much more important than the naughty games in the pool of Villa Mauresque. The emphasis that biographers have laid of Maugham's homosexuality is a pure abomination."

Of course biographers can write what they choose and our opinion of their work is entirely our own.

My point in not that Maugham would write about the "naughty games in the pool of Villa Mauresque" but rather the plight of gay people in his (and sometimes our) time: outcasts, unrequited loves, coming-of-age with no points of reference except condemnation, banning together for protection, legal horrors, pointless suicide (which continues to occur),
marriages of convenience which do not work, exploitation and blackmail.

Maugham had such a great talent for portraying character. Too bad he did not choose to include such characters in his work. s4sando

Walstein,
You wrote: "As far as Maugham's non-fiction is concerned, he spoke openly of homosexuality but twice: firstly, in Don Fernando about El Greco and, secondly, as pointed by Daniel as well, in the chapter about Melville from Ten Novels and Their Authors. I can't say I find either convincing. About Melville Maugham lapsed into the same sort of inanity as his biographers when claimed that Red's description is homosexual in nature."

Re: El Greco, the quote I have come upon is as follows:
"I should say that a distinctive trait of the homosexual is a lack of dep seriousness over certain things that normal men take seriously. This ranges from an inane flippancy to a sardonic humor. He has a wilfulness that attaches imiportance to things that most men find trivial and on the other hand regards cynically the subjects which the common opinion of mankind has held essential to its spiritual welfare. He has a lively sense of beauty, but is apt to see beauty especially in decoation. He loves luxury and attaches peculiar value to elegance. He is emotinoal, but fantastic. He is vain, loquacious, witty and theatrical. With his keen insight and quick sensibility he can pierce the depts but in his innate frivolity he fetches up from them not a priceless jewel but a tinsel ornament. He has small power of invention, but a wonderful gift for delightful embroidery. He has vitality, brillance, but seldom strength. He stand on the bank, aloof and ironical, and watches the river of life flow on. He is persuaded that opinion is no more than prejucdice. In short he has many of the characteristics that surprise us in El Greco."

Now--I ask you---isn't the above great raw material for fiction? s4sando

"I

s4sando,

I answer.

Certainly, the material is great for fiction and Maugham used it superbly in many of his works. He just chose not to confine these matters to homosexuals, nor do I see any point in doing so. One doesn't have to be a homosexual to have coming-of-age problems, or to experience unrequited love, or to commit suicide, or to enslave oneself in a marriage of convenience, or to be blackmailed, a social outcast or a criminal. You just need to be a human being, of what sex or with what sexual orientation matters not.

The same is true for the El Greco passage - you've found the right one - where I think Maugham got carried away with portrait of a man who is by no means necessary to be a homosexual. Absolutely nothing of what he mentions is typical only for homosexuals.

Needless to add, many a character in Maugham's fiction, taken separately, have just about all character traits and experiences already listed. Whether they are homo-, hetero- or bisexual, I, personally, couldn't care less. It's human nature all the same.

I am very glad Maugham never was occupied with homosexuality in his works, for this surely would have restricted their appeal. I am happy that I read his own works before those grossly prejudiced biographies. I shudder to think how many people did the opposite and came out with severely distorted view of Maugham and completely unable to appreciate his works - but that's their own problem and no business of mine.

All: a very interesting discussion thread; I regret coming to it late. I find myself, first off, agreeing with Waldstein that Maugham's homosexuality is of little importance to the body of his work; for whatever reason--I think most likely the moral and legal temper of the times--Maugham chose not to be a homosexual author in the sense that Gore Vidal is a homosexual author i.e. interweaving many of his books with explicitly gay themes and characters. Yet an author reveals himself in many ways, as much by what he does say as by what he doesn't, as much by the subjects he chooses as by those he omits; and I think it is in this sense, subjects omitted and subjects chosen, that Maugham's homosexuality comes into play--not negatively and not even neutrally in regards to his work, but perhaps even beneficially. Let me say at this point that I feel Maugham was a confirmed misogynist; though Waldstein mentions female characters in Maugham's gallery that are charming and "of great beauty", I have always felt from my reading that they are among his less credible creations, that it has always been upon the Mrs. Craddocks, the Mildreds, and the Isabels--the betrayers, parasites, and Eve-like temptresses--that he has really concentrated his skill and, perhaps, his ire. I bring this up to get it out of the way; misogyny is not necessarily the mark of a homosexual; in fact, it is quite the reverse--many of us, I'm sure, have witnessed companionable and fond relationships between gays and women, straight or otherwise; Maugham simply did not like women, in my opinion; I think it hurt his work, prevented him from being considered first-rate, but had no relevance to his being a homosexual. Where his homosexuality did have relevance, it seems to me, is, again, in subject matter and the manner in which it is handled. Quite simply, in my experience of Maugham (haven't read the plays), very few heterosexual unions end happily and when they do, as in the critically lambasted conclusion to OF HUMAN BONDAGE, they are either superficial or unconvincing. Maugham himself, as a narrator, has never exhibited the sexual appetite towards his female characters that one would find in a Hemingway or Steinbeck. The most excessive reaction I recall from a Maugham narrator--it might have been in RAZOR'S EDGE--was when an attractive woman kissed him and the sensation was "not entirely unpleasant." Well, whoopie! Where his homosexuality may have helped his art in cases like this lay in enabling him to better do what he and all writers are supposed to do: observe. Clearly, when it came to women, Maugham the narrator--Maugham the scribe--was not a participant.

Interesting points, solofsky. I agree that writers in Maugham's time and place could not reveal themselves in their work----such an act would be career suicide. E.M. Forster wrote Maurice but it wasn't published until 50 years after his death. I think what I am getting at is that with some authors e.g. Hugh Walpole the topic of homosexuality comes up with characters who may think they are, or think they are going through a "phase" Captain Nicholas or who are villians (The Inheritor). Sometimes characters are really "macho" but there is a definite hint at the end of the story that their marriage remains unconsumated Saki The Unbearable Bassington. Or comedic figures like Georgie Pilson E.F. Benson, Mapp and Lucia. These are just a few examples that come to mind. I have never detected a glimmer of a hint of any Maugham character that makes me suspect that person might not be totally straight. But then, (I say it again) I've not read very much Maugham. Not that I think Maugham should have written in homosexual characters. He wrote what he chose to write but he had such a wonderfully fantastic talent in describing people he met and knew, I think he could have done such a fantastic job. But he didn't chose to do so. My fascination is with what is absent.

I know what you mean, s4. It would be fascinating--not to mention the literary find of the century--if a hidden Maugham manuscript were to turn up--like the excellent MAURICE in Forster's case--in which Maugham gave himself and his sexuality unfettered expression. Until then, I would recommend to you, if you haven't read it, THE RAZOR'S EDGE as probably the fullest, though still subsurface, expression of Maugham's homosexuality: in it, Maugham the narrator is markedly indifferent to everyone's charms except the masculine, and especially that found in his questing protagonist Larry. Still, as Waldstein might argue, it is only a fractional element in a marvelous book which under no circumstances can or should be termed a homosexual work. BTW thanks for your references to Walpole, Saki, and Benson, authors and works I've heard of but haven't gotten to yet--those are interesting places for me to start.

solofsky,
Thanks for the recommendation of The Razor's Edge. A guy in one of my groups wants to put that in the queue for later next year and I think we will be reading it. I haven't read it and don't really know what it's about.
I think I haven't really expressed myself very well on this issue re: Maugham's lack of writing a "homosexual work". I would not expect him to create a work centered on the gay life with a gay main character. What I should have said is that I have never found a character in Maugham's work that have any, even minimal, characteristics that could be called homosexual or gay. And it's puzzling to me since I think he must have known some. Not really that important---just puzzling.

#12 S4, I think you'll definitely find such characters in RAZOR'S EDGE (Maugham as narrator, Elliot Templeton) but, again, nothing is overt and you have to read between lines. If you recall, as well, Cammykitty and I got into a discussion on the group thread about gay characters in M-G-R. We seemed to agree on Miss Ley and Frank Hurrell exhibiting such characteristics, while I hypthosized that they actually represented the two incompletely fulfilled halves of the bisexual Maugham. I think the signs are there if you look for them--but I agree with Waldstein that one shouldn't over-emphasize them in studying or appreciating Maugham's work. For your own info, briefly, RAZOR'S EDGE concerns the quest of a young WWI veteran to find spiritual peace after his disillusionment with war and the materialism of America in the twenties. He eventually sacrifices everything, even love...well, I won't say anymore except that it's one of Maugham's best works and you're sure to enjoy it.

ss4, Waldstein, sholofsky and others, thanks for your perspectives on this issue of sexuality. I've been thinking on the issue for some time without clear resolution, but for what it's worth here are some thoughts. This isn't a response to what anyone else has written so much as an attempt to give my inchoate musings a voice, and no doubt reflecting some of the views previously stated here and elsewhere. If you have any response I'd love to hear it.

As we know, following Maugham's death, a few biographers and critics scanned his work and his life with minute care in order to find ways in which his sexuality purportedly was evident in his fiction. From what I've seen, efforts tended towards clumsy and amateurish hack-work, and at worst, represented sensationalistic efforts by those seeking to boost their reputations at the expense of a literary icon. The revelation that Maugham was (gasp!) "a homosexual" -- becomes the most important element of his existence to such writers, and is used to explain much of the content of his creative work.

In this historical context, it becomes difficult to discuss the issue dispassionately, even though it is quite legitimate to ask about the influences on his writing. Discussion seems polarized between some who deny that Maugham's sexuality was at all relevant and those who argue that it is everywhere apparent. It seems quite likely to me that the truth lies somewhere in between; but I wonder whether and how much it matters. Maugham avoids the subject of alternative sexualities in both his fiction and non-fiction, partly because of his times, and his need to protect his reputation, and partly because he has other fish to fry... other things to explore about the human condition, and things of a more universal nature.

One further complexity, to my mind, is that in this most complex of people, Maugham had a polymorphic sexuality that doesn't fit neatly into the "gay/ straight" dichotomy currently in vogue in Western culture. He did after all have a number of liaisons with women in the earlier years, including one whom he loved and asked to marry him, and he fathered a child with another whom he did marry. And we don't really know that the Mildred character in his (semi-autobiographical) Of Human Bondage wasn't in fact based on his experience with a woman. Following Gore Vidal on this issue, it's far easier to define "acts" than "people" in terms of sexuality. What label one applies to Maugham (if any) is a matter of cultural definition, and depends on which phase of his life we're speaking of.

To be sure, I'd be most surprised if Maugham's yearnings and sexual experiences had no influence on his work. Maugham undoubtedly saw quite a range of people during all those years working in theater. But one searches in vain to find a homosexual character, and only finds a plausible one by reading a great deal into the gaps left in Maugham's characterizations.

The genius of Maugham, I think, lies in how he could draw on his private experiences and observations in writing fiction that had universal appeal. The loss of his mother at a young age was the most terrible experience of his formative years; his stammer caused him great anguish as a schoolboy, coupled with his small stature and accent. Did his developing sexual leanings tend to isolate him from his peers? I have no idea. But I do know that loneliness and fear and marginalization transcend boundaries of gender, ethnicity, and sexuality, so if what we care about is his art, the question becomes moot. Maybe in Of Human Bondage Philip's clubfoot represents the stammer, and maybe Mildred was a man. I have no way to know and care mainly because I care about him as a person. But curiosity aside, the work spoke to me powerfully and personally as a teenager (and for the record, I have neither a clubfoot nor a stammer). :-)

The important point is, as I see it, is that Maugham, as a most sensitive and astute observer with a deep understanding of other people, drew in part on his personal experiences and private pain -- whatever its multiple sources -- to speak of universal aspects of human experience in language that has resonated in several successive generations of readers the world over. That is the mark of true genius in a writer, and in part, where Maugham's extraordinary genius and skill as a creator of fiction lies.

# 14, thanks, Dan, for weighing in and assessing things so thoroughly. I find myself in complete agreement, especially with your final paragraph. Maugham may have been bisexual, then more homosexual--but he was neither when he wrote. He was, as you say, what all great storytellers are, a universalist. His sexuality may be of interest, but in Maugham, should never be of primary interest.

Dan, I think you summed up what we've all been thinking/wrestling with very well. I found your quote from Gore Vidal particularly to the point.

as must be evident from my post above, my perspective has been strongly influenced by Waldstein's posts on the general issues. Just want to give credit where it's due

It strikes me that Maugham and Proust may have had similar experience with their sexuality. Proust was gay but in a number of instances expresses his aversion to "inverts." In some ways, he did not come to terms with his sexuality. At least some critics are inclined to read many of the women (at those with the narrator is in love) as "men." Ummm . . . having read all of Proust I would say no and yes . . . and does it matter.

Urania1. No, not really. The more Maugham I read, the more I am coming around to Waldstein's way of looking at this (set me straight if this isn't it, Waldstein) i.e. go with the narrative as it stands and forget Maugham's personal sexual preferences whatever they were or were not. Not important as it wasn't really important with Proust either.

Well . . . I think it depends on what one is looking for in Proust. While not wishing to sink in the sea of the biographical fallacy (a big sea indeed), I would say this. 1. As I note above, no it doesn't matter, and 2.) It does matter or at least it's interesting. Proust does include gay and lesbian characters in A la recherche du temps perdu. However, he cannot really describe love relationships (i.e, in the longterm sense of the word) - except with his mother. One cannot help but wonder. Proust felt antsy about his own sexuality. He was never able to maintain a long-term relationship with any man. Is it possible that he cannot describe love (except that of parental love) because he never experienced it? And I don't count Swann's love because it ultimately turns to disgust. And Proust makes fun of the "inverts" (his term not mine) that he does describe in the novel.

One is never simply a writer living in a vacuum divorced from one's self, one's history, and one's cultural context. In other words, we are not well-wrought urns any more than the well-wrought urn was this splendidly beautiful decontextualized object. We often reveal information about ourselves or our responses to the dominant ideologies of the period as much by what we don't say as what we do say. For example, when I look back over the various journals I have written throughout my life, I am struck by many of the omissions. I find it interesting that my journals are mostly discussions of ideas. I include little emotion and very little about political, economic, and social concerns in the world. When I look at the creative writing I have done over my lifetime it is either funny (a way of avoiding engagement with emotions) or the protagonists in my stories observe rather than engage at least with their emotions. Interesting? Telling? I think so (but then it's my life, which interests me). On the other hand in my day to day life, I cry easily, laugh easily, engage easily. So I think Proust or Maugham or any writer is fair game in a certain sense. In any case, one should beware of the intentional fallacy as much as the biographical fallacy. What a writer intends and what a work means may end up being two entirely different creatures altogether. Do we kick authorial intention out the window completely? Of course not? However, we approach it with healthy skepticism. And vice versa. Same with a person's biography and that person's writing.

I agree with you entirely, urania, about a writer saying as much by what they don't say as by what they do (see message #9). I think it is especially true in the case of Maugham who was a bisexual but not a bisexual writer--in the sense that authors like Gore Vidal and James Baldwin are homosexuals and homosexual writers, often weaving gay themes and characters into their plots. Maugham's sexuality, I would say, is primarily of interest to the Maugham scholar and readers who dig deeper--the general reader need only be concerned with being entertained.

Regarding Proust and Maugham (in the El Greco piece--thank you, Waldstein) seeming to put down "inverts", I think they are not necessarily, as may be assumed, drawing attention away from their own homosexuality, but may actually be criticizing overt homosexual behavior. I've known several gays who objected to the sterotypical image of the flaming queen, and criticized it accordingly. One imagines a man as reticent as Maugham also harboring some objection to the extrovert queens of the time, examples being Sebastian Flyte and the irrepressible Anthony Blanche in Waugh's BRIDESHEAD REVISITED. Maugham, I imagine, wouldn't have had much sympathy for them.