So in today’s class session, we read a passage where Paul observes Kat and remarks that they know each other more intimately than lovers. I’ve seen and heard a great deal that this is almost a sort of queer subtext between the two, even if they aren’t lovers, but this is something I’ve always disagreed with.
Firstly, I hesitate to say that any man who says he might love another man insinuates any modicum of suspicion in regard to his sexuality. As a girl, I tell my female friends I love them all the time and that’s seen as relatively normal. But in going back to our discussion of masculinity and how it exists within the setting of WWI, I think we as readers are more offput by one man saying he might love another simply because that is such a rare thing to hear in the 21st century. In that sense, we are subconsciously defining what is and isn’t masculine. In fact one of the main instances of toxic masculinity is the tendency to assume that as a man, you can’t be emotionally honest or gentle with your male friends due to the fear of being deemed too feminine, which plenty of men further associate with a queer identity. I think that makes men defensive and emotionally obstructed.
This brings me to my next point: when we examine a text, we’re often doing so through a modern day lens. Emotional intimacy between men isn’t something that I think should be automatically labelled as queer. Rather, male friendship should be viewed as healthy and normal. Within the context of the war, Kat and Paul have experienced such horrific trauma together, that the relationship they have with each other is a bond I’m not sure we can contextualize with terms like “queer” simply because the nature of their bond isn’t something that has arisen out of any kind of romantic attraction.
Another example that comes to mind of such a brotherly bond would be like Sam and Frodo in Lord of the Rings (and as I write this, I’m reminded that Tolkien too was a war veteran who like Remarque would probably have an understanding of this closer-than-brothers bond).
Any thoughts on this? Or am I missing something which might be totally possible!
I totally agree with this!
Men have been bonding with each other in close non-romantic bonds for centuries, and it has been seen by every culture I can think of as a healthy, normal part of masculinity for men to have these relationships. From what I have read, it wasn’t until later in the twentieth century that it became “gay” to say you loved another man.
I think that modern lens you mentioned tends to see traditional masculinity as toxic, so when men display non-toxic behaviors we associate it with non-traditional masculinity, including homosexuality, which can be reductive. Masculinity is just as complicated as femininity, and while constructs of them have been simplistic or narrow, most societies have been nuanced, including the traditional European view.
I saw more as an expression of their humanity that the men love each other. Unless the characters express that there is some romantic, sexual, or non-sexual but still physical attraction, I wouldn’t call it homoerotic either.
I agree! I think our reaction as a reader and seeing Paul and Kat have such a deep connection spurs multiple theories but it speaks volumes about the still relevant presence of toxic masculinity in our society. While I could see if someone thought of their relationship as possibly romantic, I also see it as a healthy expression of humanity and friendship. Would people being saying something different if Kat was a girl? All in all I think it’s up to the reader to determine the nature of their relationship but criticism and ignorant assumptions don’t belong in the conversation.
From my perspective, I think the reason the scene may read as homoerotic comes from this bit – “I love him, his shoulders, his angular, stooping figure…” (pg. 95 in my copy). Paul seems to be loving and admiring Kat’s appearance and body. I definitely agree that the emotional intimacy between the two men, or any two men in general, isn’t inherently erotic. If the sentence above wasn’t there, I would view the scene, and Paul’s appreciation of Kat, as purely platonic, but the inclusion of it made me raise my eyebrows a bit as possibly queer-coding. It’s also important to recognize that, depending on one’s own identity and experiences, they will interpret literature in different ways. I don’t think everything in literature is queer-coded, but I don’t think every intimate moment between men in literature is inherently platonic or straight, either. Take The Picture of Dorian Gray, for example – it would be pretty ignorant to assume that all the male relationships in that novel were straight, considering the clear subtext and the author’s own queerness.
Of course, we can’t ask Remarque, so we may never know the true intent behind the scene. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with speculation, as long as we don’t let that speculation distract us from the far more important themes of the book.
Hey Luca!
First of all, thanks for your perspective on this!
I will say, I still think I’m going to disagree with you. Totally understand that not everyone interaction between men in literature is platonic! But I don’t really see people saying that about women either. Usually it’s seen as “women building up other women” or “being a girl’s girl,” if that makes sense. From your perspective, could you elaborate more on why mentioning Kat’s physicality veers into the erotic rather than exposition or even Paul finding a sort of comfort in Kat’s presence?
In the example of Dorian Gray, the original manuscript heavily features queer themes but Wilde had to remove much of this content due to public outrage, so I’m not sure that’s a viable comparison simply because Wilde’s original intent is clearly there. Remarque himself wasn’t queer (to my knowledge he had two wives), so there’s a different intent than perhaps Wilde might have had.
I think it’s normal for a woman to comment in a book about about how another woman might be physically beautiful, so I don’t see why it’s queer coding that a man shouldn’t remark on another man’s physical appearance. Again I think it sort of just goes back to the fact that it’s unusual for men nowadays to speak that way. It feels sort of like a double standard, you know? I’m curious to know if you have any more thoughts to add!
I agree with you, Elisabeth. All of their interactions, but especially the goose-hunting scene, feel very familial to me. Paul’s love for Kat always reads as genuine appreciation for him, and their relationship always seems brotherly or father/son-ish. Paul’s love for Kat in this scene comes from his gratefulness for Kat’s ability to provide, a fatherly thing, and his descriptions of Kat’s physicality in this moment reads parental to me- his shoulders are stooped because he is twice Paul’s age and has seen much more of life. Paul is safe, healthy, and about to have an excellent meal with his father figure, of course he’s romanticizing the firelight-bathed scene in front of him.
I understand what you’re saying, but I raise you this – if the scene was between two women rather than two men, I would still read it as potentially queer-coded. Paul admires Kat’s physique in the same sentence where he states that he loves Kat, which potentially implies that part of the reason he loves Kat is because of Kat’s appearance. Would you say that about one of your friends? I think if this was an older novel, the claim that “it was a different time, people said things differently” would hold up better than it actually does here. I’m not saying it IS queer-coded, that it was Remarque’s intention to make it coded that way, I’m just saying that’s how it COULD be read – and I feel it invalidates other people’s unique perspectives to insist that it’s not. As I said in my first comment, everyone is going to read something a different way depending on their personal thoughts and experiences.
Ohh okay, I get what you’re saying now. Thanks for the clarification!