Trotterdam wrote:I'm definitely familiar with the hobby some people have of finding "evidence" that such-and-such historical figure was homosexual or not. I find it a pretty silly exercise: these people lived hundreds or thousands of years ago and any evidence we have of them is pretty flimsy, and anyway does it really matter? It's just tawdry celebrity gossip. Also, the people who do this seem to keep forgetting the possibility that those people might just have been bisexual.
That's not really what it's about, it's about people who really were LGBT+ (that includes bi) being labelled as straight by historians. I think any historical inaccuracies should be corrected even if some people don't like the truth, because giving an accurate picture of history (e.g. CWA's Tchaikovsky issue) is a historian's duty. The "x couldn't be gay because he's a cool guy" argument and its more subtle/insidious variations need to be challenged because it helps us to re-examine current prejudice as well as historical prejudice.
Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:I remember CWA drafting an issue on whether an esteemed composer in @@NAME@@ (who is deceased) was gay or not (based on some recently recovered writings or so). It was inspired by the homophobic Russian government debating whether Tchaikovsky was really gay or not. I don't think that issue got published, but it must be somewhere in the pile of staff issues, so if you write an issue in the same thematic area, you will be competing with him, I guess. It is not a problem to do so, and if your issue has at least equal merit, it may be prioritized over a draft written by an editor (because players > editors), but it will not be easy.
If it's been done and it's been done well (as I'm sure it has) then I shan't waste my time covering old ground. Thanks for the info!