TSR/TSB is actually two separate essays on similar topics published in one binding. The first (Times Square Blue, despite the order in the title) is primarily Delany’s reminisces on the many men he met and conversations and experiences he had in the porn theaters in the Times Square neighborhood in the 1960s-1990s. He’s very clear that he does not claim to offer an all-encompassing picture— or even, necessarily, an accurate one— of the happenings in that area at that time, but he will do his best to choose anecdotes that will give the reader a comprehensive sense of his own impressions. He also takes care to note that while he is saddened by the changes to the neighborhood, he doesn’t want to— or think it’s possible to— return to those times. Instead, he wishes for institutions that can serve the same social functions in a more inclusive way— such as providing opportunities for safe, consensual heterosexual and lesbian sex. These notes surprised me.
In my readings about mid 20th century gay culture up to this point (not limited to my exam texts), I’ve gotten a very strong sense of nostalgia and longing, as if the best days of being gay are over, ruined by AIDS and gentrification. Where were the corresponding places and what were the corresponding subcultures for women? i’ve kept asking myself. Has being gay ever been fun for women, in the same way gay men seem to fondly remember the pre-AIDS sexual arena of NYC? Delany is the first writer I’ve read on this topic who is more willing to admit that while he had a lot of fun and misses that scene, it also had a lot of bad parts (crack being by far the worst), and that women of all sexualities were largely left out.
When reading a series of memories about conversations and sexual experiences had in and near porn theaters, it’s easy to imagine Delany’s life as largely centering around the pursuit and acquisition of casual sex. But he regularly reminds us: while casual sex plays a role in his ideal sexual life, and while he had meaningful friendships/acquaintanceships with many of the men he met, just because this essay is about Times Square sex cultures doesn’t mean he wasn’t doing an awful lot of other important, meaningful things at the same time. He writes with fondness without romanticization.
In “Times Square Red,” which is the more “academic” piece of the two, Delany examines the socioeconomic forces working upon Times Square and theorizes the exact nature and value of what has been lost. He presents a dichotomy of contact-relations versus networking-relations. Contact relations are inter-class, casual, and more unpredictable. Networking relations are intra-class, competitive and often formal, and highly planned. Both function as stabilizing influences on class tensions and conflicts, but contact is more socially and personally beneficial, with higher potential rewards. His main examples of networking-relations are at writing conferences, which he uses to explain that the appeal of such conferences comes in many young writers with similar needs hoping for moments that will help them breakthrough and get professional success. This is impossible precisely because there are so many people with the same needs in the same place, and very few people with the ability to grant or facilitate such desires. Additionally, contact relations make things more Pleasant, even if they don’t change underlying material conditions.
I also found his discussions of safety and small town visions of what city life is like to be very compelling. Because most visitors to Times Square are tourists, there is pressure for the neighborhood to conform itself to the tourists’ expected image. But the kinds of things that seem safe to tourists create some of the least safe conditions for city living, at least for those who aren’t familiar with the area. Safe neighborhoods have a lot of contact-relations— many different activities and businesses are all interspersed with one another. There is a lot of local traffic. The space is designed to be used by the public, instead of just to funnel the public from one private space to another. I definitely relate to his analysis on a personal level, as someone who was nervous about and intimidated by not just NYC but my own neighborhood only 2 years ago, and whose parents still have a lot of worry about “their little girl’s safety in the big city,” but now I feel very comfortable in my immediate neighborhood, even late at night, even alone.
Delany and I disagree on the political conclusions of his analysis, however. His argument, if I’m understanding it correctly, is that contact is good in part because it smooths over class relations and makes life better. He is “marxian, not Marxist” (in his words). I agree that some things can make class conflict smoother, but I take the position that while smoothness is more pleasant, it doesn’t change the material conditions, it doesn’t change capitalist oppression, and the solution is not to have more inter-class fraternizing, but to overthrow the system entirely. And then we can have mixed-use zoning. Which probably really will be more pleasant.
I also like his implicitly-proposed method of first observing changes in discourse and then searching for the material changes that they were in response to. It’s a nice blend of poststructuralist and materialist theories/approaches that I feel lets the methods live together.