Queer Failure

The explanation of low theory is very interesting. I totally agree that we can find out more about our culture through its everyday media than through the supposed “high arts.” The use of animated works throughout the book are inspiring... and the questions that she raises with them are inspiring. However, low theory doesn't seem to be revolutionary, it just seems inter or anti (I'll let you argue out that point) disciplinary. Cultural studies of all kinds have always looked at “low” sources, but the difference seems to be in the fact that she treats the texts with the seriousness of any other literary text, and based on her arguments, it seems rightfully so. In a way, the book almost serves as a guide book for disrupting our standard ways of thinking about learning – it is a handbook on unlearning. But this, in and of itself, is not Queer – and I think that is okay, because it means it applies in many many places. However, Halberstam makes the work Queer by subverting the goals of the western world and focusing on stupidity, darkness, and failure. I do have a problem with the idea that she stretches out the meaning of Queer. By focusing stupidity, darkness, and failure she is stepping away from simply gender, XY, and desire... that being said, maybe this is how Queer grows and stays relevant.