BOOK REVIEWS
93
within, and relevance to, a larger historical context. Menon’s anecdote tells the
story of her riding public transportation one evening in Washington, D.C. and,
as the result of a verbal altercation, she was quickly labeled and dismissed by
other hostile riders as being both gay and an Arab. Sexuality—and in this
instance, race—are, Menon writes, “always linked to heterohistory, while desire
is the thing that evades chronological, teleological, and factual capture, and
therefore makes more urgent the need for that capture” in a heterohistorical
realm (140). Thus Menon’s personal account punctuates the overall argument of
Unhistorical Shakespeare, and thus, in unhistorical or homohistorical rather than
in new historical fashion, she uses her theoretical context to support her
anecdote rather than making the anecdote fit within that context.
My only quibble—and it is just a quibble—with Unhistorical Shakespeare
is that Menon has the tendency to repeat thoughts and ideas, particularly in the
early part of the book. Very quickly, however, this ceases to be a noticeable
concern, and readers are left to concentrate fully on the theory of homohistory
Menon presents and how it can be applied to the study of sexuality and desire in
Shakespeare’s works. Undoubtedly, historicists of all stripes will struggle with
Unhistorical Shakespeare, but queer, feminist, gender, postcolonial, and other
Presentist scholars will embrace all that it has to offer. Indeed, many will
eagerly look forward to the homohistorical literary interpretations Unhistorical
Shakespeare will inspire in the future.
Anthony Guy Patricia, University of Nevada, Las Vegas