"Genet’s cannibalistic appropriation of Jean after his death turns out to be a continuation of their lovemaking. Genet was already “eating him up,” and what he was eating was, so to speak, Jean already dead. It is as if, in his oral passion for his lover’s anus, for the bits of fecal matter clinging to the opening, Genet was expressing a preference for what his lover’s body had rejected, for what was no longer of any use to the living Jean. In rimming, the other is momentarily reduced to an opening for waste and to the traces of waste. Genet’s fantasy goes further: not content merely to eat what Jean expels, he fantasizes transforming all of Jean into his own waste. The foraging tongue inspires a dream of total penetration, or entering the lover through the anus and continuing to devour him at the very site of his production of waste. Thus Genet eating Jean inside Jean could himself become the expeller of Jean as waste. (Or perhaps Jean would expel him as waste…)"
Leo Bersani, Homos
Honestly whatever to the actual content of this quote; what I find unbearable is this old-school literary analysis that does so much to the text just to make a flimsy point that leads to psychoanalysis (if heterosexual sex is a male fantasy of returning to the womb, what is gay sex, blah blah blah) when it’s clear that Bersani just wants to talk about gay sex and flex a writerly muscle. Like, great, Jean Genet liked giving rusty trombones (the rustier the better), but let’s not overdetermine it. Basically this type of literary analysis is the reason why I’m suspicious of non-interdisciplinary fields of study.