Out of Order

Tweet

Much has been said of the controversial letter by Aaron Hicklin, Editor in Chief of Out, addressed to Adam Lambert. His veiled criticisms of Adam through his management, accusing them of toning down his gayness has annoyed many. Whilst it won't get me spouting vitriol, I don't think the letter has done Out any favours. It was an irritation that this came on the day of the album's streaming and overshadowed it a little.

I think Hicklin did have a valid point to make, but it lost support because he stuck the knives in before rolling it around in bullshit. After reading the interviewer's response, the heart of all the controversy seems to have been triggered by Adam's publicist not wanting the interview to sound 'too gay' and wanting to stay away from politics. There was no clarification of what exactly 'too gay' meant and we don't have the full context. Had Adam evaded talk about being gay in the interview, then Hicklin would have had a case. As it was, Adam gave a fascinating, enlightening and frank interview, talking openly about matters relating to his homosexuality. It's interesting, and perhaps deceptive, that the article in print is an edited version of the one online which I think has been spun to lend support to Hicklin's letter. From the results of the online interview though, there's scant justification for launching into a tirade about how Adam's management has been de-gaying his image. From all the evidence of his work so far, whether it's his song lyrics, his appearance or his album cover, this rant just makes Hicklin appear ill-informed. I can see why Hicklin took exception to the publicist wanting Out to tone down the gayness, but considering the results, it's a complete a non-issue. Laying into him for the Details article for not mentioning gay fans just seems petty and smacks of sour grapes. I mean, seriously, would only a public display of sodomy be enough for him? There are a multitude of reasons why Adam's management may have chosen to turn down the cover but Hicklin went for headline-grabbing homophobia. Coat-tails anyone?

While I think Hicklin has done his cause no favours through his bitchiness and inability to demonstrate his backing of an emerging gay artist, Adam on the other hand, I think has done plenty. He's played a part in challenging a number of gay stereotypes and has done much more for awareness — by living openly and unapologetically and in doing so, encouraging others to not be afraid — than by getting on any soap-box. The problem Adam faces is that, like it or not, and despite stating that he doesn't want to become the poster-boy for gay rights, he won't be able to completely escape the politics and the burden of responsibility thrust upon him. That could have been one of the many reasons for turning down an Out cover. The pressure of being put on a pedestal to represent the gay community must be immense and is not something a heterosexual counterpart is required to bear.

We should respect that Adam doesn't want to be a political figure and just wants to make music now. It's out of order to expect him to follow paths that we dictate or to feel disappointed when he doesn't. Entitlement is not sexy. It may be frustrating for those who want Adam to champion their causes because the set of qualities that create such buzz around him would put him in good stead for being a successful torch-bearer. He makes a great role-model and I can see why some would want him to front their campaigns. Looking at the curt reponse he tweeted, it was perfect: mildly sympathetic, assertive, sarcastic and with the right amount of venom for an appropriate bitchslap. Not only does he handle himself expertly in the media, but he comes across as thoughtful, articulate, intelligent, honest, bold, proud of his sexuality and a great orator. He possesses the exceptional ability to inspire, and right now he's choosing to do that through his music.