Bea Duncan
Little Dog is a diminutive name that evokes Vuong’s protagonist in On Earth We’re Briefly Gorgeous easily. He is subdued, quiet, a loner, and is frankly somewhat pathetic. To put it simply, he’s a runt who is constantly told to be better at defending himself, be more masculine, and be more similar to other American boys. “Better” – in the context of Little Dog – implicitly means to “be more of a man.” But Little Dog is extravagantly effeminate, enough so that it draws the ire of many of his peers across the book. Therefore, Little Dog – while easily classifiable as a “runt” character – may be better conceptualized as a “sissy” seeking peace with his effeminate behavior due to his various experiences and birthright.
In literature and culture, the runt archetype is typically a negative characterization, but runts are also usually masculine. While they may be physically weak or small, the runt still tends to perform masculinity to an acceptable standard for society. However, “sissy” is a far worse term to be assigned. A sissy is someone who not only refuses to disparage femininity, but also leans into femininity and sometimes homosexuality. One common case wherein this social distinction manifests is in boys’ reactions to an injury when young. A runt would either play it off (“It wasn’t that bad.”) or hold his stoicism with no tears. However, someone who cries after an injury would be showing weakness and stepping into the realm of queer behavior (Kostas 72). As a result, they would be called a sissy: someone who could not or would not indulge – or at the very least accept – the mantle of normative masculine heterosexuality. In this case, sissy is a far more negative term that carries baggage from multiple avenues of society (though it is currently being reclaimed) and this makes the term useful for analysis in Vuong’s coming-of-age story.
Little Dog, to his detriment, quickly appears to the reader as much more effeminate than a typical runt by the second chapter. The first indication is not only his choice of major but the way he describes it: “…squandered [college] on a degree in English” (Vuong 15). Academia is often seen as a feminine activity in some social circles, and so-called humanities subjects are even more negatively viewed (Eliason and Schope 75). However, Little Dog commits far more grave (and socially dangerous) activities later in the novel. When offered a pizza bagel by another student, Little Dog takes to “becoming his shadow,” to return to and experience the kindness offered to him. This is abruptly halted when the other student gets fed up with Little Dog, saying “Stop following me, you freak!” (Vuong 132) In another instance, Little Dog is harassed on a bus ride and is called a “bitch” by a peer. The term is already very gendered and occurs after Little Dog is coerced through bullying to speak. When he confides in his mother, she chastises him by saying: “What kind of boy would let them do that? (26)” When he cries, she escalates and complains that he’s always crying.
In all the above instances, Little Dog is the victim of masculine expectations being pushed onto him – in other words, he is being “dominated” and thus emasculated by the other person. This occurs not only with peers of his gender, but his mother as well. In the case of the pizza bagel, this domination is unintentional as the student wished to have Little Dog stop associating with him. However, the group of boys during the bus ride intentionally used their masculinity to punish Little Dog for being quiet and effeminate through violence. In a similar case with Little Dog’s mother, the novel clearly notes how she mistreats Little Dog on multiple occasions. In fact, Vuong notes that the first time she hit him was at four years old. She has slapped him, thrown Legos at his head, and has even thrown pottery at Little Dog. One instance is on page 101, where Little Dog’s mother returns from work to a messy house. When Little Dog is punished by his mother, he is defended (and thus emasculated) by his grandmother. This abuse and emasculation are again repeated a few pages later on 105: Little Dog’s grandmother again consoles an injured Little Dog with folk remedies. While Little Dog does elaborate that at some point, his mother stopped abusing him, her mistreatment still left a lasting impression, as did his grandmother’s care.
In these passages, Little Dog is established to be effeminate and passive, both in his behaviors and in other’s responses to him. He clings to those he makes connections with and is fearful as the consequence of a relationship characterized by abuse with his mother. This effeminacy exists in a stark contrast with what both his peers and his mother expect from him, explaining the mockery and frustration respectively. At this point in the story, Little Dog as a runt is very clearly established, but the current evidence leaves his effeminate tendencies mostly unexplored.
This is where Trevor comes in: a (mostly) stalwart example of the masculinity that all men supposedly should strive for. He loves football, drives a truck, and is a full-blooded, white American – a stark contrast to Little Dog and his far more feminine behavior and East Asian heritage. Trevor has seemingly properly learned how to be masculine through his childhood, and Little Dog has not. This dynamic also shows up in their relationship, and especially in their sex life. Trevor takes the lead even in their “fake fucking”, where he is taking a penetrating stance and Little Dog is receiving. When Trevor attempts to switch positions, he finds himself disgusted: “I dunno. I don’t wanna feel like a girl. Like a bitch…It’s for you. Right?” (120) This sexual submission is the ultimate expression of femininity – an active act of emasculation.
The emasculation does not truly escape Trevor, however. He has his own concerns and doubts about his relationship with Little Dog – chiefly concerning his sexuality. Even though he fulfills all the appropriate roles of masculinity, he still grapples with Little Dog’s presence in his life. He asks Little Dog: “You think you’ll be really gay, like, forever? I mean, I think me… I’ll be good in a few years, you know?” (188). Unfortunately, 41% of gay men believe effeminate men give the gay community a bad look (Butterworth). As Little Dog is not only submissive, but effeminate, this combination ensures that he is looked down upon by society.
Additionally, most anti-gay messaging focuses on how gay people deserve scorn due to subverting typical sex roles – namely men being more assertive and dominant (Eliason and Schope 74). This coincides with two ideals that can still be found within the gay community: “no fats, no fems” and “masc for masc.” Jeremy Chow writes that “[a] body that cannot achieve a fit aesthetic thus fails to attain a desirable brand of masculinity, which becomes presumptively polarised as feminine – leaving no space for shades of grey in gender performance” (1090). Despite homosexuality being away from the norm, the wants and ideals of heteronormativity continue to drive scorn towards fems and sissies.
This framing is indicative of the status difference that both Little Dog and Trevor see in the relationship: because Little Dog has had an atypical feminine-centered childhood, he will be condemned to his homosexuality forever. Trevor expects that he will “get over” his tendencies in comparison, because not only did he have the typical masculine childhood, but he is unambiguously more masculine than Little Dog. This is because Little Dog has grown up with only women, and he had few men to relate to or make role models of. In comparison, Trevor was only raised by his father, as his mother divorced and left Trevor in his father’s care.
With that in mind, it is obvious that Little Dog’s effeminacy causes Trevor to experience that doubt and hatred towards himself and Little Dog, as being gay can make some men feel less like men (Butterworth). After all, Little Dog both cross-dresses in Trevor’s presence and was the recipient in anal sex from Trevor – both of which garner homophobia from greater society and straight men in particular (Eliason and Schope 76). This is why his affection for Little Dog does not prevent him from dominating or punishing him – rather, a fact like this encourages it.
Even Little Dog’s mother has trouble dealing with her son’s homosexuality. She expresses her fears, presses him on if he’d start wearing dresses, and asks him: “Tell me, when did this all start? I gave birth to a healthy, normal boy. I know that. When?” (Vuong 130-131) Her apprehension is expected, considering after Little Dog was harassed on the bus, she expressed her frustration as well as making Little Dog drink “American milk” to grow strong.
Given the copious amount of evidence of Little Dog’s femininity (and thus, evidence for him being both a runt and a sissy), I am confident in saying that Little Dog is not only a sissy, but also seeks out a sense of approval from his relationships. In his mother’s case, he wishes to become stronger to protect himself for his mother’s sake. For Trevor, he wants to get close to him and subsequently understand his feelings about loss and sexuality.
At the end of the novel, Little Dog ponders on the meaning of drag queens in his home nation, and how they are surreal responses to unreal feelings (226). On Earth We’re Briefly Gorgeous is Little Dog finding surreal responses to his unreal feelings. In a way, this disconnect is also emblematic of the opposition between potentiality and possibility. While Jose Munoz says in Cruising Utopia that possibility is something that may happen, potentiality is something that may be present but does not currently exist. For Little Dog, his potentiality lies within his femininity, or rather acceptance of his femininity.
This connects to Munoz’s theory that “queerness is an ideality. Put another way, we are not yet queer” (1). Despite Little Dog being punished by both society and his immediate relatives and peers, he still seeks out answers for himself (though not all are sexuality related). This is despite social barriers that Little Dog continuously encounters which generally involve vitriol due to his effeminacy. While Little Dog does not explicitly reject the world around him, the punishments by society generally facilitate a similar reaction and relationship. Instead, Little Dog peers into the relationships he spent so long in and examines them, understanding for himself that being gorgeous allows one to be both seen and hunted (238). This acceptance of being hunted is like a concrete utopia – the knowledge that even though he is kept at an arm’s length now for his sissy behavior, there is a future where he is no longer fetishized or ignored. Despite his present reality, the potentiality of acceptance drives Little Dog, and despite the myriad of setbacks and tribulations, he still seeks out a way to make both his responses and feelings real. Munoz writes, “The eventual disappointment of hope is not a reason to forsake it as a critical thought process. (10)” Despite Little Dog living in a sort of fraudulent and sissified existence, both he and Vuong hold out hopes for their concrete utopia.
Works Cited
Butterworth, Benjamin. “Seven in Ten Gay Guys Say They Are Turned off by Feminine Men, Survey Finds.” PinkNews, 13 Oct. 2023, www.thepinknews.com/2017/11/10/almost-three-quarters-of-gay-guys-say-they-are-turned-off-by-feminine-men-survey-finds/.
Chow, Jeremy. “No Fats, No Fems, No Problems? Working out and the Gay Muscled Body.” Sexualities, vol. 25, no. 8, Dec. 2022, pp. 1077–95. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1177/13634607211018331.
Kostas, Marios. “‘Real’ Boys, Sissies and Tomboys: Exploring the Material-Discursive Intra-Actions of Football, Bodies, and Heteronormative Discourses.” British Journal of Sociology of Education, vol. 43, no. 1, Jan. 2022, pp. 63–83. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2021.1999790.
Munoz, Jose. Cruising Utopia: The Then and There of Queer Futurity. New York University Press, 2009.
Schope, Robert D., and Michele J. Eliason. “Sissies and Tomboys: Gender Role Behaviors and Homophobia.” Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, vol. 16, no. 2, Apr. 2004, pp. 73–97. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1300/J041v16n02_05.
Vuong, Ocean. On Earth We’re Briefly Gorgeous: A Novel. Penguin Press, 2019.