More than a decade ago, Faderman authored the exhaustive history of women’s intense personal relationships from the late Victorian era to contemporary times in Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers, which became an unofficial gay girls’ guide to the past. But Faderman’s 2004 memoir Naked in the Promised Land, revealed her own multi-layered history that includes her mother’s escape form the Holocaust, coming out in a time when there were no lesbian role models and financing her way through higher and higher education as a burlesque dancer.

Since it’s release this summer, Gay L.A. has garnered rave reviews, spent some time on the Los Angeles Times Bestseller list and landed on year-end top-10 lists including the L.A. Times and The Advocate. LesbiaNation sat down with Faderman to dig a little deeper into her experience with Gay L.A.

LN: Gay L.A. is such a comprehensive and engaging work of history. How long did you work on the book?

LF: Both Stuart and I worked on it for about two and a half years full time.

LN: The book’s narrative is seamless. It reads like it was written by one person.

LF: We wanted it written in the same voice. It would have been hard to read if there were two different voices.

LN: Did you write the text?

LF: Yes, but his voice is reflected as much as mine is. We wanted it to be as complete as possible without taking one political stance, so it was much easier than if there were one person working on the book.

LN: How did you divvy up the research? Did you base the division of work solely on gender?

LF: As a man Stuart could gain access to gay men in their 80’s and 90’s and I got access to lesbians who might not have opened up for a man. But no side is predominant. I felt we needed to cover the spectrum of gay lives. We’ve gotten an amalgam of stories we wouldn’t have if we’d done it ourselves. Together we’re really fair.

LN: You’re a pre-eminent historian of lesbian culture. What did you discover through the process of researching and writing the book that was new to you?

LF: I know that gay male culture in the mid-century was so different. I was fascinated by some of the details—that gay men and lesbians had different problems.

LN: How so?

LF: Mid-century working class women wore pants, their hair short and their shirts were a little more tailored.

LN: So women were targets for the way they looked?

LF: I spoke with women in their 70’s and 80’s who were at the Party Pad (a lesbian bar) that was raided by the cops in 1959. The cops sent an undercover agent to the Party Pad and there was a woman who was obviously drunk at the bar. The undercover agent bought the woman another drink.

LN: An excuse to raid the place…

LF: But the men’s story was different. An undercover agent would proposition the guy and then pull out the cuffs. That was entrapment. The Los Angeles Police Department used Hollywood rejects that didn’t make it in the movies, but made it in the vice squad. They would go to the cruising areas and whip out the hand cuffs. It’s interesting. Their problems were so different from the problems lesbians had.

LN: Why the title 'Gay' L.A.?

LF: The term “gay” had been used as early as the late 19th century for gay men, lesbians and transgendered. For many women there was a struggle to give up that word and call themselves lesbians. In the 1950’s we called ourselves “gay girls.” Lesbian wasn’t quite as insulting as dyke. But it was a medical word.

LN: But gay women eventually embraced “lesbian.”

LF: It’s beautifully rife with history. The Isle of Lesbos—Sappho.

LN: It must have been tough to choose a title that would please various segments of the community.

LF: Historically, it’s the most accurate wore to describe everyone. Where people call themselves queer, we call them queer, where people refer to themselves as stud, we call them stud.

LN: With the proliferation of GLBT pop culture, and images to embrace, it seems that many young gay and lesbian people are complacent. But there’s also a backlash in the form of the Christian Right that seeks to deny the community equal rights. Do you think that young people need to remain vigilant like the pioneers who paved the way to this point in history?

LF: First of all, I’m so happy for the young… that things can change. But remember Germany’s Weimar Republic. It was wonderfully open. There were five different lesbian magazines. Then Hitler emerged and people were being carted off to concentration camps for being lesbian and gay.

LN: So history could repeat itself?

LF: You have to know your history to know whether it’s time to fight or time to run. Vigilance is necessary. But it’s not just today. In clubs in West Hollywood there were “glam” lesbians. They were a-political in the late 1970’s. At Peanuts in West Hollywood, they wanted to dance. They didn’t want to be involved in politics. That happened in the late 70’s and early 1980’s.

LN: Was that a backlash against the ultra-political era of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s that included the gay rights and the feminist movements?

LF: Lesbians were separatists (in the 70’s). They didn’t want to work with the men.

LN: But in the book you say that AIDS struck and all that changed.

LF: Lesbians really began to concern themselves with their gay brothers. They became leaders of gay organizations. The men were dying.

LN: In the book you discuss lesbians in leadership roles since the 1980’s.

LF: Women have taken over as leadership of a lot of gay organizations. Lesbians have proven themselves. That wasn’t conceivable in earlier eras. They were afraid to organize… the middle class lesbians were so fearful of losing their jobs.

LN: Gay L.A. is far from your first foray into GLBT history but you wrote a book about your own history Naked in the Promise Land, a few years ago. Your mother escaped the Holocaust and brought you up here. Then you funded your education through to a PhD as a burlesque dancer. It’s a remarkable story.

LF: It’s pretty different. You have to go deep inside to write about others. You probe as deeply as you can. I wanted to figure out how my life, which had been so diverse, how the pieces came together. I thought it might be an interesting story for others.

LN: The memoir has garnered loads of critical acclaim. It would make a great film. Who would you like to portray you in a big screen version?

LF: Catherine Zeta Jones sounds pretty nice.

Until next time!