This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex.
Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto2
1610s, from L. hystericus “of the womb,” from Gk. hysterikos “of the womb, suffering in the womb,” from hystera “womb”. Originally defined as a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus. Meaning “very funny” (by 1939) is from the notion of uncontrollable fits of laughter.
Etymology of ‘Hysterical’3
2 Valerie Solanas exists at the intersection of seemingly infinite social problems. Women are a problem. Lesbians are a problem. Violence is a problem. Madness is a problem. Poverty, sex work, irony, dystopia, radicalism, attempted murder: they are all problems. The woman who shot Andy Warhol—as she will probably always be known—challenges everything we want to read into her. The details of her life are infinitely unclear; her manuscripts and correspondences are difficult to come by, and the published writing about her has mostly been unkind. Scholars of Solanas (or Valerie, as journalists and academics alike seem to call her, sometimes affectionately and sometimes derisively), for many reasons, are few. She did not write much, and what she did write survives mostly through digs at exemplary insanity: get a load of this chick. Her brilliantly inflammatory SCUM Manifesto is canonical, farcical. She is the latest in a long line of madwomen, whose unsanctioned use of violence and unnerving refusal to step back or apologize for anything she did instantly marks her as deranged. The time she spent in prison and mental institutions certainly do not help to wrest her from the clutches of discursive madness, and because we keep saying she was “crazy,” she always already is. Her Manifesto is a laugh. Rarely does anyone deign to engage with her work critically (and this body of work is woefully incomplete, its remnants either held in personal collections or completely lost).4 Valerie is lost in our assumptions about her, buried by the same things that kept her infamous while she was alive. Solanas was born on April 9, 1936 to a working-class family in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Accounts of her childhood and adolescence are sparse, gathered mostly by Diane Tucker and Mary Harron5, during research for Harron’s nascent (then-documentary) biopic about Solanas’ life. Indeed, reading Harron’s introduction to she and Daniel Minahan’s screenplay I Shot Andy Warhol, elicits jealousy from those attempting to wrest a fuller idea of Solanas from the archives; Harron and Tucker were able to access rare, private psychiatric records from her stay at Bellevue after Warhol’s shooting, documents from Solanas’ time at University of Maryland, not to mention numerous interviews with people who knew Valerie. This paper deals with the scant I was able to recover: scattered newspaper articles following the shooting and a handful of legal documents regarding Solanas’ arrest and sentencing at 100 Centre Street in Manhattan. Many archives that would seem relevant to Solanas’ life and times seemed devoid of Solanas except in her manifesto: they held the SCUM Manifesto with all the questions it raises, but none of the notes on Solanas’ existence that might begin to answer those questions. Searches of archives available on the internet were no better: copies of the manifesto and reviews of Harron’s film were all that seemed readily available; some digging produced a much-quoted 1977 interview that Solanas
3 gave and a few wire articles about the initial shooting. Few academics or historians of feminism seemed able to engage with the Manifesto on its own terms, without assertions of Solanas’ insanity or a simplistic reading of Warhol’s shooting (e.g., he was famous; she was crazy) looming over Solanas’ carefully constructed text. Even in the popular 1996 AK Press edition of the Manifesto or in Verso’s 2004 reissue of the text, biographical explanations of Solanas’ actions in introductions and postscripts invite readers to equate the two without fully understanding either. Solanas is famously quoted as explaining her shooting Warhol with “He had too much control over my life…read my manifesto and it will tell you who I am,”6:she did not mean for us to read the two without each other. She did, however, expect a full willingness for spectators to meet with both on their own specific terms, complicated and repellent as they may be. From shooting to manifesto and back again, the picture of Solanas that is handed down to us from liberal feminists and misogynists hiding behind Valerie’s alleged madness demands to be complicated. Solanas would not want us to remember her for “pushing the envelope” for secondwave feminism; or as a figure who is always already man-hating and psychotic (as indeed media in the late sixties were wont to declare her). SCUM is about overthrowing capitalism as much as it is about eliminating men (even to read it as baldly as to assume that Solanas’ deployment of “men” in the text is literal is perhaps doing her an injustice). SCUM is rhetorically masterful, informed by years of study at the University of Maryland and elsewhere; it is certainly not the lunatic scribblings of someone the State declares “psychotic.”7 And what if it was? To what extent are modern readers willing to engage with Solanas on her own terms, ironic and nasty as they we perceive them to be? Why are details of Solanas’ personal life so inextricable from her theory—in a way that the skeletons in other authors’ closets never are? It comes back, of course, to the shooting. But even this can be troubled when one denaturalizes a politic dependent on nonviolence. Life under capitalist patriarchy is imbued with violence for women, for the working class, for people of color, and always for people dedicated to uprooting that system. Biographical accounts of Solanas reveal a familiar resentment—she is called cynical, sarcastic8, derisive, and tough9—doubtless from constantly being forced to engage with people who had it infinitely easier than her for no reason at all. Harron insightfully notes that Warhol saw himself in Solanas:
“both were Catholic, born into blue-collar families; had spent their childhood in poverty; were intellectually precocious; and had experienced being tormented at school. Perhaps most important, both claimed to have rejected sex, although for different reasons…”10
4 Perhaps Solanas saw herself in Warhol as well. But she certainly recognized his seemingly infinite access to capital, fame, adoring fans: how could this mirror image of herself have so much more than she? He was, of course, a man. It seems important to understand Solanas as an artist—the skill with which she crafts language is apparent in her Manifesto—and any artist who takes herself seriously also desires an audience. She resented Warhol (who didn’t?) and the violent ways in which the world continued to turn around her; she refused a life of meaningless work and smiling deference. This, naturally, was unacceptable, even in the late sixties, even in Greenwich Village. On her own since age 15, spending nights on the streets or in cheap hotel rooms, turning tricks and telling stories for income,11 Solanas was right to be angry. Her decision to shoot Warhol is complicated, significant only because he was significant; it is a problem I will return to. Particularly significant, given the text of the Manifesto, which commentators usually read literally if at all, is Solanas’ consistent designation as a lesbian: in documents about Solanas from the sixties and seventies12, and in reviews of Harron’s film (popular13 and scholarly14), and especially in historic accounts of lesbian/separatist feminism in the 1970s15. If a “lesbian” can be understood as a female-identified person who desires other female-identified people exclusively, Solanas certainly does not fit the bill. Though the less debilitating categories of “bisexual” and “queer” did not exist when Solanas was well-known, they exist now. Still, especially in reviews of Harron’s film, certain details of Solanas’ life are rattled off in rapid succession, uncritically, indeed, with a trace of selfsatisfaction: Solanas was a “lesbian,”16 a “man-hater,”17 “disturbed,”18 “abused”19; she had had an unstable home life and was therefore doomed to a life of psychosis and random violence. As Dana Heller notes, Harron seems particularly interested in a psycho-criminal explanation of Solanas’ life and actions, rather than attempting to critically situate Solanas’ actions within a historical moment.20 It would appear that attempting to recover Valerie from history is a process always haunted by simplistic reductions of her Manifesto and her actions—and the theoretically disastrous equation of the two. Everywhere, others’ understandings of Valerie’s politics precede her, shape the biographical narrative of her life, and continue to marginalize her as a wingnut, a lunatic, a bulldyke, a man-eater. Was Solanas a lesbian, per se? It is difficult to say: Harron cites Solanas’ first homosexual experience as happening at a boarding school when she was 14, and later calls her an “out lesbian” during her college years. There are also accounts of Solanas having a son by a sailor at fifteen21 and reports of her having sex with men throughout her time at the University of Maryland—paid and unpaid. When Warhol was shot, news reports about the incident mention Valerie’s role as a lesbian in the film I, a Man22 and occasionally, the fact that Warhol’s films detailed the “life among lesbians,
5 homosexuals, and dope addicts.”23 Most of the reports I found from around the time of the shooting do not mention these things, but it seems significant that a few did—they are probably not the only media sources that hung the scepter of lesbianism over Solanas’ decision to shoot Andy Warhol. Notably, the Village Voice, to which Solanas had given an interview prior to the shooting and in which she had advertised her Manifesto, described Solanas in a report published three days after Warhol was shot as “not a lesbian, but consumed with a passionate loathing of men.” Solanas would later take issue with this designation; in 1977 she gave another interview with the Voice in which she said:
“The part where you said, ‘She's a man-hater, not a lesbian.’ That was in the 1968 column on the front page of The Village Voice ... I thought that was just totally unwarranted. Because I have been a lesbian, and I consider the part where you said, ‘She's not a lesbian’ to be serious libel. Although at the time I wasn't sexual. I was into all kinds of other things. ... The way it was worded gave the impression that I'm a heterosexual, you know...”24
At a time when “gay” and “lesbian” as were just emerging into the mainstream as fixed categories (indeed, the Stonewall riots took place just over a year after Solanas shot Warhol), the idea that Solanas “had been” a lesbian is one that we might assume had little currency in 1977, much less in 1968. Besides, that the Voice had to clarify that Solanas was not a lesbian (just a man-hater) works from the assumption that readers had already identified her as such. Though Solanas herself identified with different sexualities throughout her life, and at one point explicitly rejected both straight and lesbian identifications, her professed hatred for men trumps the nuances of her desire. In Lindsy Van Gelder’s widely-circulated account of the shooting Solanas was described as an actress “who detests men in general and has some specific grievances against Warhol.”25 In 1968, as gay liberation movements and feminist consciousness were beginning to gain momentum, “lesbian” as a category was beginning to take on political dimensions in popular discourse. That is, in the way that Valerie’s violence was taken as the logical extension of her manifesto (in the way that the two were understood as political extensions of one another), feminism and lesbianism were often derisively equated, with misandry trailing shortly behind. That Solanas was widely read (and literally cited) as a woman who hated men made her a lesbian by extension—both at the time, and in later readings of her work. (In fact, Paul Morrissey, Warhol’s producer and collaborator, who was present when Warhol was shot, is quoted in a later interview explaining Solanas’ business at the factory on June 3, 1968 as her wanting “to redress a grievance or something like that…You know, Women's Lib Rights and all that crap. “26) It is also rarely noted that Solanas may have never intended for SCUM to stand for “Society
6 for Cutting Up Men”; in an unpublished interview that Solanas gave in 1975, interviewers recall her insisting that “SCUM” as acronym was “the fabrication of her publisher, Maurice Giordias” who, “in his haste to sensationalize the shooting and sell copies of the SCUM Manifesto assembled an edition whose back cover reproduced the New York Post front page with the headline “Andy Warhol Fights for Life.”27 Though this discrepancy would not lessen the vitriol with which her Manifesto was written, it would change the way Solanas was read in the media, and even the way we might read the Manifesto. Interestingly, though the Manifesto refers on multiple occasions to the necessity of SCUM women to kill men, it never uses the language of “cutting up” to describe the violent removal of men from society. If Solanas’ use of “scum” was indeed “based on a subversive appropriation insofar as ‘scum’ signifies women’s debased status in a male-defined system of social values”28—a notion that fits into the Manifesto’s politic as well as its rhetorical and stylistic precision—would the Manifesto be so quickly dismissed as a crazy dyke’s anti-man tirade? SCUM as an acronym brings one aspect of a complicated text to the forefront for the public, and it is perhaps the most offensive aspect of the Manifesto: it is certainly the one most easily connected to Warhol’s shooting, and the easiest way to equate the two. So Solanas wanted to “cut up men”; she had played a lesbian in a movie, is described by Van Gelder in a way that conjures the stereotypical lesbian, as “square-jawed, slender and short-haired.”29 Her sexuality is always questionable; she denies lesbianism and heterosexuality alike, and she performs male most of the time, with her trademark cap, foul mouth, sexual openness, and general lack of “nice” feminine sensibilities. The Manifesto, however, in addition to Solanas’ selfidentification at the time and in later years, is literally against sex. Solanas sees sex between anyone as an impediment to higher intellectual pursuits, though she seems to have the most disdain for heterosexual sex.30 Though Solanas sees men as “morally deficient,” clearly undeserving of the SCUM female’s company, she does not see sex with women as the antidote to the problem of heterosexuality. She retreats instead into anti-sex rhetoric that almost echoes arguments for abstinence until marriage—except that she is open about the fact that her anti-sex orientation is informed by years of sex work, sexual abuse and bad sex:
“SCUM gets around…and around and around…they’ve seen the whole show—every bit of it—the fucking scene, the sucking scene, the dyke scene—they’ve covered the whole waterfront, been under every dock and pier—the peter pier, the pussy pier…you’ve got to go through a lot of sex to get to anti-sex, and SCUM’s been through it all.”31
7 Asexuality is rarely acknowledged as a valid orientation of desire (or lack of desire), though Solanas insists that many women will have to condition away their sex drives. The designation of sexuality as inherently impeding SCUM women’s personal intellectual satisfaction is perhaps more threatening to sexual systems of capital than simple homosexuality, which replaces the reproductive opposite-sex partner with one of the same sex, and, in its assimilatory early politic, holds all other details in common with heterosexuality. That is: where homosexuality can be made to resemble the ideally productive heterosexual pair (and indeed, in the early sixties, incorporation and visibility within capitalist society was a major fight taken up by political homosexuals), asexuality refuses capitalist notions of reproduction. SCUM’s nihilist conceptions of futurity (which are bound up in her antisex ideas) in many ways precede its professed misandry. Solanas wonders:
“Why produce even females? Why should there be future generations? What is their purpose? When aging and death are eliminated, why continue to reproduce? Why should we care what happens when we’re dead? Why should we care that there is no younger generation to succeed us?”32
Solanas is unconcerned with the future; she wants no children to survive her, to reproduce a family which in fact reproduces structures of the State, with father-as-patriarch and women and children working under him. This is only one piece of Solanas’ highly subversive plan to dismantle capitalist patriarchy from the inside, through “un-working,” “fucking-up,” slowly seizing control of the menial institutions by which SCUM women are employed, and of course, by eliminating men.33 What if we read Solanas as anti-capitalist first and anti-man second? It seems likely that anyone who takes the time to read the Manifesto past its purported title, especially in 1968, would realize that the text unflinchingly demonstrated the ways in which capitalism and patriarchy are bound up in one another—and the ways in which burgeoning liberal feminism was bound to fail at addressing that (Solanas marks SCUM in opposition to “nice, genteel ladies who scrupulously take only such action as is guaranteed to be ineffective”34). Further, there is a rich critique of masculinity that pervades the text if we read “male” as “body constructed under patriarchy to enact certain violences on non-male bodies”—if Solanas’ “walking abortion”35 of a man is in fact embodied masculinity. Solanas, as a threat to the patriarchal state, must necessarily be written off by the extremity of her theory, and the equation of that theory with her actions. It is no mistake that she is read historically as “psychotic,” “deranged,” and “disturbed,” that details of her rough childhood and Greenwich Village life haunt her shooting Warhol and her Manifesto alike. Women are not supposed to be violent, or lesbians, or anti-capitalists: not today, not in 1968. Details that might
8 otherwise have receded into the background as modern readers consider her writing instead hang just above her work and theory: they all resonate against each other, obscuring any attempts to grapple with her texts or her actions on their own specific terms. Of course, to read the shooting without the Manifesto is impossible; without the shooting Solanas would probably have faded into obscurity as a theorist and artist. Reading the two apart further runs the risk of depoliticizing Solanas’ actions in a destructive way, rendering Solanas as dealing violently with her petty problems with Warhol as irrational and hysterical. Misreadings of the Manifesto are as frequent as misreadings of the shooting; indeed, when asked why she shot Warhol, Solanas is said to have replied, “He had too much control over my life.”36 She further explains, “There are many involved reasons” for the shooting. “I have written a manifesto of what I am and what I stand for.”37 Another article published two days after the shooting and titled “Actress ‘Glad’ She Shot Warhol” quotes her as explaining “I was right in what I did. …I have nothing to regret. I feel sorry for nothing. He was going to do something to me which would have ruined me.”38 It seems that Solanas wanted people to politicize the shooting; however personal it might have been for her, Warhol’s capitalistic, misogynist Factory scene was also deeply offensive to the politics espoused by SCUM. Ironically, it was the political conviction with which she regarded her crime—the righteousness with which she refused to apologize or shrink from the shooting—that made her appear all the more hysterical. Reports announce Solanas as the founder of the Society for Cutting Up Men,39 as a “scorned gal,”40 and a “man-hating brunette,”41 and perhaps she was some of these things. However, the simplistic reading of the Manifesto as exclusively anti-men and the shooting as an insane extension of that rhetoric does justice to neither. The Manifesto is a text designed to instigate action (such are manifestoes) and she wanted the shooting to be read with the Manifesto in mind. Still, instead of reading the Manifesto, the public read the (perhaps fabricated) title—Society for Cutting Up Men—designated Solanas as psychotic, and the shooting as a result of that. Though Ti-Grace Atkinson, then-leader of the New York chapter of NOW, called Solanas “the first outstanding champion of women’s rights” and feminist lawyer Florynce Kennedy stepped forward to represent Solanas in the State Supreme Court,42 Solanas’ madness had been assumed since the day she turned herself in. One article explains the delay of Solanas’ arraignment “for 24 hours to allow time for preliminary psychiatric examination ‘in view of the defendant’s conduct.’”43 Documents from Solanas’ time at the Criminal Court of New York are difficult to come by, though they are indeed located in the Clerk’s offices at 100 Centre Street. Among affidavits from her
9 arresting officer and Mario Amaya, orders of court appearances, indictments from the District Attorney, court notes, trial and motion calendars, and numerous untitled documents that seem to list appearance dates and court decisions, I find two orders for preliminary psychiatric examinations (dated January 10, 1969 and April 30, 1969) as well as two forms titled “Commitment for Psychiatric Examination Forms: Promulgated by Commissioner of Mental Hygiene Pursuant to Section 660 of the Code of Criminal Procedure”, one dated from the day after the shooting (June 4, 1968) and one dated May 14, 1969. The Commitment forms are most fascinating, reading:
“(a) The above named defendant [Valerie Solanas] being before this court charged with attempted murder, etc. in violation of penal law and the court having reasonable ground for believing that said defendant is in such state of idiocy, imbecility or insanity as to be incapable of understanding the charge, indictment or proceedings or of making his defense and the court having ordered the said defendant to be examined pursuant to Section (658) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the recommendation of (blank) of (blank) Hospital for commitment of said defendant thereto for purpose of making such examination and report to the court, having been obtained, … now therefore, after due deliberation having been had it is (c) ORDERED that the said Valerie Solanas be and hereby is committed to Elmhurst General Hospital for such mental examination for a reasonable period not to exceed sixty (60) days to be examined (to determine the question of his sanity) and it is further (d) ORDERED and the N.Y.C. Correction Department hereby is directed to cause the transfer of the said defendant from the place where the said defendant now is to the aforesaid hospital for the purpose of such examination and to return the said defendant to the place where the said defendant is now upon the completion of such examination unless otherwise ordered by this court or by any other court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of the statutes in such case made and provided, or unless the defendant is admitted to a hospital pursuant to the provisions of Section 873 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is further ORDERED that upon the completion of said examination that a report be made to this court as provided in Section 662 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or Section 2189a of the Penal Law, whichever is appropriate.”44
Given reports of Solanas’ behavior following the shooting and during her arraignment, these documents, with their male pronouns and insistence of the defendant’s “idiocy, imbecility, or insanity,” point to the pathologization of a certain, determined woman’s violent, political outburst against Andy Warhol. Solanas is always already marked as woman, lesbian: the insistence in her psychosis points to the incongruity that the State perceives in a female using violence in a way that she feels is not just right but righteous: political, anti-patriarchal, even anti-capitalist. Men who use violence in these ways (see especially police officers and soldiers, whose use of violence is also political, though endorsed by the State) are seen as enacting aggression attendant to their bodies. Perhaps use of “he” and “his” in this document is meant to be gender-neutral, but it seems more
10 likely that there is no room for women as criminals, certainly not as violent criminals who need psychiatric review. Solanas implores us to understand her shooting of Warhol in terms of her manifesto, but it is this attempt to situate the crime as a logical extension of an anti-patriarchal politic that does her in. Women are not supposed to be certain of their violence; they should by no means feel confident and assured in it: women who do, who start societies for “cutting up men,” who refuse to back down from their assertions of dominance (during those rare instants when such women seize power for themselves by whatever means are available to them) are necessarily insane. By June 26, Solanas was declared “psychotic” and committed to Bellevue Hospital. She was sentenced on June 9, 1969 to a maximum of three years’ prison45, with credit for time served in Bellevue. A trial and motion calendar from her file at 100 Centre Street notes the various dates on which Solanas was declared psychotic and not psychotic, ordered and reordered for psychiatric evaluation. It is important to note that “psychotic” denotes a person’s mental and emotional of divorce from “reality” (apparently as the State conceives of it, in this case)46. That Solanas could not be definitively diagnosed as psychotic or not for periods of more than a year or so resonates with her general incomprehensibility within a capitalist patriarchy that makes no space for even well-behaved women, much less “hateful, violent bitches given to slamming those who unduly irritate them in the teeth,”47 as Solanas describes SCUM women. Solanas resisted control at every turn: from Warhol, from work, from liberal feminism, from “propriety, niceness, discretion, public opinion, ‘morals,’ the ‘respect’ of assholes.”48 Refusing counsel from Legal Aid, Solanas is said to have explained that her case would “remain in [her] competent hands.”49 She was submitted by the court for psychiatric evaluation the next day. Did Solanas’ understanding of the world break with state-sanctioned reality the day that she shot Warhol—the day she was committed, or any day after? She continued to make threatening phone calls to the Factory even during her stay in Bellevue; she was arrested again in 1971 for threatening various people, and continued to be in and out of mental institutions for the rest of her life.50 In 1977 she gave an interview with The Village Voice in which she seems to heckle interviewer Howard Smith as she disputes her treatment in popular media immediately following the shooting and describes how she had been spending her time since. Her words ring with a certainty that alarms as she makes claims about a mysterious “Contact Man” and “Money Men,” as well as positing these Money Men paid off the psychiatrists who examined her in order to make her appear insane.51 These
11 claims are made alongside Solanas’ explanation that SCUM is “hypothetical. No, hypothetical is the wrong word. It’s just a literary device…women who think a certain way are in SCUM. Men who think a certain way are in the men’s auxiliary of SCUM,” and her insistence that her shooting of Warhol was misunderstood and buried in misinformation from journalists: “I concede that I shot Warhol. But that’s not the issue. …I’m talking about a whole lot of other things. They said a lot more things that were untrue. Now the fact that I shot him does not give them the right to tell any amount of lies about me.”52 These assertions seem appropriate, reflective of the circumstances surrounding the shooting and the Manifesto. But are the conspiracy theories jokes or evidence of Solanas’ building paranoia? How can we know? It is hard to imagine a Solanas who is anything but convicted about her words and ideas, and indeed, to what end might we imagine a sane Valerie or an insane one, after all she said and did? Lesbians, according to the American Psychological Association, suffered from the mental disorder of homosexuality in 1968. Before we totally discount Solanas’ words and actions as those of a lunatic’s, we might do well to recall the extent to which mental health has always been constructed by discourses of power. Valerie Solanas struggled violently against such discourses in word and in deed: she was, quite literally, out of control. We must then attempt to grapple with her without playing into the assumptions these discourses of power hand to us in order to make her coherent to a capitalist, patriarchal logic. We must not do the work of the State Solanas was attempting to dismantle if we want to understand her. Indeed, Solanas implores her readers not to “kick or struggle or raise a distressing fuss, but just sit back, relax, enjoy the show and ride the waves to their demise.”53 In Valerie’s honor, I will echo her: allow Solanas to lead you to your demise on her own terms. It is a terrible, delightful ride.
“I consider that a moral act. And I consider it immoral that I missed. I should have done target practice.” Valerie Solanas, on the shooting of Andy Warhol, quoted by Howard Smith, "Valerie Solanas Replies," The Village Voice, August 1, 1977, Scenes section, p. 28 2 Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto. (Oakland: AK Press, 1996). 1. 3 “Hysterical,” Online Etymology Dictionary. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hysterical (accessed May 9, 2010) 4 Amanda Third and Dana Heller are notable exceptions; I draw from their work later in this paper. 5 Mary Harron, introduction to I Shot Andy Warhol, by Mary Harron and Daniel Minahan (New York: Grove, 1996) “On Valerie Solanas,” vii-xxxi. 6 Freddy Baer, “About Valerie Solanas,” in SCUM Manifesto by Valerie Solanas (Olympia: AK Press, 1996), 53. 7 Court of General Sessions of the County of New York, Criminal Court of the City of New York. Trial and Motion Calendar. New York, 1968-69. (noted: “6/28/68-Psychotic [see Elmhurst Report]”) 8 Dana Heller, "Shooting Solanas: Radical feminist history and the technology of failure," Feminist Studies 27, no. 1 (2001), p. 168. 9 Avital Ronell. "Cutting Remarks." Artforum: Bookforum, April 1, 2004, 30-33. http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed May 9, 2010). 10 Mary Harron, “On Valerie Solanas,” xix. 11 Ibid., xii-xvii. 12 UPI, "Warhol Assailant Is Committed in N.Y." The Washington Post, June 6, 1968, Section A, p. 32. 13 Richard Johnson with Paula Froelich, Bill Hoffmann & Corynne Steindler, "Warhol Shooter's Twisted Ploy," New York Post, March 21, 2009. http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/item_iaYkje2Q0IGDCxxbKp250H (accessed May 6, 2010); see also 14 L. Hart, “Killing Representation: Feminism And Violence At The Limit,” Psychoanalytic Review 84 (1997), p. 789-812 http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=PSAR.084.0789A (accessed May 9, 2010) 15 A few examples include Avital Ronell’s "Cutting Remarks” and Jennifer Doyle’s "Warhol's Women (one in particular)," Gay & Lesbian Review 13, no. 3 (2006) , p. 32-33. http://ezproxy.library.nyu.edu:2094/hww/results/results_single.jhtml;hwwilsonid=NEU2EUNZDHJGVQA3DILCF GGADUNGIIV0 (accessed May 9, 2010) 16 "The talk of the town: The woman who shot Warhol." The New Yorker, May 29, 1995, 33. http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed May 9, 2010). 17 Rick Groen, "FILM REVIEW: I SHOT ANDY WARHOL," The Globe and Mail, May 17, 1996, http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed May 9, 2010). 18 Eric Konigsberg, "Fifteen More Minutes," New York, February 15, 1996, p. 42-6 (in which Solanas is described as a “disturbed groupie”) 19 Rita Kempley, "’Andy Warhol,' Abrasively; Why Did She Shoot Him? Why Should We Care: Review of I Shot Andy Warhol” The Washington Post, May 17, 1996, http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed May 9, 2010). 20 Dana Heller, “Shooting Solanas,” 169. 21 Liz Jobey, "Solanas and Son" The Guardian, August 24, 1996, http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed May 9, 2010). 22 UPI, "Warhol Assailant Is Committed in N.Y." 23 Lindsy Van Gelder, "Pop Artist Andy Warhol Is Shot," The Times-News, June 4, 1968, Section A, p. 4. 24 Howard Smith & Brian Van der Horst. "Valerie Solanas Interview," The Village Voice, July 25, 1977, Scenes section. p.32
Lindsy Van Gelder, “Pop Artist Andy Warhol Is Shot”; also printed as "Actress Shoots Pop-Artist Warhol," The Pittsburgh Press, June 4, 1968, Section A, p. 1, and "Artist Warhol Critically Shot By Scorned Gal," The Bryan Times, Tuesday, June 4, 1968, Section A, p. 10. 26 Taylor Meade, “Interview with Paul Morrissey,” http://www.altx.com/interzones/meade/shot.html (accessed May 9, 2010) 27 Dana Heller, “Shooting Solanas,” 168. 28 Ibid., 168. 29 Lindsy Van Gelder, “Pop Artist Andy Warhol Is Shot.” 30 Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto, p. 27, 39. 31 Ibid., 28. 32 Ibid., 35. 33 Ibid., 36-39. 34 Ibid., 42. 35 Ibid., 1. 36 Lindsy Van Gelder, “Pop Artist Andy Warhol Is Shot.” 37 Ibid., 1. 38 UPI, “Actress ‘Glad’ She Shot Warhol,” The Pittsburgh Press, June 5, 1968, Second Section, p. 30 39 Lindsy Van Gelder, “Pop Artist Andy Warhol Is Shot.” 40 “Artist Warhol Critically Shot By Scorned Gal,” The Bryan Times, Tuesday, June 4, 1968, Section A, p. 10. 41 UPI, “Actress ‘Glad’ She Shot Warhol.” 42 Freddy Baer, “About Valerie Solanas,” p. 54. 43 UPI, “Actress ‘Glad’ She Shot Warhol.” 44 Hon. David Getzoff, Commitment For Psychiatric Examination, Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York, June 4, 1968; Hon. Gerald P. Culkin, Order for Preliminary Psychiatric Examination, Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York, June 27, 1968. 45 Hon. Gerald P. Culkin, Untitled Document, New York, June 9, 1969. (noted: “State Prison for Women Indeterminate Period Maximum 3 yrs. credit for time serverd” signed Gerald P. Cukin, Justice of Supreme Court”) 46 Trial and Motion Calendar, 1968-69. 47 Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto, 28. 48 Ibid. 49 UPI, “Actress ‘Glad’ She Shot Warhol.” 50 Freddy Baer, “About Valerie Solanas,” 55. 51 Howard Smith & Brian Van der Horst. "Valerie Solanas Interview." 52 Ibid. 53 Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto, 47.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.