The Pecman

BTW, this chapter is 10,000 words long, so it ain't exactly pissin' in the dirt. At least it points towards the direction in which the story is about to move. (The story, not the, ah, piss.) I'm alive, but my allergy is still killing me. I'm on doctor #3, getting two shots a week, and surviving.

Judging by the first chapter, it's an interesting premise and the writing is decent. I'd vote yes, too.

That's a tough call. I agree everyone should be equal under the law. Still, if you only get suspended for punching out a kid in the hallway, I think it helps give the school more ammunition of they find out the kid being assaulted was a minority (gay, black, whatever). If that's the case, then they can ask for more penalties, such as psychological treatment, a restraining order, even jail time. You can make the same argument against racial quotas. I know black people who point out the inequality of forcing companies to hire X number of black employees, saying that the only true equality is to give everyone the exact same chance -- no more, no less. It's not an easy question, and I see both sides of the argument. In this case, I feel like if they identify it as a hate crime, maybe it'll make some other bully stop and think for a moment before they pull the trigger.

That to me is the most interesting part of the case. Did they, in fact, have some kind of relationship? Or was the killer simply so nutso that he'd rather kill somebody than have his friends know that a gay kid liked him? Howard Stern commented on the case on his Sirius Radio show, and had some interesting things to say. His take on it was (paraphrasing), "Boy, I'd be flattered if some gay guy liked me. If that were to have happened when I was a kid, I would say, 'gee, thanks, but I'm not interested,' and just let it go. Why would anybody be so insecure as to be threatened by a gay guy saying you were attractive?" Granted, in prison, that could be a problem, but you have to wonder how F-'d up a kid would be to shoot somebody over something so trivial. On the other hand, wearing make-up and high heels to school is pretty wacky. I can't believe anybody was surprised when that kid came out. Regardless, there's something wrong with the world when the only way somebody can react in a situation like this is to shoot them. Absolute insanity.

A couple of years ago, my partner and I visited my hometown for a TV station reunion held by a mutual friend. While we were there, I rented a car and showed my partner the neighborhoods in which I had grown up, old haunts, schools, and so on. Even after more than 30 years, I still felt a chill when we stopped by the old Jr. High School. It brought back a lot of memories, not many of them good. There were a lot of things I liked about those days -- I had some good friends, and the music of that time was great. But the bullying I had to put up with, being an obnoxious, unathletic short kid with glasses, was pretty miserable. I think the school principal is out of line to ban the play, but I also concede, "kids have no rights." The reality is, until you turn 18, you can't vote, you can't do nothin'." It isn't fair, but that's pretty much the law.

I think Stephen King has a pet answer: "I have a little gnome that I have to make sacrifices to, once a month, by slaughtering a virgin on a stone alter in my backyard. After cleaning up the mess, a few days later, a letter arrives in the mail with a few paragraphs of ideas, and then I start writing the stories." In my case, here's where my stories came from: Groovy Kind of Love happened several years after I had started reading Nifty fiction, and I started musing on my best friend from high school, who I had fooled around with for a couple of years. We eventually both got cold feet about being discovered and ended the relationship, but I started thinking, "what if we had continued seeing each other, and had dated girls as a cover? But with my luck, it would've ended in disaster." And that was the spark that created the story. Jagged Angel happened after I read Roman Genesis? intriguing novel, On Earth As It Is in Heaven. I thought he had a great premise: a popular high school football player falls head-over-heels in love with a smaller boy at school, only to discover that the latter has profound psychological problems. But the story had several bizarre twists (the kid turns out to have an identical twin), plus the kid commits suicide at the end, which was such a downer, I thought, "I have a better idea." I contacted the author, told him my idea, and he gave me his blessing. I rewrote it from page 1 and turned it into a completely different story, with only twp or three vague resemblances to the original, and I think it turned out much better. Pieces of Destiny came out of an email conversation I had with gay author Mark Roeder, who had done a story (that I helped edit) about several teenagers who encounter the mystery of two gay teenagers from the 1800s, who died under mysterious circumstances in an abandoned house. I told Mark, "hey, I think a story about a gay kid in the 1800s might be interesting," but he replied, "naaa, it'd take much too much research to pull that off." But the idea wouldn't leave me, so I wound up taking that vague idea and turning it into science-fiction: Gay kid from 2007 finds himself in 1864, falls in love, and goes through a series of adventures. It's still in progress, but I'm enjoying the writing process (though the research has been a bitch, as Mark warned me). I think that's different for every writer. I work on bad TV shows and movies for a living, so I tend to think in terms of what would work on film (and in a script). I think of natural dramatic breaks that end the chapters (like a commercial or a scene transition), and I see the story in my head fairly vividly, as if I saw the movie. I've only had one or two short-story ideas, and one of them just got incorporated into Pieces as a flashback. It's hard for me to throw away an idea once I jot it down, though it might take years for me to remember it and actually use it. I do think it's a good idea to always carry around a little notebook and a pen, in case a good idea, or a nice piece of dialog, or some other element strikes you at an odd moment. I keep a pad and pen by my bed all the time, and have come up with fairly good ideas, right before I drifted off to sleep. Never had something come to me in a dream, though (at least, not a story idea).

Boy, are you strict!

Dan says the new one will be called Rich Boy: Growing Pains, but I haven't seen any chapters yet. The new one has started here: http://dkstories.gayauthors.org/richboy2/index.php Awakening is convoluted as hell, but it's got some very entertaining moments. I think the thing I like best about the story is the lead character's growing guilt over realizing how much he hurts other people whenever he uses his powers -- absorbing some of their skills, which weakens the mortal. Very good idea for a story.

Gee, if that's all true, it could be a TV movie. I have a friend (more an acquaintance than a friend) who also spent a couple of years in jail for having sex with a teenager. What happened to him was, he made the mistake of videotaping one of their nights together, and a jealous ex-roommate got the tape and sent it to the cops. Even though the kid wouldn't testify against him, it's kind of hard to dispute a videotape. He's since been paroled and has stayed completely clear of the law for ten years, and now has a roommate about 30. Sad story, but it's a good cautionary tale.

And coming up very soon: Chapter 5, which is finally done (thanks to prodding by my longtime partner, and some editorial help from VWL).

Blue, I'm sorry you feel that way, but that's not my intent. If I see a problem in a story -- whether it's written by an amateur or a pro, or whether it's a bit of Net fiction or a TV show or anything else -- it doesn't make a difference to me. I'm not trying to insult anybody, nor am I trying to promote myself. My only point in bringing up my own story was to admit that all writers are confronted by moments in their stories where you hit a plot point where you say, "jesus, this is really contrived. What can I do to make this more believable?" It's a huge struggle to get this kind of thing right, and I'm very sympathetic to any writer who encounters it. The point I raised earlier -- that many movies & TV shows have their entire plots hinge on two or more characters who won't have a simple conversation with each other -- captures the problem fairly well. Granted, sometimes you can use this gimmick and make great comedy or even art out of it; Seinfeld is a classic example of a show that did this every single week and got away with it beautifully. But it's a very, very hard thing to pull off a contrivance like this convincingly. I think it's important for a writer to anticipate the readers' questions, so when they say, "hey -- why didn't the character do such-and-such," you have an answer within the story. This story didn't do that for me. Not the end of the world, and I again say, it's just my opinion.

Not badly flawed -- just that it bothers me to the point where I can't buy the premise. Strictly my opinion. I'm very much aware of that. But I think it's important to answer the reader's objections so that the story remains plausible. As one example, I wrote a story (Jagged Angel) that partially involved a high school student blackmailed over his homosexuality. I had to create several scenes to show why he put up with the blackmail, rather than just come out. A lot of that effort was propping up the plot contrivance so that it worked, and I think I pulled it off. Again: Two best friends, 12 years old, living 50 feet apart, not even speaking and avoiding looking at each other for four years. It's the living 50 feet apart that makes it impossible for me to believe. And once more: if the author had just put in one scene where they had a huge fight, that might have made the situation credible. As written, it doesn't work for me. Finally: I'm not saying two kids (or adults, or family members, or anybody) would never not speak to each other. Of course, it happens all the time. But there'd have to be a big reason not to ever speak, especially when two people live next door to each other and have known each other for many years. It's not satisfying as a story point to me, and since the entire plot hangs on this one incident, it's a crucial one. I know that life can go in bizarre directions sometimes, often without explanation or motive. But I think fiction has to make more sense than life. For example, people die in car wrecks all the time; I just wrote an obituary for a friend at work who died only three weeks ago. But if you wrote a novel where one of the lead characters suddenly got hit by a car, without any build-up or foreshadowing in the plot, it would be terribly unsatisfying. There's a way to do it to maximize the drama and make it work logically. "Internal logic" is very high on my list of the things a novel or short story must have in order to make sense. In this case, I think the story needs a better explanation of how and why the two boys didn't speak to each other for four years. I get that the "kisser" was terribly embarrassed, and the "kissee" was confused; the author just needs to flesh it out more.

The difference there is, the other set of neighbors didn't include your best friend, whom you saw every single day in school, on the sidewalk, and occasionally on weekends. That exceeds my ability to suspend disbelief. I just gave a rundown of this story to my longtime partner, and before I could finish, he said, "wait a minute -- you're saying two 12-year old boys would just abruptly refuse to talk to each other for four years, just because of a kiss? That's ridiculous." So he got the same thing I did. Again, I think the story is repairable, but only if they had a knock-down, drag-out fight that preceded the 4 years of silence. Embarrassment over one kiss is not a good enough excuse for 48 months of cold war; anger and resentment over a major fistfight (or screaming match) might be. So my comment is not that it's impossible to live next door to someone you don't ever speak to. I also agree that it's possible for a friendship to end and two people to not speak to each other. But not over an incident this minor. That's my point.

But not at 12, and not when they live 50 feet apart from each other. That's my problem with the story.

Naaaa. To me, this is a contrivance around which the whole story is built. I don't buy that somebody could be that hurt (or surprised) to not confront the other person even ONCE. That's my objection. Life is not this simple and easy, especially not at 12 years old. I had plenty of fights with my friends at this age. Sometimes, we made up a few hours later; sometimes, it was more serious and took weeks to repair; and once or twice, it was an irrevocable break where we barely spoke to each other for years. But never total silence. At worst, we still had a frosty acknowledgement of each other, an occasional bare-bones conversation, but never a lunch or something like that. I see many, many, many novels, TV shows, and films where the entire plot hinges on two or more characters who just won't communicate with each other. The story plods along until finally, one of them says, "wait a minute -- we have a problem here. Why did you do X&Y?" And then the other explains it, apologizes, or says, "I didn't realize this bothered you," and the story resolves itself. This kind of gimmick makes me crazy. There are ways to make this work -- such as referring early on to a knock-down, drag-out fight in which both characters get so angry as to yell "get out of my life, forever!" -- but sheer and utter silence for four years is completely unrealistic to me.

No, not for four years, not when they see each other day, and live 100 feet away from each other. That's my beef. I was 12 years old myself once -- my partner insists I'm still 12 years old in too many ways -- so those memories are still vivid for me, decades later. And I'm of solid Scotch/Irish stock, born and bred with a stubborness gene the size of the Mattorhorn. I've mellowed somewhat today, but at 12, I was really wacky. If the story had shown one yelling match, one tearful argument afterwards... then I might buy it. But total silence for four years, for next-door neighbors? It's too extreme and contrived for me to buy, despite having moments of good writing. Maybe if the characters lived a block apart, and each took a deliberately different route to get home or to school every day... there's several different ways that would be more realistic to me. But not next door, and not for four years. I tell you the other conversation I would've liked to have heard: the one after the story ended. The devil with situtations like this is in the details. But I undestand why the author chose to let it be vague.

I think the story has some good moments, and there's some good writing in it. I have a problem with the concept: that two 12-year-old kids could have a situation where one could completely refuse to speak to or acknowledge the other for four years, yet live next door to each other. At some point, the other kid would have to confront him and they'd have to have a fight or a yelling match or something. Granted, some friendships kind of fade out, some end over a massive dispute, but this isn't realistic for me -- not for kids of this age. I also think there are elements of the story that are a little wordy for me, particularly the ending. But the sentiment expressed is good, and I think it at least kept me reading. I thought of an interesting twist, though: what if the friend actually wasn't gay? What if the narrator only believed he was gay? If the betrayed friend turned the tables on the lead character, and said, "look, I was initially angry that you refused to speak to me for four years after kissing me, but I've realized that I'm not gay. But I'd still like to be your best friend again, if you want." There might be a way to make that work.

No disrespect to the writer intended, but man... this story is a mess. But the idea itself is good. Needs a whole lot of work, though.

I'd read it if I could find it. Where is it?

I think there's a fine line between a corny "happily together everafter" ending and one that's satisfying to readers. I lean towards going an optimistic, poignant ending, rather than one that's unrealistically upbeat, with all the loose ends neatly tied up. I think there's a middle ground for you to try something that's not out of character, but is still more satisfying to your readers (and yourself). Granted, it's the writers' decision. And -- much as I hate to admit it -- there have been stories I've read that were unrelentingly downbeat that stuck with me for a long time. I had a long argument with our old pal Keith Morrisette, because he wanted to end his novel The Boyfriend (about two high school teenagers that have an affair for a few months, then suffer through a terrible break-up) just as they breakup. I argued for a final chapter where the ex-boyfriend mails the lead character a postcard (or a photo of them together), with just the word "sorry" on it. I felt it gave the other character a sense of depth, where we realize he did have a little bit of a conscience, and at least made an effort to apologize. They were still broken up, life went on, they weren't going to get back together again, but it made the story more satisfying to me, and gave it a poignancy -- like the very last shot in the fade-out of a movie. So that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. (That was a rare argument I won with Keith -- he definitely gave as good as he got.)

Damn! Too bad it's only in NYC. If it were only playing in West Hollywood, I'd actually consider going to see it.

Yeah, this is the theory by the gay San Diego medical researcher who claims that a certain part of the brain is different in gay men than in straight men. It's certainly possible. I can only speak from my own experience, and I know for a fact I understood on a certain level I was different from most of my friends, and realized I was gay from about 10-11 years old and onward. It wasn't a choice for me. In fact, I've argued: who would choose to be gay? Life is far more difficult for gay men, just dealing with busineses, insurance, harrassment from bigots, and so on. Buy at the same time, I totally accept what I am, and I can't imagine living life any other way. If I had to live my life over again, I'm not even sure I'd want to change being gay, because it's too much a part of who I am inside.

Thanks for the encouragement. I'm stalled at the moment mainly because I've been hit by an allergy severe enough to almost require a hospital stay (long story), and I'm just surviving day-to-day at the moment. If it wasn't for the miracle drug Xanax, I might have jumped off the cliff by now. If all of my co-workers and I get laid off in the ongoing Hollywood WGA strike, then I'll have no excuses, and I'll have to get back to the story! :) I may have to live out of a dempster dumpster, but I'll at least have lots of time to write...

Thanks for the kind words. Yeah, I know I was straying into "adult" territory with some of the scenes in Groovy -- not just with the sex, but with the emotional content -- but I justified it by forcing the lead character to have to interact with other students who were (mostly) two years older than he was. I think most people could buy this kind of behavior from 16 year-olds; Wil is only 14, but partly because of his intellect, and partly because of what he goes through during the year of the story, he's far more mature. (As Wil tells the lawyer in the last chapter, "I'm a lot older than I look.") The sex was something I grappled with for awhile, and I finally decided that the key was to concentrate more on how the characters felt than to describe the body parts per se. I also tried to vary the sex scenes as much as possible, and tried never to repeat the same situation. At the same time, I didn't feel a need to inject sex into every single chapter. But -- as I've said on this forum before -- I think for a writer to completely ignore sex in a gay-themed story, particularly a coming-of-age story with teenaged characters, is disingenuous. But I concede that the degree of sexual content is a subjective call. A friend of mine pointed out, "if you were really trying to do this as a serious literary work, you would've ended the novel just as the kid gets the letter from the dead soldier," mirroring the tragic endings contemporary gay novels often have. I could've done that, but I'm a sucker for happy endings, and that was the reason for the American Graffiti-esque epilogue. Besides, I got a kick out of having little Ronnie grow up and (essentially) become a billionaire media magnate modeled after David Geffen. I decided to go for something positive and poignant, rather than pure tragedy, which worked better for me. And to echo what Fritz said above: I must confess I got a little teary-eyed while writing at least two scenes in Groovy: once when Wil has his nervous breakdown (which was actually written very early on, even though I knew it wasn't going to happen until at least 2/3 of the way into the story), and again during the corny scene where the Texas kids give Wil the horse, and he names it after his dead boyfriend. It's corny as hell, but I meant every word of it when I wrote it, with all my heart.

What's there is basically good, but the one problem I have with it is a common one with a lot of stories: not enough is happening. I feel like the author could have compressed six chapters into two and it would've still worked as well, told more quickly. One can also argue that the "guy falls in love with his best friend, who insists he's not gay, only he eventually admits he IS gay" has been done far too many times. But I though the quality of the writing was good, and I think it had some very real emotion in it that stuck with me, and that counts for a lot.