Steven Adamson

I noticed this story for the first time because it's up in the Dude's Picks section and I read anything with the word dog in it. Not what I was expecting, I have to say. But more on that later. I felt that this was good emotional writing that hit hard. The photo to go with it at the end was like a second kick. By and large it was excellent and did the job of making me be right there wanting to see what happens and then making me feel something when it did happen. Problems: I did feel some of the imagery was 'trying' too hard to make the night hunt seem magical early on, but nothing severe. Also, others in the thread have noted the switchover from the idea of hunting game to hunting a person seemed a bit stuntsy. Coincidentally, I was reading the David Mamet advice thread and came upon some relevant thoughts: How does one strike the balance between withholding and vouchsafing information? That is the essential task of the dramatist. And the ability to do that is what separates you from the lesser species in their blue suits. I think Dog Boys *just* falls on the wrong side of the line in holding too much back for the end. Like Mamet, I can't say how it could have been done better though. What worked best was the dialogue, which was kept spare but effective, with the part about Robert saying, 'Daddy, this is John, you know John' and then later the father asking for someone to take his son home to mama both doing some heavy emotional lifting. Well done, TR.

I've been hearing talk for about a decade now that young gays aren't afraid of HIV/AIDS. Some of it was that young people in general aren't afraid of it because they get desensitized to it from over-exposure to education campaigns etc and it's hard to keep a person scared of the same thing perpetually. This article in CNN wants us to consider that maybe the younger generation IS aware and careful. It seems somewhat contradictory. The writer acknowledges that riskier behaviour among young gays is up, so even if it's true that young gays have a fear of HIV, it's at a lower level that is still resulting in harm. But then again, maybe he has a point and we should be glad HIV isn't the mega threat it once was and not cast shame on youg gays as a disease vector since that kind of shame hurts treatment and education efforts? http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/06/health/halkitis-hiv/index.html?hpt=hp_t5

Regarding the handwriting=deliberation idea, I can see some merit to it, but that's only if you follow your first drafts by immediately publishing your stories. Bad advice from Stephen King: He said he quit his word processor when he wrote 'Dreamcatcher' and wrote it by hand on legal pads, mostly during breaks in Orioles baseball games if I recall correctly. 'Dreamcatcher' was not a good book. Of course, not much from that era of Stephen King was that good either, so it's hard to know if we can say the longhand approach lacks merit, but my view is that it doesn't add much of worth. Good advice from Stephen King: After the first draft, write a second story then go back to your first story after some time and rewrite with a fresh mind. I like doing it on a printed copy when possible since I seem to catch more typos/issues that way. But the key isn't time spent putting words on paper, but the time spent thinking and if you put in that thinking time afterwards for the rewrite, I don't see it being much of a handicap. ================== Here's a thought on the whole issue of art changing with the technology. What do you guys think about non-consultive, collaborative style story telling? Given Google Docs, forums like this were we can start a story thread, and actual wikis where everyone edits and contributes without filter, it's easy to do. I've seen some experiments with it, and I think that we still haven't found the right mediation for the approach, but I'm keeping my eye on it.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/hS9KPwfylmg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> What I like is that they at first seem to be making a case for gay guys being 'aggressive' to straight guys and then they flip it.

Well, I'd say the respect for the sanctity individual rights creates the non-aggression principle. If someone had a right to property, then you can't take it from them. If someone has a right to live, then you can't just declare war on their country. If someone has a right to speak, then you can't start restricting who is a journalist and who's not based on arbitrary criteria. And so on.

Forgive me for spamming videos, but I have good internet in my little South American hidey hole for the first time in a looooong time, so I'm going a little manic with the Youtubing. Plus I'm high on pseudophedrine. Milton Friedman goes a little deeper on the idea of using force to create equality as opposed withholding force and allowing inequality.

The libertarian point of view is based on one main rule: Never initiate the use of force. This is sometimes known as the non-aggression principle. The reason I brought this up is that over in another thread, libertariansim was described as being mainly a system oft 'every man for himself'. I feel this is a caricature of libertarians that has taken root in political discourse and I'd like to refute it. To start off, I'd like to post a short video that talks about the perils of using force to do good, and the (lack of?) morality involved in the idea that it's OK to do good with other people's money that has been taken by force. The reason I picked this video to start is that it keeps the focus on the issue of force. You would never use force to compel your neighbor to donate to the homeless shelter where you volunteer. You would probably consider that immoral, even if it wasn't you holding the shotgun, but a mayor, But it seems like once we move away from the personal to the community, the societal distance makes many people let go of that simple idea that it's wrong to force people to do things. And that's where libertarians separate from most. We LIKE charity and helping and cooperation and society and big projects of historical scope. We just think that the only moral way to do it is through voluntary participation.

OMG, Boehner is now proposing an um extension of the debt limit.

Ironically, I don't believe there are any squirrels in South America, where Doug lived.

You guys are wrong to blame Boehner. The shutdown's real motivating force is Boehner's huge appendage...of congressmen. In the shutdown, Boehner is follower not leader and he's playing along because he's afraid of appearing irrelevant to the main body of Republicans and losing his leadership post. I don't know if you guys remember this, but TWICE Boehner got severely embarrassed not too long ago when he promised to deliver enough Republican votes to pass a compromise bill. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/12/why_john_boehner_failed_on_the_fiscal_cliff_house_republicans_fear_outside.html Both times, many Republican rank and file members of congress refused to vote for the compromises Boehner had worked out and prevented passage. Boehner really is a centrist. If you want to blame someone for the shutdown, there's plenty to choose from on the Republican side, but Boehner's not the one.

But, Abraham had two wives... Or was the handmaiden who bore Ishmael not an official wife? Man, I the Sunday school teacher who has to deal with this passage must have brain seizures trying to dance around the marriage/sex issue.

Have you guys ever TRIED sliding down a slippery slope. It's tons of fun. We should do it more often as a society. I accept that the slippery slope is a fallacy in that what could come after gay marriage isn't relevant to whether gay marriage should be legal. But you know what? The slippery slope is real. I do in fact think that polygamy and incest marriages will get more serious consideration for legalization because of gay marriage becoming legal. This means that the merits of polygamy and incest will have to be decided in and of themselves, of course, but that public hearing will be possible because of gay marriage. As a fan of the weird social structures in science fiction like Heinlein's 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' which features polygamous 'line' marriages and Silverberg's 'triad' breeding families etc I'm actually curious as to what's been holding us to boring two-person pairs for so long.

An image that really resonated with me: A young elm growing among a whole lot of pines. Someone posted this pic over at reddit and as soon as I saw it I thought, 'That's a perfect encapsulation of what it feels like to grow up gay.'

Apparently, being gay is super!

Given the shortage of recent Elecivil fiction, who else here would like to see this Master's thesis published in full on Awesomedude?

Ironically, I find the singer to be more 'all-american' cutie pie looking than the object of his desire... Enjoyed the video. Was half expecting a replacement boy to show up at the end, but I'm glad they didn't pull the punch on the unrequited desire aspect. That shit is always tough and I don't think I've ever been able to let it go with the straight guys I've crushed on. I mean, I hang out together with their g/f' and wives etc and I never stop thinking, 'I wish this were different.'

It's like an AD story come to life...

People should be more like my parents. Every one of the 13 times we moved, my parents made sure to find my dogs a good home on a quiet farm with lots of butterflies to chase. But seriously though, I've been looking to get a dog for 10 years now and never went out and actually got one because I knew I didn't have a stable enough living arrangement to care for a pet. Another thing that gets me is when a movie like Finding Nemo comes out that is all about Nemo being trapped in an aquarium away from his family and parents respond by buying Nemos for their kids.

Sorry to be the wet blanket, but I found the producer's thinking to be unrealistic from a business point of view and a good chunk of the story seems to pivot on this, so that puts the whole story at risk. Historically, we've seen bands/acts morph their sound and find greater success before and the response by the their labels/producers has generally fallen into three modes: 1) Make all their other acts change their sound to be more like the newly successful sound so that they can cash in. 2) Recruit/steal current/old acts with the same sound for their label so that they can cash in. 3) Sign up new/unknown talent with a similar sound for their label so that they can cash in. To give some examples of what I'm talking about: The Beatles went past their boyband roots to psychedelic and heavy and the result was people signing up Hendrix, Pink Floyd and Zeppelin. When New Wave hit in the 80s, arena rockers like Styx, Queen and Jefferson Airplane (Starship) took on the synthesizer sound. When Grunge/Alternative hit in the 90s, Metallica's producers steered them to a more solid, slower sound that gained them new fans. When Eminem brought biting personal self-reflective lyrics to rap, the wannabe gangstas like Puffy started doing self-reflective too. My point is that no producer is going to be that upset if his other acts are failing temporarily because of a shift in taste, especially if his own triple-platinum star is leading the change. He'll just see dollar signs everywhere, because he's got the lead in an emerging market. ----------- Anyway, that's my view coming from a guy who's a big stickler for believable motivations in his fiction. Your mileage may vary.

It's a sad reality that gay men can't become parents that easily. Still, it appears there are some more than adequate substitutes.

It's a different world nowadays, so when your kid wants to know if he HAS to get married when he grows up, it's time to tread lightly...

Googling 'nifty.org', 'las vegas', douglas and wheelchair gave me this: http://www.nifty.org/nifty/gay/adult-friends/ron-and-bryan/ron-and-bryan-1.html Seems to be the right one since it starts out in NY.

Wait, hold on. It seems at least one Tenn lawmaker isn't a total nut: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/tennessee-asset-forfeiture_n_2933246.html

Here's an idea: All Tennessee lawmakers must pass drug tests every month to receive their salaries. All Tennessee lawmakers' kids must earn a 2.5 GPA or they won't be allowed to vote on legislation. All Tennessee lawmakers must wear a wire at all times so we can hear their conversations with donors, lobbyists and each other. (Their movements are to be tracked with cameras at all times too.)