Mihangel

2013 being the Benjamin Britten centenary year, it seems relevant to resurrect this piece from 2002: http://www.guardian....ion?INTCMP=SRCH I had that jingle amnis axis caulis collis ... drummed into my head at the age of 10 (and it's still there!), but being a singularly innocent little boy, I had no idea then what lay behind it. So I find this article both interesting and amusing.

And it's heart-warming when you can see the difference. A boy in the States once wrote to me in wild enthusiasm about The Scholar's Tale. It had prompted him to come out to his parents, who proved iffy. So he printed it out and gave it to his Mom to read to persuade her that it was really all right. And it did the trick.

Cole's absolutely right. No doubt this particular school really is bad. But, while I can't quantify, there are plenty of other boys-only schools in the UK where homophobia is outlawed and the reasons why are explained. My impression is that on average they are better at this than comprehensive schools. And the fact remains that UK universities are generally good in this respect. Most (all?) have thriving LGBT groups and counsellors supported by both the university itself and the student's union. Why the difference between the two levels of education?

Mi (short i as in mint) - hang - el, stress on hang. The h is often dropped: mi-ang-el. Nothing, I assure you, to do with angels, of which I am emphatically not one.

And I would second Cole's remarks. A heart-warming tale, May it be followed by many more.

Well said indeed, James. We all, I think, agree that true paedophilia involving the prepubescent is appalling. But I find it equally appalling that, when paedophilia hits the headlines, reason tends to go out of the window. There was a ghastly case in the UK ten years or so ago when the gutter press stirred up such a response that mobs roamed the streets attacking the homes of those they thought - often wrongly - were paedophiles. Being apparently unable to read beyond the first syllable, they even smashed up the premises of a paediatrician. Where it is a matter of ephebophilia (involving post-pubertal, not prepubescent, kids), it seems to me that James is absolutely right. The police and the judiciary need discretion to take individual factors into account. Take for example consensual sex between an 18-year-old and a 13-year old. I can easily envisage that in one case it would deserve prosecution, while in another it would be acceptable, depending on the circumstances and the maturity (mental, not physical) of both kids involved. I've written a story myself which centres on this question, and when the Guardian article appeared it seemed a good opportunity to gauge the forum's views. As one comment on the original article wisely says, "This is a grey area - always has been and always will be. All you can do is agree to some guiding principles and try to apply them intelligently, diligently and sensitively to individual cases. The answer, as always, does not lie with unfettered liberalism or the puritanical mob, but somewhere in between."

A thoughtful and temperate article on paedophilia in today's Guardian that deserves a read: http://www.guardian....k-desires-light

Paul's right that spirituality is probably a better word than religion, and I'm delighted to hear from Cole that he is/was on that same wavelength. But David says "there was a time when a British education could produce well-read (not to mention well-taught) and inquisitive kids. Alas that this seems to be no longer the case..." Here I'd venture to disagree. They are still produced, though whether in such numbers as of old I can't say. A few years back I had a correspondence lasting several years with a lad from an independent school in Britain(good but not famous) who was 17 when he first responded to one of my tales. Wow! In terms of literary erudition he ran rings round me. And from what he said he was not unique in his school. So there's still hope on this side of the pond.

Many thanks for your kind words. Yes indeed, as Camy says, I've written many stories and am beginning the gradual process of posting them all on AD. In the case of Nights and Days, which was written seven years ago with some fear and trepidation, two of your particular remarks call for comment. First, Chris's feeling that there was too much of the God business. I quite often dip a tentative toe into this. With this story, as I say in the inroduction, I was challenged to plunge deeper. That was the main cause of my fear and trepidation, partly because it's an aspect which our tales hardly ever address, and partly because it's all too easy to tread on the corns of one sort of reader or another. But as an agnostic - not an atheist - I do from time to time find myself asking what - in my terms of reference - this God is that others talk about. Is it really just a label for my conscience? Or for my destiny? Or for pure chance? I don't know, but I do ponder. And Nights and Days, on one plane, is simply a pondering of that sort. I'm quite sure it could be a more satisfactory response to the challenge, but it was the best I could do. And Camy feels the boys' intellect and their quotations are too advanced for the age of fifteen. This is a criticism that has been aimed at me more than once before, but I continue to defend my corner. I have to confess that all too often I feel frustrated at fifteen-year-olds habitually being depicted as mumbling dumbos. Writers such as us tend, willy nilly, to create characters who are some sort of reflection of ourselves at whatever the relevant age is. My characters, I'm sorry to say, reflect me. I could and I did talk in just the way that Justin/Robert/Gavin do. In fact one of my nicknames then was "Rentaquote". Nor was I unique because I had friends - not many, but a few - who replied in kind. Sure, we must have been obnoxious brats. But that's the way it was. I still appreciate your kind words, though.