Graeme

Of course not! I hope you jump in more often, as an "outside" view is sometime needed to put things into perspective. Cheers! Graeme

Codey, Some parts of my life I believe are typical. I had no one I could consider to be a friend, as distinct from an acquantaince, until I was well into my twenties. I went on a cruise ship (alone -- my goal was to force myself to meet people while I was holidays) for my twenty-fifth birthday, and I still remember distinctly how I felt when I sat down for dinner that night and found that no one else who normally sat at that table had bother to show up. Oh, I know exactly how lonely that person you described can feel. I have had a total of two girlfriends in my entire life, and I married the second one. The first relationship lasted only seven months, but as we lived in different cities, I learnt first-hand how hard long distance relationships are to maintain. I have known I'm gay since year six at school. I've never been unsure of my orientation. So why did I end up with girlfriends? Because I was so starved of affection, of someone who indicated that they liked me, that I was vulnerable to anyone who showed an interest in me. For the record, both girls chased me, not the other way around. So, I married for love, not sex. The bit you mentioned about having someone to come home to was part of it, too. I was in my late twenties at the time. We have recently had our fourteenth wedding anniversary. With what I now know, I probably would have gone to gay bars and nightclubs when I was younger, and found someone that way. But back then, I didn't know of any, or what they would be like. I'm not writing this because I took offense at your assumptions -- I didn't, as they were quite reasonable from what you knew of me. I am writing this so you will understand that even though my current circumstances are atypical, I do understand what it is like to grow up as a gay teenager and young adult -- even if the world is now a very different place than it was back then. Graeme

Another great selection of thought-provoking posts. Thanks, everyone! There are a few things I want to pick up. The first is one that Aaron mentioned. When he first realised he's gay, he started acting effeminate because that's what he thought gays did. He's since learnt otherwise, but I'm sure he's not the only one who has thought that. The issue of promiscuity is another one of those stereotypes that needs to be addressed. We have been talking about role models. As part of that, we need to find ways to educate young gays that this is a stereotype and does not necessarily mean that is what you should be. My question was along those lines. There is no doubt in my mind that the homosexual "community" has a high degree of promiscuity. I'll leave the debate of whether or not this is a good thing to one side and I would just like to state that this does not mean that this is part of what it means to be gay. The next thing is one of tolerance within the gay "community" itself. Tolerance does not mean that you have to personally accept things. I like to think that I'm a tolerant person (apart from fools, but that's another story), but I will put up my hand and say that I am uncomfortable with African-American sub-culture. Does that make me a racist or a bigot? I don't believe so. What it means is that I have a comfortable zone which I don't like to leave, and that's an issue for me and me alone. It says nothing about whether the African-American sub-culture is good, bad or indifferent. It is a personal feeling -- not even an opinion. I'm perfectly happy with the members of that sub-culture and the sub-culture itself, I just feel uncomfortable if I'm presented with it. The extension of that idea for straights with the gay sub-culture is obvious, as is the various gay sub-culture variants. I will again hold up my hand and state that I feel uncomfortable around queens and overly effeminate people -- not all of which are gay. Again, this is me and my reaction and I make no comment about them. I also feel uncomfortable being in a group of blokes talking about cars and engines -- it's just not something I care for. I want to make a point that staying hidden does not necessarily mean that you feel sorry for yourself. I certainly didn't. My life does not and never has revolved around my sexual orientation. If I felt sorry for myself when I was younger, that was because of a lack of friends, which had nothing to do with my sexual orientation but was more to do with my lack of social skills, my personality and a significant age difference with my school peers. Life is full of compromises. Financial security vs being open to the world about your sexuality is one of those. Codey used the phrase "being true to who you really are" when he talked about this. Again, it implies that your sexual orientation is a major part of who you are. I will concede it is an important part, but to define yourself around it, as is implied, I think is wrong. I agree about not letting risks control your life, but the idea of risk management is recognising what risks there are and making considered judgement calls on what risks are acceptable, which are not, and what can be done to mitigate them. You mentioned accident and illness. Insurance policies, including income protection insurance (I presume you have this in the USA), is a risk mitigation strategy to address this. Taking an extreme example, being fired for yelling abuse at the boss is a risk. However, it can be avoided by simply finding other outlets for frustration and aggression. Being fired for being open about your sexuality can be avoided by simply not mentioning the subject in the work environment -- it's really not relevant there anyway. I'll admit that I am not happy that it may be necessary, but you need to weigh up whether or not the potential financial loss is worth being open. This is not "fear" but simply a considered judgement call on what your priorities are -- and this can change with time (like after I win the lottery this Saturday...). You've hit a pet peeve of mine. The gay community has the same mix of people as the straight community. There are statesmen and rogues, heroes and villians, honest and dishonest people. I sometimes sense that there are people out there who think that because this person is also gay, they must be a good guy and someone that can trusted. I know that this is not what you meant, but it was an implication that some people might think. As far as group rights and acceptance are concerned, I agree with you. On an individual basis, however, everyone is still just another person with the usual mixture of sainthood and deviltry. I also have to point out that even here, people are potentially being excluded. We have been talking about "gay" (which I am assuming also include "lesbian"). What about "bi" and "transgender"? Are they part of this community, from the point of view of "nobody gets left behind"? Are we talking about all sexual practises that the mainstream community does not generally do. Bestiality is one that springs to mind. Should we be also campaigning for the rights of people to have sex with animals? After all, who is harmed by the practise? Before anyone starts thinking weird things about me, I will state that I have a fondness of playing "Devil's Advocate" -- the above is a set of questions and reveals nothing about my personal opinions. It was also triggered by a recent news report where one opponent to civil rights for gays used this as one of their arguments against legislation that would prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They also included pedophilia, incest and necrophilia in their list.... More food for thought. Graeme

Thanks, Codey :oops: I should point out that anyone with a mortgage is going to be in a similar position -- losing your job means you run a real risk of losing your house as well. After saying earlier that I wanted to try to keep the thread on topic, I'm now going to try to divert it... :roll: What ever made you think that all, or even a majority of gays are promiscuous? This is not a facetious question, though I should warn you that anything you say may and probably will be incorporated into a story of my choosing... :D (I was requested by my editor sometime ago to discuss this issue in one of my stories, and I intend to do so at sometime in the near future). I have my own views on why this is so, but I'm interesting in what other people think. Graeme

Jeff is the one who has to take responsibility for starting me on the author trail. He kept hassling me until I started to post my New Brother story. Smile Jeff! Graeme

In a vain attempt to keep this thread on topic.... You are correct in that age and experience is not a valid argument. It is not an invalid argument either. As with most short statements, there are so many unwritten qualifications that need to surround it. Throughout history, most advances are made by the young, as they have the freshness to view things in new ways, without the "experience" to tell them that what's not possible. Equally, though, most of those advances come amongst a lot of failures, because much of the "experience" of the aged is valid. As you grow older, your combined experiences allow you to perceive a richness that you may not have noticed earlier. For example, through more experiences than I care to recall (none of which have anything to do with homosexuality) I have learnt that very few things are black and white. I will give a simple, hypothetical example. I am now, at long last, ready to out myself to world (that part is not hypothetical -- I am). Suppose I worked for the company that Drake used to work for. If I outted myself, there is a good chance that they would find an excuse to fire me. What would that mean to me? I have a wife and two pre-school children to support. I have a mortgage on my house that requires the salary I'm currently being paid to keep the bank happy. My wife is currently unable to work because of the demands of looking after the children (childcare costs here would mean that if she went back to work, we'd probably be worse off than we are now). If I was fired, for any reason, we would definitely lose the family home. This would put a strain on a relationship that almost reached breaking point when I came out to my wife. I would run a serious risk of losing my wife and kids (I don't think I would, but it may happen). So, for me, I have what I consider to very valid reasons for not outting myself to the world. If my circumstances were simplier, things would be different. However, this is real-life. Many others will also have personal reasons that they find sufficient to justify not outting themselves. Are these reasons valid? Well, I've given you some of mine. I'll leave you to judge for yourself if they are valid. I won't judge anyone else's. So, how can I be a role-model if I'm not willing to out myself? Well, for one thing, I am out to my wife and her family. My wife and I discuss "gay issues" practically every night, as I fill her in on the activities on these boards. On these boards, I am trying to be as honest as I can, only reserving enough information that would allow me to be identified. I have been asked several times about the subject of being married, and I am willing to repeat as many times as it takes my views on the subject. I am not willing to have anyone else go through what my wife and I have experienced if it can be avoided. I'm often asked if the children made it all worthwhile. If you check out the link to the article from the Sydney Morning Herald that I posted earlier concerning Dr. Kerryn Phelps, you will find that while her son from her first marriage is comfortable with his mum and partner, she is estranged from her daughter. This is just one of the risks that occurs in these types of relationships. I am willing to discuss issues, and will generally try to provide intelligent comment on them (no laughing please...). My opinion can be changed; it is not set in concrete (though sometimes it seems like that). I have the "advantage" that I live outside of the USA. This means I can have a more dispassionate view on topics, though at the expense of a lack of ground-level knowledge. Through the stories I write, I try to educate and challenge the reader. I like to try to make them push their boundaries and view things differently. These are the things I'm offering as an "elder" member. I may not be the ideal "role model" you are looking for, but it is the best I can offer. I'll finish with some common sense training I received once. One view of personalities divides them by the axis's of introverted->extroverted and task-oriented->people-oriented. This divides into basically four groups. Each of those groups have their own strengths and weaknesses. Personally, I am introverted and task-oriented, though when I'm comfortable, I can be extroverted (like on these message boards). It is easier for an extroverted, people-oriented person to be a comfortable "out" person in today's society, than an introverted, task-oriented person. This is just an attribute of personality that the people concerned have no control over. That's enough from me for now.... Graeme

Thank you, everyone! The discussion above is excellent, with a lot of very valid and thought-provoking views expressed. In the interest of providing "older" role models, I'll name some of the people who I described in my earlier post. I am not outting any of these, as their sexual orientation is a matter of public record: Justice Michael Kirby: High Court of Australia (Australia's equivalent of the Supreme Court in the USA) The following site is an Australian Christian web site who are opposed to many of the issues we are in favour of. They have a special section just for Justice Michael Kirby. I quickly reviewed some of the things on the site, and it does not seem to be extreme, but merely having a considered difference of opinion. It's interesting to view things from the "other sides" perspective. http://www.saltshakers.org.au/html/P/9/B/198/ Dr. Kerryn Phelps: Past president of the Australian Medical Association Unfortunately, I can't quickly find a web site that contains details of her life with her partner, Jackie Stricker. I think part of the problem is that they have published a book Kerryn & Jackie which means that most of the material is not available "free" on the Internet. The following article from the Sydney Morning Herald (a mainstream paper) is part of the media blitz for the book publication. However, it contains interesting details of their life, and Dr. Phelp's previous marriage. You may need to register to view it, but it's a free registration. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/12/...4222636940.html Senator Bob Brown: Leader of the Australian Green's (a minority political party, but one that is gaining in strength) Again, it was hard to find much about Bob Brown and his partner Paul Thomas, as they tend to be private individuals. Senator Bob Brown does have a positive voting record in the Australian senate on homosexual rights, but does not have a lot of influence in this area. His main passion has always been environmental issues. I found another Sydney Morning Herald article that mentions some of his history, include some of the struggles he endued to accept his sexuality. For the education of the younger generation, this sort of things was not uncommon, prior to the internet. Without the ability to communicate with your peers in a safe, non-threatening way, you felt very much alone. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/30/...6527861329.html Are these the sorts of people that you are looking for as role models? Graeme

Dear Gabriel, While I appreciate the intent of your post, I must disagree on some of the detail of what you have proposed. I am happy to agree that this is a war. At this point I start to draw on the experience of one my best friends, who is not only a history war buff, but an experienced wargamer. In any war, you have to have clear objectives. In this one, there are two that I can see. The first is the acquisition of legal rights. The second is a positive change in societal attitude. Now, when resources are limited, you can not afford to fight every battle. All that does is drain your resources and leaves you weak and exhausted. You must pick your battles, choosing those which you have a reasonable chance of winning. You must also avoid battles where the cost of winning is too high. Above all, you must keep your focus on your eventual goals. Attack the opponent's weakness, not their strengths. All of this is common sense, as I'm sure you'll agree. But what does this mean in relation to your post? While your suggestion of going to help Drake in his area is admirable, it is unlikely to be productive. The same resources used in a less militant area has a higher chance of success with a lower risk of casualties. A success will also potentially allow us an increase in resources as more gay men and women become confident to come out of the closet. Only when our forces have been built to a signficant degree should we tackle the more difficult areas head on. The other thing that must be remembered is that societal change is slow. I gave the example in my earlier post about attitudes to drink driving changing over a twenty year period. If you reflect over the last twenty years, you will see progress. The simpliest example is the gay marriage debate. Twenty years ago it would have been inconceivable. Today, society can conceive it. It is also an example of a fight that I believe we should not be having, yet. The underlying society support for the idea has not developed far enough yet, and by pushing ahead too hard, we are receiving a backlash in response. Yes, it is slower progress than we like. Yes, there are still areas, like where Drake lives, where attitudes are particularly bad. However, the entire country is not like that. What we need to do is to bolster the areas where attitudes are tolerant, and work to expand them. Start to move them out from the cities and into the countryside. Only then we start to win this war. Otherwise we risk a divide and conqueor strategy against us. There are sections of Australia that are still particularly bad. Rural parts of the country are still very conservative. I have a brother-in-law in country Victoria who has a gay nephew. Neither he, nor the nephew's father have spoken to the young man for years. However, my brother-in-law has known me for years. He now knows I'm gay. I was dreading Christmas Day, which would be the first time we'd be face-to-face since he learnt I'm gay. On that day, he made a point of coming up to me, shaking my hand and wishing me a Merry Christmas. To me, that shows a change in attitude. By finding a new face to the term "gay", he is starting to change his opinion. We need to do this for the wider communities. A human face -- not a stereotyped or militant one -- is more likely to start to change attitudes than anything else. At this point, I will concede that in almost every war, it is the younger people who bear the greatest burden. This war is no different. Yes, we expect the young people of today to lead this fight, but by example. Signs are that the current generation is generally more tolerant that the generation of their parents. This progression must continue. The next generation will pick up the fight in their turn. This I expect this to continue for quite some more. The older generation plays their part in this, too. Stories, such as those written by the authors at this site, help educate and increase morale of those who are in the trenches. This is a role that should not be dismissed. This thread started by asking about gay role models. My initial response included a comment about teaching the younger generation about the mistakes of the older. This is another way we "elder" members can help. I think the analogy has been pushed enough. Please do not give up your aggression and desire for the rights you deserve. All I'm asking is that you try to use them effectively, and don't waste them on battles that should not be fought, at least not yet. Graeme

Firstly, to Blue: This thread, while getting a touch heated, is being discussed in an intelligent and reasonable manner. Even when it's being heated, most of the anger is being directed at society, rather than the individual posters. While your post was timely -- I was beginning to think something along those lines may be needed -- I believe everyone here is intelligent and mature enough to continue this disucssion in the vein intended. Next: I need to clarify my situation. I do not regret marrying my wife. However, I was unable to make it clear to her that I was gay before she fell in love with me. My one attempt to tell her before we got married was too late. She's since told me that she was too much in love with me for her to understand what I told/showed her. She also believed that a gay man wouldn't/couldn't marry a straight girl, and so I mustn't be really gay. The truth was devestating. She recently informed me that she seriously considered suicide after I came out to her. This is with two pre-school children dependent on her -- that's how badly it affected her. If she had been just a little bit more depressed that day, my life would be very different now. That is why I keep saying that getting married was a mistake. The cost was very close to being too high. My statements have been aimed at the general situation. Gay men should not marry straight women. Gay women should not marry straight men. The pain it causes is incredible when the truth comes out. If you are really interested in how much pain is causes, I can direct you to a message board that is dedicated to straight spouses in exactly this situation. I am merely lucky in that (a) my wife loves me enough to try to get past this pain, and (b) I believe I have enough self-control to ensure that I do not stray. While I consider myself to be gay, for my marriage to work I am and will continue to be celibate as far as gay sex is concerned. As for our children, we believe they have to know. We don't know yet at what age we'll sit them down and explain it to them, but because we hold conversations over the dinner table about these message boards, about my stories, and talk about future story plots, we hope they will pick up a general positive attitude on sexuality, as well as having a good idea that I'm gay, even before we explicitly tell them. Graeme

Okay, I'm going to say something potentially controversial. You're not really looking for a role model -- you are looking for society to acknowledge your sexuality and then ignore it. If you are looking for a role model on what it means to be gay, then that means that "gay" is a lifestyle that you want to model you life on. I happen to disagree with this. "Gay" is not a lifestyle; it is a sexual orientation. There are gay "ghettos" around the world. I happen to work within walking distance of Melbourne's "Pink Mile," as one radio commentator called it. Even if I wasn't married, I would still probably only visit it a few times because I'm not a nightclubber, and never have been. It caters for a small subset of the "gay community" but it's the only visible sign so a lot of people think that this is what it means to be "gay". Codey mentioned gay doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. Well they are out there. The thing is that their sexual orientation has nothing to do with their occupation. For some, they may be deliberately trying to keep it a secret. This can be legitimate -- teachers in particular have to avoid any potential sexual situation, regardless of their sexuality -- though I accept for many it's due to fear. Would I expect a doctor, lawyer, plumber, motor mechanic or shop owner to declare their sexuality? Of course not! If I was a friend, that would be different, but as part of their working life? Now, society frowns on homosexual unions, but it is not a blanket, across-the-board attitude. While I have some lawyer friends who make jokes about one of our High Court judges (the Australian equivalent of the USA Supreme Courth), the fact that he is a homosexual, and has been in a commited relationship for over thirty years is reasonably widely known and they do not disparage him because of that. They equally make jokes about a number of other judges for other reasons. It is clear that they do it for humour, not to denigrate the judge as a person. Similarly, until recently the head of the Australian Medical Association (the doctors' chief lobby group) was a lesbian who has been in a commited relationship for many years. This has been reported, without signficant comment, in the media for a few years now. The current head of the Australian Greens is widely known as a homosexual in a long term commited relationship. I have never heard this used against him or his party (with the exception of the occassional loony letter writer to the newspapers). When the Australian Democrats (another minor political party) were going through a leadership crisis recently, another "out" homosexual was touted as a potential leader for the party in the mainstream media. His sexuality was mentioned, but was never made a focus. So there are four prominent Australians in the public eye whose sexuality has been published in the mainstream media. In every case, their sexual orientation has not been put forward negatively, but is usually as a side comment, or neutrally reported (such as when the High Court Judge received an honorary award and made mention in his speech that it was the first time that his partner had ever attended one of these events -- his comments were reported without editorial addition). These are not role models, but simply examples of what we all want -- that our sexuality becomes a non-issue as far as society is concerned. My opinion only, as always :D Graeme PS: On a personal note, I was also a member of the University's Dungeons and Dragons club. One of the club presidents while I was there was generally suspected as being gay, but it wasn't an issue. He did an excellent job as president of the club and I never heard anyone make any significant comment about his sexuality -- it was irrelevant as far as the club was concerned. I believe he may have been a member of the Gay and Lesbian society, in which case I wouldn't have expected it to be like the one Codey mentioned. I also remember that they had a stand at the Orientation Day before I started, but as a sixteen-year-old, I didn't have the nerve to go up and speak to them.

Definitely not! If you extend the question to "any" gay role models, positive or not, the answer is still NO. Growing up, I knew of no one who was gay and "out". The closest would be TV characters like "Mr Humphries" on "Are You Being Served" which I just can't consider to be role models at all (if you don't know the show, you're missing out on some excellent old British humour). A much more difficult question for me to answer. I would say that my life would be very different to what I have now. As I've mentioned before, I'm a married gay man with two young children. I am also very much in the minority in that my marriage looks like it'll survive the crisis of my coming out to my wife -- the vast majority do not. I can remember being in University and standing outside the door where the Gay and Lesbian society were holding a meeting... and not having the courage to open that door. In my defense, I will admit that at the time I was only seventeen -- I started University a few months before my seventeen birthday. I was very introverted and nervous as a teenager. This had nothing to do with my sexual orientation, but was more a consequence of being up to two years younger than the other students in my grade at school, as well as being probably the brightest student in that grade at that school. If I had a positive gay role model, I probably would have had enough courage to open that door, and the life I would be living would bear no resemblence to what I have now. I certainly would never have gotten married. As blue mentioned, the other big difference was that the internet did not exist, as such, at that point in time. We certainly didn't have a computer at home. This has made a significant difference to the environment in which we are living now. It had a MAJOR influence in my coming out to my wife. I have to take objection to this, though I appreciate the intent of the question. A person's sexual orientation should not control their lives. I am working hard to ensure it doesn't control mine because I want to maintain what I have -- a happy marriage with two wonderful kids. I am controlling my life, and have been throughout my marriage. Part of that control has been, until last year, suppressing my sexual orientation. For me, this has not been an unhealthy thing but a decision I made as part of achieving the (happy) life I'm now living. Part of being an elder (gee, I'm suddenly feeling really old...) is also making sure the younger generation doesn't make the same mistakes that we made. While a sizable majority (I'm making a guess here, because no one has accurate figures on how many closeted homosexuals there are) have remained closest, there have been enough who have done what you have said, and that has resulted in a cultural change in today's society. At this point, I will have to restrict myself to Australian society as I can't make these comments on other countries. Societies change their attitudes slowly. My favourite example is on the subject of drink-driving. When I was in my early twenties, drink-driving was socially acceptable (despite it being illegal). The concept of a designated driver was unknown, and any proposing something like that was considered a wuss: not a real "man" (apologies to any female readers, I'm just using my experiences as a male as an example). In today's society, this has been completely turned around. Drink-driving is socially unacceptable, and any practices aimed at preventing it are deemed perfectly acceptable, and often even admirable. Similarly, society's attitude to gays when I was in my early twenties bears no resemblence to the attitude today. Back then, the concept of even trying to debate the subject of same-sex marriages would have been inconceiveable. Today it is a valid debate, albeit one that we seem to be losing (for the moment). There are main stream TV shows with gay characters that are not all limp-wristed, lisping effeminates. There are gay festivals that attract widespread postive attention from the general community (the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Grai parade is the main one, but I also remember attending a simlar parade in Auckland, New Zealand when I was there for work once -- taken there by one of my straight workmates). Now, if you want me to lead by example as an elder, I can teach how to live without mobile phones, computers, and email -- all things that have improved the quality and reach of communications in today's world, and hence have resulted in a broader and richer source of information and support than what was available when I grew up. We couldn't even be having this discussion if the world was still the same as when I grew up -- my experiences, my examples are just not as relevant any more. Again, I must respectively disagree. I have just discussed this very issue with my wife. My circumstances are unique, but then so is everyones. If I were to come out to the general community, this would impact on my family -- wife and two kids -- more than it would on me. Because of the internet, I am ready to come out. I was not ready until I had access to this media, and could use it to understand myself better. However, now that I am ready, I am no longer in a position where I can do so without considering the impact on others. I would not only be coming out of the closet myself, but I would be dragging my wife and children out at the same time. This means it is not just my decision. Yes, not everyone is in my situation. But when we were considering telling my family, the counsellor who was helping my wife cope with being married to a gay guy asked the question "Why?" . We didn't have an answer to that one, and we still don't. The only reason I had at the time was simply one of being honest. It would not have changed a thing -- my life would have continued on exactly as it was before. Since then, we have come up with two reasons to do so -- if I became a published author of gay fiction (just so we could boast :D), or if we learnt that one or more of our neices and nephews was gay and needed support. In conclusion, I understand and appreciate the thrust of your post. I certainly do not disagree with the sentiments. All I can say is that the world is a very different place to what it was like when I grew up. The Internet is the number one difference that makes being gay a more comfortable thing than it was back then. All of the above is my opinion only, based on my experiences. A lot of what I have said and my reasoning for my behaviour is unique to my circumstances and is probably not applicable to others. Graeme

Okay -- Please have pity on me. I'm only a poor colonial who's high school days are too far in the past for me to remember. English was also always my worst subject... (as you can probably tell by that appalling sentence construct). Just like there is a thread on grammar and other FAQ's, can someone please do an FAQ on the correct terms to be used when talking about grammar? I can understand most of what is said above, but it was hard going. Thanks in anticipation.... Graeme

I haven't the faintest idea how to mark, so I won't give you one -- sorry 8) However, there are a couple of spelling mistakes which drag it down a little: dieing vs dying and thier vs their. The second stanza talks about seeking a place of safety, donning a mask and closing the door. The imagery isn't quite right. Shouldn't it be something a long the lines of donning a mask whenever we leave the place of safety? Overall, I thought the message and structure was great. I disagree with rusticmonk86 on the subject of emotion. It's not one to rip at the heart, but it certainly makes you reflect on the idea you're presenting. I especially liked the line: as it makes you think about who/why/what it is that one person sees in another.Well done! Graeme

Now you're making me think.... What I meant was that I felt it was too heavy handed. It was clever in how you did it, but the sexual connotations came over a longer stronger than the non-sexual. There was a certain level of subtly missing. I think the balance between the two interpretations of what was written needs to be adjusted. Still, as I said, I enjoyed it. Graeme :D

I liked it. It brought a smile to my face. I think the sentiments are a bit over the top, but still quite enjoyable. The photos didn't add or subtract as far as I was concerned, but I've never been a particularly "visual" person anyway. Others will probably have a different opinion on that. Graeme

I think Drake wrote a story once where he had discussions between a past and future "self". I've seen references to it, but I haven't read it myself (sorry, Drake -- I'll get around to it one of these days). So, I think that was a tongue-in-cheek poke at himself as a psychotic writer.... Graeme

At this point, I'll make a confession. The issue came up when a friend sent me a draft of a story that they were writing. They had written in present tense, and when I read it, it felt "wrong" somehow. It's possible that there were mixed tenses, and while I didn't consciously see them, my subconscious did. We discussed it, without getting a concensus on what was "right", and I offered to put a post here to get advice. With the mixture of experienced editors and writers, I was hoping for a range of opinions and comments. So, thank you everyone for your comments. I personally have found them useful, as this is something I also didn't know. Almost everything I've written to date has been 1st person, past tense. I want to try 3rd person at some stage (I've started writing such a story, but I keep putting it off). If anyone else has anything to say, I'd love to hear it. One thing before I go: I would have thought that Full/Partial Omniscient would have to be 3rd person. Or is the case of alternating 1st person between characters what you mean by Full/Partial Omniscient 1st Person. It's diverging from the original thread, but I'm still personally working out when, where and how to use 1st vs 3rd person POV. Graeme

Thanks, everyone! I don't mind admitting I was nervous about publishing this story, because of the subject matter. I'm glad you liked it. Graeme

I have a question regarding the correct tense to use in different situations. I've been told that generally, when writing in first person, a past tense should be used, even when describing current events. eg. "I saw him lift his arm" instead of "I see him lift his arm" I'm not sure if the same rule applies when writing in third person. For example, when describing a place, should I use: or should it be: I feel the second one is more "correct", but I'm not sure if that is simply because I've been done some much first person POV writing. Graeme

I will put my hand up as one of the people involved in that discussion. I am a married gay man, with two kids. I have been asked several times does that make me "bi" and in my opinion, the answer is "No". The closest I can explain it is I'm 20% hetero and 80% homo, but even that leaves a lot to be desired. Just let's say I love my wife and she loves me. However, if the worst thing happens, I'll be looking for a guy to spend the rest of my life with, not a girl. A lot of this occurred because I was not comfortable with my sexuality until quite recently. Since then, I have learnt that over 90% of relationships in my situation fail. I'm working as hard as I can to ensure that I don't add to that statistic. I have an essay in the Authors Speak at the Mail Crew website (http://www.themailcrew.com) if you want to read more on my background. Dewey is in a similar situation. He has published statements on this before, so I'm (hopefully) not putting words into his mouth. In his case, he didn't realise he was gay until after he was married. He also has an essay at the Mail Crew website on the subject of emotions that gives some of his background. I'm not sure I can give a good answer to this one. For me, it was a question of honesty, plus I had assumed that my wife had already known. I am aware of others who had marriages lasting decades who only came out after their partner died. In a large percentage of cases of marriages that fail after the person came out of the closet, the failure can be partially attributed to the fact that the person had an affair. From discussions with my wife, I think a lot of women would probably consider casual sex with another guy as constituting an "affair". On that basis, if the man can control himself enough so that it is only a mental temptation, and does not take it the next step, then he has the option of keeping the secret. What that will do to his mental health, I can't say. My wife has made the comment that I'm a happier person since I've told her -- take whatever conclusions you like from that. On the down side, she also recently told me that she seriously contemplated suicide at one point after I came out of the closet. As someone who has known his sexual preference since year 6 in school, but was not confident in myself to admit it, I can't really answer this one. However, I'm aware that it happens. I would like to think that the problem is caused by society -- the lack of acceptance of homosexuality feeds back to young people and they subconsciously suppress what they are feeling. Once they have gotten past that, I doubt they go back. My opinion only, of course. Graeme

The poem echo's a sentiment that is unfortunately way too common. Once something has been said, there seems to be a natural instinct to defend it, even once you realise it's wrong. :( Graeme

Firstly, I'd like to say you ask too many questions! :D While analysing a story to work out what worked and what could be improved is important, especially for new authors like you (and me), sometimes the sum of the parts is greater than the parts themselves. This is a story that I wouldn't want to over-analyse. It really does have that strong gothic style that you mentioned. The character and background reflect this style and I think you've done a great job. The only reason I won't say an excellent job is that I haven't read many gothic style stories to compare it to. The two parts of the stories show a marked contrast. The early, 1910 section really does give the feel of that era. I personally found myself straining disbelief originally with Christian's background, but it suited the story so well, once I got into it, that it didn't bother me after that. The later section with Thomas came over as a lot more modern in tone, which is exactly what you wanted. Just accept a VERY WELL DONE and try not to over-analyse it. Graeme

I finally found some time to read this. I'll start by saying thanks to everyone who's commented above -- after the reviews above, I just had to read it. Jamie, you challenged me, and the other authors, once to write a story where being gay was not the focus of the story. I would have to say that this is an excellent example. The story revolves around the narrator and his lost love, but I couldn't call it a "gay" story. It's a story of hope, despair, fatalism and dreams. The fact that the narrator is gay is almost irrelevant. The ending was excellent and the twist was telegraphed beautifully. It clicked to me what was about to happen just before it did, which amplified the impact dramatically. Graeme

Beautiful....

What immediately sprang to mind is the phrase A picture is worth a thousand words. I personally do not like photo's of fictional characters being provided by authors, though I don't mind pictures on the covers of the hard/paper back books I own. I think this is because a drawing still leaves the impression that the characters are fictional, while a photo creates an internal conflict on this point. I think a thousand words to describe what a person looks like is largely a waste of time and effort, on both the writer and readers behalf. As you said in another thread, every sentence should advance the story in some respect. Unless the description has some impact on the story, I prefer to read just enough to get a feel for the character, and fill in the blanks in my own mind. For example, Jimmy in your The Last Word is described as being fat. This is a very relevant part of his description as it comes into play in quite a places in the story. Items, such as Rory's muscle tone, however are not mentioned, because they just don't add anything (at least so far in the story). On the principle of full disclosure, I will admit that I personally have trouble describing people. Since I started writing, I have been looking at people, and trying to work out how to put in words what they look like. So far I have largely failed, unless I go through an incredibly boring sequence of descriptions that still probably doesn't match the reality. On that basis, I prefer to leave descriptions to the salient points, plus enough to put the person in context (eg. rough height, build/weight, age, hair colour). If it's first person, I may also indicate whether or not the narrator finds them attractive. All my opinion only, of course. Graeme