John Galaor

The worse case is a child too sensible, or perhaps... should I say sensitive? This is going to be a problem. We have to train the child to be strong enough against social aversives.

That's it. It is easy to fix up some flying out big ears. But prince Charles have some Dumbo ears and is not a problem. The problem is the common children who do not deserves as much respect. Just imagine the child of a mafioso gangster, he would have any trouble to solve the problem with a fight. The son of a gangster is supposed to be blessed with some natural aggressive attitude inherited in their DNA. On case he does not have the expected aggressive attitude his father would probably kill him, in the best style of the Spartan warriors. In modern civilized style, it remains "to immunize the child against social aversives" as I told in other post.

I can take seriously self-esteem of a boy or girl. There are two options to solve this problem. They can work separately or combined. 1) solution one is "to immunize the child against social aversives". This immunization works is a similar way as immunization against ordinary pathogens. The process is similar. In controlled context you train the child to take lightly, mostly reacting with a smile, with any intent to tease him or to disturb him or make him angry. To succeed in the process you have to "reinforce" him for smiling after mild intents at teasing him. The process of immunization starts with mild teases and mild insults and should be graded towards gross insults and even physical attacks. The process of immunization is not achieved in a single session. It requires a program of several months to succeed. As in many pathogenic immunizations, its required to repeat the immunization every five or six years, till he would be a total adult older than 25. 2) Another way of solving the problem is to train him in martial arts to kick the hell out of anyone trying to make him mad. Both procedures would be rather cheaper than plastic surgery. John Galaor

If someone is interested in debating this topic, but felt unsure, he can consult in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will Sometimes, some religious or other sort of freaks, accuse gays of having made the choice of living in sin. Then, the question of making a choice is related directly to free will. Is it the will totally determined by past events? I suppose this topic would be as popular as a week old dead cow during the summer in Kansas in a windless day. I would say something farther on this topic in about seven or ten days. I am betting 10 dollars nobody would participate in this debate. John Galaor

Well, Cia. This story is a hit also. Very thrilling and fast. A good read. Nevertheless, I would like you revise a little the composition, to straighten some points. In general, this chapter make me think I should read all the rest of the story, starting from chapter one. Sorry dear, but I had to start from any point whatever. I will try other of yours stories.

well, Quonus. I will make a dissonant comment here. It is not you fault. It comes that I do not like any sports at all. Then, to me this characters look too superficial to love them. Well, I had to confessed that I read about 1500 words from the start till the match ended, and that is a sort of achievement for me. That amounts to nearly a 20%. of the chapter. I hope in the next chapters I would read more. I wanted to learn what are the cues to be popular here. That is, I wanted to know where lay the roots to succeed in GA. I know that Americans are crazy with sports. But where I live the fans of sports are not usually fond of literature. So, in a way, they live in separate worlds. You have probably touched a sensible fiber on the reader's heart. With a reputation of 1079 points earned in just 253 days, you had earned 4.26 points per day. And with this series you got 25,000 visits in 112 days, it makes an average of 223 visits per day. If I divide the nearly 295,000 words into the 25,000 visits, you had earned like a visit for every 11.75 words. A real hit, man. I said in a chat today I wanted to learn from you to to be a popular writer. But in this case, it is a pity I do not like sports. I will try other chapters to see if I can learn something else. I hope to be more lucky next time.

I am not sure. But it seems to me that a gay novel is when being gay on the main character is outstanding in the story. But if the novel is about a main character that seems to be gay, for he has some manners, or that people gossips he is living with a male lover, etc. this is not a gay novel. Is novel with a character that is reputed to be gay. Then, even a gay novel does not force the main character of the story to get out of the closet. It could remain more or less closeted in general but not to the readers. Then, I think a gay novel is when the sexuality of character has a relevance in the story. When the character has some problems or make some particular decisions because he is gay. Then, the sexual life of the character can be more or less explicit in the narrative. This is an election the author decides when he writes. Some authors feel so bad after writing an explicit sex scene that they need to confess with a R.C priest. I suppose RC priests are the only priests that perform confessions. Any way the constraints of Victorian prudishness are still ruling in our minds. Perhaps we would feel liberated in the next hundred years, just in case this civilization would last that long. For the exhaustion of oil is awaiting us in just 40 years or so. Perhaps, the theory of Richard Duncan, about peak oil, would become true and this civilization would collapse totally. So we are worrying about petty things like the poor quality of a novel and what it is.

I know this thread is very old. And perhaps it is already exhausted and was said already all that can be said. In any ordinary novel, a character or even the protagonist can be gay, but is not said any word about it, for several reasons. One reason can be that do not help the sales, but probably depressed sales, etc. I remember now all those gay actors of Hollywood that had to be hidden all their lives to save their careers of a wreck. Then, a gay novel is about a character that even if he is hidden in its life, or in the story line, it is not hidden for narrative purposes. Let's call this "gay novels" post Victorian novels. For we are still living in prison of Victoria sanctimony. If not in a total sense, at least in a relative one. Then the Victorian prudishness is still ruling our lives and our criticism in this case. I have also myself a concept of good and bad literature. If I were to define the concept, I would tell "good literature is the one I love to read", and the opposite "bad literature is those books I cannot read". I do not think anybody can challenge me at this definition, for it is totally "subjective". Then, if some putative authority decries that such and such works are "good literature" I had to believe it? It that were the question, the same authorities could also prohibit to write new stories. We have enough tons of literature from the past that we will not be able to read it in the next hundred years. Then, why to write new stories, if the past is overwhelming us with a ton of books we had not yet read? Let's imagine that there not less than 5,200 great novels and books of poetry that we are obliged to read by a culteran decree. Then we had promised to read all those books at the rate of one per week. Then, as a year has only 52 weeks, in 100 years we would had read 5,200 books. And they are all ancient books, and they are all great books, genial books. No any need to write any more. The trouble with this idea is that the tastes and interest of people had change with times. What it was fine and fashionable some centuries ago is now something with very little interest. Then, a gay novel I suppose needs a degree of freedom that was impossible with the shackles of Victorian sanctimony. Even in sort of freedom, you would like more or less the sex scenes or the porno other people write. I even felt constraint by many Victorian conventions. But I try to remember that in Victorian times were also prostitution and sodomy. What was not permitted was that this operations were known or acknowledged that existed. Then, in Victorian conventions a lady should be always a lady, mostly should be a prudish one, to say the least, and only had intercourse under some special command aiming to increase the population of the Empire. Press tight your teeth, spread out the legs and endure what is to come for the good of the Empire. All this can be interpreted on the light of controlling by aversive means the population. The aversive controls over a population were like proverbial sword of Damocles, hanging over the head of everybody. Then, good quality? Bad quality? Of course. I had watched a few movies and read like a dozen of books that were a hit with public, but I did not like them. I remains to me to read the "most popular" authors in GA. I should learn a lot from reading them.

there is a serious problem with publishing. There is an excessive offer that outstrips demand. I am not saying that there more writers today than readers. But the excess of offer makes very difficult to create the myth that is a great thing. I had read that the budged of a typical movie of Hollywood requires to expend half the money in promotions and publicity. The same can be said about "bestsellers". They had to expend a great deal of money in publicity. So it is a risky business. If the releasing of a book coincides with some other important event, like a war or an economic crisis, the barrel of oil at 150 dollars or so, the book in question can remain under the shade of this bad omen and could not take off and fly successfully. It could also be interfered with some other big promotions. This is also bad. It is very difficult to create several myths at the same time. This happens sometimes with movies. Then, to be a good book is more a question of prestige (that means publicity) than a question of real substance, or a given amount a literary quality. How can we weight or measure "quality" in literature? I think many books have such a strong reputation nobody dares to refute, for it is a social taboo to do it. You should not challenge the old myths of History or literature. I remember when I was in the army, an ignorant guy that never had read a book, were repeating that Cervantes was the greatest author in the world. Try to imagine a similar case but mentioning Shakespeare. So, this had become a dogma of faith, not a question of reading and comparing works.

There is always a question hanging from a thin thread, "What is quality in a novel?" Let's take as an extreme example Shakespeare, yeah, the real Shakespeare. Let's imagine for a while any of his works is a model of real quality. Or just imagine Jane Austen, or Mary Shelley, or any of greats, then we can call them exquisite or excellent writers, or poets, or whatever. But it is clear to me that the tastes of today's readers are not educated to tread by the same pathways their Victorian readers trod. Or in the case of Shakespeare, we cannot to tread the same paths Elizabethan readers trod; in this case to watch their theatrical stories or the most important thing, to understand them fully. Then, have we enough readers today to write like the Bronte Sisters? Would be there a publisher daring to bet in printing a novel from a contemporary author who would be writing in the style of 19 century? Then, our education, the permitted readings we did when we were adolescents... has so much rigidly formatted our minds, that we cannot trespass the Victorian corsets meant to control literature. I do not think highly of the morality of Victorian times. It was mostly a façade, a fake structure of houses representing a street, like in the movies of Hollywood. It was all a mere appearance of virtue. I can accept that "perhaps" we cannot have a honest society without all this priggishness, all this hypocrisy. I am not totally sure we can live with an honest glance at what is really hidden behind this front of virtue and sanctimony. Anyway, "what is quality?" Some works from early 20 century have its prestige won because they challenged the laws against obscenity. I got in my hands Ulysses from Joyce, and I could not read it. I got in my hands some books from Proust, and I could not read even a mere page of any of them. I got in my hand some books of Henry Miller, Tropic of Cancer, and Tropic of Capricorn, and I could not read more than a few pages. I was bored with them. I did not find in this Miller any sense of transcendence. I read some books from Anais Nin, and they were a lot much better. But I could not read many of his books. I get also bored. I have some books of Anais Nin in my bookcase awaiting to be read. I remember now Madame Bovary of Flaubert and got bored. Perhaps the readers of nowadays need a brisker pace in a story plot. We could get bored easily with the slow pace of many literary master works of the past. I am not going to pass list of all the great famous literary works that I could not read at all. For most of them were a bore to me. They were not written for the readers of the second half of the twenty century, and not for the 21 century readers.

it depends on the type of readers you have. I have posted stories in nifty. Some of the most hot steamy stories had sent me a lot of mail thanking me, and even giving me ideas to continue the story. While the most literary stories had sent me back only a few mails as feed back. Then, the success of a story depends also on the background of the story. I think here in GA are very popular the pseudo-archaic stories in the line of the Lord of the Rings and vampires. It all depends in which were the favorite readings when one was an adolescent. Once one gets hooked to a genre of literature this is the model for the rest of his life. If the stories he had read had not explicit sex, but a few hints and faint innuendos... well, this would be the right path. It is all a question of our tastes in literature. For my part, my stories in a formal style as if it were from the first half of twenty century, are mostly a bore for readers. Then, I had abandoned this serious style of writing. I do not want to bore my readers. I am not betting either to prove the good taste of readers. I had read some samples of the most read stories in GA, so I got some ideas about this concept. Anyway, taste is a very subjective matter. Everyone considers a good story is that he likes when reading. Nobody is going to consider a good story if he does not like it when reading. Then, the conclusion is simple. Write in the way you most pleases. At most, you can change something in a story, if a publisher is going to print your novel. But do not change it as much that you would dislike the story.

It is difficult to argue about this. On a hand, some readers feel awkward with sex scenes, as if feeling some modesty and do not want to remember or as if regretting the sin of reading such scenes. It all depends on the degree of modesty the reader feels when reading a sex scene. I remember like 40 years ago, the first time I saw a pic with sperm spread over human skin. I was for some four of five seconds shocked. Younger people that gave me this magazine to watch was waiting to see my reaction. It is not that I had not had watched that thing in a real way. Then, sometimes I had read some commentaries as if needing the characters of a story should have a "character", whatever it means. I usually have adolescents in my stories. But adolescents cannot have yet developed any character. Or at least are not marked yet. It is older people who have a character more or less developed already. Then, if to read a story we need to concentrated in people with strong character... we would not be aloud to present a young character with a soft and adaptable character. It is after a collection of bumps and abuses that a young person began developing a character. As for sex scenes... this occurs in real life, I suppose. In past times, under the taboo of excluding sexual references in literature... this was the norm. Serious literature could not contain sexual references. Any allusion had to be indirect and very well wrapped in metaphors or euphemisms. The opposite does not make literature any better. For life is not composed of sex scenes exclusively. Then it is the boring component of literature. The main reason to read a story is that one is expecting "pleasant moments". These pleasant moments can be easily labeled as "expectations". Very few readers are going to read a story that had the aim to explain the secrets of "quantum electrodynamics", I suppose. So, pleasant expectations are not to be found in a novel. To enjoy quantum physics we would try best "the Elements of Q.E." of Paul Dirac or something like that. Then, depending on the degree of our modesty, we would enjoy a sex scene or not. Then, I remember that there is well know genre of literature called "romantic novels". But after a famous resolution of the U.S Supreme Court in the 60's the laws of obscenity cannot prohibit the printing of novels containing obscene words, or explicit sex scenes. Then, some readers are still under the spell of anti-obscenity laws dictated by Christian and Victorian codes of modesty. John Galaor

Manuel was teaching me some nasty words in French I passed the night with a blank mind. I had not any dream, not any awakening alarmed or something. I awoke with the first light that was coming from the window. I was not recalling at this moment the possibility of being freed today. Being in a jail was becoming natural. I had not been feeling much freedom in my life. I was used to do promptly anything ordered to me. Then, the time I had spent in jail was to me like being in a state of

Dave taught Jimmy wrestling After the work finished, Dave met Jimmy. “Let’s go, Jimmy.” “Where?” “Don’t remember? We are going to play wrestling.” “Wrestling?” “Yes, we spoke about this morning.” “Yes. But you are very strong, and me... I’m not.” “That’s the reason. I want to make you stronger.” “I don’t want to get hurt.” “I’m not going to break you any bone.” “You are not going to break me?” “Of course. I will take care of you. I’ll treat you

Ok, Jian I have not any grouch against editors. I neither presume that my composition is perfect. If anyone see faults in this story he can tell me. Thanks a lot.

Hi, AnytaSunday. You had a great idea. I already did what you told me and the story is now much better. Thanks, dear.

i had the idea that I had read already this story here. Nevertheless I did not do any comment. It is a good story, Lugh. I mean, I never had been reading this style of literature, for I was learning English by reading novels. Then I was fearing to have problems, for this archaic fantasy stories were difficult to read. Then, I really like this one. It seems I am learning some of the rare words used in this literature. Like "trew" that in the word-count was in the rank 67,452 It is an amazing low frequency. A phrase like "His breath came in short hitches" that made me look for the dictionary. I don't remember more problems. I had imagines that people here had read "The Lord of the Rings" or others. All those Saxon words give the story a flavor of archaism of medieval times that I did not knew.

You are a superstar, Anyta. I know your prestige and popularity of you. But I feel bad reading this story. First of all, because I do not know enough English to read you. to start with the tittle, Thwack! I had too look for it in the dictionary. Then, the story starts suddenly, without telling us who is this Zen, if he is a young man, an old man, or any sort of creature, half human, half beast. Or where he is. It seemed he was in a building, but not more. Then, for unknown reasons, I pictured Zen as an old man, going down the stairs in the darkness. Then, when it started this story about giving a password, I thought he had entered an illegal place to play poker, or some sort of betting. Then, as it started to get clear the place was for fighting, I was picturing Zen as a fat thick old man, who loved fighting. Then he was fighting to win some money and so. Then when the the story told of Zoe, I thought it was a poor old lady, the mother of the old man, or so. Then it was a surprise when I found that Zoe was a girl of high school age. Oh, my! His is his father! He is taking care of the girl. Then, they were brothers. Then, he was not an old fat man at all, but sort of jock full of power that was fighting to win some money to make ends meet. I am sorry, Anyta. I am a poor aghast reader.

Chatting with Dave during work breaks. Two weeks later, Jimmy met Dave in the working site. Dave looked like he were angry something. So, he said, “Last Sunday, I was looking for you and you were not in the park.” “Why you were looking for me?” “To bring you to the dancing hall.” “I don’t want to go a dancing hall any more.” “Why?” “No girl wanted to dance with me.” “I’ve seen you dancing with a great girl.” “Well, I did not like this one. She was too tall

In general, the stereotype of gay is the effeminate one. The guys that looked masculine and had manly manners are not considered gays.

I have the concept that a straight guy sodomized by force, figure him being tied or something, he can have a pleasure, for the mere act of anal intercourse produces a massage over his prostate. This massage is enough to produce pleasure in his body. He can even be driven to orgasm. But he was a straight guy. This unexpected pleasure could be a revelation for him.

among lower class people in Mediterranean lands, gays are only those that play the receptive role of females, or those that perform fellatio on others. Then those who play the role of males do not think of them as gays. I think that among northern European countries, the concept is similar among the lower class people. It is in the high classes that the concept extends to both partners in the play.

It has its funny side. One has something hard coming and going inside him and thinks, "my! It is this something gay?" One can ask the one on top of us, "do you think I am a gay?"

You comments are very interesting. The problem is what the owners of this society think it should to be. First of all, they need that we would be scared of the bullies and criminals. For this case, their scarce police force, they are saving on this waste of money, would be much in need. In this way, authorities could be considered a most needed tool to protect us against criminals. This has a dual purpose. We have to fear authority, for this is the only way they could have tool to keep themselves sure. I mean the people of high rank. To achieve that, all societies had always needed to perform "human sacrifices" on token persons, that can be labeled sodomites, witches, blasphemers or criminals. The human sacrifices serve to remind people that authorities or its agents can be vicious murderous people. It is a traditional way to tame us into submission. Then, this experiment of the bystanders, proves that we are really so well tamed, and that we are indifferent for the shit that occurs to other people. So, we do not care for the situation of the underdogs and losers. f**k them all. But in regard to people of high rank we are very sensible. That explains why it took only 4 seconds for the walkers to bend down to help a person of high rank. I think the last part is very easy to prove is right. Then, we can devise a wonderful speech to prove otherwise, that we are all, most of us, a wonderful bunch of sensible human beings; not a bunch of indifferent bastards. Sorry for the poor bastards, I was using a traditional way of speech that is not politically correct. JG