khasidi

This is a thank you for a great story ; but also a little bit of a flame. It's about grammar . Two important things… First, the past tense of may is might. You consistently use may where it should be might. Since you are writing mostly in the past tense, you should mostly be using might. For instance, "He thought it may be a problem," is incorrect. The sentence should read, "He thought it might be a problem." Thought is past tense, so may/might must be past tense, too. Second, "lay" is what a chicken does with an egg. "Lie" is what you do on a bed. In other words, you don't "lay" on a bed. The past tense of "lay" is "laid." The past tense of "lie" is "lay" ("Yesterday he lay in bed all day." not "…laid in bed all day.") By the way, you are not the only author who makes these two errors. It seems to be part of certain American dialects and a lot of people mix these words up when they speak. On the plus side, you don't make the much worse mistake of mixing up me and I.

How come in 75% of the gay stories, the plot revolves around rape? I mean, there are a gazillion possibilities for plots. Rape as a mere plot device is so lame. Here we have a pretty interesting story going on that revolves around problems faced by two somewhat damaged people trying to work out a relationship; but that matter is now totally overshadowed by this attempted rape. Rape is a serious matter; but in this case it is being used, almost mechanically, to make the story racier. And it seems to me that it is a way to avoid dealing with the real problems that were set up in the beginning of the story.

I like that Mick is starting to be able to defend himself. Up to now everybody has been taking care of him. That's good, but it does leave him a bit of a baby; now maybe he can start to grow up and take care of the ones he loves, too. It seems like he might be ready to take on a bigger, less Mick-centered cause.

For someone who can extend his damn chi enough to figure out that there is a guy on a cliff stalking him and that this guy is modified, our hero seems just a little slow on the uptake! I mean the boy even screams in the shower! I had a friendship with someone like that, big, with muscles, radiating a kind of heat, and all that stuff. I remember sitting on the beach all fucking night long the last night before the summer was over, on the warm beach on Cape Cod with him, talking, singing songs, reciting poetry, suffering though long, long silences, our bodies vibrating with tension so bad our teeth were chattering; and I never got up the nerve to kiss him. And he never got up the nerve to kiss me. And I've wondered all the rest of my life what would have happened… This hero needs to wake the fuck up. I'm just sayin'…

OK, yeah, I am sort of curious about the mysterious stranger, but what I really want to know about is Opie. I get that he's a dragon, but why is he doing this? What about that temper of his? He's a bit weird looking, I guess, but that's OK. I realize we are supposed to be attracted to the young and the cute; but me, I'd date Opie in a New York minute.

"As a disabled man, George had always known people were holding back around him for his sake. He may be partly paralyzed, but he wasn't stupid, or blind." Past tense of may is might. "…he might be partially paralyzed,…"

In reply to Sasha Distan (and I love your stories, Sasha), your characters "arch one eyebrow."

The tense issue the bugs me is when someone is writing in the past tense and then pops out with the word, "may"; eg, "I was afraid that the dog may bite me." (This mixes past and present tenses.) The past tense of may is might, therefore: "I was afraid that the dog might bite me," (past tense) or "I am afraid that the dog may bite me," (present tense). This particular error crops up with surprising frequency!

Here's what I know about Genies or Djinns. The Persian word, jinni is related to the Sanskrit word, jiwa or jiva, which means spirit. (The human soul is also considered to be a kind of jiwa.) It is also related to the English word, genius, originally a Latin word that also means spirit. In Persian the word is used to denote angels and demons, as well as other spirits. The singular in Arabic is jinni (djinni), and the plural is jinn (djinn). Wikipedia says, "Jinn: (in Arabian and Muslim mythology) an intelligent spirit of lower rank than the angels, able to appear in human and animal forms and to possess humans. "Jinn, jann or djinn (singular: jinnī, djinni, or genie; Arabic: الجن‎ al-jinn, singular الجني al-jinnī) are supernatural creatures in Islamic mythology as well as pre-Islamic Arabian mythology. They are mentioned frequently in the Quran (the 72nd sura is titled Sūrat al-Jinn) and other Islamic texts and inhabit an unseen world called Djinnestan, another universe beyond the known universe. The Quran says that the jinn are made of a smokeless and "scorching fire",[1] but are also physical in nature, being able to interact in a tactile manner with people and objects and likewise be acted upon. The jinn, humans and angels make up the three known sapient creations of God. Like human beings, the jinn can be good, evil, or neutrally benevolent and hence have free will like humans and unlike angels.[2] The shaytan jinn are the analogue of demons in Christian tradition, but the jinn are not angels and the Quran draws a clear distinction between the two creations. The Quran states in surat Al-Kahf (The Cave), Ayah 50,[3] that Iblis (Azazel) is one of the jinn." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinn There is a belief or folk tale similar to folktales about the Rusalka in Eastern Europe that, I have read, is ubiquitous in the lands of the Eastern Mediteranean, that certain djinn will take on the form of a man and have sexual intercourse with unsuspecting young men that wander off alone. Once so seduced the young man will be filled with the desire to be anally penetrated and will no longer find heterosexual intercourse satisfying. I read about this belief some time ago and have never been able to verify it. I would love to find out if such a folktale actually exists. In the West, we think of djinn or genies as living in bottles. This goes back to the legend that Solomon (the Wise) captured destructive djinn and imprisoned them in containers to prevent their intrinsically destructive natures from wreaking havock. Anyone interested in writing about djinn might also be interested in the "demons" called rakshasas (Feminine: Rakshasi) in the Vedic (Hindu and Buddhist) mythology, particularly those in the Ramayana. Rakshasas seem to be quite similar to Djinn. It is clear that Rakshasas can be good or bad, though it is generally agreed that they all like to eat human beings, though some refrain. They also practice sacrificial activities such as fasting and pilgrimages in order to gain spiritual power and virtue. None of this sort of spirit resemble the Christian Devil, they are not satanic in the way Christians have come to see demons. The fantasy novels of Jonathan Stroud feature a jinni called Bartemaeus. These are excellent stories and, though they don't deal directly with gay relationships, it is clear that the demon, Bartemaeus, does come to love the hero.

WTF? Was this real or a kind of bizarre story? It was kind of interesting, whatever it was.

For someone who believes in the importance of logic, I think you should work harder to avoid straw man fallacies. Your diatribes against both the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and the Obama administration are based to a large extent on events and situations that you have made up in your stories. This wouldn't matter if the stories were entirely fictional, but it overlaps the non-fictional world of religion, society, and politics — which means you are making unsupported attacks on real things. And, by the way, the plural of "Nemesis" is "Nemeses" but the singular possessive (in English) is "Nemesis's" (and the plural possessive would, I think, be "Nemeses'"). It's in the first chapter of Strunk and White's, The Elements of Style: singular possessives that end in an "s" still take an apostrophe-s, as in "Thomas's" or "James's." It is only plural possessives, like "Smiths," that take just the apostrophe, as in, "I am going over the the Smiths' house for dinner."

If you do a sequel, remember that men are actually capable of lactating. Little Elizabeth might like to be breast fed.

But Harry did kill Oliver Wood on purpose. The self defence thing was a lie. And, in fact, all through this story, Harry has been lying more and more — also smirking incessently. I think this is the last chapter I am going to read. Ron was basically a good kid and DK has just mucked that all up with no good rationale. I am feeling kind of disgusted.

"Right makes might, Tyler thought, remembering Wart, and Merlin, and Arthur. Right makes might." It might be well to remember that, in T. H. White's The Once and Future King, Arthur was fighting against the idea that Might makes right. But Arthur's story, though it begins in such a lighthearted way, is, in the end a tragedy. Arthur fails to establish a lasting reign of righteousness. Right does not prove mightier, and, after Guenevere and Lancelot prove unable to sustain Arthur's noble goals, betray him, and retire to their respective monasteries, he is in the end defeated by Mordred's forces in the final battle.

Forty-one years old and this Noah doesn't seem to have any life that doesn't revolve around fucking Derek. No wonder the guy was looking for something new. Noah doesn't need to get laid, he needs to get a life, play the cello, volunteer at the local homeless shelter, fingernail art, but something! Something that isn't just getting into a relationship so he can have an identity. Eli is kind of appealing, but I doubt Noah is enough his own man to avoid screwing it up.