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.

There's a word for people like Travis. I think it's "sociopath" (not to be confused with psychopath). Really interesting introduction. I'll be fascinated to see how it develops. By the way — and I know this will sound pendantic, but I'm neurotic and it actually drives me kind of crazy, so I'll mention it — the possessive form of (singular) names that end in "s", such as Travis (or James, Thomas, and even Jesus for that matter) is apostrophe-s; so it should be, "Travis's" not "Travis'." Somehow, a lot of people think that the rule for plural nouns — where you use only the apostrophe (as in, "the Jacksons' car") — has confused people about this. But check any style manual (Like The Elements of Style by E.B. White or The Chicago Manual of Style) and you will find that this doesn't apply to singular names that end in "s". And think about it, in speech we wouldn't say "Travis' car," wed say "Travis's car"; why should it be different in writing? Okay, sorry about the digression. You won't hear from the grammar police again unless you start writing "lay" instead of "lie." Cheers Jake

Let's see, orphan kid gets shifted around from home to home. Clearly there are going to be issues of attachment. Typical of such children is that they are really really well behaved at first, sometimes for quite a while; but after some time they will start to test the situation to see if these new parents can be trusted. Whoops, Bette flunks adoptive parenting 101. Clearly her love comes with conditions—exactly the situation Micah would be testing. Through her actions Bette is saying, if you play the violin (payment), I'll love you and take care of you (reward), if not, I'll throw you to the wolves. This is a story, so there will probably be a happy ending; and, of course, the author has set that up with David Stirling, when he comes back into the story later. I am not so impressed with Megan as others seem to be. She seems to work from the premise that Micah's inability to toe the line set by Bette and society is Micah's fault—more love with conditions. Frankly, of all the women who are oppressing Micah, I like the girlfriend best, drugs and all. Lastly, I'll add that I am kind of furious with Bette, she has stolen Micah's music, which started as a loving communion with his father, Poppa M, and then an expression of grief at Poppa M's death and the loss of his home, and she has redirected his motivation into a professional ambitions whose goal seems to be competition, fame, prestige, and perhaps money, but certainly not love of music. I am a musician myself, and what seems to be missing from Micah's musical development is not the need for more practice—lot's of really good musicians don't actually practice all that much—but the delight one finds, not in the ego strokes of being a soloist, but in joining one's creativity with that of other musicians. In real life, I would expect a huge part of Micah and Bette's relationship would revolve around playing together, after all, we are told that Bette is a pianist of some ability and that all the children in her family have been taught, as well. Couple that with the fact that almost all of the violin repetoire requires either an orchestra, a keyboard player, or other string players and you can see that there is a strange lack of understanding in this story of what it means to be a musician. It is really only keyboard players and maybe guitarists who can develop their art as a sophisticated form of masturbation.

In response to the "Oh snap!" question, I figured out that hundreds (maybe thousands) of years of years would go by while Shay was in the machine the minute I read, "suspended animation," in the first chapter. It was just a question of how long it would take Shay to figure it out. Also, it was pretty clear, after Mira appeared, that the sharplings were post-viral humans. My big question is, how long do the sharplings live? Is it possible that Shay's parents are still living as sharpllings? Also, what was the emmination of warmth that got rid of the virus in Mira?

Two quick nautical corrections. When a sailboat tips to one side because of the pressure of the wind, it is called "heeling," not "listing." A listing boat is a boat in trouble because it's natural balance is gone, as when it is filling with water which collects on one side or the other and tips it to the side. Listing is bad, heeling is good. The second one (and I am not altogether certain about this one ) is the expression "Sails flying." This would mean that the sheets (ropes that control the sails) were released, not that all the sails were pulling to the max, as seems to be the intended meaning in this chapter. However, the more common expression is "sheets flying." Letting fly the sheets was considered a distress signal in the old days. There is also something called a "flying sail," but that is a sail that is not permanently mounted on the normal spars. These are sails such as a spinnaker, a flying jib, or, on square riggers and schooners, a "flying topsail." (On gaff rigged schooners there was a sail called a"Gollywobbler," a sail that was hoisted on a temporary spar above one or more of the gaffs, depending on how many masts were involved.) By and large, though, I love the accuracy of the technical sailing details in this story. In that, it almost comes up to the standards of such nautical adventures as the Horatio Hornblower by CS Forester and the Aubrey/Maturin chronicals by O'Brian. Really good work!

"Obama's Depression?" This happened before he was president and was caused, not just by one president, but by an ongoing refusal of the government and the American people to understand the global situation and instead to indulge ourselves in idiotic hysteria in the aftermath of 9-11. It happened because we went into two very expensive wars against countries that did not pose any serious threat to us and paid for them withj borrowed money. There is no mystery here, the initial influx of borrowed money into our economy bolstered a weak economy, but the bill came due in 2008. I can't say I have been thrilled with Obama, but it is very clear that this depression is the result of debts incurred during the Bush years because neither the president nor the congress was willing to open their eyes and confront the bill that was running, or to say openly that those two wars would have to be paid for. Unfortunately, it is the poor and middle classes who are footing the bill. I can't decide whether or not I like the story. The ridiculous sideswipe at Obama got me too riled up.

It is interesting that both C.S. Forester (Horatio Hornblower series, usually very accurate on details of British naval life) and now you repeat that water on British Navy ships was green and thick with life after being stored in barrels. But algae, which I assume is what causes the green color, can only grow if there is a source of light—photosynthisis, you know. I live on a boat and my water supply is in a 100 gallon metal tank. I don't experience any off flavours or strange life-forms; in fact, my water, which comes from a good source, is excellent. Unless they are filling their barrels from river instead of spring or well water, or there is some kind of nutrient coming from the wood in the barrels themselves, I can't figure out why the water would be bad. On another subject, past tense of may is might. When writing in the past tense, use might (e.g., "That was a huge job, and would certainly mess up his cabin, but it may make the difference." [emphasis mine.] The first two verbs are in the past tense so "may" should be "might"). As I read this, otherwise excellent story, this consistent grammatical error is driving me crazy.

Chapter 20: A visit from the grammar police! "The portrait was painted when the lad was only sixteen and has been imbibed with some special properties" The word should be "imbued," not "imbibed." Imbibed is (1) a transitive verb and so must take an object (e.g.: "He imbibed too much alchohol last night."); (2) imbibe means to drink, imbue means to "improve by adding some quality." Besides that, the grammar is pretty good. Watch out for using "I" when you mean "me" — as in, "Dumbledore gave Harry and I a lecture." You wouldn't say, "Dumbledore gave I a lecture." And that doesn't change just because Harry makes an appearance. Also, watch out for the distinction between "to lay (an egg)" and "to lie (on a bed). It's confusing because the past tense of "to lie" is "lay" (never "was laying!" Cheers, Jake

Hi! I loved The Wardroom and now I'll probably go back and read The Gunroom. As a longtime fan of the Horatio Hornblower series and someone who would love to have the talent to write a good sea novel himself, I really appreciated this one. Well-written, good characters, and, as a bonus, a gay theme. (Personally, I am more interested in the overall romantic story than I am in reading lots of sex scenes.) Also, as a sailor, I really love it when the technical details of sailing a square rigger are correct. This is one of the things that makes the Hornblower stories and Patrick O'Brian's books about Aubrey and Marurin so good. I thought you did pretty well on the details. One nitpick—the "Gundeck" of a Frigate usually didn''t have any guns on it. In general, a frigate's guns were all on the upper deck the forecastle (fo'c'sle) and the qarterdeck. That is one of the things that distiguishes a Frigate from a Ship of the Line. The gundeck on a frigate was below the main deck but still above the waterline so it was very low-ceilinged. On larger vessels this deck had the second tier of guns, ergo the name gundeck. In one of the early chapters, you talk about the guns on the gundeck of the frigate, Aurore. It's an easy mistake to make! Thanks for a great story, Jake Sterling

As an older guy who was just finishing high school at the time of the Stonewall riots, I'd say, "Of <i>course</i> there has been a huge change in attitudes towards homosexuality." But you can't say that <i>America as a whole</i> is now open-minded. It's just that so many more individuals are open minded that it shifts the whole attitude of society. I have to say that the change happened because we gay people came out of our closets—and it took a lot of courage. But it is much harder to talk about faggots, queers (I still think of that word as about the equivalent of "nigger" even if some people think it's cool), dykes and fairies when you are going to have to face someone who is willing to say, "I'm here, I'm queer, get used to it."<br><br>Really, that's what did it. In the old days, straight people actually believed that they had never met any homosexuals (though they suspected that the church organist might be…) But, in fact, a lot of straight people really are pretty nice. Once they met gay people who were out in the open, they could see that we weren't monsters, so opinions began to change. Here is a little story that illustrates this change:<br><br>I was at a mall recently here in Boston and I was irritated by a salesperson who asked me as I walked by his booth whether I was married. "No," I responded, "I'm gay."<br> <br> This guy didn't bat an eye and responded, "So what? This is Massachusetts. You can be married!"<br> <br> I felt a bit shocked. Even though I have been to several gay weddings, for some reason the full reality hadn't sunk in until that moment. Holy shit! it really is considered to be normal! And I know that this change happened because we who were kids in the 1960s just said, "Enough is enough!"<br> <br> By the way, I see the same kind of transformation in the amazing "Arab Spring", where kids in Egypt and Tunesia managed to bring down oppressive governments without becoming violent themselves. There have been a series of changes from Gandhi to Martin Luther King, to Harvey Milk, to the present. Wow! It's slow, but maybe there really is progress. So, me, I am feeling happy and optimistic in many ways and really kind of proud of the younger generation.