peter rietbergen

An unsent letter. But, yet, the beloved name said, for the first time, with all the content of the letter contained in one expletive: "Damn it, Jamie".

A very charming chapter. If only all fathers were this accepting, reassuring and supportive. But: next time a father crops up, let him not have a "low, steady rumble".........

I don't feel a tavern would be "in character"....

oh, definitely.

It is funny, it is sweet. But is it, on any level, convincing...?

It is eye-wateringly funny - but how will (can...) it work out if, as seems entirely possible, Steve, the younger boy, will outshine K in more than only calculus?

Obviously, what links Pitt and Blake is not the need to simply sepnd an hour in a room together, in the "altogether", as suggested above. Precisely the fact that they need to BE together is the main and, indeed, unsolvable problem of their/this story. Mr. M. Arbour, who (amongst lengthy other tales) also writes stories set at sea in this era, has cavalierly dreamt away this problem and lets his men cavort around - in the altogether.. - as if the Georgian period was some modern-day gay freestate. It was not - see, e.g., Rory Muir's recent (2024) book on "Love and Marriage" in those decades, that has a long section on bachelors. The only "real" solution was, either, to live together - in London, if one had the means and the liking for that town, or in the countryside - pretending the relationship was one between master and servant, or some such. And even then the danger of public accusation of sodomy/buggery with the ensuing scandal - and punishment - was real. The other solution was, to go and live abroad. Italy would have done the trick. But given their characters as depicted by the author, I cannot see P and B doing something so drastic. Nevertheless, since most readers of GA are romantics at heart, I'll happily accept a "happy end", however historically improbale it would be.

Though I can see that, depending on one's background and, indeed, experiences, some readers may feel this story to be distressing. Nevertheless, I would argue, as other readers have done, that many other, less condemnatory reactions/interpretations are equally viable. What amazes me is, quite honestly, that those who condemn this specific tale do so arguing that it should not have been published on GA. I myself am often astounded by the - many - stories published on GA describing explicit sex between 13-, 14- or 15-year olds, or between adolescent boys slightly older. And indeed, not all of them - actually: only a few - are actually provided with a warning. I feel many of these stroies to be not the experiences of the boys/young men depicted, but the wishful (and yes, sometimes disturbing) thinking of by and large adult authors. This, inevitably, is a 'given' on the GA website. But since that is the nature of the site we, the readers, should perhaps use our own judgment and decide what we can, mentally/psychologically, deal with, rather than berate this specific author.

"To whom it may concern"...: I simply feel the need to compliment "Topher Lydon" on his creativity and versatility: the three stories that are now "in proces" show such talent that I cannot but express my admiration, and appreciation...

Love it - though, to be honest, I don't think schools in my country would have condoned this epitome of neo-liberal capitalism. Nor, indeed, would my Mom, or my Newspaper ...

as to Billy: he is, of course, the boy we all were, once - the boy who has to learn that those we hero-worship are, after all, humans. It is the only way such a boy will ever learn to be a grown-up person and to make his own difficult decisions.

Oh, I agree. If he had shot her on an impulse, he wouldn't have been the man you created. But through so many years of battling an inhuman situation/system, with less-than-human people using it for inhuman purposes, against so many innocent humans... I know, this is a serious ethtical problem/question...

an enthralling mixture of suspense and wit. Though, in all earnest, there's the danger that O'Brien is right - that (in your depiction) Blake too much resembles a naval admiral portrayed by sir Thomas Lawrence...But yet: thanks.

“That doesn’t make this right!” Billy’s voice climbed an octave as he pointed to Dottie’s body. “You killed her!” His voice was a high, desperate shriek that echoed in the vast, empty space. He couldn't reconcile the man who had taught him kindness with the man who now stood over a corpse. “I did,” Hugo said with a shrug. “She wouldn’t have stopped, and this ends the cycles. This sends a message to Eisenhower, Hoover, and the others that the Aggregate of Idea isn’t defenseless, and that I will stop it if I must.” His voice, flat and unfeeling, was a brutal counterpoint to the raw emotion in Billy's. The price he had paid was more than just Dottie's life; it was his own humanity. I really cannot agree. Isn't there a - Biblical? - phrase that asks the question if it is not better for one man to die rather than an entire people? Of course, if there is justice - a semblance/system of it... - one may capture and surrender a mass muderess and hope that justice will prevail. If there is not, should one not try and stop it/her, to prevent more carnage?

Ah, but that's precisely the fun of it.

Definitely another side of you.

as to the court-martial: precisely. And that, of course, might well work in favour of the well-connected Vanes of this world. Certainly then but, alas, even today, they tend to come out unscathed.

You've made all of us love the O'Brien brothers - and no only because in the grimness of the ship they bring some much-needed levity and light.

Disciplinary action? Whatever its form, it comes too late to restore the memory of the ship as a one-purpose community. To do that, more is needed.

The terrible consequences - in a close/closed cmmunity - of one man's self-deceit and jealousy. This is, in every sentence and sense, a gruesome chapter.

I do like this story but, to be quite honest: I find Jonah not believable. He is far too articulate and sharp-witted for a boy his age. It is as if an adult is speaking through him - which, of course, it is, precisely.

interesting, again. But then: did i miss a moment in the story where we actually see/feel that Lynton asks himself what Alexander "sees" in him? Assuming you mean this kind of "seeing" to refer to the question: what Alexander really feels about him? Not as an - almost Brad-induced, incidental - college friend but as someone who has a deeper appreciation of him?

You may be right. But I'm trying to deduct - from the info the author gives us - what, exactly, Alexander (a supposedly smart, academical, intellectual boy/man who's apparently also emotionally strong) actually "sees" in Lynton?

“You’re smart, Lynton. Figure it out.” Actually, this short appraisal/admonition poses two questions. The obvious one: in the present, after so many years, Lynton has not succeeded, yet. But: why does Alexander, afater some (how many?) years as a friend/fellow student, feel that Lynton is smart in the first place? Diligent, yes. Hard-working, definitely. Trying to be a good friend - that, too. But smart?

It feels strange, Clara. To be doing nothing wrong, and yet feel accused. To know the danger lies not in the act, but in its appearance. And yet, I would not take it back. Not the sitting by his cot. Not the moment when he woke and looked for me. Not even the quiet days when, for just a breath, I thought I was seen, not as a midshipman, but as someone of consequence. This, alas, does apply to far more human relationships than - even now - the male/male one. If only because, for innumerable reasons, so many people are jealous when they see affection/love given to others than themselves.