corvus

Yes; thanks everyone who worked so hard to put the anthology online. Thanks, also, to the authors who wrote interesting stories for our reading pleasure.

Go you, you know what you want and what you want to be! Peace officer Kurt, hmm. Nice ring.

I hope everything turns out well. I really don't know what to say beyond that... so... I shall say it again. I hope everything turns out well.

I remember once, when I was a kid, I was peeing in a public restroom. (I was also wearing speedos because this was a swim meet back in the 90s.) Anyway, I was peeing, and this guy came next to me to pee. But then he left without doing anything. I've been wondering for years why he did that (was it my speedos?), but now I think I know -- he had stage fright / bladder timidity. Thanks so much for this entry, Kurt. You've lifted a horrible weight from my heart.

I second that... I don't think Radcliffe is my type of guy.

Actually my argument is completely failsafe because I've defined flirting as 'cordial human behavior.' Thus anything uncomfortable or untowards that happens automatically becomes sexual harassment and is no longer flirting. If you want to attack 'cordial human behavior,' then that's different. I would point out that people are usually cordial without grabbing your buttocks. I would argue that things like smiling in a friendly manner, dressing attractively, etc. are cordial, and after not examples of harassment. I would plead for you to consider a nice smile and a bawdy conversation as an instance of amusing 'cordial human behavior' rather than Pure Evilness. Flirting lets you sharpen your 'let's propogate genes!' skills. It's like masturbating -- you're not really successfully implanting your seed somewhere, but it gives you the illusion of doing so, and thus you subsume the pleasurable responses. And of course gay people have a low probability of meeting those with the same sexuality. But they're still humans, aren't they? They're still going to have human instincts -- unless you introduce a viral vector loaded with Martian genes or whatnot. Good for you. I'm glad you're a consistent paragon of morality. Almost like Palin.

Wow. It seems you're pretty determined to be as difficult as possible over Procyon's comment. My interpretation of Procyon's statement is this: Freedom to flirt is a result or byproduct of a paradigm in which cordial human interactions are encouraged, in which a suggestion of sexual or romantic attention isn't met with puritanical resistance. This paradigm is to be preferred over an alternate paradigm, in which cordial human interactions must always be screened for any suggestion of sexual or romantic attention. I don't think Procyon is using her emotional subjectivity as a basis for determining the acceptability of certain behavior. Rather, she's saying how she'd feel if flirting stopped in the world because she isn't being presumptuous enough to say how it'd make other people feel -- quite reasonably, as she, as with each one of us to ourselves, can only truly speak for herself. Now, to respond directly to whether flirting is okay... I think it's an important component of society. It lets you find sexual partners in an efficient way. It's just how animals have rituals and mock-battles -- the elk posing with their antlers, the carnivores growling at each other -- without resorting to the "real thing." Without flirting, how'd you ever get laid? You'd have to harass people at random, and that's no good. Flirting is fun and for the family!!

My mom used to try to wake me up for school by tickling my feet. I soon grew calluses.

Happy birthday!

As with Kevin, I get a strong gut feeling to attractive men. I can think, Oh this girl is nice-looking, but rarely do I stare at them the way I find myself staring at men. It's like the way my eyes kept getting drawn to certain paintings in a gallery. On the other hand, because I believe that sex can be an expression of love as well as a consummation of lust, I believe that a man have sex with a woman -- and enjoy it, and find her beautiful, etc. -- and still be "gay." (At the same time, that kind of undermines the meaning of "gay"... Any thoughts?)

Although you probably mean that as a move protesting the Chinese government's human rights record, a typical Chinese person would probably feel -- no matter how clearly he/she knows your intentions -- that you're rejecting Chinese hospitality and culture. There's probably better avenues of affecting change. Anyway... this wasn't very on-topic. But, as people have noted, politics are hard to keep out... Btw, I didn't like the "We Are Ready" song. Too corny.

PETA doesn't like meat. It obviously has bad taste. *shrug*

My Chinese friends are all gung-ho about it, and I do want to watch it, but... at the moment... I am going to Florence. So, I haven't seen it, and won't have a chance to this weekend. But I'll search it up on youtube when I get back. I liked Athens, what with Callas and the symbolic stuff; I hope the Beijing, with Zhang Yimou in charge, will be a good show. (Or -- has been a good show.) I've mixed feelings about China's handling of the whole Olympics thing, and China in general. I don't think the Western press quite knows what it's talking about a lot of the time -- at least the NY Times, which I read pretty much every day. Maybe it's just an effect of reading things written by outsiders from an "insider's" perspective. Of course, a lot of China's behavior doesn't really help matters. It's too bad, in a way, that, the harder China tries to foster an environment of "pure" "human spirit" and "harmony," the darker the shadow cast by questions of human rights, pollution, etc. A lot of Chinese people I know are ridiculously happy about this Olympics thing, and I am determined to be at least happy for them.

That's *almost* the situation I'm in now -- I have a room of my own, here in Germany; and I'm paid for an internship that actually doesn't take all of my time. I'm still not producing masterpieces of literature, and I'm chalking that up to the fact that, er, well... I'm not Virginia Woolf. Have you tried earplugs, excuse? I find that I don't mind noise so much as I mind people: I get paranoid and keep thinking they're staring over my shoulder, condemning me for writing instead of doing Useful and Important Things.

That series -- and particularly that book -- is fantastic. In my opinion, it's much more ambitious than Harry Potter, with greater strength and scope of vision. Also, since you're a Swede, you won't have to imagine what the northern lights look like, the way I had to... sigh, the difficulties of living down south. Charles Darwin was very much influenced by Lyell. The lineage of ideas is certainly interesting.

The Golden Notebook, by Doris Lessing, our latest Nobel laureate. It's alternated between amazing and so-so, but more to the former than the latter. I'm only 2/5ths way through, but I can already kind of see why she got the Nobel. I'll have plenty of time on my 20-hr train ride to Florence to finish it, haha. The Master and Margarita, because, even though it's not exciting, it's very interesting, and it's Bjork's favorite book -- hence, necessary reading.

Dunno about unique history, really, but -- yes, it's got nice scenery, and no -- not very much Gothic architecture. At least, not in eastern/northern Germany. I imagine the Cologne cathedral, being big and old and grand, would also be very Gothic, but I think France has much more Gothic stuff, being Catholic and all. Strasbourg (France) has an amazing cathedral of red stones. Germany is cool anyway, especially during football matches. Sounds lovely! The little boathouses in Amsterdam and the houses along Venice were all very inviting, although I wouldn't want to really have to deal with daily floods and such... No, one does not usually envision Santa living in the South Pole... I need to do the Silk Road some day. I haven't decided period or modern travel, but seeing as I'd like to make it alive, I think I'd opt for modern travel... Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and England are also musts. Iceland would be lovely. Suzhou and Hangzhou are also necessary; I'd like to hit some of the 5 Sacred & 4 Buddhist Mountains, as well.

Mm. An exciting life, you've got. Congrats about Berkeley, even if you don't go -- and good luck with everything. You seem to be very involved in the helping-people-figure-out-if-they're-gay business. Probably deserve some sort of humanitarian award...

I totally agree with you, Kit... lol Like the 'kids,' I don't understand the cult around Reagan either... Personally, I'd have liked to see the following people live longer: Anne Sexton, Sylvia Plath, Vincenzo Bellini, WA Mozart, Schubert, and Zhuge Liang.

Not that I know exactly what "internalized homophobia" entails, but I rather disagree with you, Kevin -- as long as homosexuals can loath themselves, internalization of homophobia is still pretty relevant. In fact, since I agree with James's assessment that the most dangerous homophobia stems from people with "homosexual potential" (i.e. bi-tendencies), I think internalized homophobia -- if not hits the nail on the head -- then at least gives it a good thud. I can't disagree with you more, Kevin. We know you tend to establish the most meaningful personal connections with other gays, but I think that's because you're gay. It's akin to my being able to form more immediate connections with other Chinese-Americans -- it's because we've more shared experiences, more things to put *into* the bond/friendship. Parallels in our nurture provide insight and understanding. I strongly doubt it's because Chinese-Americans are just that much more empathetic. Before you say straight males are less emotionally open, I think you should consider that not everyone shares your paradigm of friendship. Straight men may have a "language" with each other that doesn't include frank discussion of feelings, affectionate touches, blabla -- but which may be just as, or more, profound. It may also be that some of them just have fewer feelings to need to vent! Anyway, I think this whole thing about "straight" and "gay" is ... characterized by a very bad bright line (i.e. ill-defined). Let's say I ask my male friend if he'd like to have sex with another male -- say, me. Let's say his response is: "Sure, but you just don't turn me on." Let's assume he has that response to every single man I file past his eyes. Is he therefore straight? What about my male friend whose response is: "No!" (even though he's secretly turned out by the thought)? Who's "more" straight? I need to make a statement about "anti-gay prejudices" in China -- which, considering that China has as many people as US + Europe, I think is relevant. All prejudices in "ancient times" (before the end of the dynastic era) can be traced back to Confucianism, according to which, the most important thing was to be filial to one's parents and produce children. This was a social responsibility. As such, monogamous relationships between men was frowned on, because: guy + guy =/= natural progeny. Extramarital affairs with other men was as tolerated as extramarital affairs with other women -- i.e. a nasty vice, but people (usually the rich) did it anyway. "Anti-gay prejudices" was a Western introduction. Anyway, who knows how straight those Chinese guys were, way back -- the most famous Chinese novel, "Romance of the Three Kingdoms," describes the three principle characters (sworn brothers) as being very intimate and sleeping in the same bed. I quite agree with this.

I like that this thread has turned into an aesthetics argument. My favorite... I disagree with you. I do have the right to say something is crap even if I enjoyed it -- and I can say something is good even if I didn't enjoy it. That's because I believe that there is a normative criterion for judging good/bad literature that quite apart from taste/enjoyment. It's easy and dangerous to conflate taste/enjoyment with appreciation/acknowledgment of good literature. I believe that there's literary merit in, say, Joyce's Ulysses, even though I didn't enjoy it very much. When you say that you don't think Dom's stories are that great, you mean that you didn't enjoy them very much. At the same time, you can admit that they are well written and possess literary merit. How one determines literary merit is a very good question. It holds implications regarding the deeper of questions of what art's function is in life. I won't go into that, but I will say that, for people who have done enough thinking and reading and reflection, literary taste often aligns with literary quality. It's pretty obvious that I'm against hyper democracy, at least in terms of evaluation of art. I make a bad American, maybe. On the other hand, I don't want everyone to agree with me on my judgments of literature -- I simply think there exist some normative, "inalienable" and maybe "self evident truths" regarding the evaluation and determination of good literature. They won't tell me if Woolf is more "important" or "better" than Joyce, but they will tell me that Woolf works on a higher plane, accomplishes more, has greater scope, possesses a more powerful vision, than say Da Vinci Code. Danielle Steele writes to please the hordes of unwashed, illiterate romance readers. As long I can say that her writing isn't of high literary merit, I'm not going to argue. I *will* argue when one of her fans say she is the beeeest writer eeeever, because sorry she's not. She may be your *favorite* writer, but that's all. That's a very bad bright line. I can apply the same sort of subjectivity argument that you've been using again and again to point out the decree "Thou shalt not kill" is exempted very, very often all over the world. Ever heard of capital punishment? war? Sure, you may agree that killing is wrong, but someone else might disagree, and "who am I to argue?" On that note, I think grammar can be broken if doing so successfully serves a "higher purpose" -- that of literary creation. I agree with you so much that I would like to marry you. Will you be available ______ for the ______? Thanks. Me too. I liked his reviews.

I have no "personal experience" advice, but in my mind... isn't a romantic love borne from friendship better than love *without* friendship? I would advise you, with my starry-eyed optimism, to "go for it" -- but to take it slow, not scare each other off, and keep things transparent. Keep talking honestly to each other. Good luck!

Happy Birthday.......! There's not a lot of intelligent stuff I can think of for a birthday post, so this'll have to do.

Thanks to everyone Graeme mentioned, and Graeme himself for being the Anthology coordinator! I guess his vacation is well and truly finished and we have a hard working Australian on our hands.

Today is a very special day... obviously... Some number of years ago, Sirius's brother entered the world. *cough* Not that one. Well. Anyway. Happy birthday! I hope the weather is very nice in Sweden.