Candy Darling by Candy Darling

Rating: WARTY!

This is an extremely short book composed pretty much of a handful of letters written by Candy Darling. It hardly presents her in the best light. There was a foreword, and an introduction, and a "Candy Remembered", and an editor's note before we got to the meat of this one. All the introductory material was very nearly as much as Candy's own words, so naturally I skipped all of that as I usually do. If it ain't good enough to be in chapter one, it ain't worth my time. Anything less is self-serving claptrap all-too-often in books of this nature written by people in whom I have no interest.

So this isn't, contrary to what the title tries to tell you, a memoir in any meaningful sense. It isn't a book written by Candy Darling as such, I'm sorry to report. It's merely a very short series of her letters and what look like quotes from her. It's a complete mess which, along with some interesting observations, includes boring and bitchy whining, recipes for food, as well as make-up and clothing comments, and odd lists of Hollywood actors.

Parts of it are interesting (we do get some perspective on her life and how she felt about it), but most of it is tedious, and highlights Candy Darling, rightly or wrongly, as someone who is superficial and shallow, bitchy and hypocritical, who is obsessed with looks and getting a boyfriend. I think she deserved a better testimonial than this.

Some parts are amusing, such as when she lists the names she's known as in her neighborhood: "Marlene D-Train to Queens, Mamie Van Doorway or Diana Doorways, Tawdry Heartburn, Tana Lerner". One part I loved, being a fan of parody myself, was where Candy re-wrote the words to a song which makes me think of The Platters' Twilight Time, but it isn't that, nor is it Hoagy Carmichael's Star Dust or Frank Sinatra's Stardust. The song seems really familiar, but I can't place it! Candy's version ran like this (I've included only one verse): When the spotlight slowly dims and you’re regretting all your sins when memories that you hold so dear are all that's left of your career, that’s stardusk. Love it!

She's very hypocritical. On the one hand she talks about being real and true and then turns right around and exclaims " I think I see a place where I could use a silicone injection above the upper lip and near the nose". Seriously? In another part, after spending so much time wanting to be a woman, she remarks, "I don't think I want to be a woman anymore, I can't be. I'm too strong" which struck me as really inappropriate.

The "memoir" ends with what looks like a suicide note, but Candy, who was actually born James Lawrence Slattery, died very much as Candy Darling in 1974 at the age of twenty nine, from lymphoma. I can't recommend this unless you're a really addicted fan. You'll get more out of reading the Wikipedia entry for her. She deserved a lot better.

My Two Moms by Zach Wahls

Title: My Two Moms
Author: Zach Wahls
Publisher: Penguin Random House
Rating: WORTHY!

After sadly having to review The Invisible Orientation negatively today, I'm relieved to be able to review this one positively. Posting so many reviews of gender-queer books and novels, some people might ask: does he have an agenda? And the short, simple answer is yes, I do! I have an agenda of siding with those who are abused by right-wing religions.

Zach Wahls grew up with his biological sister Zebby, both children of Terry, who was married to Jackie. Terry was a strong and independent woman who fought against almost impossibly long odds to get pregnant as a single lesbian. She grew up on a farm in Iowa, so maybe that farm is where her dedication was born, or maybe it was just in her genes. As a nine-year old, she protested her father's plan to name the farm "John Wahls & Sons", given that Terry worked on the farm too, and just as hard as any son. He wouldn't change the "& Sons" to "& Family". He also told her she was "out of [her] god-damned mind" to want to have a child, but if she had not, Zach would never have been born, and I never would have had the chance to read this book.

The pathetic thing about all this isn't what was happening with Terry's child, but the antique attitudes of jerks like the doctor at the fertility clinic and the editor or the local newspaper who actually used the term "illegitimate child" to refuse on the one hand to in vitro fertilize her, and on the other, to announce the birth in the newspaper. It's for people like these: pathetic, bigoted, and clueless people, that swearing was actually invented, because they simply cannot be described in polite language. Did you know that?! The really sad thing is that these events were not in the 1950's where they would have been just as reprehensible, but at least in some ways understandable. No, this happened in the 1990's, just two decades back. How far we've come since then.

I love some of the things this author says and the juxtapositions he offers us in his relating the history underlying this:

On December 21, 1996, Terry Lynn Wahls took the hand of Jacqueline Kay Reger and made public, openly and honestly, the highest commitment two loving people can make. ...[walked] down the aisle at our church to the theme song of Star Trek: Voyager

What's not to love?!

President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA, a bill - sponsored by then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich who was carrying on an extramarital affair and signed by President Clinton who was later impeached for lying about an affair of his own - explicitly defined marriage, in the federal government's eyes, as between one man and one woman, ostensibly to protect the sanctity of the institution

What's not to despise?!

There was some inconsistent writing in this book. For a book which is trying to fight against stereotyping and bigotry, I found it odd at best and hypocritical at worst when I would read a sentence like this: "Maybe part of that had to do with the Midwestern habit of not asking too many questions about things that don't concern you". I've lived in the Mid-west and not found that to be true - or at least not any more or less true there than it is anywhere else. It struck me as really weird to stereotype a group - in this case mid-westerners - in a book which was making a case for gay marriage! Not all Mid-westerners are the same, and this wasn't the first time I had read a phrase like this in the book.

It was equally odd to read this: "Another advantage of lesbian moms: I knew girls didn't have cooties". I'm not concerned with the trivial fact of his discovering girls don't have cooties, but that he's suggesting he could only learn this from growing up the child of a same sex couple. Heterosexual marriages can't teach this? This comment just seemed odd and out of place to me.

On this same theme, one phrase I didn't need to hear more than once was "we worked through the hard times so we could enjoy the good ones," yet we get that almost, but not quite, like a mantra. That and one or two other items were a bit annoying, but overall, I liked reading this, and I recommend it.

What I didn't like reading was of the roadblocks which were put into path of this family because of a few clueless and very vocal "moralists" who through ignorance and blinkered obstinacy tripped up everything they tried to do as a family. This was starkly highlighted in Zach's description of what happened when Zebby broke her arm. Terry was indisposed at the time and Jackie, a nurse by profession, knew that Zebby needed hospital treatment. Even though she was married to Terry and knew these two kids better than anyone other than Terry, the hospital could do nothing without Terry's permission, and Jackie had to endure this, knowing that this girl, who was for all practical purposes her daughter, was in pain, yet not being able to help her because of what religious nut-jobs and antiquated government polices said.

What bothered me in learning this was why we didn't learn of co-adoption, guardianship or right of attorney. I know nothing about this so maybe it wasn't an option. Maybe it's not even possible, but as feisty as Terry was, I can't believe she didn't look into any of this - into a means by which Jackie would have some rights with the children without Terry having to give up hers.

Having no rights, Jackie had no power, and if Terry had died, Jackie would not only have lost her, but the children, too, because she had no legal claim on her own family, over the very children she and Terry had lived with and raised together. Maybe there were no options, but if so, it would have been nice to have read that Terry tried this that and the other thing, and nothing worked or was possible. I felt that this was a serious omission.

This same abuse was inflicted upon this family by the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (a place I have worked I'm now sorry to say!), because the ER doctor wouldn't listen to Jackie - not a family member as far as he was concerned - when she and terry were there for treatment of a painful condition brought on by Terry's multiple sclerosis. Thereby Terry's suffering was prolonged. Again it would have been nice to have read here as to why a power of attorney had not been put in place - did they not think of it or would it not have worked? We don't know, and I think this is a big hole in this story.

Another thing which intrigued me was when Zach tells of the time he was driving in a van with a bunch of other adolescents and this girl who was sitting next to him struck up a conversation about how homosexuals feel as they enter the phase of life where they start noticing their biologically-assigned gender of interest, just as we heteros do. Zach had apparently never talked to nor been talked to about this topic by his parents, which I found strange in a family where this played a significant part, and in which there was a commendable openness about maturity and values and so on. It struck me as a strange gap in the story.

I have to take issue with Zach on his assertion that the United States is not a theocracy. No, we don't have a Pope or an Imam or a Rabbi running the country, but you pretty much can't get elected, and sure as hell couldn't become president if you don't hold - or at least don't profess - strong religious beliefs. Can you imagine an out atheist ever becoming president? The Democrats might run one, but the Republicans would pillory him or her and the election would be lost to such a candidate. It's never going to happen. So while the US isn't a theocracy like some Middle East and Asian nations, it is without question one of the most dedicatedly fundamentalist nations on the planet, more so than places like Iran and Pakistan.

On this same topic, I also have to remind him that while he is right in asserting that the urge to show kindness is "...a sentiment found in religious texts of all kinds...", many of those same religious texts contain passages demanding that you shall not suffer a witch to live, and you will stone to death female adulterers, and so on. Religion is a mess. It's a double-edged sword, and the only benign religion is to have none. It's antiquated and unnecessary.

This is really Zach's 'life story' more than it is about his two moms, so the title is a bit misleading, but in the end it is about Zach, because the assault on the family, of which the right-wing constantly bleats, isn't coming from gay marriage, but from clueless, heartless, and all-too-often psychotic religious zealots who are trying to dictate to the rest of us - based on nothing more than the ignorant scribblings of old primitive men - how we should live our lives.

Yes, it's a fact there was no god who wrote the Bible. Rest assured it was written by men who had no clue about our modern world - and little clue about anything else, yet these myopic right-wing zealots are now trying to hold that over our heads and dictate to the rest of us that an antique, blinkered Middle-Eastern view of the world is what should rule our lives.

If these hypocrites were living that life themselves, then I would be far less outraged about their arrogance (although still outraged!), but the plain fact is that they are not. Not a single one of these people actually follows the Bible teachings. They pick and choose which Biblical dictates they're willing to adopt and which to reject, and they live by the one and conveniently ignore or forget all the others. Then they turn around and lie that they are holier than the rest of us horrible sinners. They're hypocrites every last one of them and they should not even be given the time of day let alone taken seriously, period.

They sure as hell shouldn't be allowed to dictate to people who should be allowed to fall in love and marry and who should not. I recommend this book as a very worthy and moving read.

The Invisible Orientation by Julie Sondra Decker

Rating: WARTY!

In a survey two decades ago, about one percent of the British population self-identified as asexual. How the book blurb makes a giant leap from this, to asserting that "A growing number of people are identifying as asexual" is a complete mystery, and that's indicative of the real problem with this book. It hedges so many bets, and qualifies so many aspects, and opens itself to such an excessive diversity of definitions that in the end, it establishes nothing, defines nothing, clarifies nothing, least of all the blurb claim that the set we term asexuals, whoever and whatever they really are, is growing.

I am completely open to the possibility that this is an orientation rather than a condition. The problem for me was that this author comprehensively failed to make her case. I started in on this book hoping to learn something about his topic and I finished it (well, finished half of it before I gave up on it!) precisely as uninformed at the end as I had been at the beginning - or perhaps more accurately, no more informed than I was before I read it, and worse, no more convinced.

One problem with it was that is was one of the driest tomes I have ever laid eyes on. It was like reading a scientific paper, but without any science in it, leaving only stilted semi-scientific language, but with no vigorously beating heart of solid science underlying it. There were quotations, and references, and definitions galore, but nothing from scientific research. Almost worse than that for a book of this nature, it had absolutely no personal accounts whatsoever, not even that of the author! Not in the portion I read anyway. I think I would have learned a lot more, and empathized a lot more if I could have heard from people who experience this phenomenon/condition/orientation, and been able to read their input.

According to the Asexuality Visibility and Education Network (AVEN), an asexual person is someone who does not experience sexual attraction, yet in this book we are advised by this author that this isn't necessarily the case. Asexuals can be attracted to other people of the same or other gender, they can find romance, companionship, and they can have sex. If that's the case, then what does it mean to say they're asexual?

The author, in a weird table which totals to significantly over 100%, indicates that some 7% of asexuals enjoy having sex, almost 20% would be "willing to compromise" and have regular sex, almost 40% would be "willing to compromise" and have occasional sex, and almost 40% are indifferent to sex - which means they reject it no more and no less than they favor it. I'm confused! If they're willing to compromise with regular sex, what were the two extremes between which this compromise was drawn? No sex ever again and constant sex? I don't even know how to honestly and seriously interpret a survey as wishy-washy as this one, and the author offers no help.

Now I can see how some people might have legitimately checked more than one box in such a survey if they were not expressly prevented from doing so, but even given that these numbers explicitly reveal that asexual does not mean no sex. So what does it mean? Prostitutes have sex with people to whom they are not sexually attracted, and I don't doubt that heteros, gays and bisexuals have had sex like that when they were drunk, or high, or desperate or something, but that aside, what does this survey actually reveal, exclude, or demonstrate? The author doesn't discuss it. And that was one of the problems - all definition and refutation, but no real discussion or clarifying information.

The biggest problem of course is that this was an Internet survey, which really negates it anyway for all practical purposes. It's sad if that's the best we can do. The fact remains that some researchers assert that asexuality is a sexual orientation while others disagree. We have no scientific or medical definition, no baseline, no reliable data, and therefore little to no understanding. The author helps with none of this. She doesn't address the research objections to her position, much less try to refute them. In short, she fails to explain how asexuality differs from a condition, and how it is, therefore an orientation. For a book like this, this was a tragic blunder and seriously lets down her position and that of her peers.

The blurb says,

Critics confront asexual people with accusations of following a fad, hiding homosexuality, or making excuses for romantic failures. And all of this contributes to a discouraging master narrative: there is no such thing as "asexual." Being an asexual person is a lie or an illness, and it needs to be fixed.

and the problem is that this author offers nothing concrete to refute that or dispel these questions. Not that I'm saying it's valid, by any means.

It doesn't help to read things like this in wikipedia:

...asexuals may identify as heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, or by the following terms to indicate that they associate with the romantic, rather than sexual, aspects of sexual orientation:
aromantic; lack of romantic attraction towards anyone
biromantic; as opposed to bisexual
heteroromantic; as opposed to heterosexual
homoromantic; as opposed to homosexual
panromantic; as opposed to pansexual

If a person is asexual, why are they identifying with any sexually-oriented group? The author doesn't tackle this - not in the first fifty percent of this book, anyway. It's more like she was interested in addressing or refuting any and every objection, no matter how trivial or stupid, to a declaration of asexuality, than she was in actually and realistically establishing this orientation and staking out a real position.

This is a problem because what this book felt like to me was more of a defensive retreat than taking a stand, or offering a manifesto or whatever it is she thought she was doing. In taking this tack, it felt to me like she wasn't nailing down anything or securing her premises, but instead leaving doors unlocked and windows open for any moronic home invasion which happens along.

I agree with the blurb on one respect: this is a way-the-hell far too sexualized world, which makes it all the more difficult for your average Jo to understand someone who has no interest in sex, and/or who isn't attracted sexually or romantically to another person, but instead of setting herself and her peers apart and staking out her turf, she's simply dug a hole for herself and fallen into the muddied waters at the bottom of it. Despite all her dancing around this important topic, she failed to demonstrate here that it has legs. Personally I have no trouble accepting that there is a valid and legitimate asexual community; I just wish this author had done a better job of delineating it. I cannot, therefore, commend this as a worthy read.

Behind Story Volume 1 by Narae Ahn

Title: Behind Story Volume 1
Author: Narae Ahn (no website found)
Publisher: NETCOMICS
Rating: WARTY!

This story with a bizarre title, is told in three parts, each one from the perspective of one of the three main characters: Jinsuk, Taehee, and Yohan. The story is evidently Korean, and the problems for me were manifold. First of all none of the characters look Korean, so we have the odd depiction of very western looking characters with exotic Korean names. I know this is a common trope in Asian manga and anime, but to me it's insulting. If you're going to tell a story about your own people, make them look like and behave like your own people. I have no time for this selling-out of local ethnicity just so it might appeal to we stubbornly mono-cultural westerners. That's insulting.

Secondly, since this is rooted in Korean culture, it's hard to know what's really an honest reflection of that culture and what is instead merely a quirk of this particular story or this story teller. For example, in this story, there seems to be a motorcycle culture which is both obnoxious and deeply frowned upon. Whether this is true or not in real life, I have no idea, but as presented, it seemed quite bizarre to my western brain, especially since it has no real part in the story - at least not in this first volume of the story.

Yohan is supposedly part of this motorcycle culture, although other than the accident he has, we see none of that culture or of that life. The part of the blurb which mentions the accident is written badly and can make it appear that these two boys are both in a motorcycle accident - perhaps crashing into each other. The truth is that only Yohan is riding a motorcycle - Taehee is on foot. Yohan simply skids and comes off his bike. No one else is involved.

Taehee happens to witness this and physically carries Yohan to the hospital because he can't remember the emergency number to dial! In Korea, FYI, it's the USA number backwards! Whereas the US is 911, South Korea is 119. The fact that Taehee doesn't even know his own emergency number tells me that he's a really a dumb schmuck. The fact that the doesn't know not to move someone in these circumstances without medical advice confirms this. He could have crippled Yohan if he'd had a spinal injury.

This is how these two meet. Jinsuk is Yohan's teacher, who is having a highly inappropriate homosexual relationship with his student. No one seems to find any problem with this - although admittedly the two are conducting this in secret, they have having sex in the classroom with Yohan bent over the teacher's desk! It's really hard to tell whether Yohan is even consenting, not that - legally - he could be, but they are both idiots if they think their liaisons will not be discovered.

Taehee, who evidently has no idea of his own sexuality, finds himself drawn more and more to Yohan, although through the course of this entire volume, nothing actually happens in terms of their making any progress towards any kind of relationship, let alone a loving one.

The art work is fine - very clean and sparse line drawings but the dialog is awful, with frequent speech balloons containing nothing but an ellipsis. I understand that this is supposed to represent awkwardness between these two boys, but it really just looked stupid and was simply annoying to me. I also understand that this is a different culture and we cannot, nor should we expect to this culture to be western in any way, but if you're going to try to market a story (not that there really was much of a story) like this to a western culture, you really need to find ways to make it accessible, and I think the author and publisher failed to do this here.

Whatever it was, I simply could not appreciate the story. In some parts it was hard to follow, in other parts it was dumb. Motivations were foggy at best, and downright obscure at other times, and the characters were neither likable nor relatable. I can't recommend it.

Keep Austin Weird by Mary Jane

Title: Keep Austin Weird
Author: Mary Jane (no website found)
Publisher: Smashwords
Rating: WORTHY!

Errata:
"He then flawless recited..." should be "He then flawlessly recited..." (note I read this on a smartphone which means that page numbers are useless and locations are pretty much worthless when we can simple do a search).
"when I picked up you backpack" should be "when I picked up your backpack..."
"...once or twice.”“Really, just one our twice..." should be "...once or twice.”“Really, just once or twice..."
"Texas’ capitol building" should be "Texas’s capitol building". Texas isn't a plural so it's apporpriate to add apostrophe 's'.
"...if she was like that when they first meet..." should be "...if she was like that when they first met...".
"knew each other at UT.”They shake hands and exchange pleasantries, Kim mentally trying to place the term, 'know each other..." should be ”They shake hands and exchange pleasantries, Kim mentally trying to place the term, 'knew each other..." (Tense is changed).
"You’re Bitchy Barista reputation" should be "Your Bitchy Barista reputation"
"I’m violating the only philosophical tenant..." should be "I’m violating the only philosophical tenet..."

Mary Jane may be male or female (I am by no means convinced by the Goodreads blurb for this author! Is "Mary Jane" really comedian Lindsay Rousseau? Who knows?) and it doesn't matter, except that this author treasures anonymity so highly that I can't give you an author's website, although you can try here to get a sampling of this author's writing which sports titles such as, "Like Water for Macaroni". The title of this novel is unfortunate because if you enter it as a search term on the web, you're going to get everything but this novel showing up, including an ungodly number of tie-dyed T-shirts! That and a few too many typos aside, it was a fun read.

The story is about Eleanor Cooprider and Kim Park, who are people I would definitely like to know. Having said that I wouldn't want to go to one of their soirées, which I confess struck me as slightly tedious. These two are at their best when it's just these two, and they're talking about any topic. They're playful, smart, interesting, eclectic, off-beat, irreverent, supportive, and very warm people who dearly love each other no matter what.

This story begins at the beginning - they day they met, but then it jumps around a lot, be warned - perhaps a bit too much for some readers, but for me it wasn't too annoying, just a little confusing here and there. The chapters have a sub-heading giving time and place, full of pseudo-self-importance which is always a bad sign, and which assumes that the reader actually remembers the time and place from the previous chapter, which is neither a wise nor is it a safe assumption given how engrossing their story is when it's really good. It's not very flowing either, in addition to being rather non-linear.

I had some issues with the story in general. For example, Kim is 23 but she references Larry Bird. Bird was a Boston Celtics player who had a distinguished career, but he retired in 1992, before Kim was born. It’s not really very likely she would recall him or esteem him as a player. It's possible, but a much more recent reference would have made more sense here. The problem was that the author was so locked into the name that she evidently forgot to check for appropriateness.

The Christmas play they put on as the story gets going is one about Charlie Brown and Christmas. We read, "...actually entitled 'Linus and Lucy'...", but entitled is used wrongly. It should be 'titled'. 'Entitled means something different, although I see more and more authors using it wrongly like this.

If you can handle this however, you're in for a treat. This story follows the two from their first meeting at the school where they teach, until Eleanor retires - and it's quite a short book. Kim is convinced that Eleanor is a super hero because she can detect which career is best for her young school charges, but even super heroes make mistakes. The question is, what will happen to their relationship if Eleanor's "high flying" days come crashing down around the two of them?

I loved this story (mostly!) and recommend it.

Braden's Story by Mason Dodd

Title: Braden's Story
Author: Mason Dodd
Publisher: Amazon
Rating: WORTHY!

Braden is thirteen and being hit with the growing realization that he's gay. His family, highly religious and very fundamentalist, isn't going to like this one bit. This story details how Braden comes to terms with his true nature and his feelings, and how he copes or fails to do so, with the reactions of others. I started out liking the story, but quickly grew tired of the writing style and the endless grammatical and spelling errors, some of which I list on my blog. No matter how much I might want to support books like this one, I cannot in good faith recommend this particular story.

The errors, in what is a story badly in need of an editor, were numerous. In addition, there were other issues, such as the fact that these are very religious folk, yet the language the younger ones employ seems highly unlikely at best, and their disrespect for adults isn't believable given their background. Just be warned that if you're tempted to pick this up thinking it's a religious or spiritual book, it's really not!

Some of these problems with this book could have been caught with a good spell-checker while others, such as the use of 'alter' in place of 'altar', and 'apart' in place of 'a part', can only be caught by a good editor or better beta readers.

Errata:
"...But is there someone your are interested in, or...?
"...felt that I was apart of something important" should be "...felt that I was a part of something important"
"... wedding alter..." should be "... wedding altar..." or preferably just "altar".
"... get those handless stuck on..." should be "... get those handles stuck on..."
"But is there someone your are interested in, or." Should be " But is there someone you are interested in, or.". I didn't get the hanging 'or' at the end, but after reading this form of speech used frequently, I decided that this was simply a figure of speech.
"Okay, you weren't listing in Mr. Miller's class at all." should be "Okay, you weren't listening in Mr. Miller's class at all."
"...to discuss the situation with Tom and is acceptance of gays..."
"...Mum was cooking in the kitchen when I got home..." Unintentionally humorous - Braden's family are cannibals - and incestuous ones, too!
"...how does that fit inline with..." should be "...how does that fit in line with..." (the lack of a space in "inline" changes the meaning)

Here's one example of the inconsistent use of bad language:

His goddamn smile, it was so cute and had this effect on me. I know, I know, it was only a goshdang smile...

This was a thought expressed by the narrator, who has been raised in a highly religious family, so it's hardly likely he would say "goddamn" and just plain weird that he says that and immediately follows it with "goshdang" so it didn't sound authentic to me at all. I know that even religious people cuss, and this isn't confined to adults, but the language felt unnatural for the context, and it was way overdone, as though the author was using it purely for its shock value rather than because it was the natural argot of these characters.

I don't care if people cuss in stories, because they cuss in real life, so in general terms it's inauthentic not to have them use bad language from time to time, but it needs to be authentic to the situation in which it's used, or to the people into whose mouths these words are placed.

There really are people who come down hard on gays and gay marriage, acting under the religious delusion that being gay is a sinful choice which calls for a cure. They're morons. Throughout history, human attempts at "curing" nature have been consistently disastrous, and this one will be too. People who delight in having anal sex with their wife or girlfriend irrationally think there is something wrong with two guys enjoying the same thing with each other. People who preach 'love thy neighbor' out of one side of their mouth have no problem stirring up resentment and hatred against people who only want to be allowed to love and marry one another. It's not only hypocritical, it's sick.

The problem for the big three monotheistic religions in accommodating this however, lies in the ignorant words of old men who specifically prohibited homosexual relations in the Old (men) Testament - only between men, however! The OT has nothing to say about lesbianism! People mistakenly think that Queen Victoria did not believe that lesbianism existed, which is why it never was made illegal in England, but this belief is a myth. It was never mentioned in Victorian statutes for the same reason it was never mentioned in the OT. Old white men couldn't have cared tuppence about women's sexuality. It wasn't even considered that they had any. Only male homosexuality threatened these geezers, and why on Earth would women be attracted to each other when there were so many manly men around?!

So the problem for those who adhere to these religions is that the Bible does expressly prohibit it. This means they either have to dispense with the blind edicts of ignorant old men, or they have to dispense with homosexuals, and they're far too cowardly and insecure to do the former, so it's gays who suffer.

Some of the other things which these young teens were depicted as saying were bizarre too. At one point for example, Mia, who is Braden's best friend, says to him "Gimme a break, Bray Bray" which sounded so babyish that it brought me right out of suspension of disbelief. These teens are also using bad language in church when they're sitting close-by grown-ups, which struck me as stupid and unrealistic.

I didn't have a problem with the religious people cussing, but for kids to use such bad language within earshot of their parents and family friends struck me as very unrealistic and spoke poorly of the kids' judgment. This was a bad impression to give because it fuels an argument that Braden's sexuality was also an example of poor judgment rather than his nature, which is nonsensical, but it's a serious mistake to write in a way which puts ammunition into the hands of your detractors, even if that ammo is a pile of duds.

There was a lot of texting described, too which felt way overdone to me. Invariably, depicting texts fails in YA stories. It seems like the writer is trying far too hard to be hip and 'authentically teen', and it just makes me want to skip it, especially since the bulk of it really conveys nothing of value and does little to move the story. A simple brief sentence describing the text is far more effective than a whole paragraph of text-onics.

There was a certain naiveté to this story. It felt a bit like reading fan fiction, or reading a first draft by a young author, and usually this will turn me off a story. In the case, the simplistic tone actually tended to lend it some authenticity. First person PoV stories are usually appallingly unrealistic. I am not remotely a first person fan. Far from rendering the story more immediate and accessible, it typically makes it seem irritatingly false and self-centered to me. This one wasn't, but the value of this was lost amidst all the other issues.

The novel was pretty much completely lacking in any really descriptive prose. It was mostly about movement between one place and another, and the conversations which took place between the teens - chats which were in serious danger of losing the reader because very few of the speeches were ascribed to a specific speaker. It was mostly a list of spoken text with insufficient attribution to give the reader a decent idea of who was saying what. There was almost nothing to set atmosphere or to describe the surroundings, not even sketchily. It made the story seem rootless in many ways, like it wasn't actually happening in real life but in some ghostly existence divorced from the real world, which is also a mistake for a novel of this type, which really begs to be solidly grounded in reality.

In the final analysis, I can't recommend this, but if you happen to like it, there is a companion novel titled Aaron's story. I can't say if these two are tied together in any way.

The Human Agenda by Joe Wenke

Title: The Human Agenda
Author: Joe Wenke
Publisher: Trans-Über
Rating: WORTHY!

Errata:
"Gchatted" ought really to be rendered "G-chatted" (page 11 Adobe Digital editions page counter - there is no page number on the pages themselves). I had never heard of this and thought it was a simple typo at first. It means to converse using Google chat. A bit of clarification would help to distinguish it from a typo.

Page 35 "Cindy" is rendered with a little box in place of the "i" which means the character never was translated properly from the original.

Joe Wenke's book is sub-titled "Conversations about Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity" so I tried to keep that in mind - conversations, not interviews, but I couldn't help feeling that I wanted to hear more from those he conversed with! I had one or two issues with this book (but then with which book don't I have issues?!); however, the more I read of it the more I was drawn in and in the end I consider it a worthy and educational read.

He interviews a large variety of people, all of whom have their own unique perspective on the topic. The conversation annoyed me a little to begin with, but the more I read through different conversations with different people, the more interesting they became, and the further I got into the book, the more engrossing it was to me, but let me discuss several issues I had so you get the complete picture of my impressions, and decide fro yourself if this is something which intrigues you as much as it did me.

In his first interview, with Kristin Russo, the author observes, "...you call your project 'Everyone is gay' which is a self evident truth. Everybody knows that it's true... what exactly do you mean when you say that 'Everyone is Gay?" I found that an extraordinary thing to say: on the one hand claiming something is universally true and then asking a person what they mean by it. It was especially curious given the comments he makes in this same interview on the use and abuse words which are employed as minority identifiers, both positively and negatively. Besides, if everyone knows it, why do we need to pursue the matter with his last question?! It just struck me as a strange thing to say.

Russo responds that it's about transparency (and in explaining, she actually delivers this transparency!). She states clearly that the name was just a joke for a website. It was never intended to be true (universally or otherwise!), or to offer any deep insight into anything; it was just a joke, which begs the question, what on Earth did the author mean?! maybe he was just carried away with his enthusiasm, but I think someone with a PhD in English ought to be more on top of his use of the language than he appeared to be in this instance - and especially if he wants to win his readers over! But as I said, things improved.

He titled this book The Human Agenda precisely because there is a farcical claim that there's a "homosexual agenda", which itself is nonsensical, unless you define merely asking for fair treatment to be some sort of an agenda. What the author meant is something which isn't explained, but it might make a reader wonder what other agendas might be in play here. Me, I just read on!

Something which is truly self-evident is that this wasn't his first interview for this project because in this one he mentions someone else he's interviewed. Given that reference, it made me wonder why that interview had not been placed before this one instead of seven places after it. He has done this later where Aiden Key's interview follows Andrew Solomon's, which is referenced in Key's interview, so why not here? It gave me a bit of an impression that this was not very well organized, but neither was it completely disorganized either, so it's fine.

With that in mind, however, I decided to read Ian Harvie's interview first (yes, I'm name-prejudiced!) and that was interesting, too. Harvie was born female to all outward appearances, but changed gender to match how he felt inside. Harvie is in his forties, but claims there is no word for what he was. Yes, there was, so I'm guessing he simply didn't know any words for it at that young of an age. Those words have been known for a long time as it happens! Tomboy has been around for half a millennium. Dyke has been around since at least the 1940s, and perhaps even the twenties. The idea of butch and femme lesbians has been around for a century as a concept if not employing those exact words. Transsexual and transgender have been around for half a century. This is nothing new. The shame is that it has taken society so long to acknowledge and accept these facts as a reality.

For me, one of the problems with this book in the early chapters was that more than one person seemed to be making sweeping statements without actually having a good broom with which to sweep! It bothers me because this is an important topic and making statements such as for example, "...every single person in that audience was struggling, on some level with not being enough in relation to their gender..." which is what Harvie says. It felt like a condescending generalization and I found myself hoping for more solid ground as the book progressed.

Fortunately, I found it, but such an all-encompassing statement is not only inaccurate (there's a big difference between saying, "I guess on occasion everyone has issues" and saying "every single person here has issues"), it doesn't help endear people to what you're saying either; it just makes the speaker sound really insecure, and it's exacerbated when the author comes in right behind that statement and makes yet another sweeping statement, again speaking for all of us!

I think my biggest problem with this book was exactly that: the author says confidently that we're all struggling with our identities, as though there is a specific identity which each of us must assume and to which we must adhere. I disagree. I think people don't try to nail themselves to that monolithic cross so rigidly. I think they understand at some level that they are different things to different people. They know, whether they actively acknowledge it or not, that they're not fulfilling the same role as a mom or a dad at home as they are as a boss or an employee at work, or as a fan at a game, or as a role-player in an on-line game, or as a son or daughter, or a grandparent.

I understand that gender roles fly a little more under the radar than these things I've listed, but this doesn't mean everyone is obsessed with them or in trouble with them. I don't doubt that some do struggle. I don't doubt that others give it some thought from time to time, and I don't doubt that others never pay any mind to it, but to suggest that everyone is struggling with it as a routine thing is to misrepresent the situation and worse, maybe marginalize those who don't share this view - or at least make them feel there's maybe something wrong with them if they're not struggling! You can't be expansive and exclusive at the same time when you're talking about he labels we give to people!

Just one person's opinion given in passing in an interview isn't a big deal. Everyone has, and is entitled to their own opinion. It's when those opinions are forced on others, either practically by literally requiring others to hold a certain view, or as it is in this case, representing everyone as holding an opinion or having an issue (which certainly has not been demonstrated) is equally objectionable and worthy only of politicians.

I also found Russo's conversation about the use and reclamation of the word "queer" to be odd. She mentioned that she has a friend who rides freight trains for fun, and seems to be suggesting, even that he and his wife are both hetero people, that he could be labeled queer because there's something inherently queer about the way he lives his life. She doesn't mean this in a pejorative sense, but to me this was nonsensical. If you make a word mean anything, then it actually means nothing! Words change all the time, but you cannot force a meaning upon them, not if you want to make intelligent use of them. Words take on whatever meaning society endows them with and accommodate a given usage at a given time. Trying to bend and stretch words beyond what they normally will bear at any one time is nothing but a way of breaking them and rendering them useless!

I really didn't get part of the conversation with Aiden Key, either, where the author says:

Sexual orientation and gender identity are distinct but also very closely bound together, and what's interesting is that both of these issues seem to be threatening to people, what one's gender identity is, particularly if it's nonconforming, or what one's sexual orientation is if one is not heterosexual if one is gay or lesbian or queer or bisexual even in my own case. I'm very attracted to transgender women.

I think he might have found a better word than 'non-conforming'! It's like on the one hand we have this book about gender agendas, and on the other we're trying to come up with labels for the very people who have been stigmatized and marginalized through the use of such labels. Indeed labels are imposed upon groups and cultures for the very purpose of sanctioning abuse against them. I don't get why we feel we must label people here. isn't it more important to accept than to label? And it takes a lot less effort!

I don't see that it matters whether a woman started out as female or as male. If they identify now as female what else is there to be said? The same goes for someone who starts a female and now identifies as a male - or anyone in between. Why would we need to even have a word for a person who likes people who are female? it;s not important how they got that way! That struck me as a strange thing to say. Pigeon holes are for pigeons and mail, not people. We need to be focused on integrating, not disintegrating, and seeking to label and categorize people, especially when the topic is gender identity, people seems counter-productive at best, and abusive at worst.

That said, this book did improve. Maybe it was just me getting up to speed with it, or maybe the early interviews were just not my cup of tea, but it's not a big deal because the later ones were a delight to read and I enjoyed nearly all of them. That in mind, I consider this a worthy read. Oops, there I went and labeled it. Sorry!

Memories and Marco by Hollis Shiloh

Title: Memories and Marco
Author: Hollis Shiloh
Publisher: Amazon
Rating: WARTY!
pub.

This novel sounded really interesting from the blurb (but then don't they all?!). The premise is quite odd. It's a retired boxer telling his story of his encounters with a younger man, Marco, who provides physical therapy, but who does it by magic, not by science. Clearly this is a premise ripe for erotica, and that would be fine if that's what you're into, but I was hoping for more than that, otherwise why introduce magic? The problem was that I didn't get more, I got less. And I'm not into erotica. Nor am I into first person PoV stories which present the narrator as any more self-obsessed than first person PoV already implies.

I should have known this was going south when I read the names of the two main characters: Jace and Marco. Honestly? Why not just name them Trope and Cliché? But you know I could have managed even that had there been something worth reading. There wasn't. The entire text, for the portion that I read, consisted of Jace's internal monologue as he went back and forth to his magical therapy with Marco. There was absolutely nothing whatsoever to build any atmosphere. There was no description of the surroundings - the sights, the sounds, the smells, the feel of the place. Even when Marco made physical contact while applying his magical remedy, there was nothing - no spark - nothing! It was just conversation and internalizing, and even that had problems.

Jace was constantly aware of everything which Marco did and said, almost to the point of monitoring his heartbeat, and the signals of Marco's interest in Jace were crystal clear to anyone who wasn't a moron, yet for no reason whatsoever (at least none that was made plain to this reader), this moron was dismissing it all, almost with a sense of desperate panic, like this interest would sully him somehow. Oh, look at his wide eyes when he looks at me. No he's not interested. Oh, he touched me again! No this could never happen. He's smiling at me in that special way. He must not like me at all. He's so very attentive to me. He obviously can't stand me. I am not kidding, it was like that all the way though and it was tedious reading.

Here's an example of the author striving for erotic content, describing the two of them sitting in the park eating soft pretzels they just bought:

I took one last bite slowly, and then looked down at my salty, sticky fingers and brushed them on the edges of my trousers. It would just be cruel to suck them one by one, in front of him.

Self-obsess much? You know, if it has been just the one thing, in a decent context, or said in fun or self-deprecatingly, it would have been fine, but it wasn't. This was one of many such comments very early in the story, and it makes no sense, since they had pretty much just met. How much self-adoration in a main character can a reader stand?! Whatever the limit is, it was exceeded astronomically here, and clearly what the author is telling us is that this isn't a romance at all - it's just lust and sex and there's nothing else to it. It was at that point, at the quote above, that I quit reading this.

Rather than take the road less traveled, the author went by mass transit, and I'm not interested in that. I'm not interested in the path most trampled, but that wasn't the worst offense believe it or not! Note that these are two adult guys, but there is a large age difference between them. That wouldn't have been a problem except that every time Jace thinks about Marco, it's in terms of Marco being a child: large eyes, soft lips, smooth skin, small buttocks. He's infantilizing this guy continually, and it's all physical.

There are homophobic morons out there who are so stupid that they cannot even begin to grasp the quantum gap between pedophilia and male homosexuality. Intriguingly, these same people never conflate pedophilia and lesbianism - that ought to tell you all you need to know about what ignorant bigots they are. That said though, I honestly don't think it's a good idea to risk handing these jerks any more ammunition - through writing poorly - than they've already invented for themselves, when it's just as easy to go the extra mile and produce original and inventive ways of describing love in fiction.

I can't recommend this.

A Tale of Two Mommies by Vanita Oelschlager

Title: A Tale of Two Mommies
Author: Vanita Oelschlager
Publisher: Vanita Books
Rating: WORTHY!

DISCLOSURE: Unlike the majority of reviews in this blog, I've neither bought this book nor borrowed it from the library. This is a "galley" copy ebook, supplied by Net Galley. I'm not receiving (nor will I expect to receive or accept) remuneration for this review. The chance to read a new book is often enough reward aplenty!

Illustrated by Kristin Blackwood (no website found) and Mike Blanc.

This review is pretty much the same as the one I wrote for A Tale of Two Daddies, but it's different because the two books are not the same. They do cover similar ground, however.

I didn't know who she was a couple of days ago, but I'm rapidly becoming a big fan of author Vanita Oelschlager. She has written many books, but the ones I'll talk about today are aimed at children specifically those aged four to eight years, which is a bit outside the range of my own kids, but no so far away that I don't remember them well at those ages.

The stories are all short and they're aimed at teaching. The lesson may be dealing with a personal problem, or a problem in the family and following the story may help a child see a way through their own dilemma with the help of mom or dad, or a guardian or close relative - whoever is willing to pitch in. The net profit from these books goes straight to a deserving charity, not into an author's pocket, which is an amazingly generous thing to do.

This particular story is becoming more and more important in the US as the nation slowly catches up with the rest of the civilized world and finally starts treating gay couples just ads they've treated hetero couples. The only problem here is that there aren't many of them, so a kid who has two parents of the same gender may well feel a little unusual when friends start talking about mommy and daddy.

It's a serious and important issue, but this book doesn't get bogged down by being grim and preachy. It takes an almost breathless approach to the kinds of questions which other kids might have, and the style and pace is a perfect fit to how incredibly energetic young kids are. You know, if you can invent a way to tap some of that childhood energy and re-distribute it to parents and other older folk, you'll be a guaranteed billionaire and a hero to parents everywhere.

So in this book, which is nicely and colorfully illustrated, a young boy (whose name isn't revealed) has two moms. He also happens to be a different race from either of his moms and I love that this isn't even an issue here. I wait and hope for the day when same-gender parents isn't, either.

As in the other volume, a couple of kids are bugging him with a host of questions about who does what if bothparents are girls. Puleeze! The good-natured boy answers with the same measure of poise and equanimity which the girl employed in the companion volume, and he answers smartly and sensibly.

As I said before, this isn't rocket science after all, it's parenting. Parents have different skills and behaviors regardless of what gender they are. It's no big deal as long as we deal with it like adults! I recommend this book regardless of whether parents are gay, hetero, single, plural or guardians. As I said in the other review, it's all good as long as it's love.

A Tale of Two Daddies by Vanita Oelschlager

Title: A Tale of Two Daddies
Author: Vanita Oelschlager
Publisher: Vanita Books
Rating: WORTHY!

DISCLOSURE: Unlike the majority of reviews in this blog, I've neither bought this book nor borrowed it from the library. This is a "galley" copy ebook, supplied by Net Galley. I'm not receiving (nor will I expect to receive or accept) remuneration for this review. The chance to read a new book is often enough reward aplenty!

Illustrated by Kristin Blackwood (no website found) and Mike Blanc.

This review is pretty much the same as the one I wrote for A Tale of Two Mommies, but it's different because the two books are not the same. They do cover similar ground, however.

I didn't know who she was a couple of days ago, but I'm rapidly becoming a big fan of author Vanita Oelschlager. She has written many books, but the ones I'll talk about today are aimed at children specifically those aged four to eight years, which is a bit outside the range of my own kids, but no so far away that I don't remember them well at those ages.

The stories are all short and they're aimed at teaching. The lesson may be dealing with a personal problem, or a problem in the family and following the story may help a child see a way through their own dilemma with the help of mom or dad, or a guardian or close relative - whoever is willing to pitch in. The net profit from these books goes straight to a deserving charity, not into an author's pocket, which is an amazingly generous thing to do.

This particular story is becoming more and more important in the US as the nation slowly catches up with the rest of the civilized world and finally starts treating gay couples just ads they've treated hetero couples. The only problem here is that there aren't many of them, so a kid who has two parents of the same gender may well feel a little unusual when friends start talking about mommy and daddy.

It's a serious and important issue, but this book doesn't get bogged down by being grim and preachy. It takes an almost breathless approach, with colorful and very active illustrations to the kinds of questions which other kids might have, and the style and pace is a perfect fit to how incredibly energetic young kids are. You know, if you can invent a way to tap some of that childhood energy and re-distribute it to parents and other older folk, you'll be a guaranteed billionaire and a hero to parents everywhere.

So in this book, a young girl (whose name isn't revealed) has two dads, and a kid is bugging her something chronic with question after question about who does what if they're both guys. The charming girl answers with poise and equanimity and answers with neither hesitation nor exaggeration. And her answers are smart and make sense. This isn't rocket science! It's parenting. Parents have different skills and behaviors regardless of what gender they are. It;s no big deal as long as we deal with it like adults! I recommend this book regardless of whether parents are gay, hetero, single, plural or guardians. It's all good as long as it's love.

Lesbianism Made Easy by Helen Eisenbach

Title: Lesbianism Made Easy
Author: Helen Eisenbach (no website found)
Publisher: Open Road Integrate Media
Rating: WORTHY!

If Woody Allen had been a lesbian, he might have written something like this. I'm honestly at something of a loss as to how to review this one usefully except to give you a few quotes and to say that I was laughing out loud on pretty much every other screen.

It's a humorous look at lesbianism, no doubt based on the author's own experiences and stories she's heard, and it's funny as hellions. It does flag a bit here and there (and "fag" a bit in parts, too!), but overall it's exxcellent (yes, that's two X-chromosomes thank you!), well-worth reading if you have any interest at all in sexual preferences and in laughing.

Told with tongue firmly in cheek (or somewhere) this exquisite satire introduces you to lesbianism and how to make (or even mate) the most of it - or at least live with it! Author Eisenbach had me at the opening quiz. Here's one of the multiple choice (and I mean really choice) questions:

When in the presence of Scarlett Johansson, I usually feel:

• a. Warm and/ or tingly
• b. Slightly faint
• c. Hungry
• d. All of the above, not to mention whew!
• e. Other

This is a trick question. Answers (a)—(d) prove nothing except that you’re alive. If you chose (e), you’re not fooling anyone. There are no other answers.

The book is full of off-the-wall commentary and observation:

One of the great rewards of lesbianism, among the many too numerous to elaborate upon, is that it is possible to go to bed with someone and feel more beautiful naked than clothed, more desirable than you had any expectation of feeling after being weaned on a diet of American standards in silicone and femininity.

The observations are not confined solely to women. Gay guys come in for a butt-load of ribbing, and to Eisenbach's comedian, heteros get to play the straight man:

Nature has given men erections to make sure they never forget that nothing lasts.

Nothing is excluded from the humor or escapes attention:

The telephone, to get back to where we started, is an instrument that is frequently misused in interpersonal relationships; indeed, it is sometimes the root of intercouple trauma. Remember, if you can, that the phone should be wielded like a vibrator: 1. Gently, paying particular attention to the responses of the phonee, 2. Only when absolutely necessary, so as not to become too dependent on its usage, and 3. Never as a substitute for the real thing face-to-face. Well, almost never.

One sour word on the formatting side: in the Kindle app on my Smart phone, some of the text that was intended to appear in two separate columns wasn't very well separated as you can see from the image below.

I thoroughly recommend this even if you don't have your dreams swimmin' in women.

Cycler by Lauren McLaughlin

Title: Cycler
Author: Lauren McLaughlin
Publisher: Random House
Rating: WARTY!

This is a story about Jill and Jack, and yes, I know I said I'd sworn off novels which feature a main character named Jack because it's such an abysmally clichéd name, this one was different enough that I let it under the wire.

The deal is that Jill and Jack are the same person, and no, it's not what you think. Jill McTeague isn't transgendered - not in the way you normally think of it. Whereas most females eventually begin undergoing an inconvenience, or a highly troublesome, or even a downright painful "time of the month", none of them have anything on Jill. Once a month, for four days, she literally turns into a male - who has taken the name Jack.

Yes, I hadn't read anything quite like this before, either, which is why I took it on, despite it being both first person PoV, usually a no-no for me, and had a main character named Jack, also a no-no for me.

I have to say, though, that I had some really mixed feelings about this novel, loving some of it and hating other parts. The book hasn't been a particularly big seller, but it has already been optioned for a movie, believe it or not. It just goes to show that you never really know where your novel may end up no matter how oddball or idiosyncratic you might think it is. WRITE IT ANYWAY!

Even though I didn't like Jack, I felt bad for him because he's confined to the house for the four days he shows up, and he lives in fear of being somehow erased by Jill, so his initial unsavory character softens slightly over time, especially when he realizes he's fallen for Jill's best friend. The problem is that he turns out to be precisely the kind of 'Jack' I detest in novels, particularly YA novels.

The hope I had for how this novel might play was quickly dashed. It went in a different, although initially interesting direction. On that score - on having a very rare bisexual character in a YA novel - major kudos to the author. The problem was that the author really blew it on handling how this character was dealt with - and she blew it in several different directions. More like vomited it really.

Jill and her friend Daria Benedetti, and best friend Ramie Boulieaux (yeah, I know) are working on Jill's plan to get Tommy Knutson (or Tommy Knutsack as Jack refers to him - Jack can access Jill memories, but not the other way around) to ask her to the prom. Her plan is completely stupid, so this was a bit of a downer for me. I don't like female main characters to be dumb-asses or shallow - unless, of course, they rise above it as the novel progresses. Nor do I like stories which repeatedly tell us how smart the female character is, yet consistently depict her as being boning-fido stupid! Jill obsessed more and more on the shallow as the story went along instead of wise-ing-up, unfortunately.

I really like the author's writing style, so it was hard to actually drop the novel. Usually when something starts going downhill like this, I have no problem dropping it and moving on to something else, but the more this went on, the more curious I became about where the author thought she was trying to take it. The writing itself wasn't god-awful, only the main characters, and since it was short and I could already see some changes dawning in Jack's personality, I decided to run with it, but in doing so, I really felt betrayed by the author.

My first really big problem (other than how stereotypically gross Jack was depicted as being), was when Jill and Tommy had their first real conversation. Right up front, Tommy brought up the fact that he is bi. Yes, you can argue that it's commendable he wanted her to know the truth and was being up front with her, but it was out of place and for more than one reason.

First of all, it's not like they were in imminent danger of having sex at that moment - far from it, so it didn't seem like his honesty fit the requirement. They were not even dating, nor was it certain that they would, so sexual history was hardly on the cards. Jill wasn't even looking for a date per se, only for an escort to the prom.

Let's look at it this way for a moment: suppose instead of telling her he was bisexual, he had told her that he liked girls with different colored hair from Jill. Suppose he said, "I usually like brunettes, but a lot of the time I like blondes, too!"? See how nonsensical that sounds? Who cares? And why raise this?

The way it was brought up here was that it made it sound like Tommy was going to date Jill, but he also wanted to be free to date guys at the same time. Who would countenance that? Well, some people might, but typically not. If he was going to be faithful to her during the time they dated, then who gives a shit who he liked to date before, or who he might date afterwards?

This whole thing made it sound like, yeah, I really want to go steady with you, but occasionally I plan on popping out and having a guy on the side. Seriously? It was just so badly-handled, which actually made it stand out like a sore thumb given that the rest of the writing was entertaining (if a bit dumb here and a bit gross there).

In some ways this made the whole thing homophobic: like, hey, I'm bi, so I might have aids. Well guess what, anyone might have aids, straight, gay or bi. It's irrelevant in and of itself! And it would remain irrelevant until and unless they planned on having sex, in which case their sexual history is important regardless of whether they're gay, straight, or anywhere in between.

So I did not get this approach at all. It was rendered in an especially bad light when Jill was grossed out by Tommy's revelation! If Jill had been a prudish, closed-minded person, then I could see her reacting like this, but she was not, and this Jill, recall, was someone who changed into a horny guy for four days a month - a guy for whom she had talked her mother into procuring porn. Why wouldn't she be completely thrilled to find a potential partner who was bi?! It made no sense at all.

One other issue with the writing was the aggravating over-use of two words: "deeply", and "mal". It was like at least one appeared on every page, and sometimes the same one would appear two or three times in as many lines. It was really annoying. Please don't try to be hip unless you're cool!

Jack, as I mentioned, was a disappointment. At first I thought he couldn't be as bad as Jill painted him. The novel opens as she "returns" from a four-day spell as Jack, and she makes him sound atrociously bad. He was actually worse than she makes him sound. Once he decides he has the hots for her best friend, he sneaks out of the house and stalks Ramie, spying on her in her room (from up on the roof, through her dormer window), and at one point is preparing to masturbate while spying on her, until he falls off the roof. He gets rewarded for this by Ramie inviting him into her room soon after, for a kissing and feel-up session on her bed. This was not acceptable to me. I had the hope, initially, that he would really turn himself around, but he just got worse, and he was obnoxious to begin with.

So what the heck was it that appealed to me about the writing, if I found so much to dislike? I'm glad you asked, but I'm not sure I can give you a satisfactory answer! The writing style was just my kind of style. It was a comfortable an easy read for me, with some amusing situations and some hilarious observations scattered through it, all of which really hit my funny bone, but that was canceled out, I'm sorry to say, by the extreme dumb-assery going on.

It was this, the general tone and pace, and the banter and dialog, which appealed to me and made me continue with this much longer than I would have done had this same story had a poorer way with words. Plus, as I mentioned, I was really curious to know how this author was going to handle this story, especially given where she'd taken it so far. Maybe I just wanted to know how she would dig herself out of the holes she had so blithely opened up! The problem is that the author didn't go anywhere with it. It turns out this is just the prologue. The second act comes in volume two. I felt robbed at that point.

In the end, it was the stark gender segregation and utterly insensitive stereotyping which killed this for me: that Jill is the ultimate in mindless, girlie-girl femininity, whereas Jack is the sex-crazed closet rapist, and neither has the first clue about the other despite quite literally sharing mind and body. I cannot in good conscience recommend this, and I shall not be reading the sequel, 'hilariously' titled (re) cycler.

There Will Be Phlogiston by Alexis Hall

Title: There Will Be Phlogiston
Author: Alexis Hall
Publisher: Riptide Publishing
Rating: WORTHY!

Erratum:
41% in "sexually amphibious man"? Makes no sense! "sexually ambiguous man" perhaps?
48% in "with admirably calm"?!

This is a LGBTQ steam-punk novel with elements of fantasy, which is a novelty kind of a novel for me. It's about Lady Rosamond Wolfram, debutante in search of a marquess, about Anstruther Jones, the Phlogiston Baron, about his lover, Lord Mercury, and about the desire of Rosamond and Anstruther for each other. It's not your usual love triangle.

I have to confess that I fell in love with the title of this novel from the start. It's my considered opinion that you honestly need something deliciously warped running through your transom to even begin to invent a title like that; however, it makes a lot more sense when you realize that phlogiston is merely a synonym for fire in this context.

"There will be fire" wouldn't have caught my attention - except perhaps dismissively - and I'd be willing to bet that there are endless other novels out there already with such a title, but I'd be equally willing to bet that this novel is the only one with this title! Phlogiston "theory" held sway for a century, but the obsessive-compulsive drumbeat of scientists' search for comprehensive explanations eventually drove it out of favor. This novel pretends that it never did lose favor.

As I read the story, I found myself initially in alternation between moments both of liking it and of being quite unsure of it. I liked Lady Rosamond. I didn't like how weak she was when confronted with Anstruther's flaming desire, but then I didn't like the baron initially; however, he grew on me, as did Lord Mercury, in his sad and confused half-hearted passion. All three grew on me and I fell in love with all of them at the Copper Ball - one the like of which no society has ever seen. That joy was entirely due to the resolve, the bravery, and the civility of these three.

The baron is a self-made man - coming from a rough, common background, his control of phlogiston made him rich, but still unacceptable to society, hence his alliance with Lord Mercury, which commenced solely as a convenience for both of them. The baron's money alleviated Mercury's debt, whereas Mercury's position in society and his comprehensive knowledge of etiquette and the finer things in life repaid the baron capitally. This granted him an entrée into social circles from which he would have been disbarred otherwise, but Mercury never imagined they would become lovers, nor could he envisage a time when he would be comfortable with what they had, despite the baron's evident passion for him - an ardor which might have led to marriage had the two not been of the same gender and living in that era.

How complicated does it become then, when the baron discovers within himself a powerful passion for Lady Rosamond, whilst still harboring every lumen of his light for Mercury? Well, as it happens, not at all. You have to read the Copper ball scene to honestly appreciate how wonderful it is. Suddenly the Lady's engagement is shattered beyond repair - if not reproach - and the three leave the ball arm-in-arm, never looking back.

The novel is beautifully written, full of charm, exquisitely entertaining, but this is no mere romance, not even with a twist. If it were, Rosamond would not have a cyborg horse, rescued for her from the circus by Anstruther. There would not be phlogiston lamps lighting homes.

I was surprised that this came to an abrupt end when the novel-o-meter read only 49%. There was a second story, set int he same world, but about different characters (at least to begin with). I did not like this story and could not get into it, so I didn't finish it, but the first half of the novel makes it a very worthy read, especially since it's free (as of this review date) for both Nook on B&N, and Kindle on Amazon. If you're at all interested in this kind of novel, I urge you to read this one.

Of Anime and the Baeci by Alessandra Ebulu

Title: Of Anime and the Baeci (I found no reference to this on B&N or Amazon)
Author: Alessandra Ebulu
Publisher: Less Than Three Press
Rating: WARTY!

DISCLOSURE: Unlike the majority of reviews in this blog, I've neither bought this book nor borrowed it from the library. This is a "galley" copy ebook, supplied by Net Galley. I'm not receiving (nor will I expect to receive or accept) remuneration for this review. The chance to read a new book is often enough reward aplenty!

The last novel I read from Less Than Three Press I rated positively, but this one I was not able to enjoy in the same way at all. It's one novel where the cover was actually better than what was between it! There was a prologue to this story which I skipped, as I do all prologues. If the author doesn’t think it worth including in chapter one or beyond, I don’t think it worth time reading it. I went straight into the story, but unfortunately it read more like fanfic than an actual story. I read about three-quarters of the way through and skimmed the last 25%.

This is a very short novel - only some 80 pages - but unfortunately, the story made no sense whatsoever to me. Superficially, it begins with two apartment dwellers. One of them is Ray Zielke, and he's disturbed by the loud music and TV show noise from his across-the-hall neighbor. When he goes to complain, he meets Cata Nanuq, a very feminine-looking guy who despises either label, who dresses Asian, and is into anime and manga. It turns out that Cata owns the apartment block, and a physical attraction quickly develops between the two of them, but it’s not a romance - it’s all lust and sex.

There's a twist to this story, however, since the story itself has anime elements to it. Ray isn’t human and is there to protect Cata, who is a Baeci (which describes a person who is externally one gender, but internally of mixed gender). Cata and other baeci are being hunted by another non-human who bathes in and drinks their blood, but Cata knows nothing of this, and Ray has not told him the truth despite being sexually intimate with him.

This is where the story makes no sense. We're told that Ray is specifically there to protect Cata, yet he evidently has no idea who Cata is when he goes over to complain about the loud music as the story begins. He's supposed to be watching over Cata yet he's working a job which occupies a heck of a lot of his time, so he isn't actually free to stand watch, which adequately explains how Cata is apparently abducted from his apartment while Ray is otherwise occupied.

Even then it makes no sense. There is blood on the walls of Cata's apartment, but when advised to seek Cata's 'flame' inside himself, Ray has no problem picking it out and determining that Cata is still alive - yet they still insist upon matching the blood in the apartment with DNA from Cata's toothbrush. Why? If Ray can see he's alive, then why does the blood even matter, and how come he cannot simply track Cata down to his location by his "flame" and save him?

Worse than that, Ray spends the next week not doing a thing to find Cata, but instead, sitting around in Cata's apartment hugging Cata's pillow, and watching anime on Cata's 72 inch TV! If this has been a longer novel, I would have quit reading it right there. Cata then shows up out of the blue with no explanation for his absence and no sign of any abduction or injury.

I cannot recommend this novel at all. It made no sense and had no rationale to it. The relationship between the two main characters had no chemistry at all and was purely sexual, so where was the story? I couldn’t find one to enjoy.