That's "young miss" to you. (Or "madam," if you want to be accurate.)
I know those jodhpurs are around here somewhere ...
Pardonnez moi mademoiselle
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
That's "young miss" to you. (Or "madam," if you want to be accurate.)
I know those jodhpurs are around here somewhere ...
Not at all. He's extremely outspoken, fiercely intelligent, and a bit of a contradiction because although he is not a big fan of people in general, he is a devoted friend to many and adores his family. (I tell him often that he is my favorite fake curmudgeon.) He is, however, quite particular in his habits. I am not certain that he has OCD, but he well may. I certainly could not live with him. Or rather, I would not condemn him to such a fate as living with someone as irregular in habits as I am.Is he shy ?
It's sad. He is torn apart between OCD and the natural desire to live with someone.Not at all. He's extremely outspoken, fiercely intelligent, and a bit of a contradiction because although he is not a big fan of people in general, he is a devoted friend to many and adores his family. (I tell him often that he is my favorite fake curmudgeon.) He is, however, quite particular in his habits. I am not certain that he has OCD, but he well may. I certainly could not live with him. Or rather, I would not condemn him to such a fate as living with someone as irregular in habits as I am.
This makes me think of a friend of mine. He self-identifies as gay, technically, but if he mentioned being in a relationship or even dating, I'd be absolutely stunned. He is the most asexual person I know.
Sounds like he and I could get along. Not saying I am fiercely intelligent or outspoken (I'm not) but other than that, yeah. We sound a lot alike.Not at all. He's extremely outspoken, fiercely intelligent, and a bit of a contradiction because although he is not a big fan of people in general, he is a devoted friend to many and adores his family. (I tell him often that he is my favorite fake curmudgeon.) He is, however, quite particular in his habits. I am not certain that he has OCD, but he well may. I certainly could not live with him. Or rather, I would not condemn him to such a fate as living with someone as irregular in habits as I am.
I don't know. He seems remarkably content. Happy, even. I think perhaps he has figured out the balance that works for him.It's sad. He is torn apart between OCD and the natural desire to live with someone.
wow. Your avatar picture. Cute.I don't know. He seems remarkably content. Happy, even. I think perhaps he has figured out the balance that works for him.
Agreed--yowza yowza!!!wow. Your avatar picture. Cute.
Education changes people. But are humans in "natural" (uneducated) state inclined more to associate with other people or to kill them ?I'll echo what some other people have already said for my 2 cents. You cannot look at a book from 1978 or the early 80's and expect to see the level of enlightenment about gay people or the same understanding in general. Obviously outright hate and discrimination is always going to be wrong no matter the era, but there was a level in insensitivity and not nearly as much understanding in those decades that have changed vastly over time. Also not many people were openly gay at that time, so it wasn't talked about all that much.
That would be the same thing as going back to literature from the 1930's or 40's and being shocked at insensitivity towards people of color. Society changes and evolves over time.
I do think that the reason for the harsh homophobic language in his books is because of the year of which the book is either written or set in. For example, It takes place in 1958, when it was not exactly as okay to be in a homosexual relationship like today (hence why his later books are better now). This also the reason for the constant use of the slur 'N***o' and 'N****r' with Mike. I also just realized that I'm replying to a thread from three years ago. I'm still going to send it. Sorry.I know my argument will look week because I don't have any concrete examples to give you right now, but much of SK's early writing is populated with peripheral male characters who are either questionably gay or outright gay and the way he writes them is not very nice. They are usually perverts, weak or criminals. Also, words like "f****t" are liberally used in his earlier writings. All I know is that having read SK since pretty much the beginning, there are many times as a gay male I had to cringe at the way he wrote gay males. I will try to find some definite examples, but you'll have to give me time.
...no apology needed...good and thoughtful comments are as welcome as you are...I do think that the reason for the harsh homophobic language in his books is because of the year of which the book is either written or set in. For example, It takes place in 1958, when it was not exactly as okay to be in a homosexual relationship like today (hence why his later books are better now). This also the reason for the constant use of the slur 'N***o' and 'N****r' with Mike. I also just realized that I'm replying to a thread from three years ago. I'm still going to send it. Sorry.
I always assumed Patrick was gay because of that *scene* and when Henry got all defensive when Patrick said something about it(if you read the book then you know what I mean) and Henry was all like NOOO but was he secretly gay? I havent decided what I think yet.......I always wondered if that was part of the reason for his self-hatred. It certainly was implied in the scene with Patrick Hockstetter. As a gay man myself (but not self-hating, heh), it occurred to me that might be the case. Thoughts?