Randy Shilts is the s***. He depicted Harvey Milk's life richly, with knowledge he gained as a gay SF reporter during the 70s, and subsequent research. The myriad details never weighed down the story arc, but instead kept me riveted and reading further. Shilts wrote non-fiction like it was a really excellent screenplay, where every bit advances the plot while being valuable in and of itself. As an aspiring journalist, I'd say that's a great take-home message about writing.

That said, I'm st

Randy Shilts is the s***. He depicted Harvey Milk's life richly, with knowledge he gained as a gay SF reporter during the 70s, and subsequent research. The myriad details never weighed down the story arc, but instead kept me riveted and reading further. Shilts wrote non-fiction like it was a really excellent screenplay, where every bit advances the plot while being valuable in and of itself. As an aspiring journalist, I'd say that's a great take-home message about writing.

That said, I'm still pondering Shilts's epilogue where he claims that Harvey Milk's life represents the homosexual experience, and that it would have played out in another city with another person if Milk hadn't come along. This comes after 300+ pages devoted to Milk's innovative and controversial political tactics and all his personal idiosynchrasies, so I immediately scratched my head over Shilts's assertion. Further contemplation left me even more confused. Yes, the drama of asserting gay power and the subsequent backlash echoes strongly of many gay people's experiences when they try to live integrated lives. This is absolutely why so many people are moved by his story: he felt that he was worthy of power, his sexual orientation notwithstanding, and then a straight, white, Catholic ex-cop shot him down and was exonerated.

I think it's just that calling this the Universal Gay Experience (UGE) is a dated statement. Shilts would admit that, before Milk, and Stonewall, and all the previous civil rights movements, the UGE did not have a model for asserting power. That's why Milk was so revolutionary. Before Stonewall, it was Judy Garland -- a drugged up and burned out victim of Hollywood -- who was the living idol of gay men. The symbolism of Stonewall occuring right after Garland's death is ground that Shilts tills himself. So the UGE before '69 was closet, closet, closet. Then the 70s came with Milk, and his experience rang true for all the people coming out in that decade, who were many. But now, we have now, and we certainly have to move forward.

However, young queers who don't know about the past models for LGBT existence need to read this book. It did me all kinds of good to see how far we've come, and to read about the heroics and humanity of the people who brought us here. The juicy, juicy bits about SF politics were immensely interesting as well. Milk's story is definitely still one part of a larger queer experience that many people can connect to, if not based on their personal experience, then at least on an empathic level. And, what am I saying? Straight people need to read this book too just because of that last bit about empathy. Just know it's not the whole story.