Whitaker's comments

Whitaker's comments from the LGBTQA Group Books group.

Note: Whitaker is no longer a member of this group.

Scott wrote: "I would like to have longer than a month. Swimming Pool Library was excellent, but intense."

Scott, would a longer heads-up period before the discussion help? Or are you thinking of just having a longer period between books? Or both?

I like every single one of Cody's ideas. Constant Reader has people submit three (I think) each. Then the entire list is put up and people vote. The top six on the list are the books for the next six months.

Yes, I agree that there should be some equity. Again, my experience with Constant Reader is that they have a Classic section and a Reading List section. You can nominate in both or either. We could do a lesbian section and a gay section, and then alternate.

And, yes, having the questions is an excellent idea. Actually, if we simply chose discussion leaders, they could use that as a default fallback and add whatever it is they want.

Well, I think there are several things going on here.

I agree with Ted about the time needed to acquire the books. I think people need a longer heads-up period. At Constant Reader, a six-month list goes up a couple of months before the start. That allows people time to get the books they want to read, and allows those who need more time to read the luxury of starting early if they need to.

There is also the fact that people may be too busy to read. Giving an early heads-up helps, as does having a book once every two months. However, reading a book can be a commitment that people may not have time for. Some additional areas people might want to consider for those with time pressures would be short stories, plays and poems. There are a number of anthologies out there. Once acquired, you can read from that anthology over a two-year period (assuming discussions every two months). Perhaps even alternate that with the books. So, say, one month book, one month short story.

With most groups, usually only a small number of people become regular posters. The regularly active group of posters is usually less than 10% of the group. This is consistent with what is happening here: except for book suggestions, 2–3 persons post out of a group of 37. That’s not quite enough to sustain a conversation, although it’s nice to note that the number of lurkers on some threads does indicate a healthy level of interest.

I'd humbly suggest that you and Ted may want to consider folding this group into the Gay Fiction/Non-Fiction group. It could be a separate folder inside there. Also, it expands the reach of the discussion as existing members of Gay Fiction/Non-Fiction could end up being attracted to participate over time. And there is a base group of 150+ members over there already.

Even if you decide not to go that route, you might want to consider doing something like what Rambling Reader did over at Gay Fiction / Non-Fiction. Encouraging a regular conversation is useful regardless of the topic because that helps to make people feel part of a group, and gets them into the habit of participating there. That's critical right now because you need to build a regular core of active participants.

Finally, for each book, I think it's useful to have someone champion a discussion, not simply to split a book into parts. It usually helps have someone who will try to get the ball rolling and keep it rolling, usually by raising questions and points for people to discuss.

Just some ideas for you to think about. :-)

Troy wrote: "Any ideas what might be happening? Maybe I could just send a message to the whole group myself?"

Yes, I think it's people's individual notification settings. I'm sure that some others are like me, where most of the settings are set to "off". Rather than emailing the whole group, perhaps what you could try first is to include a message in the update section or just start a new thread. That's what some other groups do. That way, if you check your list of groups, you'll see that there has been a recent update. Presumably, interested participants will go and check. :-)

Wow, the new polls are up. I hadn't realised. :-)

I have to admit I skimmed through the trial bit. I knew it would get me sick and upset, so I just got through it as quickly as I could. It IS inspiring isn't it?

Nicole, hi. Yes, he does come across as having a great deal of political savvy, doesn't he. That is not so apparent in the movie, but I guess they didn't have the time.

Yes, it's interesting how conservative he was during his youth and how radical he became when he got older. It's the reverse of the trajectory that most people go through. It's odd, isn't it? I agree that he was irresponsible in some ways--like, not saving--but "responsible" in others--having a steady well-paying job. I think he was definitely thinking more of himself during his youth and his wants. It makes his evolution to a gay leader taking his civic responsibilities seriously, not just to the gay community but also to the wider community, all the more intriguing.

I watched the movie and that was an amazing scene. Heartbreaking and moving and empowering all at once. Shilts does a wonderful job capturing those emotions too!

Yes, that's so true. The flip side of something like the White Night Riots is suicide, uhich is just violence directed inwards, no?

What was it like listening to Harvey in person? He sounds like an amazingly charismatic man.

Shilts ends his book with these wonderful lines:

So for years after Harvey's death, when dull moments fell over a gay demonstration and the old slogans felt thin, someone would shout, "Harvey Milk lives," and it would not be hollow rhetoric; Harvey Milk did live, as a metaphor for the homosexual experience in America.

Well, finished Part IV and the Epilogue of The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk.

The trial of Dan White was a scandal, and a real travesty of justice. I was incensed at the way the jury was composed of people with religious and cultural views more disposed to Dan White. I was shocked and appalled at the behaviour of the SFPD, more criminal thugs than city protectors. And I cheered at the anger vented by the gay community during the White Night Riots.

Just finished The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk.

In Part III, I particularly liked how Shilts dealt with Milk’s work as a supervisor: his commitment, his diligence, and his determination to reach out to communities other than the gay community. This inclusive multi-partisan approach, seeking to bridge rather than splinter, is something I find to be a true sign of leadership. It’s not surprising that Milk was able to build a wider power base than Dan White, his assassin, who ended up beholden to large vested interests.

That's a great tidbit Catherine. It's really intriguing for me how World War II became this catalyst for gay rights by concentrating so many gay and lesbian people in one city. This concentration, arising from the prejudice and discrimination of the army, became a virtuous circle. The concentration of gay and lesbian people in San Francisco gave them the clout to demand more equality, which attracted more gay and lesbian people to San Francisco, which made them an economic force, which gave them....This really has to be one of the major ironies of history. LOL!

A major theme in Part II is how, in Harvey’s words, “You are never given power, you have to take it.” The gathering of gay men as a political and economic force blew away the old ‘genteel’ politics of appeasement and fuelled its own conservative backlash. The resulting mix of increased gay bashing (both physical and political) energised the gay population to reject the established gay leaders and demand a more vigorous inclusion into the political scene. Harvey himself asserted, “Anita Bryant herself pushed the gay movement ahead and the subject can never be pushed back into darkness.”

This seems to be a theme that repeats itself over and over again in gay American history: the exhortation to not frighten the liberal establishment and the anger when the liberal establishment is too timid in any event to deliver. The AIDS epidemic and the apathetic response to help angered the gay population and galvanised them into rising to find their own solutions to the crisis. What do you think?

Going to watch the film Milk tonight. Meanwhile, I'm keeping up with reading The Mayor of Castro Street. Just finished Part II.

Part II tells the amazing story of how Harvey rose to secure his election to supervisor. He sounds like a man of incredible energy and determination. He has to go through three losses before making it on his fourth try. He also comes across as a man who genuinely cared for the underdog. His ‘hope speech’ was entirely moving (and must surely resonate with Obama’s ‘change speech’):

“I’ll never forget what is was like coming out … I’ll never forget the looks on the faces of those who have lost hope, whether it be young gays, or seniors, or blacks looking for that almost-impossible-to-find job, or Latinos trying to explain their problems and aspirations in a tongue that’s foreign to them.

No it’s not my election I want, it’s yours. It will mean that a green light is lit that says to all who feel lost and disenfranchised that you can now go forward.

It means hope and we – no – you and you and you and, yes, you, you’ve got to give them hope.”

Shilts also mentions how Harvey had preternatural inklings about his early death. He would spend money lavishly on the basis that there would be no need to save up for an old age he would never live to see. I wonder how much this factored into his bravery and the risks he would later take as a politician.

Shilts talks about how many of his friends in his early years later realised that there was something distant about Harvey, as if he was not all there. His boss at the New York Wall Street firm, Monty Gordon, called him a drifter. And Harvey maintained no links with his friends from his early days. That’s something that I can really relate to, and is, I think, an experience common to a lot of gay people. It’s certainly very different from most straight people who do maintain some links that last from childhood and adolescence. It is, I think, something of a loss—not having those connections and a common history to share. Does anyone feel differently or has had a different experience?

As much as The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk is about Harvey Milk, I also liked learning about American gay history generally, and the development of the gay movement there. I was intrigued by the history of how San Francisco became a gay mecca. It’s ironic that it was World War II and the discharge of gay men from the armed forces should have helped create this city. Just the sheer concentration of gay men in one area must have helped them become a political force to be reckoned with, and it makes you wonder if gay liberation would have been slower without that political clout.

Also fascinating was reading about the other brave men who fought for gay rights in the early years. Jose Sarria, the owner of the Black Cat, was a remarkable individual. His nightly exhortations to gay men to stand and be proud of who they are was very moving. Craig Rodwell, a former lover of Milk’s, was also an incredible force, helping to organise resistance during the Stonewall riots.

Post your thoughts on Part II of The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk here.