Dear Sirs:

"From Here to Eternity" does NOT hurt homosexuals! In the long run, the truth never hurt anybody. It is a fact that in our personal relationships the blunt truth, ill-timed, may be more harmful than helpful; but in the market-place of thought, I am for truth, blunt or otherwise, in pieces or in snatches, being spoken. I believe that homosexuals do themselves more harm than good when they protest any and every observation which they feel might reflect unfavorably against themselves. By so doing, they weaken their when they do have a just protest.

In this instance, I feel that Mr. Williams' criticism of "From Here to Eternity" is unjustified. Had Jones' book professed to deal with the subject of homosexuality, the criticism might be warranted

. but such was not the

case. His book is primarily a defense of individualism and secondarily a story of how men lived and acted in a peace-time army. As such, I would say that Jones achieved his purpose admirably. A more honest book would be hard to find anywhere. He wrote about things the way he saw them-not the way they're supposed to be or the way we would like them to be.

One can hardly say that "quite a sizable portion of the story is devoted to discussion of 'the queers'." What do you call a sizable portion? There are some 35 out of 820 pages (in the Signet unabridged edition) devoted to it. About 4%!

One gets as warped an impression of Jones' book from Mr. Williams as the average reader is supposed to get of homosexuals from reading the book.

I would suggest that those concerned read "From Here to Eternity" themselves and form their opinions from that. Ripped from context, it is easy to show Jones' incidents in the worst possible light. Williams doesn't even retell some of the incidents the way they happened in the book, much less get the motives of Prew and Maggio into proper perspective. On this point, as throughout the book, Jones gets in some very penetrating character analyses. Of these particular homosexuals and also the motives of every one connected with the incident, I feel he does an excellent job. What kind of homosexuals would you expect soldiers to be likely to find in the situation as presented well-adjusted saints?

If you want a novel written about well-adjusted, positive homosexuals write it yourself-don't expect a hetero-

one

sexual to come up with it. It would seemn a truism to point out that practically the only homosexuals that heterosexuals ever notice are the "obvious" ones. What else? If they know any that aren't obvious they don't recognize them for that very reason. Why didn't Jones show "more presentable inverts"? Maybe he never knew any. I, myself, consider it some kind of a milestone to meet a welladjusted, mature adult of either classification. LOS ANGELES {

Dear Sirs:

Due to a definite disappointment in the change your magazine has undergone, I wish to cancel my subscription as of this date. I was given a copy of your magazine by a friend while living in Ohio, and it was a square-shaped, well-designed, and well-composed magazine. The new ONE Magazine has no contents that are even so much as casually interesting. Some articles even reach incredulity! I must say that I like the old style better, and until the publication is re-changed, I'm not interested in receiving it. However, when/if it is ever changed again-I will renew my subscription.

A.F.B. NEW YORK m Editors Note: We changed over from the square-shaped magazine to the present shape in January 1954. Thanks for staying with us a year even though preferring the "old style." However, as for going back, we're sorry; the entire staff only knows or listens to the words "Go Forward."

Gentlemen:

A subscriber of yours passes the magazine to us. In this city I would prefer it not to come through the mail publicly. Not only are we adjusted and respectable but we are respected. The laws of the world were built up to protect society from members of that same society who would destroy it for their several personal gains. The frustration endured by the homosexual tends to self-destruction. There is a monograph upon the theory that self-destruction inclination may be incited to mass destruction. I read it many years ago and have forgotten who wrote it. I do remember that the theory was verbose and advanced a poor argumentation. Unfortunately the theory seems to be, from my personal contacts, widely believed.

42