READERS write

REVIEW EDITOR: Just one criticism: I believe that I and most of the free-thinking heterosexualists are more free of prejudice against the homosexual than he is against the heterosexual! The homosexual wants laws passed or current out-moded laws changed to give him his sexual freedom, while he is quite content to let the laws against us stand as they are: What kind of logic is that where two or more people of the same sex are allowed complete freedom in their sexual life, while two or more people of the opposite sexare still kept in the old sexual straight-jacket? WD, Pennsylvania.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The Mattachine program calls for a change of law among other things that will result in no criminal definition for sex acts in private between consenting adults. This would be nefit heterosexuals as well as anyone alse. As for heterosexuals joining the work of the Mattachine Society, some of them have. The organization is not exclusively homosexual. But it is a fact that in the beginning everyone interested in sexual freedom was asked to join the work of the Mattachine, and for the most part, only those interested in improving the plight of the homosexual did so. Membership in the Society is open to any responsible adult regardless of sex or sexual orientation.

REVIEW EDITOR: Enclosed is my check for $250 which is my 1959 contribution to the Cause. I hope that it will help' you to help others less fortunate than I. May it also bring you encouragement for the wonderful work that you are doing, in so many different facets of our communal problem. I only wish that there was some way that I might take a more active part in the crusade. Mr. R.L., Florida.

EDITOR'S NOTE: It's hard to express gratitude for the largest single contribution received so far this year with a simple word, "thanks", but we mean it sincerely. Miami needs a Mattachine chapter. Would you and four other willing adults of good will undertake the task?

We shall assist in every way, but the main work must be done in your own community. Let us know.

REVIEW EDITOR: I am amazed and disgusted with this organization, its mombers and mostly their attitude toward themselves and the world.

I joined what I thought was an organi. zation whose purpose was to help make America and the world more like the kingdom of God. Instead, I find that it is composed of a bunch of half-wits, who are walking guilty consciences, who fear themselves and shadows and don't have the slightest desire to help themselves or any one else.

I have seldom seen a more poorly or ganized group. You must not have heard of publicity or hate yourselves so much that you fear it. You have been late publishing, writing, answering and in about everything you undertake. It is impossible for you to say you don't have the funds or people to work with. You have surely discovered by now that some of the richest and most intelligent people in this and other nations are homosexual or at least are human beings willing to help understand the problem. Do you mean that you can't even afford a secretary to keep your mail up to date and help people in distress? If so, it is your' fault and no one else's.

Why haven't you mailed pamphlets and articles to mayors, govemors, networks and newspapers? What do you print them for, to stay on your shelf?

And why don't you work with ACLU? Every senator and representative should have a letter about your organization for reference. God knows you can't do any harm. Queers are so low that they can't get any lower, they have to come up.

Every student graduating from college, especially sociologists, lawyers and doctors should have heard about your organization.

God helps those who help themselves. People are being brain-washed whether they or you like it or not. The question is whether you will brain-wash them or will the enemies of your organization,

mattachine REVIEW

99% of which could be classified also as enemies of our country and "way of life", do it.

Send me 100 of the "In Case You Didn't Know'' pamphlets. I know that the future holds equality, but I'm in grave doubt as to your abitity to work toward that goal, and expect you to fade and some other group to do the job, unless you immediately stop hiding from the facts and avoiding the truth. In a battle with a person's morals, religion and lip service ideals, versus his pocket book, history proves beyond any doubt that the pocket book wins. That is why integra tion of races will come shortly because those of us who are fighting for it are about the only people who are willing to give all for the fight. Others give part time service and that only when they don't think it will hurt their business, private lives etc. The biggest hypocrites in the world are preachers and teachers. How about articles to help queers identify rough trade? Such as the questions they ask that clue you to their wanting

money, etc.?

Isn't it strange that we haven't yet leamed that the "crack-pots" of today are the conservatives of tomorrow. -Mr. W. E. G., Louisiana.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Yes, it is strange. REVIEW EDITOR: The idea behind Dick Tyner's "On Rereading Gay Books...' was an interesting one, but clearly he

should have done a bit more reading him self first, and thereby have avoided some highly dubious superlatives. (With an-admitted blas, I recommend my Homosexual in Literature bibliography to him). Strange Brother did not represent "our first encounter with ourselves in fiction", Even if the our is taken to mean dedicated-all-American queens, in fiction by and about Americans, thereby excluding Proust's all-French queens, or Henry B. Fuller's unqueenish American homosexuals (1896; 1919), it is still not the first.. "'ourIn fiction by and about Americans, selves" are encountered in Cyril Hume's

Cruel Fellowship (Doran, 1925); Charles Brackett's American Colony (1929 by the very same publisher that put out Strange Brother two years later: Liver ight); Tiffany Thayer's Thirteen Men (Kendall; 1930).

Equally erroneous is the statement that Strange Brother was "about the only one for nearly fifteen years' i.e. 193146, or at least where such characters showed up "importantly". Limiting the

field only to works concerned with Amer icans, we find amongst the many major works: Twilight Men (also 1931); The Better Angel (1933, and still amongst the all-time best-ignored by Mr. Tyner); The Scarlet Pansy (1933); Butterfly Man (1934); This Finer Shadow (1941). Among the many, many works in which homosexuals (still limiting the field to the American) show up "importantly" even if the books are not primarily homosexual novels, we have in this period also: Edgar Calmer's Beyond the Street (1934); James M. Cain's Serenade (1937); Eugene O'Brien's He Swung and HeMissed (1937); Fitzroy Davis' Quicksilver (1942); et al.

And if we do not limit the field to works with an American background, or showing up "importantly", we have quite a few more before 1931, the year of Strange Brother 10 small-print pages of my bibliography. -Noel I. Garde

REVIEW EDITOR: Enclosed is a contribution to your magazine. It was a pleasure to open the June issue and see such

well-known contributors. This was the first of Ginsberg's poems that I have read, and it was a pleasant surprise. T.M., Ohio.

REVIEW EDITOR: Received the June issue of the REVIEW this morning and . it is really a high-point in your history. You know, I'm such a sceptic at heart and I keep forgetting what extremely. valuable and worthwhile a job you are

doing and every month the REVIEW jolts me back to a recognition of this truth, and a new enthusiasm is born.

Please, please, please print, some more Ginsberg. And I am hoping that since he has led the way perhaps some of the other poets will submit stuff to you. Ginsberg must have a lot of homosexual poems other mags hesitate to publish. I do hope you will bring them out. And maybe a booklet of them later? It would be a real feather in your cap.

What a contrast between Ayer and Ellis! Do you suppose Ellis really believes that there is nothing subjective in his

.And the pettiness

views? -Luther Allen REVIEW EDITOR: so apparent in Dr. Ellis' revelation that Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld was also a practicing homosexual is in rather bad taste, to say the least!

I, for one, will happily admit I am sick, sick, sick, of such lofty pronouncements as these made by The Magnificent Dr. Ellis who should have his id examined! Q.J.R., California.