Now I, too, happen to regard that particular sketch as rather "swishy" in character, in addition to being amateurish art, and thus not an ideal cover for the REVIEW (although I hasten to add that I saw the Hazard exhibit and feel that he does do much better work than this). But let's hear Mr. Mous's reasons for objections:

"First, the homophile who would like to support you but who already 'pases' (to borrow a phrase from our dark-skinned brothers) can't afford to be seen carrying boy-books.

Well, dear friend, so long as we feel we must "pass," we are not really accepting ourselves. I do not imply by this that self-accepting homophiles announce their sexual proclivities to all; I mean only that one who accepts. himself finds it unnecessary to make a great show of being one thing or another sexually. His sexual interest is a private matter, and he does not feel obliged to clarify his position for others—no matter what their private opinions of him might be.

Carrying "boy-books" openly-like a lot of other possible acts-could amount to a kind of declaration, of course. And if the purchaser of such items wishes to avoid this, he need not carry them openly. So simple a thing as a paper bag, or a pocket, can solve that problem, just as they protect the personal interests of all of us when we make most of our purchases. If even the purchase of the REVIEW is too embarrassing for Mr. Mous, he could subscribe to the magazine.

Our correspondent goes on to his second point:

"The heterosexual of good will, who you will agree is going to be your most effective force in your ultimate recognition, avoids the 'male art' magazines either from indifference or distaste." He would simply lump the REVIEW in that category without thinking,

"You need the support of both these types. You can get them on your side only by hewing to the scholarly and educational tone and avoiding any hint of the sensational. This applies to both cover and content."

Mr. Mous then goes on to suggest "less arresting" column heads "set in smaller type," the material covered being absorbing enough without seeking the attention of everyone "within a block's radius with 20-20 vision."

Complaining further about the "not-particularly-manly" cover art of September, he advises that if the REVIEW is to continue to use covers of this type it should have in its stable some "embryonic da Vinci whose work in that line is sharply professional." Or, since we appeal to "men and women of whatever sex orientation," we could make ourselves less conspicuously "boy-crazy" by featuring "good drawings of both sexes, or using classic statuary as your trademak.'

mattachine REVIEW REVIEW

Well now, I said Mr. Mous's letter was an intelligent one, and it is. And there are arguments for his view that an ultra-conservative, inoffensive, unobstrusive, innocuous approach might get the most desirable results.

There are also arguments for the view that such an approach might make us almost totally ineffectual.

Some of the injustices, for example, which are reported and commented upon in the REVIEW are so gross that to sit quietly in a lower right-hand corner and comment dryly in small type would be ludicrous, if not downright masochistic. Such items demand a loud yelp of indignation, and a bold headline can add to that.

Admittedly the choice of cover-art or content-article may not always, be the best possible, but that merely means that the editors of the REVIEW are human, that they have their individual preferences, and that our funds and resources are not unlimited. I assume that even Time or the Atlantic could have a better record.

As for demanding a da Vinci for our artwork, we would, I'm sure, be happy to use his talents, but his pay would have to be very small indeed. But if that would satisfy him, I think it would still be a rather good policy to seek out promising work from among our own group. Classical statuary is excellent, too, but it is over-used already in trade-making everything from magazines to soap-wrappers, and it is one more way of divorcing our selves from our sexuality in this day and age. It does not depict modern, living, physical man; it depicts the selfless, detached, romantic but dead past. Where it does seem to be sexual, it is so obviously dated in the very long ago as to seem unrelated to us. Its consistent use would be another attempt to hide from what we are

The next target for Mr. Mous's eloquent pen is our "reading list"—the books we recommend or appraise. A writer, he says, would consider this list a "kiss of death;" would fear being in "suspect company."

high

We are reaching, he says, "a great group of people whose only community is that of 'abnormality' (his quotes). It includes the largest group "I.Q.'s" to be found in any group, but it also consists of a "tremendously large percentage of people who are artistic without real culture. They need not be pointed toward, or focused more and more on their own inversion, but to be directed to a wider range of good literature, music and art."

Certainly this is a worthy aim. It is something homosexuals, as well as everyone else, should do-educate themselves; broaden their horizons. But I think Mr. Mous exaggerates the role of the REVIEW. It does not "direct the interests" of homophiles. This bit of business is usually taken care of by a person's individual characteristics and past experience-his family, friends, schools, churches, public information and entertainment media. This