The dust jacket blurb is so well written, and so thoroughly adequate, that we can do no better than quote it to give the general idea of the book:

This is the story of a group of thirteenand fourteen-year-old boys living out the war in a remote comer of the English countryside. Middle class evacuees or farmers' sons, their one aim is to use the time well until they will be old enough to fight. The year is 1942 and even in this quiet corner of Norfolk the second-hand excitement of war reaches them through the cinema, the newspapers and the jingoistic talk of the adults. Stimulated by this, they play war games and live by a harsh military code.

At their school a new boy arrives; he is the son of a new master, Jewish-Austrian and a refugee from Nazi persecution. Because he is a stranger he is put under the charge of John Curlew, one of the gang. A friendship ripens between Curlew and the Jewish boy, Mark. Grudgingly, the other boys accept him into the gang.

Into this situation comes the news that one of the local boys has won the Victoria Cross for bravery in the field. The news gives impetus to the gang's need to prove that they too have courage. They challenge the group of working class village boys to fight. When the time comes, Mark runs away in the face of the enemy.

To the rest of the gang he is a coward and must be punished; cowardice is the one thing that they have been taught to despise. Only when their plan to punish Mark goes tragically wrong does his friend John Curlew begin to realize that the standards he has accepted so eagerly are in fact rotten.

Well, this covers plenty but omits mentioning that the "friendship" between John and Mark is far more, and is a rather well advanced precocious love affair. The rumble with the rival gang is precipitated when they come upon Mark and John in necking and mutual masturbation, and spread the word far and wide. John and Mark go everywhere together, hold hands furtively and act much like the two young lovers in Special Friendships, that classic in the field. Their gang talks about it openly. And just as in Peyrefitte's novel there is an adult whose righteous hostility turns out to mask his own homosexual jealousy, so is there here a latent homosexual headmaster who tries to con our little hero into taking down his pants after a whipping "to see if I hurt you."

Aside from the warm homosexual emotions (with the old "at-that-ageit's-really-all-normal" pitch), the book is also worth reading for its splendidly sardonic boys' eye portraits of adult phonies and also a number of brilliant quotable epigrams, a la Oscar Wilde.

mattachine REVIEW

READERS write

Letters from readers are solicited for publication in this regular monthly department. They should be short and all must be signed by the writer. Only initials of the writer and the state or country of residence will be published. Opinion expressed in pub·lished letters need not necessarily reflect that of the REVIEW or the Mattachine Society. No names of individuals will be exchanged for correspondence purposes.

REVIEW EDITOR: I believe your January 1963 issue is one of the all-around best issues you've ever tumed out, with a well-chosen selection of material from all the different areas with which Mattachine REVIEW should be concerned, and each selection of commendable quality. Certainly you should use this issue äs your "sample copy" for potential subscribers and well-wishers for the indefinite future.-Noel I. Garde, New York.

REVIEW EDITOR: Until just recently, I only occasionally came across a copy of the REVIEW, usually given to us by a friend who is one of your most diligent boosters. I confess to not paying it any great amount of attention until the other day when he sent along your Jan. 63 issue. For some unaccountable reason, probably some subtle combination of items and opinions expressed in this issue, I for the first time actually took a good look at it and read it just about cover to cover and then started thinking about it. You are largely a voice crying in the wildemess... but the wildemess doubtless consists as much of apathy as of opposition...so let's have your answer to the come-on about forming a Chicago area organization...also any related material.

'Don't forget a follow-up please on the Pentagon meeting news item. This sounds as interesting as it is surprising!

I'll restrain my impulse to give further opinions until I feel that I know more about your organization and become more familiar with your publications through reading further issues... with one definite exception, to wit: I could not disagree more strongly with your decision to publish the letter in the January is. sue signed "Mr. M. G., Ontario" Even

admitting the possibility that you are short publishable material, I feel that to print something like this letter is a disservice to the cause you foster. Before giving my reasons for this let-me just say that I admit to being opinionated and prejudiced against Mr. M.G. but feel that nevertheless there is some reason on my side. The letter was ungrammatical and (to quote a friend who was with the Chicago Mattachine group be fore it disbanded) "quite frequently incoherent." The goals expressed by the writer were extremely fuzzy and poorly explained, not to mention almost ludicrously unlikely to be realized considering his present age and status. The religiosity that pervaded the letter was of the most guilt-ridden sort...

My argument? The Mattachine Society and the REVIEW, as I understand it, profess to speak for persons with deviant sex patterns... actually, in practice, for homosexuals in the U.S. In other words, a propaganda organ. The assumption is, I presume, that it will reach non-homosexuals, rather than those of us who are fairly familiar with the subject, includ ing all the types of persons who are to be encountered. As a propaganda organ, rather than strictly a news medium or open forum, a great deal of control should be expressed over what opinions are expressed in the pages of the REVIEW and how they are stated. The negative as pects of Mr. M.G.'s letter seem, to me at least, to be obvious. Generalizing from this particular, the enquiring heterosexual might be tempted to conclude that all homosexuals are poorly educated, attracted to all other lunatic fringes, possessed of very guilty consciences, given to vain attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable, and incapable of letter writing.