|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3406073743
| 9783406073748
| 3406073743
| 2.00
| 1
| unknown
| unknown
|
it was ok
|
Well, that foreword did not fill me with convidence. Could have been worse though. And in this first section he already states that due to the lack of Well, that foreword did not fill me with convidence. Could have been worse though. And in this first section he already states that due to the lack of ancient sources it cannot be answered why open homosexuality became such a significant aspect of greek life. But if its so little as he claims, how is anything he writes reliable? So he states that there are hundreds of greek vase images showing older men in conversations with younger men etc. He spends some time into justifying his assumptions but they seem really "because I say so", e.g. he doesn't explain why he thinks that "bearded man, battle with struggling youth or boy and lets his scepter fall" must mean its zeus and ganymed. Why must it be so? Why does he believe the images of naked youths are pin-ups? He states that female pin-ups are noticeably rare, but why? Is he claiming there were no straight pin-ups? That is hard to believe. Also, according to him the majority of the vases with homosexuality were made between 570 and 470 BC, so only 100 years, what about the rest of ancient greece? What he writes about Platon is so disjointed, could he not make up his mind or write simpler? It was bad enough when he claimed two situations 200 years apart are the same because greece didn't change fast, but this is all so odd here how he writes and his pictures (the ones I could check, several are missing) rather show the opposite of tolerance. Does the author have a problem with calling people bisexual? His statements regarding that trial case was rather disjointed as well, Eros was a god of desire in general not just homo and heterosexual desire. This could be cut by 90 % so far and I am only 10 %. And he straight up states that the concept of mutual attraction of two partners of similar age group was almost unknown to the greeks. Ok, he says that offering your male body for money is against the law because someone like that might also sell his state etc. for money. Maybe, I already questioned his prior statement that the vases always showed fully grown youths, how would he know that if e.g. the women don't even have breasts, so how realistic is this? Gosh, I first I thought it would be a problem that I read the german translation and not the english original, but this language is so convoluted already it would have been worse in english. I don't even understand why he states that a boy being forced into prostitution has only restricted rights and later on I don't get his statements either. In fact those older sentences from a trial are easier to understand. And if most male prostitutes, no word about women, were foreigners anyway and those were held in lower regard as he points out, maybe there was no law against it because no one cared. It wouldn't shame an athenian anyway. And raping a physically adult youth simply by the usage of bigger physical strength seems implausible to the author? Seriously? Is he that isolated from the world or is he lying? And he thinks the greeks probably never considered the physical strength of a youth was weakened by sexual desire and considered involuntary homosexuality to be caused by inapropriate seduction? What is he basing all of this on? Does he also consider Achilles and Patrokles to be lovers and not friends? And he mentions the differing meanings of "eros" and says that in e.g. the Illyiad eros means generally desire, but beforehand he did not define the god Eros in this way and then he claimed that during the classic and helenistic period the word has only sexual meanings. But is he reliable? He contradicted himself so much already at this point that I could no longer consider him reliable. Earlier in the book he stated that the vase pictures proof that the men always went after fully grown youths, but not only do so many of these pictures just show naked men/boys and nothing more, but even in the incomplete collection that we have here there are two vase pictures where the boy is clearly much smaller than the man, in the first he has to look up at the man and the second... the boy has to jump and still looks up at the man. Are these supposed to be adult men with dwarvism or what? And there were even more pictures with a clear height and based on his own descriptions age group differences. So either the author is incompetent or he is lying. I already had my reservations when he stated that 200 years distance make no difference in prior chapters, but why does he not only talk about Eros constantly in this chapter of that one trial but even now brings up Homer, when he stated himself that in those times Eros meant something different than at the time of the trial? At that point I was really tempted to just skip the rest of the chapter, not only is the lack of attraction to adult men so noticeable here (and not one word of attraction by a boy towards anyone), but this was still about the trial of aischines against timarchos which is more than 100 years after the time of the big number of vases that he mentioned before. This all seemed way too convenient to support his claims to be reliable. Naturally he argues that Aischines could not actually have meant that all homosexuality was unnatural. I expected this by this point. And why does he extrapolate so much from this single trial? And yes, he was still at the trial, this went on and on. And the more I saw of his pictures, the weirder it got. In one picture he pays attention to the fact that the sword is basically where a penis would be, but why is that relevant? In fact, there seems to be no rhyme or reason as to what he considered homosexual and what not. On one picture a guy is fingering another in the ass and he says it is just for annoying him, but does that fit? I can absolutely belief that these people were convinced that the passive role during gay sex would not have any pleasure, the way all of this is portrayed here, I doubt that even consent was much of a topic. According to him they didn't even consider the existence of a natural desire among men, only the active part could be. If this belief is even widespread, because so far he is centered almost entirely on Athens despite all the time talking as if it is representative of all of ancient greece. This short mentions of Sparta and talk about the mores in Athens just highlighted how limited the scope of his sources actually are. The vases were already mostly just from one 100 year period, but the book deals almost exclusively with Athens. The first case of a description of a feminine man seeking men that he states here is from comedy, so is there any truth to that claim? When he states that Plutarch said that the bird who grows on the eromenes frees the erastes from the tyranny of the eros, that sounds really pedophilic. And is this alleged normalization of "hunting" towards women and boys (btw. the author once stated that boys have to become homosexual because girls were segregated) really so normal? Plato even compared the desire of an erastes for an eromenes to that of a wolf for lambs. Wouldn't that imply something rather dark? Ignoring the fact that he stresses the length of this book by adding all sorts of superfluous stuff (he even makes Victorian era comparisons) but I do remember him stating earlier in the book that for the greeks relationships between members of the same age group were almost unknown, but, maybe unwittingly, he mentioned a few examples of such pairings and even towards adult men already. Did he not notice? His text about how the boy is basically offering his anus/thighs to the penis of his teacher in exchange for the tutoring he received sounds really predatory, especially in combination with the prior statement that it was not conceivable that passive position during gay sex could be pleasurable." Based on his statements, only satyrs were shown to enjoy passive anal sex, anal sex is only done by those of the same age group, komastes and satyrs, fellatio was only done by satyrs and otherwise thigh grinding was typical. And mutual masturbation was also rare. Combine that with the statement that someone got deflowered at 7 and this paints an odd and disturbing picture. And it took his book until page 101 for his chapter on the before mentioned tiral being over. And it just highlights how narrow the focus of this book actually is. I would never claim that this actually tells you much about greek antiquity. It was primarily just athens that was mentioned here. At least he admits that pictures and all can mean different things but it is still rather chaotic and inconsistent to me how he interprets them. How does he know that one picture is supposed to show vaginal and not anal sex despite the penis position? So weird. And first he states that in classical Athen you could voice your homosexual feelings openly, if he says so, but then he has Plato say that eros towards wisdom is more important and stronger than eros to a beautiful youth, but prior in the book he claimed that at this time eros was referring solely to homosexual and heterosexual sexuality. And then Sokrates stated eros is always homosexual... this author.... he is just so inconsistent. So, I am not surprised that even when Plato clearly is against homosexuality, he argues that Plato never said whether it was natural or not (as if that means its good or not), but seems to argue that only passive homosexual behavior might be seen as unnatural. Since he mentioned Hylas as an eromenes of Herakles, I wonder, weren't eromenes no older than 14? He never mentioned age here. And in this topic on female homosexuality there isn't much and those godesses hunting after boys sound awfully like written by those men here. He mentions some lesbians in Sparta and even he says that the lesbianism of Sappho is questionable at best, she mostly goes after men here. What he presents here about Sappho and the girls with her sounds more like she was a teacher/professor and nothing more. Maybe she had romantic/sexual feelings for some women but even that is a interpretation. And he said the first true claims about her being gay were from the augustinian period, so roman, not greek, unless he made a mistake. And sure"Lesbian" back then might have been an unchaste woman or something, but why does he think the ancient greeks didn't consider two women having sex to be connected to homosexuality? And what is he talking about when he talks about border between homo- and heterosexuality? Is he talking about bisexuality? If yes, why not say so? What is he even trying to say? When I was almost done with this book, only then does he actually talk about a place other than Athens. Even Sparta was only mentioned before significantly when in regard to lesbianism. And apparently Plato said Spartans and Cretans practiced homosexuality more than normal. But is that true? When he mentioned Lysistrate, I wondered: if the ancient Greeks were so homosexual friendly as he constantly claims, why didn't the author of the comedy simply have the men have sex with each other? Because that did not happen, in fact the play states that the men must soon act or they will fuck one of them and they clearly don't want that. And afterwards, he states that Pausanias stated that homosexual eros was tolerated in Elis and Boiotien without restrictions but rejected in many part sof Ionien and other places. Then why does he always talk about Greeks in general? And wait, didn't Plato or someone else also blame macedonia? And Xenophon stated that Elis and Boiotien as well as other places keep erastai from talking with boys. Afterwards he states that the prior mentioned Elis and Boiotien erastes and eromenos were send to the battle field side by side... but he just quoted Xenophon who stated that in those two places erastes are not allowed to be near boys, so how can there be eromenes? So athenians considered spartan women shameless because they went out so much, did music, sports etc. Ok, and did they also claim that spartan adolecents were not conflicted between sexual interest in women and sexual loyality to the men in his unit? How does he know that? Who claims these non-binding homosexual relationships? Why state sources some and not other times? Naturally he brings up the whole Achill and patroclos thing again towards the end, and yes, he starts with they must have been lovers because of how upset Achilles was at the latters death, just like some of the ancient authors, despite what Homer wrote and then comes with some nonsense about Ganymed (btw. according to another author the king of crete kidnapped him and not zeus) and Zeus and some statements in the Illiad. Nonsene. And speaking of gods kidnapping boys: Pelops, the son of Tantalos, was kidnapped by Poseidon but the moment his beard grew, he returned to earth... i wonder why *sarcasm* According to him, the theban hero Laios was allegedly the founder of homosexuality, and look the author once again generalized massively about the ancient greeks, claiming that they would have said that homosexual eros spread so fast once invented because it would be a richer and happier live to not be restricted to men or women, based on what? He himself stated places who said no such things and then contradicted himself. Gosh!!! Considering the author's prior statement about that Zeus would not have kidnapped ganymed as a cupbearer for his looks if he weren't sexually interested or this talk about eromenes and erastes, I wonder whether the author can even conceive a concept of beauty without sexual desire, or even close relationships without it. And he ends this with stating that the greeks would have allowed their gods the same pleasures they had, except that no god was actually bisexual, not even with Zeus and Poseidon, the only case of male gods kidnapping boys. No men whatsoever. This author is just a liar in the end. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jan 06, 2024
|
Jan 16, 2024
|
Jan 06, 2024
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 1560231548
| 9781560231547
| 1560231548
| 3.56
| 16
| Aug 11, 2000
| Aug 30, 2000
|
did not like it
|
The majority of this book was about contemporary politics in chinese societies, the problem with that is, that the book came out in 2000, therefore mo
The majority of this book was about contemporary politics in chinese societies, the problem with that is, that the book came out in 2000, therefore most of it was completely useless to me. The only part of it that had any value is the historical and terminological one and even there, there are tons of problems. The book states that the term "tongzhi" refers not only to tongxinglian but to all forms of sexual practice that have been marginalized by hegemonic heterosexism. That's so vague it could cover the most perverse stuff you could think of. And he claims that it "asserts its identity not by antagonizing heterosexuals but by inviting them to explore their own homophobia and homoeroticism." Then how do you define heterosexuals? Plus, he claimed that it does the opposite before stating this. He further claims that "The insistence on seeing sexuality as a class, race, gender, age, and cultural category would threaten the complacency of lesbians and gays who view differences only in terms of sexuality, and view sexual differences only in terrns of the gender of erotic object choice." And I have no clue what he even wrote there. At this I got the suspicion that this book will be full of babbling of the author, and it was. After reading the introduction alone I was already not surprised when the author writes a personal note: "I position myself not only as an academic but also an activist who, for the last six years, has been intensely involved in Hong Kong tongzhi discourses." Because he wrote more like an activist than a researcher. His statement about traditional chinese cosmology also fit that. He claimed that the traditional Chinese cosmology of yin-yang was gradually abandoned in the name of modernity and replaced by a biological determinism that medicalizes a woman 's body as weak and passive, in contrast to the male body, which is said to be active and strong. This was just one example where the author seems to not only almost demonize western discourses but romanticize chinese ones. And his "basic structural features" of the term Qing is so broad it is almost featureless and I have no clue what it is supposed to mean. It looks as if the author writes so much just to write. At least the words themselves are easy to understand. And claiming that the yin-yang philosophy somehow "opens up a broad and tolerant atitiude toward a variety of sexual and gender behaviors" is contrary to chinese history. They had very strict gender roles especially during the times of the Qing empire. And I don't understand what he does or doesn't consider homophobic. He stated himself that someone who has an exclusively homosexual lifestyle is culturally inconceivable in imperial China and definitely intolerable, a nonbeing in society. In other words, nobody can be primarily a lesbian, bisexual, or gay man. And this isn't homophobic, why exactly? And he writes one becomes, rather than being born as, a wife or husband, a daughter or son. What? Is he insinuating that in the West one is born a wife? And how exactly can you become a daughter or son except by being born? Was there some official recognition after the baby was born or something? He further states that "In other words, homosexuality is seen not as a sexual essence monopolized by a minority group, hut as a social practice that everyone can experience in specific classist and sexist relations." And from what I know of imperial China, that "experience" would mostly be coercion and rape. And he claims that all these traditional terms referring to same-sex activities do not denote a fixed or generic personality. I disagree here, there are common features in literature etc. of those going regularly to boy prostitutes and have certain personality features in common. Also, he seems to use "severe social stigma" instead of just "social stigma" which suggests that there is stigma. And trust me, there was a stigma in the imperial times. And when he wrote that "lnstead, her relaxed and positive comments about their sexual relationship indicate the rather relaxed attitude of the time, though in the patriarchal society a woman has to accept her husband having sex with other men, which, after all, does not threaten her status as a wife", which just contains so much of his projection in one statement. Like so many others he tries to excuse things by stating that hostility was not targeted at same-sex sexuality itself, but at the idea of having a lifestyle that denies the cultural imperative to get married. But then what about monks and hermits? Why aren't they ostracized then? At the very least he acknowlegdes that Chinese culture has not supported or accepted homosexuality. He claims that the family-kinship system and the pressure to get married pose a limiting boundary to and pressure on same-sex erotic practices. That people may gossip but rarely take action against it and Homosexuality is not treated as intrinsically evil and sinful. The first sentence is correct, but the rest is garbage. Homosexual practices are at best tolerated and even that only when it adhers to very specific age and gender rules. So I would disagree that the notion of homophobia is inappropriate to describe traditional Chinese attitudes toward same-sex eroticism. He claims it is inappropriate since the condemnation was not a categorical rejection of same-sex conduct per se, but the betrayal of family and social roles. So? That was often no different in the West. Plus, if all you needed to do was pop-out babies, why not have babies by concubines and have the men be married and then each gets to sire babies. And his constant statements of tolerance are so misleading because he states himself that "lt is therefore dangerous to romanticize Chinese traditions of same-sex eroticism. The cultural tolerance of same-sex eroticism is neither unconditional nor wholehearted, but with a vital qualifier-it occurs only when the social hierarchy is not challenged." This author is really contradictory. And he repeats himself over and over. Gosh, he repeated himself so often. He claims that neither the emperors nor their contemporaries ever comprehended these behaviors as tongxinglian because eroticism toward women or men was not dichotomized. And at this point in the book, which was already not even 10 % mind you, I already couldn't believe him. And it is really strange how on the one hand he is careful to claim that the relationshup between Emperor Ai and Dong-Xian was mutual but he claims stuff like this even though the evidence if sketchy at best. It seems to be based on lack of evidence to the contrary and not evidence to support his claims. This is especially evident when he claims that "as same-sex relationships did not seem to be a social issue in traditional Chinese societies, they were rarely mentioned except as incidents within the wider narratives of the lives of the emperor and the male elite." But how does he know that? Shouldn't there be way more than just the stuff about the emperor and the male elite? And I know that there is more from the Qing era, but those were criminal records. But something way further back, the documents are naturally fewer. And yet, despite him being careful before, he states that the "limited references to same-sex relations in pre-Han China is not the result of homophobia, but indicates that scholars and historians simply felt there was little need to record same-sex relationship." But again: How does he know that? Plus in the story of Duke Jing of Qi, a plumb-bearer stared at him, not a minor official like what he claims here. And he claims the duke made a "sexual proposal to bathe with this minor official". And I know that story, and maybe you could argue that this "he should scrub my back" is something homoerotic, but it might as well not be it, could just as well be a punishment. So, how does he know? And naturally, the information on the term "qing" that he gave is so vague I have no way of knowing whether Wen and Han were actually in a romantic/sexual relationship or not. He made mistakes/lied before. The actor Zhou in the story he cites is still referred to as a libiscus and lotus, so clearly feminized and his statements regarding Dreams of a Red Chamber, no comment. And in Prayer Mat of the Flesh he says the boy gets fucked because no women are present, which clearly suggests that this was done not because of sexual preference but rather due to lack of choice. And back to Red Chamber, what sexual intimacies with males did its protagonist Baoyu actually have? It wasn't stated as far as I read into the novel and the author had no problem at least alluding to sex before. And in regard to Dong Xian and others using powder and the like... so what? Was that considered feminine at the time? He doesn't adress that at all. And I really wonder why he doesn't adress the topic of feminization of these boys, and states their required age, even though he states himself that "the age factor is crucial, as youth symbolizes femininity, innocence, and powerlessness." And that doesn't bother him at all? At least the power thing should worry him. And his following examples really hammer the feminine appearance down. Something the author never really adresses even then. And he doesn't tell you that the story of Pan Zhang clearly condemns what he and his boyfriend/husband are doing either. I know that story and not only does the story condemn what they did, they even turn mad all of a sudden and their fiances commit suicide. And just like I know that story, I also know about the Fujian "custom" that he refers to. That custom was not egalitarian in any way, there was a clear age difference required and sources themselves stated that those of similar age and status could not be together. It was also no marriage (rather a sort of formalized prostitution) and he clearly lies when he states that "A male mencius's mother raises her son properly by moving house" is between two men, Riu Lang was clearly an early teen (he later refers to him as a boy as well) and he also plays down the castration reasons that Riu Lang had, it was way more than just staying chaste to his "husband" and I better not tell you what the reasons were or I will start ranting again. Fun fact, that story itself shows that Riu Lang was actually bought to be the "sworn brother" of the older male and the story also makes it clear that mid-twenties is too old and ugly for these men in the story, they wanted and early teen like Riu Lang and are willing to pay the highest prices for virgin boys that are so young. Granted, it is something positive that this is the first book who regards that one story from Liaozhai Zhiyi as something lesbian. And considered that his later examples of alleged lesbianism is among Cantonese area women, I really question whether it makes sense to simply refer to all of this as "chinese" as we clearly talking about different language areas at the very least, I would say that we are talking about different ethnicities and cultures here. Naturally, he ruins everything positive about this book with something negative. He claims, once again that traditional Chinese are rarely exclusively "homosexual" and most display a bisexual pattern; but he considers the term "bisexual" to also be inappropriate, as for him it is a categonzahon based on the gender of erotic object choice, something he states that did not exist in the minds of traditional Chinese. Ignoring the fact that I doubt that but even if that was true, what difference does that make? By that logic you should never call something a viral disease from times back then as the traditional chinese had no concept of viruses. However, at the very least he states that talking of western concepts was highly selective and chinese driven. But why does he not take the perceived humiliation, nationalism and gender anxieties being present since the Qing takeover in the 17th century into account? That is really odd. He only takes Opium and Sino-Japanese Wars into account. And why does he consider the lack of lesbian stories to be a sign of sexism? With gay he did it the other way around. And speaking of his contradictions, he states that the Confucian emphasis on familial-marital institutions and reproduction is so overwhelming that it has been a crucial ground for a heterosexist and homophobic construction of sexuality. And yet, despite stating this and that china never accepted homosexuality, he still refuses to see something homophobic there. He at least makes the reasonable claim that it was the sexologist's pathologization of homosexuality rather than the Christian homophobic attitude that was selectively and strategically adopted by Chinese intellectuals who had their own sociopolitical agenda in mind, But while he states this, other things he seems to ignore. To get back to the topic of feminization and substitutes, he even quotes things like this: "There are public streets füll of boys got up like prostitutes. And there are people who buy these boys and teach them to play music, sing and dance. And then, gallantly dressed and made up with rouge like women these miserable men are initiated into this terrible vice."And yet he never points this lack of masculine appearance out. And trust me, when you look at the topic of "homoeroticism" in imperial China, this lack of masculinity sticks out like a sore thumb. And I noticed that he mostly uses anecdotes and not data. The one piece of data from Taiwan with 26 % of boys and 21 % of girls in these schools encountered same sex eroticism was all I can remember. The rest was anecdotes and assuming literati and the like stand for popular attitudes. And naturally the sex imbalance during the Ming and Qing times and the Qing law have been ignored in this book. And either he has faulty sources or he has a specific agenda and so distorts history when he states that it is only since the Republican period that China's long history of cultural tolerance of same-sex eroticism began to fade. From what I know, that tolerance was extremely narrow, something he only shortly touched and then ignored. He only mentioned once that homosexuality was not accepted and then never again, which makes his constant talk about tolerance very misleading. So I don't believe that the later homosexual law is not a reflection of Chinese law or culture but the imposition of colonial law without any consultation with the colonized people. Because I could have sworn that the Qing law also criminalized consentual anal sex between two males just like the Hong Kong law did back then. Granted, even here he has something interesting to state that "it was mixed-race relationships between Chinese and non-Chinese that received the most attention and constituted around half of the court cases of homosexuality before 1990. He found that about half of the offenses in the 1970s and 1980s were between Caucasians and Chinese men. And funny, considered that this Hong Kong Law was so seldom enforced, you could argue that it was just as tolerant as imperial China, but this author would never do that. He either doesn't know Qing law or downplays that and other things. He states that tongxinglian or tongxingai is a translation of the Western medical term "homosexuality," which defines a minority group of individuals according to their same-sex sexual preference or orientation, as if everyone has a ccrtain fixed and innate sexual essence. That confirms what I suspected of this author: He denies something like sexual orientation apparently, so I suspect he is a constructionist. At this point in the book I had a serious need to stop this there and now. As he straight up goes to "current" chinese societies, but this book is from 2000 and so it is totally useless to me. In fact, several things before already were pretty unreliable and I noticed that his "tongzhi" so far only covers homo- and bisexuals despite his earlier definition. When I noticed that the next section was about "Contemporary Taiwan" I decided to check the later chapters and if this stays with "contemporary", I would stop this book, because that is useless for me. And it turned out it was about "contemporary times" and so I decided not to waste my time any further.sThe historical section had some merit, but the rest is useless to me. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Aug 09, 2022
|
Aug 11, 2022
|
Aug 09, 2022
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0804718954
| 9780804718950
| 0804718954
| 3.73
| 236
| 1687
| 1996
|
did not like it
|
Oh boy (literally), I had an idea of what I was going into, but sadly, this book managed to exceed my bad expectations. First, there were 46 pages of
Oh boy (literally), I had an idea of what I was going into, but sadly, this book managed to exceed my bad expectations. First, there were 46 pages of introduction and not even by the original author, but by the editor. And the editor already had some statements where I was really wondering what he was saying. And he seemed to want to basically recap the entire book, so I skipped this. I had no patience for it. The original author was questionable to say the least. And not just for the quality of the writing as so many of these stories felt like rehashes of each other and they started blurring into each other without being able to distinguish between them. The content of these stories can be really sick sometimes when you think about it. And no wonder that the introduction by the editor said that the author didn't attack women but rather those who love them, based on much of the stuff that the author writes early in the book, as well as later (like throwing away the ash of the wife of a friend or wishing a husband would kill his wife, not to mention all the times women are the cause of strife), you have to say that to absolve the author of mysogyny. And while I was prepared for stuff that was icky, I did not expect for him to compare a boy and a girl in terms of attractiveness when they are 12 years old. And it was odd when the author once stated that men "turn instead to men". Is this a translation error? Because so far the author only spoke of loving boys and based on his prior statements, these boys might not even be in their teens. A few times the author referred to historical people and at first I tried to figure out who these people are, after a while I gave up because it was fruitless. To give an example: He stated that "They say that after King Ai of Wei took Lung Yangchun as his lover, civil chaos caused by the subversive influence of women ceased and the entire nation was convinced of the virtue of boy love." Who is this King Ai of Wei? The notes later state it is some guy who lived in the 4th century BC. And is Lung Yangchun supposed to be Lord Longyang? He lived in the 3rd century BC. I had no clue who these historical reference is supposed to refer to. And no wonder this title is translated as "male love" and omits the original subtitle "The Custom of Boy Love in Our Land" because then it would be advertized straight up on the title what this book actually features: Stories with highly pedophilic tones as this is literally about the "love" of adult (sometimes elderly) men to boys in their early teens. Sometimes these boys are in their mid and only rarely in their late teens. But even then it was noticeable that not once was a "love-making" described where the boy in question was older than 16, most of these "beauties" (if the age is given) are typical 14 years old, sometimes younger (like when gods matched an 11 year old in love with a 28 year old, and other men already had fallen for that 11 year old). And despite what for instance the editor claims, these stories don't suggest that this boy love was accepted and tolerated in the society of the times, if it were, not so many of these "love stories" would end in seperation or outright tragedy. One story was standing out because it directly stated that the "deep relationship in the way of boy love that was noticed and tolerated by the household." That was a first and the fact that the author pointed this out, shows that the claim of acceptance of this practice is a lie. Once you accept that fact, this book becomes clearer and you can predict things. Like when I did when I knew early on that Uhei (23) and Seizo (24) commit suicide because they cannot be with Matsusaburo (19) anymore. Where is the acceptance that the editor claimed? And when the one story at least seems to be more positive for having a male couple that is together for almost 50 years, the two are deeply misogynistic, almost lethally so. And often these relationships have to be kept secret also, without any explanation. Which shows that the book talks nonsense when it claims that boy love became the fashion, "and love between men and women went into preccipitous decline". And in the next story we get told that "As a boy of seven his graceful beauty "that with one smile triggered a hundred lusts" was such that few people who saw him realized he was not a girl." Which really makes me question the alleged homoeriticism in this here, both due to this low age, which means no secondary sex characterics had developed yet, but also the feminine appearance of said boy. And not only is here this demand for underage boys by adult men, there is also no "Love-making" between adults or between teenagers here. So I was not surprised when in one story Gensuke had all forgotten about "love-making" because Katsuya is already 18 when they meet again. And that is ancient by the standards of this book. Had he been 12 or 13 as the boy in the next story, ok then things might be different. A small age gap between the "lovers" could also be an explanation why in another story a "vow of love" was mentioned but no "love making" unlike with the dead connosoir of boy love. And when this book has the boys or others talk of "the peak of youthful beauty" it is clear that this means earl or mid-teenage years, especially when one boy says that his "bloom of youth will not last another five years. First they will take a tweezer to my hairline, and before long my forelocks will fall." Translation: He will be an adult and too old for this pedo-train. And this is what this is. In the next story they mourn boys with pock-marks since no one wants them or morns when they reach man-hood. And based on what you sometimes see here, these boys are the lucky ones. Example: The author claimed that people clapped their hands in admiration at the depth of Sasanosuke's love for Haemon. Then why did he let him freeze to death!? What sort of love is that supposed to be? And it is really odd how so many people fall sick suddenly when they have the boy love, seriously, the guy Uneme here does the same when he sees Ukyo. Granted that Uneme is 18 speeks to potentially a more respectable pairing here, especially since according to the end Ukyo is 16. For these boy lovers here, 16 is pretty damn old. Of course, I can't remember reading anything about "Making love" here. Telling. Just as telling how in one story no boy occurs until the very end and even there he seems to be a substitute for the man's dead wife. And I don't just question the amount of "boy love" and how it was regarded by wider society, I also question how much they really say about those times of the author. But that was only in regard to the first half of the book, with the second half... well, things are different there. Read between the lines and you get a glimpse into the world of kabuki actors. It was very telling when one story only complains how buying boy actors for the night was currently more expensive due to some priests spending so much money in the past. Just as telling as the fact that this is done with the boy actors doing female roles apparently, no boy actors doing male roles are mentioned. In one story, you don't even have to read between the lines here, it is so obvious that this is nothing more than someone complaining that the boy prositutes are more expensive in his time and they dress above their station. The author pines for the days when "actors" (aka prostitutes) were satisfied with much less. And this only in regard to actors of female characters apparently. I can't remember any mentioning of actors playing male roles being presented as prostitutes. And he complains even that in his days "boys do not even refuse propositions from widows." Naturally, the ideal age is below adulthood, as shown by one story stating that a boy's beauty had faded and he became a monk, at the age of 20... aka this beauty, of this actor of female roles, is based on imitating female beauty (one boy was said to be envied by women for his female looks) and that needs boyhood, at 20 he is obviously masculine now. This "peek of youthful beauty" is still midteens... this book can be really hard to read. Anything older than that is regarded as strange by the author. As shown by a story that complains how kabuki actors had to shave off the locks and so looked like men. The only positive thing there is that the story seems to complain that actors could get no patrons beyond the age of twenty and now 34/35 year olds with "youthful looks" can get one and calls this "strange are the ways of love." And if you have any illusions regarding that this could in any way be something like mutual attraction, another story complains about teenage prostitutes visiting female prostitutes and says that they can wait until 3-4 years have passed and they are no longer young and in demand... which almost got me sick. And really impatient. I was thinking of stopping this early. This book is a chore to sit through. And with the kabuki actors, the old theme of death and being sick because of love continued. Save to say that this is a pretty depressing book. Soon after (at about 75 % of the book), I decided to not continue with this book. The stories are really troubling to me, this pedophilia is disgusting, some of these men hate women to a pathological degree and damn most of these stories are badly written and so similar they are just rehashes of each other. This book is not worth reading. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jun 25, 2022
|
Jul 2022
|
Jun 25, 2022
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 3770428722
| 9783770428724
| 3770428722
| 4.49
| 1,811
| Feb 01, 2020
| Mar 03, 2021
|
really liked it
|
1) Deutsche Rezension 2) English Review 1) Deutsche Rezension Hm, ich hätte gedacht, dass dies nur ein 2-Teiler ist, aber anscheinend plant die Autor 1) Deutsche Rezension 2) English Review 1) Deutsche Rezension Hm, ich hätte gedacht, dass dies nur ein 2-Teiler ist, aber anscheinend plant die Autorin mindestens einen dritten Band. Aber was wird sie jetzt tun? Andere Götter besuchen? Sie hatte die Sexszene, das Liebesgeständnis, aber sie beendete es mit einem Cliffhanger. Plant sie mehr mit Inari? Mit dem Fuchs, der Rins Freund ist? Chihuaras Großmutter erwähnen? Um fair zu sein, trotz all meiner Beschwerden gelang es dem Manga trotzdem, mein Interesse aufrechtzuerhalten. Ungewöhnlich. 2) English Review Hm, I would have thought that this was only a 2 parter, but apparently the author plans at least a third volume. But what will she do now? Visit other gods? She had the sex scene, love confession, but she did end it on a cliffhanger. Does she plan more with Inari? With the fox that is Rin's friend? Bring up Chihuara's grandmother? To be fair, with all my complains, this still managed to keep my interest. Unusual. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Apr 21, 2021
|
Apr 27, 2021
|
Apr 17, 2021
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0415551447
| 9780415551441
| 0415551447
| 3.73
| 11
| Nov 26, 2012
| Dec 05, 2012
|
it was ok
|
I knew I was in for a difficult experience and damn was I right. The first 5 pages already pissed me off. I doubted that "beautiful men" really refers
I knew I was in for a difficult experience and damn was I right. The first 5 pages already pissed me off. I doubted that "beautiful men" really refers to adults, rather to teenage boys in womens' clothes. The referenced books only heightened my unease as I read 2 of them and they were highly romanticizing a system of abuse of early teenage boys. These first 3 examples don't hold up as much as the authors claim. The 1st is vague ("good-looking men imperil nobility" can mean anything), the 2nd seems to feature it but not in a tolerant matter (I doubt the only transgression here is just the hierarchical one, especially as there is no female equivalent for comparison), and 3rd might stray into pedophile territory ("Squire Mi's beauty had faded", squires are usually teenagers)." Saying the marquis of Shen was in some sort of same-sex relationship with the King of Wen based on the extract here is ridiculous. Even more so than saying the second extract somehow shows that Confucious and his contemporaries were unconcerned with same-sex attraction. All it said is 'If someone can take up arms in defence of his country, then the lesser burial rites should not be used.' The two extracts from Strategies of the Warring States are quite different despite what the book suggests. The first is just referencing the Remainder of the Zhou Documents statement of good-looking men, and is just as vague. The second extract is different though. The story of the boat trip of the King of Wei and the Lord of Longyang does suggest a possible same sex relationship between two adult men. The long extract from the "favoured courtiers" is a mixed bag. Some of the favourites seem sexual/romantic in nature, sadly the 1st two are feminine boys apparently (even though referred to as men later). The 3 favourites of Emperor Wen don't sound like attraction, rather esoteric stuff. Emperor Jing and Zhou Wenren is also questionable. Emperor Wudi and Han Yan, ok, that has the best chance. The rest... no way. This book also contains the famous story of emperor Ai and Dong Xian that let to the term cut-sleeve. It is quite a lot longer than the others before, and far darker than suggested, it could be argued that it follows the bury your gays trope. The author claims that it only makes sense that this is about personal attachment, but is it? This seems way too dark for that simple interpretation. And despite this chapter covering more than 1900 years, this is all they can present for the emperors! Not to mention that some sources were compiled centuries later. And if "retired and rose together" really means sex, they provided only 2 definitive examples of homosexual relationships and both end badly, most of the rest are "favorites" or have "the emperor's favor", not more, that is so vague it could mean anything. The book states that there is a space of about a thousand years between the latest poems collected in New Songs from a Jade Terrace and the reappearance of homoerotic poetry in the late Ming. And I already knew what normative "homoerotic" literature from the late Ming was, so I had to brace myself for a long ride on the pedo train. And if "the attractions of the song-boy and the page" didn't disappear in the mentioned 1000 years, as the book claims, why is there no definitive poetry? They mention that they omitted examples from Shijing and Chuci because they weren't sure if women wrote it or if they mean something else. They omit passages because they claim the contemporaries didn't see them as homoerotic. But did they? Maybe they describes adult gay relationships. The scarcity of those in this book cannot be a coincidence, and I know why: They were heavily discouraged, at the very least. Oddly, the Dream of the Red Chamber isn't in here, while all those vague references to favorites of the emperor were included. The abundance of catamites and boys makes me think that the lack in poetry for 1000 years is rather due to a lack of catamites and that the authors don't truly consider adult same sex relationships. And when it got to the individual poets.... oh boy. Tons of boys in their early and mid-teens. The section of Yuan Mei is an exception. One poem of his is actually about admiring someone who is now an adult (Beau Li is said to be thirty) and another section seems to refer to love between two teenage boys (17-year old Yuan Shijin and Xiashang). Also he states "Considering mutual love between two males to be all too rarely included in the canon", a different picture from the supposed wiedespread tolerance. Jiang Shiquan is being the most blunt here when he writes "Taking boys and tuming them into girls" and "Mark their frowns once their warbler voices change, And they are reduced to strumming a Jute beside the stage." He seems to almost criticize the practice of sing-song boys and refers to them as children. In the 2nd poem, he seems to criticize a wider spread of the practice or possibly adult male prostitutes. And considers this and that one sentence straight up states "From beautiful boys made up as beautiful girls" the editors have a really technical definition of homoerotic. At least they had the decency to state that 'in general fate did not smile upon Chinese actors and they certainly gave far more pleasure and enjoyment than they themselves received.' There are only very sparce hints as to what happens with the sing-song boys when they can't perform anymore. And when you compare the earlier tale of Han Zigao with the play The Male Queen Consort, the teenage feminization is most apparent. The fictional Zigao isn't just called Jade Blossom, he stated to have the face of a girl and believes he might have been reincarnated into the wrong sex and if he were a girl he would be an imperial consort by now. And the idiocy of calling this homoerotic becomes even more apparent when he states "I am slender like a lady-in-waiting. I am willing to cross-dress and mimic barem girls. Should I simply add a little rouge and powder, I am sure to be elegant in the extreme. Only their pair of bound feet, are slightly superior to mine. But if I put on a long skirt, Then who can tell the false from the real?" That the princess is so enarmoured with the "queen" this should be considered lesbianism. And in the play "The Catamite" by Huang Fangyin (late Ming) it sounds as if during those times "The southern mode" basically meant, teenage male prostitution. And dan actors were basically just a high-class version of catamites. And naturally the book mentions things from the "Flower Guides" of the day as well. It claimed that there is no evidence that the dan wore stage costume offstage apart from the very rare occasion. And while it stated that they were certainly feminized, it argues that fashion had also feminized the comportment of young literati. I suspect that this is meant to make the statement that when literati men visited actors' private apartments they were heading there to meet smartly dressed young men as more believable. You see, the first example from those Flower Guides speaks about the "Orchid-boy Yao." That one was described to have a "fine waist and careful step, a slender neck and modest shoulders. Watching him he is the exact likeness of a gentle maiden and one cannot tell it is the dissimulation of an actor." And "Osmanthus-boy Jin" has a "delightfully slim body, with glowing skin and gentle face, quite like a demure girl." So these two are clearly not referred to as "young men" or even as "men," but as highly feminized boys. So I assume that the book simply makes these claims to stick to the claim of homoeroticism. And yes, it sticks with boys. In the end, the chapter on the flower guides, despite the claims of the author, had no hint of any "young men", instead all feminized boys, several claimed to be indistinguishable from women. Later texts in fact mention literati who consider it amusing and strange that there "is a kind of person who is solely fond of the pleasures of the rear courtyard, using a man like a woman in order to indulge in the same licentious intercourse and losing his heart. So claim that "homoeroticism" was totally accepted is a lie. And back to the underage thing, we get told in the story of Lord Anling, that while he was very attractive, he "had reached adulthood and he feared King Gong's love for him would thereby decrease." Which is not an unreasonable fear considered what these and other authors presented. Adult men could not be attractive to adult men in their eyes. Albeit these two are one of the few exceptions in this book. Something the authors don't point out. And on the subject of Fujian and the alleged "gay marriage," the text states that "there are a number of places where boys of common families, the good-looking ones, may receive betrothal presents from a man at twelve or thirteen." A later entry about Fujian also stated "In the event that they love each other and are unable to enter a relationship, they embrace and plunge together into the waves, not a rare occurrence. This all relates to those of similar age and appearance." And in regard to another story: You'd think the other two books that I read on the subject of "homoeroticism" would have mentioned the story of Pan Zhang, but I'm not surprised that they did not. Pan Zhang is 17 here and was supposed to marry. And yet so many seem to lust after him and admire his beauty, usually 17 would mean the beauty is fading because the masculinity is no longer latent. Also, he is openly mocked with claims that he has a suggar daddy. Aka, the story is too honest for those other 2 books. And in another story first a boy called Wenzi is 17 and now Zhongxian is 19. Wow, these are grandpas compared to the others. The story flies in the face of the claim that homoeroticism was so widely accepted back then. And ironically, it contains a tale of a fully and truly homoerotic relationship about two "young men" (17 and 19 sui) that fall in love and settle down together. However, the author straight up disapproves of their relationship quite clearly. The "Caps with Hairpins" actually shows not only that the only sexual act is anal apparently, not even a kiss, but also states that a man being treated as a woman is not natural according to law and applies to being made into mean status. Of course the boy Niu is only 16... aka 15 years or maybe 14 years. And the "Empress" (a man in fishy drag) is 2 years his senior.Aka the empress will be old and ugly soon once puberty is completed. What is it with the fact that the fast majority of examples in this book features feminized teenage boys of 15-16? That is really odd. And the "love-making" in this story... have these authors ever heard of foreplay or kissing, or oral, or petting? Seriously, the difference two modern homoerotic content from China couldn't be bigger. I think there were only two times that a kiss was even mentioned in this book. Naturally, just like the empress, Niu was also dressed as a woman. It was sometimes really strange how much the authors seem to struggle and twist to stuck with their claim of widespread acceptance of homoeroticism. In one example, we get told that "Li Yu should always be read carefülly, for what often looks like condemnations of same-sex desire may equally be ways of pointing out the hollowness of social convention. Likewise, where Li Yu seems to be scathing in his assessment of those who are 'fond of the southern mode' that impression needs to be weighed up against the care with which he describes his characters' feelings." This should not be believed however, as the story by said Li Yu was quite clear. Not only was the first Jifang described to look like a woman as a teen but Ruilang is described to be "as beautiful as a woman can get." And later we get told that all the handsome young men of the area were going to compose a southern-mode list and publish a beautiful-boy directory along the lines of courtesan rankings in the Lower Yangtze. These guys then stalked Ruilang and his own father later whored him out after he get the highest possible price as these guys were after virgin boys. Naturally, the story states how time will strip Ruilang of his beauty when he gets "old" like sixteen, even the guy Jifang whom he marries says so and the story makes it clear that Ruilang hadn't even entered puberty by the time he got "married" and had sex and Jifang gets told how his erection is Ruilang's enemy, will deprive Ruilang of his beauty and make him be interested in women. This all leads to Ruilang castrating himself. While the story first condemns this, this castration leads to further feminization as the scar had the appearance of a woman'svulva and we get told that originally Ruilang's "looks and demeanour were clearly feminine, and there was only the very smallest of differences � now that very smallest of differences was gone, how could anyone separate the two? Jifang therefore had him simply dress as a woman." And if you ask me. The severity of this crime against filial piety mentioned in the story is the actual reason why imperial china had no institutions for persecuting homosexuality but somehow fucking teenage boys in female clothes was tolerated to a degree (a limited degree). I'm not going to go any deeper into the story, but only say this: Ruilang basically becomes the mother of Jifang's son, protects him from the sexual assault by his older classmates, and the author states: "Consequently, no matter how high they strive, they find no place in the norms of human relationships. I would like to implore everyone throughout the world, please don 't go down this wayward path, please apply your energies to achieving something useful." And yet the authors still claim this guy is somehow ok with what they claim is homosexuality just because he takes the feelings into account." The following story "Peach Blossom Shadows" is revealing regarding the authors of this book in two ways: 1) The only homosexual act here is the rape of the protagonist by the man Munnan, and yes definitely rape as Munnan is sober and Yuqing passed out while he is raped. 2) Yuqing's sex with Munnan's wife (a "compensation") is presented more often and with more positions than any other so far. They are quite detailed. That they consider clear rape to be an example of homoeroticism is telling in my eyes. And considered what these authors considered homoerotic so far, I really have to wonder why on earth they didn't include another story from Liaozhai zhiyi. And their comment beforehand as to what can be drawn from the Huang story is questionable at best. You see not only did He Zixiao force himself on Huang (one time definitely counts as rape). but now that he is in another body he does the same with Huang's female cousin, Huang is fine with it, and this... technically it doesn't fit the definition of rape, but it is way closer than other borderline cases I have seen. Later on several cases of rape were included, uncommented of course, and even a text mentioning how little servants could refuse their masters. And this focus on teenage boys makes me question whether another text really talks of men who sell their bodies in Kaifeng and not another case were the term men is used when clearly teenage boys are meant? And keep in mind, none of the catamites here so far was ever stated to be older than 16 sui. And a contemporary from the late Ming says himself that they are basically a last resort because women aren't available. And another one stated sing song boys became popular because government courtesans were prohibited. And the same guy states that among prisoners, soldiers, people away from woman-folk, they have to resort to "men", the fans of sing-song boys are an exception. The "Miss Gao" extract is at most cross-dressing, no eroticism involved, but including these Golden Orchid societies extract seems really misplaced. At most they sound like a women's support group, so what? The editors think they must be lesbians? This book was just so damn bad. Really terrible in places. I would only recommend to read the primary sources and ignore the comments. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jan 25, 2021
|
Feb 16, 2021
|
Jan 25, 2021
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 3770428714
| 9783770428717
| 3770428714
| 4.33
| 2,498
| Dec 02, 2019
| Jan 06, 2021
|
really liked it
|
1) Deutsche Rezension 2) English Review 1) Deutsche Rezension Eine Geschichte, in der sich die weiße Schlange als Drache entpuppt. Das ist definitiv 1) Deutsche Rezension 2) English Review 1) Deutsche Rezension Eine Geschichte, in der sich die weiße Schlange als Drache entpuppt. Das ist definitiv ein Pluspunkt. So rettet der weißhaarige Altkleidermann, den er am Bahnhof getroffen hat, ihn und seinen Hund vor Wildschweinen, entpuppt sich als Drache und anscheinend wollte seine Oma, dass die beiden ein Paar werden... sieht aus, als wäre seine Oma ein extremer Kupplerin. Leider hat dieser Manga das „Ich mag keine Männer�-Ding, und diese Geschichte lief so gut. Sie sollten es ihn sagen lassen, anstatt es zu denken. Auf diese Weise wäre es vage. Und mit all dem Gerede, dass Chiharu Rins Braut sein soll, scheint Rin hier die „Frau� zu sein, mit all dem Kochen und allem, was er hier von Chiharus Schwester lernt. Diese Tante gibt mir Vergewaltiger-Vibes. Nicht sicher warum, vielleicht ist es die Art und Weise, wie er auf sie und ihre verschleierten Drohungen an ihn reagiert. Mit dem schwarzen Fuchs auf dem Dach kehrte die Spannung dankenswerterweise zurück. Und warum sucht dieser eine Charakter nach Schwimmhäuten für Rins menschliche Gestalt? Seine Drachenform hatte nicht einmal Schwimmhäute an den Füßen. Tatsächlich scheinen ostasiatische Drachen für Wesen, die so an das Wasser gebunden sind, bemerkenswert schlecht in Form daran angepasst zu sein. Ob das eher erotisch oder witzig sein soll, bei all dem Krallenkratzen und so, sollte eigentlich der Autor entscheiden. Es schien wirklich, als ob Rin Sex haben wollte, aber es war.... nur Kitzeln? Und der Drache und andere Gottheiten usw. wurden aus menschlicher Vorstellungskraft erschaffen? Die Geschichte des Drachen kam vor dem Drachen ... also ... bedeutet das, dass Chihuaras Großmutter Rin erschaffen hat? Und ist der schwarze Fuchs ein Kami, Yokai oder etwas Dunkleres? Und ich denke, die Behauptung, es habe dies für Rin getan, deutet darauf hin, dass Rin, wenn er hier bleibt, eine gewisse Gefahr birgt. Interessant. 2) English Review A story where the white snake turns out to be a dragon. That is definitely a plus. So the white-haired old clothing guy he met at the train station rescues him and his dog from wild boars, turns out to be a dragon and apparently his grandma wanted for the two to be a couple... looks like his grandma was an extreme shipper. Sadly, this manga has the "I don't like men" thing, and this story was doing so well. They should have him say it instead of thinking it. That way it would be vague. And with all that talk of Chiharu supposed to being Rin's bride, Rin seems to be the "woman" here with all the cooking and all here that he learns from Chiharu's sister. That aunt gives me rapist vibes. Not sure why, maybe its the way he reacts to her and her veiled threats to him. Tension thankfully came back with the black fox on the roof. And why is that one character looking for webbed feet on Rin's human form? His dragon form didnt even have webbed feet. In fact, for beings so tied to water, east asian dragons seem remarkebly badly adapted to it form wise. The author should really decide on whether this is supposed to be more erotic or funny, with all this touching the claws and all. It really seemed as if Rin wanted to have sex but it was.... just tickling? And the dragon and other deities etc. were created from human imagination? The story of the dragon came before the dragon... so....does that mean the Chihuara's grandmother created Rin? And is the black fox a kami, yokai or something darker? And I guess it claiming it did this for Rin suggests that Rin staying here bears some danger. Interesting. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Apr 17, 2021
|
Apr 27, 2021
|
Oct 16, 2020
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
![ハングアウトクライシス [Hang Out Crisis]](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1563357373l/27886000._SX50_.jpg)
| 4801953719
| 9784801953710
| 4801953719
| 3.60
| 339
| unknown
| Oct 17, 2015
|
it was ok
| This is straight up porn, the first chapter was basically a porn episode, in every way. The former straight guy cannot have sex with women anymore, th This is straight up porn, the first chapter was basically a porn episode, in every way. The former straight guy cannot have sex with women anymore, the other guy brings him into a swinger club... yep, this is a porn comedy. The author should write porn. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Sep 23, 2019
|
Sep 24, 2019
|
Sep 23, 2019
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 3770497783
| 9783770497782
| B07BF5NMLF
| 3.96
| 1,197
| Dec 29, 2016
| Apr 04, 2018
|
it was ok
|
This became too ridiculous for me. The whole food thing was a nice change, but the thing with Yusuke being so stoic even though he thinks he is expres This became too ridiculous for me. The whole food thing was a nice change, but the thing with Yusuke being so stoic even though he thinks he is expressive (which here he is) and Saya being able to read him is kind of... boring to be honest. Maybe this would work better as a live-action but not in a manga. Then there was the whole internalized homophobia again and after a while it became to ridiculous for me and I stopped. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Sep 23, 2019
|
Sep 24, 2019
|
Sep 23, 2019
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||
| 1631409395
| 9781631409394
| 1631409395
| 4.12
| 4,227
| Dec 28, 2016
| Dec 28, 2016
|
liked it
|
1) Deutsche Rezension 2) English Review 1) Deutsche Rezension Mit all seinen ein und manchmal zwei Seitern ist diese Anthologie ein ziemliches Auf un 1) Deutsche Rezension 2) English Review 1) Deutsche Rezension Mit all seinen ein und manchmal zwei Seitern ist diese Anthologie ein ziemliches Auf und Ab. Manchmal kann es etwas peinlich werden, in anderen Fällen haben die Macher ihre eigenen Probleme im Umgang mit dem Puls-Nightclub-Schießerei durchgearbeitet, in anderen Fällen hat man einfach eine Welle roher Emotionen auf sich gezogen. Trotzdem funktionieren die Geschichten zum größten Teil optisch sehr gut. Obwohl einige nichts mit einer tatsächlichen Geschichte zu tun haben, nur zufällige Sätze auf einer Seite. 2) English Review With all its one and sometimes two pagers, this anthology is quite an up and down. Sometimes it can get a bit cringy, in other cases the makers were clearly working through their own problems in dealing with the pulse nightclub shooting, other times you simply got a wave of raw emotions coming at you. Nonetheless for the most part the stories work visually very well. Albeit some are nothing like an actual story, just random sentences on a page. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Sep 22, 2019
|
Sep 23, 2019
|
Sep 22, 2019
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 3770498119
| 9783770498116
| 3770498119
| 3.85
| 1,794
| May 24, 2017
| Jun 06, 2018
|
did not like it
|
Talk about doing a downturn to the worst. At first this volume had me really interested in what was going on(view spoiler)[, with a nice twist of the
Talk about doing a downturn to the worst. At first this volume had me really interested in what was going on(view spoiler)[, with a nice twist of the previously oh so nice guy being a wolf in sheep's clothing who is not even remotely gay and only does all the nice things and flirting to defeat his former idol (hide spoiler)], but after half the volume it became really dull and I had lost all interest. Which is a shame because it started so strong and suspenseful but in the end I couldn't even be bothered anymore to write a german review for this manga, unlike for the first volume. This was getting weird, in that it switches between sober moods, over the top reactions and kind of icky sex stuff. And if the latter were taken out, this could be a pretty good and suspenseful relationship drama. But the sex scenes just broke the flow for me as I could not figure out their significance to the story or even just as smut. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Mar 10, 2019
|
Mar 11, 2019
|
Mar 10, 2019
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 3770497597
| 9783770497591
| 3770497597
| 3.77
| 3,709
| Mar 24, 2016
| Feb 01, 2018
|
liked it
|
1) Deutsche Rezension 2) English Review 1) Deutsche Rezension Eins muss von vornherein gesagt werden: Dieser Manga hat eine Menge sexuell aufgeladener 1) Deutsche Rezension 2) English Review 1) Deutsche Rezension Eins muss von vornherein gesagt werden: Dieser Manga hat eine Menge sexuell aufgeladener, fast pornografischer, Szenen und Witze. Wer damit nicht klar kommt bzw. nicht diese Art von Humor hat, wird mit diesem Manga nichts anzufangen wissen. Auch für mich war es nicht immer einfach, denn ich frage mich immer noch ob Tamura auf Natursektspiele steht oder nicht, so etwas ist für mich nämlich etwas wo ich sofort abbrechen würde. Manchmal war es auch anderweitig etwas grenzwertig oder fragwürdig, wie bei Yuri, wo ich auf der einen Seite gespannt war ob er eine düstere Seite hatte auf der anderen Seite aber nicht umher kam, wie sehr er dem bisexuellen Stereotyp alles zu ficken entsprach, wenn es in der Gruppe nicht noch einen anderen bisexuellen gegeben hätte, hätte ich wohl weit ernsthafterer auf ihn reagiert. Was den Protagonisten Tono angeht so schwanke ich auch da etwas. Auf der einen Seite ist seine Art sehr witzig und ich kann mit ihm fühlen, auf der anderen Seite sind seine ständigen Halbnervenzusammenbrüche und sein absolutes Nichtraffen was mit ihm und seinem Gefühlsleben los ist, trotz allem um ihn herum, auf Dauer recht nervig. Man sollte meinen, dass irgendwann auch bei ihm der Groschen fällt. Die Geschichte selber ist nichts spezielles, aber fließt gut und ich denke, dass der Humor meistens funktioniert (besonders ganz vorn mit seinen Dildos, Sexsprache, schwachen Nerven etc.), allerdings später nicht mehr so gut wie am Anfang und teilweise war die Geschichte recht fade und brauchte es wirklich ein Liebesdreieck wo zwei davon Cousins sind? Ich hatte auch Probleme mir ihre Namen zu merken und manchmal konnte ich die Figuren nicht auseinanderhalten. PS. Was haben Mangazeichner nur immer mit Speichel? Das sieht nicht aus wie Speichel sondern wie Sirup. Und Küssen produziert nicht so viel Speichel, oder sind das alles Kannibalen? 2) English Review One thing has to be said from the outset: This manga has a lot of sexually charged, almost pornographic, scenes and jokes. Anyone who does not get along with it or does not have that kind of humor will not know what to do with this manga. For me it was not always easy, because I'm still wondering if Tamura is or not into watersports, something that for me is something where I would stop immediately. Sometimes it was also somewhat borderline or questionable elsewhere, like Yuri, where I was curious on the one hand if he had a grim side but on the other hand was bothered how much he fit the bisexual stereotype to fuck everything that movies if in the group there would not have been another bisexual, I would have responded to him far more seriously. As far as the protagonist Tono is concerned, I am also staggering. On the one hand, his style is very funny and I can feel with him, on the other hand, his constant nervous breakdowns and his total disregard of what's going on with him and his emotional life, despite everything around him, is in the long run quite annoying. One would think that at some point even with him he catches on The story itself is nothing special, but flows well and I think that the humor mostly works (especially at the start with the dildos, sex language, weak nerves etc.), but later not as good as at the beginning and partly the story was quite meh and did it really needed a love triangle where two of them are cousins? I also had problems memorizing their names and sometimes I could not tell the characters apart. PS. What is the deal with manga artists and saliva? This does not look like saliva but like syrup. And kissing does not produce that much saliva, or are they all cannibals? ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Mar 09, 2019
|
Mar 10, 2019
|
Mar 03, 2019
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1310141584
| 9781310141584
| 1310141584
| unknown
| 2.00
| 1
| Sep 05, 2014
| Sep 06, 2014
|
it was ok
|
This was kind of confusing and dull. Like when I asked myself whether Javier did he get fucked by a dick or by a toy. Or was it a finger fuck? I am no This was kind of confusing and dull. Like when I asked myself whether Javier did he get fucked by a dick or by a toy. Or was it a finger fuck? I am not sure to be honest. The later scene with Jason wasn’t thrilling either, no idea why, it just wasn’t. And it was unusual that Connor and Javier did not end up together despite Connor's confession of love, but that is ok. What is weird is that Javier never got fucked again afterwards. He got of sooooooo much from it I would expect that at least his wife fucks his ass. This feels pretty disjointed all in all and was kind of difficult to remember and keep focused on. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Mar 24, 2018
|
Mar 27, 2018
|
Mar 19, 2018
|
ebook
| |||||||||||||
| 9781406362930
| 140636293X
| 4.49
| 14,118
| Oct 20, 2015
| Oct 20, 2015
|
did not like it
|
Oh my gosh! Take the baby away from them! This is what I was thinking quite often when reading this. It did not starting this right away, there we get j Oh my gosh! Take the baby away from them! This is what I was thinking quite often when reading this. It did not starting this right away, there we get just the usual Magnus routine: Magnus believed that many old things were creations of enduring beauty. The pyramids. Michelangelo’s David. Versailles. Magnus himself. And naturally we get the usual “if people do not like the main character they are assholes.� Because Magnus is oh so right and the Shadowhunters and their precious law oh so wrong. You know considered that Magnus knows that angels exist (one of them gave said law), maybe he should be a bit more conscious of that fact. Then again, neither are the authors. And of course Maryse and Robert not liking Magnus is due to them solely, nothing to do with his assholishness. Albeit this story tries to tone that down as Magnus suddenly pays for the food he magics up instead of stealing it like in City of Bones. Not that Magnus tries to change and not blame everything on everyone else. Also I do wonder, once again, how much time actually passed so far as this states that he could not, and would not, have teased Alec like this years ago. Years ago? This could be no later than 2009 and they met in Summer 2007, but the ending suggests that they might have met three years prior so is this 2010? Also, based on TBC he did far worse than teasing Alec with Magnus being in high demand. And yet the story claims Magnus had been as careful with him as he knew how to be, afraid to hurt Alec and afraid to shatter this feeling between them. In their first date he did everything wrong you could have done wrong, so if that was as careful as Magnus knew how to be, he really should not be in any relationship. When the warlock baby comes along (no idea or actual explanation as to how it could be in Idris was given) it becomes downright alarming. It started with Simon thinking that he was going to find Magnus, and not Catarina (the trained nurse), which shows the forced nature of this story, she was not even consulted by anybody here; not surprising as the Academy does not even teach first aid. So no wonder they suddenly have Magnus be, somewhat, philanthropic and claiming he always cared for Alec's feelings. He has to appear like a responsible adult. Which probably also explains why the warlocks have no system for such cases. And afterwards Magnus spend no time thinking about the baby's health but rather about constant gloom and killed warlock babies. And if this weren't enough we get that he could not think of anywhere he could take the child, anyone he could trust the child to who would want it, who might love it. He could scarcely think of anywhere in this hostile world where the child might be safe. Which made this even worse than I thought. And instead of caring about the baby the story turned to token Asian vampire Lily Chen, for some reason. The amount of retconning is just pathetic (another one is the claim that Raphael felt responsible for Simon despite threatening him several times). This is just there to claim what a good and victimized person Magnus is. And the text prior showed how completely unprepared he is for a child. He even burned himself on the hot milk! Milk that hot might as well kill a baby!!! And based on some other parts in here I wonder whether the authors ever came close to a baby. And if this wasn't dumb enough, token Asian Lilly is basically just there to humiliate all Shadowhunters except Alec and to state how awesome Alec is and how he holds things together and all. If Shadowhunters where the assholes these books claim them to be they would never stand for such behavior as the one she shows here. Either way Lilly is plain dumb if she just overrides the inquisitor and former head of the NYC institute and basically ignores him. It is so dumb she even says “I do not talk to Nephilim about Downworlder business,� even though she does to Alec and according to the Accords, that her representatives signed, she should. We get told Downworlders can handle their business themselves, but as someone who has read every book of this damn serious so far, the only Downworlders who hadn't caused massive destruction or presented themselves as untrustworthy so far are the werewolves, vampires cannot be trusted. And the empowerment fantasy does not stop with Alec (who is Sunil’s inspiration to be a Shadowhunter and a lot of people follow Simon now because they admire him, and he changes the academy� somehow, it's not as if what he did was anything that would actually change people this fast at least not in a positive way) but continues with Lilly and token half-white Maia, as we are told both Lily and Maia were young to be leaders, and had succeeded entirely unexpectedly to leadership. Both of them had found themselves, due to inexperience and not lack of trying, in trouble. Which makes me ask why are they still leaders? Why hasn't someone tried to kill them as is common among vampires and werewolves? This was when I was sure this is third rate fan-fiction. I am serious, the way Lilly talks to Robert and Maryse is written as if by an author who hates them so much she doesn't care about character consistency. We get more later when we get told that Robert had been thoughtless with his son in the past or they all rely on Alec, suddenly because it sure as hell did not come across as such before. And it still does not stop there. We get told that Downworlders and Shadowhunters alike would come to New York knowing there was a group with Downworlders and Shadowhunters who had power and would cooperate to solve problems. [image] Do the Accords even still exist in this world? In fact what on earth where they there for to begin with? Alec and Magnus got even worse here than before as Alec gives Isabelle a key to their suite without telling Magnus, everyone just assumes that they will keep the baby, no one talks it out. Apparently Alec also just decided to keep it without talking with Magnus (keeping the baby had not even occurred to Magnus)... so someone has serious communication problems, even more than before, and if this weren't enough the baby had already been nearly dropped twice in the story at that point. As for Magnus being insulted for Alec thinking Magnus may have magicked up a baby: I would not put it past Magnus to magically create a baby. The only reason he would not do it is because he is a self-centered asshole. And speaking of self-centered assholes: we even get a story of how Alec was never the cool brother, how Max thought Jace was the best and liked the toy soldier from him and of course it was all just petty jealousy that was the reason Alec did not like it. Not the fact that Jace is a terrible role model. And Alec started to basically just think of himself and not of the baby and so came along more and more like Magnus. Which really fits, as Magnus is a guy that also generalizes right away, like when he whines "I was alive before the Accords. I sat and ate and talked with Shadowhunters about peace between our people, and then those same Shadowhunters threw away the plates I ate off because they thought I irredeemably tainted whatever I touched." It was one Shadowhunter family who did that. Not all of them, despite what this judgmental asshole suggests here. Plus, the way I know Magnus, I might have done the same just to be sure I do not get cursed by him. And speaking of what he does or did not, apparently no one had ever asked him to marry him before, which is really odd. Sure this is probably just here to incompetently claim how special Alec is, but in truth it raises some questions about Magnus as a character. It even states that there had been lovers willing to die with him, but nobody had ever been willing to swear to live with him every day for as long as they both had to live. Then why, as TBC stated, had some of them lived with him until they die? Also, did it occur to the authors that some did not want to (not even the women?) marry him because their concept of marriage was too fixed? Probably not. These books cannot get more complex than first grade level. Naturally the specialness of Clary and Jace must be mentioned here as well as we get told by Alec “I like Clary,� he said simply. “She always tries to do what’s right, and she never lets anyone else tell her what right is. She reminds my parabatai that he wants to live �" That is really sick as the authors basically presented Jace as severely depressed. However having issues is common here as even Magnus had always thought the dregs showed enormous self-restraint by not rising up against Shadowhunter arrogance, burning down the Academy, and fleeing into the night. and wonders whether it was possible that the Clave was right when they called Magnus an insurgent. Of course he is just and asshole and not an insurgent in anyway but the prior comment suggests that he has some issues. Of course one issue is his, also surfacing here, Herondale obsession as we get told that Magnus had always found the Lightwoods rather forgettable. He’d liked some of them—Anna Lightwood and her parade of brokenhearted young ladies, Christopher Lightwood and his explosions, and now Isabelle. To which I asked: Gesh, could it have something to do with the fact that their mother was Cecily Herondale? Also, for a forgettable family you seem to remember much about them. It was despite, or maybe because of, all those "big" words about specialness really hollow, just as hollow as when Catarina tiraded about how these children were different, wanted to be taught, children of changing times etc. etc. All so hollow and lip-service it was equal time ridiculous and nauseating. And it didn't get better as she stated I’ll see Simon safely Ascended and then I am out of here, back to my hospital. Speaking of Simon, we got this little turd: There are storms behind you, Simon. But there is another and a greater storm coming. All the old rules are falling away. Are you ready for another storm? Of course there is. There must always be some world-changing event doesn't it? And why linger on that if you can finally acknowledge that Ascension is risky? But that is brushed aside, instead Simon ponders that he has to pick a Shadowhunter name. Why? Several other Shadowhunters had totally common names... oh right those weren't "white" (meaning not anglo) so they do not count. This was so far the longest story in this series and it was basically 3rd rate fan fiction. PS. I looked up the term "Magnus Effect" and it was described by Newton and Robins in the 17th and 18th century but the term apparently came into being in 1852 because of a German physicist named Magnus. And sure the book says it was one of the reasons the name felt right, but considered that it was termed that way possibly 200 years after Magnus was born this would be an odd reason. After all when did he pick that name? So claiming the name Magnus was chosen because of the Magnus effect is just another half-assed attempt to sound deep, which will probably work. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 23, 2017
|
Jan 06, 2018
|
Dec 23, 2017
|
ebook
| |||||||||||||||
| B00E2YKZBO
| 1.00
| 1
| Jul 20, 2013
| Jul 20, 2013
|
did not like it
|
I did not even bother to read past page 30 of this book. Not only does the killer having white hair reminds me very much of anime, but the writing als
I did not even bother to read past page 30 of this book. Not only does the killer having white hair reminds me very much of anime, but the writing also does. It often sounds as if someone would describe an anime scene and what anime has is already pretty goofy and dumb, but on paper it appears to be even worse. Not to mention that the author constantly switches between character names and character descriptions (calling them the black-haired one, the killer, the burgler etc.), making it appear as if there are POV changes within a passage. Not to mention that the story is cheesy even for anime.
...more
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jan 17, 2017
|
Jan 21, 2017
|
Jan 13, 2017
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||||
| 3551353158
| 9783551353153
| 3551353158
| 4.15
| 5,406
| 1998
| Sep 01, 2008
|
really liked it
|
1) Deutsche Rezension 2) English Review 1) Deutsche Rezension Ich werde nicht lügen; manchmal kann dieses Buch seltsam sein: z.B. Phil war anscheinen 1) Deutsche Rezension 2) English Review 1) Deutsche Rezension Ich werde nicht lügen; manchmal kann dieses Buch seltsam sein: z.B. Phil war anscheinend mit einer geistig behinderten Person befreundet, die ihn lehrte, was Masturbation und Pornos im Alter von 8 Jahren sind, indem sie ihm buchstäblich einen runter holte. Zuerst fühlte es sich an, als ob das Buch mit dem Weltenbilden weiter und weiter macht, aber im Nachhinein denke ich, dass dies ein Zeichen dafür war, dass dieses Buch ein Bildungsroman ist, sprich, dass es nicht wirklich ein Ende hat. So ist dieses Buch nur der Anfang der Entwicklung die Phil durchlaufen muss, um ein Erwachsener zu werden. Ich war auch nie sicher, wann diese Geschichte stattfindet. Ein Jahr oder Zeitraum wird nie angegeben, aber auf der Grundlage von Kabelnachrichten, ein Teenager mit einem Schwarz-Weiß-Bild von seiner Mutter, als er 5 Jahre alt war und einige andere Dinge, bzw. Mangel daran, würde ich sagen, es spielt in der Anfang der 1990er Jahre. Ich würde auch sagen, dass eine Menge, was hier geschrieben wird, nicht wirklich notwendig ist. Sicher, es ist nicht Star Wars oder die Tolkinesche Art von unnötig aufwendig, aber dennoch. Und während sowohl das Buch als auch der Film im Grunde Coming-of-Age Geschichten sind, konzentriert sich das Buch weit mehr auf die Entwicklung von Phil in seiner Familie anstatt auf seine Liebesbeziehung. Im Film bekommt man einige ziemlich explizite Sex-Szenen, aber in dem Buch sind sie kaum erwähnt. Zugegeben, der Film kam fast 20 Jahre nach dem Buch, so dass die Dinge sich natürlich änderten. Und wenn ich dabei bin: Wer nennt ein Kind "Glass"? Warum dieser Name? Manchmal kam Phil mir als ein bisschen zu passiv, aber das ist nur meine Vorliebe. Doch die Prüfung des 9-jährigen Phil, ob er mit 2 Fingern pfeifen und Ball spielen kann? Und beide sind wahr und er hätte sogar eine Puppe bevorzugt? Gut das sie das aus dem Film heraus gelassen haben. Und die Trennung war auch recht dramatisch, mit den beiden Psychos die Nicholas verletzten, der Phil nicht einmal liebt. In der Tat, "offen dramatisch" passt für den letzten Teil des Buches ziemlich gut. Ich meine, Nicolas gab Phil seine Geschichten für Weihnachten und Phil nur geradezu verbrennt sie? Warum? Weil Nicholas sagt, er liebt ihn nicht und braucht ihn? Ich bin ziemlich sicher, man gibt jemanden persönliche Geschichten als Geschenk, wenn man nur Sex mit ihm im Auge hat. Das Ende von Buch und Film unterscheiden sich auch und während das Buch mehr Zeit braucht, hat der Film die gleiche Tiefe und hat keine Glass die ihren Freund betrügt. Im Film dachte sie, sie könne keine Kinder mit ihm aufziehen, weil sie dachte, es würde nicht mit jemandem funktionieren, der so sensibel reagiert, was auch ihre Reaktion auf Dianne als Kind verständlicher macht. Doch dieses "sie verließ ihn, weil sie ihn betrogen hat" ist ziemlich dumm, da sie im Grunde über den Ozean floh. Ich meine, das ist auch für einen Teenager überdramatisch. Und waren der Epilog und dergleichen wirklich notwendig? Haben so viele Leute den Autor gefragt, wie viel von ihm in diesen Figuren ist? 2) English Review I am not going to lie; sometimes this book can be weird: e.g. Phil was apparently friends with a mentally disabled person who taught him what masturbation and porn was at age 8 years old, by literally jacking him off. At first it felt as if the book was going on and on about world building, but in hindsight I think it is clear that this was a sign of this book being a Bildungsroman, aka it does not really have an end, for all you know, this book is just the start of the development Phil will need to go through to become an adult. I was also never sure when this story takes place. A year or time period is never given, but based on them being cabled, one teenage character having a black and white picture of his mother when he was 5 years old and some other things, respectively lack of, I would say this plays in the early 1990s. I would also say that a lot of what is written here is not really necessary. Sure, it is not Star Wars or Tolkinesque kind of unnecessarily elaborate, but still. And while both book and movie are basically coming of age stories, the book focuses far more on the development of Phil within his family instead of his love relationship. Also in the movie you get some pretty explicit sex scenes but in the book they are barely mentioned. Granted the movie came out almost 20 years after the book, so things changed naturally. Come to think of it: Who names their child "Glass"? Why that name? Sometimes Phil came along too me as a tad too passive, but that is just my preference. However testing the 9-year old Phil on whether he can whistle with 2 fingers and can play ball? And both are true and he even would have preferred a doll? Well thankfully they let that out of the movie. And the break-up was also kind off overtly dramatic, with the two psychos suddenly showing up and hurting Nicholas, who doesn't even love Phil. In fact, "overtly dramatic" fits the last part of the book pretty well. I mean, Nicolas gave Phil his stories for Christmas and Phil just outright burns them? Why? Because Nicolas says he doesn't love him and needs him? I am pretty sure you don't give someone your personal stories as a gift if you just have sex with him in mind. The ending of book and movie differ also and while the book takes more time, the movie has the same depth and does not have Glass cheat on her boyfriend. In the movie she thought she could not raise children with him because she thought it would not work with someone that sensitive, which also makes her reaction to Dianne as a child more understandable. However, this "she left him because she cheated on him" is pretty dumb considered that she basically fled across the ocean. I mean that is overdramatic even for a teenager. And were the epilogue and the like really worth it? Did that many people ask the author about how much of himself is in these characters? ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jan 23, 2017
|
Feb 10, 2017
|
Sep 19, 2016
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 3.00
| 3
| Jan 01, 2008
| 2008
|
did not like it
| I gave this book a chance, but based on the description, I had a bad feeling about this and I was right. That feeling became stronger for the first ti I gave this book a chance, but based on the description, I had a bad feeling about this and I was right. That feeling became stronger for the first time when the introduction mentioned Focault, and that is a really bad sign. The situation worsened when it stated that the global post 9/11 millieu had at its center the "figure of the Asian as a marked object of increased, racism, heightened ethnic stereotyping and racial profiling." Where? I lived through that time and this is ridiculous, unless they mean with "the Asian" the entire content, that means this introduction throws several categories into one mass. And the rest of the book does the same and this is a problem, because it's category of "Asian" is so broad and encompasses so many different categories that barely no one ever considers to be belonging to the same category of people that I feared the writers are quite out of touch with everyday people. That the first 25 pages of introduction had another 2 for notes was a further omen of bad things to come. The first chapter threw around words like patriarchy, subjectivity, conceptionalization, eclectic and concept of nation etc. In the end the author was using such messed up language that I had no idea what s/he was saying. The second chapter was starting good, at first. I was intrigued by the concept of a lesbian liking boy love manga from the 1970s, but when I read sentences like "tentativley encompass the unencompassable diversity and the fluidity that can be found in genders and sexualities" it made me want to put down this book as it sas the second chapter already that talks like this and I can't stand it. Can't these people write like normal people? All this talk about how gay and straight doesn't work and all the talk about gender and sexual diversity iwas just crap for me. This made it really hard to read this book. The entire chapter of lesbian interest in boys love manga was interesting for a short while, but this way of word usage is just way too unnecessarily complicated for me. I have no patience for things like this anymore. I also had zero interest in the chapter about effeminate speech among japanese gay men. This was the third chapter where this happened, which was another bad sign. In the following chapter, based on how this here writes about Malaysian history, I did wonder why on earth the author stated that the British encouraged ethnic division to keep Chinese, Malays and Indians from uniting against the British. Nonethless, this had a few of the positive things in this book. Apparently the mak nyahs (transexuals) had it better under colonial rule than later on. They faced less stigma and had greater employment opportunities. And under current (at the time of the book) Malaysin law, apparently hermaphrodites, unlike transexuals, could get surgery so they can unambigiuously look like men or women. That actually fits this Malaysian Shariah Law. And interesting to read what significance religion has, e.g. some older trans people no longer crossdress for fear of not getting a burial or believing their souls will just drift after death. The chapter on Masculine lesbians in Hong Kong, I skipped as well. The author started with the same overtly complicated crap. And oh gosh... this language... whom are so many of these chapters written for? What normal person understands such language? So naturally, afterwards there was another chapter with some really odd language that only an academic can understand. And reading the conclusion didn't help either. This was about some community in New Zealand, but all this overtly complex language was just too much for me. I have no patience for that anymore. Then there was another chapter that I skipped because of the horrible language and that time there wasn't even a conclusion so I have no idea what it was about. If there hadn't been a following chapter that I could understand, I would have given up on this book at this point. And this chapter made me wonder, why it is that no one ever asks, why there was no category of gay in the older filipino society? Why only this transvestite bakla version? For the most part this chapter on cinematic portrayal of bakla was fine, but sentences like this one "The film spectacularizes the bakla's body as a source of humor" give me concern. This sounds incredibly dehumanizing to me. The chapter however was mostly good and it was interesting to read how the concept of bakla changed to encompass "gay" and so gave bakla possibilities in dating that would have been unthinkable in their traditional culture, like dating another bakla instead of just pining for straight men. Sadly people seem to have forgotten that in the 1990s, Chinese directors Ang Lee (The Wedding Banquet, 1993), Chen Kaige (Farewell, My Concubine, 1993), and Wong Kar Wai (Happy Together, 1997) produced three classic films that have had a profound influence on gay filmmakers everywhere. And if it weren't for sentences like the following, this would have been a great chapter: "The silver screen narrates the complex and often forgotten history of the Filipino male homosexual-most notably the bakla-and is a testament to his struggle to liberate himself from the world's limited and limiting gaze." And naturally, I had to skip the next chapter because of writing like this: "First of all, while desperately searching for the essence of "homosexual identity;' activism and academic research based on identity could rarely avoid an essentialist view and separatism. This essentialism could not explain the complexity of queer subject formation, and it obscured all the differences that already exist in queer subjectivities: economic, Geopolitical, cultural, and even sexual." Are all these authors even capable of talking like normal people? I skipped the next 2-3 chapters because of similarly overtly complicated language. Only the chapter on Taiwanese Hoklo identity and lesbianism had something interesting to me, albeit it was new for that for centuries, Chinese opera (xiqu) has been both a subculture associated with nonnormative sexuality (particularly prostitution and homosexuality) and a marker of regional cultural identity. Which explains why so many of its questionable features were tolerated for so long. That in Taiwan it was, since the 1940s, standard for women to play all of the leading roles in koa-a-hi, both male and female, and a complex female fan culture has developed around the women who play the sio sing (leading male) roles, was new to me though. Granted, the author's talk about how the environmental "explanation" of homosexuality opens up some interesting possibilities within the context of an ethno-nationalist discourse that is obsessed with defining a unique Taiwanese culture was really strange. In her mind, if the "environment" is defined in terms of (sub )cultural milieu-a Taiwanese jianghu-rather than the psychic environment of the individual family, this trope also holds the possibility of queering Hoklo identity. Where I had no idea what she was writing about. The next chapter mentioned Bret Hinsch's book. That is not a good sign. In fact the book was not good. It was about language analyzes in Taiwan and the word ku'er (from "queer") and it was only borderline tolerable. The next chapter about Asian drag kings was no good either. It started with stating that "Asian drag kings in Australia are mobile parasites who dwell at the threshold of many borders: as migrants between Asia and Australia, as racialized lesbians in a predominantly white queer scene, as performers between genders and sexualities, and as subjects of knowledge between disciplines and theoretical frameworks." And I decided to fast forward to the chapter's conclusion. And that conclusion was of no help either, as its language was equally dumb. I was so happy when the book was over and I was done with it. Sure, this wasn't the worst book that I ever read, but I would be lying if I said that it was in any shape of form a good or even ok experience. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Mar 31, 2023
|
Apr 07, 2023
|
Jan 20, 2016
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||||
| 3867193169
| 9783867193160
| 3867193169
| 3.30
| 117
| Feb 21, 2008
| Feb 21, 2008
|
did not like it
|
What was this book about? I really can't say, I remember nothing. For this review I relied solely on my notes and nothing else. According to them, the
What was this book about? I really can't say, I remember nothing. For this review I relied solely on my notes and nothing else. According to them, there was some guy just randomly kissing another guy he just happens to come across. Apparently there was cross dressing where I asked myself how it would ever work in real life (how did he pass for a girl?). Apparently the protagonists did fall forward into a guy's crouch while still in dress. Still, nothing comes up in my head. I looked up the manga and the cover doesn't even look familiar to me. So no clue what it was with this one, but if that is all, I guess I didn't miss much. Especially not when my notes tell me that this was a mess.
...more
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 29, 2020
|
May 30, 2020
|
Oct 01, 2015
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 3845904623
| 9783845904627
| 3845904623
| 2.00
| 1
| Dec 01, 2012
| Dec 01, 2012
|
it was ok
|
Although I still think the author would need a better editor, once she even switched the names of the two guys, it is nice to see an MM romance author
Although I still think the author would need a better editor, once she even switched the names of the two guys, it is nice to see an MM romance author who so far doesn't try to white wash the results of years of abuse and rape. Of course how accurate Alexander's behavior is I cannot say, but at the very least it makes sense within the established canon. While it is realistic that Konrad found the two already, and that Roland would be struggling so quickly with his desires for Alexander, as well as Alexander thinking "this is about what Roland wants" I do think it's a tad early that Alexander is confident enough to have some sexual agenda so early on his own accord. He is apparently out of the camp for only 2-3 days. I have my reservations about the second sex scene between Roland and Alexander. Let's ignore the ages of the two or how quickly it came after the first. But after the blow job for Alex, the penetration was all about Roland and not Alex at all. Of course Roland was intoxicated (I assume as an excuse so he can feel guilty) and he was of course the top. Not a good choice of position considering Alex' past. Afterwards we get a crazy mother, possible incest, mutation, new infected and psychic powers. Isn't it a tad too much all at once? Also, clever and special infected who believe the aliens will return were always known in the camp? Would have been nice to know that sooner author." "Apart from the fact that this is clearly more about interpersonal relationships than world-changing events, not that I am complaining, I cannot help but think of Raziel from Soul Reaver when I read Alexander's description. I am not surprised that Alexander has not only increased strength but can generate fire, after all, I not only saw it coming that he would have special powers but considered all else so far, why should it not have its version of a dragon? The book had a rushed and pretty open ending; I know this book is more about emotion than world-building, but come on. So Alexander is actually half-angel and the angels and demons are immortal aliens and all? And he just goes with his sirer? Why was he sired to begin with? And why was the earth attacked again except as a forced plot device? The end of the plot had a lot of holes in that regard. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Sep 12, 2015
|
Oct 15, 2015
|
Sep 12, 2015
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| B00AI1HFQI
| 3.00
| 1
| Dec 03, 2012
| Dec 03, 2012
|
liked it
|
This reads a whole lot better than my last trip into science fiction/fantasy up to that point. Of course the last one prior to this was Cassandra Clar
This reads a whole lot better than my last trip into science fiction/fantasy up to that point. Of course the last one prior to this was Cassandra Clare so that is not saying much. However I would not call this true science fiction, just like the Force in Star Wars, the alien attackers and the virus they left behind could as well be demons and a curse for all the effects they had and their actions. They even call the infected humans vampires, werewolves etc. At first I was a bit considered, because the summary talked about a "dark, homoerotic love story", and if that one was truly supposed to be between Roland and Alexander, I hoped there was a time leap because they first met when Roland was 10 and Alexander 6. Luckily there was a time leap. One thing that was apparent pretty quickly about this post-apocalyptic world was, that it not look very bleak to me. Sure half of the population died in the invasion but this all seems to work pretty well here. They still have TV, music and even comics. Roland even mentions gen-technology. And while the author does seem to have a decent grasp on the emotional side of the story (e.g. it makes sense why both Alexander and Roland think about each other since there is basically no one else), the world building is not fleshed out enough, e.g. infected arrive at the camp all the time, but then how many are there? Is this a camp for the whole continent? The book suggests that there are other camps, so how many infected are there? In fact, the world-building is not this book's strength. It was clear beyond any doubt, that the whole "Aliens are the cause" could as well be a curse, we had infected that not only develop bat-like wings, but others with gills and fins and even telepathy/illusions. Sometimes it was difficult to keep track of how old these Alexander and Roland are, since e.g. it was clear that Alex was orally raped when he was probably 10 and a bit later I doubted he was older than 14, maybe even 12, depending on how old Roland (who found out he is bisexual) was at the time of his graduation. Also Alexander having such low self-esteem actually makes sense here, not like in some other cases I know... Also I really wondered where the author was going with all this abuse and rape in the camps, Alex was only 13/14 btw.; it does not follow similar Yaoi lines nor some more voyeuristic titles so I was left to guessing what she would do. It had been a while that I experienced that sensation to be honest. And if they would ever make a TV adaptation of this, this 13-15 year old actor would need to act the hell out of Alexander, this is an intense level of emotional, sexual and physical abuse that he gets here, a typical example of being targeted for being pretty. And as far as I can tell, that is not unrealistic. And as I suspected, it ended on a cliffhanger.... a short torture scene, followed by a cliffhanger. That was deliberate. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Sep 05, 2015
|
Oct 12, 2015
|
Sep 05, 2015
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||||
| 386787607X
| 9783867876070
| 386787607X
| 4.10
| 10
| Nov 01, 2013
| Nov 14, 2013
|
it was ok
|
Well the introduction with its idiotic claims of how you in truth choose to be straight, how people don't know the difference between sexual orientati
Well the introduction with its idiotic claims of how you in truth choose to be straight, how people don't know the difference between sexual orientation, behavior and fantasies said more about the ignorance of the editor than anything else. In fact what the introduction said is such bullshit. At least this story about the "curious straight guy" was a lot better, especially since this guy is probably not straight at all as our protagonist finds out. The story with the two students and one of them going gay for a night was ok, the one afterwards with the married guy on Grindr searching for some ass was pretty cliché, but the chapter afterwards had two stories (for whatever reason) where the second one with the roommates going on the slippery slope towards gay sex (even first reluctant Carl became a power bottom) was pretty funny actually, and unusual. The next three stories had a divorcee experiencing gay sex, a quick hook-up by a paddler and a straight guy in a relationship where the straight guy went right for cock and in the last one another straight guy needed one kiss to satisfy his girlfriend and he was ready for a 69. These "straight" guys take to gay sex like a duck to the water. Straight my ass, is all I can say. The story afterwards was kind of stupid already and then there was the protagonist who wants to claim he only kissed Johnny and technically had no sex with him? They didn't just kiss, they had full on frottage. They had sex, undeniably, Johnny even "fake-fucked" him. And of course, the straight guy takes it to gay sex like a duck to the water appeared again. Did the editor even read these stories before he wrote his introduction? The further two stories about the teenage boy getting full on gay and the divorced guy who always had to fake it with his wife� I wonder whether this book even knows what "straight" means in the sexual context and whether this here is a form of bi-erasure. Not to mention that this book, like so many, started to hit on my nerves with its many blonds. Or if you give me a blond, at least give me different faces and hair styles dammit!!!! The second to last story started with whining of how much the guy missed, how much sex possibly, yeah, I really wasn't thrilled. I saw it done before and done better. The last story refers to Italy, Spain and Portugal as the lands of the hung, the more hung, and the super hung and states he would do things that would make a Thai hostess blush, aka a Thai prostitute. Too bad, this book started out fine, but the way it is I don't think I can give it more than 2 points. Ps. Since when do straight men sit one seat apart in the movie theater? I never saw that, never. Not even when there was plenty of room in the theater. If I see that it suggests that these two people don't know and/or like each other. Is this sitting apart a US-American thing? ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Sep 04, 2015
|
Sep 05, 2015
|
Sep 04, 2015
|
Paperback
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 2.00
|
it was ok
|
Jan 16, 2024
|
Jan 06, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 3.56
|
did not like it
|
Aug 11, 2022
|
Aug 09, 2022
|
|||||
|
| 3.73
|
did not like it
|
Jul 2022
|
Jun 25, 2022
|
|||||
|
| 4.49
|
really liked it
|
Apr 27, 2021
|
Apr 17, 2021
|
|||||
|
| 3.73
|
it was ok
|
Feb 16, 2021
|
Jan 25, 2021
|
|||||
|
| 4.33
|
really liked it
|
Apr 27, 2021
|
Oct 16, 2020
|
|||||
|
| 3.60
|
it was ok
|
Sep 24, 2019
|
Sep 23, 2019
|
|||||
|
| 3.96
|
it was ok
|
Sep 24, 2019
|
Sep 23, 2019
|
|||||
|
| 4.12
|
liked it
|
Sep 23, 2019
|
Sep 22, 2019
|
|||||
|
| 3.85
|
did not like it
|
Mar 11, 2019
|
Mar 10, 2019
|
|||||
|
| 3.77
|
liked it
|
Mar 10, 2019
|
Mar 03, 2019
|
|||||
|
| 2.00
|
it was ok
|
Mar 27, 2018
|
Mar 19, 2018
|
|||||
|
| 4.49
|
did not like it
|
Jan 06, 2018
|
Dec 23, 2017
|
|||||
|
| 1.00
|
did not like it
|
Jan 21, 2017
|
Jan 13, 2017
|
|||||
|
| 4.15
|
really liked it
|
Feb 10, 2017
|
Sep 19, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 3.00
|
did not like it
|
Apr 07, 2023
|
Jan 20, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 3.30
|
did not like it
|
May 30, 2020
|
Oct 01, 2015
|
|||||
|
| 2.00
|
it was ok
|
Oct 15, 2015
|
Sep 12, 2015
|
|||||
|
| 3.00
|
liked it
|
Oct 12, 2015
|
Sep 05, 2015
|
|||||
|
| 4.10
|
it was ok
|
Sep 05, 2015
|
Sep 04, 2015
|
Loading...
