What do you think?
Rate this book
Peter & Charlie Trilogy #1
Ein Fall von Liebe
New Jersey Ende der 30er Jahre: Charlie, Anfang Zwanzig, verbringt den Sommer bei seiner Großmutter bevor er sich in das New Yorker Berufsleben stürzt. Für Gesellschaft hat die umsichtige Dame bereits gesorgt und Peter, einen entfernten Verwandten gleichen Alters, eingeladen. Es beginnt eine gefühlvolle, energiegeladene, leidenschaftliche, erotische Liebe zwischen den beiden jungen Männern, die an Vorurteilen und Intrigen zunächst zerbricht. Doch die schmerzliche Trennung währt nur vorübergehend. EIN FALL VON LIEBE ist der Klassiker des schwulen Liebesromans und längst zu einem Kultbuch der schwulen Literatur avanciert. (2. Teil der Trilogie: Die Freiheit der Liebe, 3. Teil: Im Licht der Liebe)
320 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1970
66 people are currently reading
1201 people want to read
About the author
Gordon Merrick
27 books88 followersSon of a stockbroker, Merrick studied French Literature at Princeton before becoming an actor on Broadway. Prior to WWII he landed a role in Kaufman & Hart's The Man Who Came to Dinner and even became Hart's lover for a time. Due to a hearing problem he had a draft deferrment but served in the O.S.S. rising to the rank of Captain for his service in France. His first novel, The Strumpet Wind (1947), told of an American spy in France during WWII. "I have not imagined the world in which these people lived," he wrote.
Besides appearing on Broadway, he worked as a reporter on many newspapers. He also contributed book reviews and articles to The New Republic, Ikonos and other periodicals. In all, Merrick wrote 13 books, but it was his specialized novels that dealt with gay issues which became best-sellers. Merrick's works are rarely included in anthologies, and few discussions of American gay authors mention him. Some dismiss Merrick because of his obvious romanticism; others do so because he sprinkles explicit sex scenes in these later novels.
Merrick examines the likelihood of self-actualization, identity politics and the role that power plays in relationships. He rejected socially-imposed roles and labels, insisting that each gay person question the assumptions underlying their life. Gordon Merrick broke new ground that has only recently become fertile. Deeper probing into Merrick's works will undoubtedly yield richer understandings of the complex social dynamics that construct networks of control over human sexuality.
Besides appearing on Broadway, he worked as a reporter on many newspapers. He also contributed book reviews and articles to The New Republic, Ikonos and other periodicals. In all, Merrick wrote 13 books, but it was his specialized novels that dealt with gay issues which became best-sellers. Merrick's works are rarely included in anthologies, and few discussions of American gay authors mention him. Some dismiss Merrick because of his obvious romanticism; others do so because he sprinkles explicit sex scenes in these later novels.
Merrick examines the likelihood of self-actualization, identity politics and the role that power plays in relationships. He rejected socially-imposed roles and labels, insisting that each gay person question the assumptions underlying their life. Gordon Merrick broke new ground that has only recently become fertile. Deeper probing into Merrick's works will undoubtedly yield richer understandings of the complex social dynamics that construct networks of control over human sexuality.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 99 reviews
March 18, 2012
I gave this book 5 stars as it was the first gay novel I had read that did not have the main character killed at the end. As a horny pent up 19yr old I used to love reading about the man to man sex, but this book also gave me something else, that relationships between gay men could be positive. Something that was not obvious to me in London in the early 80's.
October 22, 2014
This is a really quick read, though I confess I ended up skimming a bit. There's a lot of sex scenes and a lot of drama: if it weren't a popular early gay story it wouldn't mean very much, I think. But it was one of the earliest novels to feature gay characters who struggle with their identity and have a happy ending, and I was surprised at how quickly it got to that, too. Our sympathies are unequivocally with Peter and his desire for commitment, his passionate love for Charlie; while Charlie's struggles are treated with some understanding, it's not as though the narrative treats him as "in the right" for wanting to hide the relationship. In that sense, it's a celebration of queerness, of love (and yeah, sex) between two men, from a time when that was hard to find. No wonder it was popular.
On the other hand, there's plenty of unpleasantness here -- domestic violence, Charlie wanting to hurt various women and sometimes Peter, racism, homophobia from a few characters, internalised homophobia on Charlie's part, etc. No matter how good it was for gay people to read a passionate love story for them at the time, there's a lot that's problematic and off-putting.
And, frankly, for me the writing wasn't that good. Situations were contrived, there was a lot of repetition, and I didn't really believe in the sudden intensity of feeling from Peter -- Charlie's more grudging love was a little easier to believe in, but even so, they went into it at an amazing pace.
Still, it's kind of fun in a trashy way, and it is nice to have that happy end.
On the other hand, there's plenty of unpleasantness here -- domestic violence, Charlie wanting to hurt various women and sometimes Peter, racism, homophobia from a few characters, internalised homophobia on Charlie's part, etc. No matter how good it was for gay people to read a passionate love story for them at the time, there's a lot that's problematic and off-putting.
And, frankly, for me the writing wasn't that good. Situations were contrived, there was a lot of repetition, and I didn't really believe in the sudden intensity of feeling from Peter -- Charlie's more grudging love was a little easier to believe in, but even so, they went into it at an amazing pace.
Still, it's kind of fun in a trashy way, and it is nice to have that happy end.
May 16, 2018
Interesting as a historical document, but this book is such a product of its time - and as such, is laden with racism, misogyny, hatred of effeminacy and fucking awful characters. Even with its historical context it's pretty inexcusable.
January 27, 2015
Warning: Spoilers throughout.
If I could give this book zero stars I would. I understand that this was a shocking bestseller in 1970 and that it was hailed by many for showing a homosexual relationship that didn't end in tragedy. Maybe 45 years ago it was the Fear of Flying for the gay community. And now M/M romance is a hot commodity, so why not re-release it?
Well, how about misogyny, racism, sexual violence and completely contemptible characters as a good reason for this book to stay buried? Maybe Peter isn't too bad (although he is a complete doormat who throws over a perfectly decent guy) but Charlie Mills is just about the most odious man I have encountered in years. He seduces Peter, promises to love him forever, dumps him unceremoniously when his horrible grandmother threatens to disinherit him, rapes and beats his wife, then come crying back to Peter when he's in trouble. Even at the very end, he's ready to lie to his grandmother about his true feelings towards Peter until she forces him to confess all. At the novel's conclusion he has learned nothing, accepted absolutely no responsibility for his actions, and yet somehow the reader is supposed to be glad that he gets a happy ending.
And there are two more books in this series? No thanks. I'm sorry that readers who were interested in M/M novels back in the 1970s had few other choices besides this book, but thank goodness there is an embarrassment of riches of well-written M/M romance in the 21st century. I don't mind flawed MCs, but reprehensible ones beyond redemption like Charlie and ugly wall-bangers like this book should never again have seen the light of day.
If I could give this book zero stars I would. I understand that this was a shocking bestseller in 1970 and that it was hailed by many for showing a homosexual relationship that didn't end in tragedy. Maybe 45 years ago it was the Fear of Flying for the gay community. And now M/M romance is a hot commodity, so why not re-release it?
Well, how about misogyny, racism, sexual violence and completely contemptible characters as a good reason for this book to stay buried? Maybe Peter isn't too bad (although he is a complete doormat who throws over a perfectly decent guy) but Charlie Mills is just about the most odious man I have encountered in years. He seduces Peter, promises to love him forever, dumps him unceremoniously when his horrible grandmother threatens to disinherit him, rapes and beats his wife, then come crying back to Peter when he's in trouble. Even at the very end, he's ready to lie to his grandmother about his true feelings towards Peter until she forces him to confess all. At the novel's conclusion he has learned nothing, accepted absolutely no responsibility for his actions, and yet somehow the reader is supposed to be glad that he gets a happy ending.
And there are two more books in this series? No thanks. I'm sorry that readers who were interested in M/M novels back in the 1970s had few other choices besides this book, but thank goodness there is an embarrassment of riches of well-written M/M romance in the 21st century. I don't mind flawed MCs, but reprehensible ones beyond redemption like Charlie and ugly wall-bangers like this book should never again have seen the light of day.
January 11, 2022
As sudsy as all the other Gordon Merrick books. I was utterly captivated by the glorious raunchy actual sex, including the top's, um, post-coital ritual...what a relief! someone else knows!...and the loud, joyful celebratory sexual reality I recognized.
What a year 1974 was for this young, seriously screwed up kid. Thank Gordon I found this book before the grim, death-laden previous generation of "homosexual problem" novels. This was Me!! I loved it, I battened on it, and I wasn't about to say "no" to extra helpings...on or off the page.
What a year 1974 was for this young, seriously screwed up kid. Thank Gordon I found this book before the grim, death-laden previous generation of "homosexual problem" novels. This was Me!! I loved it, I battened on it, and I wasn't about to say "no" to extra helpings...on or off the page.
March 19, 2023
I want to begin by acknowledging what this book meant to the gay community when it was first published in 1970. This is purportedly the first gay romance to have a happy ending, revolutionary for the time. Thankfully, there’s no shortage of MM romances nowadays.
I was excited for the first queer romance in our Romance History Project. Unfortunately, there’s no limit to how horribly this aged. It’s is now my most hated romance after The Sheik. It also managed to be more racist than The Sheik.
It’s the most romancey of the books we’ve read for this project so far in that Peter and Charlie’s feelings for each other and their sexual relationship are the center of the plot but it was also an objectively terrible romance. I hated Charlie and hoped Peter would get away and find someone—anyone—else. It’s unfortunate this was the first positive representation many encountered. They deserved so much better.
Charlie is unredeemable. He never pays any consequences for his actions. (It was troubling to learn Merrick’s books are semi-autobiographical. Charlie is certainly the author’s stand-in. Yikes.) The first time Charlie and Peter are alone is dubcon at best, sexual assault at worst. The dick measuring scene read as predatory. Charlie didn’t at all care about what Peter wanted, much less whether it would bring him pleasure. That doesn’t really change through the arc of their relationship. Charlie’s wants and needs are the only things that matter.
I don’t recommend this book to anyone but I especially urge caution if intimate partner violence, sexual violence, racism, and homophobia are sensitive topics for you. Merrick doesn’t treat anything that Charlie does as a problem. It’s a lot to take and I did my best to be thorough about those CWs. With that in mind, Charlie doesn’t spend time justifying or rationalizing his actions or even thinking much about them at all. He wants to have sex when he wants it, he wants any acting role as his due, and he wants his grandmother CB to continue funding him. He finds Peter attractive so he takes him. He gets irritated by Peter wanting him to embrace being gay so he finds a girl to hook up with to “prove” he’s not gay and then sexually assaults her when she doesn’t move fast enough for him. He wants to fit in the parameters of the life his grandmother has set before him so he violently breaks up with Peter and immediately hooks up with Hattie, impulsively deciding to marry her the next day. When the marriage doesn’t go well (shock!), he rapes her. This is only scratching the surface.
While there’s much that needs to be unpacked (cock biting incident, anyone?), I’m only going to focus on the worst of the racism as I haven’t really seen it covered in reviews and the degree completely took me aback. This is a spoiler and I have tagged it as such in the content notes but I’m not going to hide it here because it needs to be called out. Charlie and Peter are overtly racist, although Peter initially pushes back on some of Charlie’s ideas and is more open to having relationships with Black people. But CB’s beliefs surpass theirs and are truly abhorrent. That is well before she finally reveals her father was secretly Black. She did not find this information out until she was already pregnant or she would not have had children. She believes in blood purity and white supremacy: she did not want her daughter to have children but she did so she is adamant that Charlie not have children so their blood won’t spread. Not only is this horrific, CB reveals this secret while forcing Charlie’s hands on her breasts during an argument. I have no idea what Merrick was thinking or what purpose this reveal could possibly serve. It was deeply upsetting to read.
Problematic aspects aside, the writing style didn’t work for me either. It’s very simplistic in style, which does the extremely instalove, extremely toxic relationship no favors. Not to mention the baked-in misogyny on top of everything else. It was a miserable reading experience from beginning to end. Merrick places great emphasis on Charlie having a large penis. It’s brought up repeatedly. With the revelation at the end that Charlie’s great-grandfather was Black, it raises the question of the stereotype and fetishization of Black men. The author also upholds beauty ideals that plague MM romance to this day.
It would be helpful to know more about this book’s impact. Who was the intended audience? It seemed like it was marketed toward white housewives, instead of those with lived experience. Did it directly lead to the publication of more MM romance? Who were Merrick’s contemporaries? I did learn he was friends with EM Forster and even read the manuscript of Maurice, although that was not published until a year after this, after Forster had died. (We’re reading that next for our project.) While this book is lauded on some lists as an important first, it was hard to find much by way of critique or even engagement with the text. Perhaps it’s widely known just how problematic this book is and no one in academic circles wants to touch it. The podcast Unsung History and the article The World Won’t Mind: The Accidental Success of Gordon Merrick provided relevant context about the author but not much by way of critique.
Characters: Charlie is a 21 year old gay white publishing clerk, artist, and aspiring actor. Peter is a 19 year old gay white college student. This begins during the summer of 1939 in Rumson, NJ and NYC.
Content notes: sexual assault by MC , incest/sexual assault , intimate partner violence , infidelity , rape apologism and sexual assault cover up, workplace sexual harassment , sexual coercion, alcohol abuse, homophobia, internalized homophobia, homophobic slurs, homophobic violence, racism, internalized racism , racial slurs (including the N-word), blood purity , misogyny, sexual shaming (Charlie tells his wife she’s frigid), slut-shaming, ableism, mental illness stigma, homosexuality conflated as mental illness, toxic grandmother, grandmother murdered her husband (past), Charlie’s grandfather was a physically abusive alcoholic, family planning discussion, unsafe sex practices (condomless sex with Hattie without prior discussion of STI or pregnancy prevention; she’s on birth control), on page sex, road head, biting, masturbation, alcohol, inebriation, hangover, marijuana, cigarettes, gender essentialism, ableist language, gendered pejoratives, hyperbolic language around suicide, mentions of people who died by suicide during the Depression, mention of suicidal ideation, war reference
*Buddy read with Charlotte, Hannah, and Vicky.
I was excited for the first queer romance in our Romance History Project. Unfortunately, there’s no limit to how horribly this aged. It’s is now my most hated romance after The Sheik. It also managed to be more racist than The Sheik.
It’s the most romancey of the books we’ve read for this project so far in that Peter and Charlie’s feelings for each other and their sexual relationship are the center of the plot but it was also an objectively terrible romance. I hated Charlie and hoped Peter would get away and find someone—anyone—else. It’s unfortunate this was the first positive representation many encountered. They deserved so much better.
Charlie is unredeemable. He never pays any consequences for his actions. (It was troubling to learn Merrick’s books are semi-autobiographical. Charlie is certainly the author’s stand-in. Yikes.) The first time Charlie and Peter are alone is dubcon at best, sexual assault at worst. The dick measuring scene read as predatory. Charlie didn’t at all care about what Peter wanted, much less whether it would bring him pleasure. That doesn’t really change through the arc of their relationship. Charlie’s wants and needs are the only things that matter.
I don’t recommend this book to anyone but I especially urge caution if intimate partner violence, sexual violence, racism, and homophobia are sensitive topics for you. Merrick doesn’t treat anything that Charlie does as a problem. It’s a lot to take and I did my best to be thorough about those CWs. With that in mind, Charlie doesn’t spend time justifying or rationalizing his actions or even thinking much about them at all. He wants to have sex when he wants it, he wants any acting role as his due, and he wants his grandmother CB to continue funding him. He finds Peter attractive so he takes him. He gets irritated by Peter wanting him to embrace being gay so he finds a girl to hook up with to “prove” he’s not gay and then sexually assaults her when she doesn’t move fast enough for him. He wants to fit in the parameters of the life his grandmother has set before him so he violently breaks up with Peter and immediately hooks up with Hattie, impulsively deciding to marry her the next day. When the marriage doesn’t go well (shock!), he rapes her. This is only scratching the surface.
While there’s much that needs to be unpacked (cock biting incident, anyone?), I’m only going to focus on the worst of the racism as I haven’t really seen it covered in reviews and the degree completely took me aback. This is a spoiler and I have tagged it as such in the content notes but I’m not going to hide it here because it needs to be called out. Charlie and Peter are overtly racist, although Peter initially pushes back on some of Charlie’s ideas and is more open to having relationships with Black people. But CB’s beliefs surpass theirs and are truly abhorrent. That is well before she finally reveals her father was secretly Black. She did not find this information out until she was already pregnant or she would not have had children. She believes in blood purity and white supremacy: she did not want her daughter to have children but she did so she is adamant that Charlie not have children so their blood won’t spread. Not only is this horrific, CB reveals this secret while forcing Charlie’s hands on her breasts during an argument. I have no idea what Merrick was thinking or what purpose this reveal could possibly serve. It was deeply upsetting to read.
Problematic aspects aside, the writing style didn’t work for me either. It’s very simplistic in style, which does the extremely instalove, extremely toxic relationship no favors. Not to mention the baked-in misogyny on top of everything else. It was a miserable reading experience from beginning to end. Merrick places great emphasis on Charlie having a large penis. It’s brought up repeatedly. With the revelation at the end that Charlie’s great-grandfather was Black, it raises the question of the stereotype and fetishization of Black men. The author also upholds beauty ideals that plague MM romance to this day.
It would be helpful to know more about this book’s impact. Who was the intended audience? It seemed like it was marketed toward white housewives, instead of those with lived experience. Did it directly lead to the publication of more MM romance? Who were Merrick’s contemporaries? I did learn he was friends with EM Forster and even read the manuscript of Maurice, although that was not published until a year after this, after Forster had died. (We’re reading that next for our project.) While this book is lauded on some lists as an important first, it was hard to find much by way of critique or even engagement with the text. Perhaps it’s widely known just how problematic this book is and no one in academic circles wants to touch it. The podcast Unsung History and the article The World Won’t Mind: The Accidental Success of Gordon Merrick provided relevant context about the author but not much by way of critique.
Characters: Charlie is a 21 year old gay white publishing clerk, artist, and aspiring actor. Peter is a 19 year old gay white college student. This begins during the summer of 1939 in Rumson, NJ and NYC.
Content notes: sexual assault by MC , incest/sexual assault , intimate partner violence , infidelity , rape apologism and sexual assault cover up, workplace sexual harassment , sexual coercion, alcohol abuse, homophobia, internalized homophobia, homophobic slurs, homophobic violence, racism, internalized racism , racial slurs (including the N-word), blood purity , misogyny, sexual shaming (Charlie tells his wife she’s frigid), slut-shaming, ableism, mental illness stigma, homosexuality conflated as mental illness, toxic grandmother, grandmother murdered her husband (past), Charlie’s grandfather was a physically abusive alcoholic, family planning discussion, unsafe sex practices (condomless sex with Hattie without prior discussion of STI or pregnancy prevention; she’s on birth control), on page sex, road head, biting, masturbation, alcohol, inebriation, hangover, marijuana, cigarettes, gender essentialism, ableist language, gendered pejoratives, hyperbolic language around suicide, mentions of people who died by suicide during the Depression, mention of suicidal ideation, war reference
*Buddy read with Charlotte, Hannah, and Vicky.
Read
April 12, 2023I've been putting off reviewing this book for over a month now, but here I am, because I don't want my list of reviews for the Romance History Project to be incomplete. The reason behind my hesitation is that reviewing this book critically and fairly involves balancing two fundamental yet difficult-to-reconcile aspects of the novel and its legacy. The first aspect is that The Lord Won't Mind was revolutionary and meaningful as perhaps the first book (claims of firstness always being complicated) to portray a central romantic arc with a happy ending for two men. Peter and Charlie's love, and indeed their physical attraction and sex life, is neither hidden nor euphemistic. It is the center of the book's concerns, a subject of literary text rather than subtext, and the path towards its happy resolution the driving force of the plot. The second aspect is that the book is eye-wateringly misogynistic, violent, and racist. The racism, in particular, is not an incidental attitude expressed by characters and easily understood as a "product of its time": it is fundamental to how the book frames the social significance of Peter and Charlie's relationship.
I step into the space of talking about this book really hesitantly and (I hope) carefully, as much as I can. In particular because I'm highly aware that in reviews of romance in general, and m/m romance in particular, voices of both queer men and people of color - and especially queer men of color - are often silenced or otherwise sidelined. The absence of those perspectives probably has a lot to do with why, in most mainstream reviews I've read, the full extent of the racism in this book is elided.
I do take it as a principle, though, that conversations about racism in romance aren't something that white reviewers should be opting out of. So I'm going to do my best to think through that here.
Doing so involves a quick run-down of the plot and particularly the denouement, which needs CWs for violence and racism. Peter and Charlie have been engaged in an emotionally tumultuous, on-again-off-again relationship throughout most of the book that has, as the final chapters approach, come to an end with Charlie's marriage to a woman (undertaken in part because, despite his attraction to Peter, Charlie believes marriage to a woman to be the only appropriate life path for him to take.) In the final scenes of the book, Charlie's wife assaults him by attempting to bite off his penis: this is both a horrific act of physical violence on her part, and an extension of the book's foundational assumption that all people without penises are grotesque, fundamentally lacking, and by extent living in a state of semi-hysterical envy. Charlie responds by beating her horribly and leaving her for dead: he and Peter "reconcile" as Peter attempts to ascertain if she is alive and, once finding her so (barely), to prevent her from reporting her own assault. The story then concludes with a seemingly-unrelated episode in which Charlie's grandmother reveals that her father was Black, that she's kept that fact a secret, and that it is why she has been adamant that Charlie never have any children, so as not to pass down this heritage. This story about Charlie's distant parentage is accepted - uncontested - as a foundational narrative to explain not only his sexual prowess (with which the book is obsessed) but also his violence and his attraction to men. All of these are described, for varying values of the term, as "beastly." The novel extends this already-horrific white supremacism by inviting the reader, too, to celebrate that Charlie will not be able to have biological children.
At the risk of sounding naive about encountering misogyny and racism in a book published in the 1970s, coming across this ending to the story was one of the more upsetting reading experiences I've ever had. It leaves me at a loss to reconcile not just what this book means as a part of romance history, but also what it means that very few reviews actually talk about the racism inherent in the ending. So many aspects of Charlie's queerness are given a foundation story in white supremacist attitudes, attitudes which are simply presented and then left there as an explanation, a coda, not a problem to unpack.
If anything, I suppose the experience of reading this novel left me with an impression of the difficulty - and necessity- of reading critically when multiple axes of marginalization are at play. Of understanding how a book can both be a watershed moment of inscribing queer romantic stories into literature and a horrific act of narrative violence against characters of color. And how really there isn't any way for the genre to fully grapple with that duality, absent reviews engaging the voices at the intersection of those issues, specifically queer men of color. I'm honestly not sure my reviewing this book serves a purpose, except I hope to both warn people of the content they might find here, and to try to do a bit of the work of reading critically even those texts that are taken to be foundational to the genre.
I step into the space of talking about this book really hesitantly and (I hope) carefully, as much as I can. In particular because I'm highly aware that in reviews of romance in general, and m/m romance in particular, voices of both queer men and people of color - and especially queer men of color - are often silenced or otherwise sidelined. The absence of those perspectives probably has a lot to do with why, in most mainstream reviews I've read, the full extent of the racism in this book is elided.
I do take it as a principle, though, that conversations about racism in romance aren't something that white reviewers should be opting out of. So I'm going to do my best to think through that here.
Doing so involves a quick run-down of the plot and particularly the denouement, which needs CWs for violence and racism. Peter and Charlie have been engaged in an emotionally tumultuous, on-again-off-again relationship throughout most of the book that has, as the final chapters approach, come to an end with Charlie's marriage to a woman (undertaken in part because, despite his attraction to Peter, Charlie believes marriage to a woman to be the only appropriate life path for him to take.) In the final scenes of the book, Charlie's wife assaults him by attempting to bite off his penis: this is both a horrific act of physical violence on her part, and an extension of the book's foundational assumption that all people without penises are grotesque, fundamentally lacking, and by extent living in a state of semi-hysterical envy. Charlie responds by beating her horribly and leaving her for dead: he and Peter "reconcile" as Peter attempts to ascertain if she is alive and, once finding her so (barely), to prevent her from reporting her own assault. The story then concludes with a seemingly-unrelated episode in which Charlie's grandmother reveals that her father was Black, that she's kept that fact a secret, and that it is why she has been adamant that Charlie never have any children, so as not to pass down this heritage. This story about Charlie's distant parentage is accepted - uncontested - as a foundational narrative to explain not only his sexual prowess (with which the book is obsessed) but also his violence and his attraction to men. All of these are described, for varying values of the term, as "beastly." The novel extends this already-horrific white supremacism by inviting the reader, too, to celebrate that Charlie will not be able to have biological children.
At the risk of sounding naive about encountering misogyny and racism in a book published in the 1970s, coming across this ending to the story was one of the more upsetting reading experiences I've ever had. It leaves me at a loss to reconcile not just what this book means as a part of romance history, but also what it means that very few reviews actually talk about the racism inherent in the ending. So many aspects of Charlie's queerness are given a foundation story in white supremacist attitudes, attitudes which are simply presented and then left there as an explanation, a coda, not a problem to unpack.
If anything, I suppose the experience of reading this novel left me with an impression of the difficulty - and necessity- of reading critically when multiple axes of marginalization are at play. Of understanding how a book can both be a watershed moment of inscribing queer romantic stories into literature and a horrific act of narrative violence against characters of color. And how really there isn't any way for the genre to fully grapple with that duality, absent reviews engaging the voices at the intersection of those issues, specifically queer men of color. I'm honestly not sure my reviewing this book serves a purpose, except I hope to both warn people of the content they might find here, and to try to do a bit of the work of reading critically even those texts that are taken to be foundational to the genre.
January 30, 2015
The writing is purpler than an enflamed sunset, but one can see why Gordon Merrick’s lurid, sex-and-histrionic soaked gay potboiler spent months on The New York Times bestseller list when unleashed on an unsuspecting world in 1970.
I read this reissue from Open Road Media with guilty pleasure, furtively in instalments over an extended period, as it is such a heady concoction of heightened lust and drama that the book threatens to overwhelm one’s sensibilities. (How different this is compared to contemporary, post-AIDS, gender and socio-politically-correct gay lit).
Some Goodreads readers have commented on the illicit joy of discovering Merrick in their schooldays. Well, if I had got my grimy paws on this book while in my teens, I would have bolted out of the closet as if attached to a springboard.
Tucked away among the melodramatic excesses of the plot is a careful account of a young gay man’s sexual edification. There is even straight sex, interestingly told from the (rather squeamish) point of a gay man. And cock-biting. But let’s not dwell on that too much.
While Merrick’s racial and gender politics leave a lot to be desired, Peter does has a fling with a black man (“ooee white boy”) he meets in a den of inquity in Harlem. It is especially interesting that even in this pre-gay rights era, Merrick almost instinctively links gay equality to universal equality in terms of both race and gender.
Such lofty ambitions aside, this is probably the closest we will ever get to a gay version of a Jackie Collins novel. I think a lot of readers will share in poor Peter’s cock-struck introduction to the vicissitudes of gay life.
What also struck me is that, despite the novel’s innocence, a lot of the relationship problems that Charlie and Peter bump into are as relevant today as they were in the 1970s. In particular, the character of Walter is beautifully evoked, lurking behind his paintings and his wealth, living vicariously through the twinks and tricks he surrounds himself with.
Some critics have argued that Merrick (perhaps unwittingly) instigated the cult of narcissism that continues to plague gay identity to this very day. While it is perhaps true that Charlie and Peter are too much of a perfect poster couple, it is so refreshing to read about such a couple, and to root for them through all their, er, ups and downs. And to have a happy ending! Golly, as Peter would say.
I read this reissue from Open Road Media with guilty pleasure, furtively in instalments over an extended period, as it is such a heady concoction of heightened lust and drama that the book threatens to overwhelm one’s sensibilities. (How different this is compared to contemporary, post-AIDS, gender and socio-politically-correct gay lit).
Some Goodreads readers have commented on the illicit joy of discovering Merrick in their schooldays. Well, if I had got my grimy paws on this book while in my teens, I would have bolted out of the closet as if attached to a springboard.
Tucked away among the melodramatic excesses of the plot is a careful account of a young gay man’s sexual edification. There is even straight sex, interestingly told from the (rather squeamish) point of a gay man. And cock-biting. But let’s not dwell on that too much.
While Merrick’s racial and gender politics leave a lot to be desired, Peter does has a fling with a black man (“ooee white boy”) he meets in a den of inquity in Harlem. It is especially interesting that even in this pre-gay rights era, Merrick almost instinctively links gay equality to universal equality in terms of both race and gender.
Such lofty ambitions aside, this is probably the closest we will ever get to a gay version of a Jackie Collins novel. I think a lot of readers will share in poor Peter’s cock-struck introduction to the vicissitudes of gay life.
What also struck me is that, despite the novel’s innocence, a lot of the relationship problems that Charlie and Peter bump into are as relevant today as they were in the 1970s. In particular, the character of Walter is beautifully evoked, lurking behind his paintings and his wealth, living vicariously through the twinks and tricks he surrounds himself with.
Some critics have argued that Merrick (perhaps unwittingly) instigated the cult of narcissism that continues to plague gay identity to this very day. While it is perhaps true that Charlie and Peter are too much of a perfect poster couple, it is so refreshing to read about such a couple, and to root for them through all their, er, ups and downs. And to have a happy ending! Golly, as Peter would say.
September 27, 2019
Admittedly a captivating book that will have you turning pages, "The Lord Won't Mind" is less a sexy tale of love and happiness (as the back cover describes it) and more so a tale of a seriously toxic relationship between two men who need to work out their issues in therapy before they ever date again.
Gordon Merrick's landmark novel that sold thousands of copies - almost breaking the LGBT book glass ceiling - tells the story of Charlie and Peter, as they meet, fall in love, and the various trials, triumphs, and tragedies that intercede these moments. If you can find the ability to dig through the books outright racist bent, then maybe you might be able to enjoy this book, but for the most part this book stands as a prime example of why white gays dating their white gay twins is really racist.
A book that is perhaps worth a read, approach it lightly.
Gordon Merrick's landmark novel that sold thousands of copies - almost breaking the LGBT book glass ceiling - tells the story of Charlie and Peter, as they meet, fall in love, and the various trials, triumphs, and tragedies that intercede these moments. If you can find the ability to dig through the books outright racist bent, then maybe you might be able to enjoy this book, but for the most part this book stands as a prime example of why white gays dating their white gay twins is really racist.
A book that is perhaps worth a read, approach it lightly.
May 18, 2024
Launching the Peter and Charlie trilogy, this incredibly entertaining and seriously sexy novel about cousins falling in love was too hot to handle for publishers for years after the series was written from 1959-1961, and all three books are first rate.
The series is a genre-bender that crosses over from literary-quality erotica to romance. It's never cheesy. Nor is it precious. And when the scene calls for (a) hot sex or (b) character/plot development, you can pretty much guarantee it'll be hot sex. Even so, these are much better written than the gay "potboilers" that Merrick churned out for pulp readers. Warning, readers: Merrick's other books don't compare to these three.
And then there's the ick factor. No, I don't mean that ick factor. I mean bigotry. Expect all the prejudices of the era in this coming-of-age story set in upper class America (mostly New York) before World War II. The offensiveness level is on par with Herman Wouk's Don't Stop the Carnival, which might be why the two books live together on my bookshelf.
Bottom line: the highest enjoyment here is the sex writing. If you don't think you'll like reading great scenes of off-the-charts gay male sex, then you might give this a miss. If you're on the fence, go for it. I think Merrick may be the best erotic writer that ever was. You're in for a wild lusty ride punctuated by a juicy, compelling tale of WASPS in love during a repressive era.
The series is a genre-bender that crosses over from literary-quality erotica to romance. It's never cheesy. Nor is it precious. And when the scene calls for (a) hot sex or (b) character/plot development, you can pretty much guarantee it'll be hot sex. Even so, these are much better written than the gay "potboilers" that Merrick churned out for pulp readers. Warning, readers: Merrick's other books don't compare to these three.
And then there's the ick factor. No, I don't mean that ick factor. I mean bigotry. Expect all the prejudices of the era in this coming-of-age story set in upper class America (mostly New York) before World War II. The offensiveness level is on par with Herman Wouk's Don't Stop the Carnival, which might be why the two books live together on my bookshelf.
Bottom line: the highest enjoyment here is the sex writing. If you don't think you'll like reading great scenes of off-the-charts gay male sex, then you might give this a miss. If you're on the fence, go for it. I think Merrick may be the best erotic writer that ever was. You're in for a wild lusty ride punctuated by a juicy, compelling tale of WASPS in love during a repressive era.
March 6, 2009
“The Lord Won’t Mind” is a peculiar but entertaining novel. Gordon Merrick writes of the all-consuming pre-War love between two young men from respectable families both of whom put Adonis to shame. God’s gift to beauty, they even look alike. A possessive, overbearing grandmother introduces the younger Peter to her beloved 23yo grandson Charlie. She has mentoring in mind, but the two men fall instantly in love. But this is the early 1940s, right before World War II, an era in which being openly gay is taboo – unless you’re in the big city and into theater or something. Despite their ever-present hardons, Charlie is in denial about his true sexuality. He doesn’t consider his love for Peter to be “queer.” 19yo Peter, on the other hand, embraces this his first-ever love with complete openness and ardor. That’s about the first 100 pages -- one steamy sex scene after another.
Pulp fiction gay romance? That’s what I was thinking at this point. But after Charlie and Peter’s relationship is indelibly established, the plot thickens. I got hooked. This novel is not only about forbidden love in the 1940s but about ideal beauty, self-awareness, the role of power in a relationship, and who you can trust. It also says a lot about the place of African Americans at the time, peripherally.
As far as his writing, Merrick’s use of ellipsis can be a little off-putting at times, i.e. jumping ahead too quickly. He’s perfectly comfortable with the usual slang terms relating to sex, like the “f” word. Yet he consistently uses the word “sex” to refer to the penis. I found this somewhat annoying, I’m not sure why. And his writing can be rather stilted and mawkish:
“He felt consumed, absorbed, penetrated, possessed beyond the possibility of his own identity’s survival. It was an oblivion he had sought and dreamed of.”
“Peter stepped forward and his sex rose to complete its erection.”
“His sex reared up and grew under his knowledgeable touch and locked into rigidity.”
“Hattie had one reading that made everybody stir slightly with sounds of amusement.”
Pulp fiction gay romance? That’s what I was thinking at this point. But after Charlie and Peter’s relationship is indelibly established, the plot thickens. I got hooked. This novel is not only about forbidden love in the 1940s but about ideal beauty, self-awareness, the role of power in a relationship, and who you can trust. It also says a lot about the place of African Americans at the time, peripherally.
As far as his writing, Merrick’s use of ellipsis can be a little off-putting at times, i.e. jumping ahead too quickly. He’s perfectly comfortable with the usual slang terms relating to sex, like the “f” word. Yet he consistently uses the word “sex” to refer to the penis. I found this somewhat annoying, I’m not sure why. And his writing can be rather stilted and mawkish:
“He felt consumed, absorbed, penetrated, possessed beyond the possibility of his own identity’s survival. It was an oblivion he had sought and dreamed of.”
“Peter stepped forward and his sex rose to complete its erection.”
“His sex reared up and grew under his knowledgeable touch and locked into rigidity.”
“Hattie had one reading that made everybody stir slightly with sounds of amusement.”
September 4, 2011
This book was a mess in so many ways. Smutty, racist, sexist. I understand it was groundbreaking for its time and the racism was surely realistic given the time period of the novel. However, the misogyny was really hard to take and, in my opinion, unecessary to the story of the two main characters.
January 24, 2021
Η ηλικιωμένη αριστοκράτισσα C.B. ανακοινώνει στον εγγονό της Charlie Mills πως του επέλεξε για ιδανικό σύντροφο του το καλοκαίρι έναν όμορφο μακρινό του νεαρό ξάδερφο και επρόκειτο να τους επισκεφτεί σύντομα. Έτσι ξεκινά αυτό το πορνογραφικό ρομαντικό gay μυθιστόρημα, που έκανε θραύση εμπορικά στην εποχή του και σήμερα έχει ξεχαστεί. Βιβλίο με άψογη, δυνατή γλώσσα, εθιστικό και για πολλούς λόγους δυσάρεστο και αμφιλεγόμενο.
Το μυθιστορηματικό σύμπαν που εμπνέεται ο Gordon Merrick έχει αδιαμφισβήτητες ρίζες στην πραγματική του ζωή. Γιος μανατζαρέου τραπέζης , μεγαλωμένος στην υπερβολή, την πολυτέλεια και την εκζήτηση της τάξης του, τολμά μια περιπετειώδη ζωή, κάτω από τις ιδιαίτερες ιστορικές συνθήκες που βίωσε η γενιά του, και τελικά, υπηρετώντας στον Β παγκόσμιο, συνέβαλε και ως κατάσκοπος των ΗΠΑ στην κατεχόμενη Γαλλία (η υπηρεσία του ήταν πρόγονος της CIA). Μεταπολεμικά, όπως κι πολλοί άλλοι συγγραφείς με εμπειρία μυστικών υπηρεσιών (Greene, Durell, LeCarre, Burgess, Maugham, κτλ) δεν συνέχισε στην υπηρεσία.
Αντίθετα ξεκινά καριέρα λογοτέχνη. Ωστόσο, η λογοτεχνία που υπηρετεί, στις παρυφές του pulp, δηλαδή του φτηνού, της "Χαμηλής λογοτεχνίας", σχετίζεται άμεσα και με το φαινόμενο του camp. Δηλαδή, υπάρχουν ήρωες- περσόνες με την υπερβολή μιας Gloria Swanson στη Λεωφόρο της Δύσεως. Υπάρχει το στυλιζάρισμα, το ανεπιφύλακτα επιφανειακό θέμα, που αντιμετωπίζεται σοβαρά. Συμβαίνει να κινείται και εκτός της ηθικής και των αξιών, πιο κοντά, βέβαια, στη συμπεριφορά και τη νοοτροπία των αστών/αριστοκρατών της εποχής που επιλέγει ο Merrick να βάλει τους ήρωες του. Νοοτροπίες χωρίς κανένα μασκάρεμα της χυδαιότητας και της ποταπότητας τους (θα αναφερθούμε παρακάτω λεπτομερώς). Με τον τρόπο αυτόν απέχει από τη "μεγάλη λογοτεχνία", όπου δεν περιγράφει απλώς, αλλά εμβαθύνει στην ανθρώπινη ψυχή, προτείνει μια ηθική στάση, μια άλλη κοινωνία, κτλ. Το κυριότερο, ωστόσο, στοιχείο που κάνει το βιβλίο ανυπέρβλητα camp είναι πως η ύψιστη του ιδέα, ο στόχος, η ιδεολογία του ακόμα ακόμα είναι το υπέρμετρο, το πέραν των ορίων πάθος. Και σε αυτό αφιερώνεται ο Merrick.
"Come on. Let's get back to bed where we belong, even if we are both boys" (199)
Η λαγνεία του βιβλίου το καθιστά ανυποχώρητα και ανερυθρίαστα πορνογραφικό. Όχι τυχαία κυκλοφόρησε το 1970 στις ΗΠΑ, τη χρονιά που το κλασικό πορνογραφικό "Φάννυ Χίλλ. Αναμνήσεις μιας γυναίκας της ηδονής" (μεταφρασμένο στα ελληνικά από τον γκέυ ποιητή Λουκά Θεοδωρακόπουλο) βγήκε επιτέλους ολόκληρο, χωρίς λογοκρισία, στην κυκλοφορία. Απαγορευμένο στις ΗΠΑ από το 1821 ήδη το 1963 πέρασε το τελευταίο δικαστήριο για προσβολή των ηθών και είναι ακριβώς η εποχή που και ο Merrick προσπαθούσε να δημοσιεύσει το The Lord won't mind". Η επιτυχία του οφείλεται και στην εποχή που το κοινό μπορούσε πια ελεύθερα να διαβάσει πορνογραφία, αλλά συνέπεσε και με το Gay Liberation Front, μετά το Stownwall riot, όπου πίεζε δυναμικότερα της ετεροκανονική κοινωνία και μάζες gay αντρών απαιτούσαν την ορατότητα τους συνειδητότερα και διψασμένα.
Ο Merrick γράφει από την εμπειρία της αστικής του καταγωγής τους αστούς ήρωες του. Νομίζω αυτούς τους ανθρώπους γνώριζε και επέλεξε οι χαρακτήρες του να εκφράσουν καθαρά όλα τα σκληρά στερεότυπα και τη βια ενός κόσμου προορισμένου να στηρίζεται πάνω στη δύναμη και την εξουσία των αντρών. Οι ήρωες, από την αριστοκρατία του αμερικανικού Νότου, είναι όσο απαράδεκτοι και απωθητικοί, τους επιβάλλει η εποχή και η τάξη τους ή το φύλο τους με όλα τα κοινωνικά του συμπαρομαρτούντα. Δεν έχω ξαναδεί τόσο απλά να εκφέρεται η λέξη "nigger" ή "blackie" σε βιβλίο, τόσο σκληρά να υποτιμάται και να κακοποιείται το γυναικείο φύλο, τόσο ρεαλιστικά και χωρίς να το κρύψει έντεχνα με ηθικισμό, ο ήρωας να εκφράζει αυτό που λέμε σήμερα "κουλτούρα βιασμού".
Το βιβλίο το δέχεσαι όπως είναι: Σοκαριστικό, γιατί οι χειρότερες, προσβλητικότερες απόψεις και στάσεις, που όλοι ξέρουμε οτι υπήρξαν και, δυστυχώς, υπάρχουν, εκφράζονται χωρίς περιστροφή και μάγκωμα. Εκφράζονται πολύ φυσικά, απόλυτα εναρμονισμένα με την εποχή τους. Αυτό μπορεί να ενοχλεί και ενοχλεί. Ο συγγραφέας δεν κρίνει τίποτα, ούτε όμως αποτρέπει από το να πάρεις θέση ως αναγνώστης ενάντια στους ήρωες του. Ο τρόπος γραφής του δεν είναι ρατσιστικός, καθώς δεν εγκλωβίζει νοηματικά, δεν οδηγεί ως συμπέρασμα, αλλά παραθέτει μια υπαρκτή πραγματικότητα.
Τελικά εχθρεύεται ο συγγραφέας τις απόψεις αυτές μόνο όταν πρακτικά ζημιώνουν τον αληθινό σκοπό του βιβλίου: την άφεση στο απόλυτο πάθος του αντρικού έρωτα. Ο συγγραφέας απαιτεί κι αυτός την απελευθέρωση των ομοφυλόφιλων, ζητά να μπορεί ελεύθερα κανείς να είναι ο αληθινός του εαυτός. Επιπλέον το βιβλίο κινείται στη λογική ενός ερεθιστικού φαλλοκρατισμού, πιθανώς κυρίαρχου στις αυστηρώς αντρικές κοινότητες ομοφυλόφιλων της προ Στόουνγουλ εποχής και σίγουρα της προ λοατκι+ εποχής.
Το ασυγχώρητο στο βιβλίο είναι αυτή, ακριβώς, η κακοποίηση των γυναικών. Ολοκάθαρα και αμετανόητα κακοποιούνται στο βιβλίο και φυσικά αυτό δεν μπορεί να δικαιολογηθεί από το γεγονός πως οι ήρωες είναι εξίσου βίαιοι με τον εαυτό τους, καρατομώντας τον ίδιο τον εαυτό τους, την φύση τους, μισώντας τη θηλυπρέπεια, την όποια υποβάθμιση από τη θέση του κραταιού και ισχυρού εξουσιαστικού αρσενικού. Γιατί η αποδοχή του ομοφυλόφιλου εαυτού, της πουστιάς (με την διαχυτικότητα της, την ειδική ελκτική της οικειότητα που ενισχύει την αίσθηση της κοινότητας), στην εποχή που περιγράφει άκριτα -και υιοθετεί- το βιβλίο δεν χωρά την αποδοχή των γυναικείων αναγκών. Γιατί ο αυτοσεβασμός δεν γίνεται αλληλοσεβασμός. Είναι , όμως μάλλον πρώιμο να απαιτούμε από ένα τέτοιο βιβλίο να έχει ενσυναίσθηση του διαφορετικού από αυτό, της γυναικείας πραγματικότητας. Είναι προιόν ενός καταπιεσμένου κόσμου και κατέχει παρά ταύτα και πάλι κομμάτι του αντρικού προνομίου εις βάρος των γυναικών, μισώντας τες. Αλλά, όπως είπαμε, το βιβλίο το δεχόμαστε όπως είναι. Σκληρό, ακόμα και αληθινά δυσάρεστο.
Μια άλλη προσέγγιση του μισογυνισμου των ομοφυλόφιλων της εποχής που απαντάται και στο βιβλίο ίσως είναι και ο ανταγωνισμός με τις γυναίκες για τα αρσενικά. Πολλοί στρέιτ άντρες, για χαρτζιλίκι ή λόγω της μη διαθεσιμότητας των γυναικών για εύκολο σεξ πήγαιναν με άντρες. Αυτό φαίνεται και από την ποίηση του Χριστιανόπουλου, μάλιστα απορρίπτοντας τα σύγχρονα γκευ δικαιώματα που στέρησαν τα παλιά αρσενικά από τις πιάτσες. Μαζί με αυτό ας συνυπολογιστεί ότι συχνά ήταν υποχρεωμενοι σε lavender wedding, λευκό γάμο με γυναίκες ή και προσπαθώντας να ζήσουν μια ετεροφυλόφιλη ζωή. Φυσικά γυναίκες ήταν και οι μάνες και οι αδερφές τους, όχι σπάνια φορείς καταπίεσης και οι ίδιες. Η οπτική αυτή δείχνει όχι μια διακαιολογιση, αλλά μια προσπάθεια εξήγησης στάσης.
"I say if it's love the Lord won't mind. There's enough hate in the word. Now you're married he's a pretty lonely boy" (170)
Αυτό ξεστομίζει η πρώην μαύρη υπηρέτρια του ήρωα, που τώρα είναι διάσημη τραγουδίστρια. Από την περιφρονημένη μαύρη γυναίκα επιλέγει ο συγγραφέας να παραδοθεί η λεκτική αποδοχή της αληθινής φύσης του ήρωα. Αυτό το "δεν πειράζει, ας είσαι ο εαυτός σου". Στον αντρικό κόσμο του βιβλίου εκθειάζεται το μέγεθος, η εμφάνιση, η σεξουαλική επίδοση σε εξωπραγματικό βαθμό. Είναι ένας ακόμα λόγος που το καθιστά camp. Και το camp δεν έχει πολύ νόημα να το κρίνεις, σου επιτρέπει, ωστόσο να το απολαύσεις. Και το απολαμβάνεις έτσι τέλεια σεξουαλικό, ερεθιστικά ξεσηκωτικό, αλλά και με εκείνη την βεβαίωση πως φτάνει ένα βλέμμα για να καταλάβεις οτι ο άλλος είναι ή δεν είναι ο κατάλληλος άντρας για σένα. Με την αίσθηση του να αφήνεσαι να ζήσεις την απόλυτη παράδοση στον άλλο.
Το γαμήσι στο βιβλίο είναι έξοχα γραμμένο. Πραγματικός, αληθινός τεχνίτης του ερωτισμού ο Merrick.
Γράφτηκε στην Ύδρα το 1970, αλλά φαίνεται πως ο συγγραφέας έμενε συχνά και είχε πάθος με Ελλάδα.
Το μυθιστορηματικό σύμπαν που εμπνέεται ο Gordon Merrick έχει αδιαμφισβήτητες ρίζες στην πραγματική του ζωή. Γιος μανατζαρέου τραπέζης , μεγαλωμένος στην υπερβολή, την πολυτέλεια και την εκζήτηση της τάξης του, τολμά μια περιπετειώδη ζωή, κάτω από τις ιδιαίτερες ιστορικές συνθήκες που βίωσε η γενιά του, και τελικά, υπηρετώντας στον Β παγκόσμιο, συνέβαλε και ως κατάσκοπος των ΗΠΑ στην κατεχόμενη Γαλλία (η υπηρεσία του ήταν πρόγονος της CIA). Μεταπολεμικά, όπως κι πολλοί άλλοι συγγραφείς με εμπειρία μυστικών υπηρεσιών (Greene, Durell, LeCarre, Burgess, Maugham, κτλ) δεν συνέχισε στην υπηρεσία.
Αντίθετα ξεκινά καριέρα λογοτέχνη. Ωστόσο, η λογοτεχνία που υπηρετεί, στις παρυφές του pulp, δηλαδή του φτηνού, της "Χαμηλής λογοτεχνίας", σχετίζεται άμεσα και με το φαινόμενο του camp. Δηλαδή, υπάρχουν ήρωες- περσόνες με την υπερβολή μιας Gloria Swanson στη Λεωφόρο της Δύσεως. Υπάρχει το στυλιζάρισμα, το ανεπιφύλακτα επιφανειακό θέμα, που αντιμετωπίζεται σοβαρά. Συμβαίνει να κινείται και εκτός της ηθικής και των αξιών, πιο κοντά, βέβαια, στη συμπεριφορά και τη νοοτροπία των αστών/αριστοκρατών της εποχής που επιλέγει ο Merrick να βάλει τους ήρωες του. Νοοτροπίες χωρίς κανένα μασκάρεμα της χυδαιότητας και της ποταπότητας τους (θα αναφερθούμε παρακάτω λεπτομερώς). Με τον τρόπο αυτόν απέχει από τη "μεγάλη λογοτεχνία", όπου δεν περιγράφει απλώς, αλλά εμβαθύνει στην ανθρώπινη ψυχή, προτείνει μια ηθική στάση, μια άλλη κοινωνία, κτλ. Το κυριότερο, ωστόσο, στοιχείο που κάνει το βιβλίο ανυπέρβλητα camp είναι πως η ύψιστη του ιδέα, ο στόχος, η ιδεολογία του ακόμα ακόμα είναι το υπέρμετρο, το πέραν των ορίων πάθος. Και σε αυτό αφιερώνεται ο Merrick.
"Come on. Let's get back to bed where we belong, even if we are both boys" (199)
Η λαγνεία του βιβλίου το καθιστά ανυποχώρητα και ανερυθρίαστα πορνογραφικό. Όχι τυχαία κυκλοφόρησε το 1970 στις ΗΠΑ, τη χρονιά που το κλασικό πορνογραφικό "Φάννυ Χίλλ. Αναμνήσεις μιας γυναίκας της ηδονής" (μεταφρασμένο στα ελληνικά από τον γκέυ ποιητή Λουκά Θεοδωρακόπουλο) βγήκε επιτέλους ολόκληρο, χωρίς λογοκρισία, στην κυκλοφορία. Απαγορευμένο στις ΗΠΑ από το 1821 ήδη το 1963 πέρασε το τελευταίο δικαστήριο για προσβολή των ηθών και είναι ακριβώς η εποχή που και ο Merrick προσπαθούσε να δημοσιεύσει το The Lord won't mind". Η επιτυχία του οφείλεται και στην εποχή που το κοινό μπορούσε πια ελεύθερα να διαβάσει πορνογραφία, αλλά συνέπεσε και με το Gay Liberation Front, μετά το Stownwall riot, όπου πίεζε δυναμικότερα της ετεροκανονική κοινωνία και μάζες gay αντρών απαιτούσαν την ορατότητα τους συνειδητότερα και διψασμένα.
Ο Merrick γράφει από την εμπειρία της αστικής του καταγωγής τους αστούς ήρωες του. Νομίζω αυτούς τους ανθρώπους γνώριζε και επέλεξε οι χαρακτήρες του να εκφράσουν καθαρά όλα τα σκληρά στερεότυπα και τη βια ενός κόσμου προορισμένου να στηρίζεται πάνω στη δύναμη και την εξουσία των αντρών. Οι ήρωες, από την αριστοκρατία του αμερικανικού Νότου, είναι όσο απαράδεκτοι και απωθητικοί, τους επιβάλλει η εποχή και η τάξη τους ή το φύλο τους με όλα τα κοινωνικά του συμπαρομαρτούντα. Δεν έχω ξαναδεί τόσο απλά να εκφέρεται η λέξη "nigger" ή "blackie" σε βιβλίο, τόσο σκληρά να υποτιμάται και να κακοποιείται το γυναικείο φύλο, τόσο ρεαλιστικά και χωρίς να το κρύψει έντεχνα με ηθικισμό, ο ήρωας να εκφράζει αυτό που λέμε σήμερα "κουλτούρα βιασμού".
Το βιβλίο το δέχεσαι όπως είναι: Σοκαριστικό, γιατί οι χειρότερες, προσβλητικότερες απόψεις και στάσεις, που όλοι ξέρουμε οτι υπήρξαν και, δυστυχώς, υπάρχουν, εκφράζονται χωρίς περιστροφή και μάγκωμα. Εκφράζονται πολύ φυσικά, απόλυτα εναρμονισμένα με την εποχή τους. Αυτό μπορεί να ενοχλεί και ενοχλεί. Ο συγγραφέας δεν κρίνει τίποτα, ούτε όμως αποτρέπει από το να πάρεις θέση ως αναγνώστης ενάντια στους ήρωες του. Ο τρόπος γραφής του δεν είναι ρατσιστικός, καθώς δεν εγκλωβίζει νοηματικά, δεν οδηγεί ως συμπέρασμα, αλλά παραθέτει μια υπαρκτή πραγματικότητα.
Τελικά εχθρεύεται ο συγγραφέας τις απόψεις αυτές μόνο όταν πρακτικά ζημιώνουν τον αληθινό σκοπό του βιβλίου: την άφεση στο απόλυτο πάθος του αντρικού έρωτα. Ο συγγραφέας απαιτεί κι αυτός την απελευθέρωση των ομοφυλόφιλων, ζητά να μπορεί ελεύθερα κανείς να είναι ο αληθινός του εαυτός. Επιπλέον το βιβλίο κινείται στη λογική ενός ερεθιστικού φαλλοκρατισμού, πιθανώς κυρίαρχου στις αυστηρώς αντρικές κοινότητες ομοφυλόφιλων της προ Στόουνγουλ εποχής και σίγουρα της προ λοατκι+ εποχής.
Το ασυγχώρητο στο βιβλίο είναι αυτή, ακριβώς, η κακοποίηση των γυναικών. Ολοκάθαρα και αμετανόητα κακοποιούνται στο βιβλίο και φυσικά αυτό δεν μπορεί να δικαιολογηθεί από το γεγονός πως οι ήρωες είναι εξίσου βίαιοι με τον εαυτό τους, καρατομώντας τον ίδιο τον εαυτό τους, την φύση τους, μισώντας τη θηλυπρέπεια, την όποια υποβάθμιση από τη θέση του κραταιού και ισχυρού εξουσιαστικού αρσενικού. Γιατί η αποδοχή του ομοφυλόφιλου εαυτού, της πουστιάς (με την διαχυτικότητα της, την ειδική ελκτική της οικειότητα που ενισχύει την αίσθηση της κοινότητας), στην εποχή που περιγράφει άκριτα -και υιοθετεί- το βιβλίο δεν χωρά την αποδοχή των γυναικείων αναγκών. Γιατί ο αυτοσεβασμός δεν γίνεται αλληλοσεβασμός. Είναι , όμως μάλλον πρώιμο να απαιτούμε από ένα τέτοιο βιβλίο να έχει ενσυναίσθηση του διαφορετικού από αυτό, της γυναικείας πραγματικότητας. Είναι προιόν ενός καταπιεσμένου κόσμου και κατέχει παρά ταύτα και πάλι κομμάτι του αντρικού προνομίου εις βάρος των γυναικών, μισώντας τες. Αλλά, όπως είπαμε, το βιβλίο το δεχόμαστε όπως είναι. Σκληρό, ακόμα και αληθινά δυσάρεστο.
Μια άλλη προσέγγιση του μισογυνισμου των ομοφυλόφιλων της εποχής που απαντάται και στο βιβλίο ίσως είναι και ο ανταγωνισμός με τις γυναίκες για τα αρσενικά. Πολλοί στρέιτ άντρες, για χαρτζιλίκι ή λόγω της μη διαθεσιμότητας των γυναικών για εύκολο σεξ πήγαιναν με άντρες. Αυτό φαίνεται και από την ποίηση του Χριστιανόπουλου, μάλιστα απορρίπτοντας τα σύγχρονα γκευ δικαιώματα που στέρησαν τα παλιά αρσενικά από τις πιάτσες. Μαζί με αυτό ας συνυπολογιστεί ότι συχνά ήταν υποχρεωμενοι σε lavender wedding, λευκό γάμο με γυναίκες ή και προσπαθώντας να ζήσουν μια ετεροφυλόφιλη ζωή. Φυσικά γυναίκες ήταν και οι μάνες και οι αδερφές τους, όχι σπάνια φορείς καταπίεσης και οι ίδιες. Η οπτική αυτή δείχνει όχι μια διακαιολογιση, αλλά μια προσπάθεια εξήγησης στάσης.
"I say if it's love the Lord won't mind. There's enough hate in the word. Now you're married he's a pretty lonely boy" (170)
Αυτό ξεστομίζει η πρώην μαύρη υπηρέτρια του ήρωα, που τώρα είναι διάσημη τραγουδίστρια. Από την περιφρονημένη μαύρη γυναίκα επιλέγει ο συγγραφέας να παραδοθεί η λεκτική αποδοχή της αληθινής φύσης του ήρωα. Αυτό το "δεν πειράζει, ας είσαι ο εαυτός σου". Στον αντρικό κόσμο του βιβλίου εκθειάζεται το μέγεθος, η εμφάνιση, η σεξουαλική επίδοση σε εξωπραγματικό βαθμό. Είναι ένας ακόμα λόγος που το καθιστά camp. Και το camp δεν έχει πολύ νόημα να το κρίνεις, σου επιτρέπει, ωστόσο να το απολαύσεις. Και το απολαμβάνεις έτσι τέλεια σεξουαλικό, ερεθιστικά ξεσηκωτικό, αλλά και με εκείνη την βεβαίωση πως φτάνει ένα βλέμμα για να καταλάβεις οτι ο άλλος είναι ή δεν είναι ο κατάλληλος άντρας για σένα. Με την αίσθηση του να αφήνεσαι να ζήσεις την απόλυτη παράδοση στον άλλο.
Το γαμήσι στο βιβλίο είναι έξοχα γραμμένο. Πραγματικός, αληθινός τεχνίτης του ερωτισμού ο Merrick.
Γράφτηκε στην Ύδρα το 1970, αλλά φαίνεται πως ο συγγραφέας έμενε συχνά και είχε πάθος με Ελλάδα.
May 12, 2024
I really don't remember this book very well, so I give it a neutral, smack in the middle rating. I read this novel as a horny teenager in high school. I do remember that it was quite sexy. But it did cause problems in the family. My mother was a very religious woman, though not much of a reader. None of my books had ever been in danger of her perusal; my mother had zero interest in the written word, unless it came from the Bible. But then she stumbled about this Merrick novel. The title made her think it was religious. Boy was she ever in for a shock. LOL, she burned the book. From that moment on, I had to be careful about what texts I brought into the house.
June 22, 2015
4 Heart Review by Dan
I want to start by saying there are words and situations in this book which some might find highly offensive. I’ve included some of them in my review below for examples. They are by no means words I would ever utter.
How do you do a review on a book that spent 16 weeks on the New York Times Bestseller list when it was published in 1970? I remember the first time I saw this book in a book store in Manhattan in 1980. I had to have it, lurid cover and all. If any of you remember the original paperbacks, they were obviously about gay men, as you can see from the original paperback cover that I put in below. Only problem, I was in the Navy, stationed at Brooklyn Navy Yard and read the book in my open bay barracks hiding that damn cover! As a 19 year old gay kid, this book was a huge eye opener for me. It was a romance, but with gay guys!
The Lord Won't Mind
So, those sayings about how you can’t go back are really true in this case. I remember being enraptured the entire time I read this book and the other two in the trilogy 35 years ago (boy do I feel old now). I definitely would have rated it 5 stars if I’d been reviewing back then.
The Lord Won’t Mind was written sometime in the 1960’s and published in 1970. It was a very important work for its time. America was in the middle of a social and sexual revolution. Remember that in late June 1969, the Stonewall Riot occurred. Police in 1969 were still arresting gay men and lesbians in the US. Along comes Gordon Merrick, who not only writes a smutty book about gay men, but sets it 30 years before then in 1940. And even worse, he had the bad taste to be one of the first, if not the first, author to give the queers a happy ending. Prior to this, queers were allowed in books and movies, but they always had to be miserable, die alone, and always die before the end of the book or movie. Sad pathetic little men were what homosexuals were portrayed as prior to this.
Charlie Mills is a spoiled rich kid. He has always been his grandmother C.B.’s favorite and has never wanted for anything. He spends summers with her in her coastal summer home, hangs out at the country club, etc., etc. All that changes one year when C.B. introduces him to Peter Martin, some sort of distant relative. The two young men fall in love instantly, and forbidden sexual activities soon abound on the third floor of C.B.’s home. The insta-love that many people don’t like in today’s m/m fiction has it base somewhat in historical fact. Many men fell in love with the first man they slept with. To actually find someone who shared your desires was wonderful. So it isn’t really a surprise that it was portrayed that way in this book.
I had remembered the books with the proverbial rose tinted glasses. I had forgotten how much angst there was in the story. Charlie’s denial of his homosexuality. The bitter split between the men. The violent relationship between Charlie and his wife of convenience, particularly that one scene that had guys cringing in sympathy. I had also forgotten that this book was written as a historical drama set in 1940, when homosexuality was an offense you could be dragged off the street and sent to jail for. Finally, most importantly, I’d forgotten how people spoke, and the words that were commonplace then that wouldn’t be in a book today. Queer, Faggot, Queen and Fairy you still hear in 2015 from the unenlightened, and some younger LGBT individuals actually prefer the word Queer although us older gay guys shudder. But words like Darkie, Nigger, Nigra, and Monkey, being used by white people to describe black people, as well as the “commonly known fact” that black people had smaller brains and were more “simple”, have thankfully for the most part fallen to history in most parts of the US. C.B.’s huge scandalous family secret that she finally reveals to Charlie near the end of the book, today would be a “so?”.
Now…how do I sum up this rambling? I recommend this book, but recommend it more as a view into where we’ve been. I think the book is important for its place in gay history, so I’m rating it 4 love bytes because of what it is. Don’t read it as you would a modern m/m romance novel. It is a romance of sorts, but filled with denial, angst and dark times. I had originally intended to re-read all three of the books in the trilogy, but after finishing this one I’ve decided that one trip down memory lane is enough for me at this point. As I said above, in 1980 I would have given the book a 5.0. In 2015, it doesn’t come close to some of the great books I’ve read over the last few months. Sorry if I’ve tarnished anyone else’s memory of the book! :-)
This book was provided free in exchange for a fair and honest review for Love Bytes. Go there to check out other reviews, author interviews, and all those awesome giveaways. Click below.
I want to start by saying there are words and situations in this book which some might find highly offensive. I’ve included some of them in my review below for examples. They are by no means words I would ever utter.
How do you do a review on a book that spent 16 weeks on the New York Times Bestseller list when it was published in 1970? I remember the first time I saw this book in a book store in Manhattan in 1980. I had to have it, lurid cover and all. If any of you remember the original paperbacks, they were obviously about gay men, as you can see from the original paperback cover that I put in below. Only problem, I was in the Navy, stationed at Brooklyn Navy Yard and read the book in my open bay barracks hiding that damn cover! As a 19 year old gay kid, this book was a huge eye opener for me. It was a romance, but with gay guys!
The Lord Won't Mind
So, those sayings about how you can’t go back are really true in this case. I remember being enraptured the entire time I read this book and the other two in the trilogy 35 years ago (boy do I feel old now). I definitely would have rated it 5 stars if I’d been reviewing back then.
The Lord Won’t Mind was written sometime in the 1960’s and published in 1970. It was a very important work for its time. America was in the middle of a social and sexual revolution. Remember that in late June 1969, the Stonewall Riot occurred. Police in 1969 were still arresting gay men and lesbians in the US. Along comes Gordon Merrick, who not only writes a smutty book about gay men, but sets it 30 years before then in 1940. And even worse, he had the bad taste to be one of the first, if not the first, author to give the queers a happy ending. Prior to this, queers were allowed in books and movies, but they always had to be miserable, die alone, and always die before the end of the book or movie. Sad pathetic little men were what homosexuals were portrayed as prior to this.
Charlie Mills is a spoiled rich kid. He has always been his grandmother C.B.’s favorite and has never wanted for anything. He spends summers with her in her coastal summer home, hangs out at the country club, etc., etc. All that changes one year when C.B. introduces him to Peter Martin, some sort of distant relative. The two young men fall in love instantly, and forbidden sexual activities soon abound on the third floor of C.B.’s home. The insta-love that many people don’t like in today’s m/m fiction has it base somewhat in historical fact. Many men fell in love with the first man they slept with. To actually find someone who shared your desires was wonderful. So it isn’t really a surprise that it was portrayed that way in this book.
I had remembered the books with the proverbial rose tinted glasses. I had forgotten how much angst there was in the story. Charlie’s denial of his homosexuality. The bitter split between the men. The violent relationship between Charlie and his wife of convenience, particularly that one scene that had guys cringing in sympathy. I had also forgotten that this book was written as a historical drama set in 1940, when homosexuality was an offense you could be dragged off the street and sent to jail for. Finally, most importantly, I’d forgotten how people spoke, and the words that were commonplace then that wouldn’t be in a book today. Queer, Faggot, Queen and Fairy you still hear in 2015 from the unenlightened, and some younger LGBT individuals actually prefer the word Queer although us older gay guys shudder. But words like Darkie, Nigger, Nigra, and Monkey, being used by white people to describe black people, as well as the “commonly known fact” that black people had smaller brains and were more “simple”, have thankfully for the most part fallen to history in most parts of the US. C.B.’s huge scandalous family secret that she finally reveals to Charlie near the end of the book, today would be a “so?”.
Now…how do I sum up this rambling? I recommend this book, but recommend it more as a view into where we’ve been. I think the book is important for its place in gay history, so I’m rating it 4 love bytes because of what it is. Don’t read it as you would a modern m/m romance novel. It is a romance of sorts, but filled with denial, angst and dark times. I had originally intended to re-read all three of the books in the trilogy, but after finishing this one I’ve decided that one trip down memory lane is enough for me at this point. As I said above, in 1980 I would have given the book a 5.0. In 2015, it doesn’t come close to some of the great books I’ve read over the last few months. Sorry if I’ve tarnished anyone else’s memory of the book! :-)
This book was provided free in exchange for a fair and honest review for Love Bytes. Go there to check out other reviews, author interviews, and all those awesome giveaways. Click below.
February 24, 2019
Review under Trilogy https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
April 21, 2011
The Lord Won’t Mind is the first book in a trilogy about Charlie and Peter. The story is meant as a juicy gay romance for “housewives.” I suppose in many ways it succeeds since the story is first and foremost extremely entertaining. There is lots of sex, instant love, a ton of drama and tears, and very stereotypical situations and attitudes befitting the time. The story offers a very superficial romance without the complexity and depth of its contemporaries. I wouldn’t necessarily call this gay literature, it’s a little too light and breezy, but depending on your expectations this classic may satisfy.
Although the blurb states that the two men are in an affair at their Ivy League college in the 60’s, this isn’t accurate. As much as I can tell the story takes place in the early 1930’s and not at an Ivy League college at all. The affair begins at Charlie’s grandmother’s wealthy summer estate and continues in the heart of New York City. For a very brief time Peter attends night classes at Columbia but this is very immaterial and nearly unimportant. The focus instead is on the two men as they navigate a relationship together when neither one really understands what to do or how to act.
Charlie is the main third person narrator, although the POV tends to shift from Charlie to Peter somewhat randomly at times. Supposedly Charlie is the telling the story as he states in the first person but due to his discomfort, he’s going to tell it in third person. Charlie meets Peter and the two fall instantly in lust and love. They spend a summer together playing, laughing, having sex, and enjoying their relationship while making plans to live together in New York. The attitudes in both the summer estate and in New York are very wealthy, very privaledged and often use what is now taboo language in referencing people.
The story treads heavily on Charlie and Peter’s relationship as they have sex and often fight. Peter wants a monogamous relationship and often seems naïve and innocent of repercussions. Both he and Charlie are rather flat one-dimensional characters that never grow or change very much. Peter almost comes close to changing but is drawn back into Charlie’s web too easily at the end to really affect any significant growth. Their relationship is based on companionship and sex and thus the story is an easy, breezy life of the wealthy whose main drama is in what family and friends think of them and their choices.
The writing tends to reflect this rather superficial tension and never delves into any appreciable depth to the characters or the story. There is plenty of conflict and drama, make ups and break ups, declarations of love and hate, and plenty of juicy sex. In many ways the story achieves its soap opera goal with all the expected entertainment and ridiculous antics. None of the characters are particularly likable and tend to wallow in delusion or self importance but they are all interesting and carry the story quickly from beginning to end. This isn’t necessarily a story to sink your teeth into and the setting details remain frustratingly vague (and likely inaccurate).
However, The Lord Won’t Mind is exactly as advertised “Outrageous, addictive, perversely sexy…the closet thing gay people have to the fat, juicy romance novels that housewives have been devouring for years.” The subsequent books, 2 and 3, turn into a ménage when Charlie takes a wife for the second time for those interested in more.
Although the blurb states that the two men are in an affair at their Ivy League college in the 60’s, this isn’t accurate. As much as I can tell the story takes place in the early 1930’s and not at an Ivy League college at all. The affair begins at Charlie’s grandmother’s wealthy summer estate and continues in the heart of New York City. For a very brief time Peter attends night classes at Columbia but this is very immaterial and nearly unimportant. The focus instead is on the two men as they navigate a relationship together when neither one really understands what to do or how to act.
Charlie is the main third person narrator, although the POV tends to shift from Charlie to Peter somewhat randomly at times. Supposedly Charlie is the telling the story as he states in the first person but due to his discomfort, he’s going to tell it in third person. Charlie meets Peter and the two fall instantly in lust and love. They spend a summer together playing, laughing, having sex, and enjoying their relationship while making plans to live together in New York. The attitudes in both the summer estate and in New York are very wealthy, very privaledged and often use what is now taboo language in referencing people.
The story treads heavily on Charlie and Peter’s relationship as they have sex and often fight. Peter wants a monogamous relationship and often seems naïve and innocent of repercussions. Both he and Charlie are rather flat one-dimensional characters that never grow or change very much. Peter almost comes close to changing but is drawn back into Charlie’s web too easily at the end to really affect any significant growth. Their relationship is based on companionship and sex and thus the story is an easy, breezy life of the wealthy whose main drama is in what family and friends think of them and their choices.
The writing tends to reflect this rather superficial tension and never delves into any appreciable depth to the characters or the story. There is plenty of conflict and drama, make ups and break ups, declarations of love and hate, and plenty of juicy sex. In many ways the story achieves its soap opera goal with all the expected entertainment and ridiculous antics. None of the characters are particularly likable and tend to wallow in delusion or self importance but they are all interesting and carry the story quickly from beginning to end. This isn’t necessarily a story to sink your teeth into and the setting details remain frustratingly vague (and likely inaccurate).
However, The Lord Won’t Mind is exactly as advertised “Outrageous, addictive, perversely sexy…the closet thing gay people have to the fat, juicy romance novels that housewives have been devouring for years.” The subsequent books, 2 and 3, turn into a ménage when Charlie takes a wife for the second time for those interested in more.
August 15, 2014
The Lord Won't Mind by Gordon Merrick - First book in the trilogy
Peter Martin is coming to visit Charlie Mills in the family's country house in New Jersey. Charlie's grandmother, Armira Barton Collinge - C. B. - has arranged it. Soon they are in love. Charlie is older: he has just finished college (Princeton) and is about to start a job in New York City the next fall. Peter is nineteen, just graduated from high school and was supposed to start West Point in the fall. C. B. wants Peter to go to Princeton, so she's counting on Charlie to dissuade him from entering the armed forces. "Friendship is much more important to a man than marriage. A man can never be friends with his wife." So she's very happy to hear that Peter wants to go to Columbia instead. The boys have decided since they are going to be together forever, Peter will move to New York and attend Columbia while Charlie works for the publishing company C. B. has arranged. C. B. suggest that they move in together in Charlie's apartment in Manhattan.
As summer ends and they move to New York City, the idyllic relationship runs into trouble. Charlie has problems dealing with his sexuality and starts dating Harriet (Hattie) Donaldson. Peter is too busy with school and too tired to be with Charlie. As Peter comes out to C. B. Charlie kicks him out of their apartment and decides to marry Hattie. All of Charlie's actions are done to please C. B. and to make sure he doesn't lose her allowance.
Peter survives the streets by having sex with men who give him presents, which he sells for money. Until he meets the millionaire eccentric Walter Pitney, who sets him up with a large sun of money and an apartment. Peter falls in love with a successful lawyer, Timothy (Tim) Thornton.
But Hattie figures out Charlie's true nature and they fight. In a night of rage, Hattie bites off Charlie's dick and Charlie in turn beats up Hattie. Charlie runs up to Peter who has to save him from his demons. A reconciliation that has been long overdue happens.
The book is a fun read, addictive, sexy - the closest thing to erotica that the 70's allowed. During most of Merrick's life, homosexuality was still viewed in the American culture as a moral outrage. Editors and film censors demanded that gay men be depicted objectionably, and that gay relationships end tragically in literature and on film. Merrick, however, wrote stories which depicted well-adjusted gay men engaged in romantic relationships. He even made them have a happy ending....
The book is told from the third person point of view; however, Merrick uses the first person point of view both at the beginning and at the end as to make the book "autobiographical." His point of view is interchanged many times between Peter and Charlie to the point that sometimes it is hard to know who is doing the narrating.
The book deals with race in the forties. C. B. wants to keep Charlie celibate because the family has black blood and she doesn't want the world to know about it. C. B. thinks that African Americans are: "...like children or very nice animals. It's a scientific fact that their craniums are smaller than ours." When Charlie walks up to a party in Harlem, his blood raises because white men and "Negroes" are sharing the same space, even touching each other.
Misogynistic episodes also abound the book. When Charlie exposes himself to Betty Pringle, the male club members fault her for doing so because Charlie had a reputation of being well endowed. Hattie, who uses a diaphragm, wants a career, will sleep with men to get it, and says she'll marry several times does not have a good ending. When Charlie beats up Hattie, her family forces her to keep quiet because it would ruin her reputation if it were to become public. For that matter, none of the women do. C. B., for all her independence, ends up alone and miserable. Exposed for what she is: a manipulative bigot.
Love is treated like a commodity that you can trade as easily as stocks. After one sexual encounter, Peter and Charlie are declaring their love for each other and promising eternal faithfulness - not to mention that they are willing to move in together. After one sexual encounter, Charlie trades Hattie for Peter and marries her. Peter falls for Tim, but as soon as Charlie comes back, it's back with Charlie.
Homosexuality is dealt through the characters. it is through Charlie's anguish that the reader catches a glimpse of Merrick's interest in the problems the gay male experiences establishing an identity. Charlie's socially imposed resistance is in contrast to Peter's childlike innocence. When Charlie eventually throws Peter out and marries a Hattie to protect his reputation, every reader, straight or gay, can detest his duplicity and weakness, but must also empathize with the situation that Charlie has had forced upon him by the intolerant society of the times. As Charlie works through the aftermath of the violence with Hattie, he slowly comes to realize that honesty and self-acceptance are the only way out. Merrick presents this self-isolation as a necessary first step on the road to self-realization.
Then there is Walter Pitney. Here Merrick presents one side of "older" gay: the one who's very rich but is unable to "love," one who's unable to have physical intimacy.
A wonderful study of society in the late forties: especially on its views on race, love, homosexuality, and women.
A good read!
Peter Martin is coming to visit Charlie Mills in the family's country house in New Jersey. Charlie's grandmother, Armira Barton Collinge - C. B. - has arranged it. Soon they are in love. Charlie is older: he has just finished college (Princeton) and is about to start a job in New York City the next fall. Peter is nineteen, just graduated from high school and was supposed to start West Point in the fall. C. B. wants Peter to go to Princeton, so she's counting on Charlie to dissuade him from entering the armed forces. "Friendship is much more important to a man than marriage. A man can never be friends with his wife." So she's very happy to hear that Peter wants to go to Columbia instead. The boys have decided since they are going to be together forever, Peter will move to New York and attend Columbia while Charlie works for the publishing company C. B. has arranged. C. B. suggest that they move in together in Charlie's apartment in Manhattan.
As summer ends and they move to New York City, the idyllic relationship runs into trouble. Charlie has problems dealing with his sexuality and starts dating Harriet (Hattie) Donaldson. Peter is too busy with school and too tired to be with Charlie. As Peter comes out to C. B. Charlie kicks him out of their apartment and decides to marry Hattie. All of Charlie's actions are done to please C. B. and to make sure he doesn't lose her allowance.
Peter survives the streets by having sex with men who give him presents, which he sells for money. Until he meets the millionaire eccentric Walter Pitney, who sets him up with a large sun of money and an apartment. Peter falls in love with a successful lawyer, Timothy (Tim) Thornton.
But Hattie figures out Charlie's true nature and they fight. In a night of rage, Hattie bites off Charlie's dick and Charlie in turn beats up Hattie. Charlie runs up to Peter who has to save him from his demons. A reconciliation that has been long overdue happens.
The book is a fun read, addictive, sexy - the closest thing to erotica that the 70's allowed. During most of Merrick's life, homosexuality was still viewed in the American culture as a moral outrage. Editors and film censors demanded that gay men be depicted objectionably, and that gay relationships end tragically in literature and on film. Merrick, however, wrote stories which depicted well-adjusted gay men engaged in romantic relationships. He even made them have a happy ending....
The book is told from the third person point of view; however, Merrick uses the first person point of view both at the beginning and at the end as to make the book "autobiographical." His point of view is interchanged many times between Peter and Charlie to the point that sometimes it is hard to know who is doing the narrating.
The book deals with race in the forties. C. B. wants to keep Charlie celibate because the family has black blood and she doesn't want the world to know about it. C. B. thinks that African Americans are: "...like children or very nice animals. It's a scientific fact that their craniums are smaller than ours." When Charlie walks up to a party in Harlem, his blood raises because white men and "Negroes" are sharing the same space, even touching each other.
Misogynistic episodes also abound the book. When Charlie exposes himself to Betty Pringle, the male club members fault her for doing so because Charlie had a reputation of being well endowed. Hattie, who uses a diaphragm, wants a career, will sleep with men to get it, and says she'll marry several times does not have a good ending. When Charlie beats up Hattie, her family forces her to keep quiet because it would ruin her reputation if it were to become public. For that matter, none of the women do. C. B., for all her independence, ends up alone and miserable. Exposed for what she is: a manipulative bigot.
Love is treated like a commodity that you can trade as easily as stocks. After one sexual encounter, Peter and Charlie are declaring their love for each other and promising eternal faithfulness - not to mention that they are willing to move in together. After one sexual encounter, Charlie trades Hattie for Peter and marries her. Peter falls for Tim, but as soon as Charlie comes back, it's back with Charlie.
Homosexuality is dealt through the characters. it is through Charlie's anguish that the reader catches a glimpse of Merrick's interest in the problems the gay male experiences establishing an identity. Charlie's socially imposed resistance is in contrast to Peter's childlike innocence. When Charlie eventually throws Peter out and marries a Hattie to protect his reputation, every reader, straight or gay, can detest his duplicity and weakness, but must also empathize with the situation that Charlie has had forced upon him by the intolerant society of the times. As Charlie works through the aftermath of the violence with Hattie, he slowly comes to realize that honesty and self-acceptance are the only way out. Merrick presents this self-isolation as a necessary first step on the road to self-realization.
Then there is Walter Pitney. Here Merrick presents one side of "older" gay: the one who's very rich but is unable to "love," one who's unable to have physical intimacy.
A wonderful study of society in the late forties: especially on its views on race, love, homosexuality, and women.
A good read!
September 27, 2025
ainda fui generoso!! as duas estrelas foram só porque é um romance erótico (ruim, mas tudo bem)
December 30, 2018
Written in 1970 and set just before World War II, Gordon Merrick’s The Lord Won’t Mind was a best-selling mainstream novel that was groundbreaking for its time, as it depicts a full-blown, very descriptive homosexual relationship between two young men, Charlie and Peter. Charlie is the grandson of a Southern grande dame who is to say overbearing would be putting it mildly. Peter is the son of a family she is acquainted with. This grandmother brings Peter into their lives, presumably for her perfect grandson to mentor. But within the first few pages, it is obvious that something much more intense than mentoring will be going on. I have the paperback from the early 70s, and the back blurb says over 50,000 hard copies were sold. So it was a bona fide best seller, and I can only presume people liked it. I even remember that I liked it when I first read it almost fifty years ago. But oh how times have changed. I applaud Merrick for getting this published and for attracting an appreciative audience, but with this second reading, my opinion is that it is not a very good book. The characters are coarse and unlikeable, the dialogue is stilted, and the climax is laughable. I mean it. I was laughing out loud at a revelation that was supposed to be dead serious. There was so much melodrama that I felt C.B., the grandmother, should be twirling her imaginary mustaches. Many novels stand the test of time. Many writers are so skilled that we can read their prose and jump back in time and get into their rhythm. Henry James comes to mind. He wrote of social mores and some think his style is plodding today. But I only have to read a few of James’s sentences, and I find his rhythm and am thrust back into the era in which he wrote. Merrick did not thrust me back into the 1970s or the WWII era. He simply made me laugh. And that’s not a good thing when you’re telling a heartfelt, groundbreaking tale of two men in love.
February 23, 2023
I read this for science, and I never thought science could get more painful than The Sheik but here we are. Everyone in this book is an absolutely vile pile of shit with zero redeeming qualities, except maybe for Peter who’s just intolerably naive. I hate hate hate that this is considered a significant part of queer romance lit history. It’s one of if not THE most obscenely racist and misogynistic things I’ve encountered and why, WHY is everyone so obsessed with Charlie’s penis???
Zero stars, negative stars, compost every copy and let the worms have it.
Zero stars, negative stars, compost every copy and let the worms have it.
March 20, 2011
Wow, there I was scribbling tales of gay romance, thinking I was a freak. Imagine, this was 1978, I was 18 and female.
Then I discovered Gordon Merrick and suddenly I felt much more grounded, happy, thrilled, pick a happy adjective and that was me. Granted I still felt a little freaky but not so alone.
Then I discovered Gordon Merrick and suddenly I felt much more grounded, happy, thrilled, pick a happy adjective and that was me. Granted I still felt a little freaky but not so alone.
September 26, 2020
Erm. Quite an unpleasant read from Charlie’s POV. I might have enjoyed it more had it been from Peter’s viewpoint, although Charlie’s abusive tendencies might’ve been even more difficult to read. I suppose I could see how this was groundbreaking in its time, but nowadays it just seems unpalatable.
Read for LGBTQ+ book club.
Read for LGBTQ+ book club.
August 7, 2014
What nonsense. Sort of a gay-lit Gone With the Wind: a "classic" that's morally objectionable by contemporary standards and has really never been anything but good period-piece trash. I was riveted.
October 9, 2024
I really enjoyed this book. It had a decent degree of (m/m) smut for a book published in 1970. Though the romance between the two main characters (Charlie & Peter) seemed a little rushed, not to mention chaotic, I always found myself rooting for them. Set in the early 1940s, the story of their romance was well contextualized within the overarching social, cultural, and political context. For instance, the socio-cultural pressures to conform to hegemonic masculinity and heterosexuality—particularly for Charlie—are showcased in his narcissistic internal dialogue and relationship with his grandmother.
My contempt for this book comes from its (unnecessary) depiction of violence and blatant sexism, homophobia, and racism. I’m not sure that the degree of brutality and vilifying language against women, queer, and black folks was necessary. Though I think discussions/themes of systemic racism, homophobia, and sexism and/or histories of slavery/settler-colonialism can be helpful to support the story, it is done in a way that essentially reproduces the inferiority of marginalized groups. Again, being published in 1970, and set in the 1940s, it isn’t overly surprising.
Because I am attached to Charlie and Peter’s romance, I will likely be reading the following books. I hope those aren’t as littered with distasteful rhetoric.
My contempt for this book comes from its (unnecessary) depiction of violence and blatant sexism, homophobia, and racism. I’m not sure that the degree of brutality and vilifying language against women, queer, and black folks was necessary. Though I think discussions/themes of systemic racism, homophobia, and sexism and/or histories of slavery/settler-colonialism can be helpful to support the story, it is done in a way that essentially reproduces the inferiority of marginalized groups. Again, being published in 1970, and set in the 1940s, it isn’t overly surprising.
Because I am attached to Charlie and Peter’s romance, I will likely be reading the following books. I hope those aren’t as littered with distasteful rhetoric.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 30, 2025
So… is it still gay to be a man deeply in love with another man if we call each other champ in public?
I was recommended this book because apparently it’s a historically significant bit of gay romance. What I hadn’t realized going in was that this is more or less an X-rated gay telenovela (fellas, is it gay to go crawling back to the ex you dramatically kicked out when the girl you shotgun married almost bit off your dick right after you dramatically quit your job?), and I now have visualized more male genitalia in my mind’s eye than I ever wanted to.
Anyways, 3 stars because the romance that happens amongst and between the quick sex and the slower sex and the detailed sex and the less detailed sex (and so on…) is actually quite sweet and the backdrop of the queer scene of the era and the exploration of the different ways that men grappled with their sexuality at the time is interesting.
I was recommended this book because apparently it’s a historically significant bit of gay romance. What I hadn’t realized going in was that this is more or less an X-rated gay telenovela (fellas, is it gay to go crawling back to the ex you dramatically kicked out when the girl you shotgun married almost bit off your dick right after you dramatically quit your job?), and I now have visualized more male genitalia in my mind’s eye than I ever wanted to.
Anyways, 3 stars because the romance that happens amongst and between the quick sex and the slower sex and the detailed sex and the less detailed sex (and so on…) is actually quite sweet and the backdrop of the queer scene of the era and the exploration of the different ways that men grappled with their sexuality at the time is interesting.
September 1, 2025
I hate that the end was worth it. The character development and everything is so cute, also I laughed out loud several times during the final pages, cause wtf was this? I’m glad I finally read it but not really a big recommendation, for it is quiet boring at time and I really had to push thru the middle part!
July 15, 2022
Messy as all hell and important for not being a sad ending - even if Charlie can go to hell for all I care. It’s a good light read
October 4, 2014
Anthropologically, this is one of those books -- like James Barr's Quatrefoil -- that is important to an understanding of the psychology of a certain generation of gay men. That's not to say that characters in one book by one author should be taken to represent of a large number of real people -- they should not! -- but only to say that many elements in this book do represent well-known erotic tropes from its time (as well as more timeless and universal tropes, in some cases), and there are plenty of societal obstacles for the ostensible heroes to overcome.
In the hands of the right readers at the right time, I can see why this book gave hope to many a closeted gay teen who needed assurance that A) a happy romantic ending was possible for them someday, and B) there was a secret demimonde out there somewhere, where they could be accepted (and also find plenty of cock).
That being said, reading this ultimately provoked in me a sentiment similar to that of another reviewer, Michael: "A 'classic' that's morally objectionable by contemporary standards and has really never been anything but good period-piece trash. I was riveted."
Many of the sexual scenes in the first half read like total wank fantasy with little basis in realistic sexual response or human anatomy. Fair enough. There's a lot of random Filthy Rich People Bestowing Unearned Wealth Upon Beautiful Blond Boys. Fair enough. The main problem is that Charlie is basically an irredeemable asshole. I spent most of the book trying to figure out if the main narrative voice (an older Charlie thinking back on his youth) is judgmental of this assholery, but in the end it proves that it is not, because its ultimately more important for Charlie and Peter to have their happy ending than it is for Charlie to be punished for things like rape, wife-beating, racism, snobbishness, narcissism, etc. Poor Peter should have chosen Tim when he had the chance. They could have had their own happy ending. I also really liked Hattie, once I got past the way that Charlie saw her and read between the lines to see a strong and confident woman.
If only Peter had been the true main POV and not Charlie. ANYONE but reprehensible Charlie!
But yeah: "Trash. I was riveted."
I received an ARC of this book via NetGalley.
(2014 Open Road Media edition)
In the hands of the right readers at the right time, I can see why this book gave hope to many a closeted gay teen who needed assurance that A) a happy romantic ending was possible for them someday, and B) there was a secret demimonde out there somewhere, where they could be accepted (and also find plenty of cock).
That being said, reading this ultimately provoked in me a sentiment similar to that of another reviewer, Michael: "A 'classic' that's morally objectionable by contemporary standards and has really never been anything but good period-piece trash. I was riveted."
Many of the sexual scenes in the first half read like total wank fantasy with little basis in realistic sexual response or human anatomy. Fair enough. There's a lot of random Filthy Rich People Bestowing Unearned Wealth Upon Beautiful Blond Boys. Fair enough. The main problem is that Charlie is basically an irredeemable asshole. I spent most of the book trying to figure out if the main narrative voice (an older Charlie thinking back on his youth) is judgmental of this assholery, but in the end it proves that it is not, because its ultimately more important for Charlie and Peter to have their happy ending than it is for Charlie to be punished for things like rape, wife-beating, racism, snobbishness, narcissism, etc. Poor Peter should have chosen Tim when he had the chance. They could have had their own happy ending. I also really liked Hattie, once I got past the way that Charlie saw her and read between the lines to see a strong and confident woman.
If only Peter had been the true main POV and not Charlie. ANYONE but reprehensible Charlie!
But yeah: "Trash. I was riveted."
I received an ARC of this book via NetGalley.
(2014 Open Road Media edition)
February 10, 2018
Not a great literary achievement, but, despite some reservations, I found it very enjoyable. The copy I have has a delightfully trashy cover, which set the tone for the beginning of the book, which is choke-filled with sex, oversized penises and male narcissism. It all seemed rather silly to begin with, but I found the quality of the story and dialogue to improve as I went on (even seemingly gratuitous details - such as Charlie’s XXXL penis - have their raison d’etre, it turns out). Indeed, as I read on I felt there were moments when the insight into the main characters’ psychology momentarily lifted the book to the level of literary fiction.
There are a number of unpalatable things happening in the story. The main character, Charlie, is no role model, and remains deeply flawed until the very last pages of the novel. He is ridden with prejudice, all too inclined to violence (and that includes a couple of horrid episodes of sexual violence against women), weak and inconstant. Similarly, his grandmother is racist, homophobic, patronising, and manipulative. That the author somehow manages to build up such characters and still make you care for them (sometimes despite yourself) provides evidence of decent literary talent, at least on that score.
I read some reviews that argue that the book shows the prejudices of its era. I think that remark misses the point. For starters, those prejudices are still with us, even if their expression today is (thankfully) less widely acceptable. Besides, it’s not quite clear to me that the author condoned Charlie’s behaviour or prejuduces. Indeed, at the very beginning of the novel an aged (we must assume) Charlie, as he prepares to recount his story, deliberately chooses to speak in the third person to distance himself from his former (somewhat despicable) self.
My main reason for enjoying the novel is that I found the love story relatable. Personally, if I were Peter, I would have stayed with Tim rather than go back to Charles, but that is beside the point. The point is that here you have men liable to fall head over heels for each other (at first sight, too), and serious about making it last. Not too bad, for a change.
There are a number of unpalatable things happening in the story. The main character, Charlie, is no role model, and remains deeply flawed until the very last pages of the novel. He is ridden with prejudice, all too inclined to violence (and that includes a couple of horrid episodes of sexual violence against women), weak and inconstant. Similarly, his grandmother is racist, homophobic, patronising, and manipulative. That the author somehow manages to build up such characters and still make you care for them (sometimes despite yourself) provides evidence of decent literary talent, at least on that score.
I read some reviews that argue that the book shows the prejudices of its era. I think that remark misses the point. For starters, those prejudices are still with us, even if their expression today is (thankfully) less widely acceptable. Besides, it’s not quite clear to me that the author condoned Charlie’s behaviour or prejuduces. Indeed, at the very beginning of the novel an aged (we must assume) Charlie, as he prepares to recount his story, deliberately chooses to speak in the third person to distance himself from his former (somewhat despicable) self.
My main reason for enjoying the novel is that I found the love story relatable. Personally, if I were Peter, I would have stayed with Tim rather than go back to Charles, but that is beside the point. The point is that here you have men liable to fall head over heels for each other (at first sight, too), and serious about making it last. Not too bad, for a change.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 99 reviews