What do you think?
Rate this book
Between Men: Original Fiction by Today's Best Gay Writers
If you liked the first volume of Between Men , you’ll love this second collection of short stories from today’s best and brightest gay writers. Editor Richard Canning is back with eighteen pieces of gay fiction from some of the most remarkable writers around, including Jim Grimsley, Mark Merlis, and Alan Hollinghurst. There’s something for everyone. Moving beyond tales of “coming out,” stories, Between Men 2 is filled with the stories of men with something relevatory to say about the gay experience—and, moreover, the human experience. Richard Canning is the editor of the Between Men series, a writer, and a lecturer in English and American literature at the University of Sheffield, England.
321 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 2009
41 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
May 13, 2023
I have a great fondness for anthologies, particularly those anthologies of gay fiction produced from 1980s through to the early millennium. It is a period which saw the birth of 'gay' literature and although it is rarely acknowledged that quarter century produced a lot of anthologies which can now act as a guide to a period particularly rich in new and interesting writers. Between Men 2 was produced in 2009 was possibly an attempt to revive the glory days of the Men on Men anthologies but it was in reality more of a swan song to that era.
As a last of its kind (of course there are still anthologies 'gay' writing produced but rarely of literary fiction which Between Men and other anthologies specialised in) it is interesting to look at the contributors to BM2. There are plenty of great writers Alan Hollinghurst, Andrew Holleran, Patrick Gale, Randal Kenan, Mark Behr and Mark Merliss amongst others but overall I can't help feeling that even in 2009 (these are my feelings rereading the anthology in 2023) this was not a satisfyingly representation of what 'gay' writing was or were it was going. This was not so much a failure of Mr. Canning as editor but a tribute to how far and fast 'gay' life, gay writing and the world in general had moved on in thirty years. It was no longer possible to even pretend that you could make even a representative selection of authors in one volume that could represent 'gay' in any particular year.
Part of my problem with this anthology and also a reason why this sort of anthology had ceased to work in 2009 or will never work again can be found in Mr. Canning's 'Afterword' were, quoting Les Brookes author of the study 'Gay Male Fiction Since Stonewall', he says while discussing the authors in the anthology:
"...over recent decades, 'gay male fiction is predominately American- although why this is so is not entirely clear.' Nor...is it clear how dominant American voices will remain..."
It certainly isn't isn't true now and it wasn't true in 2009. In fact I don't think Mr. Canning or Mr. Brooks had a particularly expansive view of who was an American writer and it is this narrow view of gay life and writing that is what is most apparent now in BM2. Although I have read all the stories in the anthology for a third time with great enjoyment I know there was a great deal more, and a great deal more interesting and varied gay writing going on at this time in the USA and elsewhere. The failure of anthologies like this to even consider never mind acknowledge the extent and variety is a flaw that can't be ignored.
I must add an addendum on rereading this entry, although absolutely hold with what I said about the narrow field the contributors were drawn from I should have said most because R. Zamora Linmark and Mark Behr are significant and important exceptions to what I was saying.
As a last of its kind (of course there are still anthologies 'gay' writing produced but rarely of literary fiction which Between Men and other anthologies specialised in) it is interesting to look at the contributors to BM2. There are plenty of great writers Alan Hollinghurst, Andrew Holleran, Patrick Gale, Randal Kenan, Mark Behr and Mark Merliss amongst others but overall I can't help feeling that even in 2009 (these are my feelings rereading the anthology in 2023) this was not a satisfyingly representation of what 'gay' writing was or were it was going. This was not so much a failure of Mr. Canning as editor but a tribute to how far and fast 'gay' life, gay writing and the world in general had moved on in thirty years. It was no longer possible to even pretend that you could make even a representative selection of authors in one volume that could represent 'gay' in any particular year.
Part of my problem with this anthology and also a reason why this sort of anthology had ceased to work in 2009 or will never work again can be found in Mr. Canning's 'Afterword' were, quoting Les Brookes author of the study 'Gay Male Fiction Since Stonewall', he says while discussing the authors in the anthology:
"...over recent decades, 'gay male fiction is predominately American- although why this is so is not entirely clear.' Nor...is it clear how dominant American voices will remain..."
It certainly isn't isn't true now and it wasn't true in 2009. In fact I don't think Mr. Canning or Mr. Brooks had a particularly expansive view of who was an American writer and it is this narrow view of gay life and writing that is what is most apparent now in BM2. Although I have read all the stories in the anthology for a third time with great enjoyment I know there was a great deal more, and a great deal more interesting and varied gay writing going on at this time in the USA and elsewhere. The failure of anthologies like this to even consider never mind acknowledge the extent and variety is a flaw that can't be ignored.
I must add an addendum on rereading this entry, although absolutely hold with what I said about the narrow field the contributors were drawn from I should have said most because R. Zamora Linmark and Mark Behr are significant and important exceptions to what I was saying.
August 1, 2018
There are several unexpectedly strong, far-from-cliche stories in this collection, and overall there's a high standard to the stories. As usual, there are also a few pieces of ponderous/brainless junk. My rating is based on the good stuff, and ignores the few dumb parts. Definitely worth a look.
January 31, 2022
There was some nice writing to be had, some moments, some scenes that stuck out. I did read the book in a pretty short amount of time, which means I was entertained just enough. What I like about anthologies is that you don't know what's coming, each story introduces you to an entirely new setting, and to entirely new characters, the scenery and circumstances change completely next to twenty times during the course of the book. That said, I would have appreciated more diversity as far as location is concerned. Very US-centric. Even if one sticks to stories originally written in English - how about stories from Ireland, New Zealand, more UK, Australia, Canada ...?
I wasn't awed. I didn't feel particularly enriched or touched or became truly invested in most of the characters. I didn't laugh out loud, I didn't cry, I wasn't turned on, some stories seemed pointless. Writing a good short story is an art in itself, a good short story needs - like any other good story - an arc, engaging characters/sufficient character development - and an ending that is exactly that: an ending. Many of the stories were lacking in at least one or two of those departments. Many characters appeared to be rather underdeveloped, two-dimensional, and character-wise: superficial. Not truly engaging. And not one story had a truly impressive closing line. Often it seemed as though the writer felt he had written enough and didn't feel like he wanted or needed to invest much thought to come up with a satisfactory punch-to-the-gut-finish. One story did strike me as though it just ended in the middle of something - no arc, it just stopped. And, sure enough, it turned out to be part of a novel that the author had written. That's not a short story, that's an excerpt.
The overall atmosphere of the selection was rather dark and depressing - and contained a little too many stories about fiftyish men exuding the air of some kind of aging crisis or other. I had hoped for more depth overall, more introspective, relatable characters, stories with a deeper meaning.
I wasn't awed. I didn't feel particularly enriched or touched or became truly invested in most of the characters. I didn't laugh out loud, I didn't cry, I wasn't turned on, some stories seemed pointless. Writing a good short story is an art in itself, a good short story needs - like any other good story - an arc, engaging characters/sufficient character development - and an ending that is exactly that: an ending. Many of the stories were lacking in at least one or two of those departments. Many characters appeared to be rather underdeveloped, two-dimensional, and character-wise: superficial. Not truly engaging. And not one story had a truly impressive closing line. Often it seemed as though the writer felt he had written enough and didn't feel like he wanted or needed to invest much thought to come up with a satisfactory punch-to-the-gut-finish. One story did strike me as though it just ended in the middle of something - no arc, it just stopped. And, sure enough, it turned out to be part of a novel that the author had written. That's not a short story, that's an excerpt.
The overall atmosphere of the selection was rather dark and depressing - and contained a little too many stories about fiftyish men exuding the air of some kind of aging crisis or other. I had hoped for more depth overall, more introspective, relatable characters, stories with a deeper meaning.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews