Past gay histories have suffered from similar deficiencies. Although Miller has made a commendable effort, as a college history professor, I see these problems abundantly present in Miller's narrative. The following is a brief list: Until the last twenty years or so few gay histories were written by historians and as such they were poorly documented, biased, rarely analytical, and in the case of Miller's very poorly edited. In particular, the typos in Miller's narrative are far too numerous. This could result from a dearth of interest in the field in major publishing houses.
The second is that the pre-World War II era was practiced and written about in private with a considerable interest in survivors of those who we fashion as gay in destroying documentation that might provide the primary resources to support the societal and legal pressures that prevent us from truly knowing the pain suffered within. The best gay histories certainly lie ahead but unless the absence of sound evidence to support autobiographical homosexuality can be overcome to replace speculation with fact, gay history will remain as locked as the mystery of the Lost Colony.
Thirdly, there is rare coverage of the marriage of practicing one's gayness with urbanization. Therefore, we get histories which neglect the blight of gayness in and to the rural/small town gay population and we reinvigorate the notion that urban equals gay freedom without showing the sociological implications that subvert the need to adopt a night culture, bar culture, entertainment culture, and an urban culture as gays are forced to submerge their inclinations to previous formative small town behavior patterns. In short, there are two adjustments to gay freedom: to the urban environment and to the open practice of being gay within that newly learned environment. This duality layers adaption for gays which is far more complex than it would be for heterosexuals who can always return to the small town world and practice their sexuality unchallenged. Gay historians have a very difficult time grappling with the birth of one culture and the death of another that every newly urbanized gay faces.
Miller also subscribes to the fallacy that the United States is still the major bastion of gay liberation. There is no comparable area in the United States that could match London, Berlin, or Amsterdam for gay freedom nor has the nation moved as a whole with the rapidity of other western countries to mainstream homosexualtiy. It is impossible to think of any major city in this country including San Francisco and New York where a same-sex couple could stroll every area of that city hand-in-hand and kiss at will without being fearful in some of those neighborhoods. Such freedom of expression exists in a number of European cities and small towns.
Also, it is quite disturbing to continue to treat the butch-femme coupling in lesbians without presenting a case that many lesbians do not parrot maleness in their relationships and abhor the idea of bonding with the penisless man.
Finally, the dawning of the Age of Gayquarius is rarely mentioned in gay histories. With each passing year I observe an increase in the number of students who approve of a gay marriage initiative, freedom of expression, and civil liberties for homosexuals. There undoubtedly is a New Progressive Era especially in the arena of personal liberties on the horizon. Authors give very little account of such trending. The time of police raids and gay baiting will soon be completely dead in Western countries. As transnationalism replaces globalization, the rest of the world will not lag far behind.