First of all I would like to re-post what the same author wrote to introduce the story: Whipster deals with the ethical issues surrounding youth prostitution in a fantasy setting based on Edwardian times. The novel has no onscreen sex and little onscreen violence. The primary focus of the story is on the interactions between the adult characters.

I wanted to repost the same words, since, even if in a fantasy setting, the author chose to not use the easy way to have only boys "of legal age" to act as "whores". In his fantasy world, a boy in age to be an apprentice could be "sold" by his parents to a whorehouse; sex between adult paying customers and underage boys (between 11 and 21 years old) is not only allowed, but in some case also promoting by the government. Said boys, obviously, should immediately interrupt their profession once they reach the 21 years age, and find another job... that it's quite impossible since they are shunned by society and most of the time they end to beggar or worst.

Michael was one of those boys; having him a strong will he survived through his teen years, with the help of two other boys: the fellow whore Hasan, a boy two years younger than him, and the good boy Janus, the son of an important family who decided to go against his same family to befriend a whore. And when Michael is forced to "retire" to the "old" age of 21 years old, Janus and Michael open their business, a whorehouse. It could sound strange that Janus, a man who only has in mind the good of the boys, accepts to be the one who whores them, but probably he accept the lesser evil: giving them an healthy house, the chance to study and the possibility to save some money during their apprentice, could allow them to not end on the street when they are of age. These are Janus' reason. And Michael? he claims to not having heart, but in all the book, I never see him mistreat a boy, but truth be told, I didn't find a reason for him to open a whorehouse if not that it's the only thing that he knew; and maybe also since in this way he has a reason to bind Janus to him.

Between Janus and Michael there is not a classical love story, but it's not only a friendship. Michael says that Janus is his conscience, and maybe, if Janus asked, he would allow the man to being intimate with him, but they have not that type of relationship. Michael is not able to "physically" love, for him sex is not love, and so he can't associate it with Janus. And then there is Hasan: Michael loves also Hasan, and so neither with him he can have a physical relationship. In a way Michael needs both men: Hasan represents his past and Janus his future, and so he needs both of them in his life, but no one of them can't be "touched" and "defiled" by sex.

On the other two characters, I believe that Hasan, if asked in the right way, would allow his relationship with Michael to enter a new personal level, and instead I don't understand Janus. I really believe that he loves Michael, but probably Janus can't see possible a physical relationship with a man: Janus is like some of those men who see love as a pure relationship, and so something beyond the sex gender; he loves Michael, and he can understand that Michael has "needs" and so, probably, he accepts Hasan by his side, above all since Hasan himself said to Janus that Michael is a better man for having near him a friend like Janus. So Janus knows that, in Michael's heart, he is on a upper level than Hasan, and this is the only important thing for him.

In a way Janus is too perfect for me to fully like him, I always prefer more faulty characters like Michael and Hasan; for Janus is simple to be perfect, since he is born perfect; for Michael and Hasan was an hard way, and so, even if they are not fully perfect, I like them better.

http://duskpeterson.com/michaelshouse/index.htm

Reading List:

http://www.librarything.com/catalog_bottom.php?tag=reading list&view=elisa.rolle