The Light of Day: The First Man to Come Out at the Dawn of Gay Liberation
by Christopher Stephens & Louise Radnofsky
My rating: 5 out of 5 stars

There are moments in history when private lives, long lived in the shadows, suddenly become legible. Not because the world has changed, but because someone has taken the risk of speaking plainly.
In The Light of Day, Christopher Stephens* and Louise Radnofsky** trace one such moment — and the long, complicated life that surrounded it — through the story of Roger Butler, a blind gay activist whose papers, recordings and memories form one of the most intimate archives of queer life in postwar Britain.
The book begins not with a political rally or a courtroom, but with a small, unassuming house in east Oxford. It is the early 2000s. Christopher Stephens, then a young student, has been asked by a friend to visit a man in his sixties and read to him.
The request is simple enough, but the man — Roger Butler — wants to know one thing before he agrees: Is he one of us? The question lands with the weight of decades. For Butler, 'one of us' is not merely a matter of identity; it is a matter of safety, trust, and the possibility of being understood without translation.
Christopher passes the test. And so begins a friendship that will shape the rest of his life — and, eventually, this book.
Stephens’s early visits are tentative. Butler is wary, proud, and accustomed to disappointment. But slowly, over bottles of red wine and readings of Alan Hollinghurst and Edmund White, the two men settle into a rhythm: Stephens reads aloud, Butler listens, interrupts, laughs, corrects, remembers.
Sometimes he asks Stephens to read his own autobiographical essays — fragments of a life lived in secrecy, danger and occasional exhilaration.
These scenes form the emotional core of The Light of Day. They are quiet, domestic, almost mundane. Yet they carry a charge that is unmistakably political. In a world where gay men had long been forced to hide, the simple act of reading aloud becomes a kind of reclamation. It is companionship as resistance, intimacy as testimony.
Stephens writes of discovering, for the first time, what it felt like to belong to a 'tribe.' The word is striking. It suggests not only solidarity but relief — the relief of finding people who understand the contours of your life without needing them explained.
For Butler, whose youth was spent in a Britain where homosexuality was illegal, that relief had been rare. For Stephens, it arrives in the form of an older man who has lived through the worst of it and survived.
To understand Butler’s life, one must understand the world he grew up in. Homosexuality remained illegal in Britain until 1967, and the law’s hostility shaped every aspect of gay existence.
Men lived with the constant threat of police raids, public shaming, loss of employment, and imprisonment. The Wolfenden Report of 1957 recommended decriminalisation, but the government refused to act. The Homosexual Law Reform Society was founded in response, staffed largely by volunteers who risked their reputations simply by being associated with it.
It was in this climate that Butler, on 3 June 1960, joined two colleagues in writing a letter to British national newspapers including politically conservative The Spectator. It began, with startling simplicity:
'Sir, we are homosexuals…'
The sentence is almost disarmingly plain. Yet its plainness is precisely what made it radical. The three men signed their real names. They did so knowing that the police could investigate them, that employers could dismiss them, that families could disown them.
It was an act of moral clarity so rare that it reads now like a flare shot up from the darkness.
Stephens and Radnofsky treat this moment not as a historical footnote but as a hinge — a point at which private suffering tipped into public courage. They show how acts of self‑declaration, so dangerous then, would become central to later movements for equality.
Butler’s letter is presented as both a personal risk and a political tactic, a gesture that looked forward to battles still decades away.
Butler’s blindness, which struck in his thirties, adds another layer of complexity to the story. It narrowed his world but sharpened his voice. He became, in effect, a writer without a readership — a man who filled notebooks, tapes and diaries with reflections on his parents, his loneliness, his friendships, his activism, and the strange, stubborn hope that carried him through the years.
When Butler died in 2011, he left all his papers to Stephens. The archive was vast, chaotic, and deeply personal. It contained not only autobiographical essays but home recordings — crackly, imperfect, sometimes moving, sometimes mundane. In one of the final recordings, Butler says he does not regret going blind because it led him to Oxford, and to Stephens.
It is a line that lands softly but stays with you.
The authors approach this archive with care, not attempting to impose a single narrative on Butler’s life but instead letting the fragments speak. The telling swings between eras — the fearful 1950s and '60s, the more permissive but still complicated early 2000s — with a looseness that feels organic rather than disorganised; a structure that mirrors how memory works: associative, wandering, occasionally contradictory.
One of the book’s most striking qualities is its insistence that political change is not only the work of committees and campaigns but of friendships. Stephens’s weekly visits to Butler’s home are not framed as heroic. They are ordinary acts of care.
Yet in the context of Butler’s life, they become extraordinary. They offer companionship in a world that had often denied it. They offer recognition in a world that had often refused it.
This suggests that visibility — the act of being seen — is one of the most radical experiences a person can have. Butler’s life was shaped by the danger of visibility. Stephens’s life was shaped by the relief of it. Their friendship becomes a bridge between these two realities.
Radnofsky’s contribution ensures that the story never loses sight of the broader context. She supplies the historical scaffolding — the Wolfenden Report, the founding of the Homosexual Law Reform Society, the slow path to decriminalisation — with clarity and restraint. The political never overwhelms the personal; it frames it.
Although The Light of Day is rooted in the past, it speaks directly to the present. In an era when LGBTQ+ rights are again contested in parts of the world, Butler’s story feels less like distant history and more like a reminder of how fragile progress can be.
The account shows that liberation was not inevitable. It was built by people who risked their jobs, their reputations and their freedom simply by telling the truth.
Stephens and Radnofsky do not indulge in triumphalism. They acknowledge the reactionary undercurrents that persisted long after 1967, and the loneliness that shaped Butler’s life even in more permissive decades.
Never quite bleak it is, in its way, a celebration: of friendship, of intellectual companionship, of the small acts of loyalty that sustain a person through difficult years.
In the end, The Light of Day is about seeing and being seen. It is about the courage required to make oneself visible in a hostile world, and the quieter courage of showing up for someone who has lived too long in the dark.
It is a tribute to a man who wrote in the margins, who risked everything by signing his name, and who found, late in life, a companion willing to read him back into the world.
Stephens and Radnofsky have written a book that glows with understated grace. It does not try to dazzle. It pays attention — to a life, to a friendship, to the long, slow arc of change. And in that attention, it finds its light.
The back cover comment by Sir Ian McKellen reads: 'Your book is the "really good book. Just one" that Roger Butler would have wanted.'
I agree.
A beautiful, heartwarming read about friendship. Highly recommended.
*Christopher Stephens is a London based academic and CEO of an educational charity that promotes research into issues of importance to contemporary society. He has published on topics ranging from ancient Church History to language and practices relating to diversity and inclusion. Christopher was next of kin to Roger Butler, inheriting Roger’s extensive archive of writings and letter correspondences on his death.
**Louise Radnofsky is a reporter for The Wall Street Journal in Washington, D.C., where she has covered healthcare, the White House, immigration and currently, sports. She holds two degrees in modern history from Oxford, where she attended University College, and one from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. She and Christopher have been friends for more than 20 years.








