Calvert: Should he stay or should he go?

[Mark Arbour]

So I'm trying to decide what to do with the sequel to Master and Commander...more specifically, what to do with Calvert. So I gave you three choices...let me know what you think. Your chance to have real input on story direction.

[Dave53cama]

What would happen in history?

 

I was disappointed Calvert is still in the story, but did an officer take some of his crew with him when he was promoted?

Surely he will want some of his crew to help straighten out the Belvidera, but it looks like he will have at least one top notch lieutenant with Graften.

 

Caroline might also have some say in the matter.

 

Great story however you decide to continue with it. Keep us entertained, thank you.

[Tiger]

I really like Calvert. However, I think George holds him back. He needs to be a Commander. He has definitely earned it. He needs a chance to spread his wings. I would also like to add that I still think a Calvert spin-off is a mighty fine idea. He is an interesting character, and I think a story about him would be great.

[paya]

First of all, I have to admit I'm a big Calvert fan, so I'm not objective in my judgements at all. I like him and if he is out of the story, Bridgemont series loses half (the larger one ;-D) of the attraction to me. It was fine to watch Granger in the Gunroom, being with Travers etc. but the story without Granger-Travers or Granger-Calvert relationship is quite boring. (Sorry all you navy fans ). I expect from a story like this one not only sex (and Granger has plenty of it) but also some real, deep feelings, trust, love, reliance between people, friendship bonds,... why it cannot be done with another "man of his life" see my reactions lower.

 

[Tiger]

Everyone seems to think Calvert wants nothing less than his own ship!

[jenni]

I think Calvert's desire to stay with Granger has to do with his feelings for him, certainly, but I don't think that's the entire reason. Some people just prefer to serve in the background rather than step out and be a leader and I see Calvert as that kind of person. For one thing, I don't think he's particularly eager to play the political games that would be required with increasing positions of power. We've seen his reluctance to play the necessary games the last time he was in London, which was the main reason he was separated from Granger for a while. Those skills are not only required in London, but in dealing with superior officers and incidents that come up while abroad. Also, while he certainly has good ideas and experience, he seems more content to discuss those ideas with George and let him do the leading rather than take on the leadership role himself. I'm not at all convinced that Calvert would be happy moving up, whether he was with George or not.

 

That being said, it could be that once he took on a command of his own, he would eventually warm up to the role. I don't think it would ever come so naturally to him as it does to George, or even Travers, though.

 

I voted to keep Calvert with George, but I'm not sure how realistic that is and I'm sure it would be a great story either way Mark went. Clearing Calvert out to bring Travers back into George's life wouldn't be so bad either!

[paya]

Of course he wants to stay, but even George has expressed that Calvert needs to spread his wings. He is a natural leader, and it's only fitting for him to become a commander. There's also the fact that it's more true to the times if he ends up elsewhere. It's for his own good. He is an officer of the royal navy, and he needs his own legacy rather than forever being in the shadow of George. That's my take. They're bound to be separated at some point anyway. That is the nature of the beast.

 

But the problem is that George's ambitions lie elsewhere than Calvert's - that is why George doesn't understand them. More so, I'd say Calvert's priorities are different from those of Granger or Travers and we simply can't measure Calvert's priorities by the optics of the two (that also explains why George doesn't understand). It's a different philosophy of living.

 

And no, I don't think Calvert is a natural born leader. I wouldn't say he wants to serve somebody as jenni said. Calvert's strong points are his way of thinking and analyzing, he's smart and full of bright ideas. He can see things others neglect as unnecessary details. Many times Calvert had a better solution that Granger who on the other hand IS a natural leader. Leadership is about a strong opinion, having guts to realize it, having a charisma to allure others when you need their support (legitimation) or to distract them when you screw up (idolization). Calvert has strong opinions but they're more like alternatives, he proposes other points of view. He gives ideas and is happy when George executes them. I think Calvert is as a perfect aide as Winkler is a perfect servant.

 

BTW good work Mark! It keeps you off the flaming that would arose with either alternative being chosen only by yourself. We'll flame ourselves on our own and then you just pick the right solution.

 

 

[Enric]

....Some people just prefer to serve in the background rather than step out and be a leader and I see Calvert as that kind of person. For one thing, I don't think he's particularly eager to play the political games that would be required with increasing positions of power. We've seen his reluctance to play the necessary games the last time he was in London, which was the main reason he was separated from Granger for a while. Those skills are not only required in London, but in dealing with superior officers and incidents that come up while abroad. Also, while he certainly has good ideas and experience, he seems more content to discuss those ideas with George and let him do the leading rather than take on the leadership role himself. I'm not at all convinced that Calvert would be happy moving up, whether he was with George or not.

.... took on a command of his own, ......... I don't think it would ever come so naturally to him ....

 

actually, you are describing something which is 'husband' material....

something which his spouse is welcome to lead.

[Mark Arbour]

The poll is tied right now.

 

I love this thread and I love the feedback. I'm still undecided, but you all make good points. It's not unreasonable to think that Calvert would stay in his role as lieutenant. Quite frankly, it was more common, as promotion was tough to get. You either had to be lucky (be in a good position when a big victory happened) or well-connected. In a successful single ship action (say Intrepid fought a similar or slightly more powerful vessel), the First Lieutenant was often promoted and that was seen as a big compliment to the Captain. That's what happened when Humphreys got sent off on the Mouche.

[jenni]

I wouldn't say he wants to serve somebody as jenni said.

 

 

actually, you are describing something which is 'husband' material....

something which his spouse is welcome to lead.

 

Oops. I didn't mean to imply Calvert wanted to serve or was somehow subservient, just that he prefers to be in the background. Kind of like in politics, some want to be the elected leaders and some, who are just as smart, prefer to be advisors but not out in front.

[Tiger]

Well, since it doesn't look like there's a possibility of a story about Calvert, I decided to switch. It is no longer tied.

[Hoskins]

Calvert doesn't HAVE to disappear completely.

 

What if Calvert were posted to the Admiralty?

 

Just a thought... I like Calvert but he's always getting splinters and stuff.

[paya]

Just a thought... I like Calvert but he's always getting splinters and stuff.

 

Well that's because of Mark's lack of imagination!

[Mark M]

Well id prefer Slivers then a bunch of sexualy transmitted things that Could appear between Granger and Calver....the poor doctor would wonder what the hell was going on.

 

I Say Do not promote him as anything, perhaps even put Calvert on Traver's Ship??That would be one interesting.....turn out....grangers lovers taking a turn for each other, while granger finds someone new that is litterally a God, maybe an Italian stud?..... :D I think that's totaly cool!! i love my idea.

 

Calvert should live though

[Guest bayani]

I find the story compelling. However, I am ambivalent whether a chanacter 'should or should not go" based on popularity -- to decide the direction of a story.

 

While this is fiction, it is presented also as "historical" serial story. Thus, while the main characters may be fiction, it would be more authentic and good if the tradition and mores of the period are considered.

 

In regard to the fate of Calvert, for example, is there a tradition during the period where the Captain or Commander of a ship has the power to select his officers or ship crew? A related question, can minor officers (midshipmen, lieutenants, etc.) have the option to select the ship where they may be assigned to? If I recall correctly, in the case of Calvert, he opted to sign up with "intrepid" and put his fate on Granger to decide whether he could be part of his crew. Moreover, as related in the story, even political clout and those of the nobility had a say in influencing the ship assignment of minor officers.

 

Unlike the situation when Granger first took command of the Intrepid, his exploits since then have been so phenomenal that at this stage of the serial story he has more clout even if he is just a newly minted Captain. If you consider his powerful admirers and his family, on both sides, he could even defy traditions to get what he wants or who should be on his new ship. Even before this, he defied the rules and his superiors -- in India and the Indies --to ensure that Calvert be part of his crew.

 

The focus then should be whether the promotion, reassignment or demise of a character will enhance the drama in a serial story.

 

There are great contrasts -- in the socio-economic and political status, character and values and moral compass, as well as focus and ambitions -- between Granger and Calvert (even greater contrasts than between Travers and Granger) to provide a greater drama in a serial story.

 

In the hands a socially conscious author, it may be exploited to explore the fate of individuals and societies, under given set of conditions in a given "space and time".

Edited November 5, 2009 by bayani

[Mark M]

Very interesting Facts being presented here. Myself i think that people are really getting suspisious of Granger and Calverts relationship, i think Granger's Next adventure will not only be to india but to rush back, because honestly, while grangers home yet even!! I think someone should outright Accuse him of Sodomy, maybe a Wilcox?? possibly at Carlton house, or the kings chamber.

 

I don't know but i forsee Granger either getting Excommunicated (I don't exactly know the Religious Britian at this point of history....much less who is even king at the time.) and either building his estate into a Castle with Guards and a Slight miltary around him, maybe even a home for retired navey officers he's worked with. Or he Sells off the Estate at the Chagrin of Carolines Family and liquidates his assets, and buys a Ship Capable of Transfering himself, Caroline, their Children, and anyone close and loyal to him, to another land and possibly Defend it against Britain. It's a Fictional Story but i'm just dreaming of all the things could happen

 

Thing is i don't think Grager and Calvert will stay secret for much longer, or the fact that Travers is not even home....still in the medditraiinin(spelling ) eventually i'd like to see Dramatic events unfold in the next story.

 

Calvert however should stick with Granger and i do forsee some threesomes or foursomes (Granger, Travers, Caroline, and Calvert??) wouldn't that be a show....

[Tiger]

Mark, the king was King George III. It was the Georgian era. His reign was from 25 October 1760 – 29 January 1820, but he did not actually rule in the last 10 years or so, because he was mentally ill. Thus, his son, George IV (Prince of Wales at the time), became the Prince Regent in 1810. He was both demonized and praised, though there were many advances in science, mathematics, and agriculture during his reign. Many in the revolutionary American colonists thought him a tyrant, though some remained loyal to the crown. I doubt he was tolerant of "sodomites". After all, he was the grandfather of Queen Victoria and the father of George IV, who may very well have been the most hated king or queen in the last 250 years. As for excommunication, there would be no such thing for Granger. Should he ever be caught by someone willing to apply the laws against sodomy against him, he would be hanged.

 

And no, I didn't pull this info about George III out of my ass.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III_of_the_United_Kingdom

Edited November 8, 2009 by Tiger

[Enric]

Mark, the king was King George III. It was the Georgian era. His reign was from 25 October 1760 – 29 January 1820, but he did not actually rule in the last 10 years or so, because he was mentally ill. Thus, his son, George IV (Prince of Wales at the time), became the Prince Regent in 1810. He was both demonized and praised, though there were many advances in science, mathematics, and agriculture during his reign. Many in the revolutionary American colonists thought him a tyrant, though some remained loyal to the crown. I doubt he was tolerant of "sodomites". After all, he was the grandfather of Queen Victoria and the father of George IV, who may very well have been the most hated king or queen in the last 250 years. As for excommunication, there would be no such thing for Granger. Should he ever be caught by someone willing to apply the laws against sodomy against him, he would be hanged.

 

And no, I didn't pull this info about George III out of my ass.

 

http://en.wikipedia...._United_Kingdom

 

I sure had a feeling it was coming from someone's arse

 

Victoria was 'Victorian' mostly because she felt the need to be different and better and more respectable than the RF in epoch of her uncles. So, to extrapolate 'Victorian' values to the era of her uncles and grandfather, is simply stupid.

 

That said, George III was more stuffy than his sons.

He had a thing against his royal family *marrying* beneath themselves. [his view, apparently, was that lowly girlies should be kept as mistresses]

Victoria certainly had no such scruple: she allowed her some kids to marry something utterly lowly in terms of royalty... read: Battenbergs, later known as Mountbatten. That's a root why that lowly family managed to climb itself to some prominence in Britain, so dumber people today think that the lowly Mountbattens would be royal... However, cognoscenti know that they come from an adultery of a german princess of Baden (Baden is nothing spectacular - just a slice of bass-ackwards territory near Rhine) with her french-emigre-born chamberlain, their adulterous son marrying a daughter of a german-polish military officer, and there their descendants it goes to Victoria's family...

 

All that said, sons of George III became mostly known for frivolity because of their heterosex.

There's singular lack of even one nice homosexual reputation among them. So, I guess it was quite right that they were despised and hated. (Isn't that a right thing to face those who practice heterosex....)

Of course, there was at the time a second cousin of George III, that man being an obvious homosexual (and that guy had thing with organizing theatre and with magnificence and with costumes). Just to think how he collected good-looking courtiers around himself, and is rumored to have managed (after a lot of delay and prevarication) to sire a son by the machanism of himself pucking his wedded wife, while one of his butchy lover men was probably puckling him (or at least helping with some stimulation)

Edited November 8, 2009 by Enric

[Tiger]

I know there are keen differences between the two. That doesn't mean he'd have been anymore tolerant socially. He did seem to have ties with the Tories after all...

[Mark Arbour]

George III was a stuffy family guy. His two sons that followed him were complete rakes. They were followed by Victoria, a prude. I don't think that had anything to do with her desire to be different, it was just who she was. These things are cyclical, but none of those monarchs was particularly tolerant of homosexuals.

[JCashell]

Hey y'all, here are my two cents:

 

KILL CALVERT. He's just not that interesting to me. Plus emo Granger would be fun, especially if it's at a time where he really can't afford to be non-functioning.

[paya]

Hey y'all, here are my two cents:

 

KILL CALVERT. He's just not that interesting to me. Plus emo Granger would be fun, especially if it's at a time where he really can't afford to be non-functioning.

 

tsk tsk tsk... these newbies... tsk tsk tsk

[nevius]

I'll start off saying that I like Calvert and how his character has contributed to the story. That said, what needs to happen is the resolution of Granger and his feelings/ relationships with Caroline, Travers and Calvert and their long term affect on his life and career. Does Granger allow these interrealationships to destroy his life or does he through his continued growth and maturation find common ground and enlightenment?

I think killing off Calvert (or any of the characters) is the easy way out of telliing a complex story line. (Athough sometimes it is the best option ;-) ) I think the next phase of the Granger series is where this story truly all comes together and it's good to have all of your characters to play their parts!

 

Thanks Mark, I've really enjoyed this story...i've been enjoying my time at sea!

 

nevius

[Mark Arbour]

I'll start off saying that I like Calvert and how his character has contributed to the story. That said, what needs to happen is the resolution of Granger and his feelings/ relationships with Caroline, Travers and Calvert and their long term affect on his life and career. Does Granger allow these interrealationships to destroy his life or does he through his continued growth and maturation find common ground and enlightenment?

I think killing off Calvert (or any of the characters) is the easy way out of telliing a complex story line. (Athough sometimes it is the best option ;-) ) I think the next phase of the Granger series is where this story truly all comes together and it's good to have all of your characters to play their parts!

 

Thanks Mark, I've really enjoyed this story...i've been enjoying my time at sea!

 

nevius

 

I'm not sure if Granger will be able to resolve things that quickly, or that early in his life. I don't think he'll resolve them until he has to, until he's confronted with a situation where he's forced to handle the multiple relationships. Caroline is easy. She loves him and is willing to accept his love of dick. I'm not sure about the two guys. (They accept his love of dick, just not his love of other dick)

 

I've tried to kill Calvert off three times now. I've written the chapters, had Granger mourning, all that shit, only to change my mind. He really is just too cute to die. At least right now.

[nevius]

Mark, I never said the resolution had to be done quickly....I'm enjoying this storyline too much to have in end quickly!!!!! Don't kill a good story!!!! LOL! But they all don't have to be sea battles either!

Nevius