Paternity

[B1ue]

I'm going to attempt to take the middle ground here. Time does raise a good point, why doesn't anyone ever say no to Will? Certainly, my first reaction when reading the story, especially the line "Jeff said I was an easy lay?" or something to that effect, was to imagine Paulo saying back, "Are you kidding? Your phone number is on bathroom walls all over this county and in two states."

 

Snark aside, I think Jeremy did a good job of answering that question. 1) People when they meet Will don't assume he's underage, or at least not as much as he actually is. 2) Even if they did, that's not exactly a deterrent to behavoir in this universe. 3) This is an erotic story, the vast majority of characters are introduced so that someone can have sex with them, and it may as well be Will. 4) Will is both a slut and single, and sees no reason to not try and have sex with everyone he meets.

 

To add to those point, true sluts actually aren't deterred by getting turned down. They, like the late-night gentlemen callers Tim described a couple posts ago, just move on to the next target, and have the self-possession to genuinely not give a fuck. So, I don't actually think it would add anything to the story for Will to run up against a hard target. He's hit them before, and got a little depressed when it happened, but then he moved on, and then circled back around to collect them later. Because, again, Mark does not bring a dick into this story without it going off into someone. The only growth I can really imagine for Will if he experienced someone that said no and stuck to it would be he'd just learn to move on faster and with less emotion.

[JimCarter]

I'm going to attempt to take the middle ground here. Time does raise a good point, why doesn't anyone ever say no to Will? Certainly, my first reaction when reading the story, especially the line "Jeff said I was an easy lay?" or something to that effect, was to imagine Paulo saying back, "Are you kidding? Your phone number is on bathroom walls all over this county and in two states."

 

Snark aside, I think Jeremy did a good job of answering that question. 1) People when they meet Will don't assume he's underage, or at least not as much as he actually is. 2) Even if they did, that's not exactly a deterrent to behavoir in this universe. 3) This is an erotic story, the vast majority of characters are introduced so that someone can have sex with them, and it may as well be Will. 4) Will is both a slut and single, and sees no reason to not try and have sex with everyone he meets.

 

To add to those point, true sluts actually aren't deterred by getting turned down. They, like the late-night gentlemen callers Tim described a couple posts ago, just move on to the next target, and have the self-possession to genuinely not give a fuck. So, I don't actually think it would add anything to the story for Will to run up against a hard target. He's hit them before, and got a little depressed when it happened, but then he moved on, and then circled back around to collect them later. Because, again, Mark does not bring a dick into this story without it going off into someone. The only growth I can really imagine for Will if he experienced someone that said no and stuck to it would be he'd just learn to move on faster and with less emotion.

 

God you people make things complicated.  It is simple.  No one turns will down because Mark writes this story the way he wants it.  Some of you guys are acting like you have Will on your couch so that you can pick him apart.  Face facts, Will is what and gets whatever Marks wants him to.

[MJ85]

Here's the thing. If this keeps up without anyone ever saying "no"...then what will Will's storyline eventually become, other than a glorified Nifty story?

 

For no one to ever say "no"...that would make Will the "perfect" erotic character. And once it's been established that no one will ever say no, ever - well, it will soon get quite old to have a never-ending string of Faceless Dicks On Two Legs popping in and out just for the Obligatory Chapter Hook-Up. For that matter...there's nothing erotic about a hook-up that's obligated to happen.

[methodwriter85]

God you people make things complicated.  It is simple.  No one turns will down because Mark writes this story the way he wants it.  Some of you guys are acting like you have Will on your couch so that you can pick him apart.  Face facts, Will is what and gets whatever Marks wants him to.

 

And that is exactly what I'm trying to say here, but somehow failed to convey.

 

Would I like it if this story depicted teen sex lives as awkward and sloppy as they can actually be? Yes, I actually would. And I know that Mark is capable of doing that, because anyone who's read Mark's semi-autobiographical story On the Mark  would know that he can write that. But the simple truth is, he doesn't want to write CAP like that. CAP is and has been, from day one, a well-written gay erotic story with soap opera plotlines, not a realistic coming of age story about young gay guys fumbling with the awkwardness of coming out. If you want that, go read DomLuka, because this is not the place for that.

Edited December 26, 2012 by methodwriter85

[B1ue]

God you people make things complicated.  It is simple.  No one turns will down because Mark writes this story the way he wants it.  Some of you guys are acting like you have Will on your couch so that you can pick him apart.  Face facts, Will is what and gets whatever Marks wants him to.

 

That's not really a good answer, especially not to the questions posed the way they were posed. If that was an acceptable answer, and not just mental laziness, then there's absolutely nothing to discuss, at all, because the answer would always be "because he made it that way."

 

Furthermore, analyzing stories, picking their narrative flow, characters, and structure apart to try and see why things are they way they are is a hobby of mine. I'm not really able to just read a story anymore, I'm always trying to tear it apart. I don't really see how this story would be any less worth that kind of attention than anything else I read.

[MJ85]

Sigh...that is not what you're conveying at all. Not even close. Because I'm not suggesting that Will should turn into that character at all. What I am saying is that it would not be this horrible, awful thing for a guy he encounters to say "no", even just once. Is that such a ridiculous thing?

[methodwriter85]

   I'm not saying it's ridiculous, but I'm saying that it's never going to happen, because CAP has never been nor will ever be a realistic coming of age story about gay teenagers. It's a soap opera with a gay erotic wish fufillment angle to it. Imagine Dynasty from the 1980's, but if Steven Carrington was actually allowed to have lots and lots of gay sex instead of just giving his boyfriend a hug and then deciding to bang Heather Locklear.

Edited December 26, 2012 by methodwriter85

[MJ85]

Not only is that an extreme example, it completely discounts any elements of realism that do exist now in this story, as well as those from previous stories. And that much speaks for itself. And so too does the fact that you appear to have ignored what I said when I said that I was not suggesting that Will become the awkward coming of age character, because here you've went and raised the coming of age issue, again.

 

The only more I will say about it now is that when I'd imagine Will being told "no", it wouldn't be about "coming of age" at all, but instead about, yes, him not being every guy's "type".

 

But for what it's worth, I'd imagine the series is somewhere in the middle, between complete real life and complete soap opera, with elements of both, and not absolutely one or the other. And it certainly wouldn't be in a rigid, categorical, box, either.

 

P.S. Sean Faris? Mmmmmmm...I'd say "nope" to him. Not with that mug.

[Mark Arbour]

As is so often the case, B1ue does a great job of channeling many of my thoughts, but I'll expand on what he said and pose the following questions: 

 

1.  Are you suggesting that Will should not be having sex with a lot of different people?  He's very developed, probably equivalent to the average 17 year old (maybe 18) at this point.  Those are the hormonal levels guiding his libido.  He's rich, he's handsome, and he has no relationship commitments.  Why wouldn't he have sex with a lot of different guys?  And please, do not give me that moralizing bullshit, because it's not consistent with his character.  Will does not, and never has had, a prudish nature.  He's very much like his father (and grandfather) when it comes to sex.  When he has a relationship, I think he'll be remarkably monogamous, but when he doesn't, he really doesn't see any need to restrain himself from having sexual encounters.  Contrast Will with Wade in this regard.  Will is more like Matt, in that he views sex as a fun thing to do, and he has no problem having sex with people he's not in a relationship with.  Wade doesn't work that way: he needs the emotional connection, at least for sex to go beyond simple oral/manual stimulation.  In addition, Will comes from a family that embraces sex and sexuality.  Their emphasis has been on safe sex, not celibacy.  

 

2.  Are you suggesting that guys should be turning Will down?  As was pointed out, many of the guys who he's slept with probably don't know how old he is.  What are they supposed to do?  Card him.  "Before I fuck you, please show me your id."  They probably should, but I don't think that's realistic.  A guy goes to sleep with a smoking hot guy who looks like he's of age and stops to check his id.  I can certainly see how some guys may do that, but I'm not sure that having a guy do that would really be meaningful to Will, or the story.  So he meets a guy and the guy asks him how old he is, Will tells him, and the guy opts to not sleep with him.  So Will moves on.  It could possibly be meaningful if the guy was relationship material, but even then, I'm not sure that would really have an impact on Will.  I don't think he'd conclude that because the 18 year old guy he was falling in love with wouldn't sleep with him, then he'd simply not develop feelings in the future for 18 year old guys.  The storyline there would simply be about pain and heartache for Will.  

 

3.  Are you suggesting that he's unique in being the only guy his age who ever went out and slept with older guys?  Matthew Mitcham was cruising gay bars (illegally) when he was 14.  I'm aware of the legal issues, but I'm also aware that those issues don't often weigh too heavily on the minds of hormonal males.  They should, but I'm not convinced that they do.  Our debate here is not between right and wrong, it is between the ideal and reality.

 

4.  Ponder that guys like Jeff or Paulo may be taking a gamble that goes beyond sex.  If you were in their situation, what would you do?  You have the opportunity to sleep with a smoking hot younger guy, who also happens to be filthy rich.  Where's the downside?  That his family may have you arrested and thrown in jail?   That family?   Right.  You weigh that against the upside, which is that this guy you fucked around with may very well be willing to do nice things for you later on.  What if a guy like Jeff decides he wants to go back to college, and take a leave of absence to get his degree.  Stef would pay for it, most likely, but if he didn't, don't you think Will would be willing to jump in and throw some cash his way?  I'm throwing out the hypothesis that rich guys, whether they're straight or gay, are going to have a much easier time getting laid.  There's a very high sycophant factor out there, especially in the US.  Those guys are running a risk, but the potential rewards are probably worth it to them, if they were to look at it in a totally mercenary way.  Again, that may not be how we would like the world to operate, but I'm suggesting that it probably does work that way.  

 

Jeremy:  

 

1.  Are you trying to tell me that it's wrong for a guy like Wade to appreciate that Will is an attractive guy?  He can't even think about Will as a sexual being, not in a fantasizing, erotic way, but just as a sexual being, and find him attractive?  Really?  

 

2.  You're suggesting that Law and Order is a good research source?  

 

3.  Just because Will is young and sexually active, does that somehow mean that I am condoning and supporting sex with minors?  I suppose if all 14 year old minors had grandfathers who were billionaires, and bodies of 17/18 year olds, then perhaps you could draw that conclusion.  Let me know when that happens.  Of course, you could point to all the other minors in this story who are having consensual, sexual relationships with adults.  Guys like John, JJ, Alistair, Ryan, etc.  Oh wait.  They aren't.  You mean Will is unique?  The only one?  Then clearly we should use him to generalize my viewpoints.  

Edited December 26, 2012 by Mark Arbour

[Gene Splicer PHD]

I think it could be fun for Will to nail a random older dude, have the hookup find Will's school ID and flip his shit because he just nailed a minor

[centexhairysub]

First, I have to say really enjoyed this nice Christmas gift of a new chapter of Paternity.  I thought that this chapter showed Will for what he really is a teenager that is vastly more mature than most of his peers but still a teenager.  The fact that Will did not really want to go to the family dinner/party for JJ but ended up reacting the way he did was so well written.  This is an emotional response that rings so true for those of us that deal with that age group on a regular basis.  That push and pull of emotions and feelings that never really balances out but has to be dealt with. 

 

I really like how Will is bonding, even in a limited degree with Nanna.  I think have a strong female perspective can be very important in getting a well rounded world view.  The earlier generations have had Tonto and Maman, this generation has Isidore but we don't really see her impact on them.  Claire is definitely a strong represenative but is just the next generation up and it is different when coming from someone much older. 

 

I really liked the scene with Will and Matt.  They have never really been as close as Will and Wade but you can tell that Matt is starting to see Will in a new light.  Matt has always been closer to JJ, but I think that recent actions have made Matt look at everyone from a more open perspective. 

 

The fact that Will is able to recognize that Jeanine's issue may one day effect him because of the genetic links and how he deals with that issue will resonate always with him.  The way that he is even now addressing that issue even in passing shows a great deal of maturity and wisdom beyond the level posessed by most of those he would call peers.

 

Okay, now on to the recent comments about no one ever saying no to Will at least in a sexual situation.  Like his recent encounter in the weight room re-enforced, Will because of his physical maturity is never going to have problems attracting the attention of another man or boy.  Not everyone is going to be physically attracted to Will, I personally never cared for anyone close to my own age when I was in my teens; I always found men in their late 20's and early 30's with facial hair, hairy bodies, and a more rugged look than someone my age much more attractive.  Except for one encounter that I already relayed in this forum, I have never slept with anyone younger than I was until I was in my early 30's.  There are going to be men that can look at Will and say, DAMN, he is cute/sexy/hot but I have no desire to sleep with him.  I don't know that we are going to see that many of those encounters because they in general will not be as interesting as the ones that end in sex; that doesn't mean they don't happen. 

 

Now, that being said, I do think it would be good from the standpoint of Will learning to deal with adversity to have a man or two that he finds attractive say no, I find you attractive but you just aren't old enough or my type; because we all know that will evetually happen.  I even really like Gene Splicer's idea of someone sleeping with Will, then finding out his age, and really freaking out about it.  Maybe even have him meet up with someone on campus and the guy turns out to be a junior level professor in the history department of Stanford; then the guy finds out he slept with the underage grandson of the chair of the history department, YIKES!?!?!?!?

 

I really do believe that we grow more and learn more while dealing with adversity and hardship then when we just get everything we want handed to us.  The issue that Will faces with this is that as Mark pointed out; he is rich, from a powerful family, physically mature and attractive for his age, and maybe most importantly smart and confident.  All of these factors make it harder for him to encounter hardship or adversity in any aspect of his life, except with dealing with issues like Jeanine or family. 

 

While this is an extrodinarily well written gay erotic story, Mark has always made it so much more by keeping the story grounded in a level of reality and maturity that is missing in so many other online offerings.  In life, there are always limits and boundaries and would we really want to live in a world without them??? 

[methodwriter85]

Jeremy:  

 

1.  Are you trying to tell me that it's wrong for a guy like Wade to appreciate that Will is an attractive guy?  He can't even think about Will as a sexual being, not in a fantasizing, erotic way, but just as a sexual being, and find him attractive?  Really?  

 

2.  You're suggesting that Law and Order is a good research source?  

 

3.  Just because Will is young and sexually active, does that somehow mean that I am condoning and supporting sex with minors?  I suppose if all 14 year old minors had grandfathers who were billionaires, and bodies of 17/18 year olds, then perhaps you could draw that conclusion.  Let me know when that happens.  Of course, you could point to all the other minors in this story who are having consensual, sexual relationships with adults.  Guys like John, JJ, Alistair, Ryan, etc.  Oh wait.  They aren't.  You mean Will is unique?  The only one?  Then clearly we should use him to generalize my viewpoints.  

 

You do realize I was trying to be loyal and defending you and your writing, right?

[Mark Arbour]

Thanks Centex.  I think I get what you (and Tim) were saying now.  You're saying that Will should have to feel the pain of rejection from someone he likes and finds attractive, but doesn't reciprocate.  

 

Generally, I think Will is going to be largely immune from that because of how he plays guys.  He's got game.  He flirts well, and his flirtatiousness is really a way to gauge that interest level.  I'm thinking of how he interacts with Sean, Wade's attorney.  He's very suggestive with Sean, but in a harmless way.  And Sean rolls his eyes and humors Will, his way of telling Will he's flattered by the attention but not really interested.  If Sean were interested, he'd flirt back in a stronger way (like Jeff - Stef's Assistant -  has in the past).  And then Will would probably raise his eyebrows and decide if he wanted to go for it.  I'm betting he would.     Will did the same kind of thing with Ryan, keeping things easy until an opportunity arose (so to speak).  

 

If he was out at a bar, I could see it being different, where he sees a guy he finds to be really attractive, takes the initiative to hit on him, and the guy shoots him down.  That happens to guys of all ages and sizes, so it certainly isn't restricted to Will being a minor.  Again, though, I'd add that his wealth and power would probably add a lot to the equation, so when he walks up to that guy, that guy is going to take Will, who may not be his type, and slap tens of millions of dollars on him.  Of course, no one would ever sleep with someone just because they had lots of money.  

 

Where I can see that playing out is similar to the scenario with Tony, only where Tony does toe the line, and does say no.  But again, I think Will is too good at sending out and receiving "fuck me" signals to really get too screwed up.  On the other hand, I can really see it become an issue is when Will is in a serious relationship, fully committed emotionally, and the other guy dumps him.  

Edited December 26, 2012 by Mark Arbour

[MJ85]

I think, where I really started to get annoyed with Will being able to just hook up with any guy he wants, just because he can, was when the "frat party" happened, just one week ago. I was really turned off by the whole entire thing, as I felt - and still do - that that was where this whole "Will hooking up left and right" thing is starting to get excessive. The reason I don't - and still don't - feel this way, say, about the whole "pole dancing" thing from Poor Man's Son, is that that can easily be seen as Will blowing off steam after what had happened in Paris...and considering they're across the pond anyway, almost anything that happens there can go along with their entire stay being an out-of-the-norm occasion. But the frat party...what's his excuse there? He's 14, and horny? Things like that come across as steps being taken towards being nothing more than a total "party boy" slut.

 

His hooking up again, and again, and again...and again, without anyone, ever, saying no...is starting to get excessive. It's also starting to get stale, and therefore, it's also losing its "erotic"......charm, for lack of a better word.

 

It was suggested earlier that being rejected would merely lead to Will pursuing harder and being even more of a player...I don't necessarily agree. Will's been depicted as not the total "chess" and "people" player that Brad is, and pursuing harder after being rejected...wouldn't such pursuits only turn him into that "chess" player, even if only on the sexual level?

 

One other point that was brought up earlier:

I think this was from the reviews but I am going to bring it up here; Claire is JP's heir apparent.  I think it has been obvious really for the last couple of stories that she is the only one that brings all the necessary traits to the table to step into JP's shoes.  I think Brad will always be an integral part of the family and someone that others seek out for counsel or help, especially in business matters; but Brad just has too many negatives to really take JP's place in the family.  A suggestion was made that Will might be the one to follow in JP's footsteps but unless ever member of the previous generation ends up dead, Will really cannot be JP's immediate successor.  Plus, I am not sure that Will will even be the defacto leader of his generation.  Like Brad, he has several personality traits that make it hard for him to step into that role.

See...I cannot disagree any more strongly than I do right now, with the notion that Claire will be the "successor" to JP. Reason: We simply do not see her at enough of the forefront of dealing with issues head-on at times when JP and/or Stef are there. In otherwords, she's largely...untested, as far as being the pillar of support in a family crisis situation. This would, however gradually, have to change over time, or else I would see Stef as a "successor" first, assuming he doesn't die first.

Actually...what I would imagine as more likely to happen is that the family dynamic will permanently change upon JP's death (or if not upon JP's death, then definitely upon both JP's and Stef's deaths), to the point where there would not be one person at the center - more likely, it would be more than one, whereby there'd be one person that so much of the family turn to in crisis, and a second person to cover the rest of the family. As it stands, the family currently lives among two homes now - so in theory, what's to say that under the new dynamic, one "head-of-household" couldn't/wouldn't contact the other "head" when faced with a crisis that they can't handle on their own?

Edited December 27, 2012 by MJ85

[methodwriter85]

    I actually agree with you that I don't really see "one" head of the family, at least going into the newer generations. The reason why that worked for JP's generation was that everyone was tightly focused in Claremont. It also worked for Be Rad's generation because everyone was stationed in Stanford, and JP as the head of the department made the natural leader for this generation. But the Cramptons/Schluters/Hayes seems like they're moving from being a regional power to being bi-coastal, with influences ranging from the West Coast to the mid-West and now in D.C., and if/when the kids start going off and moving on their own I can't see how the "one person at the center" deal would work.

 

    I actually think that's realistic...it's like the du Ponts of Delaware. They were very well focused and powerful in Delaware, and they followed the French deal with the head of family and the like. But nowaways, the company is global, and the family is so spread out that while they have a greater global influence, they're less of a player provincially.

[B1ue]

That's a pretty realistic scenario, MJ. On my mom's side, our family revolved around my grandmother for four generations. That included her siblings and their descendants, not just her own. After she passed away, the family began to splinter off, and we've never really come together as a family group since, so a couple weddings have come close to pulling the various branches together. My particular offshoot doesn't even get told about all the important deaths and marriages until after they've occured, on occasion. I live a bit less than 20 miles away from the main branch. I maybe see them once a year, and usually not even that frequently.

 

This is depite my maternal grandfather still being alive. He was just never the cultural his wife was, as we tend towards matrlineality.

Edited December 27, 2012 by B1ue

[MJ85]

    I actually agree with you that I don't really see "one" head of the family, at least going into the newer generations. The reason why that worked for JP's generation was that everyone was tightly focused in Claremont. It also worked for Be Rad's generation because everyone was stationed in Stanford, and JP as the head of the department made the natural leader for this generation. But the Cramptons/Schluters/Hayes seems like they're moving from being a regional power to being bi-coastal, with influences ranging from the West Coast to the mid-West and now in D.C., and if/when the kids start going off and moving on their own I can't see how the "one person at the center" deal would work.

 

I dunno if I get the "bi-coastal" vibe as much as I notice that they're now settling into multiple points on the California coast, with enough of a distance between the two that it is a trip. But even with it that way, I still get a "multiple bases of power" vibe.

 

I'm also not sure if I see Claremont as much of a "base" anymore, the way we continue to hear less and less about over there.

 

Wade hasn't been in the picture long enough for D.C. to be another base of power within the same umbrella, but hmmmm...that could get there with time.

Edited December 27, 2012 by MJ85

[methodwriter85]

Right, that's why I'm saying "heading towards", not that it's actually there. But Mark has slowly and steadily given the clan ties to the East Coast, which is why I get the vibe that the influence is becoming bi-coastal.

 

The other thing was that up til the 1960's, Crampton Construction was the big family business, where you were supposed to grow up and take over. Now they've got all these different companies being run, and those companies can't just get run by family, so that adds to the feeling that it's less of the French model of the family head.

[Mark Arbour]

I think, where I really started to get annoyed with Will being able to just hook up with any guy he wants, just because he can, was when the "frat party" happened, just one week ago. I was really turned off by the whole entire thing, as I felt - and still do - that that was where this whole "Will hooking up left and right" thing is starting to get excessive. The reason I don't - and still don't - feel this way, say, about the whole "pole dancing" thing from Poor Man's Son, is that that can easily be seen as Will blowing off steam after what had happened in Paris...and considering they're across the pond anyway, almost anything that happens there can go along with their entire stay being an out-of-the-norm occasion. But the frat party...what's his excuse there? He's 14, and horny? Things like that come across as steps being taken towards being nothing more than a total "party boy" slut.

 

His hooking up again, and again, and again...and again, without anyone, ever, saying no...is starting to get excessive. It's also starting to get stale, and therefore, it's also losing its "erotic"......charm, for lack of a better word.

 

It was suggested earlier that being rejected would merely lead to Will pursuing harder and being even more of a player...I don't necessarily agree. Will's been depicted as not the total "chess" and "people" player that Brad is, and pursuing harder after being rejected...wouldn't such pursuits only turn him into that "chess" player, even if only on the sexual level?

 

I find myself puzzled by comments like this.  Are you saying that you don't like that Will has lots of sex and hooks up with different guys, or are you saying that you don't like reading about it?  If it's the former, as I mentioned before, I've written Will as a sexual being.  If I accommodated you, and suddenly turned him into this celibate being, he would be an entirely different character.  It would be similar to having Stefan suddenly becoming prudish.  Will is young, he's horny, he's got lots of opportunities for sex, and he takes them.  I understand if you feel that's "wrong", but don't expect Will to change his habits just because you think so.  

[Mark Arbour]

It was suggested earlier that being rejected would merely lead to Will pursuing harder and being even more of a player...I don't necessarily agree. Will's been depicted as not the total "chess" and "people" player that Brad is, and pursuing harder after being rejected...wouldn't such pursuits only turn him into that "chess" player, even if only on the sexual level?

 

One other point that was brought up earlier:

See...I cannot disagree any more strongly than I do right now, with the notion that Claire will be the "successor" to JP. Reason: We simply do not see her at enough of the forefront of dealing with issues head-on at times when JP and/or Stef are there. In otherwords, she's largely...untested, as far as being the pillar of support in a family crisis situation. This would, however gradually, have to change over time, or else I would see Stef as a "successor" first, assuming he doesn't die first.

 

Actually...what I would imagine as more likely to happen is that the family dynamic will permanently change upon JP's death (or if not upon JP's death, then definitely upon both JP's and Stef's deaths), to the point where there would not be one person at the center - more likely, it would be more than one, whereby there'd be one person that so much of the family turn to in crisis, and a second person to cover the rest of the family. As it stands, the family currently lives among two homes now - so in theory, what's to say that under the new dynamic, one "head-of-household" couldn't/wouldn't contact the other "head" when faced with a crisis that they can't handle on their own?

 

 

    I actually agree with you that I don't really see "one" head of the family, at least going into the newer generations. The reason why that worked for JP's generation was that everyone was tightly focused in Claremont. It also worked for Be Rad's generation because everyone was stationed in Stanford, and JP as the head of the department made the natural leader for this generation. But the Cramptons/Schluters/Hayes seems like they're moving from being a regional power to being bi-coastal, with influences ranging from the West Coast to the mid-West and now in D.C., and if/when the kids start going off and moving on their own I can't see how the "one person at the center" deal would work.

 

    I actually think that's realistic...it's like the du Ponts of Delaware. They were very well focused and powerful in Delaware, and they followed the French deal with the head of family and the like. But nowaways, the company is global, and the family is so spread out that while they have a greater global influence, they're less of a player provincially.

 

 

That's a pretty realistic scenario, MJ. On my mom's side, our family revolved around my grandmother for four generations. That included her siblings and their descendants, not just her own. After she passed away, the family began to splinter off, and we've never really come together as a family group since, so a couple weddings have come close to pulling the various branches together. My particular offshoot doesn't even get told about all the important deaths and marriages until after they've occured, on occasion. I live a bit less than 20 miles away from the main branch. I maybe see them once a year, and usually not even that frequently.

 

This is depite my maternal grandfather still being alive. He was just never the cultural his wife was, as we tend towards matrlineality.

 

The idea of succession is interesting. In effect, what you all have described has already happened.  JP is recognized as the head of his branch of the family, but I doubt that his brother Jim Crampton (and their family) think so.  I think it is entirely possible (and almost inevitable) that control of a family fractures into different power centers UNLESS there is some big unifying thing, drawing them together.  For the Cramptons, in the past it has been Crampton Construction.  A major family corporation or landholding could quite reasonably hold the group firmly together under one leader.  They are much more diversified now, so I don't see that level of concentrated holdings that would cause family unity, and conglomeration, under one leader.  

[centexhairysub]

One other point that was brought up earlier:

See...I cannot disagree any more strongly than I do right now, with the notion that Claire will be the "successor" to JP. Reason: We simply do not see her at enough of the forefront of dealing with issues head-on at times when JP and/or Stef are there. In otherwords, she's largely...untested, as far as being the pillar of support in a family crisis situation. This would, however gradually, have to change over time, or else I would see Stef as a "successor" first, assuming he doesn't die first.

 

Actually...what I would imagine as more likely to happen is that the family dynamic will permanently change upon JP's death (or if not upon JP's death, then definitely upon both JP's and Stef's deaths), to the point where there would not be one person at the center - more likely, it would be more than one, whereby there'd be one person that so much of the family turn to in crisis, and a second person to cover the rest of the family. As it stands, the family currently lives among two homes now - so in theory, what's to say that under the new dynamic, one "head-of-household" couldn't/wouldn't contact the other "head" when faced with a crisis that they can't handle on their own?

 

    I actually agree with you that I don't really see "one" head of the family, at least going into the newer generations. The reason why that worked for JP's generation was that everyone was tightly focused in Claremont. It also worked for Be Rad's generation because everyone was stationed in Stanford, and JP as the head of the department made the natural leader for this generation. But the Cramptons/Schluters/Hayes seems like they're moving from being a regional power to being bi-coastal, with influences ranging from the West Coast to the mid-West and now in D.C., and if/when the kids start going off and moving on their own I can't see how the "one person at the center" deal would work.

 

    I actually think that's realistic...it's like the du Ponts of Delaware. They were very well focused and powerful in Delaware, and they followed the French deal with the head of family and the like. But nowaways, the company is global, and the family is so spread out that while they have a greater global influence, they're less of a player provincially.

 

Okay, I can see where both MJ85 and Jeremy are coming from on this issue but we don't see the situation the same way.  In almost every story since " Be Rad " that Claire has been featured in there is some point where others turn to her for help or support, although I agree we don't see nearly enough of her.  As several have stated there are always actions that occur offline for a better word; parts of the story that Mark hasn't written about but maybe mentioned in passing or come up after the fact.  This is one reason we don't have to have actually seen Claire in that role; both JP and Stef have made comments that she maybe the one to succeed JP in the family.  Do we really think they would come to this decision lightly or without seeing Claire tested and viewing the results with practiced and unbiased eyes???  No, I think if this is the decision they make, it will be for the right reasons.  Am I saying that Brad is definitely not going to have a shot at retaining his position; no, but each story recently has shown reasons that is beginning to look more and more unlikely.  Will there be a split leadership in the family and I say no to this again; spliting the leadership would only dilute the influence and power of the family and make it harder for the family to present an united front.  The quickest way to sink a boat is to have to many captains and not enough officers and crew.

 

I do think the Jeremy is right and the family is moving into a bi-costal position of power, not just because of Wade but both JP/Stef and Brad/Robbie have bought houses in Ohio; Brad is now chairman of the board of a major defense contractor located primarily on the east coast and in the eastern half of the country; and we are getting additional members of the family coming into play from Ohio and Missouri, as well as Wade and his additions to the mix from Virginia.  I think that MJ85 is correct as well that the family branch in California is split between Malibu/Hollywood and Palo Alto for home bases; but each time something really drastic happens the action always ends up being resolved in the Palo Alto sphere of influence more than the Malibu/Hollywood area.  I guess I view this expansion of influence as just that an expansion from a centralized authority not rival locations springing up to usurp authority from the centralized one. 

 

Within JP's immediate and extended family, he has always been the primary authority; but with the passing of Tonto and Maman, even the other branches of the Crampton and Schulter families as well as the Hayes and Hendricksons to a lesser extent have recognized JP as the ultimate familial authority.  Even Jim, JP's older brother seemed to abdicate that authority to JP in matters of family, not necessarily business matters.  Even though he hasn't lived in Claremont in decades, it is his voice not the family that remains that carries the most weight.  If Stef outlives JP, he will certainly remain an authority figure but I can't see him being the next in line.  If he is there, Stef will advise and support the next head of the family but won't move into that position himself.  Outside of the family, Brad will be the one most visible and with the most external trapping of authority, wealth, and power; but none of those will be the deciding factor on who leads in the next generation.  Stef is the wealthiest of his generation but no one would have every really considered him to be the head of the family in the generation now in power within the family. 

 

I am going to compare the Crampton/Schulter/Hayes/Hendrickson/etc family dynamic to two others that I believe resemble them in how their power is centralized and passed from generation to generation.  Both examples are a little grandiose, but I am using them because they fit my arguments...  LOL...

 

The first is a little far fetched but I am using it anyway.  The old school Italian mob has always been and continues to be controlled by a centralized power base.  Even when the family/families expanded locations and into new enterprises the control was retained by the the individual heads of the family, usually located in New York.  Even the head of the individual families would submit to a centralized Boss of Bosses, that was usually agreed upon by a majority of the other head of the families.  No matter how much the family grew either geographically, by expanding into new areas of business, or by adding or absorbing smaller families; the control remained centralized. 

 

My next example is the house of Hanover and Windsor.  The last British ruler from the house of Hanover was Queen Victoria and her son was the first of the line that would become the house of Windsor.  Queen Victoria, through her nine children, tied herself and the British royal family to almost every Royal and Principal family in Europe.  Even today, more than a hundred years after her death, the British family remains the dominate one in many family matters even within other branches that are headed by independent principalities or duchies.  Several of those require permission, albeit nominal, from Queen Elizabeth II to marry and conduct certain business.  The house of Hanover and later the house of Windsor has expanded ita reach and influence but still retain a centralized family control, true in many senses the control is purely nominal or symbolic but it is still there.

 

Growing up here in Texas, I have known several families with dynamics similar to the Crampton/Schulter/Hayes/et al family.  The ones that have managed to grow and still retain their ability to flourish and prosper are the ones that are lead generation after generation with one voice in each generation being the dominate one.  It is these families that truly shape the politcal, cultural, social, and economic landscapes for generations on end. 

[centexhairysub]

The idea of succession is interesting. In effect, what you all have described has already happened.  JP is recognized as the head of his branch of the family, but I doubt that his brother Jim Crampton (and their family) think so.  I think it is entirely possible (and almost inevitable) that control of a family fractures into different power centers UNLESS there is some big unifying thing, drawing them together.  For the Cramptons, in the past it has been Crampton Construction.  A major family corporation or landholding could quite reasonably hold the group firmly together under one leader.  They are much more diversified now, so I don't see that level of concentrated holdings that would cause family unity, and conglomeration, under one leader.  

 

Okay, this was posted after I started writing my last post but before I posted it; got sidetracked by family drama... 

 

I think in many ways JP has supplimented Jim as head of the family as a whole.  I think it started when their father was still alive and Isidore split from Crampton Construction with JP's backing.  Then you had the whole issue of Jim and his son both sleeping with Bitsy, Maman's will, Ella's parentage and the fall out from that, and JP coming back to Claremont to help turn it around.  In the last story, we even had mention that Jim and his branch is holding onto control of Crampton Construction only through the support of JP and his group, so even in business JP is maybe not leading but his support is what counts. 

 

Of course, Mark is the creator and it is his how he views the CAP universe that ultimately drives it forward but I think to some extent JP isn't just over his branch but over the other branches and even other families that have come into the Crampton sphere....

[Westie]

For the Cramptons, in the past it has been Crampton Construction.  A major family corporation or landholding could quite reasonably hold the group firmly together under one leader.  They are much more diversified now, so I don't see that level of concentrated holdings that would cause family unity, and conglomeration, under one leader.  

 

 I might suggest that ownership/control of Escorial might serve similar functions.  As might control of family trusts.  LEt's not forget that this is a family that invests together, and so their family fortunes are very much in one pot.  Their share of that pot, and how it comes to be controlled and managed, could be critical.

 

For all their successes, the vast bulk of the family wealth must still reside with JP (as one of Stef's early investors), Isidore (who owns her own construction company that must rival Crampton Construction) and Stef himself.  Brad is successful, but although we don't know exact detail, we do know that a lot of his money is within the Schluter Trusts controlled by him and Stef jointly.  His combined fortune with Robbie  - large though it undoubtedly is - would be dwarfed by the wealth held  by the rest of the family.  

 

Escorial is where everyone comes together.  It is their retreat and their solace.  I think the inheritor of that estate, or at least the one who ended up in ultimate control, would take a position of leadership within the family.  That said, it would undoubtedly be less strong than the power JP holds.  But, you are thinking of leadership as something one exercises.  But there is much more than control and power.  In this family - of secrets and lies abound - it may just be that the Head of the Family is the one to whom JP entrusts all it's secrets.

[MJ85]

I find myself puzzled by comments like this.  Are you saying that you don't like that Will has lots of sex and hooks up with different guys, or are you saying that you don't like reading about it?  If it's the former, as I mentioned before, I've written Will as a sexual being.  If I accommodated you, and suddenly turned him into this celibate being, he would be an entirely different character.  It would be similar to having Stefan suddenly becoming prudish.  Will is young, he's horny, he's got lots of opportunities for sex, and he takes them.  I understand if you feel that's "wrong", but don't expect Will to change his habits just because you think so.  

 

Why is it that I keep mentioning other guys telling Will "no", rather than Will saying "no", only to be met with Will having to be turned into a prude in order to accomplish that????? :P It's not that it needs to be that Will changes his hook-up attitude at all!! My thought is more along the lines of what centex said:

 

Now, that being said, I do think it would be good from the standpoint of Will learning to deal with adversity to have a man or two that he finds attractive say no, I find you attractive but you just aren't old enough or my type; because we all know that will evetually happen.

 

Am I really that crazy for thinking that Will continuing to have his hook-ups so easily is losing its...ah, losing its luster?

 

Other than the frat party thing, though, I'm not going to knock on his previous hook-ups. But I will say that it is now getting to be routine. These new hook-ups don't add anything more to the story than previous ones did. But if having his hook-ups cool off isn't the answer, then...what is, Mark? If they are to continue......then......how can they be improved?

 

The idea of succession is interesting. In effect, what you all have described has already happened.  JP is recognized as the head of his branch of the family, but I doubt that his brother Jim Crampton (and their family) think so.  I think it is entirely possible (and almost inevitable) that control of a family fractures into different power centers UNLESS there is some big unifying thing, drawing them together.  For the Cramptons, in the past it has been Crampton Construction.  A major family corporation or landholding could quite reasonably hold the group firmly together under one leader.  They are much more diversified now, so I don't see that level of concentrated holdings that would cause family unity, and conglomeration, under one leader.  

 

This is very interesting in that it highlights the two different meanings of what "family" can be. Based on this scheme of things, JP's "branch" and Jim's "branch" could each be considered two separate "families" in the sense of who each interacts with on more of the day-to-day basis. But, in the other sense, it's still all one large family, based purely on things like blood relation, or legal adoption, or the like.

 

Okay, I can see where both MJ85 and Jeremy are coming from on this issue but we don't see the situation the same way.  In almost every story since " Be Rad " that Claire has been featured in there is some point where others turn to her for help or support, although I agree we don't see nearly enough of her.  As several have stated there are always actions that occur offline for a better word; parts of the story that Mark hasn't written about but maybe mentioned in passing or come up after the fact.  This is one reason we don't have to have actually seen Claire in that role; both JP and Stef have made comments that she maybe the one to succeed JP in the family.  Do we really think they would come to this decision lightly or without seeing Claire tested and viewing the results with practiced and unbiased eyes???  No, I think if this is the decision they make, it will be for the right reasons.  Am I saying that Brad is definitely not going to have a shot at retaining his position; no, but each story recently has shown reasons that is beginning to look more and more unlikely.  Will there be a split leadership in the family and I say no to this again; spliting the leadership would only dilute the influence and power of the family and make it harder for the family to present an united front.  The quickest way to sink a boat is to have to many captains and not enough officers and crew.

 

I do think the Jeremy is right and the family is moving into a bi-costal position of power, not just because of Wade but both JP/Stef and Brad/Robbie have bought houses in Ohio; Brad is now chairman of the board of a major defense contractor located primarily on the east coast and in the eastern half of the country; and we are getting additional members of the family coming into play from Ohio and Missouri, as well as Wade and his additions to the mix from Virginia.  I think that MJ85 is correct as well that the family branch in California is split between Malibu/Hollywood and Palo Alto for home bases; but each time something really drastic happens the action always ends up being resolved in the Palo Alto sphere of influence more than the Malibu/Hollywood area.  I guess I view this expansion of influence as just that an expansion from a centralized authority not rival locations springing up to usurp authority from the centralized one. 

 

Within JP's immediate and extended family, he has always been the primary authority; but with the passing of Tonto and Maman, even the other branches of the Crampton and Schulter families as well as the Hayes and Hendricksons to a lesser extent have recognized JP as the ultimate familial authority.  Even Jim, JP's older brother seemed to abdicate that authority to JP in matters of family, not necessarily business matters.  Even though he hasn't lived in Claremont in decades, it is his voice not the family that remains that carries the most weight.  If Stef outlives JP, he will certainly remain an authority figure but I can't see him being the next in line.  If he is there, Stef will advise and support the next head of the family but won't move into that position himself.  Outside of the family, Brad will be the one most visible and with the most external trapping of authority, wealth, and power; but none of those will be the deciding factor on who leads in the next generation.  Stef is the wealthiest of his generation but no one would have every really considered him to be the head of the family in the generation now in power within the family. 

 

I am going to compare the Crampton/Schulter/Hayes/Hendrickson/etc family dynamic to two others that I believe resemble them in how their power is centralized and passed from generation to generation.  Both examples are a little grandiose, but I am using them because they fit my arguments...  LOL...

 

The first is a little far fetched but I am using it anyway.  The old school Italian mob has always been and continues to be controlled by a centralized power base.  Even when the family/families expanded locations and into new enterprises the control was retained by the the individual heads of the family, usually located in New York.  Even the head of the individual families would submit to a centralized Boss of Bosses, that was usually agreed upon by a majority of the other head of the families.  No matter how much the family grew either geographically, by expanding into new areas of business, or by adding or absorbing smaller families; the control remained centralized. 

 

My next example is the house of Hanover and Windsor.  The last British ruler from the house of Hanover was Queen Victoria and her son was the first of the line that would become the house of Windsor.  Queen Victoria, through her nine children, tied herself and the British royal family to almost every Royal and Principal family in Europe.  Even today, more than a hundred years after her death, the British family remains the dominate one in many family matters even within other branches that are headed by independent principalities or duchies.  Several of those require permission, albeit nominal, from Queen Elizabeth II to marry and conduct certain business.  The house of Hanover and later the house of Windsor has expanded ita reach and influence but still retain a centralized family control, true in many senses the control is purely nominal or symbolic but it is still there.

 

Growing up here in Texas, I have known several families with dynamics similar to the Crampton/Schulter/Hayes/et al family.  The ones that have managed to grow and still retain their ability to flourish and prosper are the ones that are lead generation after generation with one voice in each generation being the dominate one.  It is these families that truly shape the politcal, cultural, social, and economic landscapes for generations on end. 

 

You seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on family position, and a continued rigid family structure. Since when does this family do "rigid"?

 

(That said, if Stef were to move into the center where JP is now, I'd imagine that it would be more of an "interim" or temporary thing - either as a transition to better prepare whoever comes next if the family does go that route, or because depending on when/how it happens, Stef may be even more aged by then, and not live terribly long past JP as the center influence. But, it's Stef that I think of both out of the influence he already wields now, and out of continued deference to JP, seeing as Stef is JP's "de facto" husband.)

[centexhairysub]

(That said, if Stef were to move into the center where JP is now, I'd imagine that it would be more of an "interim" or temporary thing - either as a transition to better prepare whoever comes next if the family does go that route, or because depending on when/how it happens, Stef may be even more aged by then, and not live terribly long past JP as the center influence. But, it's Stef that I think of both out of the influence he already wields now, and out of continued deference to JP, seeing as Stef is JP's "de facto" husband.)

 

Hmmm, I always saw Stef as more the wife than the husband...  LOL....

Edited December 27, 2012 by centexhairysub