Henson

You have hit on what my main concern was, but have expressed it much better. This doesn't just go to protecting Wade's heart - it goes to protecting his home, his fortune, and his family. He has to be more responsible as a Danfield, father,and gazillionaire, and we've never seen him not be cognizant of that. I don't want Alex to be a con, and I honestly don't think he is. I like the character. I think this whole situation is a convenient way to bring the families together, give Matt a heavy blow to help him on his road to greater maturity, and spice up a later story in Boston. But it's just so... sudden and weird, considering who it is in the middle of it. This is something a Schluter would do, not Wade. It's weird. It's rude. It's un-classy. It's irresponsible. And yes, I've done some pretty irresponsible and self-centered things myself in the midst of a crush, but I'm not this character and I sure as hell ain't a gazillionaire with a kid and a family legacy (which is taken VERY seriously) to protect.

As I said in the poll thread, the point of the story is Brad and Matt in flux - each cast adrift, and building a new phase of life. It makes sense to introduce a plot device which teaches Matt how to be friends with an ex. That said, this is significantly out of character for Wade. It is impulsive and immature, two things he never is. Wade is deliberate and collected. My fear is that his relegation to a secondary character in the focus on Matt has changed the way he is being written. At this point, Will is making more mature decisions than Wade (though not by much) - what's up with that?

This story focuses on Matt and Brad's being cast adrift. They are the primary characters in flux, from what I have seen. Look at things from that perspective. Will Alex be important? Probably, since he's a well-constructed character moving in with Wade. He may even get his own story someday. Will he be a primary character in this particular story? I doubt it. I think at this point he's just one more plot device which throws Matt into greater flux, so he can ultimately find himself as an adult, vs an overgrown adolescent. What happens in the long term? If Alex and Wade wind up "together together," it doesn't make sense for it to happen in this story. If that's going to happen, it will likely happen later. I doubt it will happen at all, though. Almost all primary, long-lasting couples in CAP so far have been opposites.

It took me a few weeks to get to this point... You argue for the sake of argument, always pushing for 100% capitulation - even when your victim partially agrees with you. You write point by point refutations of others' posts, pointing out fallacies - and then immediately revert to your own favorites of reducing to the absurd, false choice, and argument from authority. I have the ability to look at that behavior and just laugh instead of personalizing it, but not everyone here has the same skin-thickening military background I do. This isn't a legal brief, where you are duty bound to be a ferocious, unwavering advocate for a highly specific point of view, never giving an inch of ground. It is a discussion board, where a group has gathered to celebrate the stories - and characters - of a talented writer. Your aggression is unwarranted, and trying to say everyone is doing it is either self-delusion or disingenuous in the extreme. How many people have told you here that you're rude? Add one more. It is possible, even desirable, to disagree pleasantly.

Will, in this situation, is an adolescent boy, with an adolescent boy temper, taking a direct blow to his adolescent boy ego from the source of all his current adolescent boy angst. That blow was a result of intentional actions by the arch-enemy of all adolescent boys - adults who refuse to take his adolescent boy love life seriously. And you're surprised that his immediate reaction was volcanic? Did you exit the womb as a thirty year old? C'mon. And the fact that a reaction was disproportionate most certainly does not make it, in all cases, unwarranted. These adults were fucking with him intentionally. That the camp was a pretext to a larger goal of asserting control over Zach is so glaringly obvious it's tough not to see arguments to the contrary as lawyerly and disingenuous, but I repeat myself. Some people, many whom argue for a living, remind me of the classic John Cleese argument sketch, "In order to have an argument, I must take up a contrary position, see?"

The sports world is, unlike finance and entertainment, a world where this family has little to no pull. Could firing someone like Barry, who both exists in this world and knows Zach is gay, blow back on the poor kid? What's to stop the jilted manager from starting a little whisper campaign, one which could never be definitively traced back to him? If nothing else, this just underscores how utterly corrupt and manipulative college-level football is in this country. These kids are not their own. They are commodities, to be used or discarded for profit when the time comes. Ultimately, all considered, the best way to get Zach on a team is for Steph to buy one. Can you just imagine? And it's not as if they're bad investments.

Teenagers, especially ones with well-above-average education, are often sponges who have an amazing capacity to quote things they've heard or read, often without realizing it.

Hmm. Will's flamboyant, unflinching hypocrisy and ridiculously unwarranted sense of moral certitude remind me of every other gay man between the ages of 14-24 that I've ever met. That age group is hilariously un-self aware and quick to judge.

Maybe I'm just being cranky. It wouldn't be the first time, Lord knows. But this isn't just the figure skating thing. It's not even just one guy. It's the tenor of this forum in general. I'm tired of people telling the author what he can and cannot write. It's his story. He does a remarkable job of ignoring all but the most constructive criticism (for example, he doesn't care one whit if you like his characters, but he will certainly re-evaluate if he's told they're veering out of character). But the fundamental thing we as readers need to remember is... IT'S HIS STORY. We're along for the ride, and I enjoy the hell out of that ride. (It's also moderately irritating to watch someone hitch his wagon to a storyteller of Mark's caliber and insinuate, over and over, that the story wouldn't have happened without that person's help. As if Mark is incapable of figuring shit out.)

I agree with that. There are, however, inappropriate ways to constrain the text before it even enters the author's imagination. I am here to read MARK'S stories.

Oh, fer cryin' out loud.... This kills me every time I see it. IT'S NOT YOUR STORY. My name is Josh, I like to think I'm smart, and I majored in political science (before I got smart and became an engineer), but I don't watch The West Wing as if Josh is me, and I know what's a'comin. I understand it's a bit different here - but not really. It's ridiculous. Let Mark write. He does a really good job of it. It's as though the guy who put the frame on the Picasso decided he's "part of the team." There, i feel better now From here on out I request - no, keeping in character with what's apparently acceptable around here, DEMAND - that any and all figure skaters in future stories be fictional. All of it. Even the schedule. Figure skating is not history on par with the Oklahoma City bombing.

There's constructive criticism, and discussion of the characters. There's the habitual adoption of contrary positions out of habit because one enjoys the intellectual rigor and ego rush of argument - similar to how some see sports or working out. There is the excessive and unceasing demonization of carefully crafted and cared-for protagonists who are loosely identified with people in the author's life. These are three separate things, though they can often bleed over into each other. A lot of what has happened in this forum over the last year has been anything BUT constructive criticism, though the perps often defend it as such. It is not constructive when pursued to excess. It is ego-driven and immature. Nothing dogs men quite like pride and libido. That's what kills grindr, too

So who's the next narrator... Wade or Matt... And where?

I separated this post out because it makes a separate point. Don't caricature the military. You know not if what you speak. Most of the more fiercely self-sufficient, confident, smart, and individualistic people I know I met in the military. It is not a monolithic group only open to people willing to strictly conform. It is also not overwhelmingly conservative, not any more - and with damned good reason. We're the ones who really got screwed by Bush.

Correct. Also, as someone who not only lived DADT, but was instrumental in getting it repealed, it was much less benign than it was sold to be. The reality of the policy is that there was a law which made it illegal - not in the sense of not allowed, but in the sense of being punishable - for any person with "a propensity to engage in homosexual acts" to be in the military. DADT was a myth - congress passed a law outlawing the existence of gay people. No one who was a known, out, gay person could realistically last long under the policy. Things written in private emails, diaries, and even communications which would be privileged in civilian life (such as disclosures to psychiatrists and chaplains) were cause for people to be kicked out and, occasionally, prosecuted under that policy. Were people out? Yes, but not generally going into it. We came out AFTER we were already safely a known factor. In essence, we were safe because, "oh, Henson isn't one of THOSE gays, so he's ok. We'll just keep it quiet because he's one of ours." If anyone was out at any point in the months or years of training prior to arrival at a unit, they were fired pretty damned quick.

These people buy cars like the rest of us buy iPods. It's a matter of perspective, which a boy in Will's family could not possibly have. He doesn't even understand how big a decision a car is to people like Wally and Clara - or to most of us here. It doesn't register, because he does not understand working class realities. This isn't a big deal to him. If he bought the kid a house, maybe...

The car wasn't a huge, glaring character flaw, or an intentional diss of Wally and Clara (does he even really know them?) The car was the fabulously, unbelievably wealthy boy's equivalent of helping his friend sneak out of the house past curfew. Will he come to the realization that there were consequences he hadn't considered someday? Probably. It's called growing. 14 year old boys do that.

Young guys have a way of being incredibly stupid, and yet holding to an arrogance that keeps them in a fog of absolute faith in the moral rightness of their every opinion. Guys right up into their mid twenties are self-centered, oblivious, think everything is binary good/bad, and are capable of believing they're standing in a crowded room of very smart people who are "wrong" while they, and they alone, know what is "right." Some outgrow this. Some don't, which is how we get people like Brad. What I appreciate about the way Mark writes Will is that he is true to this character flaw present in just about every smart young man in the history of ever. Will is a good kid. He's also pretty true to life if you can get past the early bloomer plot device. He is interesting to the story, not because he's right all the time, but because his mistakes and learning process are pretty true to life and relateable. The reader is like an uncle orva teacher (or JP) watching him grow and cheering him on. It's obvious to me that his character is being written by someone with a very smart young man in his life, because he's able to craft a growth process for the character that feels "right" for a kid in his extraordinary circumstances. There are a lot of people who dislike the immaturity that, lets face it, is there and will be there for ten more story years. Those of us who enjoy Will's story along with the older guys are enjoying that he's basically a pretty-colored lump of self-righteous but compassionate clay that we get to watch the author mold into someone who either redeems Brad, or ultimately self destructs. That's an interesting story arc, whether you think he's a brat or not. And get real - of course he's a brat. He's a smart, rich, attractive, teenaged guy. He acts like it. For the folks in either "camp" of thinking he does no wrong or does only wrong, I think you're missing the point in all of your cheerleading. Let's see who he is when he's Wade's age. Or Brad's age. Bet he's a better man than his father...

Regarding naval personnel in Afganistan and Iraq, google "individual augmentee." Imagine my surprise when my ex, a navy supply guy, was handed a bunch of army uniforms and sent to a FOB in BFE for a year. There's a former submariner in my office with PTSD from his time in Iraq, and another former naval intel guy facing his 13th back surgery from wandering the hills of Afghanistan. The US Navy was most certainly involved.

Speaking just for myself, I'd like JJ to have a career-ending injury within the next story. It would grow him as a character, shake up the established dynamic, and I'd never have to read the word "Olympics" in this forum again. Can we possibly obsess any more about a minor plot device? Mark has never posted about JJ's figure skating career in this forum that I can recall. This being his story, that lack of attention should inform everyone's opinion of just how important that hobby is. For reference, there's more words in this story about riding horses than there are about skating. The skating appeared to me to be a foil to Matt and Wade's hockey personae when they were the focus.

This is anecdotal, but my experience as a young guy in the Navy in San Diego and Florida was that young Asian guys there and then had a tendency to think "let's get married and have babies!" after only one or two dates, or even just after hooking up. DC seems much more chill. I'm a tall hairy white guy who actually likes Asians, and my body type seems to be pretty popular with them - I've always chalked it up to guys idealizing a body type they'll never have themselves. I've learned to make it very clear ahead of time if long term dating isn't in the cards, and even then I get younger Asian guys who call/text me at work just to chat about life's woes weeks after a hookup. And yes, mainland Asians in my experience run smaller, as do Japanese/Thai/Indonesians. I don't mind that, but I'm not necessarily overawed by huge members. Other islanders, not so small. Philippino/Samoan can pack some nice surprises.

Perhaps, just maybe, you're not the only person in this forum living with HIV - for a decade even? Don't presume to judge us as ignorant simply for committing the sin of disagreeing with your wisdom.

When something occurs in a story, it is not the author doing the thing. It is the character. We didn't think that Mark was physically destroying Brad and Robbie's property during Will's epic tantrum. It was the author using Will's actions to drive story and character. Would we have understood the level of upset Will was expressing if he hadn't expressed it in that way? The characters do what they do to drive story and setting, and they are not a reflection of what Mark personally feels is appropriate or not. Likewise, when a term gets used by a character in a fictional story, it is not the author using the term. It is the character using that term, and not all characters necessarily reflect the mores of the author 100% of the time. Being offended by this use of terminology, a use which rings very true to someone of the age group and demographic the two characters are described as filling, is precisely the same as being offended by Mark Twain's use of Nigger as a descriptor for Jim, the unquestioned hero of his story, or of Injun for Joe in those same stories. It's silly, self-absorbed, and petulant. #firstworldproblems indeed. The underlying issue of HIV stigma will not be solved, or even dented, by shaming exceptional authors for writing characters into fictional stories who use the slang common in 2001 any more than issues of race will be solved by censoring the other Mark. Now if Mark says the same to you in a PM, or through Grindr, or posts in the forum about how perfectly fine it is for real humans to speak this way to each other in current day, feel free to open the gunports. I'll join ya.

Alright, that was a lot. Sorry. Numbers didn't go up from 9-11. Quality did. Then Iraq happened, the quality degraded for the Army (only), and they took everyone they could for about a year until they grew enough to start weeding out the idiots and non-conformers - but that uptick was measured in the tens of thousands. Not anything significant compared with the overall population. The real change was the reserves and national guard getting deployed, sometimes several times. That brought it closer to home for some folks, but again, measured in tens of thousands. Not a huge number of folks. People TRIED to get military jobs, because no one else was hiring, but they largely failed unless they tried to join around 2004.

I was in the military from before 9-11 until 2010, including several years as an instructor, curriculum developer, and school manager. I currently work as an engineer for a defense contractor. Back in the day, before the all volunteer military, there was a small cadre of trained men that was designed to swell up quickly and impressively using low-skill barely trained draftees led by that cadre. WWI is a great example of this concept, and several nations (such as Russia and Canada) still operate this way. Today, things are different. The modern US military personnel system is simply unable to accept more than the planned-for quotas. School classes (and basic training/boot camp is considered a school by the military) are planned out on an annual basis each fiscal year based on desired end strength personnel numbers and growth/contraction models that are planned out years in advance. The military doesn't see people as interchangeable legos - sorry to disappoint, but we're not a monolithic entity of like thinking small town conservatives who joined up to blow up ragheads cuz, you know, MERIKA. They, just like any other company, have several specific job quotas they need filled, and use military schools to train people for those specific jobs. These schools are a bottleneck, which is ok, because there has never been a need for a large influx of recruits with one exception, which I'll get to in a minute. The US military of the time was designed to fight 2 1/2 Iraqs simultaneously. If there was a sudden large influx of recruits due to 9-11, two things would have (and did) happen. First, a lot of people got turned away, and second, people who were accepted wound up waiting several months for a school quota to come available. Looking at the first of those, right after 9-11, the military was in the interesting position of turning away qualified recruits. Lots of them. At the same time, the quality of the people trying to enlist was going up - more college graduates trying to enlist, and for a brief time all four branches stopped granting waivers for things like medical and moral problems, or for not having a high school diploma. Then Iraq happened. The higher quality recruits kept coming to the Navy and Air Force because the economy was lackluster, but those jobs were harder to get because the Navy and Air Force were intentionally shrinking. The Army, on the other hand, started having issues meeting recruiting goals for a couple reasons. The first one, which is obvious, was Iraq visibly sucked. The second one is that the Army and Marine Corps were trying to grow. The Marines never really had problems getting "their kind" of recruit, but the Army started taking anyone who could breathe (at one point they were accepting ASVAB scores down to 17 - this from a test graded on a 100pt scale). At the same time, certain critical skills were stop-lossed (as someone alluded to above) meaning that their enlistments were involuntarily extended. That was because the schools couldn't keep up with the demand, and the majority of the new recruits didn't have the prerequisite skills needed to get into those schools in the first place. That's how you wound up with submarine qualified Navy lieutenants doing reconstruction and public affairs work in Iraq, or Navy supply people standing guard at FOBs in Afghanistan. That growth only lasted for about a year or two before they reached the goal and started to cut back down again. There's a lot more to the modern military than combat arms (guys with guns). Combat arms account for about 20% of the Army, and a much lower percentage of the military as a whole. Everyone else is trained to do a specific technical job, from managing unit finances, to repairing specialized communications equipment and computer networks, to translating intelligence intercepts, to designing supply and logistics systems. We run the gamut from nuclear engineers to pay clerks. Just like any HR outfit, the military's personnel and manning centers don't see people as interchangeable parts. They see job applicants who need to be filtered out and trained into a specific job opening. Were there more people trying to enlist after 9-11? Yes. Did most of them get in? No. Not until Iraq. The low quality of recruits in the middle of the decade is, in my opinion, the genesis of some of the gang related and sexual assault related problems the Army has had over the last several years - but this story doesn't really deal with that timeframe, does it? You know who were getting into the military around 2002-2003? College dropouts who ran out of money. Maybe that's why you think there was this massive growth, because those are the people you were hanging around with in your comfortable suburban existence, but I'm telling you, the growth in the military at that time was very slow, and even stop-loss orders were specifically targeted to certain jobs. The folks who joined after 9-11 were not the reason the military grew. That well dried up during Iraq. What was left was people who couldn't get jobs elsewhere, couldn't screen for the Navy and Air Force, and were left with the Army as their only option - lots and lots of inner-city folks. Not suburbanites at all. Well, that and a massive Reserves callup. Most folks in the reserves are vets. I could be wrong, but I think that over the time period we're discussing here, the percentage of the US population in the military continued to shrink. This was long and rambling, but some of you folks have no real idea what you're talking about while remaining utterly convinced that something is so just because it seems to you as though it makes sense. One person leaps immediately to mind, and annoyingly does this on most subjects in this forum ("I think it, therefore it must be so"). Well, guess what - the world is a complicated place, you don't know everything, and college alone doesn't prepare you for the world the way folks tell you it does. I know, I've graduated from a few of them, spent over a decade in uniform, traveled all over the world, and somehow got a job as an engineer with a liberal arts degree (still haven't figured that one out). The smartest people I ever met, I met in the military. The dumbest people I ever met, I met in college - several of them were teaching. Summa cum laude here, and I passed on law school so I could make real money, so I'm not some anti-intellectual conservative who wants to blow up brown people. Just telling the truth. Got questions? Ask. Don't make stuff up, try to convince everyone you're right, and in the process paint real people, veterans of the second most ridiculous war ever fought, as some sort of monolithic caricature. It's offensive.