Mark Arbour

I hear you. There's something about that seminal party experience that never quite leaves you. Personally, I loved to corrupt freshmen. (insert evil emoticon)

Granger has been raised to understand his position in the greater scheme of things. This is not so different. Still, I think you're right, and that it would have been like torture to have to stand there when he just wants to go in and fight the good fight.

I think that Will is secure because of who he is and who has his back, so an idiot like Carl wouldn't bother him. Besides, can you imagine what would happen to Carl if he actually started a fight with Will? They'd find him in a garbage dump, disemboweled. At this point, Ryan is embarrassed by his father, and intrigued by Will. He does. It's in his blood.

I figure if I can't be good (that reviewer that skewered poor Dom would undoubtedly skewer me worse), I can at least be quirky and unpredictable.

That's often a tough line to walk for a parent.

You're right. Consistency. It's one of the things this millennial generation craves.

Actually, this one was longer than the last one. You're not one of those guys who's a size queen, are you? ;-)

I'm glad you did. I think that, as in real life, the conflicts hide multiple issues beneath the surface. Here, Will was fighting not just to fight, but to keep Ryan out of trouble, and to keep his escape route open. That's worth fighting for.

Variety is the spice of life, no?

I didn't hear any talk of censorship here. The issue is not whether a review should or shouldn't be published, the issue is whether it should be done anonymously. There's no gray area here. The answer is no. The reviewer should be willing and able to stand up for what he/she wrote. If you can't do that, you shouldn't write it. That's not censorship, that's conviction in what you believe, in what you think. This isn't about a popularity contest, it's about some level of literary integrity. When a review like this comes out anonymously and bashes, as Sharon said, "one of GA's best and most popular authors", it makes the whole motivation suspect. Is it just latent jealousy by some at Dom's continuing popularity despite his absence? Is there some other reason? Because we don't know who wrote it, it can't be put into context. It makes the entire community look bad. Look at how much better Cia's review was. She made her points, but did it in a respectful way. She recognized both the audience for the story and for the review. How much hate mail did you get over that one, Cia? What if she'd slammed the story? She'd have had to back it up. What's so bad about that? But it's done. It's over. It got attention, and got people looking at Dom's work. I'm just asking that we not do this again. Let's keep the process transparent. It's better for everyone that way.

September 29, 2000 Harvard-Westlake School Westwood, CA Will “Fuck!” Ryan said as he slammed his phone shut. I looked around nervously, since we were in the hallway, and he was pretty loud. “What?” “My mother is going away again this weekend, and she decided that I shouldn’t be alone.” “Uh, oh,” I said, sensing bad news. “Yeah. So she called my dad up, and I get to spend the whole fucking weekend with him.” “Bummer, dude,” I said sincerely. Ever

Or maybe he won't have anyone. :-)

The issue of a blind review is important. At what other site are reviews posted by unknown people slamming the works of the authors that site hosts? Where's the precedent? Anonymous or Blind reviews are vital in the academic world, but those reviews are shared ONLY with the author. If someone is going to publicly state their opinion about a story, they should be required to disclose who they are. You can't even post anonymous reviews to stories here, so why should a feature article allow them? I'm not advocating or even asking that you release the name of this reviewer. I'd just like to know that for future reviews, if someone's going to post their ideas, they have to post them under their own name. If they have to take responsibility for what they say, they may be more responsible about how they say it.

You guys can say what you want, but this review is a bunch of crap. If it wasn't, why would the reviewer hide behind the wall of anonymity? If you're going to post reviews, the credibility of the reviewer is paramount to valuing the review itself. This reviewer has no face, and no credibility. His or her review is pretentious: it sounds like something that you'd hear over at awesomedude. And the spelling is important. If you're going to do a review and slam the writer, you better get your own act together, and that means spelling the character's names correctly. What a disappointment for our GA News blog, which has been excellent up until this point.

You'll have to share your reasons with me. Thanks for your compliment! It does take time, but it's enjoyable. Actually, this was an historical accuracy. St. Vincent was one of the first actions in this war where frigates were fired on by ships of the line, and indicated a change in the culture of battle. Nelson and Napoleon illustrated this change in culture, as both went for victories of annihilation. Jervis will be lauded for capturing 4 ships of the line, while at the Nile, Nelson will destroy or capture all but a few of the French ships. The gentlemanliness of battle is fading into the background. Yep. I wanted to create a way for Granger to be involved in the victory, and that seemed like a good way to do it! LOL. I think that Granger is quite happy to let his role in creating chaos in the fleet go unreported. He knows that Nelson will be the hero of the hour, and he's smart enough to realize that stealing Nelson's thunder is NEVER a good idea. As long as the First Lord and powers-that-be know what he did, that's enough.

I think that the position of "flag lieutenant" is a good jumping off place for promotion, but so is first lieutenant, especially of a ship like Belvidera.

Well, this is fiction, but I try to stay as true to history as I can.

It was such an amazing battle that it was fun to write about. Much more than just a "two fleets meet and slug it out."

You'll have to explain that "new understanding" in the forums. Glad you liked the descriptions.

It's all about the politics.

I think Tony is struggling to avoid the answer to that question.

The next chapter of Paternity should be up within the next couple of days. In the meantime, if you're bored, they did an interview with me on the GA blog. You can find it here.

Well, the latest chapter of St. Vincent is up. I also wanted to add that I did an interview here on GA. In case you missed it and were interested, the link is here.

February 14, 1797 Granger watched as Captain passed between Excellent and Diadem and set a course directly toward the heart of the Spanish fleet, directly toward the Santissima Trinidad. “Mr. Brookstone. Belvidera to Flag. Captain is engaging the enemy!” “Aye aye sir!” Brookstone said. “Let’s maintain our station on Captain, but stay out of range of those battleships,” Granger said to Clifton. “Flag has acknowledged, sir,” Brookstone s

I think that the verdict is still out on how uptight these guys turn out when they actually arrive at adulthood. Right now, they're mostly just bitchy teenagers. I'm not sure where you're getting the Will and Tony thing. Right now they're just hook-up buds. I'm not sure I see that changing.