Hi everyone!

Given the recent questioning of Eric's sexuality I thought it'd be fun to start a poll on the topic!

So what do you guys think?

I voted for "He's sexually fluid/open-minded", because IMO he's pretty much straight but open to the possibility of falling in love with someone of the same gender if it happened.

-Kevin

His taste for three-ways must hide some strange leanings.

He's sexually fluid/open-minded. That is what I chose.

I still maintain that when you work/live with lots of non-hetero people, your vocabulary naturally becomes gender-neutral. While he might not be a pure 0 on the Kinsey scale, I'll still label him straight.

I don't like the "sexually fluid" option, simply because it has connotations that I don't think are appropriate.

My view is that Eric is highly unlikely to have casual sex with another guy. It is possible that he may come to love another gay, but that would be a case of loving the person, not the gender. I haven't voted, but I feel "Straight" is the closest to defining his sexuality, though I think it's not quite precise.

I agree with you.


Such as?

LOL, seriously, I'm not completely sure what the best definition of that would be but it seemed to me to be the best one for Eric.

I guess what I meant by it is someone who wouldn't let gender or sexuality stop him from developing a relationship with someone if he did find himself attracted to and compatible with them.

Would the connotation that you object to be that it means his sexuality might "change" depending on the situation? That's definitely a very unpopular notion in the GLBT community. It's a complicated thing though. I certainly don't think someone can change their sexuality. However, I'm not 100% convinced that someone's sexuality might not naturally evolve on its own. I suppose the "capacity" to be attracted to either gender would have to already exist (even if it was previously "dormant"), but if that capacity did exist I think it is possible that someone's taste and preference might change overtime.

A good personal example (that just might be TMI) is that I've always had a strong proclivity to blonds and redheads. (by this I mean blond and redheaded guys, however, in an aesthetic since I tend to more often find blonde and redheaded women beautiful as well. And occasionally I do have have a mild, fleeting sexual attraction to a blonde or redhead woman) That preference has remained very stable. Conversely, I never used to particularly notice Asian guys. Gradually over the years however, I've come to be almost as innately attracted to them as I am to blond and redheaded guys. Evidently that capacity always existed and my taste changed to amplify it.

In that way I think it's possible that someone could essentially be "dormantly" bisexually attracted to to their non-typical gender and over time that might sort of "awaken". Let me stress that I don't think it could be forced. In that way, yes I do think people's sexuality could be considered "fluid" in the connotation of changing over time. However, while I've enjoyed this little aside that actually isn't really what I meant when I applied the term to Eric

I think I might disagree. I'd say that he's fairly unlikely to have casual sex with another guy, but I don't think he's highly unlikely to do that.

He did say to Jerry that he'd "try anything once" and while I know he said that for a very specific reason I think he might have more or less meant it. Eric seems like the sort that might conceivably decide to have casual sex with another guy just to satisfy his curiosity and essentially "see what all the fuss" is about.

Did anyone read Dom's TLW? If you did you might recall that Ryan (who in many ways is pretty similar to Eric) once kissed Aiden because so many of his friends were gay that he was curious to see what the big deal was. I think that theoretically Eric could do the same thing to the extreme of actually bedding another guy.


In other words you mean he would essentially "ignore" the fact that the guy had male bits because he meant so much to him?

To be completely honest I've never quite understood this concept of loving the person not the gender. I mean I sort of do, but I don't think I quite grasp it in the way that many others around here seem to mean when they say it.

It's not quite like what I've described above with sexual fluidity and curiosity I take it?

I'm also assuming it's not quite like being bisexual in which a person is actively attracted to either men or women, with a physical emphasis (that would include gender) being a part of that equation?

So what exactly is it? Is it like what I jokingly referred to as "ignoring" the body parts all together?

Obviously I've frequently had non-sexual feelings for someone that I very much cared about. However, those feelings were non-sexual and non-romantic to me. I guess you could say I did "fall in love with the person", but I never then desired a physical or romantic relationship with them.

What a wonderful discussion of sexuality this is turning out to be!

Take care all
Kevin

While I'm not completely happy with any of the voting options we have to choose from, I think "sexually fluid/open-minded" comes closest to describing Eric's sexuality. Like Graeme I find the "sexually fluid" option a bit offensive because to me it implies Eric would be open to a casual fling with a guy. I just don't see that happening. However, due to Eric's life experiences of living with non-hetero people I could see him being "open-minded" enough to getting involved with the right guy.

I need to go slightly off-topic here to hopefully spark a serious debate.

This whole issue actually bothers me. Why do we need to speculate about anyone's sexuality? Why do we feel the need to make anyone into something they might not be? In a way it lends credence to the homophobic accusations of gays trying to convert straights to being gay. We all know that's BS! You are what you are and that's it be it gay, straight, purely bi, bi with certain leanings, or just curious.

Personally I'll be happy for Eric regardless of the sexual choices he makes. He's still young and having fun living the life of a rock star. That's great. We should all be so lucky. But eventually I hope he'll find the right person to make his life happy, contented, and complete.

ADDED: I wrote this and previewed it before seeing Kevin's reply. I'm too tired right now to go back and address the issues he raised. But I think it's a good start to the debate I was hoping to start.

So, you're putting it forward as a 'weaker' form of bisexuality? If you treat sexuality as being a scale from homosexuality to heterosexuality, you're saying "sexually fluid" means he's not quite 100% heterosexual? In my opinion, very few people are 100% homo- or heterosexual.


Tastes and preferences don't equate to sexuality. Tastes and preferences evolve over time -- I have no doubt on that. But that doesn't mean their sexuality evolves. I like to think of sexuality as being a continuum from gay to straight, but even that's too simplistic. Since it is currently impossible to judge where a person lies on that continuum, I can't say if a person 'moves' around on it when they become attracted to a person of one or the other sex, or if that is just the different parts in the mix coming to the fore. My view is that it largely the later, though I think it's probably possible to 'train' yourself to make some parts of your sexuality mix more dominant than others -- but only to a degree.


I think he's fairly unlikely to consider having casual sex with another guy, but I think he's highly unlikely to go through with it. The circumstances would have to be special for it to happen, because I think he'll always choose a girl if there is a suitable one available.


I can see him considering it, but not going through with it. It's like he'd consider drinking rot gut, but if there's a bottle of Tequila next to it, we all know which one he'll drink from....


Not at all. That would be denying who the other person was.


LOL -- I'm not surprised. Other people have said the same thing. I'm an example. I love my wife very much, but I also know I'm gay. I have absolutely no sexual interest in any other women. I love her -- not women in general or in specifics. Just her. (And I'm talking about a sexual love here). If, heaven forbid, something happened to our relationship, I'd be looking for a boyfriend. I have no intention of looking for another woman to form a relationship with.


No. It's a lot deeper than curiosity.


I've had some people ask me why I don't consider myself to be bisexual, and the answer lies in who I find sexually attractive. With the exception of my wife, it's only guys. That doesn't sound particularly bi-sexual to me, which is why I consider myself gay (with a one woman exception).

Getting back to the original discussion for a moment...

I don't like the term "sexually fluid" because it appears to imply his sexuality can change, which I don't believe. It is otherwise a very poorly defined term. The ability to love men and women would be bi-sexual. Just women would (for Eric) be heterosexual and just men would be homosexual. Where does "sexually fluid" fit in? You've made it sound like it's a closeted or unwitting bi-sexual, in which case why should you be voting for bi-sexual?

lol, i like the "goat" option

but i chose "fluid/open minded", with a focus on "open minded". To me it seems he is open minded, ready to experience whatever seems like fun at that moment - which might be gay sex if thats something that comes up.... yea, maybe its a "weaker" form of bi (well, if "bi" is in the middle of the scale between 0% = straight, and 100% = gay .. i think he is below 50%, but does not have any hang ups about giving anything a try he's just a horny bastard )

Very few people are 100% straight or 100% gay. I'm more like 80/20 myself. Some would say that makes me bi; others would say that makes me gay but flexible.

I think Eric could possibly experiment, but he definitely prefers the ladies.

I totally agree .. i don't think anybody is really 100% straight or gay. Its not "black and white".. its a rainbow of colors

I think we're socialized to be straight or gay, preferably straight. I happen to think it's time to stop the social engineering and let people decide for themselves without fear. Monosexism is not healthy for human civilization. Also, I think it would be awesome if Eric were to experiment.

No, that's not really what I meant at all. For one thing, I personally prefer to think of sexuality along two scales. One for interest in one gender one for the other (with orientation labeled appropriately depending on one's own sex). Really I mean "sexually fluid" to be a completely different concept from this two scale model, however. I would not even attempt to pinpoint someone's sexuality on the scale model whom I had called "sexually fluid".

I suppose, sexually fluid is specifically designed to avoid labels. A "sexually fluid" person wouldn't be gay or straight, but bi wouldn't exactly fit either. However, I would tend to let the person label themselves based on whatever their usual preference is. For example I think Eric could refer to himself as "straight", but I think a little asterisk next to it with a footnote for "sexually fluid" might be more appropriate

Actually, I might possibly apply this label to myself. I identify as gay, I think of myself and conduct myself as a gay person, but I'm not really...rigid about it. When it comes to sexual matters I have a pretty open-minded outlook. A good example I can use is how many straight people have a knee-jerk "Eughh" response to nudity, genitals, bodily functions, etc for someone of their gender (these people also typically get grossed out about same sex relationships). Yet, alot of gay and lesbian people are exactly the same way!! They act disgusted by the thought of straight sex for example, or the intimate bodies of the opposite sex.

To me this is unconceivable. I simply can't fathom why someone would find straight, gay, or lesbian intercourse innately disgusting. There are quite a few specific people I don't care to imagine "doing it", but the act itself would never repulse me, and assuming that the individuals partaking in it are average, every-day people I'll probably be mostly disinterested, or only turned on in so far as it does represent a sort of "sexual energy". If the people are really "hot" - by my definition and perception - I'll probably find it quite erotic. It is likely that if I find it erotic it will be males, or a male/female, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it were two females.

In that way, unless the conversation were extremely inappropriate (which would mostly be a social and contextual thing) I would have no problem hearing or thinking about anyone in particular's sex life. As I said, it probably wouldn't "do much for me", but chances are it wouldn't embarrass me, and it's very unlikely it would actually "gross me out".

Anyway, with regards to that, and the fact that I would always be willing to gamely enter into a heterosexual relationship if it felt right under the given circumstances (however, unlikely that is), I would describe myself as "sexually fluid"...but certainly not "bisexual".

I similarly have a hesitancy to concrete any gender/sex(ual) roles or expectations in any of my relationships (including platonic), but overtime I will probably establish a particular dynamic with the specific person involved. However, I would find it constraining and disconcerting if we always interacted in a certain way based on these gender/sex roles, and I would certainly never be willing to establish a set with which to carry over into all/most of my relationships.

A good example is a relationship I have with a specific friend. He's naturally inclined to assume a more passive role and I do tend to naturally be inclined to assume a more dominant one. However, the idea that there's an expectation that that is the way we will continue to conduct our interactions is very unappealing to me and I get a bit miffed when he behaves as if this is the case. Instead, I prefer us to sort of "make it up as we go", and if that means I tend to make more of the decisions, carry more things, open more doors, and pay more frequently then so be it.

I would disagree here. To me sexuality does more or less boil down to a matter of tastes and preferences. Perhaps not in the strictest sense...and perhaps this is just how I personally tend to look at it, but while I agree that sexuality is much more complicated than simple tastes and preferences, I think the composite of all these tastes and preferences do essentially add up to "sexuality".


LOL, so if girls are tequila that must make guys "rot gut"...I'm not sure I appreciate this analogy!

In any case, what I was talking about wouldn't be about "preferences" at all. It would be about "trying something new", "curiosity", or "experimentation" whatever you want to call. The analogy I would use is that I enjoy a good Shiraz or Pinot Noir. I always prefer these to a Merlot. In a strict matter of picking what I find more appealing I would get the Shiraz or Pinot Noir every time. HOWEVER, if I consciously thought "you know, Merlot is popular around here. My friends seem to like it a lot and I do always get the Shiraz or the Pinot Noir. I think I'm going to branch out and try the Merlot tonight!" If that were my frame of mind (and indeed it has been on occasions), then nothing, even the waiter offering me a Pinot Noir, is going to stop me from ordering a Merlot. I certainly wouldn't be planning to switch to Merlot, I know that in fact I would probably enjoy a Shiraz more. Nevertheless, just for tonight, I'm going to order a Merlot with the knowledge that there'll be plenty of opportunities for me to have Shiraz or Pinot Noir in the future.


No, I definitely didn't mean to imply that it would be closeted or unwitting. I think that the person would likely have already realized that they're "fluid" (whatever that meant to them), and would instead be making a spontaneous (but conscious) decision.


That's a good way to sum it up!


Amen to that!

Take care all and have a great day!
-Kevin (whose favourite wine is actually Chardonnay )

Somehow I lost track of this topic.

Kevin, as always you made some excellent points and observations. Thanks. I need sleep but tomorrow I want to come back and comment more coherently on what you wrote.


The stuff about social engineering and Monosexism makes perfect sense to me. I don't understand what you mean about people deciding for themselves with fear. Hence I also don't understand Kevin's reaction to what you wrote.

Thank you Gary!

I know that sometimes I tend to get a tad...overzealous when discussing things I find interesting, so I'm glad it made since to you and you enjoyed reading it!


Oh my! You're right, I read that as it being time to let people decide for themselves without fear. In that case I wouldn't agree. I'm in favour of non fear-based decisions! I somehow suspect that's what Tim meant to say though, but I could be wrong.

Can I be ever so mean and point out that you've got "sexually fluid" as a label in the poll? If it's not a label, then that means it hasn't got a definition, and hence is meaningless from the point of view of voting. I have no doubt that you understand what you mean by "sexually fluid", but I also have no doubt that other people have a different understanding.


And that's where we have a fundamental difference of opinion. My view is that sexuality is largely biologically based -- something that is supported by some research on the matter. The matter is not settled, but I certainly feel that it is not unreasonable to believe that sexuality (as distinct from preferences) is based in biology. An example of what I mean is the research that tests the reactions of the brain to certain stimuli. Gay men reacted differently to straight men. The experiments were such that it was not a conscious reaction -- it was a biological reaction.


Are you trying to imply there's something wrong with "rot gut"? Some people like it. A minority, I will admit, but some do....


My turn to find your analogy flawed The example you've given is more a choice within a kind, rather than a choice between kinds. It's more like saying you prefer redheads to brunettes, or short guys to tall guys. As a non-discerning wine drinker, I drink most red varieties, and I honestly can't detect a lot of difference between them.


So, using the Kinsey scale, they know that they are predominantly gay (or straight), but they're not 100%, and they accept that about themselves. I understand that, but I wouldn't use the term "sexually fluid" for them. I would use "predominantly gay/straight", rather than "100% gay/straight". The ones in the middle of the spectrum are "bi-sexual". As has been said by others, I believe most people fit in the spectrum between the two extremes.

Open minded....

Well, you could think of it instead as reading "unwilling to give himself a label". Anyway, it seems like enough people must know what I'm talking about since that choice has a rather commanding lead


Actually, I don't see how biology (or choice for that matter) would have particular bearing on this discussion of preferences. That would simply be the reason behind the preference, but the preference would exist all the same. For example left-handed people prefer to write with their left-hand. Most people are inclined to say that this is a biological quality that they're born with, but even if they were choosing to write left-handed as far as I'm concerned they have that preference.

The only argument I could see is that some might say that if something is inborn it is thus not a preference, however, I would just flat-out disagree with that definition of preference. Indeed I think that almost all "preferences" regardless of what area is being discussed, are due in large part to brain structures/set ups which are of course in turn due to a complicated mixture of genetics, biological factors, life experiences, personal choice, hormones, pre-natal environment, and other complicated environmental and social factors. I wouldn't argue that his would be an unfair characterization of what determines a person's sexuality either. I've always assumed it would be fruitless (not to mention pointless from my point of view and values) to search for a single cause of a person's sexuality. I would be extremely surprised if it didn't turn out to be a complex mixture of many things which varied slightly from individual to individual. I think all such preference is based on a complex mixture of factors.


Well, people are people as far as I'm concerned, but anyway if you like, I almost unilaterally prefer whites across the board to reds (indeed I used reds as an example because it was more challenging for me). I'd generally prefer a white, but sometimes I branch out and get a red such as Shiraz or Pinot Noir (which I do enjoy, but crave much less often than whites), and sometimes I branch out even further and get a Merlot. Of course I might not get wine at all, I may instead order a mixed drink. I enjoy mixed drinks and wines almost equally depending on my mood, and I enjoy them alot more than beer which I seldom want, but every now and then I will order a beer. Of course I usually just opt for water. Anyway, when it comes to fluids I'm fluid.

(except with soft drinks and sodas...I won't drink those at all, but it's not a matter of being closed-minded toward them, it's a matter of them not being particularly healthy or nutritious and me certainly not enjoying to an extent that would warrant consuming them anyway)


Well, that would certainly be a perfectly accurate way to describe it I suppose, but to me that's still to "black and white" and constraining.

That's why I do prefer a 2 scale system. Let's say for example that I come across 10 average looking males and 10 average looking females. I'm using "average looking" because obviously "beautiful" or "ugly" all of which are subjective of course would nevertheless yield different results. So let's just assume that the people are "average" as I would define it.

Let's say I'm at least moderately attracted to 5 of the males and 1 of the females.

That would make me 50% "gay", and 10% "straight" in terms of quantity of sexual interest in "average" people.

However, even with a two scale system I don't think that gives the complete picture. It tells nothing of the degree or intensity of the attraction just that it was high enough to "qualify" (which in the example I set as "moderately attracted"). So instead let's say I meet these same 20, average looking individuals, half of whom are male and half of whom or female, and instead of just looking at quantity that I'm attracted to PERIOD, I want to find out how many of them I would classify myself as "highly or intensely attracted to".

Perhaps that would be 2 of the males and none of the females. That would mean that in terms of how many people I'm intensely attracted to I have a 20% gay score and a 0% straight score.

We could further go on and evaluate how enduring the attractions are.

So already you're looking at 2 separate scales and 3 different measures. And of course all of this is completely subjective.

There's also evidence that people's hormones play a cyclic role in their attractions. What might look good to you at one week, might not look good at all 3 weeks later. You could perhaps argue that this would be covered by the endurance scale; however, to me the endurance measurement would need to be conducted at separate intervals during which the phase in people's hormonal cycles were as near as possible to the same. Of course trying to match hormonal levels would be nearly impossible in the first place since hormones are also influenced by too many external and varying factors that don't strictly have to do with a person's natural hormonal cycle.

Anyway, all I'm trying to point out with this excessively long discussion is that I don't think sexuality is simple enough for something as constraining as a one scale, completely lumped together, model which evaluates sexuality under the assumption that there's really only three possibilities: "gay" "straight" and "bi" with a few variations of each.

It's like watching black and white movies. Sure there are LOTS of possibilities of shades of gray, but just black, white and "shades of gray" isn't really enough. You don't get the whole picture until you switch to colour.

-Kevin

I think that he is simply open minded, but I voted straight, cause the option "fluid/open minded" made it seems, for me, that he'd have sex with anyone, lol

fyi, I'm impressed that already 2 people thinks that he's secretly into goats.. LOL

I almost selected the one about goats. It's just too damn funny and so like me to use such a smart aleck.

Open Minded.

.............I think Eric is straight, but would be willing to experiment with a guy...so open minded is what I chose, the fluid part I not sure I get . I do hope we see Cody one more time with the band, as his "Dreams" portion of his story came true!!

Yes, yet open minded, and could see him falling for a guy but just for that guy and remain mostly attracted to girls.

.........I beginning to believe that everybody is gay, and only 10% know it!

Well, if that is the case, we won't survive as a specifies if the remaining 90% figure it out.

.........hell of a going out party though

I'm going to weigh in with open minded - sexually fluid.

I think it has allot to do with stimuli. In Eric's case constant stimuli. Sorta along the lines of variety being the spice of life. Sure it starts out as liking different women, branches into liking two different women. Eric seems to me a thrill seeker. Part of his "taste" for threesomes or moresomes is the feat de acompli, the reaction he receives. He is after all the middle kid.
However, as this event becomes a regular pattern, the attention he receives for it will dwindle and tapper off. Therefore,"Experimenting" with the same sex, I think is only a natural progression for him as he looks for a sense of thrill, the attention, with his encounters.

Though I may be over analyzing his psyche a tad It works though, he's a thrill seeker, a prankster and above everything else vying for his slice of the attention pie.

................As I said before I see him as open-minded, never thought of him as an attention seeker but yeah that fits as well. I just thought the threesomes were an ego boost.

Ahh, Eric and the SPiCE of life.

Eric is indeed the middle brother. However, right at the start of the story, we had Eric mentioned by Chase as having a penchant for multi-way sex. Chase said something along the lines of Eric, a few years prior, decided to make his first time "special" by having.. a five-way. Jon, too, has a penchant for 3-ways, though apparently not so much as Eric does.

He's a teen guy who is in the unusual position of being able to have sex as much and as often as he wants, due to the groupies. Its a very different dynamic. He does seem to relish the accomplishment, though.

Perhaps I shouldn't mention this, as it could be seen as a spoiler.. But, when the Echidna is away, the goat will play! So, I'll say that we learn a great many things about Eric in "Don't Tequila the Eric."

.............Well as we all know now, the answer of Erics sexuality is "Tri". I believe the goat came up with this after tring to open a bottle of tequila.

I voted sexually fluid. He's straight, but I feel like there will be a time or two in his life where he'll have casual sex with a man and enjoy it, regardless of his BAL at the time (Blood Alcohol Level). Might not happen in the span of LTMP though.

.........For that matter the band could be "dis-banded" before Chase & Brandon are outted

This seems like an excellent assessment to me.

I just thoughts that after the first few chapters of Changing Lanes this topic might once again be something worth discussing



I know I've spent rather a lot of time in this thread defending my supposition that Eric is "Sexually fluid/Open Minded", but given recent events I think I'm going to change that to straight up bisexual.

Anyone else want to change their vote, or perhaps hasn't voted in the first place?

Take care all,
-Kevin

Eric has really taken on a life of his own, hasn't he?

I mean, he started off as just one of the brothers, the middle brother. He and Jon were the straight ones, Chase was the love interest, and Brandon was the main character. Eric could have easily been just an "also starring".

But, as characters will sometimes do, I have a sneaking suspicion that Eric crept up and constantly pestered CJ to give him a bigger role, a louder voice, more action. He just refused to shut up, and he absolutely demanded a starring role, stealing the show in the process so that now, he's basically the main character of this series. He's just one of those magnetic, larger-than-life, effervescent characters, maybe a bit over-the-top, but a lot like people we all have known at some point. He just has this energy to him, like a tornado, and when he gets going, all you can do is get out of the way... or watch.

What's his sexuality? I think that's incidental at this point. I like the "tri-sexual" description - he does seem like the type who will "tri" anything - but that's almost irrelevant. Eric's real lust isn't for women, or for men, or for anyone in particular, it's for life.

Eric is like a starving man at a giant buffet. He will attack it with vengeance and glee, sampling everything and often more than once. Even if he might prefer the chocolate cake to the onion soup, he just basically loves food. In much the same way, I think Eric just loves experiencing things, feeling things, taking risks, feeling the rush that comes from danger, or lust, or getting a little crazy... or drinking tequila.

He's basically Chase's opposite as far as that goes, and I don't mean a gay/straight kind of opposite. What I mean is, Chase is the kind of guy for whom love is real, and deep, and directed at one person at a time. Chase feels complete with Brandon. But Eric is just looking for the next crazy thing to do in his life. If Chase is an inch wide and a mile deep, then Eric is maybe a mile wide and an inch deep, and I don't really mean that as a negative. He's just... in love with everything life has to offer, and he allows that love to manifest itself as exuberance, and to rub off on those around him.

Just my $0.02.

My god woman I don't think I could have said it better. I love the buffet analogy, not to keen on the mile wide and inch deep reference though

and for what its worth, I think your two cents are extremely insightful

Steve

Heh, thanks. But less bowing down, more writing from you, eh? You've been leaving Cody hanging in the abyss between chapters 7 and 8 for far too long for my liking. (And yes, even 5 minutes is too long, IMHO).

One more observation about guys like Eric: When love strikes, it strikes hard... and usually without warning. Mostly cause it's so unexpected. And when that happens, look out!

I propose a new poll!

Darn good call!

Yes. You're in large part right about Eric's beginnings. He was supposed to be a secondary character, like Jon, just with a few... quirks.

The first ten chapters of Changing Lanes were written years ago. That's why the character development is rather lacking in those chapters, plus they have some rough edges on the writing side. I did some reworking of it, but not enough.

Eric... Yes indeed, you have him pegged, spot-on. He really came into his own at the party at Jerry's house, where we saw, for the first time, his love of Tequila. You're right, he grew, very much so and very quickly, and soon he was not only my favorite character, but also he was taking on a far larger role.

As for Eric and Chase, the way I see it is that in SOME ways they are very much alike, but in other ways, they are opposite, or at least different. For example, Chase isn't into "playing the field" but Eric has shown that he is. They share a similar sense of humor, but Eric is the more extreem.

Indeed, Eric does love life, and meets it head-on, full-force. He loves it, as well he should.

I had no intentions of doing a sequel to LTMP until about halfway through LTMP, when I realized that the planned ending (Helen originally died, though the ending was similar) left Eric as a loose end (and there were others.). I considered some plot changes in LTMP, but nothing seemed to work, so Changing Lanes was born, with Eric as the central character. LTMP was about Brandon, mainly, and his road from joining the band as a deeply closeted roadie to walking out on stage, to an assembled press corps, hand in hand with his boyfriend, as one of the most famous people on the planet. That was Brandon's road. Changing Lanes is Eric's.

Oh my... between that and the title of this story, dare I suggest... spoiler?



Okay, truth time: I'm sure to get some hateful reactions for this one, but I'm going to suggest that it might've worked better in LTMP if Helen hadn't come through.

I'm not usually one for killing off sympathetic characters, mind you, and I like Helen, but in this case, I can make two arguments for it:

1) It would fit with the character growth that all the main characters show. Symbolically, Helen as their mother figure needs to step aside (so to speak) in order to allow the boys to grow up.

2) I think it would've rung a little truer... you basically set it up so that everyone assumed Helen was dead, and when it turned out she was fine, it came across as a bit too happily-ever-after, not very realistic. Okay, I know you were going for the happy ending, but I just didn't buy it for whatever reason that she'd make it through almost perfectly unharmed. (Mind you, maybe I shouldn't talk about suspension of disbelief in a story about nuclear weapons being manufactured in Queensland...)

Anyway, the point's moot, it's ancient history now, and I'm sure it will be useful having Helen as a character in Changing Lanes. Especially when she tries to de-tequila the Eric.

ACK! Noo!! Don't say that, or our resident anti-spoiler Echidna will get me! (I live in fear of his very sharp spines!!)

All I meant was that LTMP was more focused on Brandon. Changing Lanes is focused on Eric. I didn't mean to imply they were heading for the same ending.

BTW, "Let The Music Play" turned out to be one of The Scar's lines, but Changing Lanes is more complex. We already know it's the title of Instinct's new album, but, it has other meanings too, and will be used several times, in different contexts, throughout the story.

CJ

This is an incredibly insightful evaluation!


Ohh! I didn't know that! Cool!



Good to hear that officially, though I'd sort of suspected it.


*gasp*

Kill off Helen! No way!!!

Those are good points, but I'm very pleased with the direction in which CJ has taken the story.

Okay, truth time: I'm sure to get some hateful reactions for this one, but I'm going to suggest that it might've worked better in LTMP if Helen hadn't come through.

I'm not usually one for killing off sympathetic characters, mind you, and I like Helen, but in this case, I can make two arguments for it:

1) It would fit with the character growth that all the main characters show. Symbolically, Helen as their mother figure needs to step aside (so to speak) in order to allow the boys to grow up.

2) I think it would've rung a little truer... you basically set it up so that everyone assumed Helen was dead, and when it turned out she was fine, it came across as a bit too happily-ever-after, not very realistic. Okay, I know you were going for the happy ending, but I just didn't buy it for whatever reason that she'd make it through almost perfectly unharmed. (Mind you, maybe I shouldn't talk about suspension of disbelief in a story about nuclear weapons being manufactured in Queensland...)

Anyway, the point's moot, it's ancient history now, and I'm sure it will be useful having Helen as a character in Changing Lanes. Especially when she tries to de-tequila the Eric.
[/quote]

You raise good points... I did consider those very issues. The "growth" issue was, indeed, the very reason she died in the original outline of LTMP. However... For there to be a Changing Lanes, she had to live.

She's still recovering in Ch 1 of Changing lanes, months later.

You're right though; I should have posted more medical detail, to show that that sort of a wound is indeed survivable.

My only quibble is on the nukes in Queensland. Okay, the location was a bit unorthodox, but think about the issues The Scar faced. He needed a place where he could work undisturbed, and one had to be a in a very remote area. He needed easy access to
shipping, and he also (most critically) needed to get his workforce (russian and middle eastern) to his worksites. Australia is a place where there are existing human smuggling operations, operating on large scale, from those regions. Australia just looked like the best "fit" for his needs, based on the opportunities the situation provided. South America was my second option, for similar reasons.

As for the nuke fabrication itself, I challenge anyone to poke any holes in it. I researched it, very carefully, and I also went into this already having a detailed knowledge on the workings of nuclear weapons.

CJ

Nothing yet had been said about Eric drinking tequila. Sure he wanted some for the party, but this is a spoiler, since we couldn't know that all the events hadn't reformed him. Time for the little ball of spines to strike with marsupial strength.

Spoiler? Huh Didn't see it

I do believe CJ was being facetious or perhaps deliberately misdirecting us. Eric still loves tequila. Hopefully, Eric will find a good boyfriend who will help him reform a little bit, but I doubt that effect will be the case.

ACK! It wasn't a spoiler! And Shhh, we don't want to get the Echidna involved!

And, ummm, Bondwriter, that bit you quoted wasn't written by me! It's attributed to me in your post, but it wasn't mine.



Eric may or may not drink tequila again, but there was this line in Ch 3...



But... surely Eric wouldn't drink Tequila at Brandon and Chase's party?

And, you just happened to quote one of the misspelled words that you missed.

OOPS!!!

Thanks Jan! I fixed it!!

BTW, my sincere thanks to any and all who point out errors. I REALLY appreciate that, and be it public or private (your choice) it helps me greatly. Not only does it get rid of errors in the posted text, but it also points out to me things I need to look for.

That was a typo, but I never caught it, due to "noting" being a word.

CJ

CJ, it happens. As you may remember, I've pointed out a few in private just as I have with a few others. Now back to the topic...

I happen to think Eric will eventually end up with a guy, but we have to remember that he is most likely bi, and that means that he may end up finding a woman somewhere along the way. I know it would be disappointing, but one has to remember that the sheer number of women in the world makes an easy find for a bi guy. Please don't kill me.