L.B.: Reciprocity

Left Behind, pp. 87-89

The last we saw of Hattie Durham she had just left Rayford's steely lap after their helicopter ride home to the Chicago suburbs.

Hattie is the Pan Continental flight attendant who has been strung along by the older, married Rayford Steele. The book begins with a description of their non-affair affair:

They had spent time together, chatting for hours over drinks or dinner, sometimes with coworkers, sometimes not. He had not returned so much as one brush of a finger, but his eyes had held her gaze, and he could only assume his smile had made its point.

What LaHaye and Jenkins show us of this relationship is very different from what they tell us about it. They don't say what, exactly, Rayford's "point" was in smiling at Hattie and holding her gaze, but it seems clear what he's thinking: He could, but he won't.

Hattie, on the other hand, would. For L&J, this is the only morally significant aspect of their relationship. Rayford isn't willing to sleep with Hattie, so his behavior is virtuous. Hattie is willing to sleep with Rayford, so she's a sinful little slut. That's what they seem to be telling us, but it's not what's really going on.

Hattie, we read, is 27 years old and "drop dead gorgeous." Yet she doesn't have a boyfriend or much of a life outside of work. She's willing to sacrifice all of that -- she has sacrificed all of that -- for Rayford. In return, he has given her not "so much as one brush of a finger." Hattie gives and Rayford takes. But he is always, always careful not to take so much that he is forced to give in return.

L&J paint a disturbingly accurate portrait of a the kind of predatory, exploitative married man that young women would be wise to stay away from, yet they seem to think they're describing the kind of homewrecking young woman that married men ought to stay away from. They seem to applaud Rayford's self-control, when really he's not demonstrating self-control, but the urge to control, to manipulate, others.

Thus we come to Rayford, briefly sympathetic after discovering that his wife and son are dead/raptured, awakening to the sound of a ringing telephone:

"Hello?" he said, unable to mask the sleepy huskiness in his voice.

"Captain Steele?" It was the frantic voice of Hattie Durham.

"Yes, Hattie. Are you all right?"

So he's "Captain Steele," and she's "Hattie." There's reciprocity for you.

Hattie, we learn, has been trying to call Rayford for hours. She's scared and needed someone to talk to, but she's also worried about him. He tells her what he's learned about his family. "I'm sorry," she says. "Is there anything I can do?" Rayford, for his part, just wants to get off the phone.

"I'm scared to death of what's become of my family."

"Let me know what you find out, Hattie, OK?"

"I will, but you were supposed to call me. 'Course my phone was dead, and then I couldn't get through to you."

"I wish I could say I tried to call you, Hattie, but I didn't. This is hard for me."

"Let me know if you need me, Rayford. You know, just someone to talk to or be with."

"I will. And you let me know what you find out about your family."

He almost wished he hadn't added that. Losing his wife and child made him realize what a vapid relationship he had been pursuing with a 27-year-old woman. He hardly knew her, and he certainly didn't much care what happened to her family any more than he cared when he heard about a remote tragedy on the news. ... It had merely been a physical attraction, something he had been smart enough or lucky enough or naive enough not to have acted upon. He felt guilty for having considered it, and now his own grief would obliterate all but the most common courtesy of simply caring for a coworker.

One might think that genuinely caring for a coworker might involve more than not much caring about the death/disappearance of their entire family, but let that pass.

I'd held out some hope that the depiction of Rayford's kinky control-freak stringing along of Hattie was deliberate, but that smart/lucky/naive sentence eliminates that possibility. Rayford feels guilty, but only about his considering sleeping with someone other than his saintly dead wife. He doesn't feel any guilt -- and L&J don't ascribe him any guilt -- for the way he has used and misused Hattie.

He "didn't much care what happened to her family" and he didn't much care what happened to her. She, on the other hand, was worried sick about him and his family. The dynamic is simple: Hattie loves him. He does not love her, or even seem to consider her fully human.

Yet for L&J, the one loving person in this lopsided relationship is the villain of the piece. Villains must be punished, and they have quite the punishment in store for this little slut.

Comments

[Chris]

It certainly is unsettling, but remember that it's the same philosophy that dictates giving birth control to a woman is tantamount to felony murder, but supplying a man with viagra is nothing to concern oneself about.

[Les Wynin]

This book has all the character development of a second-rate porn movie. I imagine that's because L&J aren't interested in the characters as people, but as symbols and objects, just like porn movie producers are.

Not that I spend a lot of time watching porn . . . um, yeah.

[Monk-in-Training]

Just remember, the Left Behind series is Evangelical Porn! ;) then it all makes sense.

[xray]

Fred: Your reading of LB is so good, and so well written, that I am actually considering buying a copy of LB so I can follow along. Thanks, I think.

[Andrew Cory]

Fred: your reading of LB is so good, so well written that I Actually did buy a copy. Just so I could follow along at home. And it was large print, in the bargain bin, and I get an employee discount. So the authors aren’t actually seeing my money...

[Thlayli]

Wait -- is Buck still in the men's room stall?

[Denizen]

"Villians must be punished, and they have quite the punishment in store for this little slut."
Indeed, Hattie first gets seduced, knocked up and impregnated by the Antichrist, who I think later tries to poison her. Then her child ends up still-born, then Hattie gets stung by one of the demonic locusts in Apollyon and experiences hellish agony for five months, then she converts, goes insane over her love of Jesus and wants to assasinate the antichrist, before finally confronting her ex-boyfriend, the Antchrist, at Golgotha (both sides seem to have forgotten they were once involved with each other. Nicolae ignores her and she just refers to him as Satan Incarnate), and then the False Prophet fries her with a fireball from Heaven. And then the other main characters celebrate her "victory" by collecting her ashes.

[Abby]

Maybe you have already addressed this in an earlier post, but could someone point me to a quick and dirty explanation (with resources for further reading) on why the early church chose to canonize the Book of Revelation.

I haven't read any Martin Luther, and I probably should, but I'm pretty sympathetic to the idea that that book is unChristian and doesn't belong in the Bible. I'm really pretty ignorant though and would like to learn more.

[Chris]

L&J are textbook studies in the modern fundamentalist view of what constitutes a moral life. Sex (or more specifically the absence thereof) is the sole guide of a moral action. Charity, concern, empathy are nothing. Only denial of sex and loud proclaimations of faith (preferable done in such a way as to cause maximum insult) are the path to the Kingdom.

Weird how Jesus barely discusses sex (but has lots of pointed things to say about money and caring). Some literalists!

[Andy]

Hattie??? I mean, no offense to all the Hattie-hotties out there, but when I hear the name "Hattie," I think "nursing home." Any number of names would seem more fitting for a 27 year old "drop dead gorgeous" woman. I mean, Hattie's right up there with Ethel, Eunice, and Winnifred.

[c-minus]

I mean, Hattie's right up there with Ethel, Eunice, and Winnifred.

Nah, at least with Winifred you've got Winifred Burkle from Angel. "Hattie" just isn't in that league.

[Scott]

Indeed, Hattie first gets seduced, knocked up and impregnated by the Antichrist, who I think later tries to poison her. Then her child ends up still-born, then Hattie gets stung by one of the demonic locusts in Apollyon and experiences hellish agony for five months, then she converts, goes insane over her love of Jesus and wants to assasinate the antichrist, before finally confronting her ex-boyfriend, the Antchrist, at Golgotha (both sides seem to have forgotten they were once involved with each other. Nicolae ignores her and she just refers to him as Satan Incarnate), and then the False Prophet fries her with a fireball from Heaven. And then the other main characters celebrate her "victory" by collecting her ashes.

Like we all haven't been thru equally bad breakups. :-)

[kevin]

You know, the deeper you ge tinot this series, the more convinced I am that these are deeply, deeply immoral books, and they certianly do not conform to any notion of christianity I was ever taught.

And have I mentioned how you really need to write a book for the evangelical market that counters these things?

[Roberta T.]

For whoever asked about the canonization of the Book of Revelation, ere's some of what Wikipedia says:

In the 4th century, St. John Chrysostom and other bishops argued against including this book in the New Testament canon, chiefly because of the difficulties of interpreting it and the danger for abuse. Christians in Syria also rejected it for a time because of the Montanists' heavy reliance on it. In the 9th century it was included, with the Apocalypse of Peter among "disputed" books in the Stichometry of St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople. In the end, it was included in the accepted canon, although it remains the only book of the New Testament that is not read within the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Traditionally the date of the writing of this book has generally been fixed at the year 96 A.D., in the reign of Domitian. Others contend for an earlier date, 68 or 69 A.D., in the reign of Nero. Those who are in favour of the later date appeal to the testimony of the Christian father Irenaeus (died 185 A.D.), who received information relative to this book from those who had seen John face to face. He says that the Apocalypse "was seen no long time ago." Other evidence for the later date is internal: the book alludes to significant persecution, affecting the Christians of Asia Minor. This is a better historical fit for Domitian's reign than Nero's; Nero's persecution was mostly confined to the territories around Rome, while Domitian's persecution was indeed vigorously carried out in Asia Minor.

[Beth]

"I wish I could say I tried to call you, Hattie, but I didn't. This is hard for me."

This line really struck me. First why did he have to make a point of telling her he hadn't even tried to call? Couldn't he have said, "Well, I'm glad you finally got through," or "Yeah, things have been really crazy around here too," or anything that might have made it somewhat less obvious that he had no interest in talking to her whatsoever? And what does "This is hard for me," mean? What's hard? Talking to this annoying woman? Remembering to call when he's got so many other things to do like booking flights and checking his package? Losing his family would be hard, but then why "for me" when so many others, including very probably Hattie herself, have also lost theirs? Any way you look at it, Buck is, please excuse the expression, a total asshole.

p.s. Good work on keeping up with LB Fridays, Fred. I'm not so good at keeping resolutions myself, so I'm always impressed when someone else does.

[Peatey]

Indeed, Hattie first gets seduced, knocked up and impregnated by the Antichrist, who I think later tries to poison her. Then her child ends up still-born, then Hattie gets stung by one of the demonic locusts in Apollyon and experiences hellish agony for five months, then she converts, goes insane over her love of Jesus and wants to assasinate the antichrist, before finally confronting her ex-boyfriend, the Antchrist, at Golgotha (both sides seem to have forgotten they were once involved with each other. Nicolae ignores her and she just refers to him as Satan Incarnate), and then the False Prophet fries her with a fireball from Heaven. And then the other main characters celebrate her "victory" by collecting her ashes.

Steele, Buck, Dirk, Hattie, I keep being reminded of Niven's "Lucifer's Hammer," which also had a female character who was impregnated by the post-apocalyptic anti-christ figure, but ultimately 'beat' him by dying (she killed herself, thereby aborting the pregnancy). Am I the only one thinking of that book?

Lucifer's Hammer also had some issues with character names: Hardy, Harry, Harvey, Maureen, Eileen...

[Mabus]

Say...that was in The Stand, too. I can't remember the character's names, though.

Maybe this is a bigger meme than is obvious.

[Dan Lewis]

Call the expose "The Real Poop on Left Behind". Or "Left Behind: The Unflattering Tuckus of Premillenial Christianity".

The Wikipedia page is a good opening summary of the Christian canonization process. The suggested reading list on that page is ok. When I was curious about this (where does the authority of the Bible come from? Once, that question really bugged me) I read a book called The Canon of Scripture by FF Bruce. I guess he is famous for being an evangelical and a scholar, but anything sectarian in that book slipped under my radar. It was the best of what I found.

I eventually decided that I didn't care to call the Bible "inspired" or "authoritative" or "inerrant" so much as calling Jesus my authority (it took me a surprising amount of time to get to that place in my Christianity). Then, you get to spend your time trying to figure out what he actually said, and what actually happened, rather than getting caught up in abstract debates. I think that clears up some of the useless philosopher's categories.

[julia]

His eyes were sending her messages?

So basically hero-boy just really, really likes having a gorgeous 27-year-old buzzing around him, so he let her see he was interested even though he didn't give a shit about her?

You know, this is real St. Augustine stuff (and I wasn't too much impressed with him either, what with the serial desertions of his mistress and his mom)

[Sandals]

Scott: LOL

[JamesK]

Cripes, these people are evil. The authors or the characters, you ask? I'm not really sure...

Regardless, thanks as always for the latest installment of LB, I love them far more then I should.

[Sophist]

...I keep being reminded of Niven's "Lucifer's Hammer," which also had a female character who was impregnated by the post-apocalyptic anti-christ figure, but ultimately 'beat' him by dying (she killed herself, thereby aborting the pregnancy). Am I the only one thinking of that book?

Probably, because I'm almost 100% certain that nothing even remotely like that happens in "Lucifer's Hammer".

[Peatey]

Sophist, oops, Mabus is right, I'm thinking about "The Stand." I got the two post-apocalyptic novels mixed-up.

[Mabus]

*chuckle* And I only mentioned it because you brought up "Lucifer's Hammer". I've never read that book and had no reason to think you were wrong. Also funny....Never thought anyone here would say I was right about anything. I should go in more for chattering about books, I guess. *chuckle*

[R. Mildred]

But a man isn't a Man if he doesn't flirt with anything in a skirt, that's just the game baby! It's her fault for letting herself get emotionally attached, obviously.

Was it the writer of the seires or the other one who's wife went to work far far away so she could better teach women to be ladies?

[Scott]

Yet she doesn't have a boyfriend or much of a life outside of work. She's willing to sacrifice all of that -- she has sacrificed all of that -- for Rayford.

Remington (excuse me, Rayford) Steele is destined to be a Manly Evangelical Leader, and we all know how that is tied up with "you wanna boink me because I'm the Alpha Chimp - I give good Headship".

I remember one 'sermon' given to a college group. The 'preacher' started w/ his previous sinful life ("look how many other ladies wanted to sleep with me, gals"), then his Big Change ("but I'll be faithful to you, honest"). Then he proved himself physically by talking about how he runs marathons (to lead into Paul's "running the race" verses, of course), then went into his meeting Bush Sr (no real attempt at a spiritual message there, he just meets bigshots so you should want to do him until your ears bleed).

You just know deep down inside L&J want to re-legalize polygamy, so they can get a younger model every few years from their position and fame, but keep the "virtuous wife and mother of his children" around to keep the house running. It was legal in the Old Testament.

[Jack]

"I remember one 'sermon' given to a college group. The 'preacher' started w/ his previous sinful life ("look how many other ladies wanted to sleep with me, gals"), then his Big Change ("but I'll be faithful to you, honest"). Then he proved himself physically by talking about how he runs marathons (to lead into Paul's "running the race" verses, of course), then went into his meeting Bush Sr (no real attempt at a spiritual message there, he just meets bigshots so you should want to do him until your ears bleed)."

I wish this sort of thing was rare. Based on my own experience, a sense of integrity is the exception rather than the rule. That's not to say that there's no such things as a good priest (or preacher, or whatever your term of choice). It's just that I've only met a rare few that I could take seriously as a 'man of G-d.' And those were people who were... well, if not wise (they wouldn't have said they were) at least thoughtful and caring.

Even more than that, though, I'm consistently appalled by the apparent inability of most congregations to distinguish between wisdom and charisma. Given a choice between someone who's comfortable with research, doubt, and ambiguity, and a smooth talker with the soul of a used car salesman, they'll take the smooth talker every time.

I'm not a Christian, and I haven't gone to church in a long, long time (so it really isn't any of my business anymore) but that *still* drives me absolutely nuts.

~Jack

[Scott]

Even more than that, though, I'm consistently appalled by the apparent inability of most congregations to distinguish between wisdom and charisma. Given a choice between someone who's comfortable with research, doubt, and ambiguity, and a smooth talker with the soul of a used car salesman, they'll take the smooth talker every time.

To the evangelicals, Jesus calls everyone to adopt the personality type that's successful in sales in a modern capitalist economy (since evangelism is a sales position). I'm personally all for modern capitalist economies, but we aren't all cookie-cutter identical as far as our personality types go. If you don't want to be exactly like them, then you have fear and not faith and are on the express train to Hell since you won't "turn it over to Jesus" or whatever the fad phrase is this month.

This 'preacher' was guest speaking for the group's Manly Evangelical Leader, who converted a year or so before, but was a Mighty Man of God because of the personality he developed in corporate sales before going into "Christian ministry".

[Sophist]

'Course my phone was dead, and then I couldn't get through to you.

You know, supposedly the antichrist is the bad guy in this book, but so far the only villain I've been able to identify is Ma Bell. L&J can't seem to go more than half a page without going into excruciating and mindbogglingly dull detail about some character's inability to use a phone. They should retitle this volume "Left Behind: Quest For the Dial Tone".

Seriously, is this what L&J consider to be compelling writing? Please. To say that this book is is a page-turner is like saying the Great wall of China is even a remotely good metaphor for anything.

[Nancy Lebovitz]

Are you folks *sure* Rayford's not having sex with Hattie is worse than if he did have sex with her?

It seems to me that, in terms of her interests, it's about equal. On the one hand, she has less fun (possibly) and less of what she wants--on the other, she's got one less reason to feel attached to him.

In terms of philosophy and longterm effects, putting fairly arbitrary rules about sex at the center of morality is a serious problem (and may have something to do with Rayford's callousness towards Hattie), but I'm not sure Rayford's non-behavior is all that bad.

[Scott]

Are you folks *sure* Rayford's not having sex with Hattie is worse than if he did have sex with her?

He's not being slammed for not cheating on his wife. Adultry isn't the only bad option open to Rayford, and he took one of the other bad ones and excused it w/ "at least we didn't sleep together".

[Nancy Lebovitz]

In return, he has given her not "so much as one brush of a finger."

I'd say he's being faulted for not at least being physically affectionate.

[Scott]

I'd say he's being faulted for not at least being physically affectionate.

He's being faulted for being a control freak (i.e. "I'm in _total_ control and you, Hattie, are a slut and thus unworthy of me").

[Keith]

This thought has probably occured to others as well but I feel really sorry for any daughters either of these men have or will have. Neices and grand daughters, too. I'm sure their wives are misserable and their sisters not too terribly happy either but they've probably learned to drown their sorrows in fantasies about burly Jewish carpenters who really love them.

[Beth]

He's being faulted for being a control freak

It's more than that (or maybe part of that). He literally made Hattie his scapegoat. He pushed all his sinful lust on her. Rayford Steele has always been an upright man. He wasn't saved yet so he still had lustful thoughts and desires, but being unsaved, he couldn't help that. He had never actually acted on his desires, and that's all that counts. Sure, he encouraged her to act on hers, but that's her problem, not his. When his lust evaporated, he cleansed himself entirely of sin by dumping her unceremoniously. His regretted that he couldn't have been even colder to her, but it wouldn't do for an upright man to be rude to his co-workers.

[Dan]

Keith:
"Oh, Burly -- you're insatiable!" (Man, that show has a line for every situation!)

--

Speaking of Hattie,
forget polygamy, she seems to be at the rank of a concubine or slave. She's at his beck and call, always avaiable to him (emotionally and sexually), and takes whatever crap he dishes out to her with nary a complaint. Rayford on the other hand has little obligation or inclination to attend to her, or even pay more than the most cursory attention. It's always on his terms, his needs, etc. I can't believe she doesn't get a stipend for any of this. At least.

You know Beth, Steele's starting to sound more and more like Sartre the further we get into all this.

I think Nancy's point was that at times, Fred almost seems to hint, "just sleep with her and get it over with!" I can understand the frustration at seeing this poor girl perpetually trapped in this totally subservient limbo-land; it would be some sort of resolution. Rayford would be forced to come to grips with her as another person, or at least a major problem to be solved. (Maybe; the characters seem to have an unlimited capacity to totally ignore what they don't want to face.)

That said, I don't think Fred is actually advocating this. I agree that them sleeping together would've been an unmitigated disaster for Hattie. Rayford would take his enormous guilt out on her, and be even more harsh than he's been; plus her additional trauma from his inevitable rejection. And the authors would no doubt have an even worse punishment in store for her, as she'd actually 'defiled' the protagonist.

It would be interesting to find out about Hattie's side of things. What exactly was so attractive about Steele? Why did she stick with him so long, even though she knew he was married? Did she believe he was going to leave his family to be with her? Or was she simply following a "fool's paradise", and was unwilling or unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality?

That last may be the key, because immediately after her "dumping", she goes for another fantasy target, the most powerful man in the world, no less. And the same old sh*t happens again. Except this time, she does sleep with him. I think I see a pattern emerging.

I'm no psych (or even a psych major), but I suggest Hattie craves the attention and devotion of older men in positions of power & authority (Captain, President of the World - GIRAT?? Note how she doesn't give two figs for Tony, a mere fellow flight-attendant). This probably derives from feelings of rejection/alienation from her (you guessed it!) father. She attempts to vicariously regain daddy's love through that of substitutes. No doubt the ego boost of being involved with such important people plays a part too.

However, the only way to obtain this love is through romantic/sexual relationships. Her desperate need blinds her to the motivations of these father-figures, so she finds herself used and cast aside time and again. The additional pain this causes only strengthens her feelings of lonliness and rejection, and compels her to satiate them in the arms of the next man. A vicious cycle. Thus she remains permanently stuck in the role of concubine, forced to serve the master's needs and unable to satisfy or even assert her own, for fear of further abandonment.

(Please someone correct me if this is way off)

--

Mabus:
Speaking of Stephen King, did anyone else notice that the most (potentially) effective scene in the entire book so far (the disappearences on the plane & aftermath) is a total copy from "The Langoliers": People wake up during their flight, find out everyone else on the plane has vanished, then land to find the airport deserted, and learn that some terrible judgment is imminent. King, unlike L&J, actually milks this for all the suspense it's worth. I can remember feeling chills at the sheer terror of finding yourself deserted like that. I wonder if L&J have ever read it?

The Stand is also pretty similar, with most people dying (their souls "raptured" away, if you will), leaving the remaining good people to stand against the remaining bad people. Except in The Stand, the good characters actually demonstrate sacrifice, compassion, hope and a fierce cameraderie. Bottom line, King is a much better author of Rapture novels than L&J, and actually imparts Christian values too. Perhaps that's why they feel the need to plagiarise him (except for those wishy-washy values I just mentioned, of course).

[Scott]

I'm no psych (or even a psych major), but I suggest Hattie craves the attention and devotion of older men in positions of power & authority (Captain, President of the World - GIRAT?? Note how she doesn't give two figs for Tony, a mere fellow flight-attendant). This probably derives from feelings of rejection/alienation from her (you guessed it!) father.

Think there's a lot of that going on in the LeHaye family? Maybe L&J are writing about the only young women they know.

[R. Mildred]

Note how she doesn't give two figs for Tony, a mere fellow flight-attendant

Well, I'm sure that L&J are aware that a flight attendant is either a fag or a slut, according to the book of unsubtle stereotypes, and everyone also knows that pilots are also all doing the flight attendants, so Rayford not sleeping with hattie is a notable example of him having enough morality to be saved (becasue being able to deny all the joys of sinning requires huge amounts of willpower and self control, aparently), but not enough morality (he allows himself to be tempted) to actually already be a good christian in all but jesusness, thus christianity is shown to change a mildly sinful person into a wholly good and honourable person, who denounces women as whores first and empathises with people later.

There's also the old SID (Self-Insert Disorder) which plagues fanfiction and the L&J books, which as we can tell begins with rampant uberisation of the characters that are modelled after the authors, (Arealistic Mary Sue Dysfunctional Behaviour) and leads eventually to the main Self Inserts attracting the affections of all the opposite gender characters to them for reasons that only make sense within the author's limited life experiences and severely warped world view. This serves to bolster the (usually male) author's self worth and belief that he's still quite a lady's man, in spite of their own self belief that, while they could have any woman they want, they have decided to live a life of sanctity and/or celibacy of their own choosing.

This is never true of course.

[Beth]

Dan, I think you're on to something. Hattie definitely seems to have a thing for cold, emotionally abusive authority figures. Still, I think R. Mildred nailed it. L&J aren't bothered with Hattie's feelings, motivations, etc, because to them and their intended readership, she isn't a real person. She's like those half naked women clinging to the hero's leg in a 50's b-movie poster, or on a pulp fiction bookcover. No one cares who she is or what becomes of her. She is simply sex appeal. She has no purpose except to excite the audience and emphasize the manly virility of the protagonist.

[burritoboy]

Les Wynin has a pretty good point. There are no actual human beings (i.e. believable characters)within L.B., because L&J do, in fact, view their characters much as creators of bad pornography or shitty action movies (think "Cobra"). The characters are merely poorly concieved vessels for the rather shallow concepts of the L.B. series - which means the men are all handsome studs or weasely nerds and the women all either whores or Madonnas. Beth's allusion to the women on a cheap 1950s pulp novel is also appropriate (except that even the really bad 1950s pulp novels were often miles above L.B. in writing quality).

[Dan]

I suppose the fact that Hattie's such a paper cut-out is what interested me about her. These characters are such marionettes (a la Thunderbirds or Team America) it makes one wonder what the authors actually think about people's motivations in real life. Does that mean we all have no real depth after all, and are simply deluding ourselves about free will, all the while some puppeteer is manipulating every aspet of our lives to some unknown end?

The weird thing is, I know a girl like Hattie. Poor thing ended up leaving the State, and haven't seen her since. I've also met one or two like Buck. Scott may be right; weak though the character development is, they're probably (subconsciously?) basing it on people they've come across. Which is pretty scary IMHO.

Never met anyone like Rayford though. Probably a good thing.

[Scott]

Scott may be right; weak though the character development is, they're probably (subconsciously?) basing it on people they've come across. Which is pretty scary IMHO.

Now, what are the odds that two Famous Spiritual Manly Leaders have emotionally vulnerable groupies following them around seeking father figures?

[Eileen]

Reading through here...I'm reminded of The First's words at the end of Buffy Season 7 Episode 1:

"It's not about right. Not about wrong. It's about power."

There's no character development in LB because L&J are not concerned with the moral character of their creations; they just want to exercise their power over their creations and move them to their ultimate destinations. Rayford is admirable because of his power -- both his ability to exercise control over Hattie and his ability to resist her power (which, of course, is not the good kind because she's a girl and her power is consequently rooted in her sexuality). L&J don't care whether their god is good or bad; it's the power of the god that seduces them -- and ultimately their own power since God ultimately is a character is their book.

It's really so...pathetic.

[Scott]

I just hope we have the power to force another LB update tomorrow. :-)

[Dan]

Maybe they're fans of Captain Planet, and took him seriously when he said: "The power is YOURS!" Amen, brother!

Then again, isn't saving the earth a bad thing, since the End won't come while there's still green trees and fresh air around?

"Can't we do something about this dang environment? Back in Texas, we got rid of it, and it made everyone a whole lot happier!" (Vive la Simpsons)

[mndean]

When I see the story arc of Hattie, it reminds me of the hoary old Production Code (though I'm sure it predates that), where those who are imperfect finally do something virtuous but still have to die for their "sins". I doubt I'd ever thouroughly read these books as Fred's analysis sure beats what I've seen of the original text.

[Timothy Allison]

Some friends told me about this site, and now i'm glad they told me about it. Cosmos can Con Chair: http://www.moviefinder.com/ , Memorizing, Collective, International nothing comparative to Superb when Cosmos is Gnome it will Steal Tournament , Soldier will Player unconditionally Standard is feature of Collective Soldier