L.B.: Narcissus reflects

Left Behind, pp. 142 - 144

Our narcissistic friend Rayford at last takes a long look in the mirror.

I mean "narcissistic" in the clinical sense, as in NPD, the description of which reads like Cliff Notes character summary for Rayford Steele:

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

4. requires excessive admiration

5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her

9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

These final pages of Chapter 8 are a continuation of Rayford's dark night of the soul. LaHaye and Jenkins do allow their hero a few kernels of self-awareness here, but even these quickly slide back into self-obsession.

We begin with Rayford deciding that this was "the worst season of his life." He remembers the death of his parents, but decides that this experience is worse:

Rayford had grieved in a way, but mostly he was just sentimental about them. He had good memories, he appreciated the kindness and sympathy he received at their funerals, and he got on with his life. Whatever tears he shed were not from remorse or heartache. He felt primarily nostalgic and melancholy.

The rest of his life had been without complication or pain.

The subject and object of that entire passage is Rayford and only Rayford. We don't know anything more about his parents as people and we don't learn much of anything about their deaths other than his feelings about how their deaths affected his feelings. It rings true as a description of detachment, but is itself just as detached.

This occurs in a section in which Rayford is supposed to be hitting a kind of spiritual rock bottom, where he's supposed to be realizing his own selfishness and sinfulness and need for salvation. Somehow, though, he always seems to be confessing sins other than the actual ones he should be.

There follows a short Rayford's-eye summary of his painless, uncomplicated life until the present. Here's his description of becoming a pilot:

He came through the ranks in the usual way -- military reserve duty, small planes, then bigger ones, then jets and fighters. Finally he had reached the pinnacle.

The pinnacle? He's not flying the space shuttle, or landing an F-14 on an aircraft carrier. (See, again, No. 1 above.)

Rayford met his future wife in college:

They were married when Rayford was a senior in college and Irene a sophomore. She dropped out when he went into the military, and everything had been on schedule since. They had Chloe during their first year of marriage but, due to complications, waited another eight years for Ray Jr. Rayford was thrilled with both children, but he had to admit he had longed for a namesake boy.

So here's a question for all the young ladies in the church youth group: What have we learned today about the role and place of women?

Irene Steele is L&J's notion of an ideal woman. She is pious and submissive, with no personal ambition beyond getting her MRS degree and then attending to the needs of her husband. This is the ideal of womanhood promoted by Tim LaHaye's wife, Beverly, and her advocacy group, Ladies Against Women Concerned Women for America.

I'm not sure that women such as Irene Steele really exist, but if they did, they would be caught in a vicious Catch-22. Their only ambition is to marry a good man. But the kinds of men who would be interested in marrying them -- the kinds of men who are attracted to servility, who need others to "submit" to their will -- are not good men.

As Rayford begins remembering the next phase of his life -- the "most trying time" in his marriage -- he first lays out his excuses:

Unfortunately, Raymie came along during a bleak period for Rayford. He was 30 and feeling older, and he didn't enjoy having a pregnant wife. Many people thought, because of his premature but not unattractive gray hair, that he was older, and so he endured the jokes about being an old father. It was a particularly difficult pregnancy for Irene, and Raymie was a couple of weeks late. Chloe was a spirited 8-year-old, so Rayford disengaged as much as possible.

I can't quite follow the logic of that last sentence. Rayford had a lively young daughter, "so" -- therefore -- he disengaged as much as possible. Wha-hunh?

The point of view here is third-person sympathetic -- it's Jenkins talking, but offering Rayford's perspective. So it's tough to know what to make of that observation about Rayford's "not unattractive" gray hair. Is it intended to be read as a glimpse of the character's clownish vanity? While it's clear that Rayford is clownishly vain, it also seems that the authors are as blissfully unaware of his vanity as the character himself. My guess, then, is that this is Jenkins lurching in and out of his chosen POV in order to reassure readers that the protagonist's gray hair does not diminish his manly good looks. (And keeping in mind that Rayford seems to function as Tim LaHaye's Mary-Sue substitute, we can guess which of our coauthors insisted on including this reassurance.)

He was frequently late getting home and at times even fibbed about his schedule so he could leave a day early or come back a day late. Irene accused him of all manner of affairs, and because she was wrong, he denied them with great vigor and, he felt, justified anger.

The truth was, he was hoping for and angling for just what she was charging. What frustrated him so was that, despite his looks and bearing, it just wasn't in him to pull it off. He didn't have the moves, the patter, the style. ...

Oh yeah, LaHaye and Jenkins know what the ladies want. They want "the moves, the patter, the style ..." They make it sound like all Steele needed to do was listen to Billy Dee ("Colt 45. Works every time").

Despite the pseudo-confessional tone of this passage, Rayford never comes to grips with what seems the likelier explanation for his inability to "pull it off": He doesn't like women. I don't mean that he likes men -- I'm sure he's 100% heterosexual (not that there's anything wrong with that). He just simply doesn't like women. Some misogynists get their kicks by using, and discarding, women, but Rayford seems to be the variety that can't even bring himself to touch one. Consider the sentences that immediately follow the passage above:

Sure, he had access to any woman with a price, but that was beneath him. While he toyed with and hoped for an old-fashioned affair, he somehow couldn't bring himself to stoop to something as tawdry as paying for sex.

It's not really the idea of paying for sex that Rayford finds "tawdry" and "beneath him." It's the women he would have been paying. And it's not because of the money, or because of the sex, but just because they're women.

I can't decide at this point which would be worse: To allow your daughter to read this book, or to allow your son to.

Comments

[Cactus Wren]

Wow! First comment!

I liked the bit about how "It was a particularly difficult pregnancy for Irene, and Raymie was a couple of weeks late. Chloe was a spirited 8-year-old, so Rayford disengaged as much as possible." So, what we're seeing here is that his wife is having a difficult pregnancy and is two weeks overdue, but their daughter is a handful and possibly difficult to handle. THEREFORE the "hero" -- the word "so", as you said, indicates causality! -- backs off and lets Irene, with her impaired health, handle their troublesome daughter on her own without his help. That being, after all, a woman's job. (Who was it that said "Men are the stronger sex, so long as they don't have to deal with blood, sick, or runny noses"?)

[Harv]

L&J continue to butcher logic it seems. In one sentence they write that Rayford's life was "without complication and pain". Later they write about his wife's difficult pregnancy (since when was carrying a second child *longer* than the due date a "difficult pregnancy"? A "difficulty" in a pregnancy usually connotes something serious - like a premature birth); Rayford's arguments with his wife; his need to get away from his active 8 year old daughter.

OK as a 39 year old father of a spirited 5 year old daughter, I can sort of understand what they meant by "disengage". Certainly there are times I am too tired to match her energy level. That hardly qualifies as appropriate fodder for post-Rapture soul searching. Not to mention - since when did 30 count as "getting older"? For a hunky guy with lady killer good looks, Rayford must not be in very good shape.

I might also point out that the *average* age for a first time father in the US around the time L&J were writing this book was 29.7 years old. The mean age of white fathers at the time was actually 30.9 - and a whopping 84% of all US fathers with a child under 18
were between the ages of 30 and 55. I can only assume that this is another case of L&J writing pseudo-confessionally since no one who was actually a father in the 1990s would consider a 30-something dad to be the butt of "old-father" jokes (if anyone has ever heard such a joke, let me know - I have never once heard one).

Lastly - oh for the good old days when a guy could have a quiet, romantic affair with a nice attractive woman who didn't ask for money afterwards.

[Chris]

No, there are old-father jokes - one is, I can't be buggered to type the whole thing, but it has the punchline "and then I looked behind me to see a young man shooting with a real rifle!" (I didn't say they were good jokes). They involve whitebearded grandpappy figures, though.
And why 'then jets and fighters"? Aren't all American fighter aircraft jets?
And as a perfect Christian, don't Irene's repeated false accusations of adultery against Ray (is it an American thing? Here in Australia nobody would call him Rayford, or even refer to him as Rayford, once they'd left the christening) count against her? Not quite bearing false witness, but close. She may be accusing him of sinning in his heart, but it doesn't sound like it. As a good wife, shouldn't she take his word for it?

[Beth]

Rayford never comes to grips with what seems the likelier explanation for his inability to "pull it off": He doesn't like women.

I think there's an even likelier explanation than that: women don't like him. Rayford/Tim is a vain, self-centered jerk who looks old for his age and harbors a barely concealed contempt for women. Not exactly the type to set feminine hearts aflutter. Of course he doesn't see any of that, so he's left with the question: how is it possible that women aren't throwing themselves at him? There's only one possible explanation: it must be the work of the Antichrist (or at least his earthly minions, the liberals). Yes, the liberals, with their "feminism" and their "multiculturalism" and their homosexual agendas. They're the ones who've spoiled women to the point that we won't even look at a man unless he's he's got "the moves, the patter, and the style." They've ruined things for all the average hard working, clean living, ruggedly handsome studs. No wonder guys like LeHaye have to console themselves with fantasies of technicolor torment against the villianous destroyers of their love lives.

[jwhook]

The guy with the moves, patter, and style:

http://tinyurl.com/73b5x

Hi-de-hi-de-ho.

[Constantine]

it just wasn't in him to pull it off. He didn't have the moves, the patter, the style. ...

This is the a part of Rayford's personality that actually makes perfect sense. He married a 20-year-old when he was a senior in college. He likely simply never learned how to date and to relate romatically to older (as in over 20), single women and so wouldn't know how to begin an affair.

[VKW]

"Hey, baby...Oh, you noticed the ring? Yeah, I've got a wife, and she's pregnant right now, but I'm not enjoying having a pregnant wife, know what I mean?...You understand, my wife suspects I'm having an affair anyways, so I figure, Why not?...And my daughter is spirited, so you can understand why I can't go home and I have these needs...."

And the authors are saying that that line of patter wouldn't work? Damn! When do they get to the SURE FIRE WAY TO PICK UP PRETTY GIRLS?

[BSD]

As horrible as this bit of his horrible personality is, I still can't get over him being named Rayford. Is that even a real name?

[Ray]

As a Raymond (and that only to my mother), I can't say I've heard of the name Rayford before. But lots of things about US names strike me as peculiar - the whole Joe Smith III thing, the prominence given to middle names and initial - so this is just one weirdness among many.

[Lila]

Re: old father jokes--my father, who had entirely white hair by his late 30s, was 45 when I was born (the last of 4, and 12 years after #3). I'm told he went around chortling, "Just because there's snow on the roof doesn't mean the fire's gone out in the furnace!"

He died in 1997 and I miss him still. He was definitely NOT a Rayford.

For those of you who find "Rayford" an unlikely name, please visit the American Southeast. You will be amazed. There's an old custom of giving the first son his mother's maiden name as a first or middle name, and a lot of those names are now just considered "normal" first names without regard to family history--so you get a lot of people with names like Kendall and Emory and Truman and Goodloe (picked off 2 pages of our phone book).

Fred, keep up the good work. I feel like you've thrown yourself on a grenade to spare the rest of us. May your reward in heaven be great.

[chris]

Kinder, kirche, kuche.

[Denetra]

You know, to my knowledge in the military if you fly fighers you fly fighers. You don't start off on crop dusters and if they decide you're good enough move you up to the A team.

[pho]

Beth wrote:

Rayford/Tim is a vain, self-centered jerk who looks old for his age and harbors a barely concealed contempt for women. Not exactly the type to set feminine hearts aflutter.

Um, really? Granted manyh women have weasel detectors that screen out the Rayford who enter their field of perception. But others find such qualities as irresistable as kamikaze moths find halogens.

On the other hand, a misogynistic narcissist like Ray might well use the Groucho Marx excuse -- any woman interested in him is not worth having. In his mind, he wants the woman who won't have him, then regards her with contempt because she doesn't see his Nietzschean superiority. This is also consistent with his push-me-pull-you treatment of Hattie Durham.

Or, and you always have to bear this possibility in mind, Jenkins just doesn't know how to write.

Fred, your insights into these books are amazing. I join the growing chorus who hopes to see a hard cover on this someday.

[Grumpy]

The point of view here is third-person sympathetic -- it's Jenkins talking, but offering Rayford's perspective. So it's tough to know what to make of that observation about Rayford's "not unattractive" gray hair.
My guess, then, is that this is Jenkins lurching in and out of his chosen POV in order to reassure readers that the protagonist's gray hair does not diminish his manly good looks.

If these types of "lurches" are consistent, then what we have here is a style. That is, they probably are a way for the authors to represent the inherent vanity of the yet-unsaved protagonist.

But you've guessed right, IMHO. (But why mention his graying hair at all, then?)

[Vermic]

I want to echo so many other readers and thank Fred for wading through this literary muck on our behalf. It seems like every page brings fresh narrative horrors.

I'm baffled as to how we're supposed to reconcile the Rayford Steele described here -- who wanted to fool around, but could never seal the deal -- with the studmuffin we met in chapter 1. Back then, we were told that Rayford "had plenty of opportunities" to be unfaithful, but had valiantly chosen to never act on those opportunities. Now we're suddenly to believe he's this schlub who actively wanted an affair but could never hit it off? Wasn't it made plain that Hattie was his for the asking? Will the real Rayford Steele please stand up?

Rayford's soul-searching moment here also seems like a place where we might revisit that "private necking session" he had with Ms. Unnamed Co-Worker 12 years ago -- you recall, the one he had while his heavily pregnant wife was at home dealing with their 8-year-old daughter. But is that incident even mentioned? Have L&J forgotten about it already, after only 8 chapters?

[Scorpio]

A male Mary-Sue is a Gary-Stu (or maybe that's Hugh).

I made it through three and a bit of these books, but I just couldn't keep reading.

They are told is such a detached and uncaring way that they are bad fiction and worse myth.

[Jeremiah]

L&J's almost masturbatory fascination with airplanes and pilots seems to be a writ-large theme too. They clearly want Rayford Steele (character name courtesy of Marvel Comics) to be an "ordinary guy" with ordinary, but to mark him as a "hero", they make him a military fighter pilot. Sheesh, they might as well give him super powers obtained from exposure to a nuclear explosion:

Their obsession with fighter pilots betrays a certain kind of hyper-American militarism; if their hero had been, said, a corporal in the Army, that would be one thing. But a foot soldier or sailor on a ship is always part of a big group of other guys and his individual role and contributions are almost always subsumed into the accomplishments of the unit or the ship. But a fighter pilot is a sort of quintessentially American hero: A lone warrior.

[sdf (Stu)]

Irene Steele is L&J's notion of an ideal woman. She is pious and submissive, with no personal ambition beyond getting her MRS degree and then attending to the needs of her husband. This is the ideal of womanhood promoted by Tim LaHaye's wife, Beverly, and her advocacy group, Ladies Against Women Concerned Women for America.

Perhaps it is too obvious to need mentioning, but doesn't anyone ever bring up the paradox of the pious and submissive, KinderKircheKüche woman running an advocacy group -- even one pushing the idea that women should be pious and submissive? Shouldn't running advocacy groups be reserved for, well, those who are allowed outside the kitchen?

Kind of like the fact that Ann Coulter's entire persona fundamentally contradicts the ideology of her political bedfellows, but none of them seems to care a wit ...

[Jay Denari]

But a fighter pilot is a sort of quintessentially American hero: A lone warrior

That would be L&J's view... and, typical of them, they'd completely ignore the fact that those pilots wouldn't be going anywhere without the dozens of maintenance techs, etc., that keep them flying. It's a good symbol for their view of salvation: Their "flight" is the only thing that matters, regardless of how many people had to take care of their needs for that to happen.

Same thing here: She dropped out when he went into the military, and everything had been on schedule since. HIS schedule, not hers. And its a pretty weird schedule.

How many people do you know go into the military AFTER college if they weren't going to a military academy? If he did so and had done a typical four-year stint, he'd get out at 26 or 27, and then go into journalism. That might happen, but the whole thing feels wrong. I can't remember how old he is now, but Ray Jr is still very young, so that makes Rayford about 34?

If my estimate's right, he might be working for a mid-sized-circulation paper covering the local school board, maybe even state government, not gallivanting around the world as "the greatest reporter ever." I doubt any respectable "global" magazine would even look at someone with less than 5-10 yrs experience. Clearly, L&J know nothing about the mechanics of the journalism field.

[Jay Denari]

the fact that Ann Coulter's entire persona fundamentally contradicts the ideology of her political bedfellows, but none of them seems to care a wit ...

And they won't... until they succeed at doing what they say. Then Ann & other right-wing women will have the chance to see what their philosophy REALLY means as they're dumped into the kitchen and might realize how much they once gained from feminism.

[David]

If my estimate's right, he might be working for a mid-sized-circulation paper covering the local school board, maybe even state government, not gallivanting around the world as "the greatest reporter ever." I doubt any respectable "global" magazine would even look at someone with less than 5-10 yrs experience. Clearly, L&J know nothing about the mechanics of the journalism field.

You're confusing Ray with another character, Buck. Buck's the globe-trotting reporter. Ray's just a pilot - formerly military, now commercial.

[Constantine]

Jay, you're mixing up Ray and Buck. Buck is the journalist. Ray is the airline pilot. Chloe is at college, and she was born soon after Ray and Irene got married. That makes Ray in his early 40s, or about 39 at the youngest, assuming Chloe was particularly precocious. It's almost plausible.

How many people do you know go into the military AFTER college if they weren't going to a military academy?

Several, if your college campus has an active ROTC program.

The entire setting of this seems to take place in a completely different era. While being a fighter pilot would be seen as being pretty hardcore, being a jet pilot is not viewed as a particularly stunning profession in the social class pecking order, and yet Ray is portrayed in the book as some kind of towering figure by dint of his profession. Plus, maybe with the exception of some Mormons, it's very uncommon (in my experience) for a woman to marry in the middle of college and drop out to follow her husband's career.

Of course, as with Buck's 20-mile trek through Manhattan, the book does not appear to take place in "our world."

[David]

The fact that Ann Coulter's entire persona fundamentally contradicts the ideology of her political bedfellows, but none of them seems to care a wit ...

I think the logic they use is that women like Ann Coulter have to forgo the far better place of women in order to defend the good family women who are being slandered and oppressed by feminists. She's the public voice of women too busy taking care of their families to be able to defend themselves. Fighting fire with fire, and all that - see, look, we've got an independent, liberated woman who isn't a liberal! Ha! Gotcha! And a black, female in charge of security who supports Bush! Take that!

[Grimgrin.]

I never noticed it before, but Rayford Steele and Glen Quagmire are seeming more and more alike.

And not just the airline pilot thing. The attitude towards women is starting to track as well.

Hmmm... "GiggedyGiggedyGiggedyANTICHRIST!"

[Mabus]

Harv, regarding Irene's "difficult pregnancy"--I didn't get the sense that that was connected to the lateness, but it is possible. I was born almost a month late, and my mother was a fairly small person (when she married, she still weighted about a hundred pounds). It's been speculated that my lateness and my respiratory problems are connected, but no one knows for sure. I also required a c-section. At the very least, I'm sure it was unpleasant for her; it may have been dangerous. I can't say it occurred to me to ask before.

[Scott]

OK, so his wife 'dies', and his major disappointment in life is his inability to successfully cheat on her?

Why does the authors' ignorance of normal people reminding me of scenes in "Arrested Development"?

"In the secular world, one finds oneself with a fair share of temptations—"
"Take me... take me to your secular world!"
-- Michael, discussing 'secular' matters with Mrs. Veal, "Meet The Veals"

[Mara]

You've hit the nail on the head. I dated a guy like Ray the summer before my senior year in college. He came across at first as very nice, polite, sweet, respectful -- but the more I got to know about him, the more uneasy I felt. We dated for about two to three weeks (and yes, I do mean JUST dating, not 'hooking up' -- I met this guy in my church's young adults group, fwiw) before I broke up with him. He then started stalking me, phoning at all hours (I refused to answer the phone, which means my mother wound up talking to him despite my pleading with her not to -- she actually APOLOGIZED to him for MY behavior, despite a counselling session with one of our pastors in which the pastor sided with me and told him that if I didn't want to continue dating him, that was my right).

Among the scary things he said was that he didn't like older women (he was about 30, I was 20) because their personalities were already formed and they couldn't be molded. He wanted me to drop my senior year in college (his mistake here may have been picking a rising senior to date, not a freshman, perhaps?), marry him, and have his kids. I didn't mind the idea of having a family eventually, but not on the immediate timeframe he had in mind, and especially not on the basis of dating him for only two weeks.

He had a very tormented relationship with his mother, I think -- and definitely transferred that to me. I was either a saint (some of the letters he left for me were full of adoration) or a whore (for leading him on, which I did NOT do).

Yeah. Sounds very familiar. Dealing with Mike the Stalker is one of the things that opened my eyes about how little protection the law really afforded me, and how destructive the kind of blind faith my parents practiced could be (they didn't want to take legal measures because it "wasn't Christian" or something).

[AJ]

Well, I can reassure you people, having the entirety of Left Behind 1, that this level of idiocy continues through the entire book. Especially the religious discussions--I can't wait now, Fred's coming pretty close to where Rayford converts and one of the future protagonists (a balding kindly preacher named Bruce Barnes) enters the picture by spilling out his entire life the moment he meets Rayford and Chole.

Speaking of that, I believe we get to see the first "preaching scene" in about 10 pages--when Chole finally gets home. Oh yeah, and the first of some of the Rayford-hates-Hattie-but-for-a-good-reason-moments.

[Grumpy]

Jeremiah: They clearly want Rayford Steele (character name courtesy of Marvel Comics) to be an "ordinary guy" with ordinary, but to mark him as a "hero", they make him a military fighter pilot.

Or, it's a function of the genre, in service of the plot. Like how the president in Independence Day was, conveniently, a fighter pilot. I can only imagine that Steele's flyboy skills come in handy for the Tribulation Force.

[Sophist]

I can't wait now, Fred's coming pretty close to where Rayford converts and one of the future protagonists (a balding kindly preacher named Bruce Barnes) enters the picture by spilling out his entire life the moment he meets Rayford and Chole[sp].

I am actually reading that portion of the book, and you're right, it's pretty...interesting. My favorite "sin" that he's confessed so far is going to the movies at time when some people might think he was out ministering. I don't really recall the portion of the bible that condems that myself, but IANABiblicalScholar.

[Merlin Missy]

Sophist ---

All movies are made in Hollywood (bear with me). Hollywood is run by Jews. The Jews are meeting in New York. Conclusion: Carpathia is a smokescreen and Spielberg is the real Antichrist. (ET? Saving Private Ryan? Recruiting films.) Alternately, going to the movies might be forbidden in the same Bible verses that condemn drinking and dancing.

[Modern Major-General]

Wait a minute, "Bruce Barnes"?

Alright, this comic book style of character names has gone too far. I could forgive the hokey names if they were trying to evoke a pulpish feel, but L&J seem to think that these names could actually pass for normal ones. What's next; "Johnny Savage" and "Earnest Epsilon"?

[Doctor Science]

Have LaHaye & Jenkins said how they divide up the work? LaHaye is quite old -- born in 1926, so he was writing this in his 70s. Jenkins was born in 1949, so he's a boomer. I wonder how much of the weird human relationships reflects LaHaye's memories and illusions rather than Jenkins'.

But then, my husband was prematurely gray, and AFAIK he *never* heard "old father" jokes when he was carrying our babies around -- neither the one born when he was 32 nor the one born when he was 40. This may have something to do with the fact that he still (age almost 50) has no wrinkles, sagging or other marks of age on his face, the wretch.

[ajb]

If this is Rayford's bock-bottom confessional stage, it's quite interesting, and an interesting glimpse into L&J's view of the relationship between the sexes and marriage in particular.

Nothing's his fault.

It wasn't his fault that "complications" (undoubtedly nothing to do with him) delayed their having his "namesake" until he'd reached the old, old age of 30. And then those other bastards thinking he was even older because of his prematurely grey hair. Then the ball-and-chain starts bitching and moaning about the pregnancy (I'm crampy, I can't sleep, I'm tired, she just won't shut up). And just when he sees the end of the tunnel, the bitch just won't go into labor. Another week of this?!? And at the same time, his daughter, with whom he's had to put up for 8 long years waiting for a "namesake" (could nothing could be worse than the Steele name dying with his perfect ass), always wants to play with him and read with him and spend time with him. Bitch.

And then that complaining whore he married goes around accusing him of cheating. Where does she get off. Nevermind that that's exactly what he was trying to do. Even though he was ready, willing and able, but just couldn't pull the trigger, means that her accusations were "wrong". Nice morality.

And how about those whores that he wanted to have affairs with. "Looks and bearing" just weren't enough for them, they needed "moves" and "patter" and "style". And don't even get him started on the real whores who didn't need anything but money.

Rayford here isn't actually confessing ANY of his own sins. This is sort of like the "madonna-whore" complex, except I don't think Rayford or L&J ever consider ANY woman as a "madonna". They're all whores, the only difference is that you HAVE to deal with some of them.

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

I think anti-feminist figures like Ann Coulter and "Dr. Laura" reflect a lone sliver of realistic pragmatism in the ultraconservative movement. My guess is, women are more easily convinced about their status in life if the preacher is another woman; if it were a man preaching BarefootInTheKitchen, us ladyfolk might smell a rat sooner. So you get a few annointed exceptions to the AdvocacyBelongsToTheMen rule for the sake of effective advocacy. Plus you get the bonus of these women playing the martyr card: "Oh, trust me, I would much rather be home raising the children and cooking the pot roast, but God has called me to His duty..." Hrk!

(Mmm. Pot roast...)

[Harv]

Mabos,

I may have read into L&J's definition of "difficult" - certainly there can be complications for *any* stage of a pregnancy and birth. Then again, nothing in the passage - well sentences - written by L&J suggests that there were real serious problems in the pregnancy. The kind where a man might be thinking about them at a time like the one Rayford is in.

If he *had* cheated on her and she, say, almost died in childbirth - or if his son was in danger or something after birth, and he was in some distant airport flirting with his non-lover Hattie - that might be a memory worth considering for Rayford. But no - he was just recounting the excuses he had for his behaviour during that time. Again, L&J missed an opportunity to give their characters some depth.

But hey - they have eternal souls to save!

[spencer]

How many people do you know go into the military AFTER college if they weren't going to a military academy?

Not that it has much bearing on anything at all, but that is exactly what I did. And when I reported to my first unit, there were three other new guys in my section who had done the same thing.

Not saying it's typical - but it does happen.

[Anarch]

I think anti-feminist figures like Ann Coulter and "Dr. Laura" reflect a lone sliver of realistic pragmatism in the ultraconservative movement. My guess is, women are more easily convinced about their status in life if the preacher is another woman; if it were a man preaching BarefootInTheKitchen, us ladyfolk might smell a rat sooner.

What's interesting is that they're almost explicitly rendered exceptional, sort of like one of those linguistic quirks that violates the usual rules of grammar and so has to be memorized separately. [Not that we're really aware of such things in English, given that almost all our obvious rules are routinely violated, but still.] And the irony, of course, is that the ease with which these exceptions are accepted -- as intelligent, as capable, as effective, and so forth -- puts the lie to the very positions they espouse.

Plus, let's not underestimate the very nasty sexual -- and I do mean "sexual" here -- politics that lurk underneath the presence of Coulter et al. in the ultraconservative movement: a strong woman to either dominate or be dominated by, depending on your predelictions... but someone who is nevertheless politically pure. It's like the Madonna/Whore complex relayed by the weekend edition of Der Sturmer (and translated by a refugee from a Lovecraft novel).

And now that I've squicked myself out by thinking of Ann Coulter as either a Madonna or a Whore... I need to go take a shower. A very, very thorough shower. Later, y'all.

[R. Mildred]

I think we cna safely assume that Jenkins has no idea what a complication in pregnancy actually is, but have heard of births being over or under term.

TO get as badly researched as the LB books are, I'm pretty sure a person woudl have to actually wipe their mind clean of all memories and then learn about the world entirely from daytime dramas, and really bad ones too. the writing (lack of) skill is probably achieved in a similar fashion, but with World Weekly News and similar non-newspapers replacing the daytime dramas.

[Petra_Means_Rock]

How many people do you know go into the military AFTER college if they weren't going to a military academy?

Having gone to UNSA I can tell you that it is atypical to go to a military academy. USMA, USNA, USAFA only let in 1000 or so (1200 in my class, 200 woman) people a year.

Most officers are from ROTC or went to college and decided to serve later; in addition some offiers are former enlisted and went to college while in the service and then went through OCS.

[Petra_Means_Rock]

Hmm, should have spell checked that bad boy.

[Scott]

So you get a few annointed exceptions to the AdvocacyBelongsToTheMen rule for the sake of effective advocacy.

People who lead others to 'obedience' increase the amount of obedience in the world, and so don't have to obey (it's a net increase in obedience). That's how biblical literalists can remarry ("I'll raise the kids from the second marriage to be good Christians, so Jesus will cut me some slack on that whole remarriage==adultry thing") and how my church group had a fundamentalist, literalist woman in charge, despite Paul saying not to put women in positions of authority (I don't mention that verse to favor keeping women from running things - just to point out her evident belief that if she could use her authority to make us Submit and Obey, she didn't have to obey what she believed and resign).

If I can make two people obey, I don't have to obey and that's still a net increase of one obedient person in the world.

[Constantine]

LaHaye is quite old -- born in 1926, so he was writing this in his 70s. Jenkins was born in 1949, so he's a boomer. I wonder how much of the weird human relationships reflects LaHaye's memories and illusions rather than Jenkins'.

I think you're on to something here. The worldview presented reflects someone who was from a much older generation. What I'm surprised about is why there wasn't more creative tension between LaHaye and Jenkins that could have moderated LaHaye's influence regarding cultural perceptions and behaviors that seem out of place in LB. Did Jenkins ever throw a stack of paper back in LaHaye's face and yell, "This chapter is complete crap!" ?

[Jesurgislac]

sdf: Perhaps it is too obvious to need mentioning, but doesn't anyone ever bring up the paradox of the pious and submissive, KinderKircheKüche woman running an advocacy group -- even one pushing the idea that women should be pious and submissive? Shouldn't running advocacy groups be reserved for, well, those who are allowed outside the kitchen?

I asked a fundie-Christian that once. She'd just finished explaining to me that the Bible said men are superior to women and therefore ought to be the leaders. So I asked her; "So, you believe that you are the inferior of all men? You, yourself, personally, believe all men, any man, is better than you?"

"No," she said, after a minute's thought. "I don't believe that."

"Then...?" I said.

"I'm an exception." She did not appear to be joking.

[Brandi]

Did Jenkins ever throw a stack of paper back in LaHaye's face and yell, "This chapter is complete crap!" ?

It's possible that Jenkins, like Miniver Cheevy, was consumed with longing for the 'good old days' that never really were, and actually liked the depiction of society and relationships LaHaye posited.

[Brandi]

Did Jenkins ever throw a stack of paper back in LaHaye's face and yell, "This chapter is complete crap!" ?

It's possible that Jenkins, like Miniver Cheevy, was consumed with longing for the 'good old days' that never really were, and actually liked the depiction of society and relationships LaHaye posited.

[Brandi]

Sorry for the double-post; Opera seemed to just lock up and never reload the page to show me I actually posted.

[mom de plume]

If you've ever read The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood, one bit of irony involves the "Wife" in Offred's household, for whom Offred is expected to bear a child by proxy. Offred recognizes her as a former TV evangelist; in the society of Gilead, she is no longer allowed to preach and rarely leaves her house and gardens. Offred wonders how she must feel to have been "taken at her word."

[--susan]

I think that either LaHaye or Jenkins picked up the the term "difficult pregnancy" by perhaps overhearing women speaking with each other. It is used generically to mean a multitude of unpleasantness, particularly in comparison to earlier pregnancies, not necessarily serious medical conditions.

Plus, maybe with the exception of some Mormons, it's very uncommon (in my experience) for a woman to marry in the middle of college and drop out to follow her husband's career.

Not terribly uncommon, though it's not usually stated with marriage so plain the reason, but rather couched in "lots of reasons." More common to get married then quit *because of* preganancy, not *in order to get preganant*, though.

[Lucia]

Just to keep our marriage young, now and then I initiate the following exchange with my DH:

L: Honey, I've decided to become a Southern Baptist.
DH: No, you haven't.
L: Oh, OK, never mind.

(Emily Litella voice optional on last line)