L.B.: Antiheroes

GILES: It's the end of the world.

WILLOW, XANDER, BUFFY: Again?

GILES: It's the end of the world, everyone dies. It's rather important really.

WILLOW: So what do we do?

BUFFY: I stop it.

Left Behind, pp. 251-253

Nicolae Carpathia meets the press, giving the authors the chance to offer more leftover lessons from Dale Carnegie:

... Carpathia met the eyes of every person in the room, at least briefly. He never looked down, never looked away, never looked up. ... Anytime he spoke to a member of the press he referred to them by name as Mr. or Ms. so-and-so. ...

We get a full page of that, followed by this just-when-you-thought-it-was-safe sentence:

The initial pleasantries over, Carpathia launched into another minispeech, again showing incredible knowledge and grasp of the U.N. and its mission.

This is followed by, yes, another full page of Nicolae explaining his dream-category for Jeopardy! ("I'll take multilateral institutions for $400, Alex ...") All of which is LaHaye and Jenkins' way of warning readers that the United Nations is eeevil. It exists in the present, they believe, only so that it can one day play the role they imagine it will play in the future as the launching pad for the one world government of the Antichrist and the reign of Hell.

Carpathia's fondest memory regarding the U.N. involves the phrase that L&J believe confirmed their dark suspicions:

With the end of the Cold War in the 1990s, however, your next president, Mr. Bush, recognized what he called the 'new world order,' which resonated deep within my young heart. ...

Carpathia went on to discuss the various peacekeeping military actions the U.N. had taken since the Korean conflict of the 1950s. ...

It's hard to know what to make of this, or of the capsule history of the U.N. that follows. Carpathia is the Antichrist, and that "Anti-" prefix seems like a strong indicator that he shouldn't be considered a reliable narrator. But he's not reliably unreliable. He speaks favorably of the phrase "new world order," and it seems clear that we're supposed to read this as a signal that this is something nefarious. Yet in the next breath he speaks favorably of the U.N.'s peacekeeping history and it's role in Korea and it's hard to tell whether or not we're supposed to agree.

Here is Carpathia's summary of U.N. history:

Along the East River, from the razed slaughterhouses of Turtle Bay, as though in a race with the spectral flight of planes, men are carving out the permanent headquarters of the United Nations ...

This race -- this race between the destroying planes and the struggling Parliament of Man -- it sticks in all our heads. The city at last perfectly illustrates both the universal dilemma and the general solution, this riddle in steel and stone is at once the perfect target and the perfect demonstration of nonviolence, of racial brotherhood, this lofty target scraping the skies and meeting the destroying planes halfway, home of all people and all nations, capital of everything, housing the deliberations by which the planes are to be stayed and their errand forestalled.

Oops, sorry. That, of course, is not from Left Behind. That's actually from E.B. White's prescient essay, "Here Is New York."

White viewed the U.N. with hopeful admiration. L&J view it, instead, as a tool of Satan. They convey this view by having Mr. Anti praise the institution in terms that echo the sentiments, if not the style, of White's essay:

"As you know," he said, speaking again of things long before he was born, "the U.N. has its legacy in the League of Nations, which I believe was the first international peacekeeping body. It came about at the end of the First World War, but when it failed to prevent a second, it became anachronistic. Out of that failure came the United Nations, which must remain strong to prevent World War III, which would result in the end of life as we know it."

My guess is that Jenkins found the word "anachronistic" in his thesaurus and latched onto it without bothering to learn its actual denotation and connotations. What he seems to mean here is something more like "obsolete" or "irrelevant."

The misuse of this particular word to convey this particular meaning is rather telling. L&J are premillennial dispensationalists, meaning they follow a complex interpretive scheme that emphasizes certain "prophetic" passages. If you accept that their interpretation of these passages is true, then you must also accept that these same passages were not true, or at least did not apply, for everyone who ever read that scripture from the time it was written until now. Other passages, such as the Sermon on the Mount, are interpreted as belonging to a future dispensation -- the millennial kingdom of Christ -- and as such are, today, both irrelevant and anachronistic. So you can see how these two concepts might be closely regarded for L&J.

The thing that does seem anachronistic in Carpathia's statement is the reference to "World War III" as a future potentiality. In LB, World War III has already happened -- we read about it in a flashback back on pages 9-15 (see earlier, "The Literal Donkey's Penis" and "The Babel Fish"). That war -- a full-scale nuclear assault on Israel (don't worry, no one there was injured) -- resulted in the destruction of a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council by the visible hand of God. As we'll see confirmed in the next section, L&J have forgotten all about this.

All that aside, this paragraph again raises the question of what we are to make of the things Nicolae says. If Rayford Steele or the Rev. Bruce Barnes had said, "We must prevent World War III, which would result in the end of life as we know it" then we would know that the authors agreed with the statement. But since these words are placed in the mouth of Mr. Anti, it appears that the authors want us to disagree.

This is part of what makes this book so deeply strange. It presents us with seemingly familiar figures: the arch-villain seeking to destroy the world, the heroes who oppose the arch-villain. In most such stories, the heroes succeed in thwarting the villain's plot -- they dismantle the bomb, re-seal the Hellmouth, fend off Galactus or save the cheerleader to save the world. That's what makes them heroes.

But here, the heroes do not -- cannot -- succeed, because the end of the world is divinely preordained. The arch-villain, the Antichrist, is playing a necessary role in this divine drama. In fact, he is the protagonist here -- the one moving the action along toward its inevitable conclusion. The authors regard that conclusion -- doomsday, the end of the world -- as a happy ending.

The authors are eager to see this happy ending occur, not just in their fiction, but in real life. It's no wonder, then, that they hold the opposite view from E.B. White's admiration of the United Nations. In the race he describes, LaHaye and Jenkins are cheering for the destroying planes.

Comments

[Andy]

This is my absolute favorite blog and I've never disagreed with you before, but here I think you got something wrong. My guess is that Jenkins found the word "anachronistic" in his thesaurus and latched onto it without bothering to learn its actual denotation and connotations.

Let's remember that Carpathia's native language is Romanian, and he speaks 8 other languages fluently. (Is it 9 total, or 9 foreign languages? Either way, I'm extremely disappointed and disillusioned that The Spawn of Satan speaks fewer than a dozen; what kind of half-assed Antichrist is that?) So he's bound to misuse a word here and there. I'm sure the emails I write in German back to my friends in Switzerland are unintentionally hilarious. I think what we're seeing here is the subtle sophistication of the authors' skill with dialogue; having this character occasionally use the wrong word makes him more believable as a non-native speaker. Or...not.

[bulbul]

I'm wondering whether in the LB universe the actual end of the world hasn't already taken place with the Rapture. If so, then all those raptured were the real heroes. All those left are nothing but pawns in a game the outcome of which is known before hand. There is no risk, there is no danger. Without danger, how can there be heroes? How do you show bravery (the main quality usually associated with heroism) if you don't risk anything?

And, consequently, if all of those left behind are but pawns, what difference is there between Mikuláš Tatra and Rayford Steele?

[bulbul]

Andy,
I think what we're seeing here is the subtle sophistication of the authors' skill with dialogue;
Subtle? Sophistication?? Author's skill???
ROFLCOPTER!!!!

[PK]

Sadly, this explains why Evangelicals are cold on climate change. I enjoy most of John Macarthur's teachings, but not as they relate to the environment:

"The earth we inhabit is not a permanent planet. It is, frankly, a disposable planet—it is going to have a very short life. It’s been around six thousand years or so—that’s all—and it may last a few thousand more. And then the Lord is going to destroy it.

I’ve told environmentalists that if they think humanity is wrecking the planet, wait until they see what Jesus does to it."

[jw]

That was great. I haven't finished reading the post yet, but as I read the first sentence of the quote from E.B. White I was ready to jump on the google and try to determine where L&J had stolen the description -- it couldn't possibly have been them. Heh.

Now I'll finish reading.

[Ken]

Just we're up to Book 1, Page 253. How many pages are there in Book 1?

(I understand that L&J do summary recaps of the earlier volumes in the later ones, so subsequent books might go faster.)

[jw]

Ken -
I always assumed Fred would stop at the end of Book 1.

[Grumpy]

The president of Romania was young in 1991-92?? How old is he, anyway? And approximately what year is it supposed to be now? (And, when Bush 41's words stirred him so, did he know at the time that he was the Antichrist?)

[Dan]

"If Rayford Steele or the Rev. Bruce Barnes had said, "We must prevent World War III, which would result in the end of life as we know it" then we would know that the authors agreed with the statement. But since these words are placed in the mouth of Mr. Anti, it appears that the authors want us to disagree."

Exactly. Most Dispensationalists believe that anybody who cries "peace! peace!" is actually a false prophet. So working for peace is a sure sign that you are on the side of the Devil. This is pure fundamentalist logic - the world HAS to get a lot worse before Jesus shows up to save the day, so stop trying to make it better. Stop working for "peace" when Jesus wants to show up and destroy it all.

Juat try convincing one of these people that we should a)support a ban on nuclear weapons; b)work toward a healthier environment; or c)attempt peace among the nations, and they'll instantly label you as "being filled with the spirit of antichrist."

[Bugmaster]

Well, obviously peace is bad. America is a Christian Nation, destined to convert other nations to the One True Faith, or, if they refuse (or, rather, when they refuse), wipe the out utterly like the heretics they are. And we can't exactly do that if there's world peace, now can we ?

However, I should point out that the real Antichrist wouldn't be as simple as Nicolae Clifface. He wouldn't magically ascend to power just because of his Transylvannian mojo or whatever it is that Nicky has. No, he would need to do his own dirty work. And what better way to amass an army of followers than to give them what they're yearning for ?

World peace is a noble goal, after all, and so is the end of famine and the beginning of the age of prosperity. Surely, we must all sacrifice a little so that our children can live in a better tomorrow, free of war and poverty ? What sane man would actively oppose such a goal ? Surely, those who work against our quest for world peace are evil men ? If so, then we must fight them, using whatever means at our disposal, to achieve our noble end -- or watch helplessly as our society slides deeper into lawlessnes and corruption. We cannot let this happen. Vote Carpathia in 2008 ! It's for the children !

[Sue W]

Vote Carpathia in 2008 ! It's for the children !

What children? :-D

[Salamanda]

As if LB Friday wasn't enough to make my day, you had to bust out with that Heroes reference. Awesome.

So working for peace is a sure sign that you are on the side of the Devil.

Spot on, Dan. I can only speak for myself, but I read those books when I was about 16---old enough to know better, really, but I always was a late bloomer---and I can't tell you how deeply this idea shaped my perceptions. Anyone working for peace (or tolerance, or whatever) I regarded with suspicion---part of something deeply insidious, meant to deceive many. Not that they knew it or anything. I figured most of them meant well, and that they were only doing what they thought was right, with their limited worldview, lacking in God's Ultimate Truth.

Peretti novels didn't help either.

Frankly, I owe a debt of gratitude to Fred for helping me to see beyond so much of what I gleaned from my Non-Denominational Christian High School education---though I'm sure he doesn't know it, seeing as until now I've only seen fit to lurk. So, hey! Thanks, Fred!

It's still there, though, in the back of my brain, and it's really hard to shake: this fear that God DOES think like LaJenkins, and that I've turned from the Real True Truth and joined the ranks of the deceived. *sigh* Oh well.

Love ya, Fred. Keep on keepin' on.

[Skyknight]

If what I remember of other dispensationalist writings is anything to go by, it isn't just the Earth that's disposable. I think they interpret the idea of no place being found for the "old" heavens as meaning that God will efface the entire COSMOS, except for the bodies of those who have (properly) sworn fealty to Jesus--these will inhabit the new Jerusalem/Earth (the replacement for the old cosmos). And yet, if God sees how every action he performs will resound through eternity...well...what was the point of creating something he knew he'd destroy in a comparatively minute amount of time? I don't see how anything as hollow and worthless as glory is going to justify this (seriously, what would God need glory FOR?).

All right, that sentence was motivated by one book claiming that God would perform the effacement precisely to prove his sovereignty over all things. {sigh} God, spite/self-centeredness elemental? I can think of better forms of theodicy than THAT...

[Bugmaster]

@Sue W:

What children? :-D

Oops :-)

Actually, that's an interesting question. Are humans still breeding on the post-Event Earth ? Or are fertilized gametes insta-raptured as soon as fertilization occurs ?

[Skyknight]

In the later books, a son is born to Buck and Chloe, so it doesn't look like the Rapture is an ongoing thing (if it were, I doubt anyone who swore fealty to Jesus would stay on Earth for even a femtosecond afterwards).

[Jacob Davies]

"Other passages, such as the Sermon on the Mount, are interpreted as belonging to a future dispensation -- the millennial kingdom of Christ -- and as such are, today, both irrelevant and anachronistic."

Is this seriously, literally, true? I mean I guess it would explain a lot, but seriously? They think this? It beggars belief.

[Beth]

Oops, sorry. That, of course, is not from Left Behind.

Please stop doing that, Fred. I thought I'd suddenly lost my critical reading skills. Here I was reading an LB excerpt, and it was sounding pretty good.

"As you know," he said, speaking again of things long before he was born, "the U.N. has its legacy in the League of Nations...."

Can someone please tell me what that clause is doing there? Was Jenkins worried that his readers wouldn't know that the (pre-WWII) League of Nations was a long time ago, or is it meant to emphasize Nicholae's incredible intellectual power, that he even knows stuff that happened before he was born?

[Denizen]

"The president of Romania was young in 1991-92?? How old is he, anyway? And approximately what year is it supposed to be now? (And, when Bush 41's words stirred him so, did he know at the time that he was the Antichrist?)"

I read the prequel. Nicolae was born by genetically enginneered "hybriad sprem" so I guess they had that technology back before 1992.

[Salamanda]

Here I was reading an LB excerpt, and it was sounding pretty good.

Dude! I know! I was thinking, "Shit, even now I can't tell the difference between good and bad writing...I am teh suck..."

[Hagsrus]

ROFLCOPTER

New one on me!

[aunursa]

It presents us with seemingly familiar figures: the arch-villain seeking to destroy the world, the heroes who oppose the arch-villain.

No, actually in LB the arch-villain seeks to control the world. It is God who seeks to destroy the world (or at least much of the population and the mountains and rivers, not to mention many of the celestial stars.)

How many pages are there in Book 1?

About 450-460. Each of the sequels averages about 400 pages.

"The president of Romania was young in 1991-92?? How old is he, anyway? And approximately what year is it supposed to be now?

The actual years in which the LB saga takes place are not stated in the series. I read somewhere that it is to be considered as taking place sometime in the first half of the 21st century CE.

[aunursa]

Carpathia is 33 years old at the time of LB.

[Skyknight]

Thirty-three...the same age Jesus was allegedly during his own ministry (well, the last year of it). Considering what's going on in "The Rising", I don't think it's a coincidence...

[Andy]

Oh hell, I'll be the same age as the Antichrist in June. Now I feel old. : (

[Hibryd]

Vote Carpathia in 2008 ! It's for the children !

What children? :-D

Well, everyone in the book seem oblivious to the fact that all children are gone, to the point that a taxi driver thought a jammed parking garage was an awesome End-Times-Are-Here sight - rather than, say, an empty school. Heck, the *authors* seem to have forgotten what happened. (In real life, or in good writing, some unknown force beaming all under-12s off the planet - and all fetuses out of women's wombs - would cause mass panic.)

In this twisted unaware world of ungrieving parents it wouldn't surprise me if someone ran on a "for the children" platform and no one thought twice about it.

[McJulie]

I’ve told environmentalists that if they think humanity is wrecking the planet, wait until they see what Jesus does to it...Most Dispensationalists believe that anybody who cries "peace! peace!" is actually a false prophet.

So, when you rejoice when evil things happen -- what does that make you, exactly?

[aunursa]

Rayford Steele 43
Cameron "Buck" Williams 30
Chloe Steele 20
Nicolae Carpathia 33
Hattie Durham 27
Chaim Rosensweig late 60's
Bruce Barnes mid 40's

[Grumpy]

So if we figure NC was really young when the words "new world order" made an impression on him -- say, 6 -- then he would've been born (or spawned) no earlier than 1986. Plus 33 years, these events are taking place no later than 2019. Assuming the line about being impressed by Bush Sr. wasn't bullcrap.

[Sean]

"Other passages, such as the Sermon on the Mount, are interpreted as belonging to a future dispensation -- the millennial kingdom of Christ -- and as such are, today, both irrelevant and anachronistic."

Is this seriously, literally, true? I mean I guess it would explain a lot, but seriously? They think this? It beggars belief.

Yes, Jacob, 'tis true; many dispensationalists hold that interpretation, though some will still seek to apply the Sermon to everyday life. Actually, and sadly, many different theological traditions have come up with reasons why they don't have to take the Sermon seriously. The Anabaptists/Radical Reformation traditions are a notable exception, and I love them for it.

[Jeff]

In this twisted unaware world of ungrieving parents it wouldn't surprise me if someone ran on a "for the children" platform and no one thought twice about it.

When Nicolae Appinine is reciting the UN agencies, he obviously mentions UNICEF as just another arm of the UN. No mention of it being completely and totally obsolete.

I was in a "Christian" book*music*cafe store that had a fair amount of CS Lewis, but was way tilted toward L&J. I picked up LB and read the passage where Nicolae Tarsus is reciting the list of member nations. I noticed that "reporters from each country" would cheer when their country was called. Does that mean the British reporter for Le Monde would cheer for Britain or for France? Would Sylvia Perjolli cheer for Italy? Linda Gradstein for Italy? It's another way the author's have not thought things through.

[David Mandragora]

Jeff -- His name is Nicolae "Carpathia". It's a stupid name, so I can see why you might have subconsciously changed it, though.

[bulbul]

David,

His name is Nicolae "Carpathia"
I assure you, no regular reader of Fred's - and Jeff is one - will EVER forget that, not after all the fun we've had with this particular choice of L&J's.

why you might have subconsciously changed it
Again, nothing subconscious about that, it's a running joke here. As far as I can tell, it was started by the opoponax in this thread where she referred to Carpathia as "Nicky Pyrenees".

[bulbul]

Considering what's going on in "The Rising", I don't think it's a coincidence...
Haven't we discussed this already?
Seriously, folks, we need an index to all Fred's posts on LB. If it cannot be compiled using an existing tool, it shouldn't be too difficult to code...

[Robert]

It was actually the mention of LeMonde that sparked this. Not that I've read it, but it reminds me of the serious analysis that can still be found in places like the Economist and the Atlantic.

Stop World War III? Well, despite the fact that it already happened (maybe not a war where all Great Powers were involved, but one that ended in the use of nuclear weapons in anger) what paradigm is Sundance talking about?

The old one, where nation states jockeyed for influence and position so that they could expand their power and make a better world for their children?

Their...*sob* children!!!!!! (Falls into hysterical weeping.)

The world is changed post-Event. The Asian countries have an edge with less of their population taken, but there seem to be enough apostates in the West to keep their dominance. The more secular European powers have gained relative to the United States, but the American lead in war technology and military spending should keep them top dog. Russia of course is gone. They shot their entire atomic arsenal for no result. Nobody respects them, and that was before the nuclear strike ("You allied with who? But you already have oil!")

All of those calculations are completely irrelevant. Space bandits have stolen our children! Who gives a rat's anus about the possible oil reserves of the Spratly Islands when elves have declared war on humanity?

[Mouse]

Again, this is further proof of the problems I have with the anti-Christ in L&J's books. He was created to be the anti-Christ and is acting according to the part predestined for him and he gets punted for it in the end, when he never had a choice. Right now, he's the most sympathetic character in this mess.

Besides it's awful hard to tell Jesus apart from the anti-Christ in these novels. They both brutally torture and kill anyone who doesn't believe in them; the only difference is that Jesus wins but the anti-Christ gets punted.

I heard someone mention in a later book, Rayford's piloting for the anti-Christ and while flying, he hears the Nicky Denali talking about nuking a city and killing millions of people. Now while the good people of United 93 managed to fight back and bring down the plane, saving many lives at the cost of their own, Rayford doesn't even think about, say crashing the plane so Nicky's reign of terror is over, because this is all preordained and must happen. By crashing the plane, he would be interfering with God's magical plan to kill millions of innocent people and he just can't go through with it. So Fred's last line about L&J cheering for the crashing planes isn't too far from the truth.

[PepperjackCandy]

Other passages, such as the Sermon on the Mount, are interpreted as belonging to a future dispensation -- the millennial kingdom of Christ -- and as such are, today, both irrelevant and anachronistic.

Oh, dear God.

I wish we had icons here. Because I'd totally be using my headdesk one from lj. 8-)

[bulbul]

My guess is that Jenkins found the word "anachronistic" in his thesaurus and latched onto it without bothering to learn its actual denotation and connotations. What he seems to mean here is something more like "obsolete" or "irrelevant."
Yes, I know what you mean. It's the verb that does the trick. OED defines "anachronistic" as

Of the nature of, or involving, anachronism.

and "anachronism" as

1. An error in computing time, or fixing dates; the erroneous reference of an event, circumstance, or custom to a wrong date. Said etymologically (like prochronism) of a date which is too early, but also used of too late a date, which has been distinguished as parachronism.
2. Anything done or existing out of date; hence, anything which was proper to a former age, but is, or, if it existed, would be, out of harmony with the present; also called a practical anachronism. Also transf. of persons.

It would therefore seem that a concept, a thing or a person can be anachronistic, i.e. out of its own time, but it is difficult to imagine how it can change (for that is what the verb "to become" means) from "being placed in the right time" to "being placed in the wrong time".

A simple Google search revealed the following:
"is anachronistic" - 110.000 hits
"are anachronistic" - 36.500 hits
"be anachronistic" - 54.600 hits

VS.

"become anachronistic" - 18.100 hits
"became anachronistic" - 1.100 hits

Of all the "became anachronistic" hits, most seem to mean just what you take this phrase to mean in the quote from L&J, "became obsolete, no longer relevant, no longer applicable, things of the past". Same applies, as far as I can tell, to "become anachronistic". It would therefore appear that many English speakers (20.000) make the same mistake as L&J.

If we return to the OED entry on "anachronistic", we will see the following quotations:

1775 T. WARTON Eng. Poetry (1840) II. xxiii. 303 The anachronistic improprieties, which this poem contains.
1876 G. MEREDITH Beauch. Career II. xi. 199 He glanced contemptuously at his uncle Everard's anachronistic notions of what was fair in war.
1882 Daily News 4 May 5/3 The position of the Church of England is anachronistic and cannot last.

This speaker of English believes that only the first quotation employs the adjective "anachronistic" in its original sense ("out of its proper time"). In the other two, the adjective in question could very well be interpreted as meaning "outdated, old-fashioned" (MEREDITH) and "obsolete, no longer relevant" (Daily News).

To conclude: it would appear that in this particular point, Fred, you are regrettably incorrect. While the meaning in which L&J employ the adjective "anachronistic" in the passage you quoted is indeed rare (10%), it is by no means unattested and therefore it is not incorrect.

Yours truly,

bulbul, a faithful Language Log reader

[bulbul]

Mouse,
Nicky Denali
+5 points for making me look it up, -4 points because Denali is a single mountain, not a mountain range. Nice try though.

[bulbul]

Who gives a rat's anus about the possible oil reserves of the Spratly Islands when elves have declared war on humanity?
Now there's a theory we haven't (?) heard before. And I love it. Forget the beaming technology, the elves are back!

[Simon St.Laurent]

Jacob Davies:

"Other passages, such as the Sermon on the Mount, are interpreted as belonging to a future dispensation -- the millennial kingdom of Christ -- and as such are, today, both irrelevant and anachronistic."

Is this seriously, literally, true? I mean I guess it would explain a lot, but seriously? They think this? It beggars belief.

You can check the notes on Matthew 5:2 from the Scofield Reference Bible, the long-standing handy dispensationalist reference, for details. By that reading, the 'literal' application is only to the kingdom, though "there is a beautiful moral application to the Christian."

[Hagsrus]

>Forget the beaming technology, the elves are back!

Let Granny Weatherwax sort 'em all out, I say!

[Hagsrus]

Who were the sperm donors (?) for Carpathia's conception? What was all that about?

[Hysterical Woman]

You know, the idea of the heroes tasked with bringing about The End of the World is an interesting idea, but again it goes into the If the Writers Weren't Complete Hacks pile. (In fact, I had an old story idea like that, but in it the world had already ended, so it was more like the Terri Schavio case writ large)

[bulbul]

Who were the sperm donors (?) for Carpathia's conception?
Not so much sperm donors as genetic material providers. Two gay guys.

but again it goes into the If the Writers Weren't Complete Hacks pile
Index, index, my horse for an index!

[PepperjackCandy]

Who were the sperm donors (?) for Carpathia's conception?
Not so much sperm donors as genetic material providers. Two gay guys.

And wasn't it some kind of Nazi project or something?

[Bugmaster]

Who were the sperm donors (?) for Carpathia's conception?

Not so much sperm donors as genetic material providers. Two gay guys.

Man, talk about Brokeback Mountain...

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all day.

BTW, does this mean that the Antichrist is also gay ? I have a feeling that Rayford Steele might become the First Lady... that'd be sweet.

[Bugmaster]

Let Granny Weatherwax sort 'em all out, I say!

Ah sir, but you forget, this is the fuuuuuture.

"The enemy cannot hide from my sight... You will die by Eldar hand !"

[ako]

BTW, does this mean that the Antichrist is also gay ? I have a feeling that Rayford Steele might become the First Lady... that'd be sweet.

I've seen the slash (homoerotic) fanfiction, and they're all agreed, it's Nicolae and Buck 4ever!!! Which is perversely logical, given Buck shows signs of the sort of schoolboy crush Nicolae tends to inspire, then rushes off to marry Chloe the moment he switches teams...er sides and joins the Trib force.

And before you ask who writes Left Behind slash fiction, it ranges from people who've missed the point to something verging on clever deconstruction of the premise (taking the neatly defined characters and have them lose their clear Good Guy-Bad Guy moral distinctions in an increasingly messy situation). And some of them do seem to write as badly as our authors, which is about the quality you can expect from the lower spectrum of unedited "We'll take anybody!" free fiction archives.

[Spherical Time]

bulbul: Not so much sperm donors as genetic material providers. Two gay guys.

Seriously? I've only read Left Behind. Does a later Left Behind novel reveal that Nicky is the son of two gay guys by way of a Nazi conspiracy.

Poe's Law is in effect.

[mcc]

And, consequently, if all of those left behind are but pawns, what difference is there between Mikuláš Tatra and Rayford Steele?

Well... there's only two monolithic, unchangeable sides, and people are doomed to have no control or choice in what happens but only to be a pawn of one side or the other as they play out their preordained roles...

But, people do have the choice as to which side they are going to be a pawn for.

That's apparently it.

One is tempted to wonder if there's an analogy here for something deeper in these people's overall religious views, or the way that they see their role in the world even pre-Rapture.