L.B.: Worlds collide

Left Behind, pp. 364-365

There's a bit of a lesson in the first meeting of our two heroes, Buck Williams and Rayford Steele. It's a fine portrait of the insecure alpha male in his native habitat. Rayford seems so eager to strike a dominant posture that I was afraid he was about to start peeing on trees or mounting somebody:

"He's with us," Rayford told the woman at the desk. He shook Buck's hand. "So you're the writer for Global Weekly who was on my plane."

As always, the authors intend Rayford's perspective to be trustworthy and reliable, but that's not really possible with a character as self-absorbed and un-self-aware (in the worst sense) as he is. This is off-putting in Left Behind because it's not possible for readers to share the authors' insistence that Rayford's self-importance is deserved and appropriate. But maybe in a sense, by sharing their character's delusion and presenting us with this unreliable reliable narrative perspective, the authors have unintentionally created a new kind of meta-fictional device that goes beyond Nabokov's wildest dreams.

In any case, I love that membership in the Pan-Con Club (fremder!) is something that Rayford flaunts like a hard-earned trophy. "He's with us," he says. Don't worry, my young friend, I have pull. Stick with me and I can get you into traveler's lounges at airports all over the country. I'd bet he's the same way with his membership in the Columbia Record House. ("I know people, my friend. I can get you eight CDs for a penny.")

"What do you want to interview me about?" he asks Buck:

"Your take on the disappearances. I'm doing a cover story on the theories behind what happened, and it would be good to get your perspective as a professional and as someone who was right in the middle of the turmoil when it happened."

What an opportunity! Rayford thought. "Happy to," he said. "You can join us for dinner then?"

"You bet," Buck said. "And this is your daughter?"

While Rayford is desperately establishing his alpha-male status, Buck just plays along. He doesn't undermine the pilot's home-turf advantage by pulling out the Pan-Con Club ID that a frequent flier like him is sure to have. And he strokes Rayford's ego, playing to his sense of status "as a professional" and describing him as being "right in the middle of the turmoil" when, in fact, they were both in the middle of nowhere, somewhere over the Atlantic when The Event occurred. While Rayford continues trying to maintain control -- "join us for dinner?" -- Buck isn't interested in that game. He's playing a game of his own -- "This is your daughter?"

Later, as we revisit this scene from Buck's perspective, he makes this clearer:

He had been tempted to tell Captain Steele that, as of the next day, he would no longer be just a writer but would become executive editor. But he feared that would sound like bragging, not complaining, so he had said nothing.

The context there is that he'd have been perfectly comfortalble bragging to Rayford, but he didn't want to sound like he was bragging in front of Chloe. It's because she's standing there that he circumspectly avoids playing the Who's More Important? game with Rayford.

So the lesson here for alpha-male executive types like Rayford is this: While you're busy posturing to establish your dominance, the other guy is probably trying to figure out how to nail your daughter. So who's really the alpha-male here?*

The larger problem with this scene is that this isn't how strangers would be introducing themselves a week after The Event. They would still be in the throes of that shared trauma and thus wouldn't really be meeting as strangers.

There would be, post-Event, some kind of ritualized exchange that would acknowledge this common ground of loss and bewilderment, some way of asking and answering the "where were you when?" and "who did you lose?" questions. "This is my daughter, Chloe," would be followed, inevitably and involuntarily, by "she's all I have left after her mother and young brother vanished." And Buck would respond by telling Rayford about his missing sister-in-law and the niece and nephew whose absence was still a raw wound that "tugged at his heart almost constantly." Recognizing the imbalance between their respective losses, and feeling again the pangs of survivor's guilt, Buck would awkwardly express his sympathies to the Steeles, reciting the inadequate stock phrases he would have come to rely on after dozens of such conversations during the past week.

None of that happens here, of course. Instead we just get, "Hi, I'm a very important airline captain." And, "Hi, I'm the GIRAT, who's the babe?"

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* I don't know enough about the Tim/Jerry dynamic to speculate on this as subtext, but one has to wonder. They both must be aware, at some level, that their dual protagonists are thinly veiled Mary Sue surrogates. This places Jenkins in the awkward position of having to write scenes in which his stand-in is "courting" the daughter of LaHaye's stand-in. I get this picture of Jenkins sitting uncomfortably in the living room, fidgeting with a corsage in a plastic container as LaHaye asks him pointed questions about his "intentions."

Comments

[Ursula L]

Woot!

Left Behind Friday!

And before 9:00 AM!

[Jake]

*glee*

[damnedyankee]

While you're busy posturing to establish your dominance, the other guy is probably trying to figure out how to nail your daughter. So who's really the alpha-male here?

And lines like this are why I no longer drink milk while reading LB Friday. It's really unpleasant when it goes through the nasal passages.

[Jesurgislac]

So the lesson here for alpha-male executive types like Rayford is this: While you're busy posturing to establish your dominance, the other guy is probably trying to figure out how to nail your daughter. So who's really the alpha-male here?

Duh. The one who's not yet a Christian, obviously. ;-)

(I've got the strong impression already that Jenkins, at least, is the kind of guy who finds really submissive thy-will-be-done religious faith sort of, you know... feminine. Unless there's a real hard-ass God around showing those scumsuckers they've just got to roll over and take it. In which case, even an alpha male may turn into a submissive gamma type.)

[cjmr's husband]

Nabokov's wildest dreams

Not as weird as I first thought -- I had Nabokov confused with Kafka.

/never read either

[Sue]

Kafka's post-Rapture novel - now that would be worth reading!

[Scott]

Unless there's a real hard-ass God around showing those scumsuckers they've just got to roll over and take it. In which case, even an alpha male may turn into a submissive gamma type.

Geebus submits to God, your pastor submits to Geebus, the church staff/associates/lay leaders submit to the pastor, you submit to staff/associates/etc, your wife submits to you, the children submit to the wife, and the children kick the dog. Nice and hierarchical, give the (male, at least) cattle something to strive for; a promotion up the chain. Unlike real cattle, human cattle can earn their balls back, and the humiliation of being made to submit is their encouragement to crawl up the church hierarchy by, um, submitting (or a big show of manly evangelical testicles, but that's a high risk/high reward strategy). Neat, huh?

Reminds me of a church I went to. We got a new director (ever meet a woman in a position of church authority who takes the NT 'literally', presumably including the bit about never putting a woman in a position of church authority?) She reorganized the class, instituting an inner leadership team and an outer support team (for lack of better terms). You got promoted up the chain by ratting out your friends.

Her father was an out of control drunk, so our entire class had issues concerning alcohol at church events. (When I say "our entire class", I mean her, but as she was the leader, she was the only one who counted). She drove people out of the class (and away from the church) when they were caught having a beer in public when a church-related event was involved, and promoted her snitches who ratted out the beer guzzlers. She did this until she was fired for gutting the class (from 50+ attendees/week to around 5).

A new associate pastor (her new boss) used her to kill the class off for good, as it was the baby of his more liberal predecessor and the new guy wanted classes to present more pure fundamentalism. He told her she was being fired because the entire class told the church (behind her back - which we actually did do) she was killing it w/ her personal problems. After telling her that, instead of giving her a severance check, they left her on as director for a month and a half, 'leading' the class that demanded she be fired. Guess what? The class died. Surprised?

The PCUSA, given this performance in her first post-seminary job, did the only thing they could do. They ordained her. After all, PCUSA pastors who take the Bible literally and oppose gay ordination are hard to come by. You can't let a little thing like her being batshit crazy stop you.

Where was I? Oh, yes. That is the sort of nutjob you have to submit to. Rayford is a study in psychological health compared to what gets ordained nowadays.

[Richard Hershberger]

Off topic to LB Friday, but y'all might be interested in this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/23/business/23megachurch.html?hp

The headline is "Megachurches Add Local Economy to Their Mission". It is about megachurches owning shopping malls and packing plants and the like. How long until we start reading articles about megachurch-owned businesses engaging in religious discrimination in hiring? And once the percentage of the local economy reaches a critical point, I anticipate religious discrimination with regard to customers as well. Having one shopping mall among several be owned by a church is one thing, but I would not want to live in a town where the local church controlled the economy.

Here is another money quote from the article:

"Another contribution the church makes to the city is a free daylong celebration it holds on Independence Day, complete with fireworks.

Mr. Hiatt said no one seemed to find it awkward for a church to conduct the community’s celebration marking the birth of a country committed to separation of church and state.

“It was a very positive event,” he said.

Mr. Rieder, the church business manager, paused when asked whether people of other faiths would have felt comfortable at the event.

“We try not to discriminate in doing community service,” he said. “There are Muslims and other non-Christians here, of course. And we do want to convert them, no doubt about it — that’s our mission. We don’t discriminate, but we do evangelize.”"

I suspect that Mr. Rieder might not consider my church truly Christian. I think I would skip the festivities rather than invite being evangelized at.

[Ursula L]

"...and as someone who was right in the middle of the turmoil when it happened."

Who wasn't in the middle of the turmoil? This was a crisis that was, literally, everywhere.

It shows just how narrow Buck's perspective is, and what a lousy journalist he is. Rayford's perspective was the same as Buck's, that of someone on that particular flight. And even more limited than Buck's, since Rayford was mostly confined to the cockpit, rather than in the passenger cabin where he might have, lets say, interviewed a few people on the spot...

Even if he wanted to interview a pilot who was in flight at the time, someone like an inexperienced co-pilot, who had to land a plane alone for the first time when the captain disappeared, would be a far more interesting story than the pilot who happened to by flying the plane the GIRAT was on. Even a randomly selected pilot, who was on a different flight, would be a better choice.

Or, write the story so Rayford is flying while Buck is doing something else at The Moment, giving a wider perspective.

*********

And a totally different question, on the issue of memorable moments. I've always thought the day that the Berlin Wall fell was the sort of moment where everyone remembered where they were when it happened, but a recent conversation with a friend revealed that she didn't have a particular memory of that event, and didn't think it was that sort of vivid moment.

So, do you remember where you were when the Wall fell? Do you think it is that type of memorable event, or is it just me?

[Anne]

And once the percentage of the local economy reaches a critical point, I anticipate religious discrimination with regard to customers as well. Having one shopping mall among several be owned by a church is one thing, but I would not want to live in a town where the local church controlled the economy.
Wouldn't that be a sign of the End Times? Wasn't there something about people not being able to buy or sell if they aren't wearing the Mark of ... your local Megachurch?

So, do you remember where you were when the Wall fell? Do you think it is that type of memorable event, or is it just me?
I was ten years old at that time, and it happened late in the evening, so I was in bed. But I remember waking up the next day, and my mother told me. But I have some friends from East Germany who remember it very distinctly. I remember the first time I was going through the Brandenburger Tor (in January 1990).
I think the fall of the Berlin Wall stands out as a positive memorable moment in contrast to 9/11 or Kennedy's death and so on.

By the way, this is the first time I comment, but I have lurked for months now. I love LB Fridays!

[Richard Hershberger]

"So, do you remember where you were when the Wall fell? Do you think it is that type of memorable event, or is it just me?"

Good question. No, I don't remember where I was. I think there was enough build-up that it seemed like another step in the progression of events. Which, in retrospect, is exactly what it was.

The events that seem to stick in peoples' minds were surprises: Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, and the like. The only events I remember this way are the Challenger explosion and 9/11.

[wintermute]

Number of times to date Scott has gone off on a wild tangent about how evil his female superior in the church was: fixty-twelve.

Got some broader issue you need to work out there, Scott?

[cjmr]

I watched CNN coverage of the Berlin Wall from the floor of not-yet cjmr's husband's dorm room, as he had a TV in his room and I didn't. Same with the Tiananmen Square coverage (which was during Finals Week, IIRC).

Those were both, "where were you when..." events for me.

[wintermute]

So, do you remember where you were when the Wall fell? Do you think it is that type of memorable event, or is it just me?

I remember the television footage very vividly, but I don't remember much else about it.

[Scott]

Woot!

Ursula, you aren't a closet Fandra, are you? :-)

While you're busy posturing to establish your dominance, the other guy is probably trying to figure out how to nail your daughter. So who's really the alpha-male here?

I got it.

Rayford is to LaHaye as Chloe is to the LB series itself; his baby.

You're Jenkins. Nothing you did previous to LB shows up on Amazon.com as still in print (I checked). LaHaye has the connections to sell books you can't. What's the hardest thing for an author of fiction to do? Presumably, be believable. Jenkins now has a ready-made audience predisposed to consider his typing believable as a matter of religious faith. Want a hack author for a trilogy? He's your guy. Expand it to 7 books? You betcha. 12? We'll just narrow the margins, take out 20 pages per book, insert long quotes from scripture, and up the font size.

The best part? Jenkins isn't a hack; he's engaging in an Important Ministry. LaHaye says so.

Buck? While Rayford is posturing, Buck is trying to figure out how to use Chloe's "after a huge loss of life; we need to start breeding more humans, so let's do it" primate instincts to get laid. Both Buck and Jenkins are, in effect, playing along w/ evangelical dominance rituals to use the rapture to get what they want, at the expense of Rayford/LaHaye. R/L thinks he's the Big Man In Charge, and B/J uses that against him (who gets to be the one to do the actual writing and make his Mary Sue look relatively better than LaHaye's?).

I shall now sit back and bask in everyone's admiration. :-)

[Jos]

Who wasn't in the middle of the turmoil? This was a crisis that was, literally, everywhere.

I wanted to bring up that exact same point. Besides, it could be said that Rayford was about as far away from the actual turmoil as possible. Only astronauts would probably be further away.

Rayford could only be said to be in the middle of the turmoil once he finally landed. At which point he, you know, mentally avoided the turmoil.

But whatever.

About the Berlin Wall - I'm too young to remember much about it, just confused images of people dancing on it and slabs falling down and a curiously large amount of grafitti. Still... even then, I figured it was pretty important, but I didn't realise how.

[Scott]

Number of times to date Scott has gone off on a wild tangent about how evil his female superior in the church was: fixty-twelve.

Evil fundie who happened to be female would be more accurate. My evil male fundie story, since I have at least one implied request for it now:

Another PCUSA church. Near a medical center and a college, in an upscale, 'professional' part of town. I'm in the South, so fundies have plenty of other choices, so this church was attracting a bit more moderate attendees. Hmmmm.... Do you want the evil male fundie I dealt with personally, or the deposed Alpha Male of the church? I'll give you both, 'cause I'm generous like that.

We had a "theology night" at a local pub (like I said, we weren't Baptists), where we passed around questions and discussed them. A new regime moves into the church (new head pastor and associates). The new associate refuses to attend theology night unless it was moved from the pub. The event was moved. This really changed the atmosphere, making it more formal and controlled (it's harder to come and go from a meal than from "having a beer"). He also turned the group from a discussion into a passive listening to him teach event.

When asked about the move, the new associate said others had complained about the cigarette smoke in the pub, etc. I have no doubt that happened, but the associate left off his refusal to participate unless it was moved. I complained, he invited me to dinner to discuss the matter, then ambushed me with "do you EVEN BELIEVE Matthew 18"!?!? I'm supposed to go to him first, Jesus says so, instead of asking the group. I only know what happened because I asked the entire group.

I complain to the new exec pastor, who says that's not a lie by omission because he unilaterally decided it "wasn't relevant" that the exec said he wouldn't attend. His stance, from that point on, was that he had the power and authority, I was nobody (I was "no threat to anyone on staff" was how he phrased it), and God demands I accept it ("You can't put conditions on God" was his response to my refusal to have anything to do w/ a church that acts like his). He wanted to "heal the relationship" instead of dealing w/ messy issues like the associate taking responsibility for his actions.

Meanwhile, the Big Kahuna head pastor was abusing the church staff and church funds, and plagiarizing sermons. Given what they had to hide, you can see why an exec pastor like the one above would be exactly what they want. The new head fundie later engaged in some other extracurricular activities and divorced his wife. Said wife subpoenaed the church and the presbytery. Did you know that exhibits in a divorce are public records, and I now have all sorts of internal church documentation outlining the recently deposed head pastor's atrocities. Fun, fun reading.

If your church ever hires a group called "Peacemaker Ministries", just go find another church immediately. Another branch of the evangelical dominance ritual crowd. Imagine Rayford as a church consultant.

And wintermute, every fundie in this post had a penis, even if a small one. Happy?

[Scott]

You may not want to discuss the Berlin Wall too much, that was a failure of socialism, after all. Dangerous territory for you progressives.

[Mark]

Surely a more interesting story would be[1] interviewing the (presumably almost non-existent) people who are unaffected by the event as opposed to someone who was involved. At least that would be a unique angle. "Well, I guess I was out fishing in the woods at the time but I didn't go into town for a few days so I ain't quite sure... Strikes me as something out of a bad science-fiction book."

1. interviewing anyone else. but if it wasn't that.

[ako]

So, do you remember where you were when the Wall fell?

I was nine. I remember watching it on TV. People yelling, cheering, jumping up and down with joy. I got to stay up late, and my parents helped explain some of the politics behind it, and what it all meant. Simplified a bit, of course. Like I said, I was nine.

9/11 I also saw on TV. I was taking the semester off college, and had slept in (a bit, I was on the west coast). My mom called the house, waking me up. I was sure she'd gotten the whole thing wrong somehow until I switched on the TV just in time to see the second tower fall.

The Southeast Asian Tsunami was while I was in the Peace Corps. I didn't have a TV. I found out by my parents calling me, wanting to know if I was alright, everything was okay where I was, and I'd notice the earthquake (the answers were, yes, yes, and no). So I have kind of dull memories of all those news events. It's mostly staring at a TV screen, and phone calls from my mom.

[Praline]

@Ursula L: 'Who wasn't in the middle of the turmoil? This was a crisis that was, literally, everywhere.'

Ah, but you forget, everybody in Left Behind is far more interested in the disruption the Event caused to public transport than in any emotional effects it might have had on, y'know, real people. Rayford was on a plane! Travelling! It doesn't get any closer to the action than that!

[SueW]

It shows just how narrow Buck's perspective is, and what a lousy journalist he is.

He can't be any better than the morons that wrote him. That bit about an interview is just a laughably stupid, and unnecessary, excuse to get the two heroes together.

And I don't think that interview ever takes place anyway!

[Praline]

On a slight tangent, but relevant to the whole Buck-tryin-to-nail-Ray's-baby-girl thing - I've been wondering for some time why our little Bucky has reached the age of thirty without ever, apparently, knowing the touch of a woman. I think we're all agreed that a secular-minded, educated, successful, confident, attractive man is highly unlikely to hang on to his lily right into his thirties - so what's the explanation? I've got a few theories, but in the light of today, possibly I may have to revise them.

The first theory is simply that, as we've seen with Carpathia, Buck is oddly slow on the uptake. I have visions of him in smoky bar after smoky bar, obligingly saying 'Yes, sure,' every time some red-dressed beauty whispers a request to buy her a drink or pass her an ashtray, and then going placidly back to his hotel room alone, unaware that it might not have been his ashtray-passing skills the lady was interested in. More serious possibilities:

1. Women are evil, unless they're Madonnas. Buck can't possibly have met a Madonna yet or he would have married her (unless she didn't like him, which couldn't possibly be), so any other sexual contact would have corrupted him.

2. L+J want to send a message to all those Christian guys struggling with sexual temptation: it's not as hard to resist as it seems to you every day. Real Men can resist, no problem. In fact, they hardly need to resist; they just casually feel that sex isn't that big a deal, hardly worth bothering really. Joining with the condoms-have-holes-in-them school, they're trying to spread unrealistic ideas about sexual behaviour and feelings so that anyone who is struggling with sexual desires feels as guilty about them as possible.

3. It's an attempt to convince Christian readers that, despite all you might see to the contrary, pagans aren't having any more fun than you, really. See? Even international journalists aren't getting laid.

4. It's a refusal to acknowledge the concept of casual sex. This seems odd when you square it with Rayford's behaviour, but even Ray is more interested in the idea of sex than actual sex. By linking sex firmly to relationships, to the point where even a jet-setting porn-named guy like Buck doesn't seem to consider the odd fling to be an option - any sex involves getting 'involved' - you leave casual sex out of the equation altogether. Because, you know, we don't want to put ideas into people's heads.

5. It’s an attempt to deny the possibility of romantic sex that doesn’t lead to the altar. Buck couldn’t be tainted by whores, but neither can he have had actual relationships where he cared about his lover. Firstly, of course, because Real Men don’t care about women, but secondly, because it might suggest that sometimes relationships that begin well can fail. If you’re trying to persuade the kids to marry as young as possible for fear they’ll crack under temptation before they can make it to the chapel, you don’t want to go around suggesting that anyone ever changes their mind about who they want to be with.

6. It's an attempt to imply that secular people who do have sex are deliberately acting against their own morals. If even a worldly guy like Buck feels it's righteous to keep it in his pants, then by implication, other non-Christians do as well. Conclusion: everyone deep down sees the world the way RTCs do, and are simply sinning out of perversity. This feels like a likely one, given the way they consider the unsaved guilty of not accepting the Word of God even when they're remote Amazonian tribes who've probably never heard it. The idea is that there's only one moral code in the world, and anyone who claims honest disagreement with your principles is just being stubborn.

7. If L+J wrote a character who'd had extra-marital sex, and then have him forgiven, people might start thinking, hey, I might be forgiven too. Orgies would result.

8. If RTC found themselves sympathetic to a character who'd previously led a non-RTC life, they might have to start humanising other non-RTCs in their own minds. Heresies would result.

9. If L+J wrote a character who'd had extra-marital sex, then, perish the thought, readers would realise that L+J had heard of it. And somebody might start wondering just how chaste they are themselves. Frankly I find this denial much more suspicious, but then I wasn't raised to think of sex as evil.

Those all seemed like reasonable possibilities, but I think I'm going to have to add:

10. Buck is trying to get into the lilywhite panties of LaHaye Sue's little girl. If Jenkins implied, via his own Mary Sue surrogate, that he himself might have sampled the delights of ringless ladies in the night, what would his employer think of him?

Hm. Anyone else got any theories?

[wintermute]

Scott: So now we have two boring stories about how people (labelled by you as "evil") abused their positions of authority, only paying attention to their own personal desires, and not to those of the people they're meant to be responsible for. Said people went on to vote with their feet, according to the dictates for the free market.

So, the obvious question is: Are they "evil" because they acted according to Libertarian ideology, or did they act according to Libertarian ideology because they were "evil"?

[wintermute]

Oh, and if those two stories are equivalent in your mind, why have you repeated told the one about the evil woman, and never, until now, told the one about the evil man? Surely both are equally good at illustrating your basic point that selfishness is evil, right? Shouldn't they, by random chance, occur about equally often?

[ako]

Personally, Buck always reminded me of "ex"-gays. He doesn't seem to have much of any actual interest in women, he's got a lot of weirdly close relationships with male friends, he's easily charmed by a good-looking and powerful guy, and upon becoming Christian, he pursues an awkward no-chemistry courtship with a good Christian girl.

I'm aware that wasn't intended. Subtext is fun!

And it would explain the whole "Sexless heaven, yay!" thing.

[Robb]

@Scott:
RE: Sunday school incident: Gee, that's weird - this wasn't, by chance, 1st Pres of Hollywood (CA)? I haven't been there since the late 90s, but I had heard of some major controversy that went down among the Christian ed dept, just never heard the whole story (my sources were actually quite good at squashing gossip). As curious as I am about Fred's biographical deets, I'm wondering if I might have crossed paths with you. . .

*****

Re: While you're busy posturing to establish your dominance, the other guy is probably trying to figure out how to nail your daughter.

Haw haw haw!

Every once in a while, reading something like this, I wonder if Jenkins was secretly aware of how lame the books and LaHaye's whack-ass story are, and puts in awkward encounters like this for the sake of. . . eh, but before I even finish the thought, I'm reminded that this man would have no concept of 'double entendre'. French in general is probably forbidden among their ilk, as French is the language spoken by those in godless, liberal France.

*****

So, do you remember where you were when the Wall fell? Do you think it is that type of memorable event, or is it just me?

Wow - that sends me back. I was in my parents home in the San Fernando Valley, in the den watching TV. . . I was 10, and I remember later that week my dad showing me a piece of the wall that he'd taken during his time with the Army in Germany. He had this far away look like he was aware of the history of the time, and I didn't feel the same gravity, but I recognized that it was something huge to a lot of people.

[Praline]

'Buck always reminded me of "ex"-gays'

Brr. Poor Chloe, if that's what she's got in store for her.

[A Kennedy]

Wintermute, I know thatt Scott is often pretty acidic (or even "trollish," but I don't see that in the stories here. He's trying to communicate as a human with other humans... why are you attacking that?

[wintermute]

AK: I'm not attacking it, just trying to work out what he's trying to communicate. And why he's felt the need to communicate that same story several dozen times.

[Vermic]

It shows just how narrow Buck's perspective is, and what a lousy journalist he is.

I'm inclined to interpret Buck's "you were right in the middle" line as simply another ego-stroking tactic. When Buck pitches the Rayford interview to his bosses (in "LB: Chairface Stonagal"), his reason is that Rayford is a "scientific type" (ha!) who "thinks he has an idea" about the disappearances.

Of course, it's possible that L&J simply forgot about the motivation they wrote for Buck five pages ago -- this is L&J we're talking about here. But in honor of the Thanksgiving holiday, I'm going to give L&J a free pass, and assume that Buck is being deliberately shrewd in order to make Rayford feel like the Big Man in the Middle of It All (tm). Clearly he's also counting on Rayford not being too bright, making Buck doubly shrewd in my book. Well played, Mr. Williams!

[Mabus]

I remember seeing the Wall fall on television, but not where I was at the time (except that I saw it several times on Channel 1, at school--probably not the first one). I doubt I was too young to understand the significance--I was in my late teens--so perhaps I didn't actually see it at the time it happened.

Praline, I vote for serious theory #2, except I don't believe it's anything LaJenkins are doing deliberately. They just figure that's how life is.

[A Texan in Bavaria]

Scott: It's like fundies trying to stir stuff up in the Episcopal Church.

Note to self: "Avoid Peacemaker Ministries"

Though on a certain cynical level, I appreciate the entrepreneurial spirit in all these little ministries, and wonder if I couldn't make a good career of that myself. I could get some highlights, cuter suits, and start writing articles decrying the sluttish behavior of my peers (I'm a 27 year old woman), then write a crappy book singing the praises of traditional femininity and motherhood, despite being single and childless.

[inge]

Ursula L: When the wall fell I had no TV, no daily newspaper, and rotten radio reception. I heard about it on a party the next evening, where no one was really surprised: We had been expecting something to happen since September, had seen the changes daily on the streets and been making up jokes about it. The general reaction was relief: "Well, that went better than it could have."

[Ian]

It's been said a thousand times here, but I can't imagine "Captain Steele" as anything other than the name of a character in a first person shooter video game aimed at 10 year old boys.

I'm with Kennedy -- Scott is telling interesting, on-topic stories today.

[inge]

ako: 9/11, I was at work, and overheard two of my collegues,
"F***, imagine something like that turning up right in front of our window." (Our fourth floor window looked over fields and woods to the horizon.)
"Yeah, f***. Worst pilot in history, that one."
I walked over to look at the screen and went WTF too.

What Richard said: It's surprises that are remembered. And it seems that bad things come as a surprise much more often. Good things are worked for in public -- you can watch them develop and won't be surprised when they bear fruit.

[Vermic]

@Praline: Outstanding analysis. I think it's a mix of everything you've got there, but I also see a measure of writerly squeamishness. I.E. it's not so much that they're afraid their readers won't accept a sexually accomplished unmarried male, it's that they don't know how to write a sexually accomplished unmarried male. They don't know what one looks like. It's beyond their capabilities. So -- just like all the chaos and violence that didn't happen after the Rapture -- they avoid it altogether. That's sort of your #4, but with a different motivation.

@Ursula L: My Berlin Wall experience is the same as Richard Hershberger's. It wasn't an isolated event, but one of many milestones at the time marking the collapse of communism, and there was a buildup to it so it wasn't a complete surprise. I was about 20 at the time, and I remember the general exhilaration I felt in those days, but I don't clearly remember any individual moments.

[Jesurgislac]

Ursula L: Same with Vermic and Richard, I don't remember exactly where I was when the Berlin Wall fell: it was one milestone among the rest. I do remember exactly where and when I heard that Nicolae and Elena Ceauşescu had been executed, though.

[Criada]

If Jenkins' prose was a beautiful as Nabokov's, then I would have long ago bought every single LB book and treasure them for the joy wrought by their beautiful words and hilarious self-delusion.
Actually, considering I just finished Lolita two days ago, and am casting about for a new word fix, the thought that this doesn't actually exist is quite painful.

[Comrade Rutherford]

confused images of people dancing on it and slabs falling down and a curiously large amount of grafitti.

The Grafitti was only on the Western side, the Eastern side was guarded by mine fields, machine guns and anti-tank fortifications.

The cement used to make the wall, also had a lot of Asbestos in it...

My dad I and visited there when I was 14. The West had built observation platforms so that you could peer over into the Eastern side. What a bizarre sight, a normal bustling city in one direction, an abandoned ghost town in the other. The Eatersn soldiers would watch people on the Western platforms through binoculars and my dad would screw with them by suddenly whipping his telephoto lensed camera up to take a photo. The guards would hit the deck to hid themselves. We laughed and laughed.

[Praline]

Thank you Vermic! :-)

[Praline]

On that subject, though, are we to suppoes that LaHaye and Jenkins are anything like as continent as they expect everyone else to be? I've heard so many stories about fundies and wingnuts hiring rentboys, soliciting in bathrooms, anally raping their wives and generally doing stuff that upright believers shouldn't do that I find it very hard to believe in the sexual virtue of anyone who professes this authoritarian a stance. Nice evangelicals I can believe are virtuous, but I get suspicious when people are as self-righteous and hateful as these guys; it doesn't suggest their personal lives are ruled by kindness and trust. I'm inclined to believe that sexual virtue is much, much easier if you're ruled by love and respect for others, and these don't seem like loving or respectful people. But maybe I'm wrong, who knows?

[JessicaR]

I remember where I was when the wall fell because although I was very young, we were in the German Pavillion of Epcot. So it was a very surreal moment. And I bet not only does Rayford brag about his columbia house membership he adds "And my entire collection is on this format, Compact Disc, maybe you've heard of it?"

[Ursula L]

Scott,

Fandra? Never heard of it.

[Jon]

I recall the events leading up to the fall of the Berlin Wall rather vividly, as well as everything that came afterwards, but as for the Wall itself coming down, I'm drawing a blank. In fact, I think that I only became aware of the fact that it actually had come down as a result of, of all things, an AT&T (I think) commercial capitalizing on the event (which is kind of funny in a twisted satire-that-writes-itself sort of way).

[Jos]

The Grafitti was only on the Western side, the Eastern side was guarded by mine fields, machine guns and anti-tank fortifications.

Yes, I know. I did have History in High School after all. ;)

[damnedyankee]

I found Scott's stories very interesting, combined with his (IMHO) rather dead-on interpretation of LaJenkins' relationship.

You may not want to discuss the Berlin Wall too much, that was a failure of socialism, after all. Dangerous territory for you progressives.

Ah, there's the asshat I remember. Guess the tryptophan finally wore off.

[J]

Whoa, awesome! I just figured something out: If you're using Mozilla Firefox as your browser (and why wouldn't you? otherwise, Intarnetting is like going on a sex tour of Brazil and bringing no rubbers) you can block out those teeth-grindingly irritating Ben Stein anti-evolution ads by right-clicking on them, then selecting "Block all ads from...". And it just vanishes! There's a totally blank white spot there on my view of this page now. Doesn't affect your view of the rest of the page at all.

[Robb]

I've heard so many stories about fundies and wingnuts hiring rentboys, soliciting in bathrooms, anally raping their wives and generally doing stuff that upright believers shouldn't do that I find it very hard to believe in the sexual virtue of anyone who professes this authoritarian a stance.

I can see it going either way: there are plenty of the authoritarian Senior Anti-Sex league members who have the Puritan idea of sex deeply ingrained in them. They speak this way because it's what they've been taught their whole lives. Some of the older generations (LaHaye is in his 80s) will have had this in much stronger language & more sustained doses throughout their lives. I sincerely doubt that everyone who preaches against sex is a Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, or Larry Craig (though I don't doubt there are plenty more where they came from). Yes, personal guilt motivates a lot of people to publicly exercise their own demons in other people, but culturally instilled ideas about sex are far stronger and wider in their influence. To such people, that sexual virtue is one of the cores of their faith, way above charity & forgiveness; that's why sex is such a big deal among the ideological/religious decendents of the Puritans.

[cjmr]

They probably aren't all exorcizing their own demons, either.