L.B.: Cruel to be kind, pt. 2

Left Behind, pp. 367-377

Rayford Steele has taken Hattie Durham aside for a lecture about sex, sin, God and the end of the world. This will not be an argument or a dialogue or even a conversation, he explains. He will do the talking and she will do the listening. Once he's done talking, he will allow her to speak, but only once he's done.

One of my repeated complaints about this book is that it is not creepy enough. The scenes describing the Rapture and its aftermath are not nearly as disturbing or unsettling as they ought to be. But this scene -- this is disturbing. Rayford's behavior here is plenty creepy. The whole scene plays out like one of those didactic school-assembly dramas that teach kids to recognize the warning signs of abusers.

Creepier still is the realization that the authors don't intend for this scene to read this way. Rayford here seems to be doing his impression of Patrick Bergin in Sleeping With the Enemy, but the authors mean for us to see him as a model of good, Christian, manly behavior.

After several pages of his laying out the ground rules and establishing his rightful male dominance over the submissive female, Rayford finally gets around to the apology he hinted at earlier. It starts out promising:

Rayford leaned forward and rested his elbows on his knees, gesturing as he spoke. "Hattie, I owe you a huge apology, and I want your forgiveness. ..."

I'm glad now he's only gesturing as he speaks and not just waving the Hand of Silence at Hattie while she's talking. But the rest of this bit is begging to be rewritten from Hattie's point of view:

"... We were friends. We enjoyed each other's company. I loved being with you and spending time with you. I found you beautiful and exciting, and I think you know I was interested in a relationship with you."

She looked surprised, but Rayford assumed that, had it not been for her pledge of silence, she would have told him he had a pretty laid-back way of showing interest.

Rayford is confident that he knows exactly what a woman would say to him if he were to allow her to speak. And he's completely confident what Hattie would have told him if he had been less laid-back in showing his interest. "If I had found you willing," he continues, but the "if" there is merely rhetorical. Rayford has already assumed that she -- and apparently every other woman at any time -- would be "willing."

"If I had found you willing, I'd have eventually done something wrong." She furrowed her brow and looked offended.

"Yes," he said, "it would have been wrong. I was married, not happily and not successfully, but that was my fault. Still, I had made a vow, a commitment, and no matter how justified my interest in you, it would have been wrong."

I think it is wrong for married men to cheat on their wives. Cheating is not a victimless crime -- every betrayal involves a betray-ee, often more than one. Plus it's not a great deal for the other woman, who is expected to make due with table-scraps. But Rayford's wrong-wrong-wrong rant here seems more like he's directing it at Hattie than at himself. It reminds me of Sen. Larry Craig's description of former President Clinton as "a nasty, bad, naughty boy," except that Rayford seems to be condemning nasty, bad, naughty Hattie for tempting him to become a nasty, bad, naughty boy.

Now Rayford's "I must be cruel only to be kind" strategy really kicks in, and it works out as well for Hattie as it did for Ophelia. "There would have been no future for us," he tells Hattie:

"It isn't just that we're so far apart in age, but the fact is that the only real interest I had in you was physical. You have a right to hate me for that, and I'm not proud of it. I did not love you. You have to agree, that would have been no kind of a life for you."

She nodded, appearing to cloud up. He smiled. "I'll let you break your silence temporarily," he said. "I need to know that you at least forgive me."

As she begins to cry we get that two-word sentence: "He smiled." It's not quite that he's smiling because he has succeeded in making her cry. His smile, instead, is intended as a kind of gentle overture, a comforting gesture. It's almost a fatherly smile. It seems very much like the reassuring smile of the Good Cop during a brief respite from "harsh interrogation techniques." It's a smile that says, "I'm sorry this is happening to you. Would you like a glass of water? I can get them to stop, you know, if you'd just cooperate. ..." It's a smile that never quite conceals a note of menace -- a smile that asks you to play along with the false conceit that the person smiling isn't complicit in the ordeal you're experiencing.

Rayford is lying about his "physical" interest in Hattie. This is the "woman he had never touched," the woman he had fetishized like a collector, stringing her along, unopened in the original shrink-wrap packaging. Nothing has changed. He's still playing the same kinky control game that he's played all along. I think he's leaning forward like that to hide his arousal.

"Sometimes I wonder if honesty is always the best policy," she said. "I might have been able to accept this if you had just said your wife's disappearance made you feel guilty about what we had going. ... That would have been a kinder way to put it."

"Kinder but dishonest. Hattie, I'm through being dishonest. Everything in me would rather be kind and gentle and keep you from resenting me, but I just can't be phony anymore. I was not genuine for years."

"And now you are?"

"To the point where it's unattractive to you," he said. She nodded. "Why would I want to do that? ... I want to be able to convince you, when I talk about even more important things, that I have no ulterior motives."

The authors would have us believe that Rayford has gone from pursuing Hattie's body to pursuing her soul, but that's just not true. He's been after her soul all along.

Hattie's lips quivered. She pressed them together and looked down, a tear rolling down her cheek. It was all Rayford could do to keep from embracing her. There would be nothing sensual about it, but he couldn't afford to give the wrong signal. "Hattie," he said. "I'm so sorry. Forgive me."

She nodded, unable to speak. She tried to say something, but couldn't regain her composure.

"Now, after all that," Rayford said, "I somehow have to convince you that I do care for you as a friend and as a person."

Hattie held up both hands, fighting not to cry. ...

This goes on for a full page, with her sobbing and him interjecting things like, "Your tears give me no satisfaction," and "I would be no friend if I didn't tell you what I've found, what I've learned ..." Through it all I was desperately hoping for Hattie to launch into Mercedes Ruehl's speech from The Fisher King --

No, you don't get to be nice. I ain't gonna play a stupid game where we act like friends so you get to walk out feeling good about yourself.

-- but she never does. She just takes it until she can't take it anymore, at which point she blurts out, "Give me a minute" and hurries off. Rayford has been pulling her strings for so long he knows she can't break them, so he's not at all worried she might not come back. He just sits there, thumbing through his dead raptured wife's Bible, running lines so he can be off-book by the time Hattie returns:

He had decided not to sit talking to Hattie with the Bible open. He didn't want to embarrass or intimidate her, despite his newfound courage and determination.

The scene switches to Humbert, Lolita and their cookie and we return to Captain Steele when Hattie does:

... slightly refreshed but still puffy eyed and sat again as if ready for more punishment. Rayford reiterated that he was sincere ...

Punishment expected; punishment delivered.

My theory for the rest of this chapter gets back to something we've discussed earlier about characters taking on a life of their own, struggling to behave humanly despite the best or worst efforts of the authors. My theory is that Hattie Durham, airhead flight attendant and future Whore of Babylon as written by LaHaye and Jenkins, is still sobbing uncontrollably in the women's room at the Pan Con Club (bleibe, reste, stay!). The Hattie we see here, instead, is that other Hattie, acting on her own against the wishes of the authors. She emerges here because this is the scene where Hattie first hears, and rejects, the End Times Gospel of Tim LaHaye and so the authors attempt to make her seem combative and disdainful. Thus readers are presented with this strange scene in which Rayford, the character they are trying to portray as the very model of godliness, comes across as vain and shallow, while Hattie, the character they are trying to portray as vain and shallow, comes across as closer to an actual human than anything else we've encountered in this book.

Hattie's more-assertive doppelganger recognizes that Rayford's not going to shut up or stop pestering her until she forgives him and reassures him that he is good and strong and -- above all -- sincere, so she grants him a deadpan absolution:

"I need to know you forgive me," he said.

"You seem really hung up on that, Rayford. Would that let you off the hook, ease your conscience?"

"I guess maybe it would," he said. "Maybe it would tell me you believe I'm sincere."

"I believe it," she said. "... And I don't hold grudges, so I guess that's forgiveness."

"I'll take what I can get," he said. "Now I want to be very honest with you."

"Uh-oh, there's more? Or is this where you educate me about what happened last week?"

She actually lands a couple of punches there. I'm sure the authors intended that to show us how hard-hearted she is being despite Rayford's sincere sincerity, but all I was thinking was Good for you.

"Does this require some reaction?" Hattie asks before he begins his sales pitch. "Do I have to buy into your idea or something?" According to Rayford's Rules of Order, she's still not supposed to be allowed to speak, but meta-Hattie isn't playing by Rayford's rules anymore and Rayford is no match for her. The Hand of Silence has lost its power. Her tone is a bit sarcastic, but her questions are genuine -- she's really asking what it is, exactly, that he needs her to do in order for him to get this over with already.

"If it's something you can't handle right now," he says, "I'll understand. But I think you'll see the urgency of it." And then we get the paragraph quoted earlier, about Holy Spirit descending on Rayford in the form of a dove and a voice from Heaven declaring "This is my beloved evangelist in whom I am well pleased. Take notes, people -- this is how you proselytize":

Rayford felt much like Bruce Barnes had sounded the day they met. He was full of passion and persuasion, and he felt his prayers for courage and coherence were answered as he spoke.

And then we get two pages of the authors telling us about Rayford telling Hattie about the things Bruce told him about. Rayford began by telling Hattie that he didn't want a conversation or a dialogue, but we don't even get a glimpse of his big monologue, just a lot of sentences like this:

He told her of calling the church, meeting Bruce, Bruce's story, the videotape, their studies, the prophecies from the Bible, the preachers in Israel ...

Interspersed throughout this are little notes about how "Hattie sat motionless," or "Hattie stared at him. Nothing in her body language or expression encouraged him," or "Hattie wouldn't even give him the satisfaction of a nod." (Again, Good for you.)

After nearly half an hour, he exhausted his new knowledge, and he concluded, "Hattie, I want you to think about it, consider it, watch the tape, talk to Bruce if you want to. I can't make you believe. All I can do is make you aware of what I have come to accept as the truth."

Was it as good for you as it was for me, baby?

Hattie sat back and sighed. "Well, that's sweet, Rayford. It really is. I appreciate your telling me all that."

She'd stay and cuddle for a bit, but she has an early flight in the morning and she has to go home to walk the dog and no, that's fine, she'll see herself out, thanks. Buh-bye now.

Rayford's Big Speech is so underwhelming because L&J are terrible writers who always prefer telling to showing. The reader thus reaches the end of this chapter as unmoved and unpersuaded as Hattie is. But L&J really didn't have a choice here, there was no way to write this passage effectively. There was no credible way to show Rayford's "passion and persuasion" when this was his subject matter; no way to allow the readers to hear the words he spoke while still maintaining the illusion that those words made sense. "I never knew that stuff was in the Bible," Hattie says after Rayford's speech. But "that stuff" isn't in the Bible, which is why his speech had to be kept hidden from readers.

Throughout our discussion of this section, I've used words like "evangelize" and "proselytize" to describe Rayford's agenda here, but I should note again that this was never really what he was doing -- even if it's what he and the authors think he was doing. Everything leading up to this chapter showed Rayford worrying about Hattie's salvation, as though leading her to repentance, to conversion, to faith and amazing grace were what he intended. But he never gets anywhere near any of that.

The "gospel" Rayford presents to Hattie has no incarnation, no cross, no resurrection, no Christ. It has nothing to do with anything other than "prophecy" and the End Times Checklist. The central figure of Rayford's gospel is not Jesus Christ, but Nicolae Carpathia. Rayford is preaching an anti-gospel.

Comments

[Bugmaster]

Fred, your link to "The Fisher King" seems to be broken...

[Nick Kiddle]

Am I first?

The Fisher King link doesn't go anywhere.

[mmack]

And then we get the paragraph quoted earlier, about Holy Spirit descending on Rayford in the form of a dove and a voice from Heaven declaring "This is my beloved evangelist in whom I am well pleased. Take notes, people -- this is how you proselytize":

Fred, if there were justice in this world, God would zap Ray in the ass with a lightning bolt ala Saul. Kind of The Almighty's way of saying "No No NO Dummy, Here, step aside and let ME handle this!"

[Bugmaster]

Rayford is preaching an anti-gospel.

Heh. Insightful conclusion, as always. What we need now is a Right Behind story about Rayford, the unwitting Antichrist -- the Knight Templar who is so convinced of his own righteousness that he doesn't notice his Father Below cackling in the background... If I was any kind of a semi-decent writer, I'd do it myself :-(

[Jenny Islander]

The "gospel" Rayford presents to Hattie has no incarnation, no cross, no resurrection, no Christ. It has nothing to do with anything other than "prophecy" and the End Times Checklist. The central figure of Rayford's gospel is not Jesus Christ, but Nicolae Carpathia. Rayford is preaching an anti-gospel.

And this is why the popularity of the LB series frightens me.

I saw the LB Kids paperbacks at a book fair at my local Lutheran church (ELCA) the other day. The attendant didn't believe me when I told her that according to the theology in LB, she and all of her fellow congregationers are headed for an eternal firestorm. I wrote down your URL for her and hoped for the best.

Rayford is an ass.

[Randy Owens]

"I need to know that you at least forgive me."

That right there seems to rather exclude the possibility that she doesn't forgive him, doesn't it? And not only does she need to forgive him, but he needs to know it as well. A better Jerry Sue would have needed to know whether she forgave him.

[scyllacat]

Rah, Yay, It's LB Friday... and I'm off work! And wasting the bandwidth. Ok, I go read now!

[mmack]

"... We were friends. We enjoyed each other's company. I loved being with you and spending time with you. I found you beautiful and exciting . . .

"We had joy, we had fun, we had seasons in the sun . . . . "

[Gilmore]

A better Jerry Sue would have needed to know whether she forgave him.

Jerry Sue seems to think merely asking for forgiveness is enough to make you entitled to it. How reasonable (or not) is this belief? From my not-very-Christian-at-all perspective, I think our Hattie is well within her rights to tell him "no, sorry, I DON'T forgive you. Piss off."

[Lax Tool]

I don't know much about La Haye, but isn't he a public speaker in some regard? Does he actually preach the whole End Times theology from the pulpit? If so, shouldn't he already have some prepared monologues regarding why We Are Living In The End Times? It should have been pretty easy for him to hand one to Jenkins and have him rework it, personalizing it to the character of Rayford, flipping a few tenses around. Which makes the utter lack of a monologue all the more curious. (Incidentally, I almost feel sorry for Rayford not getting his John Gault moment. Yet another example of the authors undermining their own Mary Sues.)

Is it possible there was a conscious decision on the part of Jenkins not to write out that monologue? Perhaps they thought that either 1) their audience would be familiar with End Times eschatology and would be bored by a rehash or 2) they were hoping to get readers caught up in the plot before going into details about its philosophical structure. I don't claim it was a sound authorial decision, but it may have arisen out of something besides poor writing skills or laziness.

[aunursa]

Rayford seems to be condemning nasty, bad, naughty Hattie for tempting him to become a nasty, bad, naughty boy.

I don't find that in the dialogue.

Rayford here seems to be doing his impression of Patrick Bergin in Sleeping With the Enemy, but the authors mean for us to see him as a model of good, Christian, manly behavior.

Hello, princess.

It's wonderful to see you ... alive!

Oooooh, just gives me the creeps.

[aunursa]

Damn that Hattie. If she had only responded, "No, I don't forgive you, and I never will. Go to hell!", the readers would have been spared Rayford's nauseating attempt at proselytizing.

[MerrySue]

Wow, a conversion scene that Jesus wasn't even invited to attend. Even an atheist can feel your pain, Fred.

[Chan]

"She looked surprised, but Rayford assumed that, had it not been for her pledge of silence, she would have told him he had a pretty laid-back way of showing interest."

Lord, lord! What's this then? Hattie can't speak, because L&J don't want her fisking their pitch, but they still have to stroke Rayford's ego, since it's an extension of theirs. So we get what Hattie's supposed to say to Rayford as his interpretation of her body language and projection of his needs into her silent mouth.

NNGHNNNGHHHNGH. You do not write dialogue this way!

L&J aren't good at dialogue, so what makes them think they're any good at monologue? Is this just an excuse for LaHaye to sermonize? But where's the sermon? C'mon give us some passion here!

When I was studying art history in college, one of the paintings we discussed was a painting of Matthew, writing his gospel, from the Ebbo Gospels. He's in the throes of inspiration by God, and the painting just caught Mark's expression of Oh-my-God-just-please-make-it-stop. Part of him doesn't want to be writing this thing because he's under God's control. His hand writes, and moves on, of its own accord, putting down words that he knows don't come from him.

Oh, that we could have had that in LB! But no, that would be too much of a recap, it would slow down the narrative, so we get two pages of He-told-Hattie instead.

These books are such wallbangers!

[Scott]

"If it's something you can't handle right now,"

Failure to buy his sales pitch only proves your unManly weakness.

[Robb]

What we need now is a Right Behind story about Rayford, the unwitting Antichrist

With his opponent being the dashing southerner Nick Cascade, (whose rugged good looks & tiny hint of a drawl remind nearly everyone who meets him of a young Paul Newman) who manages to simultaneously destroy "The Pinnacle", Rayford's flying evil lair converted from a 747, and steal the formula that will transform the world's deserts into a bread basket, saving the world. Who else but soft spoken Nick could repair the heart of the battered Hattie after her terrifying ordeal as Rayford's [not]sex slave?

Damn. . . I need to get on that. I'm not much of a writer, but I think I can produce a decent youtube quality series on that.

*******

Add me to the supporters/cheerleaders of Hattie Durham. I'm so sad to know her ultimate fate, knowing she didn't deserve it. O LB Fridays. . . what a great end to my week!

[aunursa]

Chan,
Hattie can't speak, because L&J don't want her fisking their pitch

It's not that. There are a number of proselytizing efforts in each book, and in not a single scene do L&J ever let one of the skeptical characters fisk it.

[aunursa]

I'm so sad to know her ultimate fate, knowing she didn't deserve it. O LB Fridays. . . what a great end to my week!

Which fate would that be:
* becoming the anti-Christ's secretary
* becoming pregnant with the anti-Christ's child
* losing the child to a miscarriage
* hiding from the anti-Christ who attempts to have her killed?
* being bombarded by more proselytizing efforts from the Trib Force?
* sucombing to the evangelism and becoming a Stepford Christian
* being zapped by lightning via the power of the anti-Christ's petbumbling assistant?

[Elmo]

Earlier this week I was channel-surfing while waiting for an event over which I had no control to take place. I happened upon the local evangelistic outlet channel where an older man was teaching a younger man how to do what Rayford is trying to do here. The young man was standing on a rock in the middle of a stream while the older man told him the "steps" he needs to take. Rayford is utterly devoid of cluefulness.

[Ken]

The "gospel" Rayford presents to Hattie has no incarnation, no cross, no resurrection, no Christ. It has nothing to do with anything other than "prophecy" and the End Times Checklist. The central figure of Rayford's gospel is not Jesus Christ, but Nicolae Carpathia. Rayford is preaching an anti-gospel.

Can't they even do The Mandatory Altar Call Ending (TM) right?

Or is it that the End Time Prophecy Checklist has replaced Christ in their "Gospel"?

"GOOD NEWS! GOD'S GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD AND KILL ALL OF *YOU* FOREVER IN HELL! HA HA!"

Somebody cue "Smug" by Steve Taylor...

[Ken]

Part of him doesn't want to be writing this thing because he's under God's control. His hand writes, and moves on, of its own accord, putting down words that he knows don't come from him. -- Chan

Question, Chan: If that's what "Inspiration" is, how does it differ from Automatic Writing?

[Robb]

Which fate would that be:
* becoming the anti-Christ's secretary
* becoming pregnant with the anti-Christ's child
* losing the child to a miscarriage
* hiding from the anti-Christ who attempts to have her killed?
* being bombarded by more proselytizing efforts from the Trib Force?
* sucombing to the evangelism and becoming a Stepford Christian
* being zapped by lightning via the power of the anti-Christ's petbumbling assistant?

All of the above - the poor girl. I'm trying to think of a similar tragic figure in literature or history. I want to say Hester Prynne, but that's not quite there.

[M.]

Tess Durbeyfield?

[Jos]

"I'll let you break your silence temporarily,"

Wow, did I want to scream a large amount of profanity at the monitor on reading that. Too bad I'm such a naturally quiet person.

Seriously, Rayford seems to have forgotten his SSCs.

[Gabriel]

I have so looked forward to this particular episode of Slactivist: Left Behind. I knew one day we would finally have this scene dissected.

After all these years of characters casually strolling through a disaster area without concern for their fellow man, after the description of Planned Parenthood manufacturing abortions to stay in business, after the great exploits (or lack thereof) of the GIRAT, after the sheer inhumanity displayed by the characters of these books, I expected more of this scene. I still expected a trainwreck, but I expected a trainwreck of epic proportions.

There's a lesson I learned about writing. I was told to summarize the unimportant bits and go into great detail on the central elements. Here the authors have given the abbreviated outline of Rayford's soul saving speech. Obviously, it is not central to the work. The authors have instead added all sorts of material to show Rayford is a sick and manipulative fuck (we already knew that, but still). Great lengths are taken to show Rayford putting Hattie in her place and then watching her suffering as he attempts to do what he feels will break and ruin her.

Here it's laid bare. Saving souls is completely unimportant. It's all about being superior and manipulating other people percieved as lesser than you. I can't say I'm surprised, or even shocked. This is the message the politically motivated RTCs embrace more than anything. So, instead of this scene being interesting in a macabre way by plumbing new depths of depravity, it's merely "ho-hum. I knew that already."

[Tokyo (was Edo)]

@Robb: I'm trying to think of a similar tragic figure in literature or history. I want to say Hester Prynne, but that's not quite there.

Maybe Justine?

[Jordi]

Yay, Left Behind Fridays!

I think that basically, the problem with this specific passage, and the whole book, is that the parts that aren't meant to be creepy turn out to be extremely creepy, and the parts that are supposed to be creepy aren't creepy enough. Perhaps because you've brought that into view, perhaps it seems to be the biggest failing of the Left Behind series, next to the fact that Rayford's impossible to root for.

In fact, I kind of hate the guy.

[Praline]

"Yes," he said, "it would have been wrong. I was married, not happily and not successfully, but that was my fault. Still, I had made a vow, a commitment, and no matter how justified my interest in you, it would have been wrong."

a) 'Justified' my foot. You don't justify lust. You either feel it or you don't; it's not a decision.

b) Rayford is unbelievable. The whole apology is about him. Not about how his wife's feelings would have been hurt by his betrayal. Not about being a lousy father to his children, mooning after colleagues while his wife struggled to raise them unaided. Not about how Hattie's feelings got jerked seven ways from Sunday. Not even about how bloody awkward it must have been for all their colleagues to witness this painful farrago all those years. No, Rayford is only interested in how it besmirches his view of himself, how regretful he is that he's dropped below his own standards. He doesn't care a curse about anyone else's feelings.

No wonder he doesn't need Hattie talking during the apology. The only wonder is that he needed her to be in the room at all. He isn't apologising to her, he's apologising to himself.

[Tokyo (was Edo)]

@Robb: I'm trying to think of a similar tragic figure in literature or history. I want to say Hester Prynne, but that's not quite there.

Maybe Justine?

[Tokyo (was Edo)]

Apologies for that horrible, catastrophic italic.

[Ken]

Here the authors have given the abbreviated outline of Rayford's soul saving speech. Obviously, it is not central to the work. The authors have instead added all sorts of material to show Rayford is a sick and manipulative fuck (we already knew that, but still). Great lengths are taken to show Rayford putting Hattie in her place and then watching her suffering as he attempts to do what he feels will break and ruin her.

Here it's laid bare. Saving souls is completely unimportant. It's all about being superior and manipulating other people percieved as lesser than you. -- Gabriel

Remember, Gabe, Rayford is LaHaye's self-insert.

[Ken]

Rayford is unbelievable. The whole apology is about him. Not about how his wife's feelings would have been hurt by his betrayal. Not about being a lousy father to his children... Not about how Hattie's feelings got jerked seven ways from Sunday... No, Rayford is only interested in how it besmirches his view of himself, how regretful he is that he's dropped below his own standards. He doesn't care a curse about anyone else's feelings. -- Praline

Funny, I thought Gary Stu self-inserts were always more IDEALIZED and HEROIC and PERFECT versions of the actual author. Like Doug Blanchard said in Gamers with "The Law of Proportions":

The more perfect in every way is the character, the bigger a RL loser is the player.

And if Rayford is the "PERFECTED" LaHaye...

[Robb]

I've not read The Misfortunes of Virtue, but the plot summary makes me not want to. Tess Durbeyfield seems to fit Hattie a bit better - tragic, socially maligned, less a victim of sexual violence than others holding power over her, crushing her in all senses.

Damn. . . it would be so much easier to laugh/scoff at this excrement writing if I didn't have a daughter.

[Praline]

It was all Rayford could do to keep from embracing her. There would be nothing sensual about it, but he couldn't afford to give the wrong signal.

Agh! This man isn't HUMAN!

Unless Saved Evangelicals have some chip in their brains that nobody tells us about, that just isn't true. Rayford is a heterosexual man in good health; if he puts his arms around an attractive woman, there won't be 'nothing sensual' about it. It doesn't have to be lecherous, but whatever his mind, heart and soul think about it, on some level his body will inevitably think, 'Hey, I'm pressed up against a gorgeous woman! My lucky day!'

His motive in hugging her wouldn't be sensual, but the experience would inevitably have some sensual element of it.

Now, if he were an honest man, he might decide against hugging her because it would be too tempting. Or he might decide to hug her because she needed a hug and his fear of temptation was his own responsibility and shouldn't get in the way of comforting her. But his frantic insistence that there would be nothing at all sensual about cuddling up to a lovely young woman leads me to one of three possible conclusions:

1. Rayford hit his head during the Rapture plane chaos, and did some damage to his pituitary.

2. It wasn't the Rapture. It was the aliens after all. They've replaced a sizeable proportion of the population with pod-people that function almost like humans but not quite. These pod-people have absorbed their hosts' memories, think that they're human, and are now setting about a scheme to divide the human race, start a massive war and conquer the world. The aliens got Rayford and missed Hattie; pod-Buck is contaminating Chloe with a specially-prepared cookie even as we speak.

3. The authors are not truthful people.

Votes?

[Jos]

My vote:

4. He's gay.

[Praline]

Funny, I thought Gary Stu self-inserts were always more IDEALIZED and HEROIC and PERFECT versions of the actual author. Hi Ken :-)

I have the impression that it's fairly common for Mary Sues to have their own feelings and rights pushed far ahead of other characters', so Rayford is pretty much on track here. Mary Sue authors tend not to eradicate bad behaviour; instead, they justify it - because to them, it isn't bad.

The problem with such characters is that they reveal the limits of the author's understanding. In the real world, other people force us to confront our own limitations. If we show a lack of compassion, people will call us unkind; if we show a lack of insight, people will correct our judgements; if we show a lack of common sense, stuff will go wrong for us. But with Mary Sue, the brakes come off. The result is that an author's vices can rage unchecked.

That Rayford is controlling, misogynistic, self-absorbed and callous are all bad qualities. L+J may not be this bad in real life, because other people might not let them get away with it - but it's very disturbing that these books, in which there is no such restraint, are being treated as moral exemplars.

[Praline]

Also, in charity, L+J might not be that bad because it's easier to be horrible to a fictional character than a real one, and I'd never assume they were entirely without decency or human feelings.

[Lax Tool]

2. It wasn't the Rapture. It was the aliens after all. They've replaced a sizeable proportion of the population with pod-people that function almost like humans but not quite. These pod-people have absorbed their hosts' memories, think that they're human, and are now setting about a scheme to divide the human race, start a massive war and conquer the world. The aliens got Rayford and missed Hattie; pod-Buck is contaminating Chloe with a specially-prepared cookie even as we speak.

Isn't it possible that the pod-people are all running around, but the original people are still around. Then, in perfect sit-com fashion, sometimes the pod person will leave the room and the identically dressed human come enter (or vice versa) making for situations above where pliant-Hattie leaves the room and defiant-Hattie returns.

And perhaps pod-Buck is getting credit for the articles that real-Buck is writing.

As for Rayford, I suspect he's always been a pod person, perhaps one of the advance guard, which is why his behavior is so consistently inhuman.

[anon 4 this]

Unintentionally, as usual, L&J actually get some of the psychology right.

I had an affair with a married man and eventually broke it off. He'd treated me badly in a number of ways and I eventually realized it wasn't about love or even sex, but about his vanity.

When I ended it I told him this in a lot more detail. I'm sure it couldn't be easy to hear.

About an hour later I got a text--a TEXT!--asking me if I could forgive him.

I wrote a short email explaining that forgiveness wasn't that simple, and I couldn't forgive him until I'd understood the depth of the ways he'd hurt me, but that one day I would.

I got an email back saying, "Thank you. The concept of forgiveness is so central to my faith that I had to ask."

....Did I mention he's a born again? Yeah.

Let me just say that L&J are creepily correct about a certain kind of mindset.

[Scott]

The authors have instead added all sorts of material to show Rayford is a sick and manipulative fuck

Remember, this is Jenkins writing about LaHaye's stand in. A little passive-aggressive infighting, perhaps?

[aunursa]

5. Carpathia was right. The electromagnetism in the air cmbined with the atomic ionization from nuclear weapons to zap everyone whose levels of electricity were below a certain point. Rayford's electromagnetism was right at the bar, but his altitude and position above the Atlantic Ocean saved him, so only his sex drive disappeared.

[Jordi]

@Praline

The aliens thing would explain a whole lot, but that would make this an interesting story.

[mcc]

Funny, I thought Gary Stu self-inserts were always more IDEALIZED and HEROIC and PERFECT versions of the actual author.

Don't forget the other part of the equation: "All faults must be sympathetic faults". When Mary Sues have character flaws, they are always character flaws designed to make you like the character more. Here Rayford's flaws are presented not to show that Rayford as a person has limitations, but to put you in awe of how sorrowful and apologetic and sincere he is about seeking forgiveness for those flaws of his sympathetically tragic past (which are of course over now that Rayford is an RTC).

[Dylan]

The central figure of Rayford's gospel is not Jesus Christ, but Nicolae Carpathia. Rayford is preaching an anti-gospel.

This is what I've always thought about the hard-core obsessed PMDers. They're always so focused on how prophecies are coming true, that the focus of their attention always becomes the Antichrist, One-World-Government, or some other horrible part of the End Times Checklist. They're usually silent on the parts of Revelation where Christ triumphs over evil.

I guarantee you there are people who would be downright excited should someone fitting their understanding of the Antichrist appear on the political scene.

[Robb]

He's gay.

I could see that - a gay man so deeply in the closet that he's just seeping with suppressed rage. But then, I'm also tempted to stereotype & say that almost every gay man I've met has been extremely polite & considerate. No one's perfect, but I've yet to meet a gay man who was so full of contempt for others as Ray is.

2. It wasn't the Rapture. It was the aliens after all. They've replaced a sizeable proportion of the population with pod-people that function almost like humans but not quite. These pod-people have absorbed their hosts' memories, think that they're human, and are now setting about a scheme to divide the human race, start a massive war and conquer the world. The aliens got Rayford and missed Hattie; pod-Buck is contaminating Chloe with a specially-prepared cookie even as we speak.

Meanwhile, Nick is tormented by visions/hallucinations of a woman he knows was an alien who tricked him into being the anti-Christ, at the same time, Chaim Rosenweig is hearing "All Along the Watchtower" playing from somewhere in the walls, and thinks he might be a [non Ron Moore sanctioned pod-person] too...

: P

[Vermic]

Oh, meta-Hattie, you are a delight. Call me!

Where to start on this one?

"If I had found you willing, I'd have eventually done something wrong." She furrowed her brow and looked offended.

No, this is not possible. I realize the authors need to establish Hattie as a brazen hussy, but even brazen hussies understand that when a man cheats on his wife, it's wrong. They may not care that it's wrong, they may even like that it's wrong, but they understand. Hattie comes off here as more impenetrably stupid than loose.

This entire scene really needed space for Hattie to speak her mind about the feelings she had for Rayford and the sort of relationship she thought she had, because I can't make heads or tails of her side of things. If her interest in Rayford was basically physical, and she was only after a fling with the handsome captain, then it doesn't make sense for her to burst into tears when Rayford reveals that he doesn't love her.

And if Hattie thought Rayford did love her, that confuses me too, because where on earth would she have gotten that impression? Just look at Rayford's history of behavior toward Hattie: he couldn't have more clearly expressed the message "I find you sexually attractive, but I'm not interested in you as a person" if he'd worn it on a T-shirt to work every day.

So I can't work out how much of the Rayford-Hattie dynamic was supposed to have been about love and how much was about sex. I guess L&J figure that it doesn't matter, because either one counts as infidelity in their book. But I think it does matter in the sense of understanding Rayford and Hattie as real human beings, as opposed to stick figures who are only sinful or saintly.

@Praline: Votes?

My theory: Rayford doesn't want to comfort Hattie because he's a kinky macho control freak who gets off on watching her cry and squirm. But he doesn't want to admit this to himself, so he pretends it's because he's afraid of giving the wrong signal.

Rayford is a big ball of messed up. But we knew that!

[Liz]

"It isn't just that we're so far apart in age"

I find that particularly amusing given that, as Fred puts it, "Humbert and Lolita" are off eating smooshy cookies and trying to beat the record for World's Worst Flirting Scene at the very moment Rayford uses this excuse to put off Hattie.

Great post as always, Fred. You make my Fridays.

[Jon]

Rayford's Big Speech is so underwhelming because L&J are terrible writers who always prefer telling to showing.
I started writing up my own version of this scene last week. I had, quite naturally, assumed that the the "tell, don't show" approach would be taken when dealing with Rayford's sales pitch and thus chose to take that same approach in my version. If I can get past my laziness this weekend I'll try to get back to it. My major concern is that, even with taking the L&J shortcut, it will end up being fairly lengthy. We'll see what happens.

[Jon]

Rayford's Big Speech is so underwhelming because L&J are terrible writers who always prefer telling to showing.
I started writing up my own version of this scene last week. I had, quite naturally, assumed that the the "tell, don't show" approach would be taken when dealing with Rayford's sales pitch and thus chose to take that same approach in my version. If I can get past my laziness this weekend I'll try to get back to it. My major concern is that, even with taking the L&J shortcut, it will end up being fairly lengthy. We'll see what happens.

[Jon]

Sorry for the double post. Browser issues :-(