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

[Spalanzani]

Praline: "Agh! This man isn't HUMAN!"

Robots. ROBOTS! All a bunch of goddam robots.

[car]

"I'll let you break your silence temporarily," he said. "I need to know that you at least forgive me."

That part just screams BDSM dom/sub to me. I'm all over the second part being completely self-centered, "you can speak in order to forgive me, which I know you will", but the first? There's just no way of dissecting that that isn't completely domineering in a lecherous, dangerous sort of way.

[Richard Hershberger]

6. The authors don't know what "sensual" means.

[jamoche]

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

Funny thing - I've been watching the HBO series Carnivale on DVD recently. Brother Justin starts out the series convinced of his own righteousness, a feeling only intensified when he starts getting visions and is able to make other people relive their darkest sins. Needless to say, he's mistaken.

[Skyknight]

Gabriel: Saving souls is completely unimportant. It's all about being superior...

Well, there IS in dispensationalist (at least, dispensationalist a la Jack van Impe...I think...) thought the idea of the various "crowns" that the righteous will be gifted with upon the initiation of the Millennium (there's an example of it at the end of Glorious Appearing), to honor all that they did in the furthering of the scheme of God. One of them is called the "Soulwinner's Crown".

For those in the superior levels of winning souls to the Christ, needless to say.

{sigh} Not so much unimportant, as a means to an end...Then again, we ARE talking about a philosophy that thinks righteousness is not primarily its own purpose, but instead primarily a gate to Heaven.

[Spalanzani]

Skyknight: "Well, there IS in dispensationalist (at least, dispensationalist a la Jack van Impe...I think...) thought the idea of the various "crowns" that the righteous will be gifted with upon the initiation of the Millennium (there's an example of it at the end of Glorious Appearing), to honor all that they did in the furthering of the scheme of God. One of them is called the "Soulwinner's Crown"."

So the Millennial Kingdom is the Boy Scouts? Or a giant video game?

Makes as much sense as anything, I guess.

[Skyknight]

I found a site that lists all of those crowns.

http://www.circlegame.com/live/seat.htm

Go to chapter 3, about two-thirds of the way down.

[Spalanzani]

The Watcher's Crown, the Runner's Crown, the Shepherd's Crown, the Soulwinner's Crown, the Sufferer's Crown...

That whole thing reads like a list of Final Fantasy items. They just need Ultima Crown for all the Real Ultimate True Christians.

[Bugmaster]

Atma Crown !

[Tokyo (was Edo)]

@car: "I'll let you break your silence temporarily," he said. "I need to know that you at least forgive me."

That part just screams BDSM dom/sub to me.

This has me thinking of a scene where Hattie responds to being "allowed" to break her silence by safewording. And then suffering massive SAN loss as she realizes that her relationship with Rayford wasn't asexual D/s, just Rayford being a creep.

Which would've been a good scene, though, so it'd never fire through Jerry's neurons.

[Spalanzani]

Bugmaster: "Atma Crown !"

'Soulwinner's Crown' will no doubt end up in the localization as 'Soluinnaz Crown', which you get by converting the helletics.

[Tokyo (was Edo)]

No, no, no. Even God doesn't hand out the Ultima Crown.

You have to win the Ultimate Crown by breeding a pure black chocobo and winning a bunch of races with it.

[Abelardus]

'Soulwinner's Crown' will no doubt end up in the localization as 'Soluinnaz Crown' ...

Mm-hm; just like Sephiroth's "pyro holes" became a pale horse in FF7. As for Atma vs. Ultima -- depends on whether or not you can stand the Woolseyisms of the older localization.

[ChristianPinko]

Long time reader, occasional poster . . . I have to say, I just can’t share Fred’s anger at how Rayford treats sorry for Hattie Durham. It’s just too far away from normal human interaction.

Let’s set it up: Rayford has been stringing Hattie along for months at least. But he’s never touched her. He’s favored her with significant smiles and glances, but that’s it. So how does this count as Rayford stringing Hattie along? He’s never moved past the initial stages of flirting! How could Hattie even be sure that Rayford is interested in her? And if she's receptive to an affair, then why wouldn't she get bored waiting for this guy to make a bona fide pass at her? Remember, Hattie’s “drop-dead gorgeous”: presumably there are other men available to her, some of whom might at least go for an after-dinner kiss, or are NOT too old for her, or are NOT married. (Why in the world is Hattie taken with Rayford? Dear LaJenkins: simply being an airline pilot is not that impressive, folks.)

My feeling is that LaJenkins meant to make Hattie a stupid slut, but they forgot to have her do anything stupid and/or slutty. (It’s kind of like how they forget to have Buck turn in any actual magazine articles.) The result is that the relationship between Rayford and Hattie is supremely weird --- you have to imagine a kind of alternative Left Behind where Rayford actually hits on Hattie at least once, and where Hattie actually is a tramp who’ll have an affair with a married man. At least that way they would be recognizable, if not admirable or even likable, human beings.

[Victor]

>Wow, a conversion scene that Jesus wasn't even invited to attend. Even an atheist can feel your pain, Fred.
Posted by: MerrySue |

‘I’ also could feel your pain Fred and please forgive me if you are really hurting because I can’t recall when I’ve laughed so much after reading a post. Some of my imaginary spiritual friends have suggested that you’re too smart to let these authors get to you. They went as far as to suggest that you’re probably getting a commission on book sales and to top it all, they almost talked me into buying one and I’m not even a book reader. I keep telling them that it’s not very Christian to be thinking that way but they just won’t listen to me so what is One to do in this case? (lol)

All kidding aside, someone should tell these guys that a Real True Christian must start over every day and I don’t care if he’s changed water into wine yesterday and tomorrow he tells a mountain to jump into a river and IT listens, IT still doesn’t matter because IT back to square one on the next day. If they further care to discuss it with me then just send an e-mail to my secretary who will first check it out for traces of powder.

On second thought, please forget all about IT because I tend to carry mighty heart a little too close to my throat. One thing is for sure and that’s the fact that many of your readers really do care for you.

Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night. Those who might be turned off by Christ, all I can suggest is that IT might really be the anti-christ that they are following and in that case I’ll just say, Best of Lucky and trust me they’ll need IT.

[Victor]

>Wow, a conversion scene that Jesus wasn't even invited to attend. Even an atheist can feel your pain, Fred.
Posted by: MerrySue |

‘I’ also could feel your pain Fred and please forgive me if you are really hurting because I can’t recall when I’ve laughed so much after reading a post. Some of my imaginary spiritual friends have suggested that you’re too smart to let these authors get to you. They went as far as to suggest that you’re probably getting a commission on book sales and to top it all, they almost talked me into buying one and I’m not even a book reader. I keep telling them that it’s not very Christian to be thinking that way but they just won’t listen to me so what is One to do in this case? (lol)

All kidding aside, someone should tell these guys that a Real True Christian must start over every day and I don’t care if he’s changed water into wine yesterday and tomorrow he tells a mountain to jump into a river and IT listens, IT still doesn’t matter because IT back to square one on the next day. If they further care to discuss it with me then just send an e-mail to my secretary who will first check it out for traces of powder.

On second thought, please forget all about IT because I tend to carry mighty heart a little too close to my throat. One thing is for sure and that’s the fact that many of your readers really do care for you.

Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night. Those who might be turned off by Christ, all I can suggest is that IT might really be the anti-christ that they are following and in that case I’ll just say, Best of Lucky and trust me they’ll need IT.

[SwissCelt]

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.

Knowing what we know about Sen. Craig, it's fair to speculate that the disgraced Senator also condemned nasty, bad, naughty President Clinton for tempting him to become a nasty, bad, naughty bathroom stall cruiser. Craig's quote, to Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press, is something to be seen. He chastises Clinton, with a gleam in his eye and wide grin that seems to say, "Oh, what I wouldn't do with that cigar..." And then suddenly putting it on the people of Idaho, as though they forced him to give Clinton a Dutch Uncle speech, is... well, creepy.

"Does this require some reaction?" Hattie asks before he begins his sales pitch. "Do I have to buy into your idea or something?"

Everyone, faced with being the captive audience to typical conservative Christian evangelizing, should quote Hattie. It's a common scenario, IME: The "free gift" of Christ's sacrifice to overcome sin comes with a pretty hefty sales pitch, akin to the "90 minute" timeshare tour that entitles people to free Disney World tickets at the end of a three hour ordeal. Of course we're under no obligation to accept the free gift, that is if you overlook berating, pleading, and questions to our intellect as forms of obligation. It's not only bad theology, it's bad marketing.

[Mabus]

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

Quite sure I read somewhere that "The message of PMDism is 'Antichrist is coming.'" Not here, though.

Computer is working more or less right again, after a thorough cleaning and defragging.

[Johnny Turbo]

Praline: "Agh! This man isn't HUMAN!"

Spalanzani: Robots. ROBOTS! All a bunch of goddam robots.

Don't let them mislead you! Feka keeps saying their system is the first and only system of its kind, but it's not!! Turbo Duo is the first CD game system on the market! While Turbo Duo gives you Gates of Thunder for free, Feka's CD system comes with a shooter that doesn't even compare!!

[Muse of Ire]

"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.

I assume Hattie looks offended because Ray is telling her things she already knows. "You would have cheated on your wife? And that would have been wrong? Like, duh!"

[Salamanda]

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?

Ooo. Hadn't thought of that... The idea brings a little smile to my face, though.

Victor: On second thought, please forget all about IT...all I can suggest is that IT might really be the anti-christ that they are following and in that case I’ll just say, Best of Lucky and trust me they’ll need IT.

Anyone here think Victor might be a refugee from Camazotz? :)

[Darkrose]

I would think that you'd have to defeat Ultima WEAPON in order to get the Ultimate Crown.

They could bill that as Really Final Fantasy.

[SMGT]

I think there's a good chance Hattie has to run off to cry because a large has separated her from her friend, sat her down, down her she's not allowed to speak, told her she was a whore, and that he would have fucked her rotten if he hadn't been such a good person. It makes a person feel ashamed when she's treated like that. It takes something away from her.

Off topic, but do you think they'll still be waiting for the anti-christ down in hell?

[Ryan Ferneau]

So the Millennial Kingdom is the Boy Scouts? Or a giant video game?

Hmm, did the crowns make it into the Left Behind video game?

[Dahne]

Okay, here's a theory;

Hattie was sexually abused as a child by her father. Her mother blamed her, and she, never having known any better, accepts that it is her fault. Even after growing up, she has no reason to suspect otherwise. It's her own 'drop-dead gorgeous' qualities that make men behave this way. She deserves it. She takes Ray's treatment because she's never known anything better.

She was, to borrow from another theory, programmed that way.

@Johnny Turbo: I'm not sure how embarrassed to be that I have read that comic. They're not even human!

[Thomas79]

8. Hatty is the only real person in the books, and she is in hell.

[Jos]

I'm not sure how embarrassed to be that I have read that comic.

Not very, I'd think. I dig 'em up on the Interwebs from time to time just to read them again.

And then laugh and laugh and laugh.

[Nenya]

My feeling is that LaJenkins meant to make Hattie a stupid slut, but they forgot to have her do anything stupid and/or slutty.

Hey, she's a woman. An unmarried one whom a man finds attractive, at that. QED.

And, if a woman's been raised to believe that, that's not all that terribly far removed from Dahne's theory of childhood abuse. LB-verse women don't know any better.

This scene was even creepier than I expected. Hattie never really did much for me before this, but meta!Hattie here is great. No, you don't HAVE to forgive him, and you certainly don't have to just so he can feel better about himself! Anonymous poster is right--you have to work through what injustice was done to you before you can figure out how to forgive, and in any case no one ever has a right to demand that you forgive them.

The other reason Rayford might not want to hug her--because he realizes that the person who's just been screwing with her head isn't quite the most comforting person to have give her a hug, and much as he would like to take away some of the pain he's caused her, he knows he's not the person she needs to have hugging her right now. But that would involve Rayford actually being sorry, and actually having any kind of sensitivity at all.

I'm rooting for the unconscious-antichrist Rayford plotline, with either Chloë or Nicky romancing Hattie and helping her heal up after Rayford's asshattery. Although I suppose Chloë, being his daughter, might be a bit weird--alas, for I do like my femslash!

[Fraser]

"If I had found you willing"
I thought the opening chapter established that as far as Rayford knew, Hattie was willing. And that he'd made his interest perfectly clear, he just hadn't acted on it.
Maybe that's why she's offended, it's the equivalent of "Well, I never knew you wanted a relationship, I thought we were just hanging out as friends" (which in some circumtances can be infuriating).
And I agree with Fred, Rayford does seem to imply that Hattie was leading him into sin. Which is presumably why he's downgrading it to some sort of idle amusement.
Then again, he says his interest in Hattie was "justified." Huh? Do the authors mean to say "natural?" What's the justification for an emotional affair or whatever it was?

[Dave]

Super creepy. One note, though--Hamlet isn't "cruel only to be kind" to Ophelia. He's speaking to his mother there.

[Scott]

Remember, Hattie’s “drop-dead gorgeous”: presumably there are other men available to her, some of whom might at least go for an after-dinner kiss,

Didn't Rayford admit to some petting and smooching w/ The Whore of Babylon earlier in the book?

[cjmr]

Yeah, wasn't there the 'necking session at the Christmas party' in Rayf's remembrances in the first couple chapters?

[Chris]

The different crowns are most probably a reference to Roman practice, where various crowns were awarded (like modern-day medals) for various actions in warfare (the Mural Crown for breaking a siege, the Civic Crown for saving the life of a fellow Roman in battle, etc.). Though I like the Final Fantasy idea.

L&J's Heaven may sound like a soul-destroyingly horrible place, but at least it has bling.

[Caravelle]

I don't think the necking session was with Hattie. At least it wasn't explicitly so, and I don't see why he wouldn't have been mentioned if that was Hattie.

[Praline]

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."

My condolences for having had your time wasted by such a creep, and I hope your love life has much improved since then. But, more generally, it's very consistent with Rayford's attitude here.

The point of asking forgiveness for such men, it seems, is not actually to be forgiven. It's to ask. That way, you can tick the box that says 'Asked forgiveness' on your to-do list, admire yourself for completing the task, and consider the matter closed. If it makes no real amends in the eyes of the person you've hurt, that's their problem; you've done your bit, and that's all that counts.

Actually wanting forgiveness involves caring about how the person you've hurt feels. That includes, among other things: letting them tell you just where you get off, including making well-chosen observations on your behaviour and character, if they need to; letting them express how upset they are, however uncomfortable it makes you; and, if they don't feel ready to forgive you, feeling sorry at this fresh evidence of how badly you've hurt them. It definitely involves letting them get a word in edgeways, because they're entitled to be mad at you. At base, it involves making a lot of room for their feelings, because you've previously trampled on them and you owe them some recovery space. Remorse, in other words. And remorse for what you've done to them, not for what you've done to your image of yourself as a good person.

And come to that, if you're apologising, it's your responsibility to cause as little fresh pain as possible. Rayford might feel he needs to tell God how little he really cared for Hattie, but he doesn't need to dwell on it for her. He could put it far more gently and make the same apology. It's not his job to rearrange her feelings on the subject by setting her straight: 'I led you on unfairly' is all he needed to say. 'Kinder but dishonest' is nonsense: you can be kind and honest, or unkind and honest.

Feeling that you have to confess the whole truth in its harshest, baldest possible light is just a way of getting it off your conscience. You tell the girl you didn't love her, so afterwards you can stop reproaching yourself for not loving her, because hey, you've been honest now. Case closed. I'm not advocating lying, but apologies should be for the stuff that's relevant to your victim, and endless self-analysis does not belong in there. It's just foisting your pain off on someone you've hurt already.

This shallow understanding of 'forgiveness' is basically an offshoot of cheap grace, I think. If you can be saved by a one-time verbal profession of faith, even if doesn't penetrate your heart and you act like a rotten no-good pig ever after, then similarly you can obtain forgiveness with even the lousiest apology in the world, as long as the word 'forgiveness' is in there somewhere. It's entirely letter of the law. Because it's about Rayford impressing God, and impressing himself (fairly synonymous, in this universe). Hattie doesn't matter at all: she's just the wall he's bouncing his faith against.

[MerrySue]

projection of his needs into her silent mouth

*choke*

Chan, was that deliberate?

[MerrySue]

Victor - your post goes a long way towards explaining why I am an under-the-radar atheist in real life.

\in-fighting

[MerrySue]

Praline- insightful, as always.

Sorry for the multiple, drive-by postings

[lalouve]

Well, there IS in dispensationalist ... thought the idea of the various "crowns" that the righteous will be gifted with upon the initiation of the Millennium ... to honor all that they did in the furthering of the scheme of God. One of them is called the "Soulwinner's Crown".

And now I have a mental image of a beauty pageant with only fundamentalist Christian evangelists competing...

[Dylan]

This shallow understanding of 'forgiveness' is basically an offshoot of cheap grace, I think.

The "the concept of forgiveness is so central to my faith"/checklist-item approach is kind of sickening. People who are somewhat amoral to begin with will latch on to that concept of forgiveness to do whatever they want and try to "fix" the consequences without any real work.

On the other hand, I've seen good, self-conscious people get a hold of that concept and then feel like they're expected to ignore everything and move on immediately. Trying to "forgive and forget" (the end result) without taking the time needed to actually deal with it will tear a person up.

[MerrySue]

Victor- sorry, my sarcasm meter needs a tune-up.

Merry Christmas!

[Reverend Ref]

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. ..."

This "apology" of Ray's, as well as him asking for forgiveness, isn't really an apology or a desire for forgiveness at all (as many people have pointed out, most eloquently by Praline a few posts up at 8:29).

In my home town we had a serial killer on the lose for several years. When the case broke and bodies were found in his rose garden, he made an "apology" at his press conference. It went something along the lines of, "I am so sorry for the pain I have caused and I ask the forgiveness of the families, friends, and good people of this city."

What he was sorry for was getting caught. Had he been truly sorry, he would have done something about it after the first one or two murders. Sorry I got caught, and all I need to do is ask for forgiveness because then, if you don't give it to me, it's your problem!!

That's Rayford: I'm doing this because everybody knows it's what good people do. I'm spitting out words that good people say; therefore, I'm a good person.

I'll stop now.

[Tonio]

And now I have a mental image of a beauty pageant with only fundamentalist Christian evangelists competing...

After hearing a minute or so of their speeches, I would probably run screaming from the room.

[Andy]

The "gospel" Rayford presents to Hattie has no incarnation, no cross, no resurrection, no Christ.

Largely because of the consistent excellence of these posts, I have taken to watching "The Hal Lindsey Report" on the Daystar Network. It is by turns hilarious, outrageous and depressing. But the consistent thing I notice is just what you point out above: there is NO talk of "the Gospel" itself. Every week it is merely a selective "review" of recent events (usually involving Israel, Iran and Russia) as taken from such reliable sources as WorldNetDaily. Often he doesn't even get around to invoking the Bible at all; a few weeks ago he went on a long rant on why the U.S. needs to support Musharraf at all costs because this man is apparently all that stands between a free Pakistan or a radical Islamist state. I am also baffled by the constant cognitive dissonance in their response to what they see as items being marked off The Checklist; if Ahmedinejad really is "the King of the South" (the south of what?) then I should think they'd be overjoyed at his ascendancy as further "evidence" that we are really ramping up toward the rapture. Instead, they are furious with the President that we haven't yet nuked Iran. If all of this is unfolding just as the prophets predicted thousands of years ago -- a phrase Lindsey uses constantly -- then what's the point in trying to shape any of it? If it was foretold and preordained by God, it would seem to me that there's little percentage in attempting to shape it with our foreign policy.

[Tokyo (was Edo)]

And now I have a mental image of a beauty pageant with only fundamentalist Christian evangelists competing...

"I'd like to thank God... and Christ Jesus... and the Holy Spirit... and I guess I'd like to thank God some more..."

[Karen]

Just for grins, I thought y'all might appreciate these lyrics.

I got to thinking about Rayford's horrid "apology" and the post about the affair with the Rayford-clone. I had a good friend who had an affair for about five years with a married RTC. I never met him, which actually took quite a bit of scheduling gymnastics since he worked in the same field I did, but my friend's description of his behavior closely tracked Ray-boy's as described here, except Mr. Cheater did manage to have actual sex. I have to wonder if this odd coinkidink doesn't reveal a bit more about LaJenkins than maybe they intended?

Oh, and I always believed that the Christian (and Jewish and Muslim, too, for that matter) form of apology demanded that the sinner do everything possible to make it right before asking forgiveness. That is, a thief has to return what she stole, then it's okay to ask forgiveness. Rayford sounds like my sons do when they hit each other: "But I said I was SORRY!!"

[Scott]

The point of asking forgiveness for such men, it seems, is not actually to be forgiven. It's to ask. That way, you can tick the box that says 'Asked forgiveness' on your to-do list, admire yourself for completing the task, and consider the matter closed. If it makes no real amends in the eyes of the person you've hurt, that's their problem; you've done your bit, and that's all that counts.

Ah, "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven". Jesus is now OK with what I did to you, fuck what you think about it.

And now I have a mental image of a beauty pageant with only fundamentalist Christian evangelists competing...

After hearing a minute or so of their speeches, I would probably run screaming from the room.

I need to tell you the good news of Jesus and South Africa and Iraq, like, and such.

[Jeff Weskamp]

"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." -- Praline

This book reminds of Roger Ebert's review of the film Frogs for Snakes, where he says, "I have always wondered what a film would look like if all the actors were animatronic puppets built by an alien race with an imperfect understanding of human behaviour. Now I know."

[Salamanda]

Tonio:
And now I have a mental image of a beauty pageant with only fundamentalist Christian evangelists competing...

After hearing a minute or so of their speeches, I would probably run screaming from the room.

Well, at least you know they wouldn't spew out the old "world peace" line. That's antichrist talk!

[Jeff Weskamp]

"The different crowns are most probably a reference to Roman practice, where various crowns were awarded (like modern-day medals) for various actions in warfare (the Mural Crown for breaking a siege, the Civic Crown for saving the life of a fellow Roman in battle, etc.)."

And don't forget the most important crown: Corona Graminea, the Grass Crown. It was awarded to a soldier who, by his personal efforts, saved an entire army. Very few Romans are recorded as having won the Grass Crown, including Lucius Cornelius Sulla and Quintus Sertorius.