L.B.: Two swell guys

Left Behind, pp. 381-384

Rayford Steele is a massively deluded creature. We've just seen this painfully illustrated, yet again, in his long prophecy sales pitch to Hattie Durham. Throughout that conversation Rayford comes across as a controlling, self-centered, inarticulate jerk wholly devoid of empathy. Yet in every other paragraph of that section we're also told that he perceives himself as a paragon of "passion and persuasion," and that this is how he thinks others perceive him as well.

This portrayal of Rayford's utter lack of self-awareness does not seem to be deliberate. It appears to be a simple case of authors who are incapable of self-criticism and therefore incapable of presenting self-critical or self-aware characters. Yet Rayford's misreading of his own thoughts and actions is so flagrantly over-the-top that it seems impossible it's wholly unintentional. Consider the opening sentence of the next Rayford-POV passage:

Rayford thought his daughter looked stunning that evening, and he wondered what the magazine writer thought of her. Clearly this Williams guy was too old for her.

Rayford had spent his free hours before dinner napping and then praying that he would have the same courage and clarity he'd had with Hattie. ...

Rayford silently judges Buck as "too old" and in the very next sentence we are reminded that he is, himself, old enough to have spent the afternoon napping. All this occurs while he sits across the table from Hattie, his recently jilted non-lover who is 15 or 20 years his junior. Rayford is oblivious to the irony here, but is it really possible that the authors are as well?

It may be helpful here to remember that Left Behind's dual protagonists also serve as wish-fulfillment surrogates for the book's dual authors. Manly, attractive airline pilot Rayford Steele is Tim LaHaye's Mary Sue stand-in, and jet-setting, award-winning journalist Buck Williams embodies the fantasy of Jerry Jenkins. I'm not privy to any inside information about LaHaye and Jenkins' relationship, but their "co-writing" arrangement does not involve an equal workload. LaHaye provides a broad outline and the marquee name that propels sales, but Jenkins is the one who actually has to apply the seat of his pants to the seat of his chair until he has applied all of the words to the page. So Jenkins supplies 90 percent of the heavy lifting for a 50-percent share of the profits. One can't help but wonder if such an arrangement doesn't produce a bit of resentment on Jenkins' part, and if that resentment might not manifest itself, occasionally, in his portrayal of Rayford/LaHaye as a preening, self-absorbed, clueless ass.

That might account for scenes like this but it wouldn't explain why Jenkins' own surrogate, Buck Williams, is often portrayed in a similar fashion. So as amusing as it is to speculate that Rayford's delusional self image is Jenkins' subtle, intentional dig at his pompous co-author, I don't think it's the case. The simpler explanation seems more likely: Very Bad Writing.

We're told that Rayford is eager to repeat his sales pitch -- "his new mission in life" -- for Buck and Chloe, but what we see instead is a man basking in the opportunity to play Big Shot at an upscale restaurant. As always, he carefully restrains himself from any display of warmth or affection toward Hattie:

Rayford ... had said nothing about Hattie's new look for the evening, but that was by design. She was striking and always had been, but he was not going down that path again.

He's never been "down that path" before, and the only conceivable reason Hattie showed up, dressed to the nines, is that she wants to underscore that her, um, path is someplace he'll only get to go down in his dreams. That's lost on the asexual Rayford, who's only ever interested in playing his little games "by design."

During dinner Rayford kept the conversation light ...

One wonders what passes for light dinner conversation eight days after the onset of the apocalypse. The weather is out, since Rosenzweig's "electromagnetism" theory about the disappearances would have everyone on edge about the prospect of a lightning storm anywhere in the world. Sports wouldn't seem like a safe topic either ("Ewing's game hasn't been the same since his kids disappeared ..."). And asking anyone about their family would be a Pandora's box likely to end in uncontrollable sobbing.

The authors don't provide any of this conversation, of course, sticking with their rule that dialogue should rarely be used to develop character or advance the plot. But while Buck, Hattie and Chloe don't have any lines in this scene, the waiter has two:

After dinner, Rayford spoke to the waiter privately. "We'd like to spend another hour or so here, if it's all right."

"Sir, we do have an extensive reservation list --"

"I wouldn't want this table to be less than profitable for you," Rayford said, pressing a large bill into the waiter's palm, "so boot us out whenever it becomes necessary."

The waiter peeked at the bill and slipped it into his pocket. "I'm sure you will not be disturbed," he said. And the water glasses were always full.

It's all about the Hamiltons baby. I take it we're supposed to be impressed with the smoothness of Rayford's rico suave routine here, but all I could think was that he's an evangelical and -- ask anybody in the restaurant biz -- evangelicals are notoriously lousy tippers. Plus they're teetotallers ("water glasses" indeed), so they're leaving a precise 10 percent on an already smaller bill.

An aside for my evangelical brothers and sisters: "The scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The laborer is worthy of his reward" (I Timothy 5:18). So tip 20 percent. At least. Divide by five and round up. If you also plan to: A) say grace aloud before the meal; B) ask your server if he/she is "saved;" and/or C) leave a gospel tract on the table when you leave, then make that 40 percent.

We switch back to Buck's point of view and get a glimpse of the difference between the two men. While the Rayford-POV section was all about what a great guy Rayford is, the Buck-POV section is all about what great guys both of them are:

Buck tried to concentrate on the captain's answers but felt himself trying to impress Chloe, too. Everyone in the business knew he was one of the best in the world at interviewing. That and his ability to quickly sift through the stuff and make a readable, engaging article of it had made him who he was.

Buck had breezed through the preliminaries, and he liked this guy. Steele seemed honest and sincere, smart and articulate. He realized he had seen a lot of Rayford in Chloe.

Consider those two paragraphs alongside this one:

Whether you'€™re interested in poetry or prose, fiction or nonfiction, you'€™ll hone your skills and polish your craft, working alongside one of the Guild's Master Craftsman.

That's from the site touting Jenkins' "Christian Writers Guild Writing Course." For only $1,365 you, too, can learn to flesh out your characters by piling on the superlatives and adjectives. How will your readers know that your hero is "honest and sincere, smart and articulate" unless you tell them?

With all of the "preliminaries" out of the way, Buck is set to ask about Rayford's theory of The Event. The build-up here seems more like he's about to propose marriage:

"I'm ready," he said, "to ask your idea of what happened on that fateful flight to London. Do you have a theory?"

The captain hesitated and smiled as if gathering himself. "I have more than a theory," he said. "You may think this sounds crazy coming from a technically minded person like me, but I believe I have found the truth and know exactly what happened." ...

"Here's your chance to tell the world."

This is Rayford's big moment -- his chance to lay out the whole End Times Prophecy Gospel in all its glory not just for Buck and "the world," but for his daughter and for Hattie (again, since it didn't seem to take the first time). But just then ...

Chloe chose that moment to gently touch Buck's arm and ask if he minded if she excused herself for a moment.

"I'll join you," Hattie said.

This occurs without explanation. They're gone for about half an hour, we're told, which seems a bit long for powdering one's nose. Did they sneak away for a cigarette at the bar? Did they skim ahead in the script and, realizing that neither of them has any lines in this scene, head off to the green room? Or did they just decide that they couldn't bear sitting through several more pages of unsupported assertions about how talented, sincere and likable Buck and Rayford are? We're never told.

The women's departure was not "by design," leaving Rayford "privately frustrated, almost to the point of anger." Buck asks him why they left and he says, "I assure you that is not the case" -- a non-sequitur that suggests his prayers for clarity are not being answered:

He couldn't slow down and wait for their return. The question had been asked, he felt ready, and so he stepped off the edge of a social cliff, saying things he knew could get him categorized as a kook. As he had done with Hattie, he outlined his own spotty spiritual history and brought Williams up to the present in a little over half an hour, covering every detail he felt was relevant. At some point the women returned.

One question from Buck produces a 40-minute uninterrupted monologue from Rayford. Yep, without a doubt, he's "one of the best in the world at interviewing."

I had expected Left Behind would, like most "Christian novels," ("Christian" there being a marketing term) include long, preachy, didactic sections -- whole chapters of sermonizing. I suppose I'm grateful to have been spared that, but it turns out there's something even worse. Here in Left Behind we're constantly being told about such sermons, and about how passionate, persuasive, honest and sincere they are, but we never learn what was actually said.

Here's how LaHaye & Jenkins' account of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount would have read:

Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them. When Jesus had finished, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority.

Come to think of it, that's also how they seem to read this passage themselves.

Comments

[Tonio]

I'm tempted to cry 'gay subtext', but I don't think it is; I think it's complete self-absorbtion: women are viewed instrumentally, and the primary function of Chloe is to weld our two heroes together.

If L&J weren't PMD Christians, they might be writing fiction for the old pulp action magazines. The cover painting would show Rayford and Buck as barrel-chested, steeley-eyed, lantern-jawed heroes, using their manly sinews to knock down the door and rescue the fair Chloe and Hattie from Nicolae's evil clutches. Naturally, Chloe and Hattie would be shown tied to chairs, their tight blouses falling open to reveal tantalizing cleavage.

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Soon, Peter came back with a chariot, having paid double the chariotman's usual rate, and Jesus & his most trusted 5 disciples were off to perform more miracles, which the people regarded with wonder.

And lo, Jesus drew from his pocket a marvelous device, with which he could speak to people near and far. And verily did he call even Caesar and preach unto him, that the masters of the world might hear his words.

And then spake he unto the people, and said "look what the Lord gives to those who believeth. Less than a denarius a minute, too, and evenings and Sabbaths are free."

[Toby]

Tonio: If L&J weren't PMD Christians, they might be writing fiction for the old pulp action magazines. The cover painting would show Rayford and Buck as barrel-chested, steeley-eyed, lantern-jawed heroes, using their manly sinews to knock down the door and rescue the fair Chloe and Hattie from Nicolae's evil clutches. Naturally, Chloe and Hattie would be shown tied to chairs, their tight blouses falling open to reveal tantalizing cleavage.

Probably spot on, except for that last part. There's sexiness in evangelical art, but not like that.

[practicallyevil]

That might account for scenes like this but it wouldn't explain why Jenkins' own surrogate, Buck Williams, is often portrayed in a similar fashion. So as amusing as it is to speculate that Rayford's delusional self image is Jenkins' subtle, intentional dig at his pompous co-author, I don't think it's the case. The simpler explanation seems more likely: Very Bad Writing.

It's my belief that LeHay and Jenkins have literally taken their personalities and put them to paper, however they are so arrogant and oblivious that they don't realize their obvious character flaws, even when they themselves put them down in print.

[MS]

For fun, I googled "Chloe Hattie", looking for slashfic, and this was at the top of the list. Go figure...

[Ian]

It might be that there are few long preachy didactic sermons here because LaJa only know one sermon, namely going over a precise and indubitable sequence of future events.

[Scott]

There's sexiness in evangelical art, but not like that.

And you now understand the evangelical's fear of Teh Gay. If it's all about Men, Men, Men, you need something to keep them from sleeping together and sleeping with silly, boring women instead. Just how powerful a taboo do you think they'd need to create to keep the men off each other after making sleeping with a mere woman into something just this side of beastiality?

[Karen]

Tonio, if L & J wrote old noir pulp, there wouldn't be any women tied to chairs to rescue. Ray and Buck would spend the entire story behind their grimy desks at the detective agency office on the phone, or in a phone booth. There'd be more phone booth action in that tale than in a porn tale about Clark Kent.

[damnedyankee]

Hello! My name is Your Waiter Montoya! You undertipped my father! Prepare to die!

[Fix!]

Uhhhh...'

Did that do anything?

[Fix!]

Dang!

[hagsrus]

I haven't looked at a Superman story for decades -- where does he change clothes these days?

[Brian J.]

For he who asked- DFH stands for Dirty F***ing Hippie. The general opinion of American Christians and their ideological allies toward anyone promoting values such as free will or democracy.

And did you catch this little gem?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=504969&in_page_id=1811&Satan=Santa

The Vatican is particularly concerned that young people are being exposed to the influence of Satanic sects through rock music and the Internet.

Spoken like a true Hitlerjugend.

[LL]

Man, this book sucks. Is it almost over with? As much as I enjoy the merry mocking, the bad writing is excruciating. After you're done with this one, you're gonna stop, right?

RE the religious and tipping: based on my limited food service experience (years ago), yeah, religious people are shitty tippers. You know who else tips badly or not at all? Cops.

[Mabus]

I find it strangely hard to believe that article about the Vatican is genuine. It has the look of a parody. But the magazine doesn't seem like an Onion knockoff.

[Vashti]

I'm not sure whether Piers Anthony could give LaJenkins a run for their money. Although in his apocalypse Satan won, we're talking four books a year or so, cardboard characters, incomprehensible women, and instead of the obsession with Christianity you have an obsession with paedophilia which is, to say the least, inappropriate. Not to mention the bizarre dialogue and florid descriptions.

[Cactus Wren]

Again, the characters' lack of self-awareness is a Mary Sue/Gary Stu trait. I'm thinking of a particular Mary Sue who was clearly described by her fifteen-year-old writer: she had dyed "raven black" hair and wore heavy eyeliner that gave her eyes "a dead look", she wore nothing but black with touches of "blood red", she skipped school (preferring the much more enjoyable pastime of lying on her bed chain-smoking, drinking sodas from her personal mini-fridge, and listening to her stereo) and then cursed and threw things when her parents objected ... and we, the readers, were obviously expected to sympathize with her rather than seeing her as, to paraphrase Fred, a "whining, self-absorbed, clueless brat".

It's the writing style of a completely inexperienced, self-absorbed, clueless amateur: Everyone will agree and sympathize with my hero, because he's right! Obviously Mary Sue's parents were mean and hateful to expect her to attend school, and equally obviously Chloe and Hattie were stupid and thoughtless not to want to listen to Rayford's sales pitch over again. Mary Sue is right, and anyone who disagrees or crosses her in any way is wrong and horrible.

But also I just realized something: Ellanjay had Rayford give his pitch to Hattie alone, and then to they-call-me-Buck; I think they think this is a way to show him as making "personal" appeals, not preaching a sermon to a group, but engaging single individuals. That there is absolutely nothing "personal" or "individual" about his approach, or their depiction of it, escapes them completely.

[Chad Larson]

Huh. In most writing classes, you're told to avoid cliches. Jerry Jenkins should probably start using some. I mean "That and his ability to quickly sift through the stuff and make a readable, engaging article of it had made him who he was." This would've been better "That and his ability to quickly seperate the wheat from the chaff and make a readable, engaging article had made him who he was." Am I the only one who's frustrated that there's a darn good series in Left Behind, it's just that Jenkin's total lack of ability to write ruined it?

[Praline]

Surely I'm not the only one thinking Chloe and Hattie should have left for some lesbian sex. At least it would have made this book more interesting.

I think you're onto something: the primary reason is boredom.

I recall, a while ago, seeing a documentary about Sex In Grandpa's Time, which, among many interesting and some rather sweet moments (my particular favourite was this nice old lady talking happily about how her husband always knew how to 'set me on fire' and 'give me a thrill', and how she hadn't known how 'romantic' he was before she married him, which was charming), there was a man who talked about how much sex he and his wife used to have when they were young. Reason one was obviously that they enjoyed it, but the other reason? Lack of alternatives. They lived in the country with no electric lighting, radio, or television: once the sun set, there really wasn't anything to do other than go to bed.

Sex, in fact, became the default activity when there were no alternative forms of entertainment.

People generally have sex/masturbate the most when they have nothing else to occupy them. In this particular scene, that kind of logic kicks in: there's no reason at all why the two women might decide to go off alone together and stay away so long, apparently doing nothing of consequence, apart from two: 1) They're avoiding the men's company, and 2) They want to be alone together - and as they don't know each other and do nothing but primp and powder when they aren't in the presence of men, a quickie seems like the only possibility. Avoiding the men is the negative explanation, sex the positive.

I am not now and never have been of the slash persuasion, but it even occurred to me. I think it shows up just how inexplicable, in terms of both specific writing and general characterization, that departure is. It makes no sense, and sex is the commonest explanation in the world for irrational behaviour.

[Johnny Pez]

Everyone in the business knew he was one of the best in the world at interviewing.

For proof of this, see GIRAT, part 6 of "The Ozark Effect" at Right Behind.

[Nenya]

If Buck and Chloe were at the meal as a couple or on a date, it sort of makes sense for Chloe to apologize for taking off on him. It wouldn't quite have to be the Ownership Baton having passed, but more like general common courtesy if one is ducking out on the person one came with. But--they only just met this afternoon, and I'm guessing Chloe arrived with and will be leaving with her dad.

Of course, on the other hand, I'm certainly 'shipping Chloe/Hattie these days. It would piss off the original authors, and well, why shouldn't the two most intelligent and sympathetic characters in the book get together? One imagines that were Hattie interested, she might be rather better at flirting with Chloe than Buck was. (If, of course, she can stand to be around a relative of Rayford's.) So maybe there was some attraction building at the beauty salon (or whatever else they were really doing all afternoon!), and after dinner they just went, "Hmmm. Sit through a boring business meeting slash reheated sermon, or go make out? Difficult question!"

I'm really dreading the moment when Chloe and Buck convert and lose whatever brains they had. Buck's an ass, but at least he's not a Rayford-ass, and Chloe...well, Chloe is just cool.

[Praline]

Am I the only one finding Buck simply duller than Rayford? I think it's because he tends to do more boring stuff. This shouldn't be the case, of course, but all the journalisting is so unrealistic that it's just a bunch of conversations about stuff that even the authors don't seem that engaged with, except in a dry, checklist way.

Rayford, on the other hand, is engaged with stuff the authors seem preoccupied with, ie conversion and interpersonal power and influence. Those things aren't portrayed realistically either, but it's at least more lively in its presentation. There's the element of accidental realism, in the portrait of Ray's faults anyway, and the characters he interacts with generally have more personality because they're less plot ciphers there to deliver the next piece of Checklist News, like Buck's colleagues, and more characters there for the sake of the story.

[Chris]

The Sermon of the Mount re-writes win this thread.

I'm also glad whenever I hear someone slamming Piers Anthony. I've only read two of his novels (both from the Xanth series - *early* Xanth books, even, which are supposed to be better than what was to come), and while he's got plenty of imagination, the barely-veiled misogyny in the depiction of nearly all the female characters drove me batty. His major female characters are either: 1) pretty, brainless bimboes, who freely acknowledge the fact that they are brainless bimboes, and whom everyone (even the good guys) consider useful only for sexual gratification; or 2) "intelligent" women (I put "intelligent" within brackets, because they don't come off as intellectually superior to the male characters, though to be fair to Anthony, none of his characters seems very bright) who have some sort of unattractive feature (they're ugly, or evil, or just bratty and unlikeable).

Finding that sort of depiction in late 20th century literature riles me.

[sulis]

It’s all about the Hamiltons baby. I take it we’re supposed to be impressed with the smoothness of Rayford’s rico suave routine here, but all I could think was that he’s an evangelical and ― ask anybody in the restaurant biz ― evangelicals are notoriously lousy tippers. Plus they’re teetotallers (“water glasses” indeed), so they’re leaving a precise 10 percent on an already smaller bill.

An aside for my evangelical brothers and sisters: “The scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The laborer is worthy of his reward” (I Timothy 5:18). So tip 20 percent. At least. Divide by five and round up. If you also plan to: A) say grace aloud before the meal; B) ask your server if he/she is “saved;” and/or C) leave a gospel tract on the table when you leave, then make that 40 percent.

This made me smile (or is that a rictus of remembered pain?). In college I waited tables and learned the *real* meaning of "diakonos"! Customers who went out of their way to let everyone know they were RTCs were rude, obnoxious slobs who didn't tip. Back then, it was 'cute' to point out that they gave 10% to God, and waitresses certainly weren't up to *His* standard. It was bad enough serving them, but to be treated as an unrepentant whore into the bargain was a bit much.

The ones that really needed a good whap up alongside the head with their 1611 leather-bound KJVs left little cards tucked under the (yes!) water glasses. Designed to look like a folded $1 bill, they reversed to say, "A Tip For You" followed by some Chick-tract style verses admonishing to thank the Lord for my lot in life. I pretty much learned to hate them. But it was great incentive to stay in school in hopes of a better life, far, far away!

[Augustine]

Designed to look like a folded $1 bill, they reversed to say, "A Tip For You" followed by some Chick-tract style verses -- that is so sick as to make one a worse person from just reading about it.

[Nenya]

it was 'cute' to point out that they gave 10% to God, and waitresses certainly weren't up to *His* standard.

little cards tucked under the (yes!) water glasses. Designed to look like a folded $1 bill, they reversed to say, "A Tip For You" followed by some Chick-tract style verses admonishing to thank the Lord for my lot in life

OMFG. People actually DO/DID this?!!

And here I was feeling bad because I am used to the standing-at-counters-ordering places more than sit-down restaurants, so sometimes forget to calculate the tip in when I'm ordering (on days when only have a certain amount of money I *can* spend), and so realize belatedly that I'm going to shortchange the wait staff by accident. Obviously I need to reform--maybe I can take it as penance, and also some small part of making up for the asshats quoted above? Whom I'm sure thought they were being good people! Ack!

[Jesurgislac]

Nenya: ? Whom I'm sure thought they were being good people!

This is one of those moments where I can't see how these asshats thought they were being good people. Being a lousy tipper is one thing - being a practical joker who leaves only a tract designed to look like a dollar bill when folded is just...how can you even think that would make you a good person?

Tipping standards vary, and in the UK 10% rounded up is considered a good tip - but it's never considered good to play a practical joke on your waitstaff.

[Praline]

It's all about self-admiration. Whether or not somebody can make their rent payment is their problem: your job is to be the favourite of the Lord, and obviously the way to be that is to proselytise at every possible opportunity. Remember, these are the guys who consider social justice to be tantamount to Godless communism; that certainly leaves out wondering whether you're paying a poor person fairly for their hard work. Consider the lilies, after all...

[Praline]

Personally, I think the whole idea of tipping is a bad one. I'd much rather pay a higher price for my meal, out of which would come the waitstaff's pay, and be spared the mathematics at the end of the meal. A lot of restaurants in the UK add the standard tip on automatically, and put 'service included' at the bottom of the bill, and that's fine. (It is 10% here; I'm assuming the waiters get paid a bit more as their basic wage. If not, they should be.)

It seems of a par with a lot of right-wing American politics: that, rather than a social set-up that ensures poor people a decent standard of living, the idea of charity is built in. You don't have to do it because some darn politician took away yer freedom and made you; instead, you can choose to. Charity is a very comforting idea for those who don't want to support their fellow-man: you can believe in it, as long as someone else is doing it. It salves the consciences of anyone who thinks that waiters are underpaid, because hey, they get tips as well - but it also, of course, leaves a lot of people free to choose not to feel charitable that day.

The tractbods were probably telling themselves they'd left you a tip beyond price. Maybe they even believed it. But no one sane can help noticing that 'without price' and 'without value' can be synonymous. Whether or not they saved your soul, they definitely saved themselves money.

This is why people need to be able to survive without charity. The point about charity is that it's optional.

[Jesurgislac]

A few years ago in some food magazine, I read a review by a Brit who had spent a fair amount of time in the US, of a "Real American Diner" that had opened in London. I might be able to find the review if I looked for it, but the one thing I took away from it was that he complained that while the names of the dishes were right, and the decor affected was good, and there was nothing the British diner could do about making food prices equivalent to American, the thing that the mock US diner had definitely not got right was the passionate eagerness-to-please of American waitstaff.

I thought, reading it, that the man was showing a degree of naiviety surprising in a restaurant reviewer: the reason for the passionate (I would say desperate) eagerness to please from so many North American waitstaff is that their wages are part-paid by their customers, and they really need to make sure their temporary employer is going to be happy with their services and provide them with their pay.

In the UK, waitstaff have a guaranteed minimum wage (which, even for a 16-year-old, is higher than an American's), and of course also have the NHS, quite possibly union membership, a fairly certain safety-net if they need to quit, and employment law that means their employer is required to protect them against harassment by customers. An acceptable tip is 10% because it's not part of the waitstaff's wages: it's an extra, an appreciation for good service or an apology for trouble caused.

Menu prices always look low to me when I eat out in the US (even when the exchange rate is at something higher than at present) but if I factor in the sales tax (which would be included in the price on the menu in the UK) and the 15% tip which is expected*, they're not that much lower.

*Don't get me wrong, I agree with 20%. But my understanding is that they'll be taxed on 15% whether or not you pay it.

[Anna]

LM: You weren't the only one. That was the first place my brain went when I read that line.

People have already commented on the incongruity of having the meeting take place at a fancy restaurant with an 'extensive reservation list'. But the thing that struck me about the passage was the money, and not in the way that it struck Fred.

Eight days ago, a sixth of the world's population disappeared. For some perspective on what this means in economic terms, the stock market can nosedive on predictions of bad final quarter earnings from Walmart. When one sixth of the world's investors disappear, people panic. When one sixth of the world's production capacities disappear, the world's currencies simultaneously flatline. In all probability, the President would declare a national bank closing while the Federal Reserve tried to work out how to fix interest rates so that the economy's major lenders, who'd suddenly lost an enormous chunk of their capital, didn't collapse. The Mint would likewise declare a moratorium on production of funds and trade in securities, while the economists there wildly attempted to redefine everything they thought they knew about how to manage the US economy. People would spend madly, hoping to stockpile goods that could potentially become scarce since the people who were producing them (or had the knowledge about how to produce them) suddenly vanished. Inflation would skyrocket. Chances are good that eight days after an apocalypse, Rayford's money wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on.

[Blackadder]

I don't think Jenkins has any cause for complaint. Even at 50% of the profits, he is being grossly overpaid for this trash.

The classic pulp writers weren't "bad" writers. They were adept at quickly producing a particular style for a particular purpose. Journalists also write quickly and produce something that isn't the Great American Novel, but it serves its particular purpose and most of them do good work. Calling pulp writers "bad" because they worked within the conventions and constraints of a certain genre isn't really fair. Besides, compared to Jenkins, there are no other bad writers. When God made Jenkins he broke the mold, threw it on the ground, and stomped it all the way to China.

[cjmr]

But my understanding is that they'll be taxed on 15% whether or not you pay it.

According to the most current IRS guidelines I could find (2006), the employer is supposed to withhold taxes from wait staff as if they received a tip of 8% of all food and beverage sales, whether or not the employee actually received that much in tips, unless the employer and employee have entered into a TRAC or TRDA agreement with the IRS, in which case the percentage is determined by the employer and IRS (using some formula which takes into account normal tipping percentage for the area, type of restaurant, etc.). Apparently, in states that don't require minimum wage for food service employees who receive tips, it's possible for a person to owe more in withholding taxes on their tips than they make in wages! So if standard practice for your area is to tip 15-20%, do it, the IRS is probably assuming you will.

(Reading IRS documents always makes my head hurt. I'm so glad when I worked in food service it was in non-tipping establishments.)

Cue tax rant from Scott in 5...4...3...2...

[Blackadder]

Jesurgislac, I can tell you from my time managing American restaurants that most servers declared just enough tips to make up minimum wage* and pocketed the rest tax-free. But I worked places where most of the tips were in cash; credit cards create a paper trail and probably force the wait staff at those restaurants to declare more tips.

*-Otherwise they would have incurred the wrath of the restaurant for having to pay them the difference between the half minimum wage that wait staff made and full minimum wage. Occasionally on slow days some servers where I worked actually had to declare more tips than they really made, though the reverse was usually the case. Be a sport and tip 20% anyway (easier math).

[Caravelle]

After dinner, Rayford spoke to the waiter privately. "We'd like to spend another hour or so here, if it's all right."
"Sir, we do have an extensive reservation list --"

"I wouldn't want this table to be less than profitable for you," Rayford said, pressing a large bill into the waiter's palm, "so boot us out whenever it becomes necessary."

The waiter peeked at the bill and slipped it into his pocket. "I'm sure you will not be disturbed," he said. And the water glasses were always full.

While I read this passage I couldn't help but think of how the guy at waiterrant would react to that. Not only the tipping/bribing issue, but the sense of entitlement that goes with "I'm keeping this table for the whole evening, never mind if others have made reservations for it". I've got no experience with american restaurants or waitstaff, but somehow I'm surprised it could be so easy...

Chloe chose that moment to gently touch Buck's arm and ask if he minded if she excused herself for a moment.
"I'll join you," Hattie said.

I think it's pretty clear there that they've both already heard the pitch and don't want to hear it again. Buck wouldn't know this, so it's normal that the departure is unexplained from his point of view (are we in Buck or Rayford's POV, actually ?).
What surprises me is that L&J would have been aware that Chloe and Hattie want out, and would have known that Rayford and Buck don't realise it (you know, you could have had some "Rayford was disappointed at his daughter leaving at the most important part"...).
Maybe it's all to show that Chloe and Hattie are rude and insensitive and Unsaved as yet. But you'd think it would have been more emphasized in that case...

[Jon]

I haven't looked at a Superman story for decades -- where does he change clothes these days?
Generally a storeroom at the Daily Planet. Barring that, just any private spot he can find.

cjmr, this is how it worked when I was a manager ten years ago: the restaurant was allowed to pay wait staff less than minimum wage (used to be half, but I think the last minimum wage law increased what employers have to pay) on the assumption that tips would make up the difference. Every shift the servers declared tips on their time cards and were taxed normally on both wages and declared tips; to my knowledge (and I was directly involved with time cards and accounting) there was no arbitrary percentage of sales or wages involved. That might vary by state though. If a server had ever declared so little in tips that she didn't make minimum wage the restaurant would have had to pay the difference, but that never seemed to happen for some reason. ;oD

[cjmr]

The TRAC and TDRA thing was a change in tax law sometime in the late 90s. The IRS seems to have decided they were being cheated out of a lot of tip income revenue.

[Blackadder]

They were.

[Jonathan Edelstein]

But my understanding is that they'll be taxed on 15% whether or not you pay it.

As CJMR stated, they're ordinarily taxed on 8 percent. Which means, BTW, that the assholes who left tracts instead of tips actually took money from the wait staff: not only didn't they get anything to take home, but they had to pay tax on the 8 percent premium they didn't receive. The bite may be reduced by the fact that the employer can allocate the shortfall among employees, but on the other hand, such allocation results in all the waiters get stiffed, albeit to a lesser degree.

In NYC, the usual practice is to tip twice the sales tax, which works out to 16.5 percent; I tend to add a little more because I've been a taxi driver. I much prefer the situation in Iceland, where it was explained to me that nobody gets tips because everyone gets a living wage.

[burgundy]

I too would like to see tips go out the window. I've had jobs where customer service (broadly speaking) was a major component, where it was vitally important that I be pleasant and warm and treat everyone well. But because it was a professional job (I was a Cancer Information Specialist at the American Cancer Society national hotline) I got a salary, and if I had an off day, or a caller just plain didn't like me, I didn't get paid any less. There were quality control measures in place to make sure I was doing a good job; I wasn't dependent on the whims of the callers. I don't see why waitstaff should be treated any differently. (Or sales staff, for that matter - I can understand top sellers getting a bonus, but paying your staff only or mostly on commission is generally a way of cheating your way to free or low-cost labor.)

[Jon]

I think that, if we assume that something other than simple bad writing was at play here - which seems unlikely - the point of Chloe and Hattie leaving was to allow Rayford and Buck the opportunity to engage in some male bonding without the distracting presence of women. This is important "man talk" after all. If this had been a dinner party at someone's home, Rayford and Buck would have withdrawn to the study, while the women went off to take care of the dishes. Sure, Rayford is missing an opportunity to proseltyze to the women, but they wouldn't have benefited from hearing it anyway, as he would be explaining it all in terms that a man could understand, which would, naturally, go right over their pretty little heads.
Of course, like so many others, I also immediately thought that they'd excused themselves so that they could go somewhere and get it on.
Either that or they went to do some coke or smoke some weed (and possibly also get it on).
I could see Hattie, while the two of them were at the "beauty salon," asking Chloe, "You got any coke?" Chloe would respond, "Yeah - it's the only thing that's been keeping me going this past week, especially now that daddy is all full of religion. Tell you what, when he starts his Jesus pitch tonight, I'll excuse myself and you can come with me to the ladies room and we'll do a couple of lines."
Alternatively, maybe they spotted the Girls Gone Wild tour bus parked outside the club across the street and went to check that out (and ended up getting it on - on camera).

[Jon]

Ugh, it's not so early in the morning that I should mangle the spelling of "proselytize" so horribly.

[Blackadder]

Tips are basically just traditional, and like most traditions I'm sure they won't stand up to logical scrutiny. They do let cheapskates who don't plan to return (or don't mind spit in their food) to get a cheaper meal than they would if the restaurant had to compensate the servers more.

My most bizarre "tract experience" as a waiter was being given a Spanish language tract (here in West Virginia!) Since I am Rom/Cherokee/sort-of-Welsh-or-something I guess I might conceivably look Hispanic to the casual observer, but I hope I don't sound like English is my second language. Basically I have no idea why she left me a Spanish language tract (and paltry tip natch). I did have fun reading it, especially the "el senor Jesu Christo" part. I kept hearing it in Sidney Poitier's voice: "They call me EL SENOR Jesu Christo."

[hapax]

Scott If it's all about Men, Men, Men, you need something to keep them from sleeping together and sleeping with silly, boring women instead.

Interestingly enough, this is a significant issue in a number of Patristic -era theological writings about sex, especially in the Eastern (Greek) tradition. Culturally, women were considered about the intellectual level of cattle (and kept isolated and uneducated to confirm that prejudice), and all that related to physical natures (not just sex, but blood, waste products, and especially the normal effluvia involved in sexual activity and birth) was Teh Nasty -- so how do make a convincing argument that following one's duty to "go forth and multiply" was not degrading and sinful?

The Western/Roman tradition had a different, related problem -- there the intellectual and especially economic status of women (or at least upper class women) was much better than in many places in the ancient world, and smart young unmarried women and widows quickly realized that it was greatly to their social and financial advantage to vow celibacy/chastity and retain control over their own assets. Some well-off married women even convinced their spouses to vow celibacy within marriage, which was considered either praiseworthy (a sacrifice to Christ!) or scandalous (a betrayal of family values and a selfish hoarding of income from the clan!) depending on who you asked -- and the response had surprisingly little to do with religious orientation.

[hapax]

I haven't looked at a Superman story for decades -- where does he change clothes these days?
Generally a storeroom at the Daily Planet. Barring that, just any private spot he can find.

I gave up on DC after the Identity Crisis/Infinite Crisis/One Year Later meltdown, but prior to that, Supes usually just changed at super-speed in mid-flight, unless the possibility of discovery was a plot element.

I always wondered where he stashed his civvies, though. (I mean, with Spider-Man, we know.

[hapax]

Oddly enough, I've received monetary tips as a librarian -- I guess some people automatically tip all "service workers" even if there is no financial transaction. I usually just put them in the staff pizza fund, but it's a little worrisome -- technicallly, I should report them as wages, and pay taxes on them.

Of course, I've received plenty of preaching, too. The funniest was the person who stuffed Chick tracts within the pages of all the "dangerous" books -- science books, books on other religions, romance novels, etc.

[Blackadder]

That's weird, hapax. It hasn't happened to me yet, but my library actually has a formal rule against accepting tips. I would probably throw it in petty cash if one were forced on me.

[burgundy]

I think it was Christmas Day of 2006, I was at Walgreens and some guy tried to tip the cashier. The cashier was polite but firm, but the guy would not give up. I find the idea of tipping in such a situation a bit weird to start with; I have a harder time with the idea of arguing with someone about it. What part of "Thank you, but there's no need/we cannot accept tips" is so hard to understand?