Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
L.B.: Boutros Boutros Carpathia, part 1

L.B.: Boutros Boutros Carpathia, part 1

Last updated on: January 11, 2007 at 11:30 pm by Fred Clark

L.B.: Boutros Boutros Carpathia, part 1 2007-01-11T23:30:00-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Left Behind, pp. 241-247

Here we get a taste of the raw charisma of everyone's favorite rising Antichrist, a glimpse of the man who inspired the Carpathamania that's sweeping the world.

That, at least, is the task the authors have set for themselves in these pages, leading up to this conclusion:

… suddenly it was no wonder this man had risen so quickly in his own nation, no wonder the previous leader had stepped aside. No wonder New York had already embraced him.

After this, Buck knew, Nicolae Carpathia would be embraced by all of America. And then the world.

LaHaye and Jenkins, then, have set a trap for themselves. This chapter, like all their others, fails to convey what they intended, but this time the failure is not mainly due to their relentlessly awful writing. The failure is built in. There is no way they can possibly show us what they have told us we are going to see.

This happens even to good writers when their story includes, say, a character who is a world famous great poet.* At some point, readers are going to need to see some of that poetry for themselves and the writer is going to have to prove as gifted a poet as the character has been built up to be.

Some general lessons on avoiding this trap:

1. Don't write about great poets. Or about any other great artists whose skills readers will reasonably expect to see conveyed on the page (including oratory — see part 2). If you must write about great artists, stick with dancers, composers, painters or sculptors, but accept that you've created an enormous hurdle for anyone who wants to adapt your story for the screen.

2. If you're not writing a fairy tale, avoid superlative characters. Fairy tales have a different set of rules and expectations, allowing, or even requiring characters who can be described as "the fairest in all the land." If a character in your story is TFIATL — or the cleverest in all the land, or the smartest, or the funniest, or the greatest artist, or the most charismatic political leader (again, see part 2), or the bestest ever at whatever — then you should reconsider whether you might be, in fact, writing a fairy tale. If so, fine. You can then simply assert your superlative and readers will accept it. That's how fairy tales work. But if you're not writing a fairy tale, then readers will expect you to show us that the prince is, in fact, charming. You're going to have to back up your superlative assertions with an actual, superlative display. You've set the bar impossibly high for your character, but you're the one who's going to have to jump over it.

3. Be very careful about big scenes in which your preternaturally talented character wins over the crowd with an awe-inspiring display of his/her art/skill/cleverness/humor/charm. Such scenes are less likely to inspire awe than they are to result in anticlimax, with readers losing respect for you, your character and your character's audience, in that order.

All of which is to say that this chapter was almost structured to fail for LaHaye and Jenkins. Carpathia is their Antichrist, so he's by definition, superlatively superlative. And this is his Big Scene in which he demonstrates and displays all of the characteristics we've been told about him up until now. Set up this way, the scene was bound to fall flat, even if it had been in the hands of good writers.

But this chapter wasn't in the hands of good writers. It was in the hands of a careless hack guided by a heretical pedant. So for all of the inherent difficulties facing our authors here, they've still produced a chapter that sucks much harder than it needed to.

First we get a physical description:

He was a big man but not more than six feet five inches tall and not wider than a beer truck. His arms hung loose at his sides and a forgotten cigar smoked behind his enormous fingers. …

His skin was pale and he needed a shave. He would always need a shave. He had curly black hair and heavy eyebrows that almost met over his thick nose. His ears were small and neat for a man of that size and his eyes had a shine close to tears that gray eyes often seem to have. He stood like a statue, and after a long time he smiled.

Wait, sorry. That was Chandler's description of Moose Malloy in Farewell, My Lovely. My mistake. This is L&J's description of Nicolae Carpathia:

Carpathia appeared an inch or two over six feet tall, broad shouldered, thick chested, trim, athletic, tanned and blond.

So he looks like about 90 percent of the "no photo available" guys on Match.com.

His thick shock of hair was trimmed neatly around the ears, sideburns and neck, and his navy-on-navy pinstripe suit and matching tie were exquisitely conservative. … His jewelry was understated. His jaw and nose were Roman and strong, his piercing blue eyes set deep under thick brows.

Decide for yourself whether or not that sounds like a young Robert Redford. (For some reason all I could think of reading that was "I saw the Antichrist drinking a piña colada at Trader Vic's / His hair was perfect.")

What Buck Williams finds most impressive, however, is that Carpathia is going to give his speech without notes:

Buck was struck that Carpathia carried no notebook, and he assumed the man must have his speech notes in his breast pocket. Either that or they were being carried by an aide. Buck was wrong on both counts.

Buck's astonishment at this not-all-that-astonishing feat is all the stranger when you consider that L&J's target readership is mostly church people — people who attend Sunday morning and evening services, plus Sunday school, Wednesday night prayer meeting, Bible study, and all six nights of the annual Bible prophecy conference. They've seen hundreds of sermons delivered by scores of preachers. Some of those preachers may have read from a prepared text, and some may have used note cards or an outline, but it's not at all unusual or remarkable for a preacher to speak without using either of these. In fact, in the evangelical churches that make up L&J's core audience, that's how they usually do it, lest their prepared text or outline quench the spirit or prevent them from hearing the Lord's leading.

My guess is that this is how the Rev. Tim LaHaye preaches. I'm guessing that this is, for him, a point of pride reinforced by his Rayford-like failure to notice that it's not really exceptional, that this is how most of his colleagues preach too. And I'm guessing this is included here as a description of something amazing and impressive about Carpathia because LaHaye thinks this is something amazing and impressive about himself.

That's just a guess, mind you, but I can't see how else to make sense of Buck's being awestruck by this.

Secretary-General Mwangati Ngumo of Botswana announced that the assembly was privileged to hear briefly from the new president of the nation of Romania and that the formal introduction of their guest would be made by the Honorable Dr. Chaim Rosenzweig, with whom they were all familiar.

A bit disappointed that L&J weren't able to work an overly ethnic Asian name into that paragraph to go along with Mwangati Ngumo, Chaim Rosenzweig and Nicolae (…) Carpathia. (If you can't afford the correspondence courses offered by Jerry Jenkins' Christian Writers Guild, here's one of the things the master apparently teaches his students: To choose an ethnic-sounding name, just close your eyes and point your finger at a map. Mountain ranges and Zairean Congolese cities provide excellent character names.)

But before we get to Carpathia's speech itself, one other thing that's been bothering me about Rosenzweig.

We first met the good doctor in a flashback a year before the Event. Buck was interviewing him for Global Weekly's "Newsmaker of the Year" because his magic formula had turned every square inch of Israeli territory into a fruit-and-flower producing miracle, making that tiny nation the breadbasket of the world. It was like the Green Revolution on steroids. As the man who figured out how to feed a hungry world, Rosenzweig became a popular and beloved figure. Even now, post-Event, as he rises to introduce Carpathia at the U.N., L&J tell us he receives an "enthusiastic response."

This global embrace of Rosenzweig and his miracle fertility potion seems based on the idea that the problem of hunger was primarily one of scarcity. But post-Event, scarcity just ain't what it used to be. Demand for resources was just instantly reduced by a third, so a magic formula that doubles crop yields probably wouldn't seem as impressive or urgently needed.

The miracle fertility potion that people would be desperate for, post-Event, would have less to do with soil and more to do with the future of the human race. You would think that Rosenzweig would have been drafted to serve on some Global Emergency Blue Ribbon Panel of Nobel laureates, working without sleep or pause until they had answers to questions like: What happened to all our children? Will we be able to have more? Could this happen again? Etc.

But no one gathered at the U.N. seems to be giving any thought to such questions. The only question any of these people seem to have is "Gee, who is that charismatic young man with the Roman nose, piercing blue eyes and understated jewelry?"

– – – – – – – – – – – –

* Couldn't find the link, but John Rogers of Kung Fu Monkey had some very perceptive things to say about this very problem on NBC's Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. Aaron Sorkin is a very talented, and often very funny, writer and Matthew Perry is a very funny, and often very talented, actor, but by creating a situation in which Perry's character is asserted to be the Funniest Comedy Writer in All the Land, Sorkin has painted them both into a corner.

Left Behind

Previous Post

January 11, 2007

Everybody Knows

Next Post

January 12, 2007 Under Until

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "Selah," found often in Psalms, likely mean?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Give thanks Pause or reflect Forever Sing loudly