West Wing seasons 3 and 4

[selenak]

After someone pointed me straight to the direction of a reasonably priced seven seasons set, I caved and bought it, still feeling in an optimistic political vein. (And btw, Hillary for Secretary of State? Makes me happy. Also, I now have region 2 seasons 1 and 2 of the West Wing doubled, and would be happy to trade.) Having just finished them, I'll give it a break of a week or two before continuing with the post-Sorkin era.

Now, on to detailed viewing impressions.



First of all, even without the immediate 9/11 reaction episode, Isaak and Ishmael, starting the third season, and without looking the original broadcast date up, I would have figured out that from season 3 onwards, we're in the post-9/11 era. You can tell Sorkin & Co. had a big problem: obviously, 9/11 didn't happen in the West Wing universe, but on the other hand, if they continued to write as if it hadn't, letting the fictional administration face only the type of problems it did before 9/11, the sense of disconnect in the viewers might have been too extreme. So we get the fictional Muslim state of Qumar, various smaller-than-9/11 terrorist attacks and one prevented one, and instead of invasions of Aghanistan and Iraq, we get Bartlet ordering an assassination of a foreign member of goverment who also doubles as a terrorist leader. I'm not sure the parallels/contrasts completely work as intended, because Qumar resembles Saudi Arabia more than it does a Taliban-led Afghanistan, and as I said to skywaterblue once, we all know no American president, either Republican or Democrat, will ever break with the House of Saud, and we all know why. Still, I think from a writing pov, ignoring the Middle East realities would have been worse, and I appreciate that the matter of the assassination hasn't been presented in a gung-ho shoot 'em up manner but a hard decision and something Bartlet still regards as murder even as he comes to the conclusion it's necessary.

The "out of continuity" 9/11 episode Isaak and Ishmael is visibly a hastily written last minute job, but so painfully earnest and well-meant it caused a lump in my throat. Especially with the awareness that in the reality of the Bush administration, the Arab-American would have ended up in Guantanamo for the next two years before the matter of his name being confused with someone else's could or would have been cleared up.

In the regular continuity, season 3 struck me as as slower and more uneven than both the previous seasons and season 4, where the pacing was back. (And Sorkin started using other scriptwriters as well.) It did some great stuff with Abbey promoted from recurring to regular character - and I really liked the episode focusing on her, in particular the scenes with CJ, Amy and Donna - Bechdel test gold stars for that one - and I liked all the new characters, Bruno, doomed Simon, and Donna's first Republican boyfriend - but there also were some let-downs. To wit: the way Toby suddenly diagnosed the President having Daddy issues and these being the cause for his being an overachiever and alternating between tough leader and folksy please-like-me uncle was sloppy writing. Not the issues per se - it's not startlingly original, but the excellent s2 finale, Two Cathedrals, which was also the first serious Jed Bartlet character exploration episode, laid the groundworks with the casual way Bartlet Senior strikes Jed in one of the flashbacks (clearly indicating this isn't the first time and is expected behaviour at this point). But for Toby to suddenly come up with "your father hit you, didn't he?", he'd have to be telepathic, considering it's not something he could have been told before. (Jed wouldn't, Abbey, who probably knows, wouldn't, same with Leo.) I suppose one could fanwank it with Toby making an educated guess given that Jed Bartlet belongs to a generation where physical punishment, especially for boys, was the rule, not the exception, but I still thought it was a writerly shortcut and just lazy. Plus the immediate follow-up with the psychiatrist was pointless (as opposed to the Josh Christmas episode in s2); I like this actor as much as the next viewer who has seen Life and likes him as Ted, but the brief scenes he has with the President don't reveal anything, and I couldn't help but thinking that it would have been more ic if Jed had used the option one has as a Catholic - which would have made all the secrecy with flying in a psychiatrist superfluos, too - go to confession.

Mind you, I did like the subsequent chess playing episode, and thought the respective matches against Toby and Sam were a neat contrast of those very different relationships. Relationships between the President and Josh, Sam, even CJ are pretty paternalistic, i.e. he's a replacement father figure (made most explicit in the case of Josh), and Leo of course is his BFF, but Toby falls between those categories, and not simply because they're far too close in age for the fatherly thing to work, and they don't have the best buddies background, either. But Toby gets assigned the role of challenging better angel more often than not, and the fact that he's the main speechwriter is perfectly fitting for that, working in a meta way - he "writes" Jed Bartlet and sometimes butts heads with his character and his character's tendencies, and gets pretty possessive about it.

Speaking of Toby: now I've been aware for years that two biggest pairings in West Wing fanfiction are Josh/Donna and CJ/Toby. I hadn't seen any CJ/Toby tendencies in the first two seasons but assumed there might be in later seasons. So far, I still see no sign. They're friends. Toby is still clearly very much in love with his ex-wife (who btw is a great character), and CJ, between the flirting with Danny, the doomed not-affair with Simon and the one night stand at her high school reunion showed no signs of having the remotest non-platonic interest in Toby, either.

Season 4's opening two-parter is my favourite season opener so far. Maybe because I have a soft spot for road movies, but the Josh, Toby and Donna lost in Indiana subplot had me on the floor on a regular basis, and the political main plot was suspenseful and well-executed. The combination of the reelection campaign story with the introduction of new regular and future Sam replacement Will Bailey and the Orange County campaign was a great idea; Sam gradually moving out of the story felt very natural this way. Also, given that the result of the reelection campaign is obvious - even a first time viewer must have known the show wouldn't end with s4, and hence Bartlet had to win - I was pleasantly surprised how captivated I was anyway. It also occured to me during Toby's "smartest kids in the class" speech that of course a President like Jed Bartlet is wish fulfillment in an era where it looked like education and intelligence were a downside to a politician, that, in high school movie terms, the jocks would always win over the nerds; Bartlet wiping the debate floor with Republican Richie is the blatant revenge of the nerd, and I can see the manipulation, but damn, it totally works for me! (Also, I'm still basking in the afterglow of the real life victory of someone whose intelligence and education didn't prevent him from getting elected.)

Richie aside, Sorkin is pretty good in including sympathetic Republicans and the occasional dastardly Democrat to make it clear things aren't black and white, though I was sad to see, or rather, not to see since we're told long after the fact, Ainsley leave. Kudos to him for that. On the other hand, seasons 3 and 4 also contain two examples of Sorkin being a jerk, which were so infamous I had heard about them at the time of the original broadcast when I wasn't watching the show. The one in season 3 turned out to be better than its reputation suggested, the one in season 4 every bit as bad and worse. The former was the result of Sorkin getting into a flame war on the West Wing boards of Television Without Pity. The reason why this turned out to be better than I had thought was because Josh, who gets into a flame war on a forum dedicated to him, is mocked as much by the writing as the "dictatorial" webmaster, and being sarcastic on your own expense and aware enough to depict the absurdity of your behaviour is a saving grace. However, the other example, again with Josh as a kind of authorial alter ego, made me headdesk a lot. Here, we have Josh lecturing a Star Trek fan (overweight, glasses) on a) the impropriety of displaying her ST insignia in the White House, and b) on how to be a fan properly, because, you see, he's a Sports fan, and that's okay, but getting excited about pairing up "your favourite Cardassian with your favourite Klingon, that's not being a fan, that's having a fetish". Good grief.

While we're talking of Sorkin failings: Jean-Paul. Firstly, to repeat myself, I really don't get the Anglo-Saxon complex about the French, in either the English or the American variation. (Though back when the "freedom fries" renaming happened, Neil Gaiman cracked me up on his blog when remarking that the Americans clearly didn't know how to properly hate the French, because the proper way was by loving their food, being fannish about their actresses, having your holidays in their country, smoking their cigarettes and endlessly remaking their films.) Secondly, I hate it if in romantic comedies one romantic rival is set up to be despised by the audience by being a paper-thin collection of bad attributes without redeeming graces. Among other things, it makes the person considering said rival look stupid. So here we get a useless member of the French nobility who is mean to Charlie and slips Zoe some ecstasy against her will; I'm just waiting for the revelation that he's also secretly in league with her kidnappers. The thing is, Sorkin can do better, and he does, on this show. Donna's beaus, whether it's the principled Republican congressman (who saves Leo's butt) or the Republican pilot, are all presented as likeable and it's easy to see why she would go out with them; and Amy Gardner, Josh's main focus of romantic attention throughout season 3 and most of s4, has been shown as clever, competent, vivacious (not to mention dead-on with her assessment that Josh likes to be hit on the head), and again, one can understand people who fall in love with her. All of this simultanously to Sorkin inserting more and more romantic subtext in the Josh/Donna relationship. So why on earth the boo, hiss cheapness of Jean-Paul?

Back to the good stuff again: seems we get a flashback episode to the early campaign or early White House days once a season, and they're always good to watch. One standout episode in s4, however, The Long Goodbye (aka the one with CJ and her Altzheimer-ridden father) was also a standalone, and written by Jon Baitz who wrote one of my favourite Alias episodes, In Dreams, a season 4 Sloane character study. Both episodes come across a little like self-contained plays and are superbly acted.

Lastly: poor Hoynes. One can't help feeling the VP really was screwed over, and not in the literal sense, ever since he agreed to take the job. Early on, everyone suspects him of scheming, then he finds out the subtext with which Bartlet lured him (be my Vice President, and oh, btw, I have MS, and you know what that could mean for you!) isn't true, his support doesn't even get his name in the laws he helped forge, during the relection campaign everyone but Bartlet is eager to get rid of him, including Leo whom he helped with the AA meeting, and then his mistress writes a tell-all. I mean, I knew due to various comparisons during the Obama campaign that Hoynes would never be President after Bartlet, but sheesh. Mind you, I'm not saying those were bad storytelling choices; Hoynes was an interesting character and the fact the Bartlet White House was less than stellar - sometimes downright petty - in their behaviour towards him kept them from appearing too good to be true.

In conclusion: I want a well-written DW/WW crossover more than ever.

Comments

[butterflykiki.livejournal.com]

A Doctor Who/West Wing crossover? Ooooo. Now I want one as well.

I was still watching WW during Season 3, and the "Josh flame-war" part came across at the time (to me) as Sorkin rightly mocking himself for getting sucked into that kind of criticism and internet culture. Plus, it gave us CJ laying a smackdown on Josh that he richly deserved. I will treasure that forever. Heh. The Qumar storyline went too long, but you're right; they had to do *something* when the world changed. There are worse storytelling choices. I *loathed* the Daddy Issues crap, thought it was cheap and that even Richard Schiff couldn't quite sell it. But there was some really good stuff in Season 3. Season 4... got wearing. I think that's about the time I stopped watching. Like you sai,d, the French boyfriend-- who could believe that?

[As to the American-French thing, I can't tell you for sure, having no particular animus, but the one thing I constantly hear is that their waiters are rude and people snooty. I've read a book "Almost French" by an Australian that moved there, that explained a *lot* of French attitudes, and I can tell you that most of them are attuned to piss off American tourists. The language elitism, the history elitism, and the reserve are all things that Americans hate aimed at them, even if they're grounded in perfectionism, respect for their own long traditions, and a basic reserve about strangers. :>> ]

Anyway, I was really sad to see Ainsley go-- she was goofy and fun, and provided a good, solid response on the Republican front, and she just disappeared suddenly. Not as suddenly as Mandy, but still. I never warmed up to Will Bailey because I'm not fond of the actor, but his character was a good one. And if we couldn't keep Sam because the actor was moving on, they did a good storytelling job of filling in his slot.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Plus, it gave us CJ laying a smackdown on Josh that he richly deserved. I will treasure that forever. Heh.

It was a beautiful thing, to be sure. *g*

but the one thing I constantly hear is that their waiters are rude and people snooty.

Most waiters all over the world are. Not American waiters, because they're far more dependent on tips. Speaking as someone who is neither American nor French, though: how many Americans actually have the chance to meet French waiters? I mean, if you're German, France is the country next door, so to speak, and relatively easy to visit. So many people here have at one point and sometimes several of them visited France. But travelling to France if you're American seems still to be regarded as something only the rich can afford, going on how it was used against Kerry during the Bush/Kerry election.

People disappearing suddenly seems to be a Sorkin thing - Mandy, Ainsley, Danny - though at least Danny is back as sudden.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Not American waiters, because they're far more dependent on tips.

That, and also because American waiters aren't professional waiters, or just in the sense that they're waiting to become something else (a successful actor, a doctor when they finish med school, etc.) French waiters, whether the unpleasant harried ones in busy cafés, or the superlatively good ones in good restaurants, are incredibly professional. You only have to watch one Course des Garçons de Café (http://www.davidphenry.com/press/Press006.htm) to know.

[butterflykiki.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm sure 90% of the people saying that haven't been to France. They've just read opinions that the French have about us, somewhere, or heard about it, and formed opinions from that.

Although more go than you'd think-- the backpacking after college thing means a fair amount of students get to visit on the cheap. It's one of those *things* people dream about doing, and if you don't mind staying in hostels, used to be do-able. My sister went with four friends, and yes, the populace were all picky about how to pronounce "Rouen" and being unhelpful on how to find Calais and the ferry, to the point where she was saying "R-O-U-E-N, don't tell me how to pronounce it, where is it?" But she loved the food, loved the art, found the fellow-students to be fun, has been back several times since for her work. So, yeah, a reputation, but one that should be more widely evenhanded than it is, judging from my tiny statistical sample.

Americans are over-sensitive about being regarded as uncouth. Maybe because we're universally informal (justified circumstances or not) and are judged on that first impression? I don't know. But it's tied into that unforgivable "don't think you're smarter than us" that comes out inside the US too. You can be smarter. You just can't talk about it in any way to ever suggest that someone else is stupid. There's a slightly awed aura around France for having so much art and culture, anyway, that puts some people on the (extremely dumb) defensive.

Many more Americans get to Mexico, where we're obnoxious and drunk on Spring Break. I'm sure they loathe us in some of those places, even as they welcome our money.

The waiter thing is true, since they get paid below minimum wage in an expectation that they'll get paid 15% in tips. But I think it's also part of that "the customer is always right" that gets trained into all retail and sales too, which sucks for them, sucks to *be* them, dealing with customers who can be universally nuts sometimes. Americans who expect the same thing abroad are always kind of shocked, and think it's stupid. A friend who's Russian was telling me about how it's exactly the opposite in Moscow, with "you will take this version/dinner/goods and like it because there is no other alternative, ha, see if you can find it somewhere else. And now I shall ignore you, bah." Most Americans are pretty ignorant about those differences before we go somewhere else, I suspect.

Forgot re: DW crossover

[selenak.livejournal.com]

As I said to wondygal once, here's what should happen in the opening scene:

Donna (Noble, not Moss, after Martha told her about Queen Elizabeth, at some point during s4): So is there some head of state you haven't pissed off, Space Boy? I know all about Harriet Jones! And don't even think of mentioning your ex-boyfriend because he had you locked up for a year, and also, he was an evil alien, so he doesn't count.

Doctor: He wasn't... look, I'll have you know I can get along just fine with heads of state. Well, some of them. Well, there was this former pharao I once travelled with...

Donna: Former?

Doctor: She sort of could not rule because of me.

Donna: *pointed look*

Doctor: ...Wait! There was also the American guy. The President.

Donna: The one your ex shot on tv?

Doctor: He was not - no, not that one. One of the earlier ones. Jed Bartlet.

Donna: Prove it. Let's go visit.

Doctor: *cagey* That could get difficult.

Donna: *pointed look*

Doctor: Look, he wasn't the President when we met! But we did get along. Well - after the Vikings attacked, anyway.

Donna: You're having me on. What were Vikings doing in New Hampshire?

Doctor: Stockholm. He was there to pick up his Nobel Prize. There was a Time Rift, and the Vikings came through, that's why I showed up, only the Vikings arrived later than I thought they would, and when I asked whether anyone had seen them I got into an argument with him. About the Visigoths, in Latin. You had to be there. And when the Vikings did show up....

Donna: ...you did your thing and there was a lot of running and holding of hands, yeah, I can imagine. So why can't we visit when he's President?

Doctor: I was a different man then. Literally. He wouldn't recognize me.

Donna: How different?

Doctor: ...for some reason, people used the word "colourblind" when describing my coat, but I'll have you know it was simply unique and looked very distinguished.

Re: Forgot re: DW crossover

[butterflykiki.livejournal.com]

*cackles in delight* Now I want Donna M. & Donna N. to meet, that has to happen, and if he was 6, no, I'd bet the Pres hasn't forgotten, and this would be awesome.

Re: Forgot re: DW crossover

[selenak.livejournal.com]

There would, of course, be a Six and his multi-coloured dream coat flashback. (I just can't make up my mind whether Six would have been with tv companion Peri or audio companion Evelyn.) And yes, there would have to be a meeting of the Donnas! Meanwhile, Toby, Josh, Sam and CJ would assume the Doctor and Donna were there because it's crackpot day, and talk to them accordingly...

Re: Forgot re: DW crossover

[watervole.livejournal.com]

" About the Visigoths, in Latin."

That is so Bartlett!

Re: Forgot re: DW crossover

[wondygal.livejournal.com]

OH I STILL LOVE THIS IDEA. And I still love that the first thing the Doctor objects to is that the Master is his ex.

Re: Forgot re: DW crossover

[selenak.livejournal.com]

It's in the fine tradition of telling Donna he had nothing whatsoever to do with that fire in Rome, you know.*g*

Re: Forgot re: DW crossover

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah - that would be up there with Donna the Vampire Slayer and sequels, essential reading for the crossover fan.

[abigail-n.livejournal.com]

I was never in WW fandom, and I never even considered CJ/Toby until someone who was in it made a reference. Thinking about the two characters, I can see that they'd be good together, but I never got the sense that either one of them had ever seriously contemplated that step. I'm not even that big a Josh/Donna shipper. From day one it was clearly the standard TV romance, where the characters long for each other and occasionally teeter on the brink of getting together, but are held back until the show is cancelled and the writers can cut loose. There are internal reasons why neither one of them would be eager to embark on a relationship, but I always felt that it was the writers wanting to prolong the tension indefinitely that was really the reason. My one true ship for this show was always Charlie/Zoey, and since you mention the chess episode, I'll also say that it's never sat right with me that Sam is supposed to be the future president in the west wing. Clearly if there's a future occupant of the oval office there, it's Charlie.

I remember being skeeved out by the proper fannishness exchange too when I first watched that episode. Having watched the entire season of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, however, I think I've gained a better appreciation of what depths Sorkin will sink to in order to get the last word against people who disagree with him, which makes that plotline, and the TWOP bash, seem positively chummy in comparison.

A warning before you go ahead: season 5 is not of the good. The show does get better in seasons 6 and 7 - it never returns to Sorkin levels, but there are things that John Wells did that I don't think Sorkin would ever have done, particularly when it comes to the female characters - but you have to grit your teeth through season 5 to get to them.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I'm not even that big a Josh/Donna shipper. From day one it was clearly the standard TV romance, where the characters long for each other and occasionally teeter on the brink of getting together, but are held back until the show is cancelled and the writers can cut loose.

That's what it looks like to me; but I appreciate that the love interests they get in the meantime are likeable people. (Also, that the women Josh is interested in like Joey Lucas or Amy don't suddenly disappear once he loses romantic interest but are characters in their own right with their own agendas.) I don't think I 'ship anyone on this show in the sense of rooting for them to get together, but none of the relationships makes me grind my teeth, either, and Abbey/Jed is a pretty convincing example of trying to depict a marriage without the woman being reduced to "the woman at his side".

I'll also say that it's never sat right with me that Sam is supposed to be the future president in the west wing. Clearly if there's a future occupant of the oval office there, it's Charlie.

Oh, agreed! Which reminds me: I was a bit afraid Charlie would get less screen time after Zoey stopped showing up on the show, and was very relieved that instead, he got more.

[thepandorarose.livejournal.com]

That's what it looks like to me; but I appreciate that the love interests they get in the meantime are likeable people.

This is something I also enjoy about the show.

[violaswamp.livejournal.com]

That's what it looks like to me; but I appreciate that the love interests they get in the meantime are likeable people.

I agree, which is why it's a shame so many fans seem to dislike Amy. I liked her quite a lot and I love Mary Louise Parker.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

First I hear there is Andi dislike and now I hear there is Amy dislike? *headdesks about shippers and their way of letting their 'ship get between appreciating good female characters*

[thepandorarose.livejournal.com]

I was never in WW fandom, and I never even considered CJ/Toby until someone who was in it made a reference. Thinking about the two characters, I can see that they'd be good together

Yes, I was very shocked when in season five I went online to the fandom and found the huge Toby/C.J. following - I was floored.

Ps.

[thepandorarose.livejournal.com]

A warning before you go ahead: season 5 is not of the good. The show does get better in seasons 6 and 7 - it never returns to Sorkin levels, but there are things that John Wells did that I don't think Sorkin would ever have done, particularly when it comes to the female characters - but you have to grit your teeth through season 5 to get to them.

I agree. I don't even own season five and joke if I show it to my friends I have a montage I got off the internet we can watch and just move on to season 6. And because of it I have major issues with Wells. I think he's not a great storytelling, but thinks shock and awe and helicopters crashing on ER is what brings good drama.

But once he got out of the way and wonderful writers like Debora Cahn we're able to write more it just got better. By season 7 they are whittled down the writing staff and learned they could never be Sorkin so it was best to just be themselves.

On a Trivia note - the entire speech Will gives Sam about the girl writer he found on a sitcom and no one knew how talented she was - that's really Debora.

I am now reminded of the C.J./ Will "there's a goat in my office" and smiling to no end. Amazing scene, great bantor. and of course later on:

"Is this a hazing?"
"Did you put olives in my pocket?"
"Okay, that was me. But this is not a hazing." :)

Re: Ps.

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

I'm like the biggest fan on the planet. I don't own Seasons Five AND Six.

Re: Ps.

[thepandorarose.livejournal.com]

lol. I only own 6 because it had a C.J. featureette. Haven't watched it since. And I am also a "biggest fan on the planet" Have driven long miles to see Toby, Josh and C.J. on stage and even write fanfic.

So, glad it's not just me. lol.

I even get giddy when Sorkin has yet another character named Danny.

Re: Ps.

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

Ironically, I'd rather have Season Five. Season Five has 'The Supremes'.

Re: Ps.

[thepandorarose.livejournal.com]

Yes, the great Debroa Cahn - I love her, I love her shoes.

I'm afraid even with her writing Grey's Anatomy I could watch the show. I do miss her work. I hope she gets her own show soon.

I always tell people "I'll take season five as a gift" My shelf has a hole in the collection.

You might actually be able to find an emmy copy of the Supremes on ebay.

Re: Ps.

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

I could probably download it somewhere. I used to have both those seasons in downloaded format, but it got lost in a HD crash.

[thepandorarose.livejournal.com]

Wonderful analysis as usual. Its been so long since I thought about this great show, this is wonderful.

I'm glad you touched on the Toby/CJ thing because I never really got it. I felt he cared for her and they we're great, great friends, but beyond that he loved Andy and most of the time C.J. just had really bad luck. But seriously, it's so rare on TV to see an amazing platonic relationship and CJ and Toby we're family to each other. I think someone people see two actors with amazing chemistry and right away want to hook them up - no matter what the storyline dictates. I think in Heroes Claire and Peter are a great example, as for me I have to go by what the show says and I don't believe in incest. But to get off a touchy subject for some and back to the West Wing CJ and Toby did love each other, but not in that way. Friendship as family is something Sorkin does very well. These people only have their work and their office is their home - something the characters do have to deal with in the finale season, towards the end, but I look forward to talking more on that when you "post Sorkin" Toby and CJ's friendship is as much of a gem to me as Bartlet and Leo.

Another thing you touched on is how characters aren't black and white. I love that Bartlet can be a jerk and as much as you don't like Hoynes too much you can totally see why he might hold a grudge or two.

But season three to me was all about the finale in some ways. I remember crying so much I had to rewind it to see what actually happened, for as soon as he walked into the bodega I knew what was going to happen (Superfluous scene. why? Oh no!) But what it taught me as a viewer and and writer as I scored Sorkin and praised him at the same time is in drama if death serves the story it just has to be done. Now, I think he set up Simon to die from the start, making us care for him through C.J. - but again if I don't care about a death what's the point, that's not drama. Was what Bartlet did any different from those kids who killed Simon? Much like the death of Mrs. Landingham, as said and horrible as it was it lead to the story, theme and arch.

Now I don't remember the star trek episode as well as I use to, but I always remembering that it wasn't one sided. Josh may call it a fetish, but the girl had a great counter offer. Sorkin is great at arguments. I now have flashes of Anisley and Sam - I didn't agree with Anisiley but I could see where she was coming from.

And anything Abbey is always wonderful. And Josh and Amy are so great together, but you also see why it wouldn't work out - they are so similar.

Another thing I loved about season four (one of my favs) was how it one upped Danny and C.J. And you get why he left the white house after that. She warned him about the conflict and he was flippant about it almost and here it was standing them in the face, really on different sides as they ever were before. And they both let it compromise them. C.J. in the way she tried to push Danny off the trail from pulling him into that office (of course part of that was getting back at him) to the way she insulted him with "Your dating a college graduate, aren't you?" or something like that - I remember him being very hurt by that line. And in the end he held onto that story because of her (well Tim Busfield says so and I agree). And then well at the start of season five I think it's the culmination of everything. It's a very sad and tragic and beautiful storyline to me.

It also reminds me I wished they are explored more the kind of relationship Danny and Josh had. I got the feeling they had known each other for years, not just from the campaign trail. He went to him in season one and in season four he said they emailed.

I know have a urge for some pie. :)

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

However, the other example, again with Josh as a kind of authorial alter ego, made me headdesk a lot.

Oh, dear, Sorkin. I remember him going on in "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" about overweight bloggers who have cats instead of a love life, or something like that - so childish, it was almost amusing. Didn't make the show more interesting, unfortunately.

And as someone living in a city that basically defines itself through its soccer team, I can assure you that sports fans are exactly the same as media fans. I'm pretty sure there is even RPF about the players, and they are certainly treated like celebrities.

*can*t resist being silly*

[selenak.livejournal.com]

But! Shouldn't Bremen define itself through the Bremer Stadtmusikanten?

Re: *can*t resist being silly*

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

You can combine it. The Bremer Stadtmusikanten look swell in Werder green and white. ;)

[watervole.livejournal.com]

Why hate the French?

It's kind of traditional for Brits.

It's almost an affectionate way of 'hating' a nation.

They've always been the enemy across the channel and closest to be able to attack us. We've probably fought them more times than anyone else. At the same time, all our landed aristocracy have French ancestry as they came over with the Norman conquest. Napoleon was an enemy for a long time and the French Revolution scared people over here.

French therefore is the language of culture, but also of the first foreigners we see if we go abroad.

France is also the nation that we blame for all our woes. It's the French we blame when their lorry drivers blockade ports, or they ban British lamb, etc. We blame them for everything (except over-fishing - it's traditional to blame the Spanish for that).

It's circular. We 'hate' the French, therefore the media blame everything on the French. etc.

But as Gaiman says, we love French food, Parisan fashions, French literature, etc.

So, it's a rather tongue-in-cheek dislike in some ways, but it gives us something we can all agree on!

(I hope no one is interpreting this too seriously...)

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

I hadn't seen any CJ/Toby tendencies in the first two seasons but assumed there might be in later seasons. So far, I still see no sign. They're friends. Toby is still clearly very much in love with his ex-wife (who btw is a great character), and CJ, between the flirting with Danny, the doomed not-affair with Simon and the one night stand at her high school reunion showed no signs of having the remotest non-platonic interest in Toby, either.

Herm. I think you've heard the wrong things about CJ/Toby. It's somewhat subtextually explained, at various points in the series, that Toby and CJ are in fact good friends who many, many years before, used to be lovers. (In fact, I believe that Richard Schiff and Allison Janney decided this on their own during the pilot and deliberately played it up until Sorkin started to write it in.)

The CJ/Toby shippers used to make the case that they could be lovers again. Whereas I always thought it was fairly obviously a case of something that the characters had mostly moved beyond. (Indeed, at points you're about to come to, they start comparing Toby's relationship with Andrea to Josh's relationship with Donna.)

b) on how to be a fan properly, because, you see, he's a Sports fan, and that's okay, but getting excited about pairing up "your favourite Cardassian with your favourite Klingon, that's not being a fan, that's having a fetish". Good grief.

It's very gendered language, and it's boy fandom versus girl fandom. I always thought it was funny, though, because the line is 'favorite Cardassian with your favorite Romulan', and you know that only ever happened on DS9. Ergo, Josh Lyman likes DS9.

(I get my kicks where I can.)

It's funny you mention 'The Long Goodbye' as a favorite, as many, many West Wing fans thoroughly dislike that episode. I didn't mind it at the time, however I find that it does set the tone for CJ's future characterization, which I am strongly NOT fond of whatsoever, and so the episode has reduced itself a lot in my estimation. Plus there are a couple of scenes, with CJ's new mother, which I think are painfully executed.

As a final note: it's not particularly surprising that Toby might be my favorite character on the show. (He fights it out with Josh, but I'm hesitant to claim one or the other due to the fact they're written as each other's shadow opposites. Even back to the pilot episode!) Mainly because I find his relationship with Jed Bartlet to be the most fascinating one on the show.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

It's very gendered language, and it's boy fandom versus girl fandom.

*has sudden vision of Josh and/or Sorkin as Outpost Gallifrey poster fighting with livejournal writers during recent kerfuffle*

I always thought it was funny, though, because the line is 'favorite Cardassian with your favorite Romulan', and you know that only ever happened on DS9. Ergo, Josh Lyman likes DS9.

:) But DS9 only had one fleshed out Romulan, in the last season. TNG at least had three to choose from, and one of them was G'Kar. *g* Okay, more seriously now, I think the "Cardassian" clinches it. Josh must have watched DS9.

Interesting about fans objecting to The Long Goodbye. Maybe I'll see it differently in retrospect after future seasons, but right now, I'm very impressed.

Mainly because I find his relationship with Jed Bartlet to be the most fascinating one on the show.

*nods* As mentioned above - it intrigues me how between easy categories it falls, which makes it unique. And so is the way they challenge each other. Incidentally, considering Toby is the one member of Bartlet's first campaign staff that survived Leo's firing the rest of them and hiring the future White House team, do we ever find out how they originally met? I.e. which of them discovered the other?

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, considering Toby is the one member of Bartlet's first campaign staff that survived Leo's firing the rest of them and hiring the future White House team, do we ever find out how they originally met? I.e. which of them discovered the other?

No, actually! A fact I was pondering as my 13 year old brother is working his way through the show for the first time and I sat down to watch ItSo2G with him. Given that Bartlet doesn't know him from Adam, I suspect he was Leo's hire. Beyond that, we learn nothing except that he's not Bartlet's favorite and Bartlet tried to leave him behind during Transition. (Which he apologizes for in one of the very first episodes.)

Interesting about fans objecting to The Long Goodbye. Maybe I'll see it differently in retrospect after future seasons, but right now, I'm very impressed.

It's also a bit of a baby step for Sorkin's leaving, and the popular opinion was (and still is) that the Sorkinless episodes are just no good.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

...and do you have a Watsonian explanation for why Toby suddenly comes up with his Your Father Hit You And Never Liked You theory? Remember, must be strictly within-show and not entail "Sorkin wanted him and Bartlet to argue about this and took a writerly short cut"?

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

Toby Ziegler's father went to prison, remember, and Toby speaks pretty frequently about growing up in a rough neighborhood, so it seems like Toby would know the score. Although I don't think you could say Toby's dad hit him.

(I was about to say that Toby was probably the only character who comes from a lower-class background, but I think Leo's family wasn't that well off either.)

That and Toby often exhibits a wicked understanding of what's motivating people. (I think he only uses this against Bartlet in the Sorkin years, but in the coming seasons, he begins to laser target other people and slice and dice.) Indeed, because he's the parallel to Josh, who is nothing but a ball of self-deception, Toby's misanthropy seems to stem from a deep unhappiness within himself.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I was about to say that Toby was probably the only character who comes from a lower-class background, but I think Leo's family wasn't that well off either.

Ahem: didn't you forget Charlie?

That and Toby often exhibits a wicked understanding of what's motivating people. (I think he only uses this against Bartlet in the Sorkin years, but in the coming seasons, he begins to laser target other people and slice and dice.)

Well, he point blank accuses what's her name in the pilot of antisemitism (when she said "we don't share your New York wit" to Josh), but yes, otherwise it's only on display in his scenes with the President. My guess is that this is the reason why Bartlet originally wants to leave him behind; not that Toby's insight is unique but if you compare it to scenes with Abbey and Leo in the position of truthteller, well, Jed can always charm or amuse Abbey and Leo out of it, but this doesn't work with Toby. (Though I think Toby is a little charmed and amused despite himself on occasion, as when he gets apologies complete with "do you really think my demons are shouting down my angels?" or gets called Sigmund.)

There is also some meta to be written about this being a version of the writer and muse relationship, don't you think?

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

I did forget Charlie! *gasp* Well, Charlie too, but unlike Leo and Toby, Charlie seemed to have a fairly loving childhood. Presumably because his dad skipped out early. :0

Well, he point blank accuses what's her name in the pilot of antisemitism (when she said "we don't share your New York wit" to Josh), but yes, otherwise it's only on display in his scenes with the President.

Mary Marsh, and yes. He's also the first person to independently pick up on the MS scandal without being told. (Although Hoynes was apparently leaving the clues on the ground for someone to pick up.)

There is also some meta to be written about this being a version of the writer and muse relationship, don't you think?

Very. But I don't know how to take in account the events in the Wells seasons in that narrative. (I can't wait for your opinions on these things.)

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

Final bit: Americans versus the French? Has a lot to do with the Revolutionary War and the fact they're our second Colonial parent. You could probably trace it back to the resulting French Revolution, and several of our revolutionary leaders making the mistake of backing it and then coming home to vivid unpopularity when the extent of the violence was revealed. (Jefferson, Thomas Paine.)

It is not uncommon in the States to hear people bitch and moan about the French always needing American aid in wars, viz a viz WW2 and Vietnam. All of the stories seem to revolve around ungratefulness.

I've always found the French to be terribly pleasant people who are truly interested in the States and my perspective on things, because I'm an American leftist. I imagine that American conservatives (when they venture abroad, all too infrequently) get the message that the French don't like Americans when the French fail to reinforce their belief in the world.

[kangeiko]

Hi sweetie! I have the internets again, and what a great way to come back, with such a fab analysis to read!

RE: Qumar - minor quibble on this one, it was always meant to represent Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan, as the relationship between Qumar and the US mirrors that of S.A. and the US (and is part of the reason CJ is so spitting mad in 'The Women of Qumar', which never fails to make me cry).

CJ/Toby - well, it starts off with the friendship, yes, and then there's Toby and Andrea in the fourth season, but by S7 I would argue that there is definitely more to it than that (and it is actually directly addressed by that point). (Other key moments from the first 4 seasons feeding into it include Toby telling CJ that's she's a beautiful woman in S2, when she sticks up for Ainsley Hayes, and the fact that he was the one who went to get her for the campaign in 'In the Shadow of two Gunmen'. And Toby's apology in 'The Women of Qumar', of course.)

I totally agree with you on Jean-Paul, and I wondered whether he was a Sorkin creation at all - he seemed to appear out of nowhere, right around the time that Sorkin was exiting, and it seemed his only purpose was to drive the Zoe kidnap plot. So I don't know on that one. But I found his existence as a plot device annoying.

Can I say how much I loved Abbey in S3 and S4? Especially her tie-cut trick in 'Game On', which never fails to make me giggle. It wasn't that we were adding another woman to the cats, because she'd always been there, albeit in a guest star guise, but because she was made into a character in her own right, rather than a facet of Bartlet - which, at least to me, was how she sometimes came across in S1/2. It was interesting to see things from her perspective, especially when they didn't necessarily jive with the way that the President saw them.

I've always been a fan of Hoynes, and I did feel sorry for him in S3/4 - but then I saw what they did with him in later seasons, and it's dire, truly dire. I blame S5 for most of it, as it features an episode that had me absolutely furious at the way things were being retconned. His replacement, though, is great fun - a familiar face, and a whole new set of challenges.

I think you're going to like S7. I think you'll hate S5, for much the same reasons as the rest of fandom, and will find S6 somewhat uneven, as I did. But S7 is where TWW gets its groove back, and it's definitely worth the wait.

And I don't know about a DW/WW crossover, but there's certainly an excellent Buffy/WW crossover out there by Nomad, and also a fabulous X-Files/WW crossover as well (wherein Scully tries to get Mulder declared officially Not Dead (tm)).

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Can I say how much I loved Abbey in S3 and S4? Especially her tie-cut trick in 'Game On', which never fails to make me giggle.

I loved that, too. I mean, I had an inkling she would do something, but not what, and it was just perfect. And yes, she's awesome throughout. Re: character in her own right, I think a case in point is when you compare the Josh versus Abbey's old chief of staff in s1 to the s4 episode where Abbey has just made Amy her chief of staff because on the surface, those episodes have very similar plots. The s1 scenes are indeed there to make points about Josh and Jed Bartlet both, not so much about Abbey or her chief of staff. The s4 episode is about Abbey and Amy, with Josh and Jed only playing supporting roles.

I'll do my best to get through s5 quickly then.

[gaspodex.livejournal.com]

Just want to second the views above .. Season 5 lost its way a bit (to be honest it's not THAT bad, but compared to what had come before (and what was to come after) it was a low point and a lot of the early fans nave came back. It was a wierd choice to bring pretty much the entire Friends writing team on board (and Matt Perry), but they spent the season finding there feet (and losing Matt Perry)and in the end brought the show back on track ...

[violaswamp.livejournal.com]

I love reading WW meta. I have a love/hate relationship with the show, and in S1-S2 the love predominated and in S3-S4 it was more 50/50. It has woman issues, and Sorkin-being-full-of-himself issues, but the characters are fantastic.

My problem with the LemonLyman (hee!) storyline was that, while Josh was supposed to be ridiculous in it, he's ridiculous because he takes ridiculous people seriously--i.e. the kind of people who post about TV shows on the internet. I.e., you and me. So yeah, he's stupid, but only by association with us. Plus, using your TV show to get revenge on the mods of a website is kinda silly.

[redfiona99.livejournal.com]

Re: Toby/CJ, I think some people would suggest the scene in the 'how Bartlett assembled the staff' episode in S1 or S2, where CJ falls into the pool.

The day I understand the British hatred of the French is the day I've earned the British passport I have, because I really don't get it. My Mum likes to blame the Normans.

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

I almost mentioned the pool scene. There is a bit where Toby laughs because CJ asks him to look away. I always thought were were supposed to take that he's laughing because he's already seen her naked at some point. (And then later she doesn't care if he looks, even though her clothes are no less clingy than they were thirty seconds ago.)

[trude.livejournal.com]

How CJ/Toby came about, as far as I can remember: There's an episode in the middle of season one where the West Wing-guys decide not to tell CJ about the India-Pakistan crisis that has just started, which subsequently makes her look foolish in front of the press corps. Toby eventually apologizes to her, and it's sort of adorable (though not particularly "shippy").

Anyway, around the same time, some talk-show host asked Richard Schiff if Toby was secretly yearning for CJ. He didn't outright deny it, and the fandom snowballed from there. I think I've seen it called "a het slash-ship" or something similar, and that's not all wrong, there was a lot of "Look I know this isn't canon, at least not canon canon, but did you see that look they gave each other last episode? Totally yearning."-discussion amongst shippers. (Another thing the fanbase unfortunately had in common with some segments of slash-shippers was the slamming of canonical love interests - the demonizing of Andi, in particular, was one of the reasons I gave up the ship.)

Also, around season two there were some pretty good CJ/Toby-stories written. That probably contributed to the ship's popularity.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

There was Andi bashing? Sigh. But yes, not completely unexpected given how some shippers in all fandoms behave.

...are there any good Andi/Toby stories I could read, btw?

[trude.livejournal.com]

...are there any good Andi/Toby stories I could read, btw?

Don't have any recs, alas (A/T was kind of a rare-pair back when I was semi-active in WW-fandom, which is a shame because they have a really interesting dynamic and there is plenty of back-story to speculate about) but nine_innings (http://community.livejournal.com/nine_innings/) might be a good place to start if you're looking for fic.

forgot to add

[trude.livejournal.com]

about the nine innings: Warning for season 5-7 spoilers.

[nomadicwriter]

Reasons by USCJCF is a great season 4 Andi fic.

Man, I need to get back to reading West Wing. ...And actually watch seasons six and seven at some point. (That same all-seasons box set has been calling to me, despite the fact I already have seasons 1, 2 and 4 on DVD, and, also, absolutely no money.) I loved the first four years with an unholy fannish love - in fact, my new Alias love is probably the first time I've fallen for another show nearly as hard - but season five was mostly deadly dull and the last two seasons never aired on TV over here, so I just never got round to picking them up.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Oh, thank you! That really is a good story, and just what I wanted to read.

Maybe we'll watch the last two seasons simultanously, then?

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

My friend soaked_in_stars is a big Andy/Toby person. (I don't know which of hers are not spoilery, however.)