The West Wing Seasons 6-7
Dec. 5th, 2008 04:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakOr, the ones where a lot of people get new jobs and the credits keep changing. I've only just seen Tomorrow, so forgive me for being a bit misty-eyed right now. No more West Wing for me to watch!
I think the crucial change between the last two seasons and the fifth one isn't just the two campaign storylines - the primaries in s6, the national election in s7 - but the decision to make them the main plot, with the White House plots gradually fading in the background. In s6, every second episode takes place in the White House, but even those have a campaign subplot; in s7, it's only every third or fourth. By and large, I think this was the right decision, not just because the number of stories you can write about an administration is ultimately limited before the problems it faces get repetitive but also because it offered the writing staff the chance to get out of Aaron Sorkin's shadow by bringing in their own characters without this feeling articial.
This being said, I was always torn. On the one hand, I really liked most of the newbies - Kate, Annabeth, Arnold Vinick especially - but on the other, I felt regretful and melancholy about some dynamics and characters that disappeared or at least didn't get any scenes together anymore because of the changed screentime. One good example of this give and take is that where season 4 had left us with Abbey Bartlett being friends with CJ, having just hired Amy as her chief of staff, the rest of the series saw Amy leaving (hooray for her return at the end, more about that later) quickly and CJ, when she did get scenes with Abbey at all, being back to calling her Ma'am. But even while I bemoan this loss of female relationships I declare myself delighted about all the CJ and Kate scenes (and a great many of them dealing with the two of them solving political problems, just as their positions deserved, which I loved) in the last two seasons, and also about CJ establishing her own rapport with Margaret.
(One loss we didn't get something in exchange for in season 6 was the complete lack of Jed Bartlet and Toby interaction; in season 7, of course, what we did get was spare but crucial. More about this later, as it deserves some character analysis. But in s6, I really missed these scenes, because theirs is a pretty unique relationship neither of them has with anyone else, and I think that particular season 7 subplot would have had even greater impact if we had gotten some of their discussion scenes of yore in s6.)
(And while we're speaking of Toby, there also was no Andi in season 6, aside from a brief glimpse in the opener. I felt bereft.)
I remember reading![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
inlovewithnight's posts about starting to watch The West Wing and her devout wish Josh would be devoured by bears, and am not surprised the reviews stop after s5, because if you don't like Josh, you're pretty much screwed in the last two seasons, given that he becomes the closest thing the show has to a leading man there. I like Josh, but I confess I occasionally wished there would have been a bit less of him and a bit more of, see above. I also can't help suspecting that CJ's promotion after Leo's heart attack was solely in service of Josh's storyline - if Josh had been promoted to Leo's position, he couldn't have credibly quit to become Santos' campaign manager - instead of being a follow-up to her own. This being said, it did get me those CJ and Kate saving the world scenes on a regular basis, so I'm not really complaining.
Speaking of Kate saving the world: I was very amused that in the Cuba episode in s6 after her CIA past came up, no sooner had I thought "so, basically, Kate was Sydney Bristow" that we actually saw her in a flashback as a brunette looking exactly like Jennifer Garner in s4 of Alias. Is there a crossover where she's revealed as Sydney's SpyCousin? We still have an unaccounted for niece of Irina...
(And since I'm talking hair colours: what is it with the invasion of the blondes? In late s5, we get Kate who's blonde. (In the present at least.) In s6, we get Annabeth and Helen Santos who are also blonde. And there is no red-haired Andi, black-haired Amy doesn't show up again until late in s7, and Abbey Bartlett shows up less and less, too, leaving CJ as the only brunette holding the fort in a sea of blondes. What is it with the blonde agenda, show?)
If you compare the two compaigns, I think the national one in s7 is better written. The one in s6 slightly suffers from the fact that of Santos' two rivals, Hoynes got the Dukat treatment (though at least here he's early s6 Dukat instead of post-Waltz Dukat), and there never is any question of Russell being someone the audience could take as a serious contender to succeed Bartlet. Yes, Will and Donna work for him, but this is presented as a bit of a sell-out on Will's part and on a necessary stop to independence on Donna's. Whereas the show goes out of its way in s7 to show the Republican Vinick campaign as every bit as motivated by idealism and people devoted to their candidate as Democratic Santos campaign, with the sole dislikable Republican only becoming a part of the campaign very late in the game, and not in a way that makes the rest look bad. If you compare the way Bruno (about whose return I squeed a bit - hello, Bruno, good to see you again!) and his decision to work for Vinick are presented to how Will and in a different way Donna's decision to work for Russell are presented, it's as noticable as in the presentation of Vinick as a worthy rival and smart, honorable man versus the presentation of Hoynes and Russell both.
Santos himself caused me some weird disconnect because watching Jimmy Smitts in the role is a bit odd if you watch him simultanously as Miguel Prado on Dexter; I also think he probably was the trickiest character for the writers to get a hold on. They clearly didnt want to make him Jed Bartlet, Mark II, only younger, and they successfully avoided Latino clichés. But they didn't move beyond "charismatic leader", either. If you look at s1, the way Sorkin managed to make Bartlet a real character instead of of some noble but not that interesting figure was both through the quirks - the geeking out, the endless fondness for trivia, what Toby once called his absent minded professor routine, the inability to quit smoking despite knowing better - and through some genuine flaws along with the virtues. And with flaws I don't just mean "good" flaws like, say, intellectual arrogance (which he has), but something like the ability to be genuinenly petty and hold a grudge (which I think we see for the first time mid-s1 when Hoynes finally asks him about the reason for the constant put-downs and Bartlet frankly replies they're because Hoynes made him beg (to accept the VP nomination)). After two seasons, I couldn't tell you what Matt Santos' flaws are, and I don't recall any quirks, either.
After having something of a problematic time in terms of writing in s5, Leo got a great last and a half season. I knew John Spencer died before the show was over, but I didn't know when, though I figured out it couldn't be directly after the heart attack (they wouldn't have made him play that if he had been that sick at this point). Still, the end of s6 with him getting the VP nomination did come as a surprise (not in a bad way). It's interesting to compare his story in s6 to Toby's in s7 in one particular regard. The argument between Leo and the President at the start of s6 has been prepared by their disagreement re: Palestinians at the end of s5, which only got intensified through the season opener. I briefly wondered whether or not the show was being fair or taking the easy way out by the way Jed Bartlet's guilt trip after Leo's heart attack immediately patched over the initial argument but then decided that due to the BFF type of relationship they have after such a reconciliation the instant reconciliation is true to character. On the other hand, the argument itself was also in character for both, not just the different positions on the "to bomb or not to bomb" question but a bad reaction to what was perceived as an ultimatum. (Plus, let's face it, next to politics Jed Bartlet is the love of Leo's life, and there isn't much he wouldn't forgive instantly.) All of which leads to hugs and domesticity in the second half of the season, including tv watching on the sofa together, and then a mirror/contrast imagine in the s6 finale to the flashback in the s5 finale where a newly elected Jed Bartlet, just before facing reporters as President-elect for the first time, turns and says to Leo "it should have been you"; in the s6 finale, we see them both in profile and this time Leo goes out to be presented as candidate for VP on the Democratic ticket.
Now, the difference between this and any given Jed Bartlet/Toby argument even before s7 isn't just nearly 40 years of friendship but the fact the disagreements between Leo and the President are about things he should or shouldn't do, including the big "how to deal with the Palestinians" argument that leads to the break-up/heart attack/reconciliation events. They're about individual actions, but no more. Whereas arguments between Toby and the President might be triggered by individual actions but to my mind aren't really about them; they're about who Jed Bartlet is, who Toby thinks he should be, who Jed thinks Toby thinks he should be (not always the same thing), and about who Toby is. Hence the recurring of them. (In seasons 1-4, and somewhat in 5, where they have at least the social security episode, but not much more, and one assumes they did go in s6 OFFSCREEN, which I am still sulking about, see above.) In a way, it strikes me as a not even that metaphorical writer-and-muse relationship, with neither of them being completely clear as to who the writer and who the muse is, which also contributes to the struggle.
Honestly, I wasn't spoiled, and yet I knew even in the s6 finale, let alone subsequent s7 episodes, that the White House leak had to be Toby. For one thing, CJ was an obvious red herring, given that suspicion of her was almost instant, and also that she already had an episode where she was tempted to leak information but ultimately didn't back in the Sorkin era. And for another, the big hint was the President's angry "I want to know who thought he could make the moral decisions for me". Which isn't a CJ thing - not that she doesn't argue with him on ethical grounds at some points in the show, but she ultimately defers to him, plus she's both too professional and not nearly self destructive enough to leak classified information, again, see earlier - but it is a Toby thing. Or not. Because in this particular case, there were a lot of factors, Toby's dead brother the astronaut, the three astronauts in danger, the question of arming space, etc. On the other hand, it's likely Bartlet would have given the order to save the astronauts despite the secret military shuttle being not secret anymore as a result; probably not for another half an hour or so, but before the time frame was over. So it wasn't a clear-cut case of it only being about saving the astronauts, either. But however mixed Toby's motives were, Jed Bartlet takes it entirely personally, and as a result we get one of those rare cold and hence incredibly wounding displays of anger. There is a difference here to, say, angry and immediate temper outbursts when the media or someone else goes after his daughters. Or even the kind of anger he showed very early in the show when his doctor was killed. The episode deliberately lets time pass between the President being told it was Toby (though I had the impression he at the least suspected this already in their brief scene earlier together, with the pointed remark about CJ) and their confrontation at the end. And the crucial act here isn't the firing itself (which under the circumstances is the law) but that Jed Bartlet very deliberately first does a Toby; i.e. he makes an eviscerating analytical statement not about this particular action but about Toby's psychological and emotional nature in general. Is the kind of remarks Toby makes towards Bartlet himself in earlier seasons and in this one towards Josh and CJ. And then he follows it up with "there are a lot of people who will think of you as a hero; but I don't want you to imagine, not even for a moment, that I am one of them". And there you have it. The argument about nature, not individual actions; about the ideas of each other.
Toby takes everything personally. Will leaving to work with the VP, Josh leaving to work with Santos, those are all not career moves in his eyes but desertions aimed at himself and reasons for pointed Et tu, Brute type of remarks. (Conversly, Ann Stark is able to dupe him because he doesn't think someone who has a personal good relationship with him would stab him in the back politically.) And of course words are his medium, his weapon and his defense, and the element that connects him with the man he writes for. Which makes this scene so painful and effective.
We see Toby only intermittendly during the rest of the season, but enough to get how he feels, and also in scenes that cover his relationships with Josh, CJ, Andi and his children. But we have to wait until the finale for a follow-up on Toby and the President. (Other than the brief and cryptic acknowledgement during Leo's funeral.) Given that the season opened with a scene set three years later, an epilogue set at the start of the last chapter, so to speak, a scene that tells us three years from now the gang, including Toby Ziegler and Jed Bartlet, will be on friendly terms with each other again, I did guess that it somehow wouldn't end with Toby in prison. The presidential pardon possibility hadn't occured to me, but when Andi asked CJ it seemed inevitable and yet the idea felt as not satisfying enough a follow up to what had happened before. Then the show did something very clever. Because what made the gesture work in the end was that CJ didn't ask the President for it, or Josh, or anyone else. (And of course Toby wouldn't.) But that he put Toby's name on the list himself. (Judging by reactions to real life presidential pardons, including my own, I guess in the West Wingverse the general assumption now will be Toby had leaked the information with the silent or verbal approval of the rest of the administration and/or the President.) And leaves it till the end so Jed Bartlet's last act as President of the United States is writing his name under a document about Toby Ziegler. The symbolism seems eminently fitting.
HOWEVER: a look at the National Library archive of WW fanfiction leads me to the conclusion that fandom fails me. Because if something demands a follow up and exploration by fanfic, it's this, the gap between the pardon and the three years later scene. For starters, I can't imagine this being bridged by a hug a la Leo and Jed, because the relationship is so very different. What I can imagine is Toby being incredibly mad and driving up to New Hampshire to launch into a rant about make-yourself-feel-good sentimental gestures, leading to a counter explosion about self righteous martyrdom. Which is when Toby intends to make a grand exit, but that canonical snow storm in New England lets him be stuck in Manchester for the next week. Leading to more arguments and eventual chess games. Also, you know that when the MS eventually claims limbs permanently, Toby is the guy you can rely on to show up and still argue instead of speaking in hushed tones, which I imagine will be incredibly important for the former President, and they both know it but it won't ever be an easy relationship.
So why has no one written that yet? Or did they and I haven't found it? I did find an ensemble story post-Tomorrow and pre-season opener flashforward, Fruits of Communion, which is good but not quite what I have in mind.
Lastly: as was remarked in several media, there are some parallels between those last two seasons and real life, made a bit eerier by several characters being loosely based on their real life counterparts. Still, I don't know whether they would have struck me if I hadn't been told about them in advance. (And they don't seem to stop, with the most recent one being the making-one's-former-rival-secretary-of-state thing.) Other than that, I was spoiled for Josh/Donna eventually happening, Kate/Will I had heard nothing about but found them fun together, Unexpected!Kristin Chenowitch as Annabeth was unexpected but aww on her teasing Leo and slightly crushing on him, hooray for Santos' main secretary being lesbian, but I have to say that the people finally coming together which really touched me were CJ and Danny (whom I believe when he says he has no problem being Mr. CJ Cregg, and how many guys exist like that on tv or in real life?). I do hope CJ took that gold fish with her to California. And hey, good to see Ainsley again, albeit briefly, and to know she's back being lawyer for the administration. God knows these people need one!
I think the crucial change between the last two seasons and the fifth one isn't just the two campaign storylines - the primaries in s6, the national election in s7 - but the decision to make them the main plot, with the White House plots gradually fading in the background. In s6, every second episode takes place in the White House, but even those have a campaign subplot; in s7, it's only every third or fourth. By and large, I think this was the right decision, not just because the number of stories you can write about an administration is ultimately limited before the problems it faces get repetitive but also because it offered the writing staff the chance to get out of Aaron Sorkin's shadow by bringing in their own characters without this feeling articial.
This being said, I was always torn. On the one hand, I really liked most of the newbies - Kate, Annabeth, Arnold Vinick especially - but on the other, I felt regretful and melancholy about some dynamics and characters that disappeared or at least didn't get any scenes together anymore because of the changed screentime. One good example of this give and take is that where season 4 had left us with Abbey Bartlett being friends with CJ, having just hired Amy as her chief of staff, the rest of the series saw Amy leaving (hooray for her return at the end, more about that later) quickly and CJ, when she did get scenes with Abbey at all, being back to calling her Ma'am. But even while I bemoan this loss of female relationships I declare myself delighted about all the CJ and Kate scenes (and a great many of them dealing with the two of them solving political problems, just as their positions deserved, which I loved) in the last two seasons, and also about CJ establishing her own rapport with Margaret.
(One loss we didn't get something in exchange for in season 6 was the complete lack of Jed Bartlet and Toby interaction; in season 7, of course, what we did get was spare but crucial. More about this later, as it deserves some character analysis. But in s6, I really missed these scenes, because theirs is a pretty unique relationship neither of them has with anyone else, and I think that particular season 7 subplot would have had even greater impact if we had gotten some of their discussion scenes of yore in s6.)
(And while we're speaking of Toby, there also was no Andi in season 6, aside from a brief glimpse in the opener. I felt bereft.)
I remember reading
inlovewithnight's posts about starting to watch The West Wing and her devout wish Josh would be devoured by bears, and am not surprised the reviews stop after s5, because if you don't like Josh, you're pretty much screwed in the last two seasons, given that he becomes the closest thing the show has to a leading man there. I like Josh, but I confess I occasionally wished there would have been a bit less of him and a bit more of, see above. I also can't help suspecting that CJ's promotion after Leo's heart attack was solely in service of Josh's storyline - if Josh had been promoted to Leo's position, he couldn't have credibly quit to become Santos' campaign manager - instead of being a follow-up to her own. This being said, it did get me those CJ and Kate saving the world scenes on a regular basis, so I'm not really complaining. Speaking of Kate saving the world: I was very amused that in the Cuba episode in s6 after her CIA past came up, no sooner had I thought "so, basically, Kate was Sydney Bristow" that we actually saw her in a flashback as a brunette looking exactly like Jennifer Garner in s4 of Alias. Is there a crossover where she's revealed as Sydney's SpyCousin? We still have an unaccounted for niece of Irina...
(And since I'm talking hair colours: what is it with the invasion of the blondes? In late s5, we get Kate who's blonde. (In the present at least.) In s6, we get Annabeth and Helen Santos who are also blonde. And there is no red-haired Andi, black-haired Amy doesn't show up again until late in s7, and Abbey Bartlett shows up less and less, too, leaving CJ as the only brunette holding the fort in a sea of blondes. What is it with the blonde agenda, show?)
If you compare the two compaigns, I think the national one in s7 is better written. The one in s6 slightly suffers from the fact that of Santos' two rivals, Hoynes got the Dukat treatment (though at least here he's early s6 Dukat instead of post-Waltz Dukat), and there never is any question of Russell being someone the audience could take as a serious contender to succeed Bartlet. Yes, Will and Donna work for him, but this is presented as a bit of a sell-out on Will's part and on a necessary stop to independence on Donna's. Whereas the show goes out of its way in s7 to show the Republican Vinick campaign as every bit as motivated by idealism and people devoted to their candidate as Democratic Santos campaign, with the sole dislikable Republican only becoming a part of the campaign very late in the game, and not in a way that makes the rest look bad. If you compare the way Bruno (about whose return I squeed a bit - hello, Bruno, good to see you again!) and his decision to work for Vinick are presented to how Will and in a different way Donna's decision to work for Russell are presented, it's as noticable as in the presentation of Vinick as a worthy rival and smart, honorable man versus the presentation of Hoynes and Russell both.
Santos himself caused me some weird disconnect because watching Jimmy Smitts in the role is a bit odd if you watch him simultanously as Miguel Prado on Dexter; I also think he probably was the trickiest character for the writers to get a hold on. They clearly didnt want to make him Jed Bartlet, Mark II, only younger, and they successfully avoided Latino clichés. But they didn't move beyond "charismatic leader", either. If you look at s1, the way Sorkin managed to make Bartlet a real character instead of of some noble but not that interesting figure was both through the quirks - the geeking out, the endless fondness for trivia, what Toby once called his absent minded professor routine, the inability to quit smoking despite knowing better - and through some genuine flaws along with the virtues. And with flaws I don't just mean "good" flaws like, say, intellectual arrogance (which he has), but something like the ability to be genuinenly petty and hold a grudge (which I think we see for the first time mid-s1 when Hoynes finally asks him about the reason for the constant put-downs and Bartlet frankly replies they're because Hoynes made him beg (to accept the VP nomination)). After two seasons, I couldn't tell you what Matt Santos' flaws are, and I don't recall any quirks, either.
After having something of a problematic time in terms of writing in s5, Leo got a great last and a half season. I knew John Spencer died before the show was over, but I didn't know when, though I figured out it couldn't be directly after the heart attack (they wouldn't have made him play that if he had been that sick at this point). Still, the end of s6 with him getting the VP nomination did come as a surprise (not in a bad way). It's interesting to compare his story in s6 to Toby's in s7 in one particular regard. The argument between Leo and the President at the start of s6 has been prepared by their disagreement re: Palestinians at the end of s5, which only got intensified through the season opener. I briefly wondered whether or not the show was being fair or taking the easy way out by the way Jed Bartlet's guilt trip after Leo's heart attack immediately patched over the initial argument but then decided that due to the BFF type of relationship they have after such a reconciliation the instant reconciliation is true to character. On the other hand, the argument itself was also in character for both, not just the different positions on the "to bomb or not to bomb" question but a bad reaction to what was perceived as an ultimatum. (Plus, let's face it, next to politics Jed Bartlet is the love of Leo's life, and there isn't much he wouldn't forgive instantly.) All of which leads to hugs and domesticity in the second half of the season, including tv watching on the sofa together, and then a mirror/contrast imagine in the s6 finale to the flashback in the s5 finale where a newly elected Jed Bartlet, just before facing reporters as President-elect for the first time, turns and says to Leo "it should have been you"; in the s6 finale, we see them both in profile and this time Leo goes out to be presented as candidate for VP on the Democratic ticket.
Now, the difference between this and any given Jed Bartlet/Toby argument even before s7 isn't just nearly 40 years of friendship but the fact the disagreements between Leo and the President are about things he should or shouldn't do, including the big "how to deal with the Palestinians" argument that leads to the break-up/heart attack/reconciliation events. They're about individual actions, but no more. Whereas arguments between Toby and the President might be triggered by individual actions but to my mind aren't really about them; they're about who Jed Bartlet is, who Toby thinks he should be, who Jed thinks Toby thinks he should be (not always the same thing), and about who Toby is. Hence the recurring of them. (In seasons 1-4, and somewhat in 5, where they have at least the social security episode, but not much more, and one assumes they did go in s6 OFFSCREEN, which I am still sulking about, see above.) In a way, it strikes me as a not even that metaphorical writer-and-muse relationship, with neither of them being completely clear as to who the writer and who the muse is, which also contributes to the struggle.
Honestly, I wasn't spoiled, and yet I knew even in the s6 finale, let alone subsequent s7 episodes, that the White House leak had to be Toby. For one thing, CJ was an obvious red herring, given that suspicion of her was almost instant, and also that she already had an episode where she was tempted to leak information but ultimately didn't back in the Sorkin era. And for another, the big hint was the President's angry "I want to know who thought he could make the moral decisions for me". Which isn't a CJ thing - not that she doesn't argue with him on ethical grounds at some points in the show, but she ultimately defers to him, plus she's both too professional and not nearly self destructive enough to leak classified information, again, see earlier - but it is a Toby thing. Or not. Because in this particular case, there were a lot of factors, Toby's dead brother the astronaut, the three astronauts in danger, the question of arming space, etc. On the other hand, it's likely Bartlet would have given the order to save the astronauts despite the secret military shuttle being not secret anymore as a result; probably not for another half an hour or so, but before the time frame was over. So it wasn't a clear-cut case of it only being about saving the astronauts, either. But however mixed Toby's motives were, Jed Bartlet takes it entirely personally, and as a result we get one of those rare cold and hence incredibly wounding displays of anger. There is a difference here to, say, angry and immediate temper outbursts when the media or someone else goes after his daughters. Or even the kind of anger he showed very early in the show when his doctor was killed. The episode deliberately lets time pass between the President being told it was Toby (though I had the impression he at the least suspected this already in their brief scene earlier together, with the pointed remark about CJ) and their confrontation at the end. And the crucial act here isn't the firing itself (which under the circumstances is the law) but that Jed Bartlet very deliberately first does a Toby; i.e. he makes an eviscerating analytical statement not about this particular action but about Toby's psychological and emotional nature in general. Is the kind of remarks Toby makes towards Bartlet himself in earlier seasons and in this one towards Josh and CJ. And then he follows it up with "there are a lot of people who will think of you as a hero; but I don't want you to imagine, not even for a moment, that I am one of them". And there you have it. The argument about nature, not individual actions; about the ideas of each other.
Toby takes everything personally. Will leaving to work with the VP, Josh leaving to work with Santos, those are all not career moves in his eyes but desertions aimed at himself and reasons for pointed Et tu, Brute type of remarks. (Conversly, Ann Stark is able to dupe him because he doesn't think someone who has a personal good relationship with him would stab him in the back politically.) And of course words are his medium, his weapon and his defense, and the element that connects him with the man he writes for. Which makes this scene so painful and effective.
We see Toby only intermittendly during the rest of the season, but enough to get how he feels, and also in scenes that cover his relationships with Josh, CJ, Andi and his children. But we have to wait until the finale for a follow-up on Toby and the President. (Other than the brief and cryptic acknowledgement during Leo's funeral.) Given that the season opened with a scene set three years later, an epilogue set at the start of the last chapter, so to speak, a scene that tells us three years from now the gang, including Toby Ziegler and Jed Bartlet, will be on friendly terms with each other again, I did guess that it somehow wouldn't end with Toby in prison. The presidential pardon possibility hadn't occured to me, but when Andi asked CJ it seemed inevitable and yet the idea felt as not satisfying enough a follow up to what had happened before. Then the show did something very clever. Because what made the gesture work in the end was that CJ didn't ask the President for it, or Josh, or anyone else. (And of course Toby wouldn't.) But that he put Toby's name on the list himself. (Judging by reactions to real life presidential pardons, including my own, I guess in the West Wingverse the general assumption now will be Toby had leaked the information with the silent or verbal approval of the rest of the administration and/or the President.) And leaves it till the end so Jed Bartlet's last act as President of the United States is writing his name under a document about Toby Ziegler. The symbolism seems eminently fitting.
HOWEVER: a look at the National Library archive of WW fanfiction leads me to the conclusion that fandom fails me. Because if something demands a follow up and exploration by fanfic, it's this, the gap between the pardon and the three years later scene. For starters, I can't imagine this being bridged by a hug a la Leo and Jed, because the relationship is so very different. What I can imagine is Toby being incredibly mad and driving up to New Hampshire to launch into a rant about make-yourself-feel-good sentimental gestures, leading to a counter explosion about self righteous martyrdom. Which is when Toby intends to make a grand exit, but that canonical snow storm in New England lets him be stuck in Manchester for the next week. Leading to more arguments and eventual chess games. Also, you know that when the MS eventually claims limbs permanently, Toby is the guy you can rely on to show up and still argue instead of speaking in hushed tones, which I imagine will be incredibly important for the former President, and they both know it but it won't ever be an easy relationship.
So why has no one written that yet? Or did they and I haven't found it? I did find an ensemble story post-Tomorrow and pre-season opener flashforward, Fruits of Communion, which is good but not quite what I have in mind.
Lastly: as was remarked in several media, there are some parallels between those last two seasons and real life, made a bit eerier by several characters being loosely based on their real life counterparts. Still, I don't know whether they would have struck me if I hadn't been told about them in advance. (And they don't seem to stop, with the most recent one being the making-one's-former-rival-secretary-of-state thing.) Other than that, I was spoiled for Josh/Donna eventually happening, Kate/Will I had heard nothing about but found them fun together, Unexpected!Kristin Chenowitch as Annabeth was unexpected but aww on her teasing Leo and slightly crushing on him, hooray for Santos' main secretary being lesbian, but I have to say that the people finally coming together which really touched me were CJ and Danny (whom I believe when he says he has no problem being Mr. CJ Cregg, and how many guys exist like that on tv or in real life?). I do hope CJ took that gold fish with her to California. And hey, good to see Ainsley again, albeit briefly, and to know she's back being lawyer for the administration. God knows these people need one!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-12-05 06:32 pm (UTC)On mine, too, but I didn't know that when watching season 6!
He wouldn't say who the someone was... and for a while I've wondered if it was Leo. By that point, Leo wasn't White House CoS, he wasn't the VP nominee, he wasn't anyone in a firm position - which I think may have allowed him to think that he could leak it, while not involving the White House in it. Then, when he became VP, he couldn't own up without sinking Santos. And Toby only confesses when Leo is subpoenaed.
Two big problems with that: Even though he couldn't have confessed anything officially without sinking Santos, I don't believe Leo would have kept quiet unofficially and let Toby take the blame, especially not towards Jed. He'd have told him the truth. And then there is the premise - I'm not sure Leo, had he been in charge, would have given the order to save the astronauts at the cost of revealing the military shuttle, or that he would have advised Jed to do so had he still been CoS instead of campaigning out there. But forcing Jed's hand via a leak in the press? Just strikes me as completely ooc. I can more likely see him go ballistic over someone else doing it.
The head of Vinnick's campaign was awesome, yes.
Although it does allow the best line in existence, which is "I thought a degree in economics was plenty for this job; my kingdom for a plumbing license" - hee!
:) S7 has some great lines. I'm also fond of "Josh has the political equivalent of Tourette's syndrome" - which is totally true.
And d'you see where the CJ/Toby contingent were coming from, now? *g*
With CJ's line at getting sloshed enough to forget working together and Toby's rant later when she's visiting him about basking in male attention, I think they have at least a case that they strike one as friends who used to be lovers a while ago, and with whom one could plausibly imagine a one night stand happening, yes. But I still don't ship them with each other.*g* (Both because their respective other ships - Toby with Andi and CJ with Danny - are dear to me, and because I like them as friends and think they would be a train wreck in a romance.)
Pls to be writing in fic format??
The prospect of writing Toby & Jed dialogue intimidates the hell out of me. Considering English isn't my native language and they're both masters in it. *is chicken*
no subject
Date: 2008-12-05 07:28 pm (UTC)But that's kinda also why I had trouble with Toby as the leak, especially in light of his S3 (S4?) comments to the staffers after one of them leaks that Bartlett will be elected on Hoynes's coattails - "you're my guys, and I'm yours. We're a team." It would be a very different Toby who them turned around and decided to act unilaterally. Which is part of the reason why I had trouble with Toby-as-a-leak.
:) S7 has some great lines. I'm also fond of "Josh has the political equivalent of Tourette's syndrome" - which is totally true.
Yes, totally!
With CJ's line at getting sloshed enough to forget working together and Toby's rant later when she's visiting him about basking in male attention,
And don't forget her standing practically hip-to-hip while he asks her if she came over to seduce him...
I think they have at least a case that they strike one as friends who used to be lovers a while ago, and with whom one could plausibly imagine a one night stand happening, yes.
I always tended to go with the 'they had brief thing either before/after Andy, which turned into mutual respect and friendship' backstory, which worked for me. It explained why Toby was a lot more sexually suggestive with CJ than the other staffers dared (except maybe Charlie, weirdly *g*) - because he wouldn't offend her, or it wouldn't be taken as a come-on - and also why he could go and persuade CJ to join the campaign way back when. Plus it explains the little frisson of... something that CJ/Toby shippers picked up. But I have trouble with stories pairing anyone in the administration while they are still in the White House, so the CJ/Toby stories I could get behind were the ones (before S7 came out) which had a post-administration romance. One in particular - The Rarest Faith - was a novel that you probably already read, but it was a post-administration look at the gang, and worked very well for me. It was written sometime in S3/4, I believe.
That said, CJ/Danny worked for me, because I really liked Danny for her. I liked that he respected her, and that he was a guy who was relatively ok with himself and wasn't a masochistic self-torturing genius like Toby (as Abbey says once - don't go for the geniuses, they never want to sleep). Danny is smart, but his intelligence doesn't seem to cripple him emotionally, which it sorta does Toby. And Andy is a saint for putting up with him, basically. (I say it with love, of course. *g*) I will always love the CJ/Toby heavy flirtation fics that stay on just the right side of canoninity, but haven't looked for any CJ/T fix-it versions of S7.
(Both because their respective other ships - Toby with Andi and CJ with Danny - are dear to me, and because I like them as friends and think they would be a train wreck in a romance.)
Yes. Although that can sometimes be good, too. But somewhat painful to read if you love the characters as much as I do.
The prospect of writing Toby & Jed dialogue intimidates the hell out of me. Considering English isn't my native language and they're both masters in it. *is chicken*
If you do this, I swear to god I will stand on the side and wave pompoms and cheer the entire time.
And also write anything you want in exchange.Yes.no subject
Date: 2008-12-06 08:06 am (UTC)I think it was s3, and I do remember that scene, but for one thing, the nature of the leak different - leaking the "Bartlet will be relected on Hoynes' coattails" quote had no other purpose than damaging the President and getting money from the papers, while leaking the information about the military shuttle didn't just ensure the President would have no choice but give the order, it also revealed the US arming space (Toby makes a bitter Julius Rosenberg joke later, and there is an obvious comparison in the rationale there). For another, this is just two episodes after the one where Toby's brother committed suicide and Richard Schiff's acting was just devastating there. Moreover, the Bartlet administration was coming to an end and we do know Toby didn't believe Santos could win the election; he genuinenly thought there would be a Republican White House soon. Plus it's not as if Jed's analysis in the confrontation is completely off - Toby does have a self-destructive, self-tormenting streak a mile wide. So not only did I assume it was him from the end of s6 onwards but I could believe it was.
I liked that he respected her, and that he was a guy who was relatively ok with himself and wasn't a masochistic self-torturing genius like Toby (as Abbey says once - don't go for the geniuses, they never want to sleep). Danny is smart, but his intelligence doesn't seem to cripple him emotionally, which it sorta does Toby.
True. Toby and CJ are both high maintenance. Incidentally, it just struck me that Danny, Toby, Will and to some degree Josh are unusual for American tv, where the male leads more usually than not all look like Rob Lowe. And one of the many things I love about CJ is that Alison Janney while always coming across as elegant and charming isn't, to use that tired old phrase, conventionally beautiful. Or too young to realistically hold the jobs she has. There is a life between young ingenues and mother roles for women on American tv!
If you do this, I swear to god I will stand on the side and wave pompoms and cheer the entire time.
Are you asking me to jump of a cliff?
no subject
Date: 2008-12-06 04:19 pm (UTC)On the other hand, both Toby and Josh (and CJ) have done things in support of the administration which they found morally objectionable. (relations with Qumar, lying to unions, the WTO, etc) They'd argue with the President, then go out there and do what needs to be done. I agree that Toby is more likely than the others to think that he knows best, but he'd know exactly what he'd be doing and the impact it would have, and I'm just not sure if he'd be willing to cripple all the good the administration could do in its last two years for this.
For another, this is just two episodes after the one where Toby's brother committed suicide and Richard Schiff's acting was just devastating there.
Yes, it is, most definitely. But - if he was acting out of grief, that's different from acting out of a sense of holding the moral high ground. And it can't be both ways, it's one or the other.
Toby does have a self-destructive, self-tormenting streak a mile wide.
But he doesn't usually take down other people with him, is the thing. I can see him immolating himself on a pyre to prove a point, but not dragging everyone else along for half the time. So, in a way, him not immediately owning up to it made me think it wasn't him - because he'd have to know that the investigation would be awful and it would hobble the White House, and CJ would be suspected, and if it was him, he sat back and let it happen for over 6 months. Which makes it a very cowardly act on his part. And I'm not comfortable with that, because I don't think it's very much like Toby - and he'd be much more willing to take the blame for someone else.
Or too young to realistically hold the jobs she has.
One of the issues
Are you asking me to jump of a cliff?
Yes. Yes, I am.