Assorted thoughts on Noel
Marny Helfrich
Brad, of course.
Thoughts:
-- Adam Arkin was really good in this episode, but of course he has had
practice in this role -- his character on Chicago Hope worked as a
psychiatrist when he couldn't be a neurosurgeon anymore. Would have been
funny if his name had been Aaron on the show (as it was, I thought it was a
little odd that his name was Stanley, given that Josh's other therapist was
named Stanley.)
-- The last time Josh was in therapist's office, it had to do with music,
too ("I can't get Ave Maria out of my head" -- The Crackpots and These
Women.)
-- I loved watching Toby watch Josh. Great acting with no words by Richard
Schiff.
-- I think there is some Harry Truman in Bartlett, well reflected in his
fondness for dressing up.
-- Continuity points: Josh mentions that "Bob Shanahan was there" ("Shanahan
got in with Leo. Josh didn't get in the car" -- Toby, ITSOTG1); the snooty
guy criticizes the president's taste in paintings ("We try to avoid having
the president make aesthetic decisions" - Sam, FVD.); Josh worries about the
effect of his diagnosis on his job ("I think the idea [of him getting
therapy] would make some of the people I work for nervous" -- Josh,
Crackpots).
Do you think we will ever meet "Shanahan"? What do you think his job is?
-- When Leo says he has been "down there" before, I wonder how literally he
means it. He was in Vietnam, right ("As a guy who flew planes in the
war," - WKODHIB)? Maybe it was PTSD that triggered his substance abuse
problems.
-- I bet Donna first knew that something was wrong with Josh when he agreed
to let her go to the Christmas party without giving her a hard time. Very
out of character!
-- In "The Midterms" it looks like Josh lives in a townhouse (or as we call
them in Baltimore, a row house); in this episode it looks like he lives in
an apartment building.
-- I love that POTUS thought he would sign his own Christmas cards. I also
love that he and Charlie can joke about death threats in the mail. They
have come a long way, and without therapy.
-- Stanley's "We get better" reminded me of POTUS's comment to Toby in "The
Midterms" that "I know it going to be better tomorrow, and better the day
after that."
-- I like the way this was handled, that Josh was shown to be experiencing
after effects of the shooting and some serious consequences thereof, without
having the psychological equivalent of an inoperable brain tumor.
Significant, but not melodramatic, and manageable. Perfect.
-- So now we have seen the impact of the shooting on CJ, Toby, Charlie,
POTUS, and Josh. Sam and Leo just shook it off, I guess :)
That's all for now.
Marny
kfj
"Marny Helfrich" <mhel...@home.com> wrote:
> This was a great episode, wasn't it! Fine work by everyone,
especially
> Brad, of course.
a
d
d
i
n
g
i
n
s
o
m
e
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
>
> Thoughts:
>
> -- [...]Would have been
> funny if his name had been Aaron on the show (as it was, I thought it
was a
> little odd that his name was Stanley, given that Josh's other
therapist was
> named Stanley.)
Amy keeps mentioning that. :)
>
> -- The last time Josh was in therapist's office, it had to do with
music,
> too ("I can't get Ave Maria out of my head" -- The Crackpots and These
> Women.)
poor guy. Music good, not listening to music bad. But this time it was
trigger, not indication.
> -- Continuity points: Josh mentions that "Bob Shanahan was there"
("Shanahan
> got in with Leo. Josh didn't get in the car" -- Toby, ITSOTG1); the
snooty
> guy criticizes the president's taste in paintings ("We try to avoid
having
> the president make aesthetic decisions" - Sam, FVD.); Josh worries
about the
> effect of his diagnosis on his job ("I think the idea [of him getting
> therapy] would make some of the people I work for nervous" -- Josh,
> Crackpots).
> Do you think we will ever meet "Shanahan"? What do you think his
job is?
He must be senior staff.
But it was great to see that repetition of the names and stuff. Maybe
someone is trying to defeat the demons of continuity. ;)
>
> -- When Leo says he has been "down there" before, I wonder how
literally he
> means it. He was in Vietnam, right ("As a guy who flew planes in the
> war," - WKODHIB)? Maybe it was PTSD that triggered his substance
abuse
> problems.
Given that Leo's dad was a drunk who killed himself when Leo was a
child, I don't think he needed Vietnam for additional trauma to put him
on the wagon of drinking.
> -- In "The Midterms" it looks like Josh lives in a townhouse (or as
we call
> them in Baltimore, a row house); in this episode it looks like he
lives in
> an apartment building.
But it could easily be a townhouse that is subdivided into apartments.
> -- I like the way this was handled, that Josh was shown to be
experiencing
> after effects of the shooting and some serious consequences thereof,
without
> having the psychological equivalent of an inoperable brain tumor.
> Significant, but not melodramatic, and manageable. Perfect.
Yeah. Very very good episode.
>
> -- So now we have seen the impact of the shooting on CJ, Toby,
Charlie,
> POTUS, and Josh. Sam and Leo just shook it off, I guess :)
I think Leo is the best of them since he has meetings.
-k
--
I said he should, if for no other reason than it's the easiest thing to
remember, tell the truth. -Toby Ziegler, The West Wing
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
AMYSA
>a
>d
>d
>i
>n
>g
>i
>n
>s
>o
>m
>e
>s
>p
>o
>i
>l
>e
>r
>odd that his name was Stanley, given that Josh's other
>therapist was
>> named Stanley.)
>
>Amy keeps mentioning that. :)
>
i need my own stanley to help me deal with the fact that i'm obsessing over it.
<g>
amy
"okay, are you like a hobbit or something?"--phil
Annie Keitz
>> -- In "The Midterms" it looks like Josh lives in a townhouse (or as
>we call
>> them in Baltimore, a row house); in this episode it looks like he
>lives in
>> an apartment building.
>
>But it could easily be a townhouse that is subdivided into apartments.
Actually it's quite common for the townhouses in DC to be subdivided
into apartments in the older neighborhoods like Georgetown, Capital
Hill or Adams-Morgan. I assumed this was the case with Josh's place.
Lynn
>>
>>> -- In "The Midterms" it looks like Josh lives in a townhouse (or as
>>>we call them in Baltimore, a row house); in this episode it looks like he
>>>lives in an apartment building.
>>
>
>>But it could easily be a townhouse that is subdivided into apartments.
>
>
>Actually it's quite common for the townhouses in DC to be subdivided
>into apartments in the older neighborhoods like Georgetown, Capital
>Hill or Adams-Morgan. I assumed this was the case with Josh's place.
That's what I was wondering. In Midterms, I assumed it was one residence
per stoop, as it were. Where I live (Silicon Valley) we generally don't
have "supers", or anybody, for that matter, who's onsite 24/7.
--
Lynn
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes
genius... -Arthur Conan Doyle, "The Valley of Fear"
============================================================================
* WingNuts: <http://users.lmi.net/ennui/wingnuts001.htm> *
* West Wing: <http://users.lmi.net/ennui/westwing001.htm> *
* Netiquette: <http://users.lmi.net/ennui/usenet001.htm> *
************************************************************
Pat
believe he said that! Was it the writers? or does the actor not know how
grammatically bad that sentence was?
Pat
R J Valentine
] Did you catch it when the President said, "Me and my friend..." I couldn't
] believe he said that! Was it the writers? or does the actor not know how
] grammatically bad that sentence was?
Except it's not that ungrammatical (don't believe me? stop by
alt.usage.english and ask innocently or search for "PDNTC" on
alt.usage.english at deja.com and see what's been said in years past, if
they still have it), and they've done it before on _The West Wing_ (who
was it, Sam?). Would you rather have him say "I and my friend..."? (No,
wh're not talking about "My friend and I"; that's manners, not grammar;
you brought up grammar.) The scriptwriters were obviously trolling.
They win.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@clark.net?subject=%3Cnews:alt.tv.the-west-wing%3E%20>
Longshanks
> Pat <sylda...@spamyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ] Did you catch it when the President said, "Me and my friend..." I couldn't
> ] believe he said that! Was it the writers? or does the actor not know how
> ] grammatically bad that sentence was?
>
> Except it's not that ungrammatical (don't believe me? stop by
> alt.usage.english and ask innocently or search for "PDNTC" on
> alt.usage.english at deja.com
What are you talking about? Of course that's ungrammatical. "Me" is the objective
case, and, in this sentence, it should have been "I" because it's the subjective
case.
> Would you rather have him say "I and my friend..."?
Certainly. It would be grammatically correct.
> No, we're not talking about "My friend and I"; that's manners, not grammar;
Uh... what? What do you mean "manners"? He should have said "My friend and I"
because it's grammatically correct; what do manners have to do with it? And, "I and
my friend" would also be correct.
> The scriptwriters were obviously trolling. They win.
What are you talking about?
Ed Wilson
--
From Saskatchewan--the Wheat Province; Land of Living Skies; Home of the RCMP
Visit Cottsweb, where it's always 1985: http://members.tripod.com/~briancotts
Longshanks
President said "Me and my friend..."? Was it actually the subjective or the objective
case?
Hunter Rose
<mhel...@home.com> wrote:
>Do you think we will ever meet "Shanahan"? What do you think his job
>is?
Isn't he one of the protection guys? (They don't like to be
called Secret Service, right? What *do* we call them?)
>-- When Leo says he has been "down there" before, I wonder how
>literally he means it. He was in Vietnam, right ("As a guy who flew
>planes in the war," - WKODHIB)? Maybe it was PTSD that triggered his
>substance abuse problems.
I presumed "down there" meant dealing with his alcoholism.
Just my impression.
>-- Stanley's "We get better" reminded me of POTUS's comment to Toby
>in "The Midterms" that "I know it going to be better tomorrow, and
>better the day after that."
I wondered if "'We' get better" meant that Stanley had also
had some personal experience with PTSD.
HR
Emyric Pidgeon
>had some personal experience with PTSD.
>
I took it as concise elegace at human wonder on Sorkin's part. It
reminded me of the President's last words to the junior Senator(?) who
got left in the Oval Office during the State of the Union address.
POTUS said to him "You'll do fine. People have phenomenal capacity."
I'm sure there have been other examples I'm forgetting of this kind of
dialogue... I just really enjoy the subtle "human beings are pretty
interesting animals" sentiment, alluding not only to our virtues but
also our faults.
(I'm not sure if I said any of that as well as I might have... hope it
wasn't too confusing or obvious or anything)
- M
R J Valentine
the apparent error:
(In another posting) Longshanks <longs...@home.com> wrote:
] Before this thread goes any further, does anyone have the exact quote
] where the President said "Me and my friend..."? Was it actually the
] subjective or the objective case?
I don't know about exact quotes, but Pat's quote below is essentially
correct, and the "Me" was first and in the objective case, and they've
done it before on _The West Wing_, and it has been discussed before on
alt.tv.the-west-wing.))
[Resuming at the beginning:]
Longshanks <longs...@home.com> wrote:
] R J Valentine wrote:
]
]> Pat <sylda...@spamyahoo.com> wrote:
]>
]> ] Did you catch it when the President said, "Me and my friend..." I couldn't
]> ] believe he said that! Was it the writers? or does the actor not know how
]> ] grammatically bad that sentence was?
]>
]> Except it's not that ungrammatical (don't believe me? stop by
]> alt.usage.english and ask innocently or search for "PDNTC" on
]> alt.usage.english at deja.com
]
] What are you talking about? Of course that's ungrammatical. "Me" is
] the objective case, and, in this sentence, it should have been "I"
] because it's the subjective case.
Yes and no. That is indeed the grammar-school rule, but it may be the
most violated grammar-school rule on the books, to the point where one has
to decide whether it's the rule or the usage that's incorrect. If you're
taking a grammar-school test, you follow the grammar-school rule. In real
life it's not quite so cut and dried.
Just why it's not necessarily quite so grammatically bad as it's painted
by the grammar-school rule is probably beyond the scope of this newsgroup,
and it's been well discussed on the newsgroup cited where it is on-topic.
But don't think for a minute that somebody who can score an 800 on the SAT
Verbal would necessarily avoid it. The other side of the coin is that the
downside of preaching "It's not 'Me and you'; it's 'You and I'" is that
the "ungrammatical" sort of thing like "between you and I" is becoming so
common as to be accepted in some circles. You live by the grammar-school
rules, and you die by the grammar-school rules. If you get the
grammar-school rules so complicated that they cover all the cases, you
risk missing the insulating effect of conjunctions on the distal pronouns
of compound subjects and objects. Just between me and you, that's not a
good thing.
]> Would you rather have him say "I and my friend..."?
]
] Certainly. It would be grammatically correct.
Yes and no. There are certain grammar-school rules that would allow it,
but surely you'll have noticed that this particular usage is just not a
common one, which from one perspective is what makes it not grammatical.
It does have part of the compound subject in what is apparently a
subjective case (just so you don't think I'm missing the obvious).
]> No, we're not talking about "My friend and I"; that's manners, not grammar;
]
] Uh... what? What do you mean "manners"? He should have said "My friend
] and I" because it's grammatically correct; what do manners have to do with
] it? And, "I and my friend" would also be correct.
He _could_ have said "My friend and I" and it _would_ have been
grammatically correct. But he's the President of the United States, the
holder of several university degrees and a Nobel prize (at least on the
show), and he's not quite so easily dismissed by grammar-school rules.
"I and my friend" is the "grammatical" counterpart to what was actually
said on the show, and that "grammatical" counterpart is just not said in
practice, though what the President on the show said *is* fairly common,
however "ungrammatical". If they had the President say "I and my friend",
they would have been _way_ wrong. As it is, they were just startling some
pedants, who probably needed startling. The difference between "I and my
friend" and "My friend and I" is not "grammar" in the grammar-school
sense, but manners. Those are things you can check or observe for
yourself.
Let me guess: you didn't try alt.usage.english or deja.com before posting
here, right?
]> The scriptwriters were obviously trolling. They win.
]
] What are you talking about?
I am talking about a running joke on the show. They've done it before and
they did it again. They have apparently educated people using apparently
"ungrammatical" usages. It would be an insult to the scriptwriters, who
are otherwise pretty good at their jobs, to suggest that they just didn't
notice. I say they did it for the reaction, and I say they got what they
wanted.
] Ed Wilson
Jeremy Billones
Hunter Rose <hun...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Isn't he one of the protection guys? (They don't like to be
>called Secret Service, right? What *do* we call them?)
I don't think they mind Secret Service. It's calling them the SS that
really pisses them off :) (The "official" abbreviation is USSS.)
--
Jeremy Billones
"Captain, you are the most double-talking, suspicious, second-guessing
individual I have ever seen... since the last time I looked in a a mirror."
JennieD-O'C
>Longshanks <longs...@home.com> wrote:
>] What are you talking about? Of course that's ungrammatical. "Me" is
>] the objective case, and, in this sentence, it should have been "I"
>] because it's the subjective case.
>
>Yes and no. That is indeed the grammar-school rule, but it may be the
>most violated grammar-school rule on the books, to the point where one has
>to decide whether it's the rule or the usage that's incorrect. If you're
>taking a grammar-school test, you follow the grammar-school rule. In real
>life it's not quite so cut and dried.
Yep. And if you stopped by sci.lang (the newsgroup for discussion of
linguistic science) as opposed to alt.english.usage, you'll get a very
clear answer that it *isn't* ungrammatical, at least not in informal
situations.
---
Jennie D-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org> http://home.intranet.org/~jenniedo/
Forge
> > Isn't he one of the protection guys? (They don't like to be
> >called Secret Service, right? What *do* we call them?)
bill...@Radix.Net says...
> I don't think they mind Secret Service. It's calling them the SS that
> really pisses them off :) (The "official" abbreviation is USSS.)
Or since they work for the Treasury Department you could call them T-men.
But that kinda makes some people wanna say "Well I'm a leg man myself."
Longshanks
> (In another posting) Longshanks <longs...@home.com> wrote:
>
> ] Before this thread goes any further, does anyone have the exact quote
> ] where the President said "Me and my friend..."? Was it actually the
> ] subjective or the objective case?
>
> I don't know about exact quotes, but Pat's quote below is essentially
> correct, and the "Me" was first and in the objective case, and they've
> done it before on _The West Wing_, and it has been discussed before on
> alt.tv.the-west-wing.))
Someone else sent me a private answer saying that the pronoun should have been the
subjective case. So, without the full sentence that was spoken by the President, I
still don't know exactly what was said, and so I can't really make any further
comments.
Can anyone give me the full sentence? (This'll teach me to tape "West Wing" and
then keep the tape around.)
Jennifer Sessions
: ]
: ] What are you talking about?
:
: I am talking about a running joke on the show. They've done it before and
: they did it again. They have apparently educated people using apparently
: "ungrammatical" usages. It would be an insult to the scriptwriters, who
: are otherwise pretty good at their jobs, to suggest that they just didn't
: notice. I say they did it for the reaction, and I say they got what they
: wanted.
:
: ] Ed Wilson
Perhaps we're reading too much into this?
The writers could also simply be reflecting the fact that people perfectly
acquainted with the grammatical rules do not always follow them,
especially when speaking.
:) jes
Bobbie Dean
Pidgeon <epid...@uswest.net> wrote:
:> I wondered if "'We' get better" meant that Stanley had also
:>had some personal experience with PTSD.
:>
:
:I took it as concise elegace at human wonder on Sorkin's part. It
:reminded me of the President's last words to the junior Senator(?) who
:got left in the Oval Office during the State of the Union address.
:POTUS said to him "You'll do fine. People have phenomenal capacity."
:
It was the junior Cabinet officer who had been pulled out of the hat
to stay behind that evening.
B
Remember - Usenet isn't like life - it is often worse! ;-)
Charles A Lieberman
www.deja.com/msgid.xp?MID=<9210hk$sp1$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>
>people perfectly
>acquainted with the grammatical rules do not always follow them,
Me do.
--
Charles A. Lieberman | Taylor, you can't love a man with no head!
Brooklyn, New York, USA |
http://calieber.tripod.com/home.html No relation.
Marny Helfrich
"kfj" <kar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:91s3cd$ddc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > But it was great to see that repetition of the names and stuff. Maybe
> someone is trying to defeat the demons of continuity. ;)
Other things I noticed on subsequent viewing:
-- The necklace of CJ's that the snobby visitor's office guy criticizes --
is that the one she was wearing during the shooting, the one that Sam pulled
off?
-- In the intro, Josh tells Stanley that he supervises 1100 White House
employees. In "The Short List" Cj says "Over 1300 people work for the White
House" -- Do you think they have downsized, or do you think there are some
people for whom Josh is not responsible (I imagine it's the latter -- maybe
the household staff for the residence and the East Wing (social office and
First Lady's office) staff?
-- Whose idea was it to put Toby in charge of Christmas Festivities, given
that he a) isn't Christian and b) isn't festive. Where is the Social
Secretary when you need her? I will note, too, that this was yet another
missed opportunity to clarify the Mandy issue, as in "Last year Mandy
handled all this stuff, and now that she is off, you know, doing that thing
in Outer Mongolia, I'm stuck with it. I could kill her with a bagpipe."
Marny
Luna
>I will note, too, that this was yet another
>missed opportunity to clarify the Mandy issue, as in "Last year Mandy
>handled all this stuff, and now that she is off, you know, doing that thing
>in Outer Mongolia, I'm stuck with it. I could kill her with a bagpipe."
Mandy who? There is no Mandy. Therefore, there has never been a Mandy. Who
wants an explanation for her disappearance, when we can just believe she's
never been there at all?
See how easy it is to pretend she never existed? He who controls the cast
controls the future...
brainwashedly, luna
(do it to julia!)
"This goes out to intelligent life forms everywhere, and to everyone else
-- the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys."
AMYSA
>-- Whose idea was it to put Toby in charge of Christmas Festivities, given
>that he a) isn't Christian and b) isn't festive. Where is the Social
>Secretary when you need her?
someone will surely step in and correct me on this one if i'm wrong...but, toby
wasn't in charge of christmas festivities, he was in charge of putting some
music in the lobby. and, as far as i could tell, that was a job that he gave
himself. he gave his reasons for doing it and if he didn't want to he certainly
wouldn't have had to.
amy
"he thinks i may have an eating disorder...and a fear of rectangles. that's not
weird, is it?" - josh
Maureen Goldman
> Mandy who? There is no Mandy. Therefore, there has never been a Mandy. Who
> wants an explanation for her disappearance, when we can just believe she's
> never been there at all?
>
> See how easy it is to pretend she never existed? He who controls the cast
> controls the future...
Heck, "Spin City" is a far better example of characters who simply
disappeared with no mention. With the show relocated (albeit not the
setting, which not surprisingly remains New York), half the cast opted
not to stay. No explanation at all. Never was a "James". Nope.
AMYSA
>Heck, "Spin City" is a far better example of characters who simply
>disappeared with no mention. With the show relocated (albeit not the
>setting, which not surprisingly remains New York), half the cast opted
>not to stay.
it wasn't so much the relocation as it was the exit of mjf.
> No explanation at all. Never was a "James". Nope.
that bugs the piss out of me. one missing character is one thing, three (four
if you count stacey) is a much greater thing. it's just odd that they didn't do
*something* to write out half the cast. especially when james and nikki both
had pretty well defined job descriptions.
Maureen Goldman
> maureen said:
> >Heck, "Spin City" is a far better example of characters who simply
> >disappeared with no mention. With the show relocated (albeit not the
> >setting, which not surprisingly remains New York), half the cast opted
> >not to stay.
> am...@aol.comasutra (AMYSA) wrote:
> it wasn't so much the relocation as it was the exit of mjf.
Fox had a send-off episode, though. My impression is that the other
cast members opted not to commute\move to LA, rather than departing
the show because MJF had left. Not that there couldn't have been other
reasons as well, including not being offered the opportunity to
continue.
> > No explanation at all. Never was a "James". Nope.
> that bugs the piss out of me. one missing character is one thing, three (four
> if you count stacey) is a much greater thing. it's just odd that they didn't do
> *something* to write out half the cast. especially when james and nikki both
> had pretty well defined job descriptions.
As did Janell.
AMYSA
>Fox had a send-off episode, though. My impression is that the other
>cast members opted not to commute\move to LA, rather than departing
>the show because MJF had left.
rumour has it that the only reason victoria kept her job for as long as she did
was because of fox. it was nothing personal against her personally, but rather
the network hearing the critisism about the crowded cast.
re: well defined job descriptions...
>As did Janell.
except that the central part of the set is the main office. james and nikki
belong out there...their desks are in the action area. janel was off by the
mayor's office. it's easier to ignore her absence or to just explain her away
than it is for the other two who *should* be in a majority of the scenes.
Maureen Goldman
> [Spin City]
> except that the central part of the set is the main office. james and nikki
> belong out there...their desks are in the action area. janel was off by the
> mayor's office. it's easier to ignore her absence or to just explain her away
> than it is for the other two who *should* be in a majority of the scenes.
They've now hired a new assistant who sits in that area (billed as
regular cast), and I imagine more will come.
Elspeth
news:j9q65tgk38qiv3828...@4ax.com...
> Heck, "Spin City" is a far better example of characters who simply
> disappeared with no mention. With the show relocated (albeit not the
> setting, which not surprisingly remains New York), half the cast opted
> not to stay. No explanation at all. Never was a "James". Nope.
Spin City has a history of that sort of thing. Remember Mike's live-in gf
from the first few eps of the series? The actress left midway through the
season and her character was even *edited out* of an episode (in which she
had only appeared in the teaser) when they re-ran it. Talk about your
nonpersons....
Now if they could only edit out Mandy from the first season of TWW....
Els