This is a topic that was being discussed over at TWoP and since forming a book club and discussing the books will probably be deemed off-topic, it was decided that it would probably be a good idea to move the discussion here. However, everyone who happens upon this thread is welcome to join in.

So, it looks like we've chosen our first book: The West Wing -- The American Presidency as Television Drama by Peter C. Rollins and John E. O'Connor (link to book via Amazon).

A couple of decisions have to made before we begin, though.

1. How long are we going to give each other to read the book?

2. Are we going to post in sections (i.e., first week finish first 100 pages and post impressions, second week finish second 100 pages and post impressions) or are we going to give a deadline date to finish the book and post overall thoughts?

I think those are the only things that really need to be worked out. I'm thinking we should pick the second book relatively soon since those who are relying on the library may need to get on a waiting list.

Anybody else have any thoughts?

I'm thinking that for this book, we should post after each essay. I haven't seen the book yet, as I just ordered it today, but unless the essays are very short, this is probably a good way to get the ball rolling.

And then maybe make a judgment call based on the length of future books, and how easily they "split up" for discussion?

So is this a West Wing books only thing? Or a book club for everyone? Would this be more appropriate for our Book section since we do have a lot of avid readers on the board who might not visit the West Wing threads.

I'm gonna throw in another idea, which I imagine you're all gonna vote off immediately - since the Aussies are going to be waiting for a few weeks for Amazon's totally frecky delivery service, perhaps we could warm up with a different book - something most of us already have?

It sounds like just a West Wing-themed thing, Veda. Not that those of us who are interested couldn't join in.

Erm, I'm not interested. I have too many books of my own to read right now. But I will watch with interest.

I'm with Wine2Much. I think we should pick an essay and then post after it. I'm all for going in the order of the book.

What is our start date?

Veda, yes, it is West Wing themed.

Pirahna, why not just skip this book and wait for the next one to be chosen. Unfortunately, this book was pretty much decided on at TWoP and it seems unfair to change mid-stream. Especially, since Amazon in the U.S. is saying that it could take 3 weeks for delivery within the U.S., as it is.

I say, if we're going to discuss the essays one by one than let's start in three days (. This gives people some of the people notified a chance to get over here and add any comments. After that, why not take a day to read the essay and a day to comment on it.

So, unless anyone disagrees, here's how I see the schedule going:

Introduction and The West Wing: White House Narratives That Journalism Cannot Tell - discussion begins Friday, May 23, 2003.

The White House Culture of Gender and Race in the West Wing: Insights from the Margin and The West Wing (NBC) and The West Wing (DC): Myth and Reality in Television's Portrayal of the White House - discussion beings Monday, May 26, 2003 (I included two essays because there's a weekend between the first essay and the second and I know some people don't have computers so I didn't want to lock them out of the discussion. I think this is a good idea for all weekends).

The King's Two Bodies: Identity and Office in Sorkin's West Wing - Discussion begins May 28, 2003.

Dialogue, Deliberations and Discourse: The Far-Reaching Politics of The West Wing - Discussion begins May 30, 2003.

The West Wing's Textual President: American Constitutional Stability and the New Public Intellectual in the Age of Information and The Left Takes Back the Flag: The Steadicam, the Snippet and the Song in The West Wing's "In Excelsis Deo" - Discussion begins Tuesday, June 3, 2003 (Monday is Memorial Day).

From The American President to The West Wing - a Scriptwriter's Perspective - Discussion begins Thursday, June 5, 2003.

The Sincere Sorkin White House, or, The Importance of Seeming Earnest and The West as a Pedagogical Tool: Using Drama to Examine American Politics and Media Perceptions of Our Political System - Discussion begins Monday, June 9, 2003.

Victorian Parliamentary Novels, The West Wing and Professionalism - Discussion begins Wednesday, June 11, 2003.

Inside the West Wing's New World - Discussion begins Friday, June 13, 2003.

The Feel-Good Presidency: The Pseudo-Politics of The West Wing and The Liberal Imagination - Discussions begins Monday, June 16, 2003.

The Transformed Presidencey: People and Power in the Real West Wing - Discussion on this essay and on the book as a whole begins Wednesday, June 18, 2003.

Also, let's start suggesting titles for the next choice so people can start the process of buying them. My choice (which is rather thick) is: What It Takes by Richard Ben Cramer. It's a look at the 1988 Presidential primaries and focuses on 5 Democratic Presidential candidates and 2 Republican Presidential candidates. I think it might be interesting to compare the actual process to what we saw on-screen.

If we use the first book as a guide, we will have taken from May 21, 2003 thru June 18, 2003 to read the book which is approximately a month to read 258 pages. I don't know about the rest of you but I can read faster than that. However, if the books we choose are longer than 258 page (and I suspect they will be), perhaps a month per book is not a bad guideline. If people feel that's not enough time, please let me know. I am a fast reader so I can finish 258 pages in a day if the book is interesting enough to me. But I also have a lot of free time on my hands so it's easier for me to breeze through these books. If anyone would like to suggest a different time frame, please, please speak up.

Okay, but I fail to see how or why decisions made at TWoP apply here. It hardly matters though - I imagine the Aussie contingent will have our own discussion when our books arrive.

This message is a test. It is only a test. If it was a real message, I would be saying something interesting.

I admit that I can also read faster than your schedule suggests but then there are a million other things I have to do as well. So maybe the slow approach is best. But what if someone gets ahead and makes a comment about what is said further along than we have gotten. Do we have rules about such things?

Okay, I just went to B&N, & discovered that they have a normal 2-3 day ship period (as opposed to Amazon's 3-5 weeks (?!) ) They're a bit more expensive, but if you're like me, patience is not my best feature!

Link at B&N

Well, it matters since this was started at TWoP, Piranha and certain decisions were made before we realized that we'd have to move the discussion somewhere else. One of the decisions made was the book. It hardly seems fair to arbitrarily change the choice of book when the majority of the people participating (as far as I can see from the posts here) have already indicated that they'd like this book to be the first choice.

bewarne: I think if people read ahead they need to keep their comments to themselves until we reach the appointed discussion date. I think a vote as to whether comments in spoiler tags can be allowed. I'm against it but I think the majority should rule.

Well, there are folks like me who would participate here but had no part of the TWoP discussion. I can't get the book in time unless it's in a brick-and-mortar near me, though.

I'm going to have to sit the first one out. There is no way I can get hold of a copy. I do have some suggestions for future titles.

'Spin Cycle' by Howard Kurtz
'All too human' by George Stephanopoulos

And because I have heard some very mixed reviews of the book, 'Stupid White Men' by Michael Moore.

While I’m obviously a season behind both North America and Australia on TWW, if you’re discussing any generic political analyses I’ll probably jump in. My reading’s been fairly low on non-fiction recently, so I could do with some leavening, and I’ve always had a fascination with US politics. (Burr’s still on my list, mj!)

I'm think I'd like to be in too, eventually. The first book's out simply because we can't get it here in Aus yet.

Future suggestion from a disinterested party: How about Primary Colors? You could compare and contrast the White Houses. And both it and The West Wing are modeled on the same presidency.

All of you who are interested but are sitting out the first book, please suggest titles for the second book. One suggestion someone made was to read a book that has been referenced in The West Wing so we can get an idea of some of Sorkin's influences. I think that's a pretty good idea, as well. But regardless, suggest a title since I think we should probably vote on it relatively soon so that it gives people plenty of time to get the book.

I vote for a slower schedule too. While I generally read faster than the schedule, I have a lot on my plate right now too.

zuc, are you okay with the schedule we have for the essays? They're not that long (most seem to be less than 10 pages) so I think reading one in a day doesn't seem too much of a hardship. Is it a slower schedule for the other books we choose?

Well, I guess I'll start.

I think I can just write off the Introduction to this book since it mainly just told us what we were going to be reading. I was a little disappointed because I would have much preferred some insight into why they decided to do this book and how they chose the particular authors for the essays. A treatise that summarized the content of the essays was not particularly insightful.

As for the first essay, I felt it started off promising. I am always interested in articles about the limitations of journalism and I felt that the author made some valid points about the fact that journalism has drifted away from the "how" and "why" of the story and is too focused on the "who", "what", "where" and "when" of the story. I agree that journalism has become almost Dragnet-like in its approach to stories ("Just the facts, ma'am."). But other than making this rather obvious statement, we don't really hear much more about this, do we? Instead, we are treated to a long essay about specific Season 1 and early Season 2 plotlines and the author repeating over and over again that these are the types of things that journalism can't report on (and I don't know if the author only watched Season 1, early Season 2 or if this essay was written before any other episodes aired).

I would have also liked to explore more the contention that sometimes drama can give us more information about a subject matter than non-fiction. The fact that Sorkin was able to use an insider's knowledge of what goes on in the West Wing to portray situations that journalists can't or won't write about was intriguing to me but again, all the author does is make this statement and then refer to specific WW plotlines that journalists are hampered from talking about.

Frankly, it felt like the author was skimming the surface of some very interesting topics but, perhaps because of the limitations of length, never really dove beneath the water to get at the really interesting aspects of the points he was trying to make. Ironically, this seems to be his point about how journalism covers the White House.

I did a google search on the author and this does seem to be the area in which she writes (i.e., mass communication and it's impact). None of the publications listed, however, seem to be available on the Internet so it's not possible to do a compare and contrast and know whether this is her style or whether she was indeed limited by the length of the essay.

For the future: I like the suggestions of Primary Colors and Stupid White Men.

I think I disagree partially with her contention that we can turn to drama to fill in the "how" and "why" that journalism leaves out. Maybe I'm being too literal about it, but journalism and drama are two different things, and they serve two different purposes. It's great to be entertained by something that's educating you, and it's great to be educated by something that's entertaining, but it can only go so far.

There are two quotes in this piece about how West Wing may not portray what the White House is really like, but is shows what the White House should be like. That's a key difference I think. In an attempt to portray this sort of ideal White House, I don't think what we are seeing can fill in the "how" and "why" in an entirely realistic manner.

An example: in Gone Quiet Sam is sitting in on a meeting with Connie and Bruno and seems shocked that they are suggesting that the Bartlet re-election campaign utilize soft-money contributions. It's completely inconcievable to me that this would take Sam, the veteran of at least one campaign, as a surprise. It's just as unrealistic to expect that the previous Bartlet For America campaign didn't do this already. It does, however, set Bartlet and by extension his staff, as more noble and "better" than his opponents.

I did kind of agree with her contention that perhaps we should be viewing journalism articles as pieces of fiction, as well, since they may not necessarily be any more accurate than a well-researched drama.

I didn't have much to say about the intro or the first chapter but I think we are now on the second chapter about gender and race and I thought that was silly. What he considers an empowerment of Donna was ridiculous. Yes, Mrs. Landingham had power. And she molded the young Bartlet as many mothers and mother types do. But the things he quoted about Donna were not power. And putting Charlie and C.J. in the background of a shot didn't give them any kind of power either!

Just thought I'd chime in that Aussies are able to get the book here through A&R but that it's pretty expensive and it'll take up to three weeks for it to be delivered from the US. I'm planning on getting it so I will probably join in the discussion, but later.

Totally agree, bewarne totally agree. The author focused in on all of these fuzzy, intangible, non-logical things that Donna has done, wich is lovely, I suppose. But it sets up a situation where Donna is relying on intuition and Josh is relying on logic. I'm not a fan of the idea that women aren't logical or that men aren't intuitive. And there is nothing empowering, not a damn thing, about a woman who stares out the window like a puppy, looking for her boss to come back.

As for that business with Charlie and CJ in the margins of the scene--how is that empowering? If anything, it highlights the marginalization of women and minorities.

A question occured to me as I was reading the third essay, "The West Wing and the West Wing," that kind of relates. The main advisors to Pres. Bartlett are all white men. CJ's in the senior staff, but even her role is limited, partly by necessity. How much of this stems from an attempt to portray this level of power realistically (i.e. there really aren't that many women advising presidents), and how much is the internal sexism of the people responsible for creating the show? I'm not sure if there is an answer for that question, but I wondered.

Blueyes, you wrote: "The main advisors to Pres. Bartlett are all white men. CJ's in the senior staff, but even her role is limited, partly by necessity. How much of this stems from an attempt to portray this level of power realistically (i.e. there really aren't that many women advising presidents,)"

Well, that depends on the President. I hate to say anything good about Bush but he had at least one high level female advisor, who he listened to --- she left.

Glugh. You are correct, again. I thought of that (actually I thought of Condi, then thought of Nancy McNally, then went on with my post) as I was writing that.

I'm not sure I want to re-open the "is Sorkin sexist" discussion again, but I really think that female characters, at least on The West Wing are a weakness for him. I think that they are all drawn poorly in one area or another, and in ways that the male characters aren't.

What were your reactions to comparisons of the two West Wings in the third essay? I thought that the author here had some good points.

One thing that wandered through my mind as I read Myron Levine's contrast of the role of the real VP v. the role of the WW VP--what Levine describes as the VP's duties seem to be carried out by Leo on the show. Interesting to consider, what with that position being open and all.

Culture of Gender and Race:

I did not care for this essay at all. I felt the author was really having to stretch the boundaries of interpretation to infuse the show's female and people of color with more importance then they actually have. Plus, she ignores one of the more influential female figures on the show: Nancy McNally. I was especially amused by her contention that by simply framing CJ and Charlie in a certain way, the show was emphasizing the impact of the President's decision on those disenfranchised by campaign financing. It reminded me of a film student's paper on symbolism, where the student hasn't really watched the whole film so is having to reach in order to come up with examples to prove the main thesis of the paper.

There were also just out and out errors in the author's take on scenes. As has been previously mentioned, her failure to mention that Donna admitted that she looks for Josh's return from inside his office rather than Donna simply "knowing" that Josh would return. Also, I think her assumption that the janitor picking up the cigarette in the National Cathedral and again "knowing" that President Bartlet was the culprit is not entirely factual but I suppose it's possible to interpret the scene that way. Again, however, I think it's stretching things a bit.

I'm also annoyed at her representation that secretaries are severly marginalized in the halls of power and the fact that Bartlet deigns to listen to them infuses him with some sort of saintliness. I think this is, frankly, an out-dated point of view and a bit classist. I'm not saying that secretaries are making policy decisions but, in situations where the working relationship between secretary and supervisor has been long-term, it has been my experience that most supervisors value their secretary's opinions and will frequently bounce ideas off of them or at least listen to their ideas when the secretaries approach them. I do understand that the President is very limited in his availability to listen to such ideas but the author seemed to take the position that the fact that Bartlet would even bother to listen to his secretary proves that the series embraces second-wave feminism.

I also agree that the author undermines her own thesis by focusing on Donna's "intuition" even labelling it as "feminine". It's insulting to the hard work that Donna puts in researching and educating herself. Also, Josh giving up his NSC card is Josh embracing his feminine side? Because masculinity is never self-sacrificing? I'm sure all those men who died in wars saving their army buddies would be happy to hear that.

The main reason I didn't like this essay was because I felt (a) the author had only done a superficial study of her subject matter, perhaps only watching a few West Wing episodes; and (b) for someone purporting to stick up for the feminist viewpoint, she's certainly willing to engage in quite a few stereotypes to prove her point.

The West Wing (NBC) and the West Wing (D.C):

Now this essay was more in line with what I was hoping this book would be about. It was comprehensive, well-researched and thoughtful. And, in one paragraph, summed up the whole gender issue (IMO):



I do agree that this show, as has been stated over and over again, is an idealized version of the White House. Frankly, it's one of the reasons I watch. The reality of the White House (even during the Clinton years) is quite depressing to me so this show became a bit of a tonic to me. To me, this show is the political junkies' equivalent of a well-written romance. You know that the relationships portrayed in its world are much more complex and less principled than what is true in the real world but it's fun to pretend that it could be possible. People just need to pay attention to their better angels.

I also enjoyed the comparison of the different office structures of the various modern presidencies. Personally, I have a hard time seeing how anything beyond the more heirarchal approach is possible in the White House. I have read a lot on the Kennedy Presidency and it did seem to more heirarchal that the author gives Kennedy credit for. It's just that people had more access to JFK because he had a tendency to wander the halls and perch on people's desks, rifling through the papers that were lying there. Kenny O'Donnell, in his book, says that staffers quickly learned that if they wanted an issue to reach the President, they would leave a memo on the edge of the desk and, invariably, it would attract JFK's attention.

What I did not agree with was the presumption that this show does not reflect the "modern" Vice Presidency. For one thing, two administrations does not a trend make, especially when we're not even finished with the first term of the second administration. Bill Clinton did make quite a concerted effort to include Al Gore into policy decisions. At the time, it was remarked upon quite a bit because it was an unusual tactic. The author completely skips over Bush, Sr.'s relationship with Quayle and misrepresents Reagan's relationship with Bush, Sr., who felt quite constricted by the Vice-Presidency. In fact, it was quite well-known that Bush, Sr. was underutilized. When Jesse Jackson was asked why he felt he was more qualified to run for the Presidency than Bush, Sr., he remarked "Because when I meet world leaders, they're still alive." which was a comment on the fact that Reagan tended to use Bush, Sr. as an American representative to state funerals and little else. The author also doesn't seem to acknowledge that while Dick Cheney does have influence within the GWB administration, it's mainly in the foreign policy area with Cheney having little to no influence in the domestic arena. And this is a situation that came about mainly because of 9/11 and Cheney's experience with Middle Eastern governments because of his previous position in GWB's father's administration.

I also felt that the author misrepresented the Bartlet/Hoynes relationship when he stated that a real VP would never refuse to vote against the ethanol initiative like Hoynes did in "20 Hours in L.A." This is a misstatement of what happened. Hoynes never refused. In fact, he was always willing to do so, he just wasn't happy about it. The whole story was about the staff trying to find a way to get the votes so that the VP wouldn't have to go against his previous record.

When talking about the staff interaction and the unrealistic absence of power plays between the staff, it reminded me of how, in the first season, there was a more contentious vibe between the staff and I kind of miss that. It was obviously nowhere near the level that exists in the real White House but I enjoyed the fact that not all of these people were the best of friends. It's definitely something that they got away from after Season 1, to the point that Will is seamlessly inserted into the poker game as if he'd always been there. I actually think this show would be more interesting if there was less chuminess. I'm not looking for actual turf wars but I could do with a little of irritated Toby's snapping at Josh that he doesn't work for him.

Overall though, I agree with the author's contention that TWW does a good job of highlighting the machinery behind the White House while idealizing the people who run the machine. I do think that, so far, this book is limited by the fact that the authors are only commenting on Seasons 1 and 2. When this author talks about how sunny and optimistic the viewpoint of this show is, I wonder how much his opinion would have changed after Season 3 and Bartlet's decision to assassinate Sharif.

Mjforte, you say, "she ignores one of the more influential female figures on the show: Nancy McNally."

I do not remember when Nancy's first episode was but I think it was either late in the second season or even not until the third (I am currently trying to make notes of what episodes each of the supporting cast are in). Therefore, when this episode was written Nancy may well have not be seen or only seen in a couple of episodes.

Nancy McNally first appears in ITSOTG. Just to save you a little research and to point out that she would have appeared early enough for the author to comment upon.

Okay, I finally got tot the next chapter (The West Wing and the West Wing) and I feel this guy really understands the program. He knew what it was trying to say and where it failed (like on the women in the program which he said was an accurate portrayal but I thought he implied that since this was an idealized world, they could have done better with the problem). Anyway, this is a guy that understands the Presidency and the program, I thought.

The King's Two Bodies:

I agree with you, bewarne, that the author of this essay really seemed to get the show and I enjoyed his examples of the continuing conflict of Bartlet's political and personal selves. I especially loved his description of the first time we see Bartlet and how, upon first viewing, Bartlet seems dimunitive and a bit frail because of the limping. Yet, within seconds, because of Sheen's presence and the dialogue, it appears as if Bartlet almost grows a few inches. He certainly overpowers the room. I think it's one of the best introductory scenes for a character every filmed.

Two examples of Bartlet's conflicting political/personal self that I was surprised were ignored was the scene with Zoey in Mr. Willis of Ohio where Bartlet tells Zoey of his "nightmare scenario." It is a very real example of the political Bartlet at war with the personal Bartlet and, as we've seen this season, the personal Bartlet wins out.

I also thought the author ignored the numerous instances when outsiders refer to Bartlet as "Bartlet" or "your boss" and are immediately corrected and told refer to him as "President Bartlet". These are cases where people need to be reminded that man never really is without his office.

My only nit-picks with this essay are his eagerness to proclaim that TWW had some sort of influence on the U.S. voting public in the last presidential election. While it may be true (and I'm not sure it is), his reasoning seems faulty and merely the opinion of the author and not backed up by any factual data.

I also disagree with his contention that the show attempted to influence public opinion. I thought his example of the airing of The Mid-Terms during the election was especially specious. The timing of the episode had to do with the fact that season premiere was delayed due to the Olympics not through any special machinations on the producer's part.

Overall, though, I enjoyed this essay and it's my favorite so far.

Dialogue, Deliberation and Discourse:

Okay, I'll admit, upon first reading, my initial reaction was "huh"? This essay was a little difficult to follow, what with the author throwing out political theories willy-nilly. Upon re-reading, I understood it better but still didn't get the point. Basically, it appeared to me that the author took 18 pages to tell us that TWW engages in the political theory of "agonistic discourse" (which basically boils down to "arguments for arguments sake). Uh, okay. While it was nice to read about deliberative democracy and to rehash the Sam/Mallory education debate and the slavery reperations debate, there didn't seem to be a point to this essay other than to come up with a definition of the dialogue that takes place on the show. Oh, and to review a previous review of the show. Not so certain what the point of this essay was.