One of the things that I have found interesting about watching the American version of the Office is how much All That Has Gone on Before impacts how I view an individual episode. Some of the funny and more especially the pathos (and this was especially true in the Michael Scott arc with Holly) comes from prior episodes and seasons. I’m not talking about direct references to events of the past (although those do happen from time to time) but rather the set of behaviors and reactions we expect from the characters as well as an anticipation over such in relation to their knowledge of the past and the re-shifting of statuses that occur.

This is a very different experience from watching Seinfeld (no change of characters or situations, really) or Friends (major changes in relationships and statuses but none that really made the current funny all that more funny or interesting).

Perhaps I’m seeing things that aren’t actually there. But the characters in the Office and their relationships do shift subtly over time and those shifts do impact future writing and current viewing. One excellent example: The Phyllis of season one wouldn’t have the guts to take over Angela’s party planner position. The Phyllis of season four/five is able to because of a newfound sense of security (related to her marriage to Bob Vance) and because of her knowing about and being willing to exploit the cracks in Angela’s facade.

When Heath Ledger was reading for (I believe) “Knight’s Tale” or possibly “10 Things . . .” the director told the casting directors,”Ladies, I’ve never wanted to sleep with a man. But if I did, that would be the man. Please hire him.”

Now, clearly this was not a homosexual tendency or advance or desire. But some people just exude a sexuality that isn’t about our libido. It is about an exitement that manifests itself in a variety of emotions — including eros. The problem is that I just can’t see that with Ryan. But maybe that is what they’re trying to portray.

Or maybe we’re over-analyzing a non-sensical joke that doesn’t have to mean anything to be funny.

Gee, could such a thing come from “The Office”? Naaahhh.

But, if, by your reference to Socrates, you are agreeing with Geoff B’s comment about the “genius” mixture of Michael Scott’s personality traits, I suppose all I can say is that I think it takes some major creativity to get there. No, you don’t have to care what the script writers think, but to ascribe some overall purpose and seasons-long development of Michael Scott’s character in this regard is, to me, a bit too charitable.

Either that, or maybe I just need to watch more episodes of The Office to really get it.

Anyhow, back to your main point. I apologize to the extent my comments were an unneccessary threadjack.

Having said that, I think Steve Carell is a terrific actor.