T.F.: Not funny

Tribulation Force, pp. 5-20

I have to admit that the Buck and Verna subplot has me back on my heels. This tale of the Humiliation of the Uppity Woman is stomach-churningly ugly and I'm finding it difficult to get through or over or around, so before we plow through the last of it, I just need to vent a bit.

It's a nasty piece of work and the authors revel in its nastiness. And that reveling is revealing.

Throughout most of Left Behind, the authors and their heroes displayed a kind of incidental cruelty born of obliviousness and disregard and a self-centered tunnel vision. That's no excuse for the behavior they depict and display and endorse. It makes them seem like Tom and Daisy in The Great Gatsby, as careless people who smash up things and creatures and then retreat back into their religion or their vast carelessness or whatever it us that keeps them going, and let other people clean up the mess.

But here the malice and contempt is premeditated and intentional. Buck Williams' despicable behavior toward Verna Zee -- and toward Alice, actually -- is not merely weak and obtuse and fearful, but careful and deliberate.

And the authors celebrate this painstaking viciousness. It is our first glimpse of the newly saved and sanctified Buck Williams and the authors thus suggest that this is how godly, real, true Christian men ought to behave toward women or anyone else they regard as their inferiors.

The fruit of the Spirit, St. Paul writes, "is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."

If you sat down and tried to write a scene in which a character displayed the opposite of all of those characteristics, you'd come up with something like Buck's actions in the first 20 pages of Tribulation Force.

In urging the Galatian Christians to live up to these fruits of the Spirit, Paul warns them of the alternative. "Let us not become conceited," he writes, "provoking and envying each other." And again, if you sat down to write a scene in which a conceited character was driven to provoke others out of envy, you'd come up with something like Buck's actions in the first 20 pages of Tribulation Force.

In John's epistles, he gives a name to this behavior, this antithesis of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. He calls it "the spirit of antichrist."

That is, again, the only place in the Bible where the word "antichrist" appears.

The really horrifying aspect of this subplot is the way it's driven by a gleeful misogyny. It's like something out of an episode of Law & Order SVU.

The male supremacist dogma that so many evangelicals euphemistically refer to as "traditional gender roles" usually expresses itself through an emphasis on almost Victorian manners. Tim LaHaye's wife, Beverly LaHaye, is a leading proponent of this chivalrous, gentlemanly approach to male supremacy. The seething rage on display in this passage unmasks the hate that lies just beneath that polite veneer. But don't expect those advocates of chivalrous, gentlemanly noblesse oblige to condemn Buck's caddish, ungentlemanly treatment of Verna, or to condemn LaHaye & Jenkins' celebration of it. He's just keeping her in line, after all. It's her fault, not his. She brought it on herself. Etc.

Do you know why you never hear someone say, "Oh, Left Behind ... my husband loves those books"?

Because her husband doesn't like it when she talks to other people and she doesn't want to upset him again.

That's not a joke. What we're seeing here is the furious reassertion of an arbitrary claim of supremacy and authority. Violence isn't merely a potential aspect of such claims. It's inevitable and it can surface at any time without any discernible external provocation. Anyone making such an arbitrary claim will be plagued by an ever-present, nagging insecurity -- a peripheral glimpse of the unrecognized recognition that the claim cannot be justified, that it is not deserved. Such glimpses must constantly be swatted away like a cloud of gnats. And whoever else is around is likely to get swatted as well.

So quite seriously, if anyone ever does tell you that her husband loves these books, get her the 800-number for the local hotline and tell her to get a spare set of car keys made, and to start squirreling away some emergency cash, and to have a crash-bag stashed somewhere hidden but quickly accessible with a set of clothes and toothbrushes and all for her and the kids.

The somewhat grim seriousness of my response to these scenes would probably be dismissed by LaHaye and Jenkins as yet another example of the humorlessness of feminism. That whole trope -- the Humorless Feminist -- is another example of the reassertion of an undeserved claim of authority. The claim in this case, is that they know what's funny and we don't.

I'm guessing that Jenkins really did intend these scenes in the Chicago bureau to be a comic interlude. He thought he was being funny.

What he had in mind here, I think, was to portray Buck as the sort of charmingly rebellious cut-up that Bill Murray used to play in movies like Stripes or Ghostbusters. That attempt fails, utterly and spectacularly. The effect of these scenes, in fact, is exactly the opposite -- portraying Buck as just the sort of uptight, incompetent, ridiculous and arrogant boss who richly deserved all the scorn heaped on him by the Bill Murray character.

At one basic level, these scenes fail because Buck's antics are not funny. We're told that he makes "wisecracks," but we're not told what they are. The few we are allowed to read are neither wise nor cracking. His clowning and mugging just comes across as preadolescent and dumb.

Buck Williams is, fundamentally, not a funny guy.

But even if he were a brilliant wit and a comic genius, everything he attempts here would still fall flat and he'd still come across as a despicable jerk because the whole scene is backwards. It's upside-down.

Or, rather, it's not upside-down. And therefore it can't be funny.

Comedy is essentially revolutionary. This scene is counter-revolutionary. That's never funny. Everything in these pages is about reasserting hierarchy and punishing anyone who challenges it. That's never funny either.

Buck Williams isn't the court jester, he's the sycophantic court prophet. The court prophet isn't funny. (Nor is he really a prophet.)

The jester is funny because he mocks the king. He deflates the over-inflated and humbles the proud. This is what comedy does. It's what comedy is for. It brings down the powerful from their thrones and lifts up the lowly; it fills the hungry with good things and sends the rich away empty. (Mary knew from funny.)

That's what makes it funny. That's what makes us laugh.

Everything that Buck does in the Chicago bureau of Global Weekly is intended to tear down the lowly and lift the powerful onto their thrones, to fill the rich with good things and send the hungry away empty.

That's not funny. That's the opposite of funny. And I'm not laughing.

Comments

[practicallyevil]

First!

[Catherine]

....Wow. I can't wait to read the excerpts.

[Dan]

Well, but Verna is one of 'those types of women,' so she deserves anything Buck gives her. Right? Any woman who wears sensible shoes and attempts to take authority over men (especially men like the GIRAT) absolutely deserves to be mocked. Right? We wouldn't have to make fun of them if they wouldn't be so silly about things, if they'd just mind their manners and stay in their place. Women should know their limits. They're just not capable of living up in the same world as Kirk, oops, I mean Buck. It's just so funny when they try, like when my three-year-old plays grown up. Always good for a laugh.

All that being said, thanks for preaching today. You're absolutely right, and these people need to be called to task for promoting such patently un-Christian behavor, selling it as if this is acceptable to any who follow the one in whom there is 'neither Jew nor Greek, slave no free, male nor female. . ."

[SchrodingersDuck]

One of the really startling things about this scene is that Jenkins is doing everything he can to portray Buck in as favourable a light as he can - unreservedly positive language about Buck, negative and unflattering descriptions of Verna, having her fail so poorly in her put-down of Buck - and still Buck comes off as the bad guy. Take the homophobic, anti feminist filter off the camera and I shudder to imagine how this scene would come across.

Does this scene appear in the film Left Behind 2? I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if it didn't - without the benefit of the biased, selective narrator, it would be simply impossible to film this without making Buck come across as a particularly loathsome moustache-twirling misogynist villain.

[Mnemosyne]

Comedy is essentially revolutionary. This scene is counter-revolutionary. That's never funny. Everything in these pages is about reasserting hierarchy and punishing anyone who challenges it. That's never funny either.

Along those lines, racist and sexist humor is always a power play. The person telling the joke feels that minorities/women are becoming too threatening and so they have to tell the joke to put "them" back in their place and, not incidentally, elevate the joke-teller in the hierarchy. Those in power have always had the right to joke about their subordinates and the subordinates always have to sit back and take it, because the other person can make their life miserable if they don't.

That's why those jokes usually only inspire nervous laughter -- they're such a naked power play that it's hard to just see them as "funny."

[thirstygirl]

Buck's the office asshole who mocks and bullies the powerless.

It's all just so hideously Mary Sue fan-fic writer- HOW DARE some other character try have authority over my precious darling perfect Marty? I'll SHOW them...but it's worse because they aren't cross about canon not going the way they want it to, it's canon that they've created.

[Jessica]

So quite seriously, if anyone ever does tell you that her husband loves these books, get her the 800-number for the local hotline and tell her to get a spare set of car keys made, and to start squirreling away some emergency cash, and to have a crash-bag stashed somewhere hidden but quickly accessible with a set of clothes and toothbrushes and all for her and the kids.

At first, I'm thinking, but I'd never beat my wife!
And then I realized, oh wait, I don't actually like these books. I just like reading about them each week. Phew! I think we're safe. =)

Oh, ummmm, boobies? Even though I wasn't first? I love pictures of them doing the courtship dance. It just looks so cute. =)

[Brett]

That's why those jokes usually only inspire nervous laughter -- they're such a naked power play that it's hard to just see them as "funny."

It depends. Remember that Minstrel shows with singing, goofing-off blackface characters were very popular in the late 19th century, which shows that this type of cruel, put-'em-in-their-place humor can be widespread and shared. It's only nervous if you think putting people in their place is at least theoretically wrong, and those people didn't think it was wrong to mock black people and the like.

[Nobody]

All those jokes that Buck tells Alice that we don't get to be in on are probably blond jokes. Blond jokes stopped being funny when I noticed they were thinly disguised Women Are Idiots jokes. Ever notice that no joke ever has female characters unless they are the butt of the joke or some other character needs a wife, a mother, or a sister.

But.... Gee, you have no sense of humor.

No, I have a sense of I don't like being insulted.

I see no reason why insecure bullies need to be humored everywhere they go. In a just world Buck will get a rude awakening when someone publicly humiliates him in a bar. I got to be the one to dish it out. I took great pleasure in handing him his ass. Story to follow later, I have to run.

[Brett]

To add-

It appears Buck is actually turning into a character from Fred's analysis. The problem is, he goes from a contemptible, duplicitous, arrogant hack to a contemptible, duplicitous, and very arrogant so-called True Believer - which might actually be quite possible in real life (sort of like those mega-left-wing fanatics who turn into mega-right-wing fanatics rather than moderates, or vice versa - you just trade one extremist set of tendencies for another set), but which is singularly appalling to read, and it makes you wonder how in the hell he ever got to his prestigious position in the first place*.

*Of course, if Global Weekly is based off of Time Magazine, well .. .

[vladimir mac]

so before we plow through the last of it, I just need to vent a bit. ...

So, what about the plowing through? WHERE'S THE PLOWING THROUGH?!

Reading these posts was so much better when I first discovered them last autumn: I could read several posts at a time, and there'd still be more to read if I had time to continue. Now it comes in very small packages once a week. I WANT MORE!

Seriously, though, thanks for the very insightful reviews of these books. I do appreciate all the time and effort you put into it. I find minds like theirs to be fascinating, in the way a starving, rabid bear is fascinating: a wonder to behold, a puzzle to figure out, a hope that I can continue to observe from a safe distance.

But can you make your posts a bit longer, and cover a few more pages in each?

[Baron Scarpia]

Ah, the 'it's only a joke' defence. People who use this defence rarely think hard of what precisely they're laughing about and why.

I doubt it's ever occurred to LaHaye and Jenkins to find out why others are feminists. They've thought about it, but only through the filter of blind prejudice and a grotesque lack of curiosity about the world.

Prejudice of this sort is a very strange thing. LaHaye and Jenkins are angry at the Imaginary Feminist (or the Imaginary Liberal, or the Imaginary Atheist, or the Imaginary Homosexual, or the... Gosh, they really are angry at a lot of people, aren't they?). But they can't be, because the Imaginary Feminist is, well, imaginary. You can't really hate what's not there.

But, as Fred notes, you can at least try to blame what's not there. It's all your fault!

What are these men doing, parading their pathetic insecurities, barely repressed loathing for the world and paranoid dread of 'Others' in front of the entire world? This goes beyond just Bad Writing, beyond Bad Theology and into the skin-crawling territory of Being Bad People.

I'll be honest; when I started reading these reviews I had no idea how deep the pit was, and now I'm disturbed by the thought that it might be bottomless.

[Skyknight]

I wonder if the scorn towards women might be akin to the scorn the sharp right wing tends to have towards pacifism, environmentalism, &c (it helps that I'm fresh off an FSTDT entry involving someone boasting about intentionally using lots of electricity during Earth Hour...). The typical claim is that such things will end up softening us--and that there's something sharp and nasty waiting to skewer us, so we MUST abjure all that would lead to such dangerous softness. And yet...I wonder if they even think it POSSIBLE that there'll be a time when we won't be under fire from anything.

More than that, I wonder what the endpoint in their reasoning is. Masculinism, belligerence, &c to the purpose of security, security for the purpose of survival...but what else beyond mere survival?

[ako]

The jester is funny because he mocks the king. He deflates the over-inflated and humbles the proud. This is what comedy does. It's what comedy is for. It brings down the powerful from their thrones and lifts up the lowly; it fills the hungry with good things and sends the rich away empty. (Mary knew from funny.)

Distorted power relations. Common among people who are so used to being elevated that they think they're just naturally tall (instead of being the only one in the room with a stepstool, or worse yes, standing on someone else's back). Basically, any time someone who's 'naturally' on the bottom pokes her head up an inch too high, she is seen as the tyrant trying to tower over Buck. So mocking her becomes, in the eyes of people in that specific position of power, mocking a domineering queen. The same way a certain type of man can see pissing off 'evil feminazis' who dare to say that they don't like being insulted to their face becomes 'striking back against oppression' instead of further bullying people who he's been bullying all of these years, and blaming the oppressed for not welcoming oppression.

Basically, trying to put things on an equal footing, and taking away a degree of privilege, gets turned into an oppressive attack. Hence justifying the treatment of Vera.

[damnedyankee]

I actually share Fred's reluctance to get to the rest of this scene. The idea of it is made even more uncomfortable by the fact that Buck's reward for this behavior is not the curbstomping he so richly deserves for being such a heel, but rather a pat on the head from the authors for being such a "manly man". I feel bad for Verna because she's trapped in a universe where even the most basic rules and protocols are turned on their heads in order to stroke the egos of two horrible, shriveled little men.

[thirstygirl]

Baron Scarpia- it's worse because they don't realise just how much of themselves they are displaying and how grotesque and repulsive they are to anyone with an iota of self-awareness.

I can't tell whether pity or revulsion is my main reaction to their quivering naked ids, exposed on every page, all I can say is either way I don't want to be near them. Even if I pity them, they don't want to change- their smug surety in their own righteousness and the rightness of the world they live in acts to repel me.

Which is lucky, because I'm one of those humourless feminists, who just can't take a joke.

[vladimir mac]

The fruit of the Spirit, St. Paul writes, "is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."

If you sat down and tried to write a scene in which a character displayed the opposite of all of those characteristics, you'd come up with something like Buck's actions in the first 20 pages of Tribulation Force.

It never ceases to amaze me how much the words and behaviors of these sorts of Real True Christians remind me of the Pharisees as described in the New Testament. I suspect that if Jesus were to return in the way he came the first time, today's "Real True Christians" would be the loudest ones in the crowd crying to crucify him.

[Karen]

Boobies!

I've had occasion this week to spend some time with TV Tropes, which includes a fascinating discussion of Anvils That Needed To Be Dropped. Fred has dropped one this week -- that complimentarianism* is nothing more than an excuse for thinking women are dimwits. A person who believes that Women Are Different are people who believe women aren't human, and therefore will treat us as something other than human.

*This is the $5 word for "women are from Mars, men are from Venus."

[Dash]

Jessica: Oh, ummmm, boobies? Even though I wasn't first? I love pictures of them doing the courtship dance. It just looks so cute.

It's because, for their environment and habits, they have Sensible Feet.

[Headless Unicorn Guy]

This tale of the Humiliation of the Uppity Woman is stomach-churningly ugly...

It's a variation on the Slut-Shaming LH&J did with Hattie the Hottie.

At one basic level, these scenes fail because Buck's antics are not funny. We're told that he makes "wisecracks," but we're not told what they are. The few we are allowed to read are neither wise nor cracking. His clowning and mugging just comes across as preadolescent and dumb.

Buck Williams is, fundamentally, not a funny guy.

Only the Author Self-Insert. (And if he's anything like his author, I don't think I want to meet or know the GCAAT.)

Buck Williams isn't the court jester, he's the sycophantic court prophet. The court prophet isn't funny. (Nor is he really a prophet.)

Court Prophet = Yes Man.

Buck's the office asshole who mocks and bullies the powerless.

It's all just so hideously Mary Sue fan-fic writer- HOW DARE some other character try have authority over my precious darling perfect Marty? I'll SHOW them...but it's worse because they aren't cross about canon not going the way they want it to, it's canon that they've created. -- Thirstygirl

"Buck Jenkins, meet Eragon Paolini. Pao-Pao, Buck."

Ah, the 'it's only a joke' defence. -- Baron Scarpia

Which I had used on me when I was on the receiving end of a LOT of verbal abuse growing up. Standard way for the bully/abuser to turn the victim's complaint back on the victim. Been there, done that, still got the scars from it. Some of the wounds still haven't healed, 30+ years later.

More than that, I wonder what the endpoint in their reasoning is. Masculinism, belligerence, &c to the purpose of security, security for the purpose of survival...but what else beyond mere survival? -- Skyknight

"I need cocaine so I can work longer so I can make more money so I can buy more cocaine...."

[Dash]

Thank you very much for this post, Fred. I grew up surrounded by the attitude you describe and was told I was unique among women/girls for finding it objectionable. I've now spent some years out of that particular environment, but I still find it a wonderful and refreshing thing when someone, especially a Christian, points out just how unChristian it is.

[vlad3163]

D: I was waiting for this scene all week... The scene with what may just be the worst writing of this book. The scene where Jenkins might as well have just written "I'M A MASSIVE TOOL AND HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'M WRITING" a few dozen times. This scene actually made me re-read it a few times to try and make sense of what JBJ was doing. (ProTip: It doesn't work) I hope there's more coming in an edit, but if not... Oh, well here's to next week :*(

[victoria]

Thank you, Fred. It does my heart good to see a male ally taking on the Humorless Feminist role and not relegating feminism to "woman's work."

[Neohippie]

Wow Fred! Not only do you make Christians look good to this non-Christian woman, but men as well! Good job!

The jester is funny because he mocks the king. He deflates the over-inflated and humbles the proud. This is what comedy does. It's what comedy is for. It brings down the powerful from their thrones and lifts up the lowly

I think the problem here is the RTC persecution complex. Because of how this country isn't a Christian theocracy, so that means that Christians are horribly persecuted, you know? Christians and heterosexuals and white people and men are all horribly persectuted by those evil lesbian feminist pagan liberals.

You know, like Verna.

So, um, basically What Ako Said, and also I bet Rush Limbaugh loves these books.

[Jessica]

It's because, for their environment and habits, they have Sensible Feet.

So L&J hate boobies, too? Is it because even the name reminds them of women?

@Karen-- nice picture! Right in mid-step! It's so cute! The face, the blue feet! =)

[ako]

Which I had used on me when I was on the receiving end of a LOT of verbal abuse growing up. Standard way for the bully/abuser to turn the victim's complaint back on the victim. Been there, done that, still got the scars from it. Some of the wounds still haven't healed, 30+ years later.

Twisted isn't it? It postulates a whole system of values where anything and everything is acceptable, except not laughing along. Because not laughing along reveals the cruelty, therefore it makes them look mean, therefore it's being mean. And No Fun Ever (because if you're not having fun as and when the people who bully you dictate, you must be No Fun Ever).

[Karen]

Thanks, Jessica, and thanks for your pics as well. What would Friday be without The Official Bird of Slactivist? (Maybe I'll find some penguin pics for Thursday. Flame wars need diversions, and what's better than penguins?)

[JessicaR]

I don't know if I'm going to be able to read the actual excerpts next week, I'll just stick to Fred's commentary. It's just so awful. I know I should feel sorry for how miserable and small they are but they spread their poision to millions and I start to feel there isn't enough face punching in the world.

[car]

Thank you, Fred. I grew up in a very LaJenkins world, and the more I've gotten away from it the more I've realized how messed up it really is. Posts like yours give me the strength to say no, it wasn't just a little bad, it was really, really bad. It was morally wrong, and it doesn't have to be that way if everyone realizes it.

[Jim Lard]

"Women, Know Your Place!" (Search for it on Youtube if you don't get the joke.)

Great stuff as ever Fred. I think everyone who's ever written fiction can find something familiar in the description of a passage that fails utterly to portray what you wanted it to portray - but of course, for most of us such failures are corrected in the second draft, the third draft, the editing process, or just end up discarded and forgotten in the bottom of a drawer as we abandon them entirely (always the latter, in my case). That such failures might have ended up in books that sold millions is depressing on several levels...

[Dymphna]

Long response here, sorry. I'm interested in looking at the power dynamics involved in this type of behavior.

While RTC doctrine sure does support this way of acting, you get this behavior from the most surprising people. Not even close to just RTCs.

Just to give an example (and I'm guessing a lot of women here are like me and have plenty to choose from), I recently had a male therapist decide that I was a control freak with suppressed rage issues after speaking with me for ten minutes because I refused to answer yes or no questions and had the temerity to tell him (calmly, I might add) that I found this style of questioning frustrating and counter-productive. [My brother had the best retrospective comeback: "no, actually, I don't repress my anger. That's why I just told you I was angry."]

He then proceeded to accuse me of all sorts of vile things (including being a contributing factor to my husband's mental illness), then finished off with the claim that I had been hostile to him.

My point is not just to whine about my experience (okay, well, a little bit it is), but to show some of the other factors at play in the "humorless feminist" dynamic. Let's see, #1, said therapist insisted that he remembered the conversation perfectly, while my attempts to recount to him what I had been trying to say were so very inaccurate that it was acceptable for him to interrupt me to inform me of this fact. So I'd say #1 is the attempt to claim control over truth. When we are powerful we define the past, we define what is funny, we decide what is appropriate. We have the luxury of ignoring our own motivations in doing so.

#2 is projection. When you are called a humorless feminist, it is because you have done something to point out that the joker is not, in fact, being humorous. In this case, when I pointed out the therapist's hostile and controlling behavior, the strategy was to point back to me and call me hostile and controlling.

#3 is to pathologize or morally dismiss a fundamental part of the human person you are oppressing by, for instance, insisting that they are not able to be funny themselves. Or that they ought not to be angry, that anger is a bad thing to be suppressed (at least in others). You get this with other dimensions of human existence too: being sexual, being ambitious, etc. All of the moral values contained within Christianity can be turned on their heads and used as a tool to excise objectionable pieces of an otherwise whole human being.

#4 is to act on that power. In the case of the therapist, it was to withhold medical care and threaten to use his authority to convince my husband that I am a bad influence on him (which, thankfully, hubby found laughable). In the case of Buck and Verna, the threat is economic.

So that dynamic would be "define, project, pathologize, threaten."

Derailing for Dummies has an even more comprehensive analysis of how this type of oppression works.

[Not Really Here]

I said it last week- Buck is a psychopath. It's very common for psychopaths to have religious conversions, especially to Fund'ist Protestantism. More often than not, it happens in prison, where Finding Jesus can be used as a means to show that, Really, I've changed and turned away from my evil ways, so really, nice people on the parole board, you can let me out, I won't commit any more crimes 'cause I'm a Christian now. I'll refer you to Dr. Robert Hare's Without Conscience for further details.

When Buck said the Magic Words, thereby becoming an RTC, it wasn't his soul he was worried about saving. It was his ass. It's so blatantly obvious that he accepted Jesus as his Personal Lord and Savior(TM), not because he wanted a relationship with Christ, but because he was afraid the Antichrist was going to kill him and he wanted divine protection, I wonder how even the most ardent RTC reader managed to get through the books without wondering when Buck was going to apostatize, thus proving that he wasn't really saved to begin with. I can't fathom how anyone, especially not a Christian, could think his behavior toward Verna of the Sensible Shoes was anything but wildly inappropriate and deserving of immediate termination of employment. In a good story, that would have been an indication that Buck was not sincere in his conversion, and would be defecting to Nicky Catskills' camp as soon as the persecution commenced.

If you think about it, Fund'ism makes a very attractive belief system for male psychopaths. Misogyny and male superiority are built into the system, so abuse of one's spouse can be justified because "she's not being submissive enough", and the pastor is likely to blame the battered wife for her abuse, rather than the abusive husband. Children are basically regarded as property, and beating them with sticks, belts, or whatever object you happen to have handy that will inflict the maximum amount of pain is the preferred method of discipline, so whale away if the little snot annoys you. Actually, Fund'ism has a whole slew of classes of humans who are considered inferior beings, and therefore fair game. Homophobia is an obvious one, but Fund'ists also tend to be very racist- most of them are not open about it, because our culture condemns racism while simultaneously practicing it, but if you kick the log over, there it is, squirming underneath. Then, of course, there are people who adhere to religions other than Fund'ist Protestant Christianity, or to no religion at all.

Basically, anyone who is not part of the in-group is a legitimate target for discrimination, or even violence. Of course, the leadership will pay lip service to the condemnation of violence (except in the cases of spousal or child abuse, where the wife/child is considered to be under the authority of the husband/father, and if they are beaten, well, the man has a responsibility to enforce discipline in his household) but they hold to the racist/sexist/religionist/homophobic beliefs that incites the violence in the first place, and you know that inside, they believe that the victim only got what they deserved. Fundamentalism of any religious stripe is an inherently psychopathic belief system.

So, a man can beat his wife and kids within an inch of their lives, maybe go out and beat up a fag or two just for the fun of it, decide that the black applicant isn't a good fit for the corporate culture and deny him employment, then go to church on Sunday, praise Jesus, and be considered a good Christian for doing it all.

Oh, and just for giggles, Google up a YouTube video or two of Tim LaHaye. And look at his eyes. Seriously, it's scary. I'm actually convinced that the guy isn't just a misogynistic, homophobic anti-Catholic (or anti any other nonRTC) Fund'ist assgasket. I think he's possessed. No, I am not kidding. There's a demon looking out from behind those eyes.

Oh, and Headless Unicorn Guy- Court Prophet = Yes Man.

Yes Men = Court Jesters

[Shannon]

I wasn't all that sure I was ready for the rest of this scene when people were discussing it a few weeks back, so count me in as another person who appreciates this post. Of course, not having the stomach to read any of these books in their undiluted form, this is because I have a crush on Meta-Verna and I imagine I'll be peeking through my fingers, as it were, when book Verna gets what L&J obviously think is coming to her.
I'm also reminded of Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, the part where Valentine Michael Smith, the young man brought back to Earth after being raised on Mars, talks about laughter. I think he says something like, "All laughter is at someone's expense, and it's always about someone else's pain." I know I'm misquoting because I don't have the book handy, but it was something like that. I don't always agree with Heinlein, but in this instance, that sentiment has stayed with me.

Incidentally, this whole thing reminds me of the former roommate who introduced me to those books, because if there was ever a racist, homophobic, fat, or blonde joke and she heard it, she would pass it along. Every time people gently suggested maybe she was being inappropriate, she'd pull out the "Some of my best friends are black/gay/blonde/fat" card, or, my favorite, "Oh, I wasn't talking about *you*." Needless to say, we no longer speak.

[Shannon]

Er... My roommate introduced me to LB, not to Heinlein.

[Kaiser]

Oh, and just for giggles, Google up a YouTube video or two of Tim LaHaye. And look at his eyes. Seriously, it's scary. I'm actually convinced that the guy isn't just a misogynistic, homophobic anti-Catholic (or anti any other nonRTC) Fund'ist assgasket. I think he's possessed. No, I am not kidding. There's a demon looking out from behind those eyes.

Ookay, I think we're going a little off the deep end now. There are enough deplorable facets of the human condition without dragging magic and demons into it, even metaphorically.

[Amaryllis]

Shannon: Every time people gently suggested maybe she was being inappropriate, she'd pull out the "Some of my best friends are black/gay/blonde/fat" card, or, my favorite, "Oh, I wasn't talking about *you*."
The book I'm quoting from all over the place this week is Roy Blount's Alphabet Juice, from which:

If someone offends you on purpose, you can fight back. It is much more offensive to be offended by someone whose sole and unsoul-searched excuse is that he or she doesn't mean to be offensive, which means that he or she doesn't care, and isn't about to care, whether you are offended or not.

---
I love pictures of them doing the courtship dance. It just looks so cute.

It's because, for their environment and habits, they have Sensible Feet.
Yes, I love those blue feet; cheers me up every week. Thanks to Karen for inventing the custom and to all who post the pictures.

[Comrade Rutherford]

Brett mentioned "Minstrel shows", "those people didn't think it was wrong to mock black people and the like."

I was reading the Laura Ingalls Wilder books to my children as bedtime stories, and I came across the home-made 'minstrel' show that her Pa put on for the town. They townsfolk loved it, I was ... concerned. I wasn't up for the lengthy discussion about racism with my 5 and 7 year old daughters, so I simply skipped about four pages (and a drawing).
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Neohippie said, "RTC persecution complex"

Here in Vermont out state reps just passed the marriage equality bill. We had hundreds of RTCs massing at our statehouse in a lame attempt at intimidating our reps into following their orders.

The RTC's arguments all sugared out to this: "It's discrimination against Christians to pass laws that prevent Christians from discriminating against whomever they feel like."
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Our pro-business Republican Governor last week tried to meddle with the process of the Legislature by announcing that he would veto the equality law before the Reps even started discussing it.

I got a robocall yesterday asking me to call my Rep, Shap Smith, and tell him to 'side with the Governor'. I called right away, to tell him to vote for S.115 and to work tirelessly to over-ride the promised veto.

I also explained that I have a small business that caters to weddings, and that business is WAY down this year, and that our supposed 'pro-business' Gov intends to HARM my small business by vetoing the law that would bring more marriages to Vermont! His catering to a tiny minority of RTC idiots was more important to him than helping small business' thrive in this economy. Governor Scissorhands is a bonehead.

[Lori]

I think he says something like, "All laughter is at someone's expense, and it's always about someone else's pain." I know I'm misquoting because I don't have the book handy, but it was something like that.

I sincerely hope that Heinlein didn't actually believe that or expect anyone else to.

[Brel]

I generally agree with the sentiment of this post (although the section in the middle about "my husband likes these books" lost me). I wonder, however, if Fred's definition of humor is strictly true. Certainly it's not the full truth; plenty of humor has nothing to do with challenging notions of hierarchy. But in direct opposition to his idea, there is the "superiority theory", put forth by Thomas Hobbes and others, which claims that "the passion of laughter is nothing else but sudden glory arising from some sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves, by comparison with the infirmity of others, or with our own formerly" (from http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/humor.htm#SH2a). In this conception, one's sense of humor is activated by observing the (believed) stupidity of others.

And aside from that, much of the humor that internet groups like Anonymous produce comes from asserting "traditional claims of hierarchy". And I, for one, find them hilarious.

[Esther]

The fruit of the Spirit, St. Paul writes, "is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."

If you sat down and tried to write a scene in which a character displayed the opposite of all of those characteristics, you'd come up with something like Buck's actions in the first 20 pages of Tribulation Force.

Nonsense! Buck was very steadfastly not having sex with her. Just look at his self-control!

This is the fascinating thing about this strain of religion: all of the positive injunctions of the Bible (love your neighbor, protect the poor and weak, judge with fairness and mercy, embrace those whom society rejects, welcome God as your parent) are downplayed in favor of the negative prohibitions (don't have gay sex, don't have sex before marriage, don't do witchcraft, don't go to Hell). Perhaps because it's easier to avoid doing bad things than to be making the hard judgments that come in a world in which there are always more good things to be done.

(And yes, this is mostly tangential to your post, but that's because you covered the main subject so well that I have nothing to add. Except, perhaps, that as a female academic in Biblical studies, the attitudes that you discuss are often sanctified by academia to a frightening degree.)

[ako]

"All laughter is at someone's expense, and it's always about someone else's pain."

"the passion of laughter is nothing else but sudden glory arising from some sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves, by comparison with the infirmity of others, or with our own formerly"

Okay, I know I can't be the only who laughs from sheer joy sometimes.

[ako]

And aside from that, much of the humor that internet groups like Anonymous produce comes from asserting "traditional claims of hierarchy". And I, for one, find them hilarious.

See, I mostly just find them frightening. I'm convinced that if I go anywhere near them, I'll say something too sincere, or two heartfelt, or something that isn't 'in' enough, or something that's a little too 'in', or be slightly socially awkward, or like the wrong things, or dislike the wrong things, and they'll turn on me and humiliate me. And then blame me for caring that other people were conducting a massive "Humiliate her!"-fest aimed at me.

I mostly don't have time to be amused after all of that.

[Enlightened Layperson]

Here's what I don't get. Whatever you may think of Rayford Steele, at least he is doing what any right-thinking RTC (RTRTC?) should do under the circumstances -- evangelizing his ass off. He wants to convert as many people as possible before Armeggedon strikes and the unconverted all go to hell.

But what about Buck? Why is he clashing with the boss and flirting with the secretary. Shouldn't he be evanelizing his ass off too?

[Bugmaster]

I agree with the comments regarding humor. True, some humor does subvert the hegemony of the hierarchy, but that's neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for setting up a good joke. For example, the popular webcomic xkcd is widely accepted as funny, but more often than not it doesn't subvert anyone (except, of course, for those blasted computational linguists). For another example, take a look at Dilbert. This comic most definitely subverts the management hierarchy, but nowadays few people would call it "funny" (terms such as "bland" or "soporific" come to mind, instead).

[Ursula L]

Okay, I know I can't be the only who laughs from sheer joy sometimes.

You're definately not the only one.

Humor can be mean-spirited, but it doesn't have to be. As a point of proof, consider this - "What News Anchors do During Commercial Break": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7ehlw_phys

The question, I think, is whether you ask someone to laugh at someone else, or if you ask them to laugh with you.

[Bugmaster]

... and they'll turn on me and humiliate me.

Meh... I personally don't take myself seriously enough to worry about who will humiliate me when and how and why. I think that every person should be able to laugh at himself now and again.

[Ambrosia]

(multi-year lurker here)

Do you know why you never hear someone say, "Oh, Left Behind ... my husband loves those books"?

Because her husband doesn't like it when she talks to other people and she doesn't want to upset him again.

@ Brel:

I generally agree with the sentiment of this post (although the section in the middle about "my husband likes these books" lost me).

I recently discovered No Longer Quivering, a blog about/by women who recently left serious Fund'ist Patriarchal marriages. It's fascinating to read the descriptions of their awakening from years of abuse.

The spare keys, cash stash, bolt bag are unfortunately all that helps some women and their children stay alive (not the "No Longer Quivering" ones referenced above - that I'm aware of).

[Willie Lee]

Totally lame typo-correcting comment:
End of graph 3 "vast carelessness or whatever it us that keeps them going,". Us -> is.

I think I've recommended turning this whole thread into a book a couple times now, but I have to do it again. I really want to share this with friends and they're just not going to sit in front of their computers for the several weeks it'll take to catch up. And I don't want to print out the 100+ pages on my own printer, because it was silly when I did it for myself back when it was only 40 pages to print.

But now as I think of a Slacktivist:LB book, I don't think you would fare much better, legally, than the Harry Potter Lexicon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_Lexicon#Lawsuit). And that is a shame, because these posts are delightfully insightful. Maybe you could teach a course at a college somewhere and produce a reader that would be covered by fair use for education?

Wow, how great would that course be? English Lit 154, cross-listed as Religious Studies 122: Case studies in how to do it wrong: Left Behind. I can see the syllabus in my mind.

[ako]

Meh... I personally don't take myself seriously enough to worry about who will humiliate me when and how and why. I think that every person should be able to laugh at himself now and again.

It's not a matter of not being able to laugh at myself (and being a Humorless Whatever), but a matter of the kind of humor. Like a lot of the 4chan "LOL, FATTIE!!!" stuff, especially aimed at women, isn't so much "Ha, ha, you're fat" as "Ha, ha, you're so fat that nothing you can say is ever going to be worthwhile", or "Ha, ha, you're so fat that no one will ever desire you", or other genuine nastiness. And it doesn't strike me as a matter of taking yourself to seriously or not being able to laugh at yourself to not accept every attempt to shred your self-worth, pick at your insecurities, or dismiss you as a human being because they're just joking.

...and yes, I'm pretty sure the appropriate Anonymous response to this is "LOL, FATTIE!!!"

[Dave Lartigue]

Conservative humor is always, ALWAYS, about defending the high at the expense of the low. (Some would argue that Conservative EVERYTHING is about this.) Which is why it's never funny and it's always cruel. They do not understand satire, only mockery. They also cannot see humor in themselves, except in a way that ultimately is meant to flatter themselves, a sort of comedy version of the "My greatest fault is I'm too dedicated to my job" interview question. For them, humor doesn't say anything or do anything, it's just another way for them to laugh at someone else's expense and cheerlead for themselves.