The Berry-Picker's "Laughter"
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:02 pm
" Some days the tears leave you a helpless mass of laughter on the floor. "---Gary Novak
"Why so serious?"---The Joker
A number of very important facts have come to light in recent weeks. Though I have been very busy lately, examining codices, indices, and microfiche, believe me when I say that the revelations of this MB have not been far from my mind. Above all, I have been ruminating at length on the very revealing attitude of Bro. Gary Novak--an individual who once seemed just on the cusp of breaking into the ranks of amateur Mopologists. Novak, whose l-skinny code name is "The Berry Picker," had his confidence demolished after some of his Mopologetic writings were turned down for publication. Indeed, his bitterness--so I'm told---cankers his soul to this day.
But that is not what this thread is meant to be about. During my archival work, I found that my mind kept drifting again and again to Dr. Robbers's unearthing of the rather mean-spirited, albeit revealing, "Novak's Rule." Devoted readers of this board will recall that "Novak's Rule" states that anyone who dares to criticize the Church will lose something like 80 points off of their IQ, or something like that.
How are we to take this, though? Obviously, "Novak's Rule" is very childish, just like the man who helped coin it. But, I think that this reveals something even deeper about the Mopologetic mindset. By way of evidence, look at this webpage:
http://www.shields-research.org/Novak/Novak.html
Did Mr. Novak really create a website devoted solely and exclusive to the mockery of Church critics? Is his laughter "all in good fun," as the old saying goes? After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that it is not. Read on:
It is intriguing that "The Berry Picker" is admitting to his laziness here. One has to wonder: did his "fundamental constitution" play any role in the rejection of his Mopologetic writings? Furthermore, how "lazy" is he really if he took the time to create "Worst of the Anti-Mormon Web" page?
I have not yet arrived at my thesis, however. Take a gander at this:
http://www.shields-research.org/Novak/ifaq.html
I believe that this page reveals the duality of Bro. Novak's character, and it tells us something about a very deeply-seated insecurity at the heart of every Mopologist. Let's take a closer look at Novak's writings:
It seems obvious from this that Novak's site isn't merely just about "laughing" and "mockery." Instead, in true Mopologetic fashion, he aims to use the site (to borrow his language) to "fashion a stick with which to beat" Church critics. Indeed, one can sense a roiling, highly self-conscious anger beneath "The Berry Picker"'s prose. A bit further along on the page, Novak carries on with his harangue:
Notice the threatening tone, here. If Novak is confident in his position, why would he feel the need to employ this kind of rhetoric? The answer is obvious: Novak is not confident in his position at all. Prof. Daniel C. Peterson is fond of repeating a French quotation which translates to something along the lines of, "This animal is very wicked; it bites back when you attack it." It seems clear that Novak feels very much like a cornered animal, and to no small extent, I believe this applies to most Mopologists.
So, as per the title of this thread, what is the significance of "The Berry Picker"'s laughter? This final exchange on the "FAQ" is quite telling:
What would Novak & et al. do if they were advised to "lighten up"? This is what he would do:
As you can see, Novak feels like he and other Mopologists are under a great deal of pressure. "Anti-Mormon" criticism, in his view, is like a relentless force that will never let up. So, is the "laughter" a kind of "release valve"? To a certain extent, I would say: Yes, it is.
But I believe there are deeper, more subterranean things at work here. As I remove my spectacles and massage the bridge of my nose, it comes to me: The Mopologists cannot stand the thought that they are being laughed at and ridiculed. Eureka. Gary Novak's angry, rather vicious and immature "mockery" is really the result of his long-standing feelings of embarrassment and shame over the fact that the LDS Church is so easy to make fun of. Novak and other Mopologists lash out in frustration because they know, at base, that things like Isrealites as Native Americans, polygamy, Zelph the White Lamanite, and Kolob will always constitute the butts of an endless stream of jokes. But, as hardcore TBMs, they themselves cannot be permitted to find the humor---or absurdity?---in any of this. And it galls them in a most terrible fashion.
I think that this concept---this character trait common among Mopologists---can be summed up by an image from contemporary American cinema: Adam Sandler, enraged and shaking, his lips atremble, growling, "Stop makin' fun of me! in The Waterboy. Essentially, I think this is what Mopologists like "The Berry Picker" are doing. "Worst of the Anti-Mormon Web" is a Waterboy-esque gesture, as was DCP's "Apologetics by the Numbers", and Bill Hamblin's "Metcalfe is Butthead." Consider that the Novak quote I cited in the epigraph states that the tears bring the laughter, and not the other way around.
I am sure that some naysayers will point to the apparent Mopologetic acceptance of such things as the pair of South Park episodes dealing with Mormonism. It is worth pointing out that the Mopologists inevitably opt to pooh-pooh away the "All About Mormons" episode just as they inevitably salivate over the episode in which God announces to everyone that the Mormons got it right. This only supplies further evidence that the utterly humorless Mopologists are incapable of laughing at themselves.
And so I return again to the second epigraph of this post, in order to ask the Mopologists the obvious question: Why so serious???
"Why so serious?"---The Joker
A number of very important facts have come to light in recent weeks. Though I have been very busy lately, examining codices, indices, and microfiche, believe me when I say that the revelations of this MB have not been far from my mind. Above all, I have been ruminating at length on the very revealing attitude of Bro. Gary Novak--an individual who once seemed just on the cusp of breaking into the ranks of amateur Mopologists. Novak, whose l-skinny code name is "The Berry Picker," had his confidence demolished after some of his Mopologetic writings were turned down for publication. Indeed, his bitterness--so I'm told---cankers his soul to this day.
But that is not what this thread is meant to be about. During my archival work, I found that my mind kept drifting again and again to Dr. Robbers's unearthing of the rather mean-spirited, albeit revealing, "Novak's Rule." Devoted readers of this board will recall that "Novak's Rule" states that anyone who dares to criticize the Church will lose something like 80 points off of their IQ, or something like that.
How are we to take this, though? Obviously, "Novak's Rule" is very childish, just like the man who helped coin it. But, I think that this reveals something even deeper about the Mopologetic mindset. By way of evidence, look at this webpage:
http://www.shields-research.org/Novak/Novak.html
The Berry Picker wrote:If you are humor-impaired, leave immediately. This is not for the faint-of-heart, the thin-skinned, or especially humorless anti-Mormons. If you are a humorless anti-Mormon, this site is intended to mock you—I am laughing at you.
Did Mr. Novak really create a website devoted solely and exclusive to the mockery of Church critics? Is his laughter "all in good fun," as the old saying goes? After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that it is not. Read on:
G. Novak wrote:Worst of the Anti-Mormon Web appears occasionally—that is, whenever I feel like it. Anything regular was just a bit too much work and hence simply does not agree with my fundamental constitution.
It is intriguing that "The Berry Picker" is admitting to his laziness here. One has to wonder: did his "fundamental constitution" play any role in the rejection of his Mopologetic writings? Furthermore, how "lazy" is he really if he took the time to create "Worst of the Anti-Mormon Web" page?
I have not yet arrived at my thesis, however. Take a gander at this:
http://www.shields-research.org/Novak/ifaq.html
I believe that this page reveals the duality of Bro. Novak's character, and it tells us something about a very deeply-seated insecurity at the heart of every Mopologist. Let's take a closer look at Novak's writings:
if you somehow noticed the word "anti-Mormon" prominently displayed and were hoping for another site that would help you fashion a stick with which to beat the Church, you came to the wrong place. The Worst is intended to mock the worst of the anti-Mormon sites.
It seems obvious from this that Novak's site isn't merely just about "laughing" and "mockery." Instead, in true Mopologetic fashion, he aims to use the site (to borrow his language) to "fashion a stick with which to beat" Church critics. Indeed, one can sense a roiling, highly self-conscious anger beneath "The Berry Picker"'s prose. A bit further along on the page, Novak carries on with his harangue:
I am sorry that you have got yourself out of the Church. I am just a little curious about why you are surfing Mormon and/or anti-Mormon sites? In any case, I hope you realize that the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's prophetic claims do not depend on some Church member being nice to you or giving you all the credit you think deserve or even helping you in your time of need.
[SNIP!]
And if you have latched onto some anti-Mormon argument as a form of self-justification so that you can enjoy the California Fun Culture or worse, it is still not too late to repent and rejoin the fold—if you can be honest with yourself about the matter for a few minutes. It is, after all, always a choice between Jerusalem and Athens, Zion and Babylon.
Notice the threatening tone, here. If Novak is confident in his position, why would he feel the need to employ this kind of rhetoric? The answer is obvious: Novak is not confident in his position at all. Prof. Daniel C. Peterson is fond of repeating a French quotation which translates to something along the lines of, "This animal is very wicked; it bites back when you attack it." It seems clear that Novak feels very much like a cornered animal, and to no small extent, I believe this applies to most Mopologists.
So, as per the title of this thread, what is the significance of "The Berry Picker"'s laughter? This final exchange on the "FAQ" is quite telling:
Novak wrote:Q: Boy you are mean. How can you be so mean? You think you are clever but it comes off as really mean-spirited.
A: First, lighten up.
What would Novak & et al. do if they were advised to "lighten up"? This is what he would do:
(emphasis added)Novak, cont'd wrote:The Worst is intended to poke fun at anti-Mormon sites. If you are not one of the cognoscenti of the dark world (and, I might add, soft underbelly) of anti-Mormonism, this site may come as something of a shock. Rest assured folks like Ed Decker, John L. Smith, Ankerberg and Weldon among a host of others, make their living persecuting the Saints—it is what they do and is a full-time job. And if you think that they are willing to cut us the least bit of slack and "live and let live," you are likely to be mistaken. So the truth of the matter is that I do not take them very seriously. They are funny. I merely point it out.
As you can see, Novak feels like he and other Mopologists are under a great deal of pressure. "Anti-Mormon" criticism, in his view, is like a relentless force that will never let up. So, is the "laughter" a kind of "release valve"? To a certain extent, I would say: Yes, it is.
But I believe there are deeper, more subterranean things at work here. As I remove my spectacles and massage the bridge of my nose, it comes to me: The Mopologists cannot stand the thought that they are being laughed at and ridiculed. Eureka. Gary Novak's angry, rather vicious and immature "mockery" is really the result of his long-standing feelings of embarrassment and shame over the fact that the LDS Church is so easy to make fun of. Novak and other Mopologists lash out in frustration because they know, at base, that things like Isrealites as Native Americans, polygamy, Zelph the White Lamanite, and Kolob will always constitute the butts of an endless stream of jokes. But, as hardcore TBMs, they themselves cannot be permitted to find the humor---or absurdity?---in any of this. And it galls them in a most terrible fashion.
I think that this concept---this character trait common among Mopologists---can be summed up by an image from contemporary American cinema: Adam Sandler, enraged and shaking, his lips atremble, growling, "Stop makin' fun of me! in The Waterboy. Essentially, I think this is what Mopologists like "The Berry Picker" are doing. "Worst of the Anti-Mormon Web" is a Waterboy-esque gesture, as was DCP's "Apologetics by the Numbers", and Bill Hamblin's "Metcalfe is Butthead." Consider that the Novak quote I cited in the epigraph states that the tears bring the laughter, and not the other way around.
I am sure that some naysayers will point to the apparent Mopologetic acceptance of such things as the pair of South Park episodes dealing with Mormonism. It is worth pointing out that the Mopologists inevitably opt to pooh-pooh away the "All About Mormons" episode just as they inevitably salivate over the episode in which God announces to everyone that the Mormons got it right. This only supplies further evidence that the utterly humorless Mopologists are incapable of laughing at themselves.
And so I return again to the second epigraph of this post, in order to ask the Mopologists the obvious question: Why so serious???