Humor is based on cruelty
Christopher B. Wright
that isn't based on someone being shown up, put down, placed in an
uncomfortable position, denigrated, or otherwise made fun of.
The difference is in a) how it's executed and b) the degree to which it
is cruel. For example, some comedians make fun of themselves the entire
time in their stand-up work, and they allow the audience to laugh at
them. Some comedians make fun of the _audience_ the entire time, and
dare the audience to laugh at themselves.
What seems to piss most people off is when the butt of the joke is a
person or a group of people who are unable to stand up for themselves.
This seems to be the objection that most people have with that strip
"The Retard" -- if the name has any humor at all (which I don't find) it
seems to be humor at the expense of a group of people who aren't as
capable of defending themselves -- and that makes it a lot less funny to
a lot of us... I include myself in that group.
If someone makes a joke at my expense, I have a few options. On one side
of the equation, I can laugh at it as well and not let it bother me. On
the other side of the equation, I can physically attack the person
telling the joke, and make him or her sorry he/she ever thought of it.
In the middle I can use a variety of tactics to turn the joke on the
teller and keep the banter going -- in either a jolly or mean-spirited
way.
If the butt of the joke doesn't appear to have the ability to defend
itself in that manner, it somehow seems less appropriate to focus on
them, if that target is a group of people. If that target is an
institution, so much the better, in my not so humble at all opinion.
For example, Help Desk (you should have known there'd be a plug in here
_somewhere_) constantly takes potshots at the Computer Industry and its
business practices. The computer industry (the business side of it,
anyway) is a thoroughly humorless institution that seems quite unable to
defend itself from satire, which only makes my job easier. (As it turns
out, Help Desk workers are on the other extreme -- they're quite willing
to laugh at themselves and their workplace. So I'm covering both
extremes with this example).
But at it's core, humor is based on cruelty regardless of who it
targets. Apparently, however, there is "acceptable" cruelty and
"unacceptable" cruelty -- and don't think I disagree with this, I
believe in "acceptable" and "unacceptable" cruelty where humor is
concerned, I just don't know that my boundaries fit with everyone
else's.
I'm interested in other people's thoughts on this...
Chris Wright (wri...@ubersoft.net)
Help Desk (http://ubersoft.net)
Dave Van Domelen
same way surgery is based on cutting people. In both cases, clumsy attempts
can be hurtful without any actual benefits.
Dave Van Domelen, notes that there are people who are into crude, rude
"humor" just as there are people who like being randomly cut up....
Christopher B. Wright
ronniecat wrote:
>
>
> Steven Wright immediately came to mind when I read this (as an exception).
> His humour is intensely cerebral and the vast majority of his now-famous
> observations and postulations don't portray anyone suffering any of the
> above. Even among those remarks that are a commentary on his own odd mental
> circumstances ("You know when you're walking up stairs and you think there's
> another stair and you go to step on it but there isn't?...I'm like that all
> the time.") can't really be considered self-denigrating.
Well, I'll be the first to admit there are always exceptions to every
rule, but I'm not sure if Steven is one of them.
The reason I say this, is that much of Steven Wright's humor is as
involved in his _delivery_ and his portrayal as it is the things the
says. Not to knock the things he says, but try and picture another
comedian saying the same things in their style.
Steven's slurring, paranoid persona makes what he says a lot funnier.
Just like Dennis Leary's angry-at-the-world rants are funnier because he
seems to drive himself into a frenzy when he does it. In both cases, the
caricatures have traces of self-mockery.
> Now, whether he the only exception is another question, but I'd kind of hate
> to think that. It wouldn't speak very well of how far human humour has
> evolved.
That's my thing. I don't know that it's a terrible thing for humor to be
based on cruelty. I think it's a mark _for_ human evolution that we can
laugh at cruelty as humor and still be upset by cruelty as real life...
it displays a knowledge of the separation between fantasy and reality.
I could go on and say that not only is Humor based on cruelty, but
Tragedies are as well. A tragedy isn't a tragedy unless extremely cruel
things happen to the hero/heroine... but how the hero/heroine deals with
it is what gives a tragedy its sophistication. I guess how the
comedian/comic strip artist-writer/audience deals with cruelty in humor
is also what gives humor its sophistication (if it indeed has any).
brian
For more comic theory no cartoonist should be without, you might want to
check out Mel Helitzer book 'Comedy Writing Secrets' where he talks about
insulting or cruel humor.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0898795109/o/qid=943297018/sr=8-1/102
-8887351-4940020
-brian
Quinn Biminy
>involved in his _delivery_ and his portrayal as it is the things the
>says.
I couldn't disagree more. It's what he says that is funny. How he says it is
just icing on the cake. In proof, I'd recommend going to one of the "quotes"
sights and reading a bunch of his. They are hilarious WITHOUT hearing them come
out of Steven's mouth.
signed Bim, master of the exploding cigar trick
8^-' (bang!) 8^*
Christopher B. Wright
Are you telling me that when you read them you don't hear him _saying_
them? I always do.
What Steven says _is_ funny. I don't disagree with that. But I don't
think it would be as funny if Richard Belzer said it. It might be as
funny if Andy Kaufman had said it.
Beefies
>I could go on and say that not only is Humor based on cruelty, but
>Tragedies are as well. A tragedy isn't a tragedy unless extremely cruel
>things happen to the hero/heroine... but how the hero/heroine deals with
>it is what gives a tragedy its sophistication. I guess how the
>comedian/comic strip artist-writer/audience deals with cruelty in humor
>is also what gives humor its sophistication (if it indeed has any).
>
but when *YOU* slip in a pile of shit and die it's comedy. I think he's got
a point.
Carson Fire
>that isn't based on someone being shown up, put down, placed in an
>uncomfortable position, denigrated, or otherwise made fun of.
You're defining comedy by one end of the spectrum. Garrison Keillor, Jean
Shephard, and Will Rogers were all fairly gentle humorists.
Charlie Chaplin, while his little tramp had his foibles, was more ingenious
than mean spirited. The scene in City Lights where a blind girl mistakes him
for a rich man is funny, sad, but not a bit cruel. After the car door slams,
and he realizes what happens, he sneaks off, so he doesn't destroy her
illusion.
And Buster Keaton's humor much of the time came from getting out of impossible
fixes.
And that's just using comedians as examples. Puns, limericks, word
play...there's a whole world of humor out there, it's just been squished down,
narrowed, confined, and watered down by popular TV and movies.
As a matter of fact, I think that one possible path for comic strip success in
the coming century would be to try to spend less time aping homogenized mass
media, and take advantage of the limitless vistas that print has always
offered.
Carson Fire :O)
Elf Life daily: http://elflife.bigpanda.com
Automatic Elf Life: email anything to elflife-comi...@onelist.com
"Great guns! I'm stretchin' like a RUBBER BAND!" - Eel O'Brian
Christopher B. Wright
ronniecat <ronn...@mycollar.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s3j7sv...@corp.supernews.com...
> Granted the persona makes them funn_ier_, but I respectfully disagree that
> they are the key to the humour. Here's a quick 5 of my very favourites
that
> I think stand alone... anybody could deliver these to the same effect
imho.
> (Note in reference to our earlier discussion that none of them rely on
> cruelty):
I think I may need to find another word b/c "cruelty" is extreme. I'm going
to be a scholar here and say that cruelty doesn't necessarily have to be so
extreme that we would say, in real life, "that is so cruel." I could
actually be something that would make us say "that is so annoying." At its
core, an annoyance shares the same characteristics as cruelty, it's just so
diminished that we need to place a gradient on cruelty, and annoyance is way
at the bottom, while the official cruel is way, way at the top.
I think that in every example you use I can point out that the punchline
depends on a form of very mild cruelty. Let's see if I can successfully
defend my thesis here. :-)
> - I went down the street to the 24-hour grocery. When I got there, the
guy was
> locking the front door. I said, "Hey, the sign says you're open 24
hours."
> He said, "Yeah, but not in a row."
Heh. I wish I'd thought of this, it would be a great Help Desk strip.
Picture if you will:
---
*Panel 1*
Caller: I tried calling your 24 hour tech support line last night, and I got
a voice recording saying that you weren't open during the hours of 10 PM to
4 AM.
Alex: That's right.
*Panel 2*
Caller: If it's a 24-hour tech support line, aren't you supposed to be open
24 hours?
*Panel 3*
Alex: We are, but most of them are on Wednesdays and Thursdays.
---
Alas, Steven beat me to it. And despite our shared last name, I don't think
the public would be too forgiving... :-)
See, the humor (as I see it) is that the person denying the service (in
Steven's case, the guy opering the store, in my case, the computer company)
has come up with a technically accurate but absolutely based maddening
definition of 24 hours that allows them to "break the rules."
> - Winny and I lived in a house that ran on static electricity...If you
> wanted to run the blender, you had to rub balloons on your head. If you
wanted to
> cook, you had to pull off a sweater real quick.
The humor here is a humor of inconvenience. Imagine having to pull a sweater
off real quick every time you want to cook something. It's funny because in
order to use something considered "common" (electricity) you have to do
something outrageous.
> - In my house there's this light switch that doesn't do anything. Every
so
> often I would flick it on and off just to check. Yesterday, I got a call
from a
> woman in Germany. She said, "Cut it out."
The humor is that the light switch actually _does_ something, and it annoys
the Geman lady because it does something to _her_. That would be cruelty.
> - I went to a restaurant that serves "breakfast at any time". So I
ordered
> French Toast during the Renaissance.
This is similar to the 24 hours gag, but Steven turns it on its head. By
choosing another definition for the word "time", Steven is ordering
something that is technically allowable, but impossible. Imagine being the
waitron taking his order...
> - One time the power went out in my house and I had to use the flash on my
> camera to see my way around. I made a sandwich and took fifty pictures of
> my face. The neighbors thought there was lightning in my house.
This might be a comment on my developmental state more than anything else,
but I didn't get this one. :-) I don't know why taking pictures of his face
while he's making a sandwich is relevant.
> I just thought of someone else who can be damned funny without a target
for
> mockery: Tom Lehrer. What I know about science you could fit in a thimble
> but when he sings the Periodic Table of the Elements set to music it's
just
> plain funny.
Tom Lehrer is actually the epitome of the "humor is cruelty" ideal.
"Poisoning Pigeons in the Park," "Oedipus Rex," "National Brotherhood Week"
are brilliant examples. Oh, and don't forget the song about the girl who
kills her family and servers her baby brother up for irish stew. :-) As for
the Periodic Table of the Elements set to the music of Gilbert and Sullivan,
well, it doesn't seem cruel at first, but let's see if I can twist and
spindle it enough to make it fit my definition: <g>
Ok, first it requires that the audience be familiar with two things: The
Periodic Table of Elements, and "I am the Very Model of a Model Major
General" from Gilbert and Sullivan's _The Pirates of Penzance_.
It's not necessary that you know the entire Periodic Table, nor is it
necessary that you have intimiate familiarity with the Pirates of Penzance,
but...
... the reason why it's _funny_ is because it parodies the way Gilbert and
Sullivan write music. They use breakneck nonstop alliteration that says very
little (or, as Tom Lehrer said when introducing another Gilbert and Sullivan
Parody -- with a "Darling Clemintine" Theme -- "a rousing chorous of words
that means nothing." Or something like that).
So the periodic table song digs at G&S -- very affectionately, in my
opinion, but it's a dig nonetheless.
"New Math" is a somewhat less affectionate dig at new math. :-)
I love Tom Lehrer. ;-)
> >That's my thing. I don't know that it's a terrible thing for humor to be
> >based on cruelty. I think it's a mark _for_ human evolution that we can
> >laugh at cruelty as humor and still be upset by cruelty as real life...
> >it displays a knowledge of the separation between fantasy and reality.
>
>
> That's a really interesting way of looking at it. I think you have a
really
> interesting point there. In fact, I believe I agree. Who says nobody ever
> changes their minds during the course of the discussions here?
*Heart stops.*
*Keels over.*
*THUD*
I can honestly say I think that's the first time I've _ever_ changed
_anyone's_ mind on Usenet. <g>
Tankman
Just to appease some of the people out there who think I can't be
serious about posts...that means YOU ronniecat!
I agree with you about much of the so-called humor in the comics section
being made up of abusive put-downers and mean spirited attacks. However,
I disagree that all humor is intially based upon cruelty of some sort.
There are those rare gems like "Mutts", some "Peanuts" (I don't know
why, but I laughed like a loon at one of last week's strips where Snoopy
was on a campout with Woodstock and his friends, and one of the birds
was roasting a marshmallow through several of the others' tents. It
really wasn't that funny on reflection, but it worked!), and more
experiential strips like "Heart of the City" (which I have mellowed on
since my days in the "Bathtub" as mentioned in an earlier post by ME).
I wonder sometimes why our society feels like there is so much humor in
people being mean to others. I subscribe, as many on this NG can attest,
to the "Dare To Be Stupid" phillosophy of humor put forth by the
greatness that is Weird Al Yankovic. Its kind of like my endless
diatribe against the useless "=o=". I never attack Jym personally about
this, in fact all of my energy is focused towards the symbol. Yeah, its
dumb and pointless, but so what? I'll bet somebody here has laughed or
at least chuckled about it (now don't everybody explode at once claiming
that I'm wrong- you can't possibly know the thoughts of every NG reader
out there!) Oher examples of this type of humor include Keith Giffen and
Robert Lorren Flemming's Ambush Bug comic book and 'The Far Side" by
Gary Larsen.
Yours,
Tankman
Terrence Marks
<wri...@ubersoft.net> wrote:
>Just thought I'd throw that in. I can't think of any humor out there
>that isn't based on someone being shown up, put down, placed in an
>uncomfortable position, denigrated, or otherwise made fun of.
Anyone who can find cruelty in a pun is beyond my help...
Terrence Marks
Unlike Minerva (a comic strip)
http://unlikeminerva.com
Peter Gullerud
The more we limit ourselves to boundaries, the more we limit our storytelling.
I've seen plenty of comedy and humor that is not mean spirited or even subtley
cruel. Read some silly nilly "Pogo" some time.
But a lot of what you're saying is the "cruelty" (if you can even call it that)
is self directed..or self parody..even Help Desk ,..if its about the computer
industry is all about "look how dumb WE are" not "THEY are" as long as
you're a member of that group (which I'm taking for granted.)
I mainly make fun of bullies in my strip like "Bobby Sprint" or the unfair
referee reptile....in other words, i am cruel to the cruel...
I hate haters. ;-)
Peter Gullerud
http://members.aol.com/grootlore
JPA
believe that all humor is at someone or something's expense
(as I've said here before).
Jim A.
Christopher B. Wright
>
On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:22:02 -0500, "Christopher B. Wright"
> <wri...@ubersoft.net> wrote:
>
> >Just thought I'd throw that in. I can't think of any humor out there
> > >that isn't based on someone being shown up, put down, placed in an
> > >uncomfortable position, denigrated, or otherwise made fun of.
>
> Anyone who can find cruelty in a pun is beyond my help...
>
Oh, that's easy. The cruelty in a pun is the pun itself. Puns are the
cruelist form of humor out there... :-)
Joseph Nebus
>Anyone who can find cruelty in a pun is beyond my help...
In the case of the pun, the cruelty's against the audience.
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless it's told by the Groucho, Bugs Bunny, or Fozzie Bear,
I mean.
Andrew Ryan Chang
I've always thought humor was based on the unexpected. There's an
interesting book called "Mathematics and Humor" (don't laugh!) which goes
into great detail on this, and it's really quite good. If I recall
correctly, cruelty wasn't a necessary ingredient.
--
Made with pure Palm Coconut NaOH Solution, Almond & Jojoba Oil
Vegetarian, Supermild for delicate skin, bath-face-shave shampoo.
Dental soap & refreshing sachet. 100% pure Almond oil.
-Dr Bronner.
Walkerton
a cruelty pun
There you go!
--Walky
Draws Roomies! and laughs all the way to the... hospital, because he was
beaten up by the masses.
wii...@hotmail.com
http://members.xoom.com/Walky
nancy g.
> Just thought I'd throw that in. I can't think of any humor out there
> that isn't based on someone being shown up, put down, placed in an
> uncomfortable position, denigrated, or otherwise made fun of.
One of my favorite types of humor, puns and word plays, generally isn't.
Admittedly, that's not the kind of humor that lends itself well to
being portrayed in a comic strip, but it's certainly a form of humor.
I do understand what you're saying, and it's true up to a point ...
> The difference is in a) how it's executed and b) the degree to which
> it is cruel. For example, some comedians make fun of themselves the
> entire time in their stand-up work, and they allow the audience to
> laugh at them. Some comedians make fun of the _audience_ the entire
> time, and dare the audience to laugh at themselves.
But there's also the type of humor that *could* be cruel, except the
comedian makes it into a type of ... jeez, this is going to sound corny,
but a type of "bonding" experience with the audience, when he does
his routine or tells his joke (or draws his strip) but then goes one
half step further and turns it into a "haven't we all had this kind of
experience?" type of moment.
For example, think of some of Bill Cosby's early humor, before he
became the guru of family sitcoms. He did a 20-minute routine about
his father hollering at him and his brother Russell (whom he slept with).
And if anyone has never heard this or doesn't remember it, shaddup.
I don't want to KNOW how old I am, OK?
But as I was saying ... on the surface, you could say this type of
humor is cruel indeed, especially in this day and age when any strict
discipline of children is suspect (and let's don't go THERE, people, OK?).
However, in the telling of the story, he doesn't make us feel that his
father was being cruel to the kids -- rather, he makes us remember how
*we* felt as kids being in the same situation and then leads us to
the realization that we all share a common bond -- he takes the "cruelty"
of his story and uses it only as a stepping stone to get to the humor,
and not as the humor itself.
Compare that to, say, Louis Anderson, who depresses me every single
time I hear the stories of his dysfunctional childhood. Cosby's dad
makes a funny story. Louie's dad doesn't.
> I'm interested in other people's thoughts on this...
Well, those were mine, off the top of my head. I'm sure I'll have
more as soon as I hit "send".
Walkerton
>jeez, who can ever read anything that sounds even vaguely
>Steven-Wright-ish and *not* hear it being told in his unique
>vocal style?
Well, it'd help if that someone didn't know who Steven Wright is...
--Walky
Draws Roomies! and ducks slightly and walks sheepishly away...
wii...@hotmail.com
http://members.xoom.com/Walky
nancy g.
>> The reason I say this, is that much of Steven Wright's humor
>> is as involved in his _delivery_ and his portrayal as it is
>> the things the says.
> I couldn't disagree more. It's what he says that is funny.
> How he says it is just icing on the cake. In proof, I'd recommend
> going to one of the "quotes" sights and reading a bunch of his.
> They are hilarious WITHOUT hearing them come out of Steven's mouth.
Oh, yeah? I don't know how you'd ever prove that statement --
jeez, who can ever read anything that sounds even vaguely
Steven-Wright-ish and *not* hear it being told in his unique
vocal style?
I think in his very low-key, non-intrusive way, without most people
even noticing, Steven Wright changed the face of one-liners forever.
And I also think that both of you, above, are both correct: the
one-liners are generally funny by themselves, but the delivery
of them the way Steven Wright does it makes a slightly funny one
even funnier and makes a truly funny one almost hysterical.
Mark Jackson
> Just thought I'd throw that in. I can't think of any humor out there
> that isn't based on someone being shown up, put down, placed in an
> uncomfortable position, denigrated, or otherwise made fun of.
I don't want to get into seriously arguing this - I strongly suspect it
would degenerate fairly quickly into hassling over definitions - but:
what about puns?
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
If you could say it in words there would be no reason to paint.
- Edward Hopper
Christopher B. Wright
>"Christopher B. Wright" wrote:
>
>
>> Just thought I'd throw that in. I can't think of any humor out there
>> that isn't based on someone being shown up, put down, placed in an
>> uncomfortable position, denigrated, or otherwise made fun of.
>
>One of my favorite types of humor, puns and word plays, generally isn't.
>Admittedly, that's not the kind of humor that lends itself well to
>being portrayed in a comic strip, but it's certainly a form of humor.
I guess I can see that one. One of my maxim's is "there is an exception to
every rule." However, I'd suggest that a Pun is in fact the cruelist of all
humor. :-)
[snip]
>
>But there's also the type of humor that *could* be cruel, except the
>comedian makes it into a type of ... jeez, this is going to sound corny,
>but a type of "bonding" experience with the audience, when he does
>his routine or tells his joke (or draws his strip) but then goes one
>half step further and turns it into a "haven't we all had this kind of
>experience?" type of moment.
I agree with that, but I still think there's an element of cruelty there. I
don't mean cruel on the scale of child abuse, but as I said to Ronniecat in
an earlier post, "annoyance" has the same basic traits as our classic
conception of "cruelty", it's just that the intensity is greatly reduced.
The audience bonds because they can relate to the story -- they, too, have
"suffered" in that way and they can laugh at it.
One of the essential parts of successful humor, in my opinion, is the
humorists ability to convince people that it's _okay_ to laugh at the joke.
>For example, think of some of Bill Cosby's early humor, before he
>became the guru of family sitcoms. He did a 20-minute routine about
>his father hollering at him and his brother Russell (whom he slept with).
>And if anyone has never heard this or doesn't remember it, shaddup.
>I don't want to KNOW how old I am, OK?
I kow the routine. :-)
>But as I was saying ... on the surface, you could say this type of
>humor is cruel indeed, especially in this day and age when any strict
>discipline of children is suspect (and let's don't go THERE, people, OK?).
>However, in the telling of the story, he doesn't make us feel that his
>father was being cruel to the kids -- rather, he makes us remember how
>*we* felt as kids being in the same situation and then leads us to
>the realization that we all share a common bond -- he takes the "cruelty"
>of his story and uses it only as a stepping stone to get to the humor,
>and not as the humor itself.
I think everyone is interpreting cruel too literally -- Sure, Bill Cosby
didn't portray his father as a terrible man, but the humor the audience has
is the "yep, been there" reaction. Cosby's story resonated in some way with a
situation they'd had with some authority figure, and they could laugh at the
young Cosby's discomfort because they're also laughing at their own.
Christopher B. Wright (wri...@ubersoft.net)
Help Desk, the Comic Strip (http://ubersoft.net)
Christopher B. Wright
>I once read an essay about humor and according to it, the source of
>humor was the absurd. Quoting it, more or less: "it's what happens when
>there's a very familiar connection between two concepts/ideas, but
>suddenly, the connection leads elsewhere.
Well, I've had an answer for just about everything -- but I can't come up
with a connection between cruelty and absurdist humor. There's nothing
innately cruel about _The Bald Soprano_ -- unless the fact that it confuses
the !@#$% out of the audience is cruel. :-)
rubb...@my-deja.com
humor was the absurd. Quoting it, more or less: "it's what happens when
there's a very familiar connection between two concepts/ideas, but
suddenly, the connection leads elsewhere.
at? Are we laughing at them, or with them? Isn't a lot of humor based
on "been there, done that"? I'm thinking Seinfeld (as a comedian) here.
I'm also thinking Homer Simpson. Everybody has their dumb moments...
I think humor based in cruelty is slapstick. I love slapstick. What can
be funnier than a pie in the face? But there's a lot of humor based on
ideas and not people, because you see, it's a funny world.
(I just watched American Funniest Videos and saw a dog playing
basketball. It's absurd. It's funny. Ditto for cats that can turn off
lights. Or stupid pet tricks. Or playing with words. Or anagrams. Or
Alice in Wonderland).
Maritza
In article <38397BBA...@ubersoft.net>,
"Christopher B. Wright" <wri...@ubersoft.net> wrote:
> Just thought I'd throw that in. I can't think of any humor out there
> that isn't based on someone being shown up, put down, placed in an
> uncomfortable position, denigrated, or otherwise made fun of.
>
> The difference is in a) how it's executed and b) the degree to which
it
> is cruel. For example, some comedians make fun of themselves the
entire
> time in their stand-up work, and they allow the audience to laugh at
> them. Some comedians make fun of the _audience_ the entire time, and
> dare the audience to laugh at themselves.
>
> I'm interested in other people's thoughts on this...
>
> Chris Wright (wri...@ubersoft.net)
> Help Desk (http://ubersoft.net)
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Carson Fire
arc...@sfu.ca (Andrew Ryan Chang) wrote:
>
> I've always thought humor was based on the unexpected. There's
an
> interesting book called "Mathematics and Humor" (don't laugh!) which
goes
> into great detail on this, and it's really quite good. If I recall
> correctly, cruelty wasn't a necessary ingredient.
>
Oh, yeah! And ya just reminded me of Charles Addams classic formula for
comedy: Unusual people doing a usual thing in an unusual way, or, usual
people doing an unusual thing in a usual way.
Although he did some of the creepiest cartoons of all time, you
certainly couldn't tag him with nothing but humor based on cruelty. Some
examples:
The classic scene where the perplexed skier notices the tracks that go
on either side of a tree.
A ghoul (Uncle Fester prototype) laughing uproariously in a movie
theater where everyone else is weeping.
Wordplay, like "here's your room, scream if you need anything", or,
"Unhappy darling?" "Oh, yes! Completely!"
Little teeny tiny musicians climbing out of a musak.
The list goes on...all funny, all creepy, none of it particularly cruel.
Cruel? Maybe the creepy family ready to pour boiling oil on the
Christmas carolers below? I don't think even that counts, because the
humor comes out of the ridiculousness of the act, not the thought of
actually doing it.
--
Carson Fire :O)
carso...@netcenter.net
Elf Life @ http://elflife.bigpanda.com
DESSCRIBE1
>but when *YOU* slip in a pile of shit and die it's comedy. I think he's got
>a point.
>
Actually, although I don't remember his exact words, I think it was closer to:
"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall in a sewer and die."
Still a valid point, though...
Erich
"I'm like a tree, I'm all root, hep to the jep what it's all aboot."--Cab
Calloway
Peter Gullerud
<< See, the humor (as I see it) is that the person denying the service (in
Steven's case, the guy opering the store, in my case, the computer company)
has come up with a technically accurate but absolutely based maddening
definition of 24 hours that allows them to "break the rules." >>
<< The humor here is a humor of inconvenience. Imagine having to pull a sweater
off real quick every time you want to cook something. It's funny because in
order to use something considered "common" (electricity) you have to do
something outrageous. >>
<< The humor is that the light switch actually _does_ something, and it annoys
the Geman lady because it does something to _her_. That would be cruelty. >>
<< This is similar to the 24 hours gag, but Steven turns it on its head. By
choosing another definition for the word "time", Steven is ordering
something that is technically allowable, but impossible. Imagine being the
waitron taking his order... >>
<< This might be a comment on my developmental state more than anything else,
but I didn't get this one. :-) I don't know why taking pictures of his face
while he's making a sandwich is relevant. >>
<< As for
the Periodic Table of the Elements set to the music of Gilbert and Sullivan,
well, it doesn't seem cruel at first, but let's see if I can twist and
spindle it enough to make it fit my definition: <g> >>
<< Ok, first it requires that the audience be familiar with two things: The
Periodic Table of Elements, and "I am the Very Model of a Model Major
General" from Gilbert and Sullivan's _The Pirates of Penzance_. >>
<< ... the reason why it's _funny_ is because it parodies the way Gilbert and
Sullivan write music. They use breakneck nonstop alliteration that says very
little (or, as Tom Lehrer said when introducing another Gilbert and Sullivan
Parody -- with a "Darling Clemintine" Theme -- "a rousing chorous of words
that means nothing." Or something like that).
So the periodic table song digs at G&S -- very affectionately, in my
opinion, but it's a dig nonetheless.
"New Math" is a somewhat less affectionate dig at new math. :-)
I love Tom Lehrer. ;-) >>
No offence, but I think you're splitting hairs to prove a point that's not
going anywhere.
Humor can be cruel, annoying, silly, surreal, outlandish, bizarre, shocking,
and any other adjective that fits into a well told story that makes one laugh.
I can laugh at my cat that chases its tail..not because it's cruel that she
never catches it, but because she knows she's doing it to be cute. So we both
laugh...me in my human way, and her in her "mrowl" she only does when she gets
a case of the sillies. And it's humorous.
I need to find a woman.
Peter Gullerud
http://members.aol.com/grootlore
Peter Gullerud
<< I don't think all humor is based on cruelty, but I *do*
believe that all humor is at someone or something's expense
(as I've said here before).
Jim A. >>
"Why did the chicken cross the road?"
"To get to the other side."
Not the funniest joke in the world, but a simple play on words for a simple
example.
The outcome? A chicken crossed the road (and appears fine in the end.)
Now please don't post this and say that the listener of the joke is the one who
is "at someone's expense". That would be like saying all surprise birthday
parties are cruel or "at someone's expense". Sometimes humor is just a fun
surprise.
Peter Gullerud
http://members.aol.com/grootlore
Peter Gullerud
<< I've always thought humor was based on the unexpected. There's an
interesting book called "Mathematics and Humor" (don't laugh!) which goes
into great detail on this, and it's really quite good. If I recall
correctly, cruelty wasn't a necessary ingredient. >>
Good point Andrew.
Peter Gullerud
http://members.aol.com/grootlore
Peter Gullerud
<< I think everyone is interpreting cruel too literally >>
COME ON, Christopher ..lol..you started this...! ;)
You posted:
<<> I can't think of any humor out there
> that isn't based on someone being shown up, put down, placed in an
> uncomfortable position, denigrated, or otherwise made fun of.>>
We're just responding. ;)
Now cruel has changed to annoying. That's like
saying King Kong has changed to the Banana Splits ;)
*LIFE* is annoying! ;)
winks added are meant to not be taken cruelly. ;)
Peter Gullerud
http://members.aol.com/grootlore
Peter Gullerud
From: Carson Fire carso...@aol.com >>
<< Oh, yeah! And ya just reminded me of Charles Addams classic formula for
comedy: Unusual people doing a usual thing in an unusual way, or, usual
people doing an unusual thing in a usual way.
>>
In 'George Carlin at Carnegie Hall', he says as a comedien, part of his job is
to remind people of funny things that they had forgotten or to make people look
at things they never got as funny the first time around.
"There's actually something called the Table Tennis Hall of Fame." -Carlin
Although I'm the first to admit much of Carlin's humor is darker than these 2
examples ;)
Peter Gullerud
http://members.aol.com/grootlore
Czaerana
>is
>to remind people of funny things that they had forgotten or to make people
>look
>at things they never got as funny the first time around.
>
>"There's actually something called the Table Tennis Hall of Fame." -Carlin
>
>Although I'm the first to admit much of Carlin's humor is darker than these 2
>examples ;)
>
>
>
>
I thought about Carlin too while reading his thread. His routine about a "place
for your stuff" doesn't strike me as cruel...
Frauke Nonnenmacher
comes from.
I think that Billy Conolly is a good example. He's been treated rather
cruelly as a child, yet when he tells about it on stage he's riotously
funny.
Personally my rule of thumb is that if somebody has been through a difficult
situation, with all the heartache that goes with it, they are allowed to at
least make fun of it. I, for example, think I'm entitled to tell fat jokes.
My friend Frank, who's a quadraplegic, delights in telling wheelchair jokes.
But we wouldn't do it vice versa.
Just my two penny's worth...
Frauke
Frauke Nonnenmacher
Fat Cat Cartoons
http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/fat.cat
Andrew Ryan Chang
><< From: JPA ja...@icontech.com >>
><< I don't think all humor is based on cruelty, but I *do*
>believe that all humor is at someone or something's expense
>(as I've said here before).
>
>Jim A. >>
>
>"Why did the chicken cross the road?"
>"To get to the other side."
>
>Not the funniest joke in the world, but a simple play on words for a simple
>example.
"What's the difference between a duck?"
[pause]
"One of its legs are both the same."
--
The only thing "free" about so-called free time is that it doesn't cost
the boss anything. Free time is mostly devoted to getting ready for work,
going to work, returning from work, and recovering from work.
-- "THE ABOLITION OF WORK" by Bob Black
MEPeterson
strong throughout a lot of jokes.
For example, Stephen Wright's joke about the store that is open 24 hours -- we
have a cultural expectation of what the phrase means, because we use it so
often, and because 24 hours automatically makes us think of the length of a
day. The joke is that the storekeeper is oblivious to our expectations.
Actually, we don't know what he means by 24 hours, unless he means the store is
open four hours M-Sa and not at all on Sunday or (more likely) that it is open
at random intervals. So the humor is that we expect the sign to mean something
rational and consistent and it actually means almost nothing -- nothing we can
rely on as customers.
Why did the chicken cross the road? This is a little different. We find
ourselves looking for complex and interesting answers, when the answer is
utterly rational: Chickens are not very bright, so we should have cast out all
complex answers. And then there is nothing interesting about the chicken's
decision either -- he just crossed the road. Our expectation is that something
funny and interesting will be revealed, and nothing is. This is actually a
very, very short shaggy dog story. (It's also, I think, the basis for the humor
of "The Thing of the Thing" -- an expectation of wit, artwork, jokes ... none
of which are present!)
Sometimes, there is a one-upmanship element to this. For example, the joke
about "I thought I was adopted, so I asked my father ... " leads us to a mental
image, but the punchline, "Wang Fu ... " We've shattered the mental image,
because it is a white comic (Steve Martin?) and so he has revealed himself as a
fool. When the joke is the basis of 20 minutes or so in "The Jerk," it simply
isn't as funny, because, once the inconsistency of our expectations is
revealed, the bit just goes on and builds on that one joke -- like a little kid
who gets a laugh with a farting noise and so just keeps making the noise over
and over. Okay, okay. We get it. Unfortunately, most of The Jerk is like that
-- not that it doesn't have its memorable moments.
But, as said earlier, Martin is always winking at the audience, "I'm not really
a Jerk, you know!" as opposed to Buster Keaton, whose foolish character was so
thoroughly real to him that it was real to us. Martin has done some great work,
but he is funniest in "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles" or "All of Me," where
that sharp side of him can be part of the character. His loveable fool schtick
is only good for quick bits. (Gleason had the same issues -- he wanted to play
the loveable loser, but found his niche with Ralph Kramden, whose nasty,
blowhard side worked better for him, especially in contrast to Ed Norton, a
truly loveable fool. Gleason's pantomime character fools never reached that
level, because they were too self-conscious, though the fool working in the
Automat was a very funny bit.)
Keaton built an entire career -- and a brilliant one -- from the loveable fool,
because he so sold the concept that we identified with him, and because he used
"Fool" more in its sense of "Everyman" rather than "Idiot.". We laugh at the
fool in us, at the curves life throws him, because, while outrageous, we
identify with them. Example: A classic Keaton scene in which he is trying to
move a house down a street, and it stalls in the middle of a railroad track,
with a train coming! He pushes and struggles, but still the house won't move
and the train is coming closer and closer ... then switches to another track at
the last moment! Phew! But, totally unseen, a second train comes from the
opposite direction and smashes the house to kindling. Expectations have been
blown away, and, too, we have that sense of pity for him, and for us. A
classic, wonderful combination of expectation and one-up humor!
Problem with this thread is the length of the thoughts in it. I'll shut up now.
Mike Peterson
Glens Falls NY
Lars Janqqvist
<ronn...@mycollar.hotmail.com> wrote:
> I just thought of someone else who can be damned funny without a target for
> mockery: Tom Lehrer. What I know about science you could fit in a thimble
> but when he sings the Periodic Table of the Elements set to music it's just
> plain funny.
Counterpoint: Poisoning Pigeons In The Park. "We'll murder them
all amid laughter and merriment, except for the few we take home
to experiment."
But again, there are a good fraction of his that are indeed
cruelty-free.
*******************************
"Hello. S.F.P.D. Homicide Unit.
'Our day starts when yours ends.'
How can I help you?"
*******************************
Christopher B. Wright
><< From: "Christopher B. Wright" wri...@ubersoft.net >>
>
>
><< I think everyone is interpreting cruel too literally >>
>
>
>COME ON, Christopher ..lol..you started this...! ;)
Hear me out. :-)
>You posted:
><<> I can't think of any humor out there
>> that isn't based on someone being shown up, put down, placed in an
>> uncomfortable position, denigrated, or otherwise made fun of.>>
>
>
>We're just responding. ;)
>Now cruel has changed to annoying. That's like
>saying King Kong has changed to the Banana Splits ;)
>
>*LIFE* is annoying! ;)
I'm guilty of inciting the crowd with a sensational title. ;-)
But honestly, the words "cruelty" and "annoyance", when defined, share the
same traits. The _difference_ is in the _degree_ to which those traits are
present.
So annoyance is a subset of the overclass cruelty.
So what I'm trying to say is, "mild cruelty" and "annoyance" could be the
same thing.
So when humor is based on cruelty, it can be based on more than just the
outright extreme suffering of one human being -- it can be that the "butt of
the joke" is simply thwarted from doing whatever it is he/she wants to do in
an unusual way. Being denied what you want can be frustrating and annoying,
both of which are lesser forms of "cruelty."
I probably sound like a philophy professor now.
>winks added are meant to not be taken cruelly. ;)
hee hee hee :)
Christopher B. Wright
>I thought about Carlin too while reading his thread. His routine about a "place
>for your stuff" doesn't strike me as cruel...
I will be vindicated by history. :-)
Christopher B. Wright
>
>Oh, yeah! And ya just reminded me of Charles Addams classic formula for
>comedy: Unusual people doing a usual thing in an unusual way, or, usual
>people doing an unusual thing in a usual way.
I want to say right off the bat that Chas Addams is one of my favoritest
cartoonists in the world -- and I'd say that there's an element of the cruel
in every one of his strips:
>Although he did some of the creepiest cartoons of all time, you
>certainly couldn't tag him with nothing but humor based on cruelty. Some
>examples:
>
>The classic scene where the perplexed skier notices the tracks that go
>on either side of a tree.
And the humor comes from trying to imagine (and failing to grasp) the physics
involved in just such an event. Ouch.
>A ghoul (Uncle Fester prototype) laughing uproariously in a movie
>theater where everyone else is weeping.
But that _is_ cruel! In _real_ life, if someone did that, an entire theatre
of people trying to cry at, say, _The Titanic_ would be furious at how mean
and uncaring that big bald guy was b/c he wasn't crying "when Leo *snif*
died."
>Wordplay, like "here's your room, scream if you need anything", or,
>"Unhappy darling?" "Oh, yes! Completely!"
Both jokes require an element of "the cruel" to work, b/c they play on the
darker elements of our psyche, don't they? _Why_ would she scream if she
needed anything? Is that "just the way they do things around there?" Or were
there only a few certain times when the new border would need anything, and
at those times it would _require_ screaming?
Uncertainty is _so_ cruel. :)
In the second gag, the entire joke is that they are "happy" when they are
"unhappy."
>Little teeny tiny musicians climbing out of a musak.
Why are they in there in the first place? Does their entire existence revolve
around sitting in that box until its time to play? How do you figure the
person feels when he sees those tiny guys coming out of the musak?
>The list goes on...all funny, all creepy, none of it particularly cruel.
What about when the guy looks in his rear view mirror and sees the huge eye
staring at him?
Or when the people see the "beware of cat" sign and _don't_ see the huge
TIGER-like thing sitting in a tree?
Or when the lady is talking on the phone, holding a smoking gun in her hand,
and you see a mans legs trailing off the edge of the panel, and she says "Oh,
nothing much Glady's. What's new with you?"
Or when it's a busy city street, and a man is desparately fighting off a huge
tentacle coming out of a manhole, and no one else on the street notices or
thinks it's odd?
It's _all_ cruel. It's just that none of it's particularly hateful. I'm not
saying that the cruelty must be at the level of Gestapo Germany during WWII
-- it can be extremely mild, even barely noticeable, but there is some
element of someone being at least the tiniest bit unhappy about the situation
they've been put in -- or are _about_ to be unhappy about the situation
they've been put in.
>Cruel? Maybe the creepy family ready to pour boiling oil on the
>Christmas carolers below? I don't think even that counts, because the
>humor comes out of the ridiculousness of the act, not the thought of
>actually doing it.
Well, it's not ridiculous for _that_ crowd. :-) The humor comes from the
stark contrast of what we expect a _normal_ family to do with _their_ eggnog,
which is that they wouldn't be _nearly_ as cruel. :-)
A great story about Chas Addams: every year he would submit the same cartoon
to his editor, and every year his editor would reject it. The cartoon was set
in a maternity ward, where a strange looking man in an overcoat was looking
at all the newborns. A somewhat apprehensive nurse is standing next to him.
The caption reads:
"Don't bother wrapping it, I'll eat it here."
Christopher B. Wright
>I once read an essay about humor and according to it, the source of
>humor was the absurd. Quoting it, more or less: "it's what happens when
>there's a very familiar connection between two concepts/ideas, but
>suddenly, the connection leads elsewhere.
>I agree a lot of humor is at expense of others (but who are we laughing
>at? Are we laughing at them, or with them? Isn't a lot of humor based
>on "been there, done that"? I'm thinking Seinfeld (as a comedian) here.
>I'm also thinking Homer Simpson. Everybody has their dumb moments...
>I think humor based in cruelty is slapstick. I love slapstick. What can
>be funnier than a pie in the face? But there's a lot of humor based on
>ideas and not people, because you see, it's a funny world.
>(I just watched American Funniest Videos and saw a dog playing
>basketball. It's absurd. It's funny. Ditto for cats that can turn off
>lights. Or stupid pet tricks. Or playing with words. Or anagrams. Or
>Alice in Wonderland).
I know in an earlier post I said "I guess I can't see where absurdist humor
would have to be cruel," but I think I've come up with an example:
Two jokes. One strikes me as funny, one doesn't really.
A one-panel comic: It's a normal city street, everyone is wearing a suit and
carrying a briefcase, but they are wearing bannas on their neck instead of
ties.
Caption: "Every Friday was Wear-A-Bannana-Instead-Of-A-Tie-Day."
Second one-panel comic: It's a normal city street, everyone is wearing a suit
and carrying a briefcase, but they are wearing bannas on their neck instead
of ties, EXCEPT for one guy who's wearing a tie and looking at everyone else.
Caption: "Roger realized with horror that once again, he'd missed
Wear-A-Banna-Instead-Of-A-Tie-Day."
Thought bubbles over Roger's head: "Dang!"
Now, I don't claim that either gag is particularly funny, but I will say that
the second gag is definitely _funnier_. Why? Because while both panels have
an element of the absurd (people wearing bannanas instead of ties) only one
puts it in the context of someone being in conflict with it (Roger has, once
again, forgotten it, and he's the odd man out.)
Which is an exaple of cruelty in humor. Not an overwhelming, terrible, mean
and nasty cruelty, it's actually pretty mild. But it's cruel nonetheless.
Carson Fire
>>Little teeny tiny musicians climbing out of a musak.
>
>Why are they in there in the first place? Does their entire existence revolve
>around sitting in that box until its time to play? How do you figure the
>person feels when he sees those tiny guys coming out of the musak?
I'm starting to see the light...you just see cruelty in a lot of stuff. :O)
Things you seem to be defining as cruetly: tension, jeopardy, uncomfortable
feelings, shock, surprise, mystery, etc.
This reminds me of a Christian watchdog group that used to monitor TV for
"violence"...they would go around citing the enormous numbers of 'violent'
incidents on TV...but if you looked at their list, you would see that their
'violence' included raising one's voice, or just saying something mean to
another character. Sure, that 's violence if you WANT to define violence that
broadly.
I suppose that's how a lot of these quote controversies unquote come up in
these NGs, anyway...half the time we're not even agreeing on what it is we're
arguing about. :O)
Carson Fire :O)
Elf Life daily: http://elflife.bigpanda.com
Automatic Elf Life: email anything to elflife-comi...@onelist.com
"Great guns! I'm stretchin' like a RUBBER BAND!" - Eel O'Brian
Christopher B. Wright
list, so... sorry about that Carson! and here's the re-post:
Carson wrote:
> Christopher sez (among other things)
> >>Little teeny tiny musicians climbing out of a musak.
> >
> >Why are they in there in the first place? Does their entire existence
revolve
> >around sitting in that box until its time to play? How do you figure the
> >person feels when he sees those tiny guys coming out of the musak?
>
> I'm starting to see the light...you just see cruelty in a lot of stuff.
:O)
>
> Things you seem to be defining as cruetly: tension, jeopardy,
uncomfortable
> feelings, shock, surprise, mystery, etc.
Well, I'll agree with tension, jeopardy, shock, and uncomfortable feelings.
The thing is, all of those share the same traits as "cruelty" -- just some
elements are stronger and some are weaker. It's like when you say "I'm
happy," "I'm glad," "I'm ecstatic," "I'm overjoyed," you're talking about
the same basic emotion, but the difference is in degree. That's what I mean
when I use the term cruelty. In truth I probably should have named my post
"All humor is based on discomfort" but cruelty seemed to get to the heart of
the matter in a suitably grandstanding and sensationalistic manner. :-)
> This reminds me of a Christian watchdog group that used to monitor TV for
> "violence"...they would go around citing the enormous numbers of 'violent'
> incidents on TV...but if you looked at their list, you would see that
their
> 'violence' included raising one's voice, or just saying something mean to
> another character. Sure, that 's violence if you WANT to define violence
that
> broadly.
Ok, but let me differentiate myself from that group. :-) First, I kind of
like violence on television... second, it doesn't bother me that humor is
based on cruelty.
But the reason why I brought up the whole thing (though I never actually got
around to the POINT, did I?) is due to the "Schulz died" and "Retard #
[insert issue here]" threads. You have two groups: one group saying "it's a
joke!" and one saying "it's not funny!"
And my point is, it's quite possible BOTH are right. If humor based on
cruelty turns out not to be funny, it's not humor. It's just cruel.
"The Retard" is decided UNFUNNY to some people because of the name. In that
case, the humor didn't work and the only thing that showed was the cruelty.
In the Schulz died thread, the guy was trying to make a joke, and it didn't
work because the punchline was waaaaay to personal for everyone. It was,
instead, simply cruel.
If you took the _humor_ out of Doonesbury, you would have Mallard Filmore,
which IMHO is simply a cruel strip, not a funny one.
All of the funniest comic strips I can think of are based on cruelty. Bloom
County (how do you think the NRA or Mary Kay felt about that strip?), Calvin
& Hobbes (in a _very_ abstract way... all of the "Calvin Dreamworld"
sequences are based on the concept of the real world not being the world
Calvin would prefer to be in.)
> I suppose that's how a lot of these quote controversies unquote come up in
> these NGs, anyway...half the time we're not even agreeing on what it is
we're
> arguing about. :O)
Hee hee hee, I love Usenet. :-)
JPA
makes a fool of the listener, who couldn't answer the obvious
question.
Jim A.
Peter Gullerud wrote:
>
> << From: JPA ja...@icontech.com >>
>
> << I don't think all humor is based on cruelty, but I *do*
> believe that all humor is at someone or something's expense
> (as I've said here before).
>
> Jim A. >>
>
> "Why did the chicken cross the road?"
> "To get to the other side."
>
> Not the funniest joke in the world, but a simple play on words for a simple
> example.
Steve Thompson
"Christopher B. Wright" wrote:
It's been interesting to read all these analyses, largely because it reinforces
my feeling that humor is more personal than sex, religion or politics could ever
be. What you, as an individual, find funny depends on your background
(socio-economic, genetic/ethnic, physical, etc.) as well as your mood at the
moment. I'm sure we've all had situations where a joke, cartoon or movie bit
struck us as hilarious one time and completely pointless or unfunny at another.
Personal example: my wife sustained severe and disabling injuries after (yes,
literally) being run over by a city bus. While we can both see the humor in the
common remark "He got run over by a bus" or "Maybe he'll get hit by a bus on the
way home," neither of us laughs. Another: last year, my wife gave me a poster of
Edward Gorey's "Gashleycrumb Tinies," because I love Gorey's work. My
mother-in-law thought it was disgusting.
By the same token, many time a cartoon that I've read a dozen times and merely
smiled at has caused hysterical laughter when I see it again. What's different?
Who knows? People continue to laugh at Buster Keaton and W.C. Fields, even when
(or maybe because of) they know what's coming. The Addams cartoon someone
mentioned of the skier with tracks going on both sides of a tree was (and may
still be) used in psychological testing -- if you found it funny, you were
evidently sane.
Why are Lucille Ball and Bob Hope considered wonderful and innovative comics
when I find their work so unfunny that I usually leave the room rather than
watch them. Why do I love "Pogo" so much that I've turned collecting and
researching it into a second career, when there are plenty of people who find it
a great waste of newsprint?
The phrase "humor is based on cruelty" or "that is funny" contain too many
variables to be discussed to everyone's satisfaction. As my grandfather used to
say, "If we all liked the same thing, the world would be after your grandma."
Steve Thompson
Peter Gullerud
makes a fool of the listener, who couldn't answer the obvious
question.
Jim A. >>
Splitting hairs to make your argument work.
Peter Gullerud
http://members.aol.com/grootlore
News Room
seconds I have come to believe that all humor is based on humiliation of
which cruelty is a sub-set. Or, at least, making fun of a cruel situation
is a form of humiliation. Or is humiliation just cruel all by itself?
The first joke you threw out, Scott, involve humiliating the reader - but
in a mild and fun sort of way. Puns are a way to show the reader how much
more clever the author is (like trying to do the Jumble with someone
staring over your shoulder constantly giving you the answers before you
can figure them out on your own.) Okay, okay: that probably is a bit of a
stretch on my part trying to jam that one into my hastily thought up
theory.
But the second joke is cruel - making visual fun of Jack's desperation and
stress in trying to deal with an overwhelming task. Maybe I'm a little
touchy on that subject because I've been there and just barely survived
with my fingernails intact.
Oh, well. Time to wrap up and get on with some work.
-Wes
In article <81ff1h$f2v$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, Scott Kellogg
<kell...@netcom13.netcom.com> wrote:
>Aloha,
>
>I'm going to agree wholeheartedly wiht Peter on this one. Humor can
>incorporate cruelty into it, but to say all humor is cruelty is very
>limiting when you start looking at new ways to make jokes.
>
>For instance, if we accept the premise, and one wishes to be humorous,
>one would then have to start to look to find new ways to be more and more
>cruel.
>
>Look at it this way:
>Cruelty can be funny. But not everything cruel is funny,
>and the corallary just isn't true. Not everything funny is cruel.
>
>I offer you up a challenge. If you think all humor is cruelty, why not
>try and come up with a gag that isn't. If you can't, I think that's
>pretty limiting.
>
>Examples from my strip:
>Jack & Cecil driving through an absurdist background with melting clocks
>singing "Hello! Dali! Yes Hello! Dali!"
>
>Jack perched on a diving board hundreds of feet over a tub of water.
>"yipe!" He leaps and splooshes into the tub.
>Last panel, Jack seated at a computer.
>Cecil inquires "Catching up on your e-mail?"
>Jack: "Yep."
>
>You don't *have* to base everything on cruelty. Try it!
>
>Scott Kellogg
>21st Century Fox
>http://members.aol.com/KelloggSct/private/21fox/main.htm
JPA
Besides, my point is 100% accurate, but most of the time it's
applicable.
Jim
;)
Skeezix
sides of the fence of making someone the butt of my humor and being the
butt of someone elses humor so I believe I'm qualified to give an
unbiased opinion :)
In 'Comedy Writing Secrets' Humor is described as covert hostility, and
the majority of comic strip humor today is (including mine :)
There are definately strips that pick a 'target' and blast away with a
'lets laugh at these losers because we're better than they are, nudge
nudge' type approach. I personally find this type of comedy sophomoric
and lacking.
Then there's the exagerrated cruelty (of which I sometimes partake)
that characters will often do something so mean or unthinkably
malicious that it would be ludicrous to do so in the real world that it
automatically falls into a 'prosthetic' violence. For example, allow
me to present you this metaphor:
When I was a raging teen, I would go to every horror movie that came
out because I loved the blood and violence (am I revealing too much?)
Anyway, I love special effects and especially gore special effects,
peoples heads, arms, torsos cut off, mutilitated, torn, etc....But I
like it because I know its fake and therefore can enjoy the harmless
'roman circus' catharsis a good splatter movie gives.
Put me in front of the medical channel where someones being operated on
and I'll immediately leave the room to get some air.
I think it's the same with acerbic wit and humor.
The light side (if it can be called that) is that the humor is so mean,
it's just good natured ribbing. The darker side is that it's a
degrading experience for both parties involved.
As George Orwell put it, "The aim of the joke is not to degrade a human
being, but to show he is already degraded"
Anyhow, that's my take on it. I may be wrong.
-Skeezix/Steven Graziano
http://come.to/coyoteville
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Scott Kellogg
Marty in Osaka
ja...@icontech.com wrote:
> Sorry, Peter, but that *is* at the listener's expense, but it
> makes a fool of the listener, who couldn't answer the obvious
> question.
>
when it was new, perhaps) arises from its breaking the very structure of
a joke--when a riddle question is asked, we expect some sort of clever
turn on the setup, but in this case, the answer is so mundane that its
non-wittiness is surprising, hence funny.
> > Peter Gullerud wrote:
> >
> > << From: JPA ja...@icontech.com >>
> >
> > << I don't think all humor is based on cruelty, but I *do*
> > believe that all humor is at someone or something's expense
> > (as I've said here before).
> >
> > Jim A. >>
> >
> > "Why did the chicken cross the road?"
> > "To get to the other side."
> >
> > Not the funniest joke in the world, but a simple play on words for a
simple
> > example.
> > The outcome? A chicken crossed the road (and appears fine in the
end.)
> > Now please don't post this and say that the listener of the joke is
the one who
> > is "at someone's expense". That would be like saying all surprise
birthday
> > parties are cruel or "at someone's expense". Sometimes humor is
just a fun
> > surprise.
> >
> > Peter Gullerud
> > http://members.aol.com/grootlore
>
Marty in Osaka
"Christopher B. Wright" <wri...@ubersoft.net> wrote:
> Just thought I'd throw that in. I can't think of any humor out there
> that isn't based on someone being shown up, put down, placed in an
> uncomfortable position, denigrated, or otherwise made fun of.
Ooh, is it too late for me to jump in? This is part of what I'm
avoiding writing my dissertation about, after all... Basically, there
are three major areas of theory about humor: Disparagement (the idea you
put forth), Incongruity (humor results from the clever combination of
elements that don't "normally" go together), and Release (the Freudian
idea that humor gives us the chance to express ideas that we couldn't
otherwise deal with).
The main problem I have with the "disparagement" or "cruelty" set of
explanations for humor is that, as plenty of others have pointed out,
the theory has to be stretched a hell of a lot to fit ALL humor. (Some
proponents of hostility as the heart of laughter attempt to claim that
puns are a form of "violence" against the rules of language and grammar,
for instance). Further, it's clear that violence or cruelty *in
themselves* are not necessarily funny. It's all in the performance or
context--the Zapruder film is not funny, but sick humor about the
Kednnedy assassination can be funny to some.
I'd put my money on "incongruity" as the spark of humor--even in cruel
humor, there has to be an element of the unexpected (even if it's only
the shock of breaking a cultural taboo) for the meanness to move from
being merely cruel to being funny. Ultimately, it's often less a matter
of "either-or" than of "both-and." Cruelty without an element of
absurdity or surprise is just cruel, and comedy's ability to surprise
often (but doesn't always) relies on the violation of social rules.
In general, I think more humor can be explained by incongruity than by
hostility--cruel humor has to have incongruity in it, but incongruous
humor needn't be cruel. For instance, is there really any antagonism in
Stephen Wright's "You can't have everything--where would you put it? The
joke works primarily because of the making-literal of the commonplace
expression. You could maybe argue that Wright is making fun of the
desire to "have everything," but it strikes me as a huge stretch to
claim that the joke is really an excoriation of the listener's greed.
OK, back to work, but first, a reading list!
Dundes, Alan. _Cracking Jokes: Studies of Sick Humor Cycles &
Stereotypes._ Berkeley: Ten Speed Press, 1987.
Morreal, John. _Taking Laughter Seriously._ Albany, NY: State
University of New York, 1983.
Morreal, John. _The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor._ Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press, 1987.
Redfern, Walter. _Puns._ Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984.
Suls, Jerry. "Cognitive Processes in Humor Appreciation." In
_Handbook of Humor Research._ Paul E. McGhee and Jeffrey Goldstein, eds.
New York: Springer-Verlag, 1983. I, 39-48.
Walker, Nancy. _A Very Serious Thing: Women's Humor and American
Culture._ Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988.
Zillmann, Dolf. "Disparagement Humor." In _Handbook of Humor Research._
Paul E. McGhee and Jeffrey Goldstein, eds. New York: Springer-Verlag,
1983. I, 85-108.
Christopher B. Wright
Hi Scott, I know the entire world thinks I'm a psychopath now, but I want to
stress I'm a really nice guy. :-) However, I found "cruelty" in both your
examples <g>.
>
>I offer you up a challenge. If you think all humor is cruelty, why not
>try and come up with a gag that isn't. If you can't, I think that's
>pretty limiting.
>
>Examples from my strip:
>Jack & Cecil driving through an absurdist background with melting clocks
>singing "Hello! Dali! Yes Hello! Dali!"
You're ribbing both that painting style and the musical "Hello, Dolly!"
aren't you?
>Jack perched on a diving board hundreds of feet over a tub of water.
>"yipe!" He leaps and splooshes into the tub.
>Last panel, Jack seated at a computer.
>Cecil inquires "Catching up on your e-mail?"
>Jack: "Yep."
Ok, the fact that Jack cries out "yipe!" suggests that it isn't a pleasant
experience for him, and that catching up on his e-mail is as pleasant as
jumping off the high dive. There is an element of cruelty in that. :-)
Like I said, this probably reflects more on me than anyone else... all of my
jokes, as far as I can tell, have an element of the cruel in them...
Carson Fire
research, instead of a set of one-size-fits-all arguments.
>Basically, there
>are three major areas of theory about humor: Disparagement (the idea you
>put forth), Incongruity (humor results from the clever combination of
>elements that don't "normally" go together), and Release (the Freudian
>idea that humor gives us the chance to express ideas that we couldn't
>otherwise deal with).
This still may not cover everything, but as theories of humor go, it's more
helpful to a beginning comedy writer than 'all humor is based on cruelty'.
>The main problem I have with the "disparagement" or "cruelty" set of
>explanations for humor is that, as plenty of others have pointed out,
>the theory has to be stretched a hell of a lot to fit ALL humor
Oh, you noticed that too, eh? :O)
During this whole thread, I've felt that it was very appropriate that my sig
line quotes Plastic Man.
> For instance, is there really any antagonism in
>Stephen Wright's "You can't have everything--where would you put it? The
>joke works primarily because of the making-literal of the commonplace
>expression
Ah! But you see that's cruel because the poor man is DENIED the things he wants
just because he is CRUELLY FORCED into an inadequate living space! ;O)
BOO OOO OOO OOO IIINN GGGG!!!
And thanks for the reading list! I'm gonna print it out and see if I can find
some of those at the local library! :O)
Peter Gullerud
<< I'm going to throw my two cents in here. After thinking about it for a few
seconds I have come to believe that all humor is based on humiliation
(snip)
Oh nooooooooooooo.......
lol...
of
which cruelty is a sub-set. Or, at least, making fun of a cruel situation
is a form of humiliation. Or is humiliation just cruel all by itself?
The first joke you threw out, Scott, involve humiliating the reader - but
in a mild and fun sort of way. Puns are a way to show the reader how much
more clever the author is (like trying to do the Jumble with someone
staring over your shoulder constantly giving you the answers before you
can figure them out on your own.) Okay, okay: that probably is a bit of a
stretch on my part trying to jam that one into my hastily thought up
theory.
But the second joke is cruel - making visual fun of Jack's desperation and
stress in trying to deal with an overwhelming task. Maybe I'm a little
touchy on that subject because I've been there and just barely survived
with my fingernails intact.
Oh, well. Time to wrap up and get on with some work.
-Wes >>
No comment.
Peter Gullerud
http://members.aol.com/grootlore
Peter Gullerud
<< Hi Scott, I know the entire world thinks I'm a psychopath now, but I want to
stress I'm a really nice guy. :-) However, I found "cruelty" in both your
examples <g>. >>
Oh noooooooooooo......
lol...
snipped the rest......
lol again..This is getting VERY funny!
Peter Gullerud
http://members.aol.com/grootlore
Peter Gullerud
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy. >>
You got it, Marty in Osaka.
PS. **THE** classic Gary Larson toon: The cows who shout "CAR!"
Hilarious! Cruel? At someone's expense?
Even vaguely irritating?
Oh yeah: =The reader=
..give me a 'Dr. Evil frickin' break'!
Peter Gullerud
http://members.aol.com/grootlore
Peter Gullerud
Peter Gullerud
<< I'm losing my hairs, Peter. Can't afford to split them.
Besides, my point is 100% accurate, but most of the time it's
applicable.
Jim
;) >>
=MOST=?????????
(spewing out liquids)... =MOST=??????
The thread reads"
'Humor is based on Cruelty'. Not =MOST=...
"Good Gaaaaaawd!"
-Norman Thayer, Jr.,
"On Golden Pond"
Peter Gullerud
http://members.aol.com/grootlore
Christopher B. Wright
><< From: "Christopher B. Wright" >>
>
>
><< Hi Scott, I know the entire world thinks I'm a psychopath now, but I want to
>stress I'm a really nice guy. :-) However, I found "cruelty" in both your
>examples <g>. >>
>
>Oh noooooooooooo......
>
>lol...
>
>
>snipped the rest......
>
>
>
>lol again..This is getting VERY funny!
>
hee hee hee. I've created my first "monster thread."
Ok, I'm willing to accept that perhaps it's not that _humor_ is based on
cruelty, but _I_ am. ;-)
Peter Gullerud
<< The light side (if it can be called that) is that the humor is so mean,
it's just good natured ribbing. The darker side is that it's a
degrading experience for both parties involved.
As George Orwell put it, "The aim of the joke is not to degrade a human
being, but to show he is already degraded"
Anyhow, that's my take on it. I may be wrong.
-Skeezix/Steven Graziano
http://come.to/coyoteville >>
You know what guys? I have =nothing= against dark or ''mean'' humor (as long
as it isn't cruel to a 'them against us-ism' force.) All I'm trying to get
through everyone's skulls here, is that that just ain't =ALL IT=!
And i can't help but laugh at this thread....so I'll once again: lol.
Peter Gullerud
http://members.aol.com/grootlore
Christopher B. Wright
>
>PS. **THE** classic Gary Larson toon: The cows who shout "CAR!"
>
>Hilarious! Cruel? At someone's expense?
>Even vaguely irritating?
>
>Oh yeah: =The reader=
>
>...give me a 'Dr. Evil frickin' break'!
I'll grant you that one. But what about his funniest cartoon ever:
"Now go to sleep Billy, or the floating red head of death will appear in your
window."
Scott Kellogg
: Hi Scott, I know the entire world thinks I'm a psychopath now, but I want to
: stress I'm a really nice guy. :-)
Chris, I don't think you're a psychopath. But would you mind putting the
Uzi down? It's hard to hear you over the rattle. ;)
: However, I found "cruelty" in both your examples <g>.
Well, I'm not so sure I see it. I wasn't really ribbing Salvadore Dali,
or the Musical, "Hello Dolly!" It was just a play on words. Now, others
have said that a pun is cruelty to the audience, but I just don't see it.
To say that a play on words is cruelty to the audience because it
indicates that the writer is asserting his ability to be more funny than
his or her audience is to stretch the definition of cruelty to such
limits I really don't think it's valid any more.
If you'll forgive a very sophmoric comparison, it reminds me of the
pre-teen freudian school of thought that sees sexual connotation in
*Everything*. Door nobs! Carpeting! Trees! Rowboats! Wankle Rotary
Engines! Sex! Sex! Sex! It's EVERYWHERE! ARRRRR!!!
Remember the thread we had on "Symbol Simons"? I think this is something
similar. I bet, with a sufficiently twisted sophmoric mind, ala Bevis &
Butthead, you could start seeing sex in every cartoon strip and every bit
of humor no matter how outwardly clean. Look at Disfunctional Family
Circus, for examples.
[example 2]
: Ok, the fact that Jack cries out "yipe!" suggests that it isn't a pleasant
: experience for him, and that catching up on his e-mail is as pleasant as
: jumping off the high dive. There is an element of cruelty in that. :-)
Poking fun at the anxiety of a daunting task? Well, maybe you have a
small case there, but I still think it's a stretch.
: Like I said, this probably reflects more on me than anyone else... all of my
: jokes, as far as I can tell, have an element of the cruel in them...
Okay. Look at it this way. The thing I like most about RACS and the
Hotseat group is that it gives me new ideas on how to do things and maybe
things I wouldn't have thought of before.
So, try it. See if you can come up with a gag that isn't based on
cruelty. Even if you don't use it in Help Desk, it might make a good
exercise in writing. It looks to me like you've set a limit on yourself
that could prove to be an impediment later.
Darren Bleuel
> All humor is based on LIVING.
> PERIOD.
And that's the cruelest joke of all...
Lates,
Darren "Gav" Bleuel
Nukees: http://www.nukees.com/
"Finally we get to the Groot of the matter..."
Darren Bleuel
> So, try it. See if you can come up with a gag that isn't based on
> cruelty.
Okay, okay, I got one!
How many blonde Hindu mongoloids does it take to bash in a baby seal's...
No, wait... That one is cruel to dingos.
I know! "A priest, three altar boys, and a goat walk into a brothel..."
Damn it! The horse gets it in the end of that one...
Yes! I've got it!
"Hippies: Proof that rednecks screw sheep."
Lates,
Darren "Gav" Bleuel
Nukees: http://www.nukees.com/
"No, wait... That one insults my dead grandmother..."
Andrew Ryan Chang
>On 24 Nov 1999 01:29:21 GMT, Scott Kellogg wrote:
>>Jack & Cecil driving through an absurdist background with melting clocks
>>singing "Hello! Dali! Yes Hello! Dali!"
>
>You're ribbing both that painting style and the musical "Hello, Dolly!"
>aren't you?
Now I *definitely* think you're stretching far too hard. I like
the "humour is based on the unexpected" theory better, and so does Occam's
Razor. It explains more and has to be stretched less.
--
Ned: Well, I guess now we know why they call them "rapids" and not
"slowpids", huh?
Bart: [appreciative] Ha, ha!
Homer: You are not my son!
Skeezix
reading list! I'm off to do some book hunting! Would you also email me
a copy of your dissertation when your done writing it? I've been a
student of comedy all my life and am always interested to hear (or
read) what others have to say of it.
Anyhow, I agree that incongruity and non-sequitur is at the heart of
humor. The whole point of a joke is to make one laugh. To make one
laugh you setup a premise and end it with a punchline. The premise sets
the listener (or reader) up to expect one thing, and the punchline
gives you something totally different. Depending on the scale of
relevance to what was expected, the bigger the laugh. To laugh is a
subconscious way of someone reacting to something unexpected.
This is it in a nutshell. At least that's the way I understand it. More
ideas are definately welcome :)
-Skeezix
http://come.to/coyoteville
http://coyoteville.cjb.net
Marty in Osaka
carso...@aol.comWHOOPS (Carson Fire) wrote:
> Nice to see somebody coming into a wacky discussion like this with
some real
> research, instead of a set of one-size-fits-all arguments.
Of course, it's also useful to remember E.B. White's comparison of
explaining humor to dissecting a frog--you can learn a lot, but the frog
usually comes out the worse for the experience :)
> And thanks for the reading list! I'm gonna print it out and see if I
can find
> some of those at the local library! :O)
>
You'll have better luck at a university library, fwiw...also, I just
picked up a new one, but haven't read it yet; it looks promising: Ted
Cohen's _Jokes: Philosophical Thoughts on Joking Matters_. University of
Chicago Press, 1999.
--Marty
"Tragedy is when *I* cut my little finger. Comedy is when *you* walk
into an open sewer and die!"--Mel Brooks
(Note, however, that the spark of humor here is the punchy, incongruous
juxtaposition of the extremes, not merely the cruelty...it wouldn't be
funny if it were phrased, "I think that it's really a terrible thing
when I suffer a small injury, but if somebody else is mortally injured,
I find that comical.")
Peter Gullerud
<< Ok, I'm willing to accept that perhaps it's not that _humor_ is based on
cruelty, but _I_ am. ;-)
Christopher B. Wright (wri...@ubersoft.net)
Help Desk, the Comic Strip (http://ubersoft.net) >>
I think most of us can agree that a LOT (not all) of humor is..in varying
degrees.
Happy Thanksgiving. (Which is less cruel than saying Happy Turkey Day.)
Peter Gullerud
http://members.aol.com/grootlore
Peter Gullerud
<< This is it in a nutshell. >>
"No..THIS is it in a nutshell! 'HELP Help! It's in a nutshell! This is such
a bloody huge nutshell! How did It get in this nutshell"?
-I know... Austin Powers...
And the word "punch-line" ..sounds well....cruel...can't we think of
something better?
PG PC
Peter Gullerud
http://members.aol.com/grootlore
Frauke Nonnenmacher
<19991125020632...@ng-fk1.aol.com>...
>And the word "punch-line" ..sounds well....cruel...can't we think of
>something better?
Hear, hear! I vote we change it to 'Herbal tea line'. I'm sick and tired
of everybody telling me how *nice* a hot glass of punch is in winter. What
with me being allergic to alcohol so I'll never know.
Mental cruelty, that's what it is!
Frauke
Frauke Nonnenmacher
Fat Cat Cartoons
http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/fat.cat
Andrew Ryan Chang
>And the word "punch-line" ..sounds well....cruel...can't we think of
>something better?
The "comedic climax"?
--
Right now, I want each of you to try something interesting. There's no
trick to it -- it's just a simple trick!
-- Brad Goodman at the "Inner Child Workshop", "Bart's Inner Child"
Matthew W. Miller
>nor...@grove.ufl.edu (Terrence Marks) writes:
>>Anyone who can find cruelty in a pun is beyond my help...
>In the case of the pun, the cruelty's against the audience. Unless it's
>told by Groucho, Bugs Bunny, or Fozzie Bear, I mean.
In that last case, I thought it was mostly a case of the *audience* being
cruel to *him*.
--
Matthew W. Miller -- ma...@infinet.com
Matthew W. Miller
The two members of the audience in the box seats, anyway.
Caius Marcius
>"Christopher B. Wright" wrote:
>
>
>> Just thought I'd throw that in. I can't think of any humor out there
>> that isn't based on someone being shown up, put down, placed in an
>> uncomfortable position, denigrated, or otherwise made fun of.
But that doesn't preclude the humorist's essential sympathy with the
"victim".
- CMC
The secret source of comedy is not joy but sorrow.
- Mark Twain
Nothing is funnier than unhappiness.
- Samuel Beckett
Metlhd3138
cruel? After all, he does sing about being humilated on several of his
songs,,theres plenty of people being made fun of and denigrated in his classic
film uhf, and on his new sing "all about the pentiums" he makes fun of people
with outmoded computers. Yet to the general public, he is considered to be an
innocent comedian. Im not sure about that,,and this is coming from a die-hard
yankovic fan too.