Advice on when to highlight a pun was intended

[Marob Katon]

Lots of times I write to an audience where I can't tell
offhand if my intended pun is inferred by the audience.

I often see "pun intended" as an aside, but I feel that
perhaps "dilutes" (cheapens?) the effect of the pun perhaps.

So, I just wonder if there is a rule or a standard or a
guideline or any advice for highlighting the relatively subtle
puns we all make at times, at least for those puns which
"might" or "should" be inferred from the implication alone,
but perhaps might not.

[David Kleinecke]

If one expects one's witticisms to be appreciated one must throw
many into the conversation and hope that a few make a hit. One
loses face by pointing out that one just made a joke.

[Tony Cooper]

What is your intent when you inject a pun in your material?

If it's to create a laugh, then never explain yourself by saying "Pun
intended". If you have to tell your audience that they've just read
or heard something that was intended to be funny, then you've failed.
If they didn't catch it, it wasn't worth delivering it.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Dingbat]

In a response, I put my whole response in italics, with punny terms in bold italics. I'm not sure how to highlight a pun on Usenet.

[Harrison Hill]

The aside you are misquoting is "no pun intended"; meaning "I
do realise there is more than one interpretation of what I
have just said".

Puns are pretty cheap already, so not easily diluted, or
cheapened. "No pun intended" makes your pun easier to spot
for those who didn't get it; and easier to laugh at for those
who did :)

[Peter Moylan]

It's always a mistake to highlight a pun, in any medium. It's like
holding up one of those cards that say "Laugh now".

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[J. J. Lodder]

Marob Katon <marob...@examples.com> wrote:

> Lots of times I write to an audience where I can't tell
> offhand if my intended pun is inferred by the audience.
>
> I often see "pun intended" as an aside, but I feel that
> perhaps "dilutes" (cheapens?) the effect of the pun perhaps.

That's even worse than a smiley,

Jan

[Richard Yates]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 04:02:06 +0000 (UTC), Marob Katon
<marob...@examples.com> wrote:

If they do not get it at first, they may later. And the longer the
interval between the delivery and the epiphany, the better.

There is a pun throughout the "The Illuminatus! Trilogy" that I
suddenly understood more than a year after reading it. I almost fell
off my bike on the last climb up to Crater Lake. Unforgettable.

[Derek Turner]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 04:02:06 +0000, Marob Katon wrote:

> So, I just wonder if there is a rule or a standard or a guideline or any
> advice for highlighting the relatively subtle puns we all make at times,

My advice is clear: don't, no gentleman ever would.

[Stan Brown]

I've never seen "pun intended", but fairly often a poor writer will
use "no pun intended". I say a poor writer, because that phrase
screams out "I have to apologize for my writing." I think "pun
intended" would have the same effect.

My opinion is that a pun may have a place in good writing, but if you
have to draw attention to it then you'd do better to leave it out.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the
/right/ word is ... the difference between the lightning-bug
and the lightning." --Mark Twain

[grabber]

Indeed. A blighter who did that would be quite capable of sporting a
soft silk shirt for evening wear.

[Janet]

In article <nedahf$10m$1...@dont-email.me>, pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid
says...

It's much more fun to see which of the readers fielded the pun and
whose heads it wooshed right over unnoticed.

Janet.

[RH Draney]

On 4/10/2016 7:23 AM, Janet wrote:
> In article <nedahf$10m$1...@dont-email.me>, pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid
> says...
>>

>> It's always a mistake to highlight a pun, in any medium. It's like
>> holding up one of those cards that say "Laugh now".
>
> It's much more fun to see which of the readers fielded the pun and
> whose heads it wooshed right over unnoticed.

I have a soft spot for the ones that someone admits to not getting, and
then someone *else* provides the explanation...proves I'm doing it
right....r

[David Kleinecke]

Old joke:

How do you make an Englishman happy in his old age? Tell him jokes
when he is young.

[Marob Katon]

David Kleinecke wrote:

> One
> loses face by pointing out that one just made a joke.

That's kind of where I stood, before asking. It may "cheapen"
the wit, if I have to point it out. That's the dilemma.

[Marob Katon]

Stefan Ram wrote:

> Do as best as you can, and then let
> /them/ find their own highlights in it.

Sounds reasonable. Thanks. It was along the lines of my dilemma
so, it fits the pattern.

[Marob Katon]

Tony Cooper wrote:

> If they didn't catch it, it wasn't worth delivering it.

Interesting observation.
That's 3 out of 3 so far (I'm reading and responding ad hoc.)

[Marob Katon]

Harrison Hill wrote:

> The aside you are misquoting is "no pun intended"; meaning "I
> do realise there is more than one interpretation of what I
> have just said".
>
> Puns are pretty cheap already, so not easily diluted, or
> cheapened. "No pun intended" makes your pun easier to spot
> for those who didn't get it; and easier to laugh at for those
> who did

Actually, the pun is intended in the context of the original question.

[Traddict]

"Marob Katon" <marob...@examples.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
discussion : necj7t$1bnm$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

Some puns are self-explanatory, in that e.g. the spelling of words is
distorted for the pun to work or the remark is unrelated to what's being
said so that it can only be a pun, etc. -- but others are clever and may go
unnoticed. An easy way to get round the clumsy"pun intended"/"no pun
intended" caveat (actually, two sides of the same coin), is to use another,
subtler, formulation, along the line of "if I may say so", "literally", etc.
which will call the attention of witty minds while not baffling others.

[Jenny Telia]

+1 :-)

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Peter T. Daniels]

That might be a French technique but it wouldn't have such a connotation
in English.

[Mark Brader]

> Some puns are self-explanatory, in that e.g. the spelling of words is
> distorted for the pun to work or the remark is unrelated to what's being
> said so that it can only be a pun, etc. -- but others are clever and may go
> unnoticed. An easy way to get round the clumsy"pun intended"/"no pun
> intended" caveat (actually, two sides of the same coin), is to use another,
> subtler, formulation, along the line of "if I may say so", "literally", etc.
> which will call the attention of witty minds while not baffling others.

Good response; that's exactly what I wanted to say.
--
Mark Brader | "Some societies define themselves by being open to new
Toronto | influences, others define their identity by resisting.
m...@vex.net | In either case, they take the consequences."
--Donna Richoux

[Katy Jennison]

"As it were" is sometimes used for this purpose. Sometimes simply
"ahem". or just a pause and a raised eyebrow before the word.

--
Katy Jennison

[David Kleinecke]

Maybe 😄 ... 😄 enclosing the joke.

[Stan Brown]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:58:18 -0500, Mark Brader wrote:
>
> > Some puns are self-explanatory, in that e.g. the spelling of words is
> > distorted for the pun to work or the remark is unrelated to what's being
> > said so that it can only be a pun, etc. -- but others are clever and may go
> > unnoticed. An easy way to get round the clumsy"pun intended"/"no pun
> > intended" caveat (actually, two sides of the same coin), is to use another,
> > subtler, formulation, along the line of "if I may say so", "literally", etc.
> > which will call the attention of witty minds while not baffling others.
>
> Good response; that's exactly what I wanted to say.

If only we knew whose response you are admiring!

[Mark Brader]

Mark Brader:

> > Good response; that's exactly what I wanted to say.

Stan Brown:

> If only we knew whose response you are admiring!

As you say.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "It's easier to deal with 'opposite numbers'
m...@vex.net | when you know you cannot trust them." --Chess

[CDB]

On 10/04/2016 3:48 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Traddict wrote:

>> "Marob Katon" <marob...@examples.com> a écrit:

>>> Lots of times I write to an audience where I can't tell offhand
>>> if my intended pun is inferred by the audience.

>>> I often see "pun intended" as an aside, but I feel that perhaps
>>> "dilutes" (cheapens?) the effect of the pun perhaps.

>>> So, I just wonder if there is a rule or a standard or a
>>> guideline or any advice for highlighting the relatively subtle
>>> puns we all make at times, at least for those puns which "might"
>>> or "should" be inferred from the implication alone, but perhaps
>>> might not.

>> Some puns are self-explanatory, in that e.g. the spelling of words
>> is distorted for the pun to work or the remark is unrelated to
>> what's being said so that it can only be a pun, etc. -- but others
>> are clever and may go unnoticed. An easy way to get round the
>> clumsy"pun intended"/"no pun intended" caveat (actually, two sides
>> of the same coin), is to use another, subtler, formulation, along
>> the line of "if I may say so", "literally", etc. which will call
>> the attention of witty minds while not baffling others.

> That might be a French technique but it wouldn't have such a
> connotation in English.

It's a pretty old technique. Cicero used the equivalent phrase "ut ita
dicam" to the same effect. I suppose an English version might be "so to
speak".

[Peter T. Daniels]

Traddict did not suggest suitable vocabulary, and (as this thread makes
clear) any such marker is disfavored in English style.

[Peter Moylan]

If the audience doesn't understand your joke, then either you picked the
wrong audience or the joke wasn't very good. Either way, pointing it out
makes matters worse.

[Stan Brown]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:06:12 +1000, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> On 2016-Apr-11 03:16, Marob Katon wrote:
> > David Kleinecke wrote:
> >
> >> One
> >> loses face by pointing out that one just made a joke.
> >
> > That's kind of where I stood, before asking. It may "cheapen"
> > the wit, if I have to point it out. That's the dilemma.
>
> If the audience doesn't understand your joke, then either you picked the
> wrong audience or the joke wasn't very good. Either way, pointing it out
> makes matters worse.

You expressed my thought better than I did myself. :-)

[Marob Katon]

Tony Cooper wrote:

> What is your intent when you inject a pun in your material?
>
> If it's to create a laugh, then never explain yourself by saying "Pun
> intended". If you have to tell your audience that they've just read
> or heard something that was intended to be funny, then you've failed.

> If they didn't catch it, it wasn't worth delivering it.

Sometimes they tell me that it was a pun, and then I'm not sure how
to respond back, because I don't want *them* to feel stupid that they
*thought* I didn't realize it was a pun on purpose.