Group 1: THEORIES OF HUMOR AND COMEDY

• Comedy's effect on the audience is like that of a celebration of community.  It probably began in religious rituals—enactments of fertility myths, the death of winter and the rebirth of spring—part of ancient holiday celebrations, expressing the spirit of carnival as described by Mikhail Bakhtin: a time of pleasure subverting the normal social rules of the mainstream through laughter and chaos.The complexity given to comedy almost makes it seem indefinable, but may really mean that it is changing. It is not a stiff, dead concept but one still worth analysis and critical discussion.What exactly is it about a situation that makes it laughable? We all know that some things do make us laugh; but it is very hard to say just what it is that these laughable things have in common.

Consider the following five elements that are required for something to be humorous:

1) It must appeal to the intellect rather than the emotions;2) It must be inherently human, with the capability of reminding us of humanity;3) There must be a set of established societal norms with which the observer is familiar, either through everyday life or through the author providing it in expository material, or both;4) The situation and its parts (the actions performed and the dialogue spoken) must be inconsistent or unsuitable to the surrounding or associations (i.e., the societal norms); and5) It must be perceived by the observer as harmless or painless to the participants.

For the first, an example may be helpful.  Lenny Bruce counted on the intellectual basis of comedy when, in one of his routines, he identified all the races and ethnic groups in his audience with insulting labels: "I see we have three n------ in the audience. And over there I see two wogs, and five spics, and four kikes," etc. As he started the routine there were gasps of incredulity and even anger: the audience couldn't believe that Bruce would be so insulting and insensitive. But as Bruce continued and the list grew longer, and it became clear that he was listing everything he could think of, the words lost their connotative, emotional meaning as insulting terms and turned into just noises. In other words, they lost their emotive content and became an intellectual exercise in how words lose their meanings outside of context. At this point, the audience, all of whom had been appalled and angry at exactly the same words, started laughing at them: the audience was reacting intellectually, not emotionally.

• In the theory of “superiority,” we often laugh at people because they have some failing or defect, or because they find themselves at a disadvantage in some way or because they suffer some small misfortune. The miser, the glutton, the drunkard are all stock figures of comedy; so is the person who gets hit with a custard pie. We laugh, too, at mistakes: at egregiously incorrect answers, at faulty pronunciation, at bad grammar. These are all fairly crude examples, but it may be that even the most subtle humor is merely a development of this, and that the pleasure we take in humor derives from our feeling of superiority over those we laugh at. According to this view, all humor is derisive. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) is probably the originator of this theory. “Laughter,” he says, “is a kind of sudden glory”; and he is using  “glory” in the sense of “vainglory,” or “pride,” or “self-esteem.” He adds that we laugh at the misfortunes or infirmities of others, at our own past follies, provided we are conscious of having now surmounted them, and also at unexpected successes of our own.

In Plato's dialogue Philebus, Socrates says, "When we laugh at the ridiculous aspects of our friends, the admixture of pleasure in our malice produces a mixture of pleasure and distress. For we agreed some time ago that malice was a form of distress; but laughter is enjoyable, and on

these occasions both occur simultaneously." The superiority theory lends itself especially to an explanation of cruel and hostile humor: the situation depicted in the joke or cartoon could never happen to us, hence our amusement. In a word, we feel superior to the person suffering misfortune.

• Arguing on these lines, Alexander Bain (1818-1903) maintains that all humor involves the degradation of something. Bain expands Hobbes in two main directions. He says that we need not be directly conscious of our own superiority; we may, for example, laugh sympathetically with another who scores off an adversary. Secondly, it need not be a person that is derided: it may be an idea, a political institution, or, indeed, anything at all that makes a claim to dignity or respect.

• The obvious criticism of the above-formulated theory is that, by itself, it is also too narrow to cover every type of humor. It does not seem to apply to word play, or to nonsense of the type written in limericks by Edward Lear (1812-1888) or playful neologisms of Lewis Carroll (1832-1898). Nor does it apply to all comic characters.  The laughter roused by comic vice, and particularly debauchery and profligacy, is often with the cause of the laughter rather than at it, as in Restoration comedy and any locker room story.

• Aristotle states that comedy is that "which causes no pain or destruction . . . is distorted but painless" (emphasis added). The comic action is perceived by the audience as causing the participants no actual harm: their physical, mental, and/or emotional well-being may be stretched, distorted, or crushed, but they recover quickly and by the end of the performance they are once again in their original state. A prime example are the Warner Brothers' Road Runner cartoons, in which Wile E. Coyote is dropped, crushed, pummeled, rolled, wrung, and otherwise punished for his attempts to catch the road runner, yet seconds later is putting together his next Acme widget to carry out his next plan. Wile is never damaged permanently, no matter how high the cliff he falls off or how big the rock that lands on him. The criterion applies to real life, as well. It is funny when someone slips on the ice and falls: people laugh--until they realize that the person broke his leg. At that moment, the event is no longer humorous.

• One especially important and famous criterion for comedy, that it be mechanical and inherently human, is delineated by Henri Bergson (1859-1941) in his essay "Laughter". The laughable for him is “something mechanical encrusted upon the living”—just where one would expect adaptability and flexibility. The typical comic character, he says, is someone with an obsession, or idee fixe. It's humorous when a person acts in a manner that is inappropriate to a stimulus or situation, as in any slapstick comedy routine. It is funny when a chair is pulled out from under someone who is sitting down, because they do not adapt to the change in situation and continue to sit in a mechanical fashion. Dogberry, in Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing, is funny because he continues blithely along, thinking he's in charge of the situation when in actuality he has no idea what's happening. As a typical example of comic rigidity, Bergson cites the story of the customs officers who went bravely to the rescue of the crew of a wrecked ship. The first thing the officers said when they finally got the sailors ashore was: “Have you anything to declare?” Here, Bergson says, we have the blind, automatic persistence of a professional habit of mind, quite regardless of altered circumstances.

An extension of Bergson's theory is his idea that comedy is inherently human. Something is funny only insofar as it is or reminds the audience of humanity. The audience may laugh at the antics of an animal, such as chimpanzees or horses or bears, but only in direct proportion to the animal's capability of reminding the audience of something human. Thus, animals such as chimps and

orangutans are often dressed in human clothing to heighten the reminder, and horses, such as Mr. Ed and Francis the Talking Mule, can talk and think better than the men they're around.Laughter is, Bergson thinks, society's defense against the eccentric who refuses to adjust to its requirements. He does not seem to consider the possibility that humor may sometimes (as in Swift or Wilde or even Saturday Night Live) be directed at the social code itself; though this omission need not affect his theory, since it would then be the code that would be regarded as unduly rigid and out of touch with reality.

“Life is far too important a thing ever to talk seriously about.” --Oscar Wilde

“He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot.”  ― Groucho Marx

Sources:MacLachian, C. J. M.  “The Nature and Theory of Comedy.” <<http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_se/personal/Comedy.html>>.Monro, D. H. “Humor, Theories Of,” Colliers Encyclopedia CD-ROM, A Division of Newfield Publications, Inc. 28 Feb 1996.[DSW1]  Taflinger, Richard F.  “Sitcom: What It Is, How It Works: A Theory of Comedy.” <<http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~taflinge/theory.html>> May 15, 2001.http://www.calvertonschool.org/waldspurger/pages/Theories%20of%20Humor%20and%20Comedy.htm[DSW1]Copyright © 1996 P.F. Collier, A Division of Newfield Publications, Inc.D. H. Monro, HUMOR, THEORIES OF., Colliers Encyclopedia CD-ROM, 28 Feb 1996. [DSW1]

Group 2: THEORIES OF HUMOR AND COMEDY

• Incongruity:Consider the child's misinterpretation of a well-known prayer: Our Father, who are in heaven, / Howard be thy name.

We do not laugh at this simply because it is a mistake. We laugh because of the contrast between “Hallowed be thy name”--a phrase heavy with religious associations--and the very different attitude evoked by "Howard."  Sacredness is kept in one compartment of our minds and men named Howard in quite another; it is the sudden mixing of these contrasting attitudes that causes laughter.Thus, one major point that becomes apparent when one examines comedy is that it is based on incongruity: the unexpected with the expected, the unusual with the usual, the misfit in what has been established as a societal norm.

Incongruity theory is often identified with “frustrated expectation,” a concept we owe to Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who says that humor arises “from the sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing.” More is implied here than merely surprise: the suggestion is that humor consists in the abrupt intrusion into the attitude of something that is felt not to belong, of some element that has strayed, as it were, from another compartment of our minds.

In order for there to be incongruity, there must be something to be incongruous to. For a comedy to work there must be an established set of cultural, human and societal norms, mores, idioms, idiosyncrasies, and terminologies against which incongruities may be found. Such norms may be internal or external. Internal norms are those that the author has provided in the text. External norms are those which exist in the society for which the text was written.

The major problem is to know what norms exist, and which have become out-of-date. Many times some people, upon hearing a joke, will respond with "I don't get it". This is because they don't know or understand the societal norms being violated in the joke. This is also why you can never explain a joke: to explain you must first expound on the norms, then show how they have been violated. Such an explanation removes any incongruity by illustrating how it works within the norms.

The need for norms also explains why humor can become passe. Stand-up comedians do very few jokes about President Eisenhower's administration because the norms have changed: no one understands topical references to forty years ago.

Plays and jokes can also go out-of-date. Neil Simon's early plays often depended heavily on social attitudes of the time, particularly those about the relationships between men and women. However, gender roles and attitudes have changed considerably since 1961 and Come Blow Your Horn, and the humor in the character Alan Baker's rather sexist approach to women and sex now evokes an emotional reaction in many people, distaste, rather than laughter. The humor that works takes as its norms human attitudes and norms that are independent of society and culture.

Nonetheless, a funny play can remain funny, even when the norms change. Shakespeare's "breeches parts", such as Viola in Twelfth Night or Rosalind in As You Like It, evoked great laughter from Elizabethan audiences because their societal norms said that women do not wear men's clothing, and the sight of Viola and Rosalind in male attire was incongruous. Today, women wearing men's clothing is the norm, and therefore seeing Viola in pants is not funny. Nonetheless, there are many things in Shakespeare's plays that are incongruous to today's norms, and thus his

comedies continue to be funny four hundred years later. We still laugh, perhaps not at the same things Elizabethan audiences did, but the plays are still funny because he gained most of his humor from human rather than societal norms.

Three aspects of incongruity are literalization, reversal, and exaggeration. In literalization the joke comes from taking a figure of speech and then performing it literally. When Max Smart (Get Smart) asks the robot agent Hymie to "give me a hand", Hymie detaches a hand and gives it over, interpreting the instruction literally. On the situation comedy Cheers, Coach, and later Woody, the bartenders, take everything that is said to them at face value, apparently incapable of recognizing innuendo, hyperbole, or figures of speech.

Reversal is simply reversing the normal, taking what is normal and expected and doing or saying the opposite. When Retief, in Keith Laumer's science fiction novel Retief And The Warlords, is subjected to what his captors think are the most horrendous tortures, he is assailed with modern art and smellovision renditions of overheated tires, burnt toast, chow mein, aged Gorgonzola, and the authentic odor of sanctity.

An exaggeration is taking what is normal and blowing it out of proportion. Events occur to which the characters will react beyond all proportion: the mountain out of a molehill syndrome. The jealous wife's discovery of a blonde hair on her husband 's jacket leads her to build an entire scenario of mad trysts, trips to the Riviera, and a murder plot against her, until he points at the collie sitting at her feet. Such exaggeration is a standard in comedy.

The greatest incongruity is the violating of societal taboos. This violation can provoke the greatest laughter. In American society the greatest taboos are discussions of sex, death, and biological functions. These are all subjects which society has decreed should be discussed seriously, discreetly, and euphemistically, if discussed at all. It is from these taboos that much humor is derived.

What is essential to humor is the mingling of two ideas that are felt to be utterly disparate. The neatness of the joke will depend on two things: the degree of contrast between the two elements, and the completeness with which they are made to fuse. Humor brings to light a real connection between two things normally regarded with quite different attitudes, or when it forces on us a complete reversal of values. Oscar Wilde's witticism that a particular man “hasn’t a single redeeming vice,” is funny—not merely because of its close resemblance to the wording of the conventional remark which it replaces, but because it presents us with a quite different, but perhaps equally appropriate, evaluation of the social fact referred to.

• Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) thinks that all humor can be explained as “descending incongruity.” The adjective “descending” implies a judgment of value. Spencer says that incongruity always involves a contrast between something exalted, or dignified, and something trivial or disreputable; but he thinks that it is the incongruity, and not the descent or “degradation,” that is the important feature. Spencer sets out to answer a question that had been largely overlooked. Why, he asks, should the perception of incongruity lead to the peculiar bodily manifestations we call laughter? His answer is that laughter is an overflow of nervous energy, and that the abrupt transition from a solemn thought to a trivial or disreputable one leaves us with a fund of nervous energy that needs to be expended in laughter. This explanation, however, would seem to rest on a confusion, since a disreputable topic may well rouse more emotional energy than a respectable one.

It is important for us to consider that many writers on humor have refused to accept the widely-held view that humorous incongruity must necessarily consist in degrading something exalted by bringing it into contact with something trivial or disreputable. They not only hold that incongruity is quite distinct from degradation, but also insist that incongruity, and not degradation, is the central feature of all humor.

Thus, according to incongruity theories, humor may be said to consist in the finding of “the inappropriate within the appropriate.” It is not merely that unexpected connections are found between apparently dissimilar things: we have found that our notions of proper social norms are also involved. In any community certain attitudes are felt to be appropriate to some things but not to others; and there develop “stereotypes” of such figures as the typical politician, or poet, or maiden aunt, “the hundred percent American,” and so on.

"Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." --Mark Twain

“If you've heard this story before, don't stop me, because I'd like to hear it again”  ― Groucho Marx

Sources:MacLachian, C. J. M.  “The Nature and Theory of Comedy.”   <<http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_se/personal/Comedy.html>>. Monro, D. H. “Humor, Theories Of,” Colliers Encyclopedia CD-ROM, A Division of Newfield Publications, Inc. 28 Feb 1996.[DSW1]  Taflinger, Richard F.  “Sitcom: What It Is, How It Works: A Theory of Comedy.” <<http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~taflinge/theory.html>> May 15, 2001.http://www.calvertonschool.org/waldspurger/pages/Theories%20of%20Humor%20and%20Comedy.htm

Group 3: THEORIES OF HUMOR AND COMEDY

• Relief Theory:

Since humor often calls conventional social requirements into question, it may be regarded as affording us relief from the restraint of conforming to those requirements. The relief may be only temporary: a locker room story, for example, is not usually a serious challenge to conventional morality; but it does enable us to air the sexual impulses which society makes us repress. Moreover, people who have been undergoing a strain will sometimes burst into laughter if the strain is suddenly removed. It may be, then, that the central element in humor is neither a feeling of intelligence, superiority, nor the awareness of incongruity, but, instead, the feeling of relief that comes from the removal of restraint.

This theory was reinforced and brought into prominence by the psychological discoveries of Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). Freud himself regards humor as a means of outwitting the “censor,” his name for the internal inhibitions that prevent us from giving rein to many of our natural impulses. It is not only our sexual impulses that are repressed by the censor—the ‘Superego,” but also our malicious ones. In this way Freud is able to account, not only for indecent jokes and for the appeal of comic characters who ignore conventional moral restraints, but also for the malicious element in humor to which superiority theories call attention.

According to Freud, the censor will allow us to indulge in these forbidden thoughts only if it is first beguiled or disarmed in some way. The beguiling is done, he thinks, by means of the techniques of humor: such devices as punning, “representation by the opposite,” and so on. An insult, for example, is funny if it appears at first sight to be a compliment. Freud finds many similarities between the techniques of humor and the ways in which our waking thoughts are distorted in dreams. This enables him to link his theory of humor with his theory of dream interpretation: dreams are also a means of eluding the censor.

• Ambivalence Theory:This theory suggests that the central feature of humor is ambivalence, a mingling of attraction and repulsion.  It is the humor that makes us squeal at the grotesque, laughing, “Eeeww, so gross!  So disgusting!”

Good definitions and valid generalizations about humor are hard to come by. What really amuses us? Who finds what funny?

Humor can be thought of as a spectrum; on one end is buffoonery, ridicule, slip-on-a-banana-peel sort of humor — primarily visual or auditory — and on the other end is humor based on ideas — often incongruous, new awareness, comparisons, mutually understood and agreed upon disparities. Irony resides in this more intellectual end of the spectrum, arguably the most useful humor concept for writers of literary fiction. Whatever we might identify as humor is always dependent on numerous inciting conditions and receptive states that are constantly changing.

A dominant characteristic of humor is surprise, which is entwined in expectations and misdirection. Closely related are comparisons — a source of extensive academic literary analysis — that create incongruities and disparity from norms, and that are pleasurable.

Surprise — something unexpected and often a shift in perspective Misdirection

Incongruous juxtaposition Exact timing of inciting and responding Ridicule (social nonconformities) A “cognitive shift” created by a discovery or solution to a puzzle or problem

--Understatement or Meiosis: When an author deliberately understates the obvious, he or she is using meiosis. Shakespeare uses understatement in Romeo and Juliet with one of his wittiest creations: In Act II, scene i, Mercutio describes his mortal wound "not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church door; but 'tis enough, 'twill serve."

--Hyperbole: The opposite of understatement, a writer uses hyperbole to exaggerate their point to create humor.

--Comic Irony: A writer creates comic irony by stating one thing while meaning another. It is an application of verbal irony used with humorous intent.In his speech "Advice to Youth" Twain mocks standard wisdom: "If a person offend you, and you are in doubt as to whether it was intentional or not, do not resort to extreme measures; simply watch your chance and hit him with a brick."

--Satire: Writers use ridicule to point out human folly.

“One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.” ― Groucho Marx

Mark Twain: "Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." –Mark Twain

Source:http://www.storyinliteraryfiction.com/essays-on-writing/how-humor-works-in-literary-fiction/

Group 4: Classical Notes on Comedy

From Aristotle's Poetics c. 347-322 B.C.E People are imitative.  Through imitation, people learn lessons.  Through imitation, people

derive pleasure, even if the object imitated is painful in reality.  The reason for this is that learning gives pleasure.  Therefore, in contemplating an imitation, one gets pleasure because one learns.

Epic, tragedy, comedy, and dithyrambic poetry (an impassioned oration; a Greek hymn sung and danced in honor of Dionysus, the god of wine and fertility) are all forms of imitation-- They imitate people in action.

The dramatic forms of tragedy and comedy: Tragedy depicts people as better than they are; comedy depicts people as worse than they are.

Origins of the word "comedy"--o comedy (n.) o late 14c., from Old French comedie (14c., "a poem," not in the theatrical sense), from

Latin comoedia, from Greek komoidia "a comedy, amusing spectacle," probably from komodios "actor or singer in the revels," from komos "revel, carousal, merry-making, festival," + aoidos "singer, poet," from aeidein "to sing," related to oide (see ode).

o The passage on the nature of comedy in the Poetics of Aristotle is unfortunately lost, but if we can trust stray hints on the subject, his definition of comedy ran parallel to that of tragedy, and described the art as a purification of certain affections of our nature, not by terror and pity, but by laughter and ridicule. [Rev. J.P. Mahaffy, "A History of Classical Greek Literature," London, 1895]

o The classical sense of the word, then, was "amusing play or performance," which is similar to the modern one, but in the Middle Ages the word came to mean poems and stories generally (albeit ones with happy endings), and the earliest English sense is "narrative poem" (such as Dante's "Commedia"). Generalized sense of "quality of being amusing" dates from 1877.

o Comedy aims at entertaining by the fidelity with which it presents life as we know it, farce at raising laughter by the outrageous absurdity of the situation or characters exhibited, & burlesque at tickling the fancy of the audience by caricaturing plays or actors with whose style it is familiar. [Fowler]

Comedy imitates low character types and tends to use less elevated language.  It avoids the villainous, and aims instead at the ludicrous, which reflects a defect or ugliness that is not painful or destructive.  It tends to focus on probable characters and events, rather than real characters and events.

The poet's function is to relate, not what has happened, but what can happen--what is possible according to the law of probability or necessity.  It is okay for the poet to alter events to the probable or possible.

From Tractate c.4th-2nd B.C.E.

Defines comedy as a work that is:o An imitation of an action that is ludicrous and imperfect;o Of sufficient length;o Written in embellished language;

o Presented through acting; ando Effects a purgation of emotions through pleasure and laughter.

Laughter arises fromo Diction

Homonyms Synonyms Diminutives Garrulity (excessive talkativeness, especially on trivial matters) Paronyms (words formed by adaptation of a foreign word: 'preface' is a

paronym of Latin 'prefatio’) Addition Clipping

Example: "I guess Bart's not to blame. He's lucky, too, because it's spanking season, and I got a hankerin' for some spankerin'." (Homer Simpson, The Simpsons)o Grammar and syntax indicating

deception the impossible the possible and inconsequent the unexpected the debasing of personages the use of clownish dancing When one with power neglects it and takes what is worthless When the story is disjointed or without sequence

Comedy does not censure openlyJokes make game of faults in the body and soulSubstance of comedy:

Plot--structure binding together ludicrous incidents Characters

o Buffoonso Ironicalo Imposters

From Cicero's On the Character of the Orator (55 B.C.E.) Source of laughter is baseness (lack of moral principles; bad character) Neither great vice nor great virtue are laughable All matter for ridicule lies in defects observable in characters of men not in universal

esteem, nor in calamitous circumstances and who do not appear deserving to be dragged to punishment for their crimes.  Also fair game (according to Cicero) are deformity and bodily defects.

An orator should therefore be careful to avoid that which produces violent aversion and extreme compassion

o Don't be tastelesso Don't let jokes become buffoonery or mimicryo The best jokes occur when laughter is raised by thought and language togethero The orator needs the appropriate subject material for jokeso The orator needs the proper demeanor for jokes

“This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.”--Dorothy Parker

“I've had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it.”  ― Groucho Marx

source: http://www.nku.edu/~rkdrury/classicalcomedy.html

Group 5: Tragedy vs Comedy, Philosophy and Humor

• While there is only speculation about how humor developed in early humans, we know that by the 6th century BCE the Greeks had institutionalized it in the ritual known as comedy, and that it was performed with a contrasting dramatic form known as tragedy. Both were based on the violation of mental patterns and expectations, and in both the world is a tangle of conflicting systems where humans live in the shadow of failure, folly, and death. Like tragedy, comedy represents life as full of tension, danger, and struggle, with success or failure often depending on chance factors. Where they differ is in the responses of the lead characters to life's incongruities. Identifying with these characters, audiences have contrasting responses to events in comedies and tragedies. And because these responses carry over to similar situations in life, comedy and tragedy embody contrasting responses to the incongruities in life.

• Tragedy valorizes serious, emotional engagement with life's problems, even struggle to the death. Along with epic, it is part of the Western heroic tradition that extols ideals, the willingness to fight for them, and honor. The tragic ethos is linked to patriarchy and militarism—many of its heroes are kings and conquerors—and it valorizes what Conrad Hyers (1996) calls Warrior Virtues—blind obedience, the willingness to kill or die on command, unquestioning loyalty, single-mindedness, resoluteness of purpose, and pride.

• Comedy, by contrast, embodies an anti-heroic, pragmatic attitude toward life's incongruities. From Aristophanes' Lysistrata to Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator to Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, comedy has mocked the irrationality of militarism and blind respect for authority. Its own methods of handling conflict include deal-making, trickery, getting an enemy drunk, and running away. As the Irish saying goes, you're only a coward for a moment, but you're dead for the rest of your life. In place of Warrior Virtues, it extols critical thinking, cleverness, adaptability, and an appreciation of physical pleasures like eating, drinking, and sex.

• The language of comedy, unlike the elevated language of tragedy, is common speech. The basic unit in tragedy is the individual, in comedy it is the family, group of friends, or bunch of co-workers.

• While tragic heroes are emotionally engaged with their problems, comic protagonists show emotional disengagement. They think, rather than feel, their way through difficulties. By presenting such characters as role models, comedy has implicitly valorized the benefits of humor that are now being empirically verified, such as that it is psychologically and physically healthy, it fosters mental flexibility, and it serves as a social lubricant. With a few exceptions like Aquinas, philosophers have ignored these benefits.

If philosophers wanted to undo the traditional prejudices against humor, they might consider the affinities between one contemporary genre of comedy—standup comedy—and philosophy itself. There are at least seven. First, standup comedy and philosophy are conversational: like the dialogue format that started with Plato, standup routines are interactive. Second, both reflect on familiar experiences, especially puzzling ones. We wake from a vivid dream, for example, not sure what has happened and what is happening. Third, like philosophers, standup comics often approach puzzling experiences with questions. “If I thought that dream was real, how do I know that I'm not dreaming right now?” The most basic starting point in both philosophy and standup

comedy is “X—what's up with that?” Fourth, as they think about familiar experiences, both philosophers and comics step back emotionally from them. Henri Bergson (1911 [1900]) spoke of the “momentary anaesthesia of the heart” in laughter. Emotional disengagement long ago became a meaning of “philosophical”—“rational, sensibly composed, calm, as in a difficult situation.” Fifth, philosophers and standup comics think critically. They ask whether familiar ideas make sense, and they refuse to defer to authority and tradition. It was for his critical thinking that Socrates was executed. So were cabaret comics in Germany who mocked the Third Reich. Sixth, in thinking critically, philosophers and standup comics pay careful attention to language. Attacking sloppy and illogical uses of words is standard in both, and so is finding exactly the right words to express an idea. Seventh, the pleasure of standup comedy is often like the pleasure of doing philosophy. In both we relish new ways of looking at things and delight in surprising thoughts. William James (1911) said that philosophy “sees the familiar as if it were strange, and the strange as if it were familiar.” The same is true of standup comedy. Simon Critchley has written that both ask us to “look at things as if you had just landed from another planet” (2002, 1).

One recent philosopher attuned to the affinity between comedy and philosophy was Bertrand Russell. “The point of philosophy,” he said, “is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it” (1918, 53). In the middle of an argument, he once observed, “This seems plainly absurd: but whoever wishes to become a philosopher must learn not to be frightened by absurdities” (1912).

“Don't look at me in that tone of voice.” ― Dorothy Parker

“I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set, I go into the other room and read a book.”  ― Groucho Marx

source: http://www.nku.edu/~rkdrury/classicalcomedy.html

Group 6: THEORIES OF HUMOR AND COMEDY

By nature, human beings are pattern-seeking creatures. Consciously and subconsciously, we order our lives in ways that set up expectations. Each day I’ll wake up, drink some coffee, exercise, walk to work, and teach. When I get home, my living room will be there with my Corgi lying by the piano, and my son getting something to eat in the kitchen. I’ll ask him, “How was school today?” He’ll say, “Good.” These things are a pattern, and this pattern sets up expectations.

One of the fundamental aspects of humor is that it disrupts these expectations. It violates our logical perceptions of the normal. It generally does this through incongruity, which might be defined as the placing together of two or more things in a way that does not fit expectations. Such a break in the pattern generates surprise. If my coffee has a fish in it, or if my son is vacuuming the dog, my daily pattern is broken, and I respond emotionally from the shock. If the surprise is humorous, I laugh. If it is annoying, I rant. If it is tragic, I cry. Of course, if the surprise is annoying or tragic and it happens to someone else, then it may well be humorous to me. Or, as comedian Mel Brooks said, “Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die.”

This leads to another aspect of humor: it can be hostile. Whether playfully self-deprecating or virulently abusive, most humor has a target. Someone or something is the butt of the joke. If the target of the humor is someone, something, or some value representative of a disempowered group, and the joke is told by a representative of a group in power, then the humor is oppressive. America’s long tradition of racist and sexist jokes was (and continues to be) largely a means of psychologically justifying unjust treatment. If, on the other hand, the target is someone, something, or some value representative of a group in power, and the joke is told by someone disempowered, then the humor is subversive.

Regardless of whether humor is subversive or oppressive, positive or neutral or negative in relation to its target, it is most simply defined as a surprising incongruity that evokes laughter (or at least bemusement). As simple as this definition is, however, there are myriad ways to create literary humor, ranging from funny-sounding words to the complex plots of a Shakespearean comedy.

Language humor: Language humor relies on the sounds of words, words with multiple meanings, unusual word combinations, and unusual syntax.

Slang of the 1930s Slang of the 1950s Slang of the 1980s

booshwash: empty talk, false cat: a hip person bogus: bad, disgusting

gasper: a cigarette horn: the telephone dog: treat someone badly

lulu: something very good pad: an apartment or home posse: a group of friends

pill: disagreeable person split: leave skate: to avoid obligations

Slang terms of the past eighty years show examples of sound play and incongruity. The word ‘booshwash’ has an appeal largely because of the sound. The word ‘posse’ amuses us because of the incongruous juxtaposition of that Old West image with a group of contemporary teens. Although such words might not evoke laughter, they amuse us for much the same reason that jokes do. These words also appeal to adolescents because they use irony, one of the common strategies for creating humor. This ironic code, this linguistic misdirection, immediately divides listeners or readers into two groups: insiders and outsiders: those who get it, and those who don’t. In so doing, slang marks group membership, and one of the functions of youth slang is to distinguish generational groups. In this sense, slang may have two targets: an explicit one, as in the person being described as a ‘pill,’ and an implied one, which for youth slang is largely the world of adults.

• Comedy is a social mode. It is (almost) always about groups of people solving problems and working out differences, either learning to live with the ways of the world or registering a noisy protest against them.

Recognizing humor and satirical tone in literary passages:Cynical tone: The writer is not only critical but also distrustful of the motives or sincerity of others or the essential worth of the subject. Even when humor is used, a cynical tone conveys a negative attitude. Humorous: A humorous tone is typically used to entertain by focusing on comical or amusing situations. Expressions used may be funny, joking or foolish. Sometimes, humor can point out the foolishness or stupidity of mankind in a gentle way. Satiric: Satire is criticism or disapproval expressed in hopes of promoting change. It often ridicules some aspect(s) of human behavior. The target may be an individual, a class in society, or people with a specific ideology of which the satirist disapproves. Satire often uses humor or wit that is subtle rather than obvious. Sarcastic: Sarcasm is criticism which is purposefully harsh and bitter. The word “sarcasm” originates from the Greek verb meaning “to tear flesh.” When using a sarcastic tone, the writer is, figuratively speaking, intent upon “tearing apart” the person or thing under discussion. Even when remarks appear on the surface to be funny, they are designed to mock or deride. Ironic: Irony is based on contrasts; that is, the writer’s true feelings are neither the obvious or expected ones. While one view is stated, another is meant. For example, “Beethoven’s three most complex and recognized symphonies were written when he was stone deaf. He never heard them played.” The irony here is in the fact that a deaf man could produce great music which is still played and well-loved today. Irony can sometimes blend with and enhance satire, sarcasm, or other emotions.

“Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much” --Oscar Wilde

“Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.” --Groucho Marx

adapted from http://www.ncte.org/library/nctefiles/resources/books/sample/22136intro_chap01_x.pdf

http://depts.gpc.edu/~gpcltc/handouts/communications/recognizingtone.pdfhttp://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/members/courses/teachers_corner/39964.html