Mere Orthodoxy

has been moved to new address

http://www.mereorthodoxy.com

Sorry for inconvenience...

Mere-Orthodoxy: Humour's purpose

Monday, March 07, 2005

Humour's purpose

Hypothesis 1: One purpose of humour is to make palatable truths so horrible and terrible that we would otherwise ignore them entirely. I take "humour" to mean something like the presentation of some speech or image whose intention is to cause laughter in the person reading or seeing it. The speech or image is humourous if it actually ends up causing a laugh. There are plenty of jokes, movies, books, pictures, comics that produce a laugh that are not doing so by the presentation of "horrible and terrible" truths. I am talking only of those that do. Why is it that the presentation of what, in one context, would be horrendous and awful, eliciting silence, reverence, and awe, in another context elicits guffaws? For instance. I was driving along with some friends, recently, and someone asked, "Is there ever a bad time to have a conversation?" The first proposal was, "At a funeral." Someone else rejoindered, "But isn't a funeral the best place in the world to discuss death, life, priorities and such? Why not have a conversation?" In response to this, we all became entertained at the thought of doing uncouth things at funerals. I said, "What if I raised my hand during a funeral address and asked 'What is death?'!" No hemlock for this Socrates; I think I would get shot. We had a bit of a laugh about it, but the question struck me: Why is the thought of asking such a question funny while we are here in a car, not a dead person in sight, but at the funeral it would hardly be a laughing matter? My preliminary answer is that at the funeral it would be a laughing matter, we just wouldn't know it yet. The underlying premise of this hypothesis is that there is no truth so horrible, so terrible, that it is not to be faced. There is nothing so bad, not even hell, that, when revealed for what it is, would not be... well, kind of funny. Why do things seem so horrendous? Why does death, genocide, suffering, hatred, torture, seem to be the farthest thing from the object of joking? Because we do not understand it. And that is OK. I am not saying I do not find evil sobering, or that I find wickedness humour... But I am saying that I think, eventually, I might. Humour is to make light of things too heavy for me to handle now. It is to make light of them until they become light to me indeed. As this hypothesis is tentative, and a bit fuzzy, I welcome critique.

10 Comments:

At 3/08/2005 01:02:00 AM, Blogger Jonathan said...

Your example of the apparent inappropriateness of laughing at a funeral reminded me that on the show yesterday Hugh asked Lileks if he's a wedding man or a funeral man, and Lileks said he prefers funerals because (1) weddings just turn into everybody getting drunk and making a fool of themselves, while (2) there is that wonderful moment after the funeral has been over for a while when people start visiting and enjoying each other's company and then there is finally that first laugh as people start making jokes and telling stories like we do in real life.

That's just my paraphrase but also feel that laughter has a kind of clarity after a funeral: it's more distinct from non-laughing. Nobody laughs gratuitously and it's not as cheap as it is in everyday life.

 
At 3/08/2005 11:47:00 AM, Blogger Jonathan said...

Keith, what's your email address (your bubbs mailbox is full or won't receive emails)?

 
At 3/12/2005 10:49:00 AM, Blogger Keith said...

"...a time in high school when I tried to systematize humor..."

Lindsey, what kind of systems did you use?

I personally like lists... :)

Do you still have any of them? I'd be delighted to see them...

 
At 3/12/2005 11:09:00 AM, Blogger Keith said...

"although I might add that humor is one thing that shrinks away from the light of interrogation."

E. B. White said, "Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the frog dies of it."

But I say, humor is like music... The contemplation of it, the performance of it, and the "sit back, open your mind" experience of it are three almost entirely distinct things.

I would argue, to the chagrin of many, that the "systematic analysis" of the divine mystery that is Euterpe's art, while different than performing it or experiencing it, has the eventual effect of making one more able to perform it and more able experience it.

Who will cringe at musicians who "study" notes and scales and phrases? No one accuses them of dissecting a frog. Yet the two are no different.

Think of your favorite commedian. In addition to some natural talent, I guarantee you that the reason you like them so much is that they spend a lot of their time dissecting frogs.

I think the difference between annoying frog-killers and experts must be that no musician takes to studying their scales at a party... amateur funnymen do.

For all my analysis (and yes, Lindsey, it is a penchant of mine) the question that has stumped me is, "In Book III of the Republic, why does Glaucon laugh?"

I have identified some causes whose effects are laughter... but why are they thus causes? I do not (yet) know. Why does Glaucon laugh?

 
At 3/12/2005 11:17:00 AM, Blogger Keith said...

"I, like most viewers, feel instant sympathy for Shylock once he's been thwarted. Yet previously in the same scene, he was calling mercilessly for the blood of his fellow man. Is it only because we ourselves haven't been wronged that we're willing to sympathize so easily with him?"

Lindsey, I'm curious to hear your own answer to this question...

 
At 3/12/2005 12:09:00 PM, Blogger Keith said...

"Does anybody else deal with these questions, or ponder the several moral conundrums which the play presents?"

I am thinking of Plato's Republic (Two Republic references, I know), the end of Book II, but nothing else comes to mind... any one else?

 
At 3/12/2005 12:09:00 PM, Blogger Keith said...

Jonathan, Bubbs is cleared up. You can use keithebuhler@gmail.com for backup.

 
At 3/14/2005 04:36:00 PM, Blogger Jonathan said...

There is an article by Marty Roth comparing the Merchant of Venice with the Oresteia called “‘The Blood that Fury Breathed’: The Shape of Justice in Aeschylus and Shakespeare,” in Comparative Literature Studies vol. 29, no. 2 (1992): 141–56.

 
At 3/17/2005 11:31:00 PM, Blogger Keith said...

Why does Glaucon laugh?
Lindsey said, "Two reasons come to mind. One, he laughs self-defacingly in reaction to Socrates' comments on music, or because he has to work hard (as he admits) to follow Socrates' line of reasoning."

OK. Let's examine that. In Book IV Glaucon says "I don't understand." Socrates explains to him. He says "I still don't understand." Socrates continues. Then he gets it.
Why no laugh here? It seems Glaucon is comfortable not understaning Socrates. Is this different because it's later and so the discomfort has changed in some way, maybe worn off?
Or is there something peculiar about the knowledge of music which Socrates supposes him to have that is particularly uncomfortable for him not to have?

 
At 3/17/2005 11:39:00 PM, Blogger Keith said...

PS. To clarify, I say "is there something peculiar about the knowledge of music" because the line in Book III, the one that elicites laughter, is in regards to music.

Pulling from the online Jowett text it is as follows (Socrates speaking, then Adeimantus):
"Next in order will follow melody and song."
"That is obvious."
"Every one can see already what we ought to say about them, if we are to be consistent with ourselves."
"I fear, said Glaucon, laughing, that the words 'every one' hardly includes me, for I cannot at the moment say what they should be; though I may guess."

 

Post a Comment

<< Home