The Tyranny of Humour

irony is pretty much our primary tool as a feeling species and eventually when all of us who grew up in the 1990s are finally dead people will remember that the word doesn't mean "making fun of stuff" but refers to an attunement to the failure of expectations that is at root deeply humble, and that since probability and not physics is on some level the mother of the sciences lacking or failing to develop this sense is like never understanding that objects move when you push them, i.e., you won't ever have any idea what's going on

Learning to be funny is a hard path for the uncool adolescent to take, but it bears rich fruit.

So by the time you get to college if you have figured out how to make people laugh turning it off is going to seem dangerous.

IMO.

Also had a prof who apparently didn't understand sarcasm, pretty weird to not be able to reliably use that register with someone. He just gets concerned when people are sarcastic at him.

Humour as a shorthand for self-awareness usually smacks of insecurity and defensiveness to me. That said, when you see things (especially in the corporate world) that are really po-faced and serious or just idiotic and unaware how ridiculous they are it can be pretty fucking funny.

Point is humor is just a decent way of building up a wall around yourself and your feelings. It's also a good way of taking that wall back down. Regarding yourself with complete seriousness is as broken as being a joke-telling ironic reactive cipher.

Well, a knee-jerk response I often have in my head is that people are frightened of seriousness 'now', and use a continual low-level humour, or non-directional irony in their writing and speech out of fear of assertion and subsequent contradiction, and therefore argument and thought. It's almost become an adjunct of 'niceness'.

yeah, this rings true for me, too. a sense of humor is obviously very important, and i agree that there's humor of some sort or another in almost all great film & literature, but "intelligent" internet culture does seem to have cultivated a kind of hostility to sincerity. more often than not, this seems defensive, the avoidance of risk by keeping it light.

personally, i strongly disagree that earnestness and sincerity are close to the bottom on the list of qualities i value in others. quite the opposite, tbh. i like people who are willing to honestly speak their minds and engage directly with ideas. people who can and will do this, who are smart, open-minded and humble about it, are quite rare, i find. absent humor, that sort of earnest exposition can become quite dull, but humor without something substantial to say quickly becomes horribly grating.

I often tone down the humour in my music writing but feel like there's a definite need retain an element. Anything likely to be read by an audience of people who are passionate about the subject can be as serious as you like, anything that's going to attract a large number of people who don't really care and are just reading to pass the time, and possibly learn something, has a lot more pressure to be 'engaging'. The most direct way of doing that is through a light tone with a bit of humour.

I try to do the same thing when i'm writing in my day job - anything that can make someone smile is probably going to have a much better chance of sticking in the memory. A lot of marketing copy-writers seem to be really bad at it though.

i've linked to this before, but this is one of my favorite essays about anything, ever:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4352/4352-h/4352-h.htm

Try, for a moment, to become interested in everything that is being said and done; act, in imagination, with those who act, and feel with those who feel; in a word, give your sympathy its widest expansion: as though at the touch of a fairy wand you will see the flimsiest of objects assume importance, and a gloomy hue spread over everything. Now step aside, look upon life as a disinterested spectator: many a drama will turn into a comedy. It is enough for us to stop our ears to the sound of music, in a room where dancing is going on, for the dancers at once to appear ridiculous. How many human actions would stand a similar test? Should we not see many of them suddenly pass from grave to gay, on isolating them from the accompanying music of sentiment? To produce the whole of its effect, then, the comic demands something like a momentary anesthesia of the heart. Its appeal is to intelligence, pure and simple.

...

This intelligence, however, must always remain in touch with other intelligences. And here is the third fact to which attention should be drawn. You would hardly appreciate the comic if you felt yourself isolated from others. Laughter appears to stand in need of an echo, Listen to it carefully: it is not an articulate, clear, well-defined sound; it is something which would fain be prolonged by reverberating from one to another, something beginning with a crash, to continue in successive rumblings, like thunder in a mountain. Still, this reverberation cannot go on for ever. It can travel within as wide a circle as you please: the circle remains, none the less, a closed one. Our laughter is always the laughter of a group. It may, perchance, have happened to you, when seated in a railway carriage or at table d'hote, to hear travellers relating to one another stories which must have been comic to them, for they laughed heartily. Had you been one of their company, you would have laughed like them; but, as you were not, you had no desire whatever to do so. A man who was once asked why he did not weep at a sermon, when everybody else was shedding tears, replied: "I don't belong to the parish!" What that man thought of tears would be still more true of laughter. However spontaneous it seems, laughter always implies a kind of secret freemasonry, or even complicity, with other laughers, real or imaginary. How often has it been said that the fuller the theatre, the more uncontrolled the laughter of the audience! On the other hand, how often has the remark been made that many comic effects are incapable of translation from one language to another, because they refer to the customs and ideas of a particular social group! It is through not understanding the importance of this double fact that the comic has been looked upon as a mere curiosity in which the mind finds amusement, and laughter itself as a strange, isolated phenomenon, without any bearing on the rest of human activity. Hence those definitions which tend to make the comic into an abstract relation between ideas: "an intellectual contrast," "a palpable absurdity," etc.,—definitions which, even were they really suitable to every form of the comic, would not in the least explain why the comic makes us laugh. How, indeed, should it come about that this particular logical relation, as soon as it is perceived, contracts, expands and shakes our limbs, whilst all other relations leave the body unaffected? It is not from this point of view that we shall approach the problem. To understand laughter, we must put it back into its natural environment, which is society, and above all must we determine the utility of its function, which is a social one.

i don't know how anyone can survive in this world without recognizing the inherent ridiculousness of human existence

personally, i strongly disagree that earnestness and sincerity are close to the bottom on the list of qualities i value in others

Did anyone actually say that this is true for them?

This thread is clearly going to delineate along the usual lines of those for whom humour shows some kind of camaraderie and those for whom it's a slightly presumptuous assumption of intimacy. I'm not going to draw any cultural conclusions, but I tend towards the latter. But I'm also one of those po-faced fules who values sincerity.

This is nonsense though. Sincerity vs humour is a false dichotomy. The idea that ideas of humour split along those lines is another one. You yourself clearly don't view it as a presumptions assumption of intimacy because you use humour around people you don't particularly know all the time, onboard at least. It's only the case if you're talking about a particularly pointed and/or mean humour, cf "banter" culture in the UK (destroy destroy destroy).

sincerity is not the opposite of humor
xpost

otm - it's very strange to me that several people seem to think that it is

Agree... with the false dichotomy bit (xxp)

In terms of humor born of fear, it seems that there are basically two types (aside from the aforementioned 'ineptly going through the motions of a joke' humor) that have become widely: distancing humor as defense mechanism/tension release valve (present in and undercutting every horror movie made these days) and humor that directly addresses sources of blight and sadness (a la The Soup). I'm not a fan of the former.

I think there may be some confusion (possibly on my part) as to whether we're addressing humor ITTA on a cultural level or on a personal level. I hold humor in very high esteem on a personal level (a compatible sense of humor is probably the number one determinant of how compatible I'm likely to be with another person), but I also hold the appropriate demarcation of humor in very high esteem. Culturally, that demarcation seems to be a highly-permeable membrane (and almost unselectively so, at times) anymore because of that fear born of not knowing how to communicate with one another anymore as antiquated social bonds crumble. Instead of directly addressing the problem of Bowling Alone, we crack wise about how we're bowling alone to stave off some heavy existential terror.

Humour is an effective tool but a dark art. One shouldn't wield it unless one knows what they're doing.

This times 10000000 (culturally speaking).

And using humour to amuse yourself primarily?

i think if anything as we've bowled more frequently alone we've gotten less funny, unless you count quoting high-grossing comedies at each other as being funny. a lot of the stuff people are (rightly) complaining about in this thread isn't funny; it's just noise. plenty of people with no sense of humor constantly make jokes.

calling someone who only amuses himself funny is like calling someone who well i'm sure you can finish this

distancing humor as defense mechanism/tension release valve (present in and undercutting every horror movie made these days) and humor that directly addresses sources of blight and sadness (a la The Soup). I'm not a fan of the former.

you might not be a fan of humor as a defense mechanism, but it provides a serious, helpful psychological benefit to many people who are in real need of a defense mechanism. some situations can't be directly dealt with, so "staving off existential terror" is the only possibility.

Thinking about humour at a presumption of familiarity - this is only the case for me when there are power dynamics involved. I don't want my new boss making certain kinds of jokes around me, especially if they're even relatively mild ones at my expense, or that of someone else in the team. But humour in other directions breaks down boundaries, it's a lot harder to get to the level of familiarity without it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyL8sKJJUHU

calling someone who only amuses himself funny is like calling someone who well i'm sure you can finish this

― the "intenterface" (difficult listening hour), Thursday, March 1, 2012 7:27 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol this was supposed to read "calling someone funny who only amuses himself is like calling someone sexy who well i'm sure you can finish this", obviously i am not the authority on jokes that i thought

calling someone who only amuses himself funny is like calling someone who well i'm sure you can finish this

Don't think anyone said that, but being funny without amusing yourself sounds interesting

it really is worth reading the whole thing, but in bergson's conclusion he says:

Laughter is, above all, a corrective. Being intended to humiliate, it must make a painful impression on the person against whom it is directed. By laughter, society avenges itself for the liberties taken with it. It would fail in its object if it bore the stamp of sympathy or kindness.

Shall we be told that the motive, at all events, may be a good one, that we often punish because we love, and that laughter, by checking the outer manifestations of certain failings, thus causes the person laughed at to correct these failings and thereby improve himself inwardly?

Much might be said on this point. As a general rule, and speaking roughly, laughter doubtless exercises a useful function. Indeed, the whole of our analysis points to this fact. But it does not therefore follow that laughter always hits the mark or is invariably inspired by sentiments of kindness or even of justice.

To be certain of always hitting the mark, it would have to proceed from an act of reflection. Now, laughter is simply the result of a mechanism set up in us by nature or, what is almost the same thing, by our long acquaintance with social life. It goes off spontaneously and returns tit for tat. It has no time to look where it hits. Laughter punishes certain failings somewhat as disease punishes certain forms of excess, striking down some who are innocent and sparing some who are guilty, aiming at a general result and incapable of dealing separately with each individual case. And so it is with everything that comes to pass by natural means instead of happening by conscious reflection. An average of justice may show itself in the total result, though the details, taken separately, often point to anything but justice.

Hah, this is sort of what I was getting at in the other thread

well that's a big question i think. humour seems to have a self-protective function as much as a reaching out function, and of course there's whole sections of humour designed to hurt or belittle. but now more than ever i feel like "being funny" is in some way at the heart of social discourse.

Well yeah, what you protect and what you belittle are part of your social "signature" - laughter is just a measure function over it. The quickest I've ever made a friend was by watching a multi-person comedy show with someone and seeing what they laughed at and what they didn't.

I'm actually quite funny IRL in the right settings, but rarely bother to try on ILX. and then when I'm writing reviews etc I find myself making humorous bits, but I doubt they're really funny, especially once they go out to public. Problem is once you've stared at, proofed and redrafted, what was once an amusing idea tends to have lost any impact whatsoever, so it's impossible to know whether someone reading for the first time would find it light-hearted and fun or stilted and embarrassing.

So take out the jokes then? Well it's not that simple - often humour can work as a structural device - it's easier to "show" rather than "tell" with humour. It can be a useful way of making a point or moving commentary along without resorting to bland matter-of-factness.

xpost to n/a

Yeah, but again we're in that hazy territory where I don't know exacly whether we're discussing humor as a tool of interpersonal communication here or humor as it's used on a broader cultural level. On an interpersonal level, pressure release humor is highly valuable in the moment.

There is "I can joke about this because it's not important to me", and "I can joke about this because it is important to me" and in my experience most people really really can tell the difference very quickly.

Earnestness/sincerity are perfectly fine in many ways, but as personality traits aren't they v close to the bottom of the list of 'positives' you'd ideally be looking for in ppl you've to spend time with?

Absolutely not and under no circumstances - the best people have things that they very definitely have no sense of humour about (in public at least)

Don't think anyone said that, but being funny without amusing yourself sounds interesting

― Charles Kennedy Jumped Up, He Called 'Oh No'. (Tom D.), Thursday, March 1, 2012 7:31 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

oh yeah i wasn't accusing anyone here of saying that, just talking about humor as retreat/insulation vs. humor as engagement/understanding; they are technically similar but not really the same thing or of the same value at all.

some people are funny without amusing themselves! they're good at letting you see inside a mind that is sufficiently different from yours to be unexpected and exciting for you but has never really been so for them. altruists of humor!

and some people you're just laughing at, obv

Also there's a difference between sincerity and self-importance.

See also: "Can't you take a joke?" as a tool of absolute cunts.

I don't know exacly whether we're discussing humor as a tool of interpersonal communication here or humor as it's used on a broader cultural level.

I don't think there's a difference TBH!

Like, the entire function of humor is bound up with connecting the individual to the broader culture. (It's similar to gossip in this respect)

the problem i have with most humour i encounter is how LAZY it is, it's entirely dependent on clichés and archetypes and reducing things to easy, recognisable targets when you can't be bothered to engage - and often it's just space filler, an attempt at the most basic type of "bonding" that's more about the joker trying to score half a brownie point with his or her perceived peers than about the subject of the "joke"

i guess, insofar as i like any humour, it's the really dry, incisive type borne of an insider's actual knowledge - the kind of witty comparison or turn of phrase that makes me think the person making it knows their shit, rather than drawing on received wisdom for an easy laugh. marina hyde excels at this!

i do not know how to be funny, let alone in a "light" way, and this has been the subject of wrangles with several editors in my time (I DO NOT DO JOKES), but insofar as i can be humorous in writing, it's only ever when i don't really care about my subject or don't particularly care about being accurate, which says a lot. if i love something i can't joke about it!

also no professional comic i have ever encountered has made me laugh, or indeed made me do anything except purse my lips in really intense disapproval to disguise my RAGE at their temerity

It's quite illuminating to see the people whose first thought about humour is as a barbed weapon with someone at the butt of it.

i didn't realize there was a humor epidemic in the UK?

am i the only person not feeling the "tyranny of humor" around me?

Did anyone actually say that this is true for them?

― wolf kabob (ENBB), Thursday, March 1, 2012 7:17 AM (29 minutes ago) Bookmark

was a response to this:

Earnestness/sincerity are perfectly fine in many ways, but as personality traits aren't they v close to the bottom of the list of 'positives' you'd ideally be looking for in ppl you've to spend time with?

― Streep? That's where I'm a-striking! (darraghmac), Thursday, March 1, 2012 6:23 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

also no professional comic i have ever encountered has made me laugh, or indeed made me do anything except purse my lips in really intense disapproval to disguise my RAGE at their temerity

See, that is amusing to me

i'm surprised the word "banter" hasn't cropped up itt yet #LADS

Esp. RAGE in capitals

it cropped up upthread iirc someone said "banter culture"

What does it mean?

lex, we've only met briefly a couple of times so i don't know, but do you consider yourself to be funny/have a sense in day-to-day life, or is this only a policy in yours and others' media?

though weirdly i don't have much of an issue with banter IRL, as opposed to as a cultural phenomenon (maybe because no one i hang out with engages in ~banter~ except a few people i went to university with, who i see like once every 6 months, it's quite fun being a slightly different person in those times)

also, yes, of course, humor v sincerity is a "false dichotomy" if we take the opposition as complete and absolute. it is, nevertheless, a useful means of opposing two different and at times seemingly opposing tendencies in human communication.

Except Lex you use humour all the time in everyday conversation with people and laugh when people make jokes in the pub, and you like a lot of artists for whom humour is an integral part of their appeal.*

*Unless 'How Many Licks' is an earnest academic study of cunnilingus, which I'm not ruling out.

xps i like to laugh, i have many friends who are good at witty bons mots, and occasionally i think of one myself, they are kind of different to wider cultural humour though

Except Lex you use humour all the time in everyday conversation with people

i don't mean to i didn't mean it it wasn't my fault

Awesome post

I think the kind of facetiousness of Prine puts me off sometimes even tho I know, when I do listen to him, that I like him a lot

Thanks! Awesome thread question. I think I was lucky in that my first encounter with Prine was the album Common Sense, which might be his darkest one, and it definitely shaped my impression of his humor as sad existentialist absurdity rather than haha goofiness.

there are Prine songs I have to skip b/c they are so dark ("Sam Stone"), but that's not the case with say "The River", Springsteen somehow manages to have this level of detachment there, where you are listening as an observer and not a participant? thanks for that post.

Yeah, rereading that, I didn't mean to suggest Prine wasn't dark or immersive; I think he can be very dark, but I often get a double-exposed feeling even from his grimmest stuff, a sense of standing inside and outside the story at the same time, experiencing it and also seeing how it looks to others. Even when he dials the humor way down, that little self-mocking smile is still there: "Thought I saw a neon sign/flash my name with the time/ prob'ly didn't see a thing/ crazy dreams and a broken wing."

Springsteen - just thinking this out - I think maybe he deals more in characters who are lacking perspective and self-awareness; like that inability to step outside your own story and see yourself as absurd is something that appeals to him. So there are layered narratives and irony and humor, but you have to look harder for them, because the character doesn't know they're there. And his detachment, when he has it, mostly comes from somewhere else. Maybe in "The River" it comes partly from the framing device where you're listening to someone tell his story, and partly from the sense of resignation and inevitability he brings to it?

This could all be nonsense. It's easy to think of exceptions to everything I'm saying - what about the line about the car wash in "Downbound Train?" What about all of "Reason to Believe?"

Maybe I should start a Springsteen v. Prine thread.