I really like writing humor, but my other real joy in life is pointless navel gazing, i.e., analyzing a subject beyond any actual utility. I thought maybe I’d indulge myself and thus write a serious post, but I’ll meet you half way and write a serious post on the subject of humor.
For me, writing humor is mainly a gut thing. I have very few conscious heuristics I use; most of it just comes from some unknown muse. Analyzing humor most likely won’t actually help one write better humor, but only seems to work as a post-mortem, explaining why something was funny. Still, I find it interesting to do. I plan on later discussing different types of humor and liberal versus conservative humor, but today I’m going to start with why people laugh in the first place.
The best theory I’ve seen on the evolutionary purpose of humor was from Henri Bergson. Basically, he argues that humor is a social force meant to discourage behavior unwanted by the group. This makes a lot of logical sense when you consider the difference in feeling between being laughed with and laughed at; it’s very pleasant to be a part of a group laughing, and very unpleasant to be the subject of ridicule. And, if one is laughed at, he or she is likely to want to avoid doing again whatever caused the laughter (or vow to make everyone regret the day they laughed at him, if the person is a mad scientist). Thus, before advanced language was developed, laughter allowed the popular caveman to communicate to the loser caveman that a buffalo should not be painted pink. Keeping with humor expressing a social order, if you thoroughly detest someone, he or she can’t make you laugh. I don’t care how many good light bulb jokes Hitler might have; he’d be wasting his material on me.
Also, a social component to humor is quite apparent. People usually don’t laugh at their own thoughts, and, though someone may come up with a humorous statement, he or she won’t laugh until it is expressed to the group. I know that when writing my own material, though I may gauge that something I came up with is funny, it never causes me to laugh out loud (question for later: then how do I guess that something I write is funny?). Also, humor is certainly amplified in groups, as I know at least I laugh more at a Simpson episode when watching it with other people than watching it alone. Actually, enjoying humor by oneself can be annoying, because if you see something funny, there is a strong desire to share it (hence all those joke forwardings).
Finally, in further evidence that the evolutionary purpose of humor is to moderate human behavior, things can only be funny if it has some relation to people. Rocks are not funny. A leaf being blown by the wind is not funny. Animals are only funny in so much as their behavior reminds us of human behavior. Thus, arguably, the funniest animal is the monkey (most human like) and the least funny is the sponge (that is, before the advent of SpongeBob SquarePants).
Though the original evolutionary purpose of humor was to cause people to conform to the group, it certainly is used for many other purposes in modern life. Still, understanding humor’s original purpose is a good starting point in analyzing it in toto. Still, it raises some questions.
Questions:
If humor causes people to conform to the group, does that make it fascist in nature? Then why aren’t fascists known for their humor?
If humor is such a strong social force, why aren’t comedians the most well respected people? Why instead do many comedians come from more outcast groups, such as Canadians?
Though, by this theory, a monkey may be funny, it also means that a monkey who is stunned falling from a tree and then ends up in a coma (i.e., more sponge-like) would not be very funny. Yet, I find the idea of a monkey in a little monkey bed hooked up to little monkey life support systems kinda funny; why is that? I hate monkeys.
Anyway, discuss amongst yourselves. If I feel like it, maybe I’ll continue this next week.
As for laughter as ridicule I’d say it isn’t “fascist”, but rather it’s a kind of critique from your peers. “Make a dumbass mistake and we can’t promise we wont react with a noisy involuntary spasm.” So, it’s the community tweaking it’s members into behaving like a proper human. Fascism, on the other hand, is a member (or two hundred) attempting to change the nature of the entire community.
As for yer second question, I think commedians are funny because of their ability to see things from the persepective of, dare I say, willful paranoia. Looking past the surface, the immediate event, and quickly projecting connections to other events and circumstances. For instance a funny (IMAO) one-liner like “What I wanna know is why does everyone who tries marajuana and doesn’t like it go into politics?” takes some news (politicians admitting to trying but not liking pot) and connects it a feeling that they’re full of shit with an assumption that pot smoking is enjoyable. Serious-minded people tend not to explore connections in such a creative way in search of humor.
As for yer third question; monkey’s are funny when they’re monkeying around. A monkey in a coma is ain’t doing that. Monkey’s are scary.
Humor is only funny when it’s funny.
There’s also the element of the unexpected in humor that makes us laugh. I recall reading a piece by Charlie Chaplin where he made the comment (I’m paraphrasing) that while filming someone slipping on a banana peel was kind of funny, filming someone stepping blithely over the banana peel and falling into a pothole was far funnier.
Similar idea to the ‘perspective’ post by ‘Tuning Spork’ (and I never fail to giggle when I see that handle).
Hmmm. Your phrase – pointless navel gazing – reminded me of a word – omphaloskepsis. It means “contemplation of one’s navel as an aid to meditation”. So, you see, navel gazing does not have to be pointless after all. As for myself, I’d rather be looking at other people’s navels, but I don’t know what that word is.
“…As for myself, I’d rather be looking at other people’s navels, but I don’t know what that word is…”
Horny
Kathy K, great example.. I favorite example of a set-up of the unexpected is in a Simpsons episode; Homer is spraying lighter fluid on charcoals in the backyard grill with a hornet’s nest just feet above. He sprays some more. Then a little more, as the hornets buzz about the hive. Then sprays a whole lot of it. Then another squirt. Then a big huge squirt of more lighter fluid. Finally the can coughs out it’s final contents. Homer lights a match, tosses it onto the grill and it chars the coals a glowing red without so much as a POOF. Brilliant!
I have also given a lot of thought to the science of humor and came up with this. Some things are funny no matter who or how they are delivered. I call this “humor per se”. I got this from the legal concept of negligence per se, action that is by its nature negligent. Humor per se is by its nature funny. Other types of humor depend on the delivery (or in the case of written humor, the phrasing) Most of Frank’s stuff is funny because it is laden with heavy irony and yet has that element of truth in it. Good satire makes us laugh because it is exagerated yet based in truth. Because people perceive Donald Rumsfeld as a beligerent hip shooter, Frank’s excageration of Rumsfeld as a psychopathic killer is that much funnier.
The nature of humor is full of twists & turns. Being able to make people laugh on a consistent basis is such a rare gift that we pay those who master it very well. On the other hand, the tragic nature of humorists’ and comedians’ lives rivals that of blues singers and rock stars. On the other hand, humor presents us at our worst, but doesn’t have to be mean-spirited. Humor is one of the deadliest of political weapons: Victor Borge’s Jewish ancestry made him a marked man when the Nazis overran Denmark, but the fact that he poked fun at Hitler onstage made him a wanted man. He was wise to stay away from his homeland until its liberation. An interesting observation about humor is that, unlike music or the graphic arts, it defies government control. How many of you have ever heard a good joke that was commissioned by a government? Most or all of the ones I know of come from private citizens or undergound sources.
I once noticed that a crew laying pipeline that didn’t usually handle dynamite get giddy and joke a lot when they had to blast through a short section of rock. I concluded that they were alleviating nervousness with humor.
I’d say my observation supports the idea that “the evolutionary purpose of humor is to moderate human behavior”. People don’t like to admit to their group that they’re afraid, so they go along with the program all the while laughing in the face of danger.
Finally, someone else who hates monkeys. I take a lot of flak at work about that.
I thought the funniest definition of humor came from Frank Herbert in the novel Whipping Star. He defined it quite simply as “non-fatal surprise”.
Bergson (a great French philosopher) also developed the theory of “The Persistence of Memory,” for which the famous Dali painting (with the melting clock) was named.
That theory influenced all kinds of writers like James Joyce and William Faulkner, who employed a “stream of conciousness” narrative for their protagonists.
Anyway, I think Bergson was a genius.
He’s French… He can’t be that smart.
No suprise there, Pat. Herbert was a bloomin’ genius…even if SciFi Channel frelled up his work yet again.
I met Dali in the early 80’s. He pretended he couldn’t speak English, so I told him in Spanish, “Jesus loves you.” He, in Spanish, thanked me. Never met Faulkner, Joyce, or Bergson. What’s so funny about these guys? Are they famous for some reason? What’s this got to do with discussion of being funny? Funny like “Ha Ha” or funny like Dali being so tripped out it felt wierd to be next to him? What’s so freaking funny about your navel, Frank?
I’ve struggled over the question of “Why does humor exist?” For years now, this question has plagued me and the best answer that I’ve been able to develop is that humor is a vehicle for conveying intelligence and intelligence is an attractive genetic trait (explainging why so many people find it so attrative).
In general, humor represents a new way of looking at facts – specifically it creates new associations and connections between concepts in our heads – and we have developed pleasure sensors that are triggered when this new knowledge is connected together. If one looks at the basis of many types of humor – puns, “Fish out of water” sketches, the breaking of taboos of conduct, non-sequitors – they tend to illustrate new concepts. There’s something special about humor that is different from school or simply learning, and I suspect that is connected to a sense of taking a logically leap in non-obvious way that one can almost feel proud of (hence the joy we feel when we “get” a joke).
This perspective of looking at humor as system of making new conceptual associations may explain some of the observations noted above. A comic ceases to be funny over time because his style is no longer new to us and as often happens, the set of new conceptual associations he expresses often runs dry (witness Austin Powers sequels).
One element I still cannot fathom is why pondering what makes things funny is inheriently unfunny, and yet that statement itself is in fact funny (but that last one comment is not).
Obviously, our brains are likely wired at some level to understand meta-statements and my belief is that the processing of new meta-statements about things is similar enough to creating new associations that it is considered funny in many contexts too.
If anyone has any other readings on this, or knows of studies regarding, please contact me – I’d love to learn more about humor.
BTW – this freakin website has a filter that filters out “make$ it” but with an S in make – WTF?