More Than Just Comedy?

Because we end up trying to apply it to almost everything we read or see in class now, I have been thinking more about Paul Grawe’s definition of comedy, and wondering if it really is a definition only of comedy. Most of my problem lies in the fact that the criteria he gives to classify comedy can extend to other types as well. Specifically, I thought of much of the Science Fiction works I have read, and how in each, Grawe’s definition could apply. For example, Cormac McCarthy’s novel, The Road, successfully fulfills the criteria, but as anyone who has read the book knows, it is a story completely devoid of the comedic. Not only does it lack comedy, but also, it is extremely dark in nature, many of the events it describes being horribly disturbing. However, it has what Grawe wants: a faith that despite the apocalyptic setting there will be continuance, hope of humanity’s survival, and repeated symbols and events (patterning). Another great SciFi story, Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake, also has all three of Grawe’s criteria. The list indefinitely continues, as another story, Paul O. Williams’ Ends of the Circle, also meets the requirements. In fact, one could probably go through most (if not all) of the stories arising out of Science Fiction and find the ways in which they fit Grawe’s assertions of comedy. Why the apparent overlap?

Looking at how he begins his definition of comedy provides an answer. Grawe writes, “Comedy's basic message is that the human race will survive, that it is destined to carry on” (17). This belief that comedy’s major distinction is affirming human survival is much too broad to attribute as its basic defining factor. In reality, human survival is a desire that permeates all types of literature, film, and performance (especially, Science Fiction, hence the ability to find Grawe’s criteria in almost every story). Grawe wants to define comedy by a theme which far surpasses its borders, and in this sense, his definition fails.

Another of his suppositions—patterning and how that patterning derives the piece’s meaning—is also something that travels beyond comedy’s margins. On this subject, Grawe makes an interesting statement, obviously recognizing this fact and wanting to elevate his argument above it. He says, “All literature and, I believe, all art has patterning. What makes comedy different from any other genre is the meaning of its pattern. That meaning or assertion is that the human race will make it through, will survive” (29). Well, he comes close to effectively evading my criticism, but the last part of his statement ruins the attempt. In essence, Grawe tries to claim comedy’s patterning differs because the meaning it creates is one of human survival, but this returns the argument to a fact which has already been established as existing in more than just comedy. In the end, all of Grawe’s argument centers on this idea of purporting humanity’s continuance, which is fine except, by claiming it as comedy’s fundamental feature, no longer is comedy separate from almost anything else.

Grawe, Paul H. Comedy in Space, Time, and the Imagination. ?: Burnham Inc., 1983.