My midterm paper had me looking closely at Henri Bergson’s definition of comedy and applying it to stand-up, specifically, Eddie Izzard’s Dress to Kill. Now, Izzard provided me with nearly two hours of material, the result being I had ample amounts of examples to fit into Bergson’s theory. Here, I want to continue working with Bergson, but narrow my material to a short, written work (after all, if it is a viable comedic theory, it needs to be able to apply to written as well as performed humor). The following is a look at Ann Stephens’ “Letter 14” (from her story, High Life in New York by Jonathan Slick, Esq.), focusing on how it fits into three specific propositions of Bergson’s comedic definition.
1. Bergson proposes that comedy must be of accidental causes (121). “Letter 14’s” comedy does exactly this, since it arises from a complete misunderstanding. At the climax of the story’s confusion, the shopkeeper exclaims, “Did you [Slick] really take that pair of French corsets for a side-saddle, sir? Oh, dear, I shall die a larfin!” (Stephens 59). And with the shopkeeper, the audience also laughs when Slick finally realizes his accidental error in judgment. What’s more, the joke becomes compounded when Slick says, “I felt dreadfully though, to think that I’d been a talking about a gal’s under-riggin, to as woman so long…” (Stephens 59). Clearly, Slick’s complete naivety about the subject creates the humor, his final realization of the truth coming too late to stop the impending laughs.
2. Bergson also proposes that comedy is of natural causes (122). Considering poor country lad Slick knows less about women’s clothing than saddles, it makes sense he would automatically find a corset to look more like a riding contraption. For him, it is only natural he would ask where the martingale is, describing it as “the straps that come down in front to throw the chest out, and give the neck a harnsome bend…” (Stephens 56). Now the comedy returns to Bergson’s accidental cause, for unbeknownst to Slick, he suggests in seriousness to the shopkeeper that the garment do to a woman what tack does to a horse.
3. The last of Bergson’s propositions which will be looked at here, is that the comedian is unaware of the comedy he creates (123). As the above two examples prove, Slick has no idea he is looking at a corset, thinking it is a saddle instead. The audience knows what Slick is missing, but his not knowing is critical to the piece’s comedic effect. Essentially, Slick’s unawareness is the joke, and as a result, he fits this last posit of Bergson’s perfectly.
After looking at these three prominent parts of Bergson’s theory, one clearly sees that his definition can successfully apply to comedy that is written as well as to that which is performed. Oftentimes, (and especially in literary studies which focuses primarily on textual references), people forget that theories need to have universality, or the ability to span across different media. The fact is, diverse application is an imperative of any theory, because as already stated, if it is to be a viable, it needs to work almost anywhere.
Bergson, Henri. “From Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic.” The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor. Ed. John Morreall. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987. 117-126.
Stephens, Ann. “Letter 14.” Redressing the Balance: American Women's Literary Humor from Colonial Times to the 1980s. Ed. Nancy Walker and Zita Dresner. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1988. 52-61.
No comments:
Post a Comment