It is difficult to believe the semester is already over, but you will find me hard pressed to complain that summer is almost here. However, before I get to enjoy any off-time, I must complete a considerable amount of coursework, part of that being this blog. And so, without further delay, here is the my last blog entry of the year.
A FINAL REFLECTION:
Above all, I have decided that anyone who attempts an all-inclusive definition of comedy is crazy. We have looked over so many different forms, styles, and types of humor, that to create a single explanation for them is pretty much impossible. What I say humor is will in no way align with what another says, and when “experts” start weighing in, the whole project becomes infinitely overcomplicated. For a long time now, I have come to believe our personal perspective on what is funny is too much a part of who we are, and thus, we are unable to disregard it when trying to craft an objective definition. It is a mire theorists seem to get stuck in when working out their own theories. In the end, all I want to say is we should stop worrying about constructing the end-all explanation of the funny, and rather, live by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s simple wisdom of, “I know it when I see it…” (Of course, he was talking about obscenity & pornography, but it is still a nice sentiment in regards to comedy).
Now, I already know the immediate objection is that for a class designed to analyze humor, we cannot simply state we know what is funny and move on. There needs to be some type of theory to start the discussion, and it is our job as critically thinking individuals to look past the “what” and into the “how” of a matter. I guess I want my above advice to serve as more of a friendly reminder that despite all the theorizing and contemplating in the world, there will never be a single definition which completely covers a concept as elusive as comedy. Rather than seeing this as detracting from our study, we would do better to be glad that there is no final word on what is humorous, since without a complete definition, there is room for all kinds of interpretation. Truly, the more studies I encounter, the more I come to like the subjects that do not have rigid systems for classification. (This is probably the major incentive behind my choice of majors given Literary Studies is all about asserting and supporting personal interpretations).
The last detail I want to leave with is the mention that after a whole semester of judiciously assessing a comedian’s delivery, style, and material, the practice has become habit. Now, I find myself consciously noting technicalities where I use to unconsciously enjoy the show. Although I may not be able to recite Freud’s definition, or remember every posit from Bergson’s theory, I can guarantee you that I will never watch stand-up in the same way again.
I agree about the complications in trying to pin down a definition. However, it has been a good experience studying the different theorists, if only because now if someone asks me, "How do you define humor?" I can say, "well, we know it when we see it...but sometimes we don't see the same thing as humorous. According to one theory, it's incongruity... and a mathematician can build on that and argue for maths being humorous in such and such instances... and according to another theory... and so on and so forth." Well, hopefully no one will ever ask me that question because they may get more than they bargained for! These theories have also helped me understand why some people laugh at things I never would.
ReplyDeleteBut like yourself, I do find myself thinking more critically about the art when I watch/read comedy.
On the one hand, this inquiry mode is a good thing...on the other, many say that things just aren't funny anymore for them. That's a shame. I study this like I study books...I can see why one is good, even though I don't enjoy it personally. But on the up side, now you know why the comedians you like so much are good.
ReplyDelete