And now on to Kierkegaard The piece I read for this post cracked me up because the bulk of the piece is a foot note. That's not the point, but as an English major, I thought that had to be pointed out as just too funny. What Kierkegaard is saying in this piece is that basically any situation can be funny depending on the perception of the outcome. If you can see a way out the situation you can see the humor in it, but if you are wallowing without a light at the end of the tunnel, the situation becomes tragic. Hence the theater masks.

To be honest it sound so much like finding the humor in a really bad day, after the fact. I have had such horrible strings of events that I feel like crying when I'm in the middle of it. But often when I get home, ready to complain, my husband will have made me dinner, or my kid uses the same dramatic tone to tell me how she killed her ladybug friend accidentally. And when I start to tell the story of my bad day, it becomes a mini comedy routine, because I know that when I get home at the end it's all okay. Suddenly the fact that despite my best efforts I got lunch down the front of my shirt, and the three attempts to get the printer to work right are straight out of a sitcom. Perhaps that's also just how I deal with things, but I think it fits the distinction that Kierkegaard is making. The humor comes from a certainty that somehow things will work out.

No, Not That One

Although I agree with his name, Arthur Shopenhauer, described the idea of the Ludicrous without such a colorful example. Okay seriously, Shopenhauer builds on Incongruity theory by picking up where Kant left off. He leave the physical aspects of laughter alone and describes the difference between wit and ludicrous. In a nut shell the idea is that wit is more of an art form. To use wit is to be in control of the source of the humor. To intentionally set an expected ending to a story, for example. Where as the ludicrous man misses the mark unknowingly.

I have a perfect example of this from my own life. My daughter is in 4K this year and comes home with the craziest stories. The other day she told me about a boy at school who was chewing on his sandals. She said that the teachers told him to stop, but he wasn't really listening. I responded: Oh gross! You don't do that right. And she said: Of course not, I wasn't wearing sandals. I almost had to pull the car over, I was laughing so hard. So I quickly redirected that chewing on shoes is gross and will make you sick... But her wit is not yet fine, she stuck to her literally meaning. In this case my daughter was ludicrous, although I did laugh at her. So I guess I'll be sure to keep her in her Converse at school.

Better Than a Run

This post is based around the work of Immanuel Kant. He talks about humor from the point of incongruity. However in the excerpt I read he doesn't talk about the mental confusion of incongruity, he talks about the physical aspects of such humor and it reminds me of exercise. He explains the sudden moment of incongruity as a point where a physical reaction occurs. He actually describes a pulling sensation in the stomach that activates the diaprham and lungs. He compares it to being tickled. This, he says, adds to our well-being which is a state of gratification. His larger argument in this piece is about Gratification. But he's referring to a more primal sense of gratification, not a personal feeling of a job well done, which he calls self-esteem.

So I while reading this I wrote in the margin: like exercise, feel better after a good laugh. And I really think that's what he's getting at. A person starts out listening to another in an everyday, serious way, and then the punch line startles us into a physical reaction, which is good for us. And according to Kant that's where the value lies. I can see this I've laughed so hard with my mother, that we were crying and sore. It was a real workout, and we both felt so good afterwards. I've even slept better after a night of good laughing, just as I do after a good workout. So maybe that's my new goal. Forget the elliptical machine, I'll tune into a few sitcoms and consider myself good to go.

What a sudden idea

Today's reading selections came form Hobbes. And as you may expect he speaks to the idea of humor based in superiority. He is very much like our Greeks, in that respect, very proper. But something that literally jumped out at me as I read was his frequent use of the word sudden. In his dissection of comedy he continually described as a sudden act or a sudden realization. Even when explaining that a person can laugh at himself after the fact, he called it a sudden realization of the humor that is no past. This is something that brought up in the earlier readings. In fact the others talked about planned, humor for a purpose. So although Hobbes's intent my not have been to speak about the unexpected nature of humor, this is a point that really stood out for me.

This idea also fits into the superiority angle very well. Sudden comic situations such as someone tripping, occur as a something out of the ordianary and relying on a person (the tripee?) who has fallen (literally) out of confining standards of everyday life. And the person laughing is doing so from a point of higher social standards. So it all fits, and it in this situation is the sudden-ness that really stands out.

Some Strong Opinions

Aristotle has some strong feelings about comedy as it pertains to everyday life. First off in Poetics, he describes the comedy mask as deformed and ugly. He goes on to say in Nicomachean Ethics, that a person's lot in life can be seen within his view of comedy. Aristotle uses the archetypes of a buffoon and a boor to mark the extremes. He looks unfavorably on each end of the spectrum claiming that neither have much to add to society. He further states that the well breed man will not take offense at comedy but also will not create it.

It's interesting to me that he makes that distinction. I read a novel this summer which partly revolved around the fact that comedians were minor celebrities and had a respectable following. So it would seem that our modern society could find fault with this argument. Although I would argue that being slightly reserved will get a person further in his/her career. On a personal level, I work with two different types of coworkers. First there are the older women, who have grown or nearly grown children and have held professional positions before. They make occasional jokes and we have a productive and enjoyable shift. However some of the younger crowd, have a nonchalant attitude and are very fond of practical jokes. Consequently there is a good deal of clean up work done by the next shift and some hard feelings. So I would have to agree with Aristotle that a delichttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ope-1Zb5t-kate balance must be struck. But I'm not ready to give up my fan-girl crush on Eddie Izzard any time soon.

Plato, the Somber

Who doesn't enjoy a good laugh? Well Plato for one. In his book Republic he speaks against humor. He warns that laughter comes from a malicious place. He is speaking primarily of the theater and comedies. He said that if you laugh at another person, generally at their misfortune, it is a slight. You are putting yourself in a superior position to this person and that is wrong. Wow! what would Plato think of the more inane physical comedies that fill out modern theaters? I would hope that halfway through a Jim Carrey film he would simply agree that man is clumsy and let loose, but his work suggests otherwise.

Introductions

Hello! and Welcome to my new blog. If you find through Indiana Eponine, be forewarned that this is a different kind of blog. The basis of this blog is look at the study of Rhetoric and delve into how it intersects with Humor. In this post I will be giving a short overview of basic Rhetorical background. And in subsuquent posts I will be discussing some therories of Humor and laughter, and how they work in within the dynamic of a rhetorical situation. This endeavor is being spurred on by a class, but who knows this may be a topic I continue to work with in the new year.

So to start everyone knows what Humor is. But what is a rhetorical situation? What is Rhetoric to begin with? To put it simply Rhetoric is the art of Persuasion. It's the ability to skillfully use words to bring about a certain response, Wordsmithing, if you will. Aristotle broke down rhetoric into three main components: The character of the speaker, the appeal to the audience's emotions, and the message. Sounds simple enough, right? Who hasn't choosen words carefully around parents or children? Who hasn't been swayed by powerfull political speaches? But how about this Rhetorical Situation? There seems to be a bit of controversy over that definition. For class we read two apposing essays to try to decipher the idea. Llyod F. Bitzer suggests that the rhetorical situation is innate in the event. The situation calls out to be spoken about. However Richard E. Vatz argues that people create Rhetorical Situations through their personal choices to speak on an event. An event that occurs in a foreign country can be labeled a catastrophe in our press or the story can be buried. It all depends on the people involved.

Being an English major, I like Vatz's arguemnt. It basically boils down to filters. Who filters, in this case, the news? Who's moral compass is tweaked by the event? In the case of literature, different people get different things from the same work. So who's to say that the same filters don't affect the rest of life. Politics is a prime example of this. Everyone has an agenda and for the most part they are varied across the political scene.

So there's a real quick intro to some of the basics. Next Post: Plato!