201. Slackjaw - July 23, 1999 - 2:00 AM PT
from the There are No Stupid Questions dept.:
Message #181
Judith, or anyone:
What do you mean when you say you are an optimist?
I am serious.
202. Slackjaw - July 23, 1999 - 2:06 AM PT
more to the point, can you be an optimist without knowing on some level that you are deluding yourself?
Still serious.
203. ycmeehan - July 23, 1999 - 5:59 AM PT
Thanks for the link, thoughtful.
My favorite: Talk is cheap. Supply exceeds Demand.
204. JJBiener - July 23, 1999 - 8:14 AM PT
Slacker - Remember, an optimist believes we live the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist fears this is true.
205. cmboyce - July 23, 1999 - 8:32 AM PT
Message #204
Hahaha! That's the best line we've had on this thread in a while!
Slackjaw, is this the set-up? Did JJ anticipate your punchline?
Or are you venturing off topic out of boredom?
206. cmboyce - July 23, 1999 - 8:33 AM PT
Message #204
Hahaha! That's the best line we've had on this thread in a while!
Slackjaw, is this the set-up? Did JJ anticipate your punchline?
Or are you venturing off topic out of boredom?
207. judithathome - July 23, 1999 - 9:03 AM PT
Slackjaw:
I would like to rescind my optimist remark you asked about; I've had the worst possible week and my optimism just flew out the window. I now feel more like Murphys Law is in full force.
I think an optimist is one who sees things in the best possible light; if there's an accident with a dozen of your crystal glasses crashing onto your husbands foot, severing a vein and entailing hours at the hospital ER, well, that can mean a few days off for hubby and replacement crystal and even recovering of the dining room chair that is now stained with blood.
If your air conditioner on your car goes out, well, at least you have the money to pay for repairs from selling your other car the week before. If your husband is going crazy being home with a maimed foot, at least you can go to a movie on a weekeday afternoon. If the film burns out halfway thru the movie, at least the theater gives you a couple of free passes.
I think you can see that my being an optimist is fast becoming a thing of the past. For the record, your original definition is correct.
208. Slackjaw - July 23, 1999 - 11:57 AM PT
heh, no CM, this is not a setup. JJ just sees things like that. It's a gift. Not bored with the topic, just was thinking about optimism.
Judith,
okay, I can see that--optimism is a framing effect or something. But when you said you were optimistic about the Quayle book being in, what did that mean? There's not really much room to frame that. Yet people speak of optimism in that context all the time. It seems to be a statement about the probability that some event will happen.
Someone could use the designation "I'm optimistic" only to refer to instances where they really believe the probability of some desirable event is high. But some people say "I'm an optimist," which seems to mean they always think these probabilities are relatively high. But surely they are not.
When you say that about the Quayle book, does it mean you think the probability that it's in is high? Higher than it really is? If so you either can't really believe it or your are a money pump waiting to be exploited. Someone could offer you a series of gambles that you'd want to take but would result in sure losses for you and sure wins for the other person.
209. JJBiener - July 23, 1999 - 12:06 PM PT
Slack - I think you are reading too much into the use of the word. If someone says they are optimistic that a book is in, it only means they think it is more likey true than not. Saying that one is an optimist means that all things equal they will tend to expect a positive outcome.
The Quayle book presents a problem. It is not at all clear whether its being in or not is the positive outcome.
210. judithathome - July 23, 1999 - 12:12 PM PT
Slackjaw:
One thing I'm *certain* about is that I should be more careful making statements.
I said I was "ever the optimist"...meaning I prefer to think Amazon will locate the book, thus I will be able to read it soon. Were I a pessimist, I wouldn't have ordered a book that is currently out of print and being searched for by Amazon...I'd have seen the designation "out of print, currently unavailable" and shrugged, logged off, and forgotten about it. Since I know Amazon has far more outside sources than I could ever hope to access, I feel there is a good chance the book will turn up and I will buy it.
I used to be very a very negative person; if a picnic were planned, I'd predict rain...I was very glum and moody. By working hard at it, I've become a much more upbeat person and more positive in my outlook. This may seem like "Pollyanna syndrome" to you....but I like myself this way much more than the other way.
211. CalGal - July 23, 1999 - 12:14 PM PT
I am a devout and dedicated pessimist. And the use of adjectives normally used to describe one's religious beliefs is by no means a coincidence.
212. judithathome - July 23, 1999 - 12:14 PM PT
JJ:
Thanks for helping me there.....
The Quayle book is by Joe Queenan so I think it will be a positive experience.
213. judithathome - July 23, 1999 - 12:17 PM PT
CalGal:
Well, I wouldn't call myself a "devout" optimist....old habits dying hard, as they seem to do lately.
214. Slackjaw - July 23, 1999 - 12:21 PM PT
Judith:
it's not just your statement that got me to thinking of it. I was browbeating my wife about it yesterday. I don't believe your statement was careless or anything; I just don't really understand (same with pessimism).
Take your prediction about rain. You had to know on some level that you were kidding yourself. If you did not know that, you should have seen the different predictions made by you and people around you, and offered to wager on the outcome. If your prediction really reflected your belief you would have thought this would make you money in expectation.
JJ: Don't really see how I'm reading too much into anything. Your post in fact really just summarizes the statement I made in the previous post about the distinction between "I'm optimistic" and "I'm an optimist."
"all things equal they will tend to expect a positive outcome."
Right, and either they must know this isn't really true or they must be passing up wagers that will yield a sure thing, given their beliefs.
215. Slackjaw - July 23, 1999 - 12:23 PM PT
"either they must know this isn't *always* really true" meaning they must know that sometimes their expectation is systematically biased.
216. JJBiener - July 23, 1999 - 12:44 PM PT
Slack - It is possible that they believe in the power of positive expectation. In other words, they believe that by expecting a positive result, they are more likely to get a positive result.
In any case, I don't see why optimism is inherently flawed. They don't believe that every situation will turn out positively, but on the whole situations will tend more toward the positive than the negative.
217. Slackjaw - July 23, 1999 - 12:56 PM PT
who said anything about flaws??
That's a weird model of the world where believing something about the clemency of the weather or the availability of a book actually changes that clemency or availability.
218. judithathome - July 23, 1999 - 1:03 PM PT
slackjaw:
........oh my god.......
Okay....how about: I now believe the book will be found but will be rained on before I get it.
219. Slackjaw - July 23, 1999 - 1:06 PM PT
heh, and segue back into humor.
Sorry, don't mean to belabor anything...just can't help thinking about it.
220. judithathome - July 23, 1999 - 1:13 PM PT
Slackjaw;
No, no...I liked the discussion. And you have caused me to think about what I actually meant by optimistic.
My husband loves to debate the meanings of words, English ones, anyhow. He was brought up speaking Hawaiian-pidgen and Japanese and he's always asking me things like "What do you do when you do the opposite of 'disrupt'?"
221. cmboyce - July 23, 1999 - 1:54 PM PT
You crumple.
222. cmboyce - July 23, 1999 - 1:57 PM PT
That's not an insult! I should perhaps elaborate: you crush together rather than burst asunder. But use the same root.
223. cmboyce - July 23, 1999 - 2:04 PM PT
Shit.
Well, as quicker wits than mine will have noticed, that's bullshit. In the first place, "rupt" and "rump" are not the same root. "Disrupt" is from Lat. "dis-" ("apart") + "ruptere" ("to break"). That much I knew, but I too quickly tried to figure out an opposite, or at least a contrary, using "rupt"-- and fell overboard.
224. cmboyce - July 23, 1999 - 2:08 PM PT
I should have added: Crumple is from an OE verb "to curl" (which also yields "cramp").
I'm not being too funny here, am I? (I hope not _too_ not too!)
(Well, hey! The thread's _called_ "What's So Funny?")
225. harper - July 23, 1999 - 2:38 PM PT
You want sparkling wit? Invite Oscar Wilde to your cocktail party. Or maybe Winston Churchill (that man had more one liners...)
As for low humor, "Fargo" and "Pulp Fiction" crack me up. I felt so guilty laughing...
Lately, Weird Al CDs made me laugh so hard I had to change my undies. Especially "Bohemian Polka."
Since I don't watch sitcoms, I can't comment on the humor in them, but I find "Politically Incorrect" funny most of the time. Bill Maher's done some wicked monologues.
And my favorite piece of grafitti (from the ladies room of the late, lamented Biograph Theater):
(Original line) I'm nine inches long and three inches wide. Interested?
(reply) Fascinated. How big's your dick?
226. CalGal - July 23, 1999 - 2:46 PM PT
Some possible opposites of disrupt:
Facilitate
Cooperate
Organize
Settle
227. wabbit - July 23, 1999 - 2:59 PM PT
"You all look like happy campers to me. Happy campers you are, happy campers you have been, and, as far as I am concerned, happy campers you will always be."
--Vice President Dan Quayle, to the American Samoans, whose capital Quayle pronounces "Pogo Pogo"
228. lemwalker - July 23, 1999 - 5:14 PM PT
Guy dies and goes to heaven. Meets God. Can see down into hell. They are having a good time. Big feast with champagne. God gives him a Tuna sandwhich. Guy asks why those in hell get a banquet. God says, 'with just the two of us why bother'.
229. JJBiener - July 26, 1999 - 12:15 PM PT
LemWalker - But it was one hell of a tuna sandwich.
230. judithathome - July 26, 1999 - 12:24 PM PT
When I lived in Gremany, our village was surrounded by farms and once when a friend was visiting, we were driving past these beautiful farmlands and saw a farmer beside his tractor, gazing off into the distance. My friend, who considered himself quite a comedian, said, "Ah look...master of all he surveys!" and I replied, "No...outstanding in his field." My friend nearly drove into a ditch...
231. thoughtful - July 26, 1999 - 3:28 PM PT
Courtesy of a friend of mine, but a true story, under the classification of "Only in NY", a friend was standing on a corner in Manhattan waiting for the light to change. There was a bag lady next to him. A big limo pulled up, the window rolled down and a Japanese fellow in the back seat hollered out, "Can you tell me how to get to the UN?" The bag lady hollered back, "You found your way to Pearl Harbor, you can find your way to the UN!"
232. thoughtful - July 26, 1999 - 3:29 PM PT
Haven't read back in this thread all the way yet, but I have to add "Harold & Maude" to the funny movie category, if no one has yet.
233. thoughtful - July 26, 1999 - 3:38 PM PT
Slackjaw's remark reminds me of an old "Far Side"...three men in lab coats are standing looking at a glass on a table that is partly filled with liquid. One says, "I'm a pessimist and I say the glass is half empty." The next says, "I'm an optimist and I say the glass is half full." The third says, "I'm an optometrist and I say what's the difference."
My friend the optometrist really liked that one.
234. thoughtful - July 26, 1999 - 3:38 PM PT
They (the optometrists) have an annual dance they call the Eye Ball.
235. Slackjaw - July 26, 1999 - 3:41 PM PT
ha, my dad and stepmom are both optometrists...have to ask them about that one
236. cllrdr - July 26, 1999 - 3:49 PM PT
OK brace yourselves (as if you didn't know it was coming)
OK, brace yourselves (as if you didn't know it was coming):
Q. Why didn't JFK, Jr. take a shower before he left for the Vineyard?
A. He said he'd wash up on shore!
Q. What was JFK, Jr's last drink?
A. Ocean Spray.
Q. What's the Kennedy's flying motto?
A. Your luggage will arrive before you do!
Q. What do Kennedys miss most about Martha's Vineyard?
A. The runway.
Q. What was JFK Jr's final thrill?
A. Going down on Gay Head.
Q. Why was JFK, Jr. flying to the Vineyard?
A. He wanted to crash his cousin's wedding.
Q. What will they name the movie about movie JFK, Jr.?
A. Three funerals and a wedding.
237. thoughtful - July 26, 1999 - 3:53 PM PT
Slack, I think you suffer from something called "learned incompetency." It means that you get so entrenched in your knowledge base or profession that you find it difficult to look at an issue from any other POV. For examples, all problems are engineering problems to engineers, medical problems to drs., and economic problems to economists. Of course, not all questions can be appropriately answered by a single profession, but, since for each of us those are the tools we have and the analysis we've learned, those are the tools we apply.
I think optimism in some cases may be self delusion, but in others, it reflects a belief and a self confidence that one can make the best of any situation regardless of outcome. Of course, the self-delusional types will always become self-reinforcing. Are you ever late going somewhere and seem to hit every red light? Or is it just that you choose to ignore the green ones as you hurry along. Ever buy a car and then spot that model all over the place -- or a particular color car, and then see that car color all over the place? They are occurring with the same frequency (BTW white is the most popular color) only our perception has changed. Same with optimism or pessimism.
238. Slackjaw - July 26, 1999 - 4:08 PM PT
well thoughtful, I think you suffer from ignorance of conditional probability. Given that I post, it tends to be about economics; that's a little different from saying I apply economics to everything. Not every problem is an economic problem to me, as evidenced by the fact that my posting is usually confined to a few threads.
Should have been pretty clear that I was not talking about all optimism, just that having to do with probability judgments. If you find a flaw in anything I posted, let's hear it.
239. PincherMartin - July 26, 1999 - 4:57 PM PT
Two funny lines from the Speaker of the House at the turn of the century, John Reed.
"They never open their mouths," he complained of two House colleagues, "without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge."
Asked to attend the funeral of a political enemy, he refused, "but that does not mean to say I do not heartily approve of it."
240. thoughtful - July 26, 1999 - 5:57 PM PT
slackj, first, I'm not picking a fight, especially since this isn't the thread for it. I was only expressing -- from my learned incompetence view point -- something I picked up in B School which seems to fit most of the human condition. There are few with such learnings in so many fields that they are capable of approaching the same problem with completely different tools.
Second, "Not every problem is an economic problem to me, as evidenced by the fact that my posting is usually confined to a few threads." Say what? If not every problem was an economic problem, wouldn't you be posting in many threads?
241. Slackjaw - July 26, 1999 - 8:08 PM PT
Only if I had the inclination to post on topics which I regard as having no or very light microeconomic content, which I typically do not. That time I think is better spent doing other things.
242. davecook - July 28, 1999 - 12:52 AM PT
Q: What's the difference between JFK Jr. and Monica Lewinsky?
A: One went down on a private flight's crash, the other went down on the privates of white trash.
243. katewrath - July 28, 1999 - 10:02 AM PT
Two things, no make that three.
One: The early discussion about fart jokes, appropriate as humor or no, smited me to my very core. In some lights, fart jokes are pretty much my life's work. And now it turns out they're not funny? Where's my Lady Schick?
Two: Boy, I'm glad I found this board, cos it was just the kick in the pants I needed to finish my 2-months-in-the-writing-and-counting essay on humor and ironly.
Three: Why did the Fraygrant stop coming to the Fray for three months? Because she got mother#@*&ing tired of getting that "socket/connection lost, please try again" message all the time.
244. CalGal - July 28, 1999 - 10:06 AM PT
Well, I'm glad you're back. Where the hell have you been? Oh, wait, you answered that.
Is there any written work on the connection between detachment and humor?
245. Wombat - July 28, 1999 - 11:50 AM PT
Cellar:
Absolutely outrageous! Disgusting! hmmmmpph...bwahahaha!
Tom Reed anecdote:
Congressman: "Mr. Speaker, I've been thinking..."
Reed: "Let us not interrupt the gentleman's worthy endeavor."
Great American humorist:
Ambrose Bierce. The Devil's Dictionary is my Bible.
246. theDiva - July 28, 1999 - 12:23 PM PT
A Navy Admiral, an Army 5-Star General, and a Marine 5-Star General were discussing whose branch had the bravest troops.
Pointing to a sailor busy painting atop a light pole, the Navy man said "Watch this," to the other two. "SAILOR!"
"Sir, yes, sir?" yelled the swabbie.
"Jump off that light pole, sailor!"
"Sir, yes, sir!" and the swabbie jumped.
"Oh, yeah?" said the Marine General. "Watch this." He screamed to a Lance Corporal walking guard along the seawall, "MARINE!"
"Sir, yes, sir?" answered the jarhead.
"Jump off that wall, Marine!"
"Sir, yes, sir!" and the jarhead jumped.
The Army General said "Pretty brave, but not as brave as my troops. Watch this." He pointed to a tank running maneuvers, and yelled to a PFC standing by "SOLDIER!"
"Sir, yes, sir?" answered the PFC
"Jump in front of that tank there, soldier!"
"Fuck you, sir!"
247. katewrath - July 28, 1999 - 2:28 PM PT
Cal Gal: What is this "detachment" of which you speak?
248. FreetoChoose - July 28, 1999 - 2:36 PM PT
katewrath
“Three: Why did the Fraygrant stop coming to the Fray for three months? Because she got mother#@*&ing tired of getting that "socket/connection lost, please try again" message all the time.”
If for no other reason, I wish this place would fix its crappy system.
(Glad to see you back; hope you don't get too many error messages.)
249. katewrath - July 28, 1999 - 2:39 PM PT
Physical comediennes of the last decade:
Kristen Johnson (obviously)
Molly Shannon and Anna Gastyer (SNL kids showing their improv chops)
Joan Cusack
Toni Colette
And a slew of women toiling in not-quite-obscurity in improv troupes around the country.
(Guess who's gone back to funny school?)
250. CalGal - July 28, 1999 - 2:41 PM PT
Kate,
Humor seems intrinsically (but not solely) linked with the ability to detach. What people find funny seems related to their ability to detach from what is presented. Obviously, the artist can also assist in helping the audience detach--so the penis scene in Something About Mary is hysterical, whereas the drinking scene in Austin Powers is just lousy.
Many times, if you get into a discussion about what people think is funny as opposed to offensive or painful, it comes down to their ability to detach.
Another example: Everyone I know who are very quickwitted and funny seems to devote some percentage of their attention to observing the moment, rather than experiencing it. Again suggesting detachment.
As I said, it is by no means the *only* component of humor--or a sense of humor--but it seems linked in, and I wondered if this was something that gets discussed.
251. katewrath - July 28, 1999 - 3:08 PM PT
CalGal: Interesting theory. And yet, there is identification wrapped in there as well. I don't even HAVE a penis, and I was crossing my legs and wincing as the infamous SAM shot flashed on screen. What occurs to me (and I don't suggest that this disproves your point) is that humor is often a matter of perspective.
The August Atlantic--which has a fall-down hilarious fictional periodical table, coincidentally--has a piece on tabloid law, in which a lawyer responds to a question about a lawsuit filed by a man that the Enquirer accidentally identified as RFK's assassin by saying "Some people have no sense of humor." Now, that lawyer is an ass, but he has a point. In the large scale of things, nobody was going to actually believe this guy was an assassin (he's a photographer), and therein would be the reason to find it funny and laugh it off. Physical comedy, likewise, depends entirely on hoping/knowing it all turns out okay. (For this reason, I can't watch America's Most Assinine Home Videos, because my lingering fear is that Mr. Jenks never fathered another child after Sparky mistook his crotch for a Schnausage (tm).)
And yes, perspective is definitely something the performer controls.
(As for why the doody-drinking in AP2 wasn't funny, I would suggest that it wasn't surprising. In fact, the only way it could have been more obvious is if they had a Mack truck plow into the room with the words "Somebody is about to drink liquid fecal matter." written on the side. Even with old, recurring jokes, without the surprise, the humor is lost.
252. CalGal - July 28, 1999 - 3:44 PM PT
Kate,
Oh, yes. I don't think detachment is the only thing.
Surprise
Detachment
Identification/Recognition
Perspective (which may actually be linked to detachment)
And the performer can't always control perspective. Earlier, I mentioned humiliation humor, which I am constitutionally incapable of laughing at. Extreme forms can sicken me. Yet it may be, by humiliation humor standards, funny. But I can't detach (probably because of my perspective) and therefore am outside the control of the performer.
You are beautifully correct about Austin--I should have thought of that.
253. katewrath - July 28, 1999 - 4:21 PM PT
CG: Or, alternatively, you can't detach because the performer is playing it straight. On one end of the comedy spectrum, you have MMeyers prancing around in all his Union Jacked glory; he clearly feels no shame, so neither do we. At the other end, you have Mr. Farley (Three's Company) grinding his jaws together in bewilderment, Cliff Clavin (Cheers) letting Carla fire vicious salvos into his ego without so much as blinking, and yes, the unwitting Scout Master that's just tripped over his tent rope. All three have given themselves over to the moment, and in so doing are making the moment so real, those of us with delicate stomachs can't bear to watch.
It might seem like I'm contradicting you at every turn, but indeed, I'm just looking at the subject from several different angles.
254. CalGal - July 28, 1999 - 4:28 PM PT
Oh, no. I wouldn't disagree with anything you're saying. In fact, I'm slobberingly grateful to get anyone to discuss it with me!
I should have been more specific about "humiliation humor"--obviously a great deal of funny stuff has aspects of humiliation. So to clarify: when it goes past a certain point, I can't deal. Period. But other people might think it is wonderfully funny and, in any objective judgment (given how difficult "objective" is in assessing humor) it is indeed funny. So all I was doing was identifying a point at which the performer loses control and the audience's detachment limitation kicks in.
Another simpler example: Mel Brooks movie, The Producers. It is entirely possible that someone who survived a Nazi concentration camp would be incapable of laughing.
Looking at my list again, I think that perspective and identification might also be linked to ability to detach.
I also don't want to imply that detachment is the only aspect of humor. It is just the part I've been focusing on lately.
255. katewrath - July 28, 1999 - 4:57 PM PT
Well, certainly it's true that humor is, as they say, a coping mechanism or a crutch. This is why virtually every truly hilarious person I know has a long, sordid history of suffering of some kind or another. And hardly a day goes by that I don't see someone grab the ol' club of comedy and attempt to laugh off something they would be infinitely better off dealing with honestly.
However, I don't want to make it seem--as a Real World Seattle participant once observed--that people with a finely developed sense of humor are necessarily covering up for something. Once upon a time, they may have been coping with some long, dark teatime of the soul (and probably one that seemed, even if it wasn't, completely out of their control), but that time may well have passed, and while they have gone on to become complete, sane human beings, they may have retained their wickedly well-developed sense of humor just to keep them company on the long, winter nights.
(I don't actually say this in self-defense, a) because I wouldn't call myself hilarious and b) because nobody in the Fray cares what my deal is, but rather because I've met so many well-adjusted but deeply funny people in the last couple years, I've had to revise my entire world view on the subject.)
256. CalGal - July 28, 1999 - 5:10 PM PT
Kate,
The ability to detach is an essential element of Surviving Bad Life Experiences (she says pompously). Those who survive quite often do so because of their ability to detach. Many of those who learn to detach also develop a kickass sense of humor, for a variety of reasons.
But as you note, it doesn't follow that all people with the skill of detachment learned it from SBLE. In fact--it could be that those who SBLE had the ability to detach first and that's what allowed them to survive? Whereas your original theory supposes it was a learned mechanism *to* survive.
I believe that humor is a sophisticated defense mechanism? I forget who defined defense mechanisms first, but they are broken down into primitive, neurotic, and sophisticated?
I think that humor can be used as a defense mechanism by a emotionally healthy person or by someone who (usually due to SBLE) is using it to deflect away from emotion. And we all do both some times obviously.
Are there any books that address this sort of subject? I mean the elements of humor, not its use as a defense mechanism.
257. patsyrolph - July 28, 1999 - 6:01 PM PT
Ladies:
"the long, dark teatime of the soul"? Now _that's_
funny.
There gave been several books written about humor but none to recommend. Best definition I know was
in connection with the fact that a signal indication of a child's high intelligence is an early sense of humor or _the ability to see the difference between things as they are and as they
should be.
258. labwabbit - July 28, 1999 - 6:11 PM PT
"Every attempt to describe and define humor is absurdity to the context of it's abstractual origin." T.J Waterman (former Sociology classmate speaking aboutlaughing)
Don't ask me what he really meant by it...I just remeber it well from a recording I took during a normal class lecture. It just stuck with me for some curious reason.
259. CalGal - July 28, 1999 - 6:26 PM PT
Patsy,
I believe that Douglas Adams came up with it first--or did it originate elsewhere, Kate? In any event, it's a phrase I love as well.
Lab,
I actually agree about efforts to define *why* something is funny. I am more curious about what the required elements for laughter are.
In other words, to describe *why* it's funny to see someone slip on a banana peel is pretty much besides the point. But I am interested in the necessary prerequisites to be *able* to laugh at something.
However, there are people who would agree with your statement regardless of the difference I see.
260. labwabbit - July 28, 1999 - 6:39 PM PT
CalGal:
I might have a tendancy to believe that humor, and resulting laughter is a successful hinge, a completed bridge of sorts, to a common understanding at mutiple-simultaneous levels to consensually accepted norms.
More simply put...it a higher more complex form of the commonly accepted understanding that most know fire burns when you touch it. Although not all absolutely will feel pain when touching a fire...therefore any humor on that consensus understanding would be lost on that particular individual.
Can you understand what I just said there? If you can't we could never really make fun of it...
261. labwabbit - July 28, 1999 - 6:48 PM PT
CG: The key word is 'simultaneous'...perhaps as in spontaneous combustion. Where many key elements are necessary and arrived at in a predeterminate series.
262. CalGal - July 28, 1999 - 6:55 PM PT
"More simply put...it a higher more complex form of the commonly accepted understanding that most know fire burns when you touch it. "
Yes, that's a great deal of it. But is it all?
Second point--Move from the communal aspects of laughter to the individual. Why are some people genuinely funny as (it seems) a basic attribute of their personality? Similarly, why are some people damn close to humorless?
263. CalGal - July 28, 1999 - 6:56 PM PT
And yes, I agree with you about the simultaneous nature of humor--but is that just another word for surprise?
264. labwabbit - July 28, 1999 - 6:59 PM PT
"Why are some people genuinely funny as (it seems) a basic attribute of their personality? Similarly, why are some people damn close to humorless?"
...perhaps comes from its most base form of the perceptual ability to, at the very least, laugh at oneself.
265. CalGal - July 28, 1999 - 7:04 PM PT
"perhaps comes from its most base form of the perceptual ability to, at the very least, laugh at oneself."
Self-deprecation. Totally agree--although someone can be funny on any given occasion, even if they aren't fundamentally self-deprecating.
Do you think someone can learn to be funny?
266. labwabbit - July 28, 1999 - 7:28 PM PT
"...can someone learn to be funny?"
Tough one.
Taking 'only' into account what points I made earlier, one might reason that if a person can learn what groups of people, (groups of ideas/understandings), he/she feels most relative to...then humor that results in the spontananous exchange and consensual understanding may become favorable for development.
To venture a bit beyond that, in a perverse sense, that individual in prerequisite, must know him/herself, to a point at least where comfort toward a 'group' is realized...thus a sense of self in relation to the group, (or environment), has been or eventually is realized as well. If this is true, then it might stand in reason that this person may learn to laugh at oneself...thus
whether it be abstraction in self-deprecation or in response to a result formed from the "perceived" interactive role in comparison to the accepted set/group, can it be said that this is humor developed? A perceptory sense nurtured or learned by this individual?
267. labwabbit - July 28, 1999 - 7:42 PM PT
CG:
...in finality;
"...the simultaneous nature of humor--but is that just another word for surprise?"
Are we, ('we' is key), really surprised that oily-rags left in a dark, ventilation-starved area, will eventually ignite from some catalyst whether it be heat, oxygen, other chemically stimulated reaction? The timing of it though is what's unpredictable....and most, if not all, good humor is born of the timing within 'presented' context is it not?
268. LadyChaos - July 28, 1999 - 7:58 PM PT
Sometime before the war, a rich Polish businessman was driving to Krakow when his car broke down near the edge of a village. He managed to get a tow to a small repair shop, where he was told that his car would be ready in a couple of hours. He decided to go for a walk and find some lunch.
On his way out, he checked his pocket watch, only to find that it had broken. So, he decided to look for a watch repair shop. He walked the length of the village square until, at the very end, he found a store window with watches hanging in front of a simple, black cloth. He stepped inside.
Inside was a bare room with little decor but for a small podium, where an old Rabbi stood reading from a large book.
"Excuse me," said the businessman, "but I was wondering if perhaps you could repair my watch?"
The Rabbi pressed a finger to his lips and whispered, "Shhh," while gently shaking his head no. He continued reading.
Thinking that the old fellow hadn't heard him, the businessman stepped closer and said, a little more loudly, "Might you have time, good sir, to repair my watch?"
269. LadyChaos - July 28, 1999 - 8:02 PM PT
Again, the old Rabbi pressed a finger to his lips, shook his head no, and went back to his reading.
Getting rather frustrated by this time, the businessman shouted, "Look, are you going to repair my watch or aren't you?"
The Rabbi looked up at him and said, "I'm sorry, but I can't."
"Why not?"
"I'm a Moyal," said the Rabbi. "I circumcise babies."
"A Moyal?" exclaimed the businessman. He pointed back toward the window. "Then what's with the watches in the window?"
"Well," the Rabbi shrugged, "what would *you* put there?"
270. LadyChaos - July 28, 1999 - 8:05 PM PT
And my favorite from a Prairie Home Companion Joke Show:
Why don't women pass gas as much as men?
Because they don't keep their mouths shut long enough for the pressure to build up.
271. Wombat - July 29, 1999 - 8:39 AM PT
The Spy Who Shagged Me: I thought it was a pretty dumb film (a parody of a self parodying genre is difficult to accomplish), but the scene in the tent when he is having back problems and Ms. Shagwell is unloading his duffel bag had me roaring with laughter. It was an obvious sight gag, but is was very well done, and the reaction of the security team watching was hilarious.
I am trying to figure out exactly why I found American Pie so funny. Part of my reaction was a reverie to my high school days (fortunately the Internet had not yet gone public, and the pies at my boarding school were best used on other people's faces).
Another aspect of humor may be that of vicarious relief: that what just happened is not happening to you.
272. CalGal - July 30, 1999 - 9:03 AM PT
Wombat,
"Another aspect of humor may be that of vicarious relief: that what just happened is not happening to you."
Ha. Yes. Also I think standup comedy in general is based on recognition.
I find that a lot of the stuff I think is funny has very little of anything except surprise in it--especially written humor. I mentioned Terry Pratchett a bit earlier, and I was rereading a book of his, "Good Omens" (with Neil Gaiman). This bit jumped out at me as an example:
"In fact the only things in the flat that Crowley devoted any personal attention to were the houseplants. They were huge and green and glorious, with shiny, healthy, lustrous leaves.
This was because, once a week, Crowley went around the flat with a green plastic plant mister, spraying the leaves, and talking to the plants.
He had heard about talking to the plants in the early seventies, on Radio Four, and thought it was an excellent idea. Although "talking" is perhaps the wrong word for what Crowley did.
...every couple months Crowley would pick out a plant that was growing too slowly, or succumbing to leaf-wilt or browning, or just didn't look quite as good as the others, and he would carry it around to all the other plant. "Say goodbye to your friend," he'd say to them. "He just couldn't cut it..."
Then he would leave the flat with the offending plant, and return an hour or so later with a large, empty flower pot, which he would leave somewhere conspicuously around the flat.
The plants were luxurious, verdant, beautiful, and terrified."
273. benear - July 30, 1999 - 9:40 AM PT
This is. Check out the link in the Corner.
61320. benear - July 30, 1999 - 8:50 AM PT
Hey guys, check out Stickdeath. Check the archives.
Especially sPECIAL fORCES. This is currently making
the rounds in my office and the giggles are being heard all
over the place.
274. katewrath - July 30, 1999 - 11:56 AM PT
It's true, "long dark tea time of the soul" is a Douglas Adams line I frequently and reverently borrow.
Labwabbit: E.B. White observed once that dissecting humor is like dissecting a frog; you can learn a great deal, but in the process you end up killing the subject. I've always thought he referred to Freud' analyses of humor and that it was absolutely possible to examine the Logic of the Joke without detroying its humor. Reading your posts, I must stand corrected.
Personally, I believe a joke (be it a witty aside, a sight gag or whathaveyou) is a pattern, but a complicated pattern that inverts itself in a surprising way, and a sense of humor is the ability to perceive this pattern. (I didn't come up with this myself; Arthur Koestler spelled it out in a 1974 Encyclopedia Brittanica piece.)
If, for the moment, the scientists in the house will not get all over my case about what is and isn't a pattern, I will flesh out my thesis a little:
The world is a pattern which we inherently understand (also not my idea, but one I gleaned from Kant). Our brain translates everything around us into shapes and colors, words and sounds, etc. A joke starts out as a replica of this pattern (I apologise for stating the obvious, but it had to be done), a glimpse of our world as we know it. Then the pattern veers wildly away from what we expect, and the surprise--that we do not know everything our world can contain--registers as a kind of delight and, in many cases, results in laughter.
(more to come)
275. JJBiener - July 30, 1999 - 12:10 PM PT
CalGal - Humor is based on the rabid change of perspective and the incongruities that are caused by the change. (Not an original thought on my part. I read it somewhere and it seems to explain it pretty well.)
276. katewrath - July 30, 1999 - 12:10 PM PT
The phrase "veers wildly" actually makes humor sound easier to manufacture than it is, because the truth is that the inversion must be chosen with extreme care. Take, for example, the scene in "Dumb and Dumber" when Jeff Daniels walks into a bathroom, sits down and.... goes to the bathroom. Inserting a woman to interrupt him would not have worked as a joke, but keeping the camera on him DOES work as a joke because what the audience specfically does not expect is to stay in the room with him while he does his business. Movies and TV NEVER show us a person sitting on the can for extended lengths of time, but this one does, and we're surprised, and we laugh.
What if you didn't think that was funny? Then you didn't perceive the pattern. And there's nothing wrong with that. At the turn of the century, Frank Moore Colby observed that Americans always believe they have a sense of humor and that there is no greater shame than not being able to get the joke (earlier posts in this thread have mentioned many examples of Americans engaged in rigorous bouts of getting the joke), and this is truer today than it was then (why this is I will leave for another time.) But what is at the root of one person not laughing at a joke while another person howls is that the second person recognized the pattern and the first person did not. (This assumes that the second person isn't covering for not getting the joke, or is drunk and thinks everything amusing, etc.)
There is no shame in this. The brain of the person who laughs when first shown a man sitting on a toilet is a brain that pays attention to the minutia of human experience when it should be solving world hunger. It feels great to laugh, and it can give the laugher perspective on the universe (more on this in a moment), but in the larger scale of things, making or getting jokes is never going to be considered a form of human progress.
(more to come? Oh, my goodness yes.)
277. katewrath - July 30, 1999 - 12:27 PM PT
In Defense of Humor (The Rousing Conclusion)
So humor if is no cure for cancer or Pentium chip or any other conventional stepping stone of human progress, what is it good for? Preventing species-wide suicide.
Humor--the recognition of a pattern that inverts itself unexpectedly--mimics one aspect of human existence exactly; our inability to control or predict it with 100% accuracy. This has been a reality for humans ever since we were walking around with our knuckles on the ground: we can affect the world around us, but it can affect us right back and we're never completely safe from it. This has been true with a vengeance more times than any of us has time to count; we build underground sewers and accidentally set the stage for a tragic polio epidemic; a cow kicks over a lantern and 60% of Chicago burns to the ground; planes crash; crops fail; droughts strike. Etc, etc, etc.
So why haven't we given up? Because we're good at seeing that tragedies are inversions of the pattern we've laid down (the one where everyone is safe and protected and in control of their lives), and being good at seeing this for the last ten millennia has kept us going. I don't have one scrap of evidence to support this theory, but I'm going to say that we've evolved to have a sense of humor because the people without a sense of humor for the most part gave up and stopped breeding. (Some also had incredibly disciplined minds and forced themselves to go on, regardless of the misfortunes they've suffered, and I believe their descendants are still here, fighting the good fight, but totally uninterested in this neat trick some of us do with our brains that, as I say, doesn't actually produce your typical Landmark of Progress sort of results.)
Which came first (the ability to replicate the experience of being surprised by your environment as humor or the ability to cope with a surprise by leaning on one's sense of humor), I couldn't say, but to me, the two seem inextricab
278. katewrath - July 30, 1999 - 12:29 PM PT
Which came first (the ability to replicate the experience of being surprised by your environment as humor or the ability to cope with a surprise by leaning on one's sense of humor), I couldn't say, but to me, the two seem inextricably connected.
(Various pointless asides to follow, but sit back and mop your brow. The hard work is over now.)
279. katewrath - July 30, 1999 - 12:42 PM PT
I am not going to review any examples of funny to show how this theory explains what people find funny (although you would not BELIEVE how tempted I am to do so.), but it does. But I'll tell you what else it does: it explains what people don't find funny.
There is the previously mentioned "person whose brain doesn't perceive the pattern" case, and I don't think I need to go into that any further. And just to clarify, it's largely a matter of degrees. A person can perceive patterns up the wazoo, and still miss a small handful that are beyond their her abilities. People who are uptight about bodily functions are never going to really savour toilet humor because (I would theorize) their brain refuses to even contemplate the possiblity that, for example, Jeff Daniels would have a bowel movement on screen. It's as if they only speak English and the punchline is in French.
But there is also the case of understanding the pattern but not laughing, and that can be explained thusly: the inversion was an insufficiently accurate surprise. Take Mike Myers and the "Coffee or Doody?" scene from AP2. As I noted earlier, EVERYONE KNEW where that scene was going. No surprise, therefore no funny. Why doesn't SNL make me laugh? Because (to my ear) they've been doing the same show for the last 8 or 9 years.
And this is why it is hard to make professionally funny people laugh: They have been up and down every road, looked at every approach to so many situations that they can't be startled into laughing. But when someone does surprise them, they are so grateful to be shown a new territory that they acknowledge this person as a great comedian, often to the confusion of laypeople who don't get why Sam Kinneson is supposed to be so funny. Or whoever it might be.
(Goddammit! Why doesn't she shut up already? Soon, my little chicks, soon.)
280. katewrath - July 30, 1999 - 1:01 PM PT
And finally: people who will laugh at almost anything (as distinct from those who are forcing themselves to violently enjoy the joke or are drunk.) These people (and I have been one myself when watching someone whose work I really respect) want or need to laugh, so they seek out a source of humor (a "Seinfeld" repeat, a night at Second City), and they put themselves in a frame of mind to be surprised, just as someone walking through a haunted house might in order to better enjoy that experience. Another person, watching the same thing but in a totally different mood, might shake their head in astonishment, and think "How is that funny? It's so obvious!" And to that person, it is obvious, but to that person's companion, it's just surprising enough to trigger laughter.
Re: sentiments like "it's funny because it's true" and the like. We don't laugh at truisms, but after we've laughed, we might acknowledge the truth in what we've laughed at. What we laugh at (according to my theory) is the surprise at something Bahwahahaha! Women don't keep their mouths shut long enough! Who could have predicted the punchline would be so rude!) we didn't expect, and then, in our human way, reflect on it and adopt it as our own if we so choose. I, for example, will laugh until I'm sick at a Chris Rock routine, but I can't adopt his views as my own. Another reason why this sentiment is so often repeated: because of my earlier point about not having a sense of humor. One way to prove you have a sense of humor is to appear as if you understand its mechanisms. (Not to speak critically of the conversations in this thread, no indeed. I think it's great and most educational to hash out "what is funny"; I'm just proposing that this might explain what I, in defending my theory, must consider an erroneous explanation of why people find certain things funny.)
And that, my poppets, really is everything I have to say on the subject.
281. ACEofSPADES - July 30, 1999 - 1:23 PM PT
Wombat:
"a parody of a self parodying genre is difficult to accomplish"
Well, they accomplished it in the first film.
But it really isn't a parody of the Bond parodies. There are allusions to those films-- the whole swingin' sixties ethos that shaped Matt Helm and Derek Flynt-- but the film is really a parody of the SAME THING matt Helm and Derek Flynt were parodying-- i.e., the Bond movies themselves.
Austin Powers is not poking fun at Matt Helm (well, not much, at least); he's Matt Helm's cousin. Both he and Matt Helm are spoofing the successful (and thus despised) member of the family, James Bond.
And, PS, that tent scene was very low comdedy, and very stupid. Not funny. To me, at least. I don't like most of Benny Hill, and that scene was bottom-of-the barrel Benny Hill.
282. ACEofSPADES - July 30, 1999 - 1:25 PM PT
And...
Matt Helm movies are a fucking trip, baby! Highly recommended for "what the hell were the filmmakers THINKING?" type fun.
And Sharon Tate... mmmmmmmmmm. Yeah, baby, YEAH BABY, YEAH!!!!!
283. judithathome - July 30, 1999 - 1:26 PM PT
katewrath:
Very nice lesson there...were you sitting on the toilet while you wrote it?
284. judithathome - July 30, 1999 - 1:27 PM PT
Ace:
Sharon Tate was hilarous in Valley Of The Dolls but it was unintended.
285. ACEofSPADES - July 30, 1999 - 1:34 PM PT
Judith:
And does she make you hohhrny too, baby? Yeah, baby, YEAH!!!
No kidding-- that chick was a fox. Adorable.
286. katewrath - July 30, 1999 - 1:37 PM PT
Judith: Ow! A) All my young life I've dreamed of the toilet/roll-up computer combo, but alas technology lags hopelessly behind my dreams. Perhaps in the 2005 remake of the Jerk (about a young boy raised by a family of webmasters), we will see him happily unveiling this triumph of home improvement.
B) My posts might be shite, but hopefully they're somewhat amusing shite.
287. Wombat - July 30, 1999 - 1:44 PM PT
Ace:
Well, I do have a weakness for Benny Hill...
Matt Helm is what James Bond would be if he was drunk all the time (as Dean Martin no doubt was).
288. CalGal - July 30, 1999 - 1:47 PM PT
Kate,
Lord, how wonderful. Great theory.
I am chewing on it still--my immediate reaction is that it covers "higher" forms of humor, but not all. For example, I don't see that it covers slapstick. I don't think it addresses the funniness in, say, The Dick Van Dyke show. (Don't know if you're familiar with the classics, but if so, try the one where Laura reveals that Allan Brady wears a toupee.) Or WKRP in Cincinnati, the Turkey Episode. (Obviously, the Les Nessman Murrow pattern, but I mean the honest to god PUNCH of the last line.)
Another thing it might not quite address is the art of humor. Well-crafted vs. lame. Still, it's good stuff.
I'm going to give examples (sorry) to see if I "get it" or not. (Unless the whole essay was a brilliantly conceived joke, and then I didn't "get it" at all. Hmm.)
The "pattern" in Message #17, a joke, is the methods of dealing with a vampire. The pattern break is the switch from "your cross" (the traditional method of dealing with vampires) to "you're cross" (the traditional reaction to any idiot who is fucking with you while you're driving). The second pattern break is the nun swearing. The joke wouldn't be nearly as funny if the nun shook her finger at the vampire and said, "I really MUST INSIST you get off my hood!"
Standup comedy, for example, often consists of showing people patterns that they weren't aware of. We laugh at the discovery of the pattern. Bob Newhart's phone routines are the application of a known pattern to an unusual situation (Walter Raleigh describing tobacco and cigarettes to the folks at home.)
289. CalGal - July 30, 1999 - 1:53 PM PT
Then there is the John Hillerman approach. My father called me up the other day, and the conversation went like this:
"Hello?"
"Oh, good, you're there. Grab a pencil and take this number down."
Being an obedient daughter, I grabbed a pencil. "Shoot."
"816-898-1234."
I repeat the numbers as I write them down, "816-898....hey, this is your home number. I have this number already."
My dad says, without skipping a beat, "Yeah? Then why the hell don't you call?"
Two patterns:
First, my father had this entire conversation planned out from the moment I picked up the phone. Planned so beautifully that I may as well have been reading a script. He had defined the pattern and played it out with me, a step or three ahead of me the whole time.
Second, the phone call was itself a familiar and dreaded pattern in everyone's life, the Plaintive Parental Plea for more phone time.
So sometimes it isn't a pattern break, it is the completion of the pattern--which isn't recognized until after it's all over. We laugh when we realize that someone has been *in* the pattern all along.
290. Wombat - July 30, 1999 - 1:54 PM PT
Toh-bah-coh? What's that, Walt? We still haven't figured out what to do with all those turkeys you sent over on the last boat.
291. Wombat - July 30, 1999 - 1:59 PM PT
Waiter!
Yeah? (this is in a Deli on the Lower East Side of Manhattan)
I got a problem with the soup!
Whatsamatta with the soup? Too hot? Too cold? Too salty?
Taste it!
Okay...hey you don't have a spoon!
That's the problem!
292. katewrath - July 30, 1999 - 2:10 PM PT
CalGal: Am not joking about theory. Am hopefully being funny, as my ego has in recent months become hopelessly entangled in the idea that I am entertaining, but not actually joking. Please to make with the examples, as I stopped myself for fear of becoming really tedious. Do not know punchline of WKRP episode or toupee scene (so much TVland to watch, so little time), so cannot theorize. From examples you offer, it seems you have the thing nailed.
Two observations: A) The nun/vampire joke was once told in a Brit sitcom in which one Ms. French (former partner of AbFab's J. Saunders) played a lady vicar. She told the joke to her well-meaning assistant, who replied very humbly, "Oh, I must be frightfully dim. I thought she meant the other nun should show the vampire her crucifix." I almost wet myself.
B) My theory covers low comedy and slapstick as well. The logic of the pattern and its inversion, I should have added, moves so quickly that most of the time, you don't even perceive your brain following it. Low humor plays on our faith that nobody is going to publicly announce a fart, or smack someone in the head or trip over a footstool because these are not typically part of standard human behavior. The surprise (which can be calculated for great hilarity or totally accidental, as when I myself once slipped on ice and laughed when, in defiance of my own expectations, both my feet swung up to waist level before gravity finally smacked me in to the ground.) of a human body doing something or acknowledging something or (as in the tent scene) apparently producing something you hadn't expected them to, registers as comedy.
(The humor of the tent scene--for me--rested in my delight at the objects "apparently" pulled out of Myers bumb. For me, it was a moment of pure inventiveness and surprise.)
293. ACEofSPADES - July 30, 1999 - 2:11 PM PT
The Rule of Three in Jokes and Star Trek:
There must always be three elements. One, to establish the pattern; two, to reinforce the pattern; three, to break the pattern (the punchline).
"Guy goes into a bar, really horney. Asks the bartender, "Do you have any women around here? I'm really horny." Bartender says: "Sorry, pal, no. No women around here. But if you're REALLY horny, there's always good old Joe in the back."
Man thinks about it, says: "Sorry, I'm horny, but I'm not into that gay shit. See you later."
(ESTABLISHING THE PATTERN)
Same guy walks into the bar a month later. Says to the bartender: "Man, I'm REALLY horny now. Any broads around here yet?" Bartender says: "No, sorry. Still no broads. But if you're REALLY horney, you know, there's STILL always Good Old Joe in the back."
Man thinks. Says: "Well, I am REALLY horny, but I'm not that horney. I'm really not into that gay shit. So no thanks."
(REINFORCING THE PATTERN)
Okay. A year goes by. Same guy comes into the bar again. "Any women?" Bartender says, "Sorry, still no women. But if you really need some sex, there's always Good Old Joe in the back.
Guy thinks about it. Says: "Well, I'm really not into that gay shit. But I am really horny. Let me ask you: If I had sex with Good Old Joe, how many people would no about it?"
Bartender says, "Well, just eight people."
Guys says, "EIGHT people?"
Bartender says, "Yeah. Eight people. You, me, Joe, and five guys to hold Joe down. He's not into that gay shit either."
(BREAKING THE PATTERN)
294. CalGal - July 30, 1999 - 2:12 PM PT
Wombat,
Yes! Excellent example of the Hillerman approach. What is it called, really? (I just call it that because Hillerman was the first person I saw use it.)
Okay, I just think I saw the pattern in the Turkey Episode. The "pattern" is just a series of events that make no sense to the observer because of key information that has been withheld. When the key information is released, the series of events now make sense and the recognition is the laugh.
295. ACEofSPADES - July 30, 1999 - 2:13 PM PT
The Rule of Three applies with equal vigor to Star Trek. Or, as Jay Leno puts it: "Two you know, one you don't know."
For example, if they're discussing great military leaders in Star Trek, they will always say: "Napoleon... Patton... and Vregus the Destroyer of Ramaga Five."
Great Doctors? "Freud... Salk... and Krre'Killon the Betelgeusian Healer."
296. judithathome - July 30, 1999 - 2:18 PM PT
katewrath:
No OW was intended...I meant that as "funny". I guess Ace is right; I'm not funny. :-(
297. katewrath - July 30, 1999 - 2:20 PM PT
Oh, jeez: I forgot to mention the role your recent posts played in my theory, which has been around a good long time, but which I had not been inspired to finally buff to a glossy shine until you said that stuff about surviving very bad things.
About your dad's phone call:I don't want to get hung up on terminology, but you're not looking for the pattern to break, but invert; it's still the same frame of reference it was 10 seconds ago, but now with a piece that very distinctly doesn't fit. To me, the inversion is that you don't expect him to give you his own number, and the expected response would have been "oh, sorry, here's the number I meant to give you", but instead, it's an unforeseen "So why don't you call?", which then hits you with how far ahead of the game your dad was, and that too registers as delight.
I don't want to go down this road of "this how you felt at this time," but to test my theory, which I have roadtested for the first time this afternoon, I need to keep trying to make it work in different scenarios, so I apologise if it feels like I'm denying your version. I'm just playing with alternative ways of looking at it.
298. CalGal - July 30, 1999 - 2:20 PM PT
Ace,
There are actually several patterns in the joke--the pattern you observe (question answer twice, then break). And that is the rule of three, as you say, because you have to set the pattern to break it.
The other pattern break is that it leads you one way and takes you another. For example, the pattern you are seeing is the guy's dislike of "gay shit". So you are unconsciously expecting the pattern break to be in his reaction--and it sends you further down that path by showing his readiness to consider it. And then lo! the pattern break is over here, in Good Old Joe.
The last bit is also a pattern break a la The Turkey Episode (in brief). The pattern (series of events or responses) don't make any sense until the key information is revealed.
299. CalGal - July 30, 1999 - 2:25 PM PT
Kate,
I'm still writing a response to your first response, but to your "forgot to mention" post--I am thinking that the patterns are multi-layered? The more clever and multi-layered the patterns, the funnier it is? (or at least the more well-constructed it is)
So yes, the inversion is there in my father's joke on me, but I think the other patterns are there as well.
300. JJBiener - July 30, 1999 - 2:30 PM PT
Could someone who does not studiously avoid sit-coms give us a recap of The Turkey Episode. I have no idea what you are referring to.