Lewis Black

I admit that I am not a huge fan of Lewis Black. Personally, my comedic interests just do not match up with his routine and topics. When I watch comedy, I don't really like it to be a constant tirade or commentary on political issues. It's not that I am against what Black is saying, but I think that the world is full of political rants and stand-up comedy can be a form of escapism from this world of angry pundits and ranting talk show hosts. So when Lewis Black spends an hour on the ineptitude or shortcoming of the Bush administration, I find it monotonous and repetitive of what I am surrounded by constantly. I would rather hear a comic tell silly jokes about bodily functions because not every joke has to be intellectually current in my opinion. The world is already so politically charged and partisan-based that I get annoyed when it infiltrates into the world of comedy. Obviously humor has always been married to the political administration and a way of satirizing or poking fun at our leaders. However, I just personally don't enjoy it.

I am a fan of The Daily Show which takes such an approach to making fun of politics as was coincidently the spring board for Lewis Black's career. However, there is a difference between the two forms of comedy. The Daily Show takes a more laid-back and absurd approach to criticizing the mistakes of the world. Lewis Black just comes off as angry, grumpy and cynical. Some people like that. I prefer to have an optimistic view of the world and thus am not a part of Lewis Black's intended audience. I think he just yells so much and then he creates a greater cynicism and mistrust in today's society. From his perspective, we are all doomed and being led around by complete clowns. While this may have some truth in it, it certainly does not help matters to instill anger in everyone around. 

Some people are certainly capable of being fans of Black. I feel like he attracts an older audience who may be either more politically involved or more cynical in their outlooks of the world. Either way, I respectfully disagree with Black's approach and wish him luck in his endeavors. 

Wanda Sykes

Wanda Sykes has a very distinct and recognizable persona. I personally know her most not from her stand-up routine but as the angry accuser of Larry David on Curb Your Enthusiasm. She is constantly around to comment on Larry's mistakes and wrongful actions and will show up at his front door to yell at him and accuse him of wrongdoing. In regards to her stand-up, she has a very critical look at the world such as being stuck with a racist dolphin or the ups and downs of men. Much like her character on Curb Your Enthusiasm, she has no qualms about angrily commenting on the mistakes of the world around her and championing for a collective following of people who are affected by the same problems. 

I was actually very surprised to learn of Sykes' sexual orientation. Not because I targeted her as a heterosexual or homosexual, but because she never really mentioned any of it during her stand-up routine. But, there are few lesbian comedians that really incorporate the topics into their acts. I guess Ellen Degeneres brings it up occasionally, or at least hints at it, but she had such a public coming-out that it would seem unfulfilled if she didn't mention it somewhere. If the audience doesn't publicly know about the orientation, there probably is no reason to really bring it up in a stand-up routine unless it could add substantially to the humor. If a women, or man for that matter, comedian admit their sexual orientation during their routine and it wasn't commonly known like Degeneres' is, it could possibly take away from the focus of the humor. It would distract the audience's attention and bring it away from the main goal of telling jokes and making humor. I don't even really think it is that important unless it is a major part of a comedian's persona such as the flamboyantly gay comedian character. 

Overall, I think that Sykes' major stand-up attribute is her ability to sound funny when angry. Whether she is yelling about a racist dolphin or yelling at an incompetent Larry David, she just has a dominant angry voice and makes it extremely humorous. 

Mitch Hedberg

I have been aware of Mitch Hedberg for several years and I think my opinion on him has changed many times. When I first noticed him, a part of me thought that maybe he was trying to hard. He does have a very up-front character. The long hair, sunglasses and distinctive voice can come on a bit strong if not pulled off with style. Or maybe I wasn't appreciative of his extremely literal and fresh approach. But, as time went on, I really learned to enjoy his stand-up. I think it is because of the outside-the-box perspective he gives on topics or the inventive wordplay which only a growing student can appreciate. 

I think that his stage persona is something that people are either turned on or turned off by. He certainly tailors his look to approach a certain audience. I am not saying that only stoners or drug-users can enjoy him, but he undoubtedly has that look and view on life. The chuckle, hair and wardrobe look like a leftover hippie from years ago. Also, his commentary on life sounds like something you might hear from a stoned teenager who is glued to the couch. Obviously that is unfair to restrict him and his audience to such a simple category, but the look and feel are undeniable. However, where the ramblings of a stoner might end up sounding inane, Herberg is able to pull off such observations with charm and intellect. He is like a sillier version of Jerry Seinfeld. He makes observational humor but usually takes it in a more bizarre direction. For example, talking about Pringles' original business plan was to make tennis balls or feeling embarrassed in one's responses at a heavy metal rock concert. 

Overall, I learned to appreciate the ingenuity and originality of Hedberg's joke setup. I takes real talent to be able to approach observational humor with such inventiveness and freshness. He doesn't really hit on topics which other comedians speak about. A lot of what he says are just odd perspectives on life which the majority of the audience had never really considered before. There isn't much imitation and originality is his M.O. It is truly a tragedy that such a comic died so early. 

David Spade

I was very surprised to see David Spade doing stand-up. I was aware that he was on SNL where many stand-up comedians flourish in acting or writing, but I had never known Spade to be a stand-up comedian. Having said that, there wasn't anything particularly different between his stand-up routine and his usual characters and skits. On SNL, he was known for a segment on Weekend Update in which he would smugly comment on the in's and out's of Hollywood. Also, every role he played in movies such as Tommy Boy and Black Sheep, he is a sarcastic realist always commenting on the absurdity of situations. His stand-up is not much different. He sarcastically tears apart his own life and the lives of others. This begs the question: How often is there a change between stand-up persona and other work? Some actors who do stand-up comedy have movies or television shows which are merely extensions of their routine. These people include Tim Allen, Ray Romano and Jerry Seinfeld. However, some people such as Steve Martin or Robin Williams have very different stand-up/work personas and approaches. I guess some of it has to do with how marketable the persona is. Tim Allen plays a men vs. women routine and Jerry Seinfeld is a constant observer of mundane points. These routines can easily be expanded into television sitcoms. However, people like Steve Martin or Robin Williams don't have as easily identified persona and thus they are not as pigeon-holed into doing work which is a direct reflection of that stand-up. 

As for David Spade, I don't think he has been completely marketed as the wise-cracking, sarcastic straight man but the majority of his work surely reflects it. I think that in the past few years he has grown longer hair and looked for different work. Maybe he is trying to branch out of that character or maybe he is just trying to take it in a different, new and fresher direction.

Dave Chappelle

I have always been a fan of Dave Chappelle and his stand-up/television work. "Killing Them Softly" and "For What It's Worth" are, in my opinion, laugh out loud hilarious and able to produce the same response after repeated viewings. For example, I have heard that bit about kid's cartoons about fifteen times and when I watched it in class, I laughed about as hard as I did when I saw it for the first time.
Anyway, I tried to indentify why I found Chappelle so humorous. Yes, he does have good material and the subject matter and punchlines are hilarious. However, I think it is a little more than that. Eddie Murphy, when asked his secret to being funny, said that he was just born with the ability to tell a joke well and sound funny. I think the same is true for Dave Chappelle. A lot of this humor has to do with his voice and especially his "white person voice". Whenever Chappele imitates a white person, he always talks in a high-mannered, uptight and snooty tone and it makes the joke sound hilarious. I can understand why a black audience member would find it funny as it portrays a different race. However, I think that white people can find just as much humor in something like that. I don't find it offensive or degrading. I have met people that talk like that but I don't so I do not feel like I am really the target of any joke. What would happen if a white comedian tried to imitate a black person? I am sure that he or she would use a voice which sounds like at least a part of the racial population much like Chappelle uses a voice that sounds like a minority of the white population. A black viewer or listener would think "I know people that talk like that, not me, but I have heard it before". It may seem like a fair and equal comic trade-off but it does not work that way. The minority of a population is always able to poke as much fun at the majority but the majority is cruel if they jab at the minority. I am not quite sure how that works but I think it is fair.
In a democratic nation like America, the majority vote wins thus has the power. Therefore, whichever people are in the majority are most likely to control the power through numbers. (I am not saying white people are more powerful than the black race, or any other race for that matter, but simply that majority rules). Thus, just like I have mentioned before in such examples as presidential humor, there is a longstanding tradition of poking fun and making jokes at those in power. If the president came on TV and started ripping on the American public, surely it would not go over well. However, Letterman can go on TV every night and take shots at the government's expense. That is just how the humor flows. There is no vis-versa.
Therefore, to sum up, I think black people can make fun of white people but white people (for the most case, unless done very tastefully) cannot make fun of black people. And I am fine with that because I think it is all hilarious.

George Carlin, again.

On our second (or third?, maybe even fourth) viewing of George Carlin, I noticed many of the same things and even some new aspects to his humor.

I think a lot of Carlin's humor or appeal comes from the recitation which makes up a big part of his stand up routine. For example, in his "I'm a Modern Man" routine, there may not be a lot of jokes that are particularly laugh-out-loud hilarious. On the other hand, it is incredibly impressive that he not only wrote such a string of high-impact lines but also memorized and recited it well. I think it would be hard enough to memorize a comedian's routine of setups and punchlines not to mention such a dense and intricately worded speech as Carlin's. In fact, I think this applies to most of his stand up. Many of his bits, or rather speeches, seem as if they could be read by a man off of a sheet of paper at a lectern facing an audience. This is not only because of their length and basis on exact memorization but also because many of these speeches feel as if they are meant to lecture a crowd. Yes, they are for the purpose of humor as well but also to teach and harangue.

Also, it seems to fit into a common theme that Carlin, the anti-establishment/government/society comic would maybe tone it down a little bit as his career went on. I am not saying he cleaned up his act or made it cheerful and bright, but he did probably do less chaotic acts which resulted in arrests. Also, he played the conductor on the children's show "Shining Time Station" on PBS which is certainly not an venue for his "Seven Dirty Words" routine or anything or the sort. However, similarly raunchy comedians have been known to calm down as their careers progressed. Eddie Murphy, the man who came out in a red jumpsuit and dropped n-words and grabbed his crotch can now be seen in such family-fun movies like "Daddy Day Care" or "Doctor Dolittle". Steve Martin, the man whose routine used to involve spitting out his water onstage and mentioning drugs, etc. can now be seen in "The Pink Panther 2" and "Cheaper By The Dozen". Maybe humorists and comedians have some revelation as they age that they are maybe growing out of the profanities and crudeness and may need to refocus some of their material. Maybe it is because they have families. Maybe their priorities are rearranged. I will say though that for as old as Carlin was while remaining comedically active, his act didn't clean up all too much. At least not when compared to the aforementioned comics. So, in that sense, I guess he should be commended for keeping it relatively crude into old age.

Presidential Humor

As we read the Lyndon Johnson piece in class, I started to wonder about the entire concept of presidential humor. I think that it is only natural, at least in modern times, to make jokes at the expense of those in higher power. Since government is always the subject of scrutiny, it would only make sense that the head of the government would receive his fair share of flak. I am not sure if president jokes have extended back into the history of America, but they have certainly been a part of popular culture for the past fifty years (at least since Saturday Night Live has existed). 

It has been easy for comedians to find humor in the past few decades. They have had a president who resigned due to a criminal scandal, one who was impeached because of an extramarital "affair" and a cowboy with poor speaking skills. Humorists have probably been having a blast whenever any of those presidents spoke on national television. Also, it seems that recently, with criticism of George W. Bush, comedians have given off-handed comments about their personal political preferences (liberal in social and economic matters).

This makes it very difficult with the election of Barack Obama. First of all, he stands for many of the things and issues that several of these comedians criticized Bush for not having. Second, he is black. Can these comedians and late night hosts(who are mostly white, i.e. Leno, Conan, Letterman, Ferguson, Kimmel) come us with any sort of material to make their time-honored pokes at the president. He hasn't made many blunders yet, at least not compared to Bush, and any jokes about his race would be borderline offensive. I am sure it could be pulled off tastefully but I don't think many white comedians are willing to take the risk.

I do not know how to circumvent this "humor problem". My best advice would be for comedians to hammer down their best Obama impressions (Fred Armisen has already nailed an immaculate one on SNL). That would definitely provide laughs. Other than that, I guess this people are just going to have to wait for the president to screw up, for better or for worse.

Zora Neale Hurston/Paula Gunn Allen

I found Zora Neale Hurston's anecdotal passages in Redressing the Balance very interesting not because they were dealing with particularly enticing subjects but because they had an intriguing amount of ambiguity. "Turpentine Love" was simply a paragraph or two and left just enough information out that one becomes extremely interested in the motives and backgrounds of the characters and their behaviors. Also, the story of of Cai'lin required even further guessing by the reader. What was she doing with the axe? Did she kill her husband, his lover or both? Why did she become outraged at this point? Many of these questions are unanswered in the facts of the story and are left up to the reader. While this is an interesting way to read such stories, I ultimately do not find much redemption in their endings. Many people are different but I personally enjoy stories with factual substance instead of ambiguity. I especially think that this sort of ambiguous storytelling is difficult in terms of finding humor. The author has to be careful or else the humor may be lost. It would be like telling a joke with an unclear punchline. 

Paula Gunn Allen's poem was much more straight-forward in its delivery and objective. The most interesting part of her poem is that much of the humor was pivoted on a single word, "ruins", and the various interpretation of its meaning. Furthermore, I think that such a poem deals with the same "in-crowd/out-crowd" setup as many of the stand-ups we have viewed. Just like how black comedians are able to make racial humor/comments that white comedians cannot say, so do the Native Americans in this poem. Both the man and woman are presumably Native Americans and therefore both are able to find humor in the misinterpretation of "Indian ruins" at the end. However, the humor is not lost on those outside of the group. While a non-Native American would not be able to make the joke, I feel that they can still appreciate it.

Margaret Cho

It is interesting to examine the difference between Margaret Cho's early stand-up routines such as the one we saw in class and her more recent acts. There has definitely been a persona change for starters. In her early stand-up, she wore typical feminine clothing while now she sports more exotic garments with the addition of tattoos on her bodies. Furthermore, the content and nature of her routine as evolved drastically. Whereas she used to speak about the circumstances of being Korean in America with a little bit of emphasis on her dating life, now her act is overly explicit in regards to topics such as sexuality and politics. 

I wonder why she changed her image in such a way. It seems to me that she probably has a more universal appeal to the mass public with her original stand-up routine seeing as some people might be offended by the content now. In addition, the topics of sexuality can be very specific to certain demographics while many others are excluded. However, as long as she is not worried about appealing to the greatest amount of people, the image change is probably a good choice. First, it makes her an identifiable face. Instead of getting painted in with all the other comics which talk about race and relationships, she is now known because of the brutal honesty of her routine. So, in that sense, she is able to reach greater fame even if she doesn't have as wide of an appeal. Yet, by broadcasting her outspoken views in her comedy act, the sympathizers of cause are able to have a comedienne to call their own. Something like that would result in a larger audience perhaps than if she stuck with her original act. Whether or not such comedians are well-received by the public aside, people remember the ones that stand out (Andrew Dice Clay, Sam Kinneson) because they were so in-your-face and in some cases obnoxious that they are difficult to forget and easy to recognize. 

No place for satire?

After watching Idiocracy, I did some research as to the production and marketing of the film. Since it was made by Mike Judge, creator of Beavis and Butthead and Office Space, I was surprised that it had not received stronger marketing. I had seen the film on the shelves of Blockbuster but that is about it. I don't remember seeing any commercials or ads for the film and I don't even think it played in a theater near me.
It turns out that the film did not, in fact, receive any sort of marketing campaign. It was released in a few theaters in a handful of cities and that is it. There were no posters or commercials for most of the general public. In fact, the movie only grossed about half a million dollars which is less than most independent films. This seemed odd considering a notable cast and writer/director. Perhaps the reason the film got swept under the rug is because the studios do not appreciate such strong satire.
I can certainly understand why the studios, namely 20th Century Fox, wouldn't enjoy a movie which completely bashes consumerism, advertisements and corporations. But I never thought they would purposely squash a film's potential in order to keep the message from getting out. Are film studios really that afraid of humor that they will accept a profit loss in order to manage it.
Mike Judge isn't completely innocent though. He does suggest that the only news channel which plays in the future is Fox News, one of the only conservative news sources. So in that sense, he is biting the hand that feeds him. But it just doesn't settle well with me that a studio would try to completely eradicate a work of satire like Idiocracy. The movie, which wasn't even screen for critics, received mostly positive reviews from the critics which did report on it. Therefore a studio would rather produce mindless junk than a pretty critically acclaimed film which shows them in a bad light. That's a sad state of affairs.
Nevertheless, Idiocracy is a valuable tool for studying satire at the high school and college level so hopefully teachers will continue to show the movie because it is enjoyable and also educational.

Buster Keaton

I find it annoying when people have an aversion to old movies and more so silent films such as the comedies of Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin. "Oh, there are no words and it's in black and white. I'm bored", they say. Well, "Meet the Spartans" was in color and had words and that film was disgustingly awful. (Seriously, how do those guys that make "Disaster Movie" and "Meet the Spartans" continue to get financed for their films. They are collective skidmarks on the medium of film.) Anyway, I whole-heartedly believe that if people would just watch one or two Buster Keaton films, they would be hooked. There is so much quality on all levels which I think surpasses the majority of films today that to dismiss them as a whole would be a grave mistake. Plus, I think it takes just as much, if not more, talent to tell a story without words than with them.
I have been watching Buster Keaton movies for a few years now and there are a few things I have noticed in them that I would use to convince the aforementioned rookies to get into silent comedy. First, funny or not, the acrobatics are incredible. Buster Keaton, who I believe is Jackie Chan's hero, does all of his own stunts. A movie like "Sherlock Jr." has jaw-dropping action and stunts that the mere fact that one knows that Buster Keaton is performing unaided is enough to enjoy the film.
Second, I think Keaton is probably the most accessible of all the silent comedies. Chaplin is a close second but Keaton is a true gem. Just like the character of the tramp, Buster Keaton's deadpan expression is an equally recognizable role in each of his films. The stunts, humor, storylines and camera tricks in many of his films can really hook a first time viewer. For instance, in a time when special effects were unheard of, Keaton was able to manipulate the camera exposures so that he could film himself over seven times to create an orchestra of Buster Keatons all playing simultaneously. Also, in "Sherlock Jr.", there is a scene in which the background is constantly changing with Keaton in the foreground. Such a task would be simple today but back then it was mind-boggling. So, for someone who is a fan of CGI movies and such, Keaton has an entire new level of appeal.
Third, the man is hilarious. I don't really know how else to explain that. If someone is curious, they will have to just watch a film.
So why isn't he popular amongst the kids these days? Well, in a sense, he still is. If his movies which were made in the 20's are still making top-ten lists of all time, then Keaton has certainly retained an appeal. I think that he could be even greater if people would just take the time to watch him. Brush off the stigma that comes with silent film. Ok, I admit, some of it is boring and underproduced but Buster Keaton will surprise pretty much anyone who has their doubts.
Recommended views: Long- "Sherlock Jr."; Short- "One Week" (they are on youtube, at least "One Week" is so there is no excuse)

The Three Stooges

After watching The Three Stooges in class, which many did not find "laugh out-loud" humorous, I wondered why so many people remain die-hard fans of the trio and re-runs continue to play on late night television stations.

One possibility is that each episode has an expectation as well as uncertainty. Many of the clips, if not all, follow a simple formula. They plan a scheme, fail, Moe gets hit on the head, retaliates and they end up weaseling their way out somehow. It isn't a complicated writing task and every viewer, especially the fans, expect that formula each time. However, with various plot lines, those expectations are met in unique ways every time. Maybe the lovers of the show find it exciting to see in which new way the stooges are going to fail or which object is going to hit Moe on the head this time. Imagine an episode where the boys are asked to paint a house (there probably is an episode which that storyline anyway). You know they are going to screw it up somehow and ruin the project. There is paint involved which is obviously going to get dumped on somebody. It's a recipe for disaster. Therefore maybe the excitement comes from the anticipation of the catastrophe. I can imagine a diehard Stooges fan just sitting back and thinking "Oh, this is going to be good..."

Maybe another possible explanation is that the humor isn't highbrow by any means. There isn't alot of witty wordplay or complicated character study. It is just three morons hitting each other with hammers, to sum it up loosely. And maybe such a characteristic is right up someone's alley. Say you get back from a long day of work and have a hectic evening. You take off your shoes and flip on the television for some midnight relaxation just to find The Three Stooges up to their usual antics. Take off your thinking cap, sit back and watch some idiots get into trouble. It is just a simple pleasure. 

Regardless of the reason for success, I think the show has extrinsic merit due to its place in comedy and influence. The role of the hopeless stooge is evident in every modern comedy (Homer Simpson, Larry David, Peter Griffin). I don't know if I will necessarily buy a Three Stooges box-set, but if I ever see it on late-night tv I will definitely watch a couple episodes for some good old-fashioned laughs. 

Bergson applied to Pop Culture

To sum up Bergson in a few words: A comic character is unaware that he is behaving comically or that his behavior is in anyway being judged. Obviously its more than that but that is how I would more or less paraphrase it.

I mentioned to my group that such a theory reminds me of two television characters: Michael Scott (played by Steve Carell) from "The Office" and G.O.B. (played by Will Arnett) from "Arrested Development", two shows which I think provide some of the best comedy in the last decade, if not longer.

Michael Scott is the oblivious boss that runs the Scranton branch of Dunder-Mifflin. For those who haven't seen the show, Michael Scott can be easily explained as a socially-unaware and inept yet tremendously self-confidant manager. G.O.B. is the cocky son of the Bluth family that rides on his inherited coat-tails and is not as suave with the ladies as he thinks he is. 

The two reasons which make these characters so funny is that they have no idea people, both watching t.v. and those that surround them, are laughing at them. It is tremendously humorous is you are watching a comedy in which people don't know they are in a comedy. If you asked G.O.B. whether his life would me a comedy or a drama, he would probably say drama. He lives a overzealously serious life in the middle of a comic world. 

What makes this humorous? Maybe it is the contrast. Maybe it is the fact that someone that ridiculous and oblivious could exist. 

The Stand-up Character

Is a stand-up comedian, regardless of style, always playing a character?

Obviously some comedians play explicit character such as Larry the Cable Guy or Carrot Top (two comics that drag along the bottom of the comedy barrel as far as my tastes are concerned). These people are doing a skit onstage more than anything and their personal life certainly doesn't mirror their comedy persona. Others may play characters yet speak from a normal and individual standpoint like Rodney Dangerfield. Someone like that plays the "I get no respect" card as his onstage schtick and character but he doesn't outwardly create a costumed persona or made up person. He is Rodney Dangerfield the comedian instead of Rodney Dangerfield the man. Furthermore, other comedians come off through their routine as their everyday selves as if the act onstage flows smoothly into their behavior offstage. I think someone like Dave Chappelle would fit into this category. He comes onstage and speaks about normal subjects that Dave Chappelle the man has run into throughout his day-to-day activities. While he does imitate other people throughout his acts, it feels like he talks and thinks the same way regardless of a mic in front of him. Perhaps he is putting on this front to make the routine seem more natural or he really does think and experience such things (it would be difficult to tell the difference without his own testimony). 

However, no matter how natural or unnatural a comedian may seem onstage, entering the world of stand-up comedy immediately suggests an onstage character. For example, Chris Rock's material comes off as very personal and true to Rock's offstage behavior. Nevertheless, he is still putting on a character because he is doing the routine night after night. When he says "I'm going to tell you the only time you can use that word and I'm going to tell you one time, here in Johannesburg...", he is obviously not being sincere. Of course he is going to insert the name of the city he is in every night. As honest as he may come off, he is still putting on a character for that specific show. 

Another example is when comedians will say something like "Oh, I told that joke once in Ohio and..." Maybe that's a true story but more than likely it is a made up setup for another joke. Once again, to do stand-up you are admitting to telling a individual story which seems tailored to the audience but is repeated over and over. I guess the stand-up character that each comedian plays is the "personal, dedicated storyteller" who sells himself in such a way to each audience he performs for. 

Eddie Izzard Revisited

Eddie Izzard has a very unique comic style and delivery as opposed to several of the other comedians I have seen both in and out of class. Personally, it seems as if he is making up his monologue as he goes along. Many of his jokes turn into rambling tagents upon tagents until he eventually comes back to the original train of thought. It is as if he has a short setlist and peppers his own improvised jokes throughout until what could be a 30 minutes set becomes an hour and a half show. Furthermore, alot of his timing and delivery is mumbled such that his jokes come off as stream-of-consciousness ideas mixed into planned bits. This, of course, is not to his discredit since his work is extremly humorous and such whimsical comic style adds to the humor. However, is this planned or does Izzard really work on-the-fly?
It is very hard for me to believe that Izzard can go up in front of sold-out audiences every night with a loose structure planned in hopes that his spur of the moment jokes will fill the void. However, maybe he just is that quick on his feet. It would take an answer from Eddie Izzard to fulfill that question. Nevertheless, I will take the stance that he purposely delivers his act in a "made up on the spot" delivery. Such an approach would probably prove to be equally as funny. I find much more pleasure in watching improv than strictly planned setup-punchline jokes because it is far more impressive to see what someone can do without warning as opposed to someone who has ample time to write and rehearse their jokes endlessly. The thrill of improvisation, for the audience as well as the performer, is probably the unpredictability of the joke and neither one knows where it is going to end up. Sometimes amateur comedians will perform sets that seem so rehearsed and hokey that their jokes seem stale and dead. On the other hand, with comedians like Izzard, such off-the-cuff jokes inject life and fluctuation into the routine. If Izzard can convince the audience that he really is adding alot of this in as he goes along, we begin to pay closer attention as we anticipate which curvy path his stories will take next. I would personally think a joke is much funnier if it was made up as opposed to planned out and perhaps that is what gives Izzard such a humorous appeal. It is as if he pretends (or maybe not) to write his set as he goes along and therefore gives the audience a view of the driver's seat. By equalling the levels of audience-comedian by that much, we feel closer to him and more apt to laugh.
Obviously to go on stage and completely pull material out of thin-air is no recipe for success. In fact, watching a comedian struggle to reach for jokes can be utterly painful to watch. Therefore, whether or not Izzard is adding this humor on-the-spot or just making it appear that way, the end result is whether it makes the audience laugh. Izzard does in fact make the audience laugh and if that is the result of improvised and varying jokes, more power to him as a comedian since such a talent is rare.

Women and Humor in the 21st Century

Recently we have been reading some articles written by 18th-19th century women. Many of these pieces formulate humor through subtle jabs at convention or by portraying common female stereotypes. However, such humor has not been getting a strong response in class or an immensely humorous reaction. I believe that the problem is not that these women are not humorous or that people are not understanding the content but that much of the content is out of place in our current age.

Several hundred years ago, women were not allowed to be as outwardly rebellious as men in their humor as well as lifestyle. Since much of humor can be considered radical rebellion (certainly not all), women in such time periods may have been at a disadvantage. Therefore they had to make quieter remarks and pass much of their humor under the radar.

While I am sure that these authors were popular in their time, seeing as they have remained in the canon, such approaches to humor do not stand out to current day audiences, especially the younger crowd. When I think of the prominent female comediennes which are popular today, several of them have loud and acerbic routines which have an "in-your-face" attitude. Performers such as Sarah Silverman, Lisa Lampanelli and Margaret Cho have very crude routines and have caught the attention of the public eye. One could even argue that these women have taken an unladylike and thus more masculine approach to humor. Do I think that women need to behave more like men to be funny? Of course not. Is such an approach easier to get the attention of large audiences? Possibly.

In addition, I think that people these days are more accustomed to louder humor in general. Inappropriate material just seems to get more attention these days because the shock factor interests people. Such topics would never fly back in the 18th-19th centuries for a multitude of reasons. 

Proposing a Modest Proposal

The satire involved with such arguments as "A Modest Proposal" is pretty tricky if one does not have their wits about them. Personally, that is what I find so entertaining about satire: it weeds out the "suckers" and rewards the sceptic.  Readers could potentially fall into three categories.

If one were to read "A Modest Proposal" and actually think that Swift were literally suggesting that the people of a nation eat their infants then that means you are got hosed by the author. I don't even think his intention was to see how many people he could trick. Therefore, to take such a proposal literally means that you haven't even stepped into the arena of the purpose of the article. You are disqualified. Continue getting your laughs from "Marmaduke" and "MadTV".

Second, some may read it and think "Well, yeah, obviously he's not serious but I don't see how writing such absurd advice could possibly help his plight, whatever that may be. I don't get it." And such a response is acceptable and common. I found it difficult to decide whose side he was on. Obviously he opposed the English for their treatment of the Irish but he doesn't paint a flattering picture of the Irish community whatsoever. If someone can at least recognize that the proposal isn't literal then they are on the right track. 

Third, those who "get it" (which I am not counting myself in that camp fully because I still debate it) are able to realize "Ok, the proposal is bogus and Swift doesn't want anybody to heed his advice as found in the letter. Let's step back. Why would somebody write this ridiculous piece of work in hopes to, not necessarily remedy, but critique the situation. Ignore the actual argument. What argument is Swift making by making this argument?" Satire is three-dimensional and can only be fully appreciated when both thought about from a distance and also placed into societal context. This is not an easy task to comprehend though. How many Midwestern Republicans were huge fans of The Colbert Report and its caricature of the right until somebody told them "He's making fun of you." We are so used to not fully thinking about these things that many of us miss the point of a good satire. Not only is it something to struggle with, at least more so than upfront literal fiction, but we also get the pleasure of those that got duped by it.

Personally, I think that one of Swift's strongest arguments from this argument is that the Irish are in a bad state and none of the political and community leaders are doing anything to help the situations. Any of those that do are either incompetent or unable to enact their plan. So, by posing as one of the "problem-solvers" that Ireland has heard from so many times, he is commenting on how stupid and ineffective these solutions are. I think his biggest targets are the leaders of the Irish community because compared to their inaction or inability to fix a problem, eating babies may not be the best solution but at least it is a solution.

The Role of Persona

Of the material we watched in class on Wednesday, all pieces had some sort of persona as the speaker who was not the voice of the author. 

Now, with a persona such as Silence Dogood, it is somewhat evident why a male (Benjamin Franklin) would choose a woman (Silence Dogood) as his persona. My best guess is that Franklin uses his knowledge as a male to illicit a male argument by speaking satirically as a woman.

However, with the stand-up bit performed by Eddie Izzard, the choice of persona is a bit more curious. Izzard, a male, is crossdressed as a woman yet his comedy material isn't exclusively gender-based. He speaks, at least in the piece we viewed, of the varying views and actions of religious affiliations. Yet, why is he dressed as a woman? My thoughts so far are that it is a relaxing, absurd persona much like a clown. Why is a clown funny? Well, yes they do perform tricks but their dress and make-up exude light-heartedness and levity which therefore sets the audience more at ease and more susceptible to laughter. I think the same sort of process is occurring with Eddie Izzard stage presence. Much of his material could be interpreted as borderline offensive to some (I personally enjoy having my religion ridiculed and joked about). Therefore, either to avoid offending too many people or to create an atmosphere more open to laughter, Izzard dresses as a woman as if to say "I am crossdressed, I am an adult clown, Try not to take everything I say too personally because after all, it's coming from a man dressed as a woman". 

While some persona roles may have high-order satire intentions, I believe that some, like Izzard's, are meant to let the audience know that they are going to hear jokes, not vicious tirades. 

First Post/Introduction

This is the first post for ENG 404 Humor and Rhetoric. My name is Greg Mantych and a junior at Saint Louis University.

I guess since the focus of the course is humor and rhetoric and although we have not indulged into a vast amount of humor theories just yet, I would be doing this posting a disservice if I did not share some sort of opinion on humor. 

Of the assigned texts thus far, "Mrs. Partington" is most visibly humorous because of the heavy use of malapropisms. Substituting "oil-factories" for "olfactory" and "conscientiousness" for "consciousness" are obvious misuses of words and a common comic device for getting laughs (see Dogberry in "Much Ado About Nothing" and, recalling children's shows of my youth, many of the characters in "Rugrats"). However, why would someone using a word wrong be viewed as humorous? With the extent to which some characters misuse these words, it seems like it should be more sad than funny. However, I think it all comes down to superiority. 

In many modes of humor, especially satire, there are two groups: those who "get it" and those who "don't get it". The people who "get it" find the humor and those who don't, well, don't. With the malapropisms of Mrs. Partington, we laugh at her misusage because we seem to know what she doesn't i.e. the correct definitions of these words. We are trumping our obviously superior knowledge of the English language over hers. It is funny that someone could be so unintelligent but also I think that it makes us feel good about ourselves as well. The superiority theory is a very selfish theory. Those of us who "get it" feel elite and more intelligent than those who don't and in that we find humor. It may not be the nicest form of comedy or the most inclusive but it is one I enjoy nonetheless.