An Exploration of the Planck Length of Comedy. · 5:19am Jan 3rd, 2015
I'm going to warn you all right now: In an effort to be as comprehensive and entertaining as possible, this turned into a rambling mess of nested footnotes, in-jokes, meta humour and bizarre but oddly detailed analysis that you're too confused to follow because it's too much of a discordant mess by the time I actually make my point.
Of course, if you're a follower of mine, this prospect should delight you, so away we go.
To those of you once more only here for Demesne, I hope this clarifies my writing choices, and dispels the rather persistent accusation that I'm merely throwing around an idiot ball to see what sticks.
The Planck Length is, within a factor of ten, estimated to be the smallest unit we could conceivably measure. It's the part of the universe where the other rules break down and stop making sense, and yet somehow seem to make the most sense of all, since everything else is built up of it. Yet we have no way of proving, at the moment, that it even truly exists, or if there's a significance to this scale. We just know something like it has to happen... somewhere down there.
The reason I chose this theme to the blog post is because comedy is a lot like that, in a lot of ways. We know comedy exists at a macro-scale. Watch any Simon Pegg movie, or even his old TV show 'Spaced'[1]
I laugh at that every single time, and I've had that clip on my desktop for years now.
We also know that comedy obeys strange laws, because there's probably a lot of you who found that clip utterly dreadful. Comedy is, therefore at some level, subjective.
This is something that I can say that is completely and plainly self-evident, that comedy is inherently subjective, that all of you can and will take for granted. But let's observe this for just the slightest of moments:
It means that there are, at some level, some rules that dictate whether or not something is funny, but moreover dictate whether something will be funny or not to a specific person. But even if a person doesn't find it funny, usually -- unless they are questioning the empathy of the entertained[2] -- they can identify why someone else might find it funny.
For example, we clearly know things aren't funny.
You know what's not funny? Cancer.
Yet, somehow, the bluntness of that sentence will eek a wry smile out of some of you. Especially Aragon.[4] In spite of cancer being, absolutely definitively, not funny.
Why is that?
That's a funny thought isn't it. But not a ha-ha funny thought, rather a thought that's funny like clowns are funny; only funny because someone -- in this case me -- insists that it is funny. Or perhaps it is funny like the odd taste of milk that is on the precipice of expiring, and that cautious sip as you analyze whether it's too-far-gone yet.
Yes, perhaps it is the kind of funny that inspires an odd musing thoughtfulness, followed by a strange but not entirely unpalatable aftertaste.
The aftertaste, I hope, will be revelation, and not expired milk curds.
Here we get to the very fundamental point of this blogpost. [5] I posit that, at its very core, comedy is about a character being punished in accordance to their flaws or rewarded for their virtues after said virtues have been challenged and tested. A warm and fuzzy feeling can occur when it's both simultaneously.
Think of Trixie running away from Twilight Sparkle after their magic duel and falling flat on her face. That was great, right?
Twilight's patience and friendliness were the virtues being rewarded, and they most certainly were challenged in that episode. Trixie's flaws, in that scenario, were obviously her ego and her pride, both of which would take a serious hit from that stumble. Nice. Then, as an echo of that action, Trixie just got right up and kept on running without looking back. There, her pride was seen as a virtue: It had just been tested by the embarrassing trip, so her pretending it hadn't happened and being rewarded with Twilight’s amused smile was actually a recursive bit of comedy to the situation, a good bit of follow-through.
What's incredibly interesting is how well this statement holds up to scrutiny, but in completely different ways.
I would like to compare, then -- side by side -- what I shall dub American and European humour.
The ultimate American comedy protagonist would have to be Ferris Bueller. You know, it had that scene in it with the museum that everybody now says they stole from Family Guy?
The ultimate example of European comedy would have to be Mr Bean. [AG1]
Let's compare the pair, shall we?
Already my simple hypothesis seems to fall down. Bueller, on the one hand, is the ultimate king of cool. He’s the penultimate cool-customer, as it were. He seemingly has no flaws, unless being too awesome is a flaw.[6] His virtues aren’t exactly tested, either; He never suffers the consequences of his own actions, as his virtue is the ability to talk others into taking his risks for him.
Meanwhile, Mr Bean is seemingly without virtue, at first glance. He’s obviously of a very low intelligence, his speech is guttural and illegible, he’s a small child in a grown man’s body. Though anyone who has seen the Bean knows that’s not quite the flaw I make it out to be, is it? His childishness, his naivety, is also what can be seen as his greatest virtue.
Actually, thinking about it, Mr Bean seems to exemplify the statement I’ve been so bold as to make, that comedy comes from character’s virtues and flaws. His simple virtue, his childlike wonder and naivety, is constantly tested by the harsh realities of The Real World, in big whopping capital letters.
His flaws, too, namely his... well, I could call it stupidity, but it’s not quite as malicious as that, is also a constant source of attention. Let’s call it his foolishness, then.
I wonder if that word will be significant later on...
It’s because of this that his triumphs are so poignant, then. His virtue has been tested, in this case by having to paint a naked lady that he’s very uncomfortable with, and his flaws have been exploited; when he’s too slow to catch up, when he’s obviously far less skilled than his classmates, when he throws petty temper tantrums. We laugh, because this character is being justly punished for follies of his own making.
Which simply isn’t the case for Ferris Bueller.
Finally, we cheer when Mr Bean overcomes his shyness -- in reality his virtue of childishness being tested -- and overcomes a flaw[7] -- his foolishness -- to come up with a quick solution that saves the proverbial day.
Mr Bean is the Fool Triumphant
Again, something that we don’t see in Ferris Bueller.
Am I arguing, then, that by not following my rules that Ferris Bueller isn’t funny?
Of course I’m not. I love that movie.
So maybe the rule is wrong, then?
Haha, no. That would be calling me wrong. That just doesn’t happen [9]
Ferris Bueller doesn’t have these rules apply to him because his role in the movie is to enforce those rules on others.
I stated that the comedy is a force of a character’s flaws being punished and their virtues being tested. I did not, however, say that it had to be the protagonist of the film.
]8[When Cameron lets Ferris borrow his dad’s car, that’s playing on Cameron’s flaw of being unable to stand up to Ferris. So it’s exploited by the car being stolen. Again, this is played for laughs when Cameron’s car, up on cinderblocks, goes flying through a plate glass window...[10]
Other victims are school officials, innocent bystanders, Ferris’s sister...
All of these characters act and react to Ferris as he either emphasises, instigates or exacerbates their flaws, or tries and tests their virtues.[G1]
Which is why, when the final chase scene of the movie occurs, when Ferris races to get home, we aren’t really excited to see if he’ll make it or not. We already know he will. The whole race is to emphasize just how impossible it is that he will make it.
The real payoff, then, is how the other characters will react to Ferris coming out of this impossible situation smelling of roses at their expense.
So let’s once more, just to really hammer the point home, look at how these two examples of comedy both achieve the same goal, comedy, but from a completely different direction.
European comedy accomplishes this by having an underdog character whose flaws are constantly picked on, who's beaten by the world, and overcomes it
American comedy accomplishes this by having a protagonist who beats up the world and exploits *other's* flaws, without having their virtues necessarily tested.
Now, this is where I’m going to do something a little... risky.
It’s insane. It’s probably never been done before. I’m probably going to lose more of you to this than to that accursed TVTropes link.
Folks, I’m going to say nice things about the works of Aragon.
I cite Aragon’s Today is a Good Day to Die as a rather unique blend of American and European humour, in its way.
This makes sense, as he is from Europe’s Mexico, which is probably close enough.
Now, I say this because this story does two things: It uses Celestia and Luna’s cluelessness on the subject of death as a flaw, a character trait that constantly lands them in terrible situations that they just can’t comprehend. However, they don’t have a virtue that’s being tested either, not in the traditional sense. Instead they’re testing the patience of innocent bystanders, endlessly and somewhat horrifically.
What’s amusing is that they act like a European protagonist, in that they are the unfortunate butt of most of the jokes, but also as an American protagonist, in that they don’t particularly care. There are no repercussions for their faux pas, grand as they may be. This allows them to remain a firm obstacle against the other characters that will never be the same after this encounter.
There is an almost universal appeal to this blend of humour that probably explains why this story isn’t as terrible as the rest of his offerings.
Finally, finally we can draw to a close on this last little thought.
Why might a joke be funny to one person, but not another person, outside of the context of Don’t Punch Down?
I posit that perspective can be fluid not only on who has more power in a situation, but on what constitutes a virtue or a vice. Humour that relies on a character trait, which it very often will, to function depends on the audience’s view of that trait.
Some flaws are obvious, like being Hitler. There is only a very small minority who would defend a joke at the expense of his if we, say, said he looked like a kettle.
[G3][A2]
What about a flaw that’s stubbornness, though. Alright, that’s easy enough, we make jokes about AJ’s stubbornness all the time... when it’s a problem.
What if the same comedic situations that would play into AJ’s stubbornness weren’t during a time when it’s a problem, but a situation where she needed to be tenacious in order to save her farm.
Suddenly her flaw is a virtue, and if you confuse testing a virtue with punishing a flaw, your joke is going to fall rather flat as it’s seen you’re punishing her for doing what she needs to do. People shouldn’t be punished for that in fiction, here’s where you vaunt and champion it!
What about the inverse? A virtue that’s treated as a flaw?
What about a character who got drunk and made a fool of herself to cheer up a friend in need, doing everything they could for their friend to get them through a tough time. This can be a staple of sitcoms, or even with a fan favourite pony like Berry Punch.
Now, imagine that exact same scene, except with their small child watching in fear as they have no idea what their mother has suddenly become.
Unless you are Aragon[4][A1], this suddenly stops being something you can poke light-hearted fun at. Attempting to treat this like you’re testing a virtue - almost rewarding her behaviour with positive laughter - suddenly becomes a prospect that will certainly turn off most, if not all, parents in your audience.
These are just examples to demonstrate that, in different situations, a flaw can be a virtue and a virtue can be a flaw. If we accept that, it makes it a far simpler task to realize that how people view a character trait, especially an ambiguous one, can be completely different even in the context of an identical situation.
To best explain that, simply ask one hundred different My Little Pony fans whether they find Pinke Pie’s antics amusing or annoying. [G4][A3]
Though, and this is a word of caution for all comedians, all this only works if you keep your character consistent throughout. Having them act arbitrarily out-of-character is not a joke in and of itself, as you're not rewarding or punishing a character trait but forcing new ones on the character. This new trait is now established by the joke. Only, it won't be justified, because you've only used it for a joke.
So now, instead of a sense of comedy, you've ended up with a warped character and a loss of willing suspension of disbelief as your audience tries to piece together what is and isn't relevant to the character.
Anyway. Yes. I think this about sums up my lecture.
I hope at least one of you out there found this remotely interesting or, at the very least, made it to the end.
You know.
Because that’s where the footnotes are.
Ah, footnotes. Like slipping into a comfortable Pratchett novel.
[1] Which fundamentally was an exercise into what comedy could be.
[2] Now, here I can very neatly and cleanly tell you why, in this case, it's easy to identify why this person will not laugh and you might.
There's a simple rule called Don't Punch Down. This ties into what I have mentioned above, if you're reading this chronologically, or will read above, if you're skipping down to this as soon as you saw there were footnotes[3].
Don't Punch Down is a very simple, and surprisingly universal, rule that states that something is most funny when a person with less power in a situation exacts agency on a person with greater power. It can be thought of as the Underdog rule, in a way. Ideally, comedy is to be used as a tool to drag people down to your level, not to kick someone when they're already down from your level. Make sense? Good.
Where this gets complicated, however, is when it's not obvious who had more power in a situation, because the nature of social power itself is fluid and subjective. It's how a professional comedian can make you laugh about a homeless guy stopping him from getting somewhere on time: In that specific situation, the homeless man has more power than the comedian. It stops being funny if the comedian tacks on, say, "And then, just because he earned my ire, I kicked over his change can and he watched his life savings pour into the gutter." The obstacle has been overcome. Once more the comedian has greater power over the homeless man, for reasons that should be obvious to everyone. Picturing that won't make you laugh unless you are, say, Aragon.[4]
Now to inverse footnote this to drag you up to a relevant example, but in more general terms ]8[ (It's the same upside-down and inside-out, you see)
[3] This is, of course, my preferred method. Now to make you scroll back up.
[4] This joke will be run into the ground. But you know who else appreciates running jokes into the ground?
Seth MacFarlane.
That was an example of a leading rhetorical question followed by non-sequitur paired with observational humour. It was punching up because Seth MacFarlane obviously has more power than me in any given situation. Then, proceeding to run the joke into the ground by analyzing why it should have been funny when it clearly wasn't. Next, attempting meta-humour with the previous sentence through self-reference, followed by lampshading and further self-reference of the self-reference followed by further self-reference of the self-referenced self-reference followed by-
Whoops! Caught in a loop.
[5] Took my bloody time, eh?
[6] Wesley Crusher.
[7] Which is really big bonus points not just for comedy, but for showing character development.
[9] Note from Ross’s Editors: Yes it does. A lot. Seriously, we return his story with more red pen than remaining words.
[10] believe it or not, this is not a clear-cut case of punching down, of beating up a character already in despair. Well, it is, it’s laying it on thick, but before you believe me to contradicting myself remember; the character must be definitively weaker in a situation. Because Cameron had the power, at any point, to say “No” to Ferris, he is not weaker. He actually had more power in the situation that he chose not to use -- coerced or otherwise.
Oh, and what’s this? Personalized footnotes?
Introducing special guests GhostOf- Oh, dear, it seems GhostOfHeraclitus does not wish to be named a contributor to so paltry an author, so I’m afraid he will remain anonymous. I know, I know, but if GhostOfHeraclitus wishes to remain anonymous, I’m going to have to honour GhostOfHeraclitus’ wishes.[G2]
Oh, and Aragon, I guess, who had no choice in the matter, because I kind of stuck his name all over this.
[G] Footnotes shall be for Gho- anonymous’s contributions, and [A] for Aragon.
[G1] Ferris is Satan. No, seriously, that's his role. He's Satan in a morality play.
[A1] "THAT ONLY HAPPENED ONCE AND THE KID CLEARLY DESERVED IT!"
[G2] Aforementioned Anonymous Author is not, in fact, too ashamed to be seen with me, insists he thinks no such thing as ‘paltry’, and strongly objects to this joke.
[G3] White tea only, obviously.
[A2] A shame it's a kettle and not a juice-maker. That'd been so ironic...
[G4] Ah! Great point. I actually had a conversation about this very thing with a noted pony scholar of our mutual acquaintance. We ended up disagreeing on Pinkie.
[A3] I have friends who deem Pinkie as creepy, and others think her treatment of Shy on the Ponytones episode was horrible instead of hilarious. I personally love her. Pinkie is probably the most polarizing pony of the M6.
There was not nearly enough theoretical physics in this post.
B-
2697218
I hope I have exceeded your quota of Hitler-based appliances, however.
2697221
No way, it's the new year, so that just refreshed. However, I'm definitely ahead of schedule for those now, so thanks.
I have to say that Pinkie can be amusing in many situations, but in episodes like Filly Vanilli she can definitely be annoying or unsettling. As you said, it depends on whether her randomness is being treated as a flaw or a virtue and whether it's being treated correctly. Pinkie making Fluttershy cry and the show writers expecting laughs is a flaw being treated as a virtue. That's all I got to say. Goodnight Ontario!
Very interesting, as any discussion on something as vague as comedy can be.
I personally found no humor in that scene from Ferris Bueller. It's just boring and reminds me more of shots from some artsy film I don't want to watch cause it chose symbolism over substance too much.
There is also the premise that comedy relies on the absurd. And when taken to extremes this can trounce the rule of certain things being not funny, if the audience likes absurd humor.
It can let death, disease, genocide, or even racism become humorous, simply on the fact that the subject itself is NOT funny, so making a joke about it becomes absurd. Though the individual has to have the correct frame of mind to find the humor in the absurdity, rather than the literal words.
Absurd humor is also where much of the internet gets it's jokes. And why many simply "don't get it."
I laughed. Hard.
I feel dirty...
This may come closer to explaining comedy as I have ever actually seen... You have the [2] footnote labeled as [1] btw.
Most of what I got from this was that Aragon is A horrible person.
But we already knew that, didn't we?
But seriously, some really interesting points raised in this blog I haven't really thought about before. Thank you Mr. numbers!
2697252
Ah, but well-done absurdist humour always has a direction.
What you are referring to is what my associate Aragon would deem "Lolrandum" something we hate with a fiery passion.
2697265
Ack!
2697280 Oh no no no. You, like many, misunderstand part of the internet humor. It is supremely absurd, finding humor at times in the fact that it's not actually funny. It is being presented not for it's randomness, but as a joke when it actually isn't (at the literal level). Some find this funny, some do not. But it is not in the randomness, per say, that the humor lies. Rather it is in the lack of substance of the joke, sort of like a few of the jokes South Park is known for, but cranked up to 11.
I think you made a mistake when trying to link to the Mr. Bean clip, as you just posted the Spaced gunfight again. On that note, I freaking love that scene, not just because of the gunfight itself, but because you can hear the character playing Resident Evil 2 in the background. Most shows just throw in a bunch of generic bleeps and bloops (even if the characters are using a current gen console), but Simon Pegg actually went out of his way to include the correct sound effects for the game the character was playing. Little touches like that go a long way to uphold willing suspension of disbelief
As for your argument itself, I found it very interesting. However, I think it is possible for the person in the powerless situation to lose even more power and have the audience still find it funny. For example: Hans Moleman from the Simpsons. There's a character whose entire existence revolves around getting stepped on by life as a whole. His every appearance sees him brutally punished pretty much just for existing, and it's hilarious. Of course, it's late and I'm tired, thus maybe I interpreted your entire rant wrong, but I thought I'd add my two cents regardless.
That Spaced clip was hilarious XD
2697309
Strange; I can assure you, it's coming up correctly on my end, and it's correct in the edited notes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAnOylx4J3E Here's a direct link, if that's the case.
Not at all. See, in this, Moleman's flaw is being the universe's stressball. He has no power in the situation, but it's expected of him, so it's okay.
It's why it's funny when it happens to Moleman, and not when it happens to Grandpa Simpson.
Well this was an unexpected blog, an interesting discussion on some of the mechanics driving comedy, although I think I need a reread at an hour that's not two in the morning. Flaws and virtures I have seen as essential to comedy and not just now, but having studied a few ancient plays which also plays off flaws and virtures quite often by playing them larger than life. I find not only enjoyment, but also that it is interesting in comedy how one is able to play with flaws and virtures and not always in an expected manner to create humour and the different ways we understand and interpret those humourius scenarios.
The only thing that confused me was the Bueller clip, in viewing it I do not truly understand it's humour. More to that it is likely because it was not a movie I've heard of growing up, but instead I see Bugs Bunny more as the epitome of American comedy, the suave trickster who plays off his opponents' follies. However Mr. Bean is one I do agree as being representative of British comedy, I have dug out clips of his antics on many occassions.
But one key thing that stuck out are the differences I have usually glossed over. For me in regards to differences in comedy styles is like many oddities and differences between American and British anything in that I never gave much thought to their inheritent differences although I do see what you mean in the differences of comedy styles across the pond from each other.
I made it
this far before I "PUSSIED OUT" from boredom by following the link.
Have a nice day.
2697411
You're a consummate dick.
2697391
Ooh, Bugs.
Bugs would have been better. So much easier to deconstruct too...
2697418 Preposterous. I do not consume dicks. (But I appreciate the offer.)
2697422
Jokes on you. You missed the Hitler Kettle.
2697420
I think Bugs Bunny being older would not be as immediately known or recognized as such in relationship to your thoughts of American comedy as I am not entire certain that his most recent incarnation quite matches his older trickster portrayal, but I am uncertain as I have not watched the newer Looney Tunes. But perhaps more to add to the rambling discussion blog? I would read that if you did write your thoughts on Bugs Bunny as part of American comedy.
2697424 It wasn't a Hitler juice-maker. I remain disappoint.
2697280 But, even though you hate it (and are right to, most certainly), poorly-done, directionless absurdism - lolrandom, as you say - does still occasionally win a chuckle from people. Mostly people who have not yet been jaded to it by years of internet use. Doesn't that mean it should bear analysis as a source of comedy, too?
This is a fascinating blog, and it certainly makes a whole lot of sense. But it seems to me that comedy can exist without characters, and therefore without a character's virtues or flaws. I would cite the opening shot of Spaceballs as an example (After the obvious Star Wars-referencing text crawl, of course): The tip of a spaceship drifts onscreen to dramatic music. As the ship proceeds, we pan across more and more of it. The humor of the shot comes in the expectation that we will see the back of the ship at any moment, but no, there's still more ship, and it keeps adding until it is just this ridiculous convoluted thing.
What character's flaws or virtues are being exploited there? Unless you want to really stretch the definition of 'character' and say that the spaceship is the character in this joke, there isn't one.
You have hit on a very deep and interesting aspect of comedy, but I don't think it's quite all the way down to Planck's constant just yet.
2697471
I would argue that, not only is the ship in that case a 'character', but that the universe itself is one too.[1]
'Character', in this regard, would apply in its most raw state; Characteristics. Which everything fundamentally has.
[1]It's defined by its traits of apathy, silence, sadism and irony.
2697487 Fair enough. You can go that route. I just feel like 'character' becomes a mushy, un-useful term when you start defining it as, "a thing that has traits." Virtues and flaws, as they were used so far in this blog, carry a moral component to their meanings and are a bit tricky to apply to a character that has no moral agency.
2697504
Which is why, in the blog itself I kept it that way.
But again why I referenced the Planck Length. When you start observing things at their simplest level, it makes sense, but at the same time it stops making sense.
When you oversimplify things too much, you lose meaning. Context.
So yes, I could go down that route.
Or.
Or we could merely incline our heads in that route's direction, acknowledge it with a simple nod, and then get back to focusing on the bits that we can most readily apply.
I wish I could add this blog to my read later list because good god this is long and I want to read it but it's 2am therefore I am going to have this tab open for a long time.
One of my university lecturers gave definition of comedy I thought was pretty cool - I can't remember the precise wording, but it was something like "any act or situation that should result in chaos or suffering, but doesn't." So, say, if you're walking with a friend and they slip over and fall on their arse, that's funny. If they fall over and actually seriously hurt themselves, it's NOT funny - but it can become funny again once they've recovered.
Tasteless jokes, too - cancer is horrible, but jokes about it can be hilarious if done right because you tell something that should be horrible and yet it doesn't cause any suffering to the audience. But you'd never tell a joke about cancer to someone who actually HAS suffered from cancer, or seen someone else suffer from it, because that would actually result in grief and therefore didn't 'avoid' the suffering.
(I liked that lecturer. He was the world's leading expert in trolls. Like, that was an actual thing that he was. The world's leading expert of trolls in literature and media.)
2697504
2697525
You two forget that there are other types of comedy. Numby mostly talked about character-based comedies, which is fine, but you can have comedy without any of that.
Comedy, characters aside, is about subverted expectations. You expect one outcome, then a different one comes, and then you laugh. Laughter is the response the brain sends to your body when it has no fucking idea what to do. Of course, if the outcome that actually happened is clever, witty, surreal, or crude, we laugh harder. Mostly because we weren't expecting THAT. Hence why rhythm and pacing are so important in humor.
This also explains why lolrandum pisses good comedy writers (and me!) off so much. It's about expecting the readers to laugh when you haven't built any expectatives yet. Opening your story with a beautiful, three-hundred words long paragraph that describes in absolute detail how the sunset looks like, closed by "of course, none of this matters at all, because the protagonist of this story is a fucking rock and hence blind" is funny, because you weren't expecting that. Screaming "AND THEN PINKAMENA WAS MADE OF WAFFLES LOL XDDDDDD" has no setup whatsoever, and the only time a punchline alone is funny is when you drop the last four letters of the word and direct the rest towards the lolrandum guy's face.
Of course, the voicing of said lolrandumism also matters. You can make it sort of clever without any kind of set up, if you're good enough. But then it's not lolrandum, it's actual surrealism/ridiculous humor, which is what I think 2697471 was referring to. And even then, there has to be some expectations to subvert, which in this case I think it would be the actual existence of expectations.
In other words: for being something you can make by screaming the word "FART" in a church, humor is damn hard to explain.
Why can I only Follow you once?!
Her, or Rarity. I've found that Rarity can be quite polarizing as well.
A very nice read. However, I'd posit that you're wrong about why we laugh at cancer being unfunny. Laughter is among the human reactions to the fear of the unknown. The juxtaposition of the expected seriousness and actual lack thereof kicks something in us, and we laugh. And then we face another juxtaposition, this time between the expected and our reaction.
This is why "explaining the joke" is so horrid a crime: once you've explained the joke, there's nothing to be "scared of" anymore, unless the humor was so basic it didn't need explaining anyway. For example, you punched him in the face when that was clearly socially unacceptable.
Of course, there is one rule I hold above all others: Comedy is tragedy happening to someone else.
While this was a fascinating meditation on the nature of comedy, I don't think you really isolated its Planck length. You analyzed the intersection between two schools of comedy and what their commonalities can teach us, yes, but I'm not sure what the minimum comedic quantum is supposed to be. Unless, of course, what you're trying to tell us is that comedy can be measured in footnotes.
Still, a most engaging read (though this is coming from someone who wrote a blog on the quark-to-amino-acid biochemistry of anime characters' hair color.) Thank you for it.
I'd never even heard of this Aragon.
How does he stack up to, say, the Chatty One?
(Then again, I've still not watched Ferris Bueller either, so what do I know?)
As to the rest... Makes sense.
This very concept terrifies me. and not because of the concept(s) presented but the fact that it all makes little to no sense, in turn causing it to make sense, in a way frightening me because of the contradiction. Interestingly put and fantastically presented. This definitely gives me pause on my whole view of comedy. (That line about cancer made me laugh) and as a follower of chaos and its concept being the base of all it pleases me to no end that this is a thing. Deliciously chaotic to the sense it makes.
2697823
God, he's such a fucking asshole. One of the worst authors on this website. Fucking idiot got popular somehow, and now people like Mr Numbers hang out with him for some reason. My guess is that he's blackmailing them. No idea who you're referring to with "the Chatty One", but I can already say Aragon's garbage in comparison.
Seriously. Ugh. What a horrible guy, that Aragon.
Go watch Ferris Bueler, tho. It's seen as a classic for a reason. One of those old-timey comedies that age very well.
Mr. Bean is a jester that falls and springs and tumbles because of his shoes.
Ferris is a jester that says the wittiest thing to a Duke that thinks too highly of himself.
It's eke, not eek. </barelyawakepersonwhowillactuallyreadinamoment>
2697252
2697391
No, I grew up with that movie, and that clip definitely isn't one of the high points of the film as far as humor goes. It's mostly a bit of self-indulgence by the director, John Hughes, who used to spend a lot of time at that museum when he was younger and wanted to work it into Bueller and company's day trip through New York.
It certainly doesn't do anything to illustrate Bueller's role as a comic protagonist, American-style or otherwise, or to show how the comedy in the film proceeds from the way the other characters react to his antics. These clips:
do a much better job of it.
Dearest Numbers,
You're right good sir, I did not understand a bleedin' word of it but it made me laugh.
Jolly good show.
This was awesome and amazing and I'm going to forget about it in three seconds.
2711270
That's what she said.
2736487
It took a week for someone ot make a that's what she said joke? REALLY.
2737199
Old blogposts tend not to get new comments.
2739179
This isn't an oldpost.
2739179
2739195
Ladies, please, I think you're both beautiful.
Actually his flaw is that he's a sociopath. He's 'cool' because he's lacking basic human traits like compassion or guilt. Dr. Insano says it best:
No... I'm pretty sure this is just a subset of comedy rather than an universal rule. You're over-generalizing, in other words. I'm with Aragorn's comment further down on this one, that's it's about subverting expectations. For example, this joke doesn't work with the idea of rewarding people for their virtues or punishing them for their vices:
v.cdn.nuklearpower.com/comics/8-bit-theater/041127.png
Instead, it relies on the fact that Black Mage, master of the dark arts, demon binder and mass murderer fuels his most powerful magic in a way you wouldn't expect. Then it goes a step farther.
2697487
That's a terrible argument though. Not only because you've basically mutilated the word character but also because it fails to work even should we accept your definition, as the spaceship is not being rewarded for virtues or punished for flaws. What's being played with are audience expectations.
And the reason it fails, is, as I've said, you've found a common type of comedy and declared it the universal root. When you analyze how the type of comedy works or fails, your analysis is quite good, when you attempt to declare it the building block of all comedy everywhere, the analysis falls apart.