HUMOR SERIES: On Subversive Laughter-Jokers are Wild

Davidson_The_Court_Jester-1

 

Whether it’s an Episode of Saturday Night Live, a late night tv host monologue, a webisode, or humor website, one of the many uses of humor one is to prove a point. People who find themselves funny may often aspire to more elevated forms of comedy:

Satire, wit, or something that seems noble.

If not fully noble, then at least something useful for creating meaningful change.

And if not that, then a comic may just try for old fashion notoriety. But, plenty of people simply settle for infamy.

Cuss words, crude jokes, and whatnot. But, in an effort to avoid thorough banlality the aim might be satire.

In the dearth of well-formed, well-put, well-placed, and well-timed, first-rate satire, many hope their wild comedic jabs will do the trick. They don’t.

True and artful satire is really rare; just like true brilliance is rare.

sat•ire (sătˈīrˌ)

  • n.
    A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
  • n.
    The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.
  • n.
    Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

 

On Satire

Besides that, the difference between satirical prowess and just being mean is more of a fine line. One that rests in the subjective ear of the hearer. Vary the audience and you have a flop. Get it right and you can have an impeachment.

I asked my friend Doug to elucidate us on some of the finer points of comic relief.

If any one put this sort of thing on the map, it was Shakespeare.

(Not Billy Crystall, Whoopi Goldberg, and Robin Williams…which was a fund raising thing.)

Either way, I’m soon out of my depth.

• So, what’s the point of (Shakespearean) COMIC RELIEF?

• How does it work, or not work.

• Does it work now?

A modern audience of non-English majors might not get Elizabethan wordplay…a lot of the problem is that people begin with the general idea that this is serious literature and therefore one is not supposed to laugh.

Not true. Sometimes it gets lost in translation.

While many think of comic relief as a literary ploy to give the audience a break from the latest dramatic event (a murder, beheading, or suicide etc), there is more to it.

 

For starters, says Doug, take the Fool in “King Lear.”

Cambridge poet and scholar Malcolm Guite asserts that, “Shakespeare, with a true understanding of the cross, always puts his greatest wisdom in the mouths of his fools.”

 

Throughout the early parts of the play the little fellow offers repeated jabs at Lear’s stupidity in attempting to step down from his throne but retain his power.

 

The idea of “royal retirement” amuses the Fool. Like a standup comedian with no “off” switch, he shoots out one-liners until several different people threaten to have him beaten.

 

He’s funny. He’s even funny in the howling storm when Lear begins to lose his mind and Edgar pretends to lose his and we do indeed need a break. But the humorous bait conceals a serious barb, both for the characters and the audience. The fool sees what the wise men miss.

 

Drawing on the common usage of court jester in that day, Shakespeare can deliver a message of great import.

Shakespeare here draws on the origins of the trade. Wealthy people in the medieval world sometimes kept mentally impaired people around because their antics amused their betters.

 

They could say or do anything and get away with it, basically, on the insanity defense.

 

Eventually a few very clever people figured out that such a role would allow them to engage in serious political critique without the usual inconveniences of getting exiled or sent to the Tower of London.

 

The Fool is such a double-dealer, offering a needed message disguised as “mere” comic relief.

Just as it happens today, comedy and the use of humor serves many purposes. Entertainment may be the first one, but a lot more may happen in the process.

In excavating the sites of Elizabethan theaters, archaeologists have found the shattered remains of pottery boxes into which theater patrons would drop their admission fee.

 

At the end of the night the company would smash the container – like a kid breaking his piggy-bank – and divvy up the night’s take. (This, by the way, is the origin of the term “box office.”)

 

This little factoid is a reminder that Shakespeare did not so much write for the ages as for the commercial stage. As a professional playwright he had to produce shows that people would pay to see.

 

His diverse audience wanted action, politics, poetry, and, yes, humor. But with each of these elements he did more than met the eye. His “comic relief” is like drinking sea water: It briefly relieves our thirst for wholeness only in order to make us crave the real thing even more.

It would seem that comic relief still has its place. Jokers ARE wild.

But, whether a comic gives the challenge due diligence is another question.

What’s been your favorite bit of satire, recently?

I hope you’re enjoying this series.

ox

-Lisa

Here are the other related articles.

1. (humor at birth)

2. (Humor studies: Step 1-Tickle Rats)

3. (On comedic distance-funny to whom?)

 

For the latest info on my humor related projects sign up here.

How to Think Better in 97 seconds

Critically thinking is something we don’t do enough. Thinking better, and making better decisions has everything to do with thinking more clearly and critically. A bad argument (aka poor logic) shouldn’t fool us, or convince us. Chances are you’re getting kicked around more than you think.

(This is supplemental material for my worldviews class.)

Listen to any radio, talk show, or news program after you understand the following logic issues, and you spot one logical fallacy after another. Now you’ll have the knowledge base to disarm flawed rationalizations and weak assertions.

So, use the next 97 seconds and pick some fallacies that appeal to you. Then, share something new you learned. Or, visit soon, and tell us the first fallacy you’ve spotted.

Absurdity · Accident · Ad nauseam · Argument from ignorance · Argument from silence · Argument to moderation · Argumentum ad populum · Base rate · Compound question ·Evidence of absence · Invincible ignorance · Loaded question · Moralistic · Naturalistic · Non sequitur · Proof by assertion · Irrelevant conclusion · Special pleading · Straw man ·Two wrongs make a right
Appeals to emotion Fear · Flattery · Nature · Novelty · Pity · Ridicule · Children’s interests · Invented Here · Island mentality · Not Invented Here · Repugnance · Spite
Genetic fallacies Ad feminam · Ad hominem (Ad hominem tu quoque) · Appeal to accomplishment · Appeal to authority · Appeal to etymology · Appeal to motive · Appeal to novelty · Appeal to poverty ·Appeals to psychology · Appeal to the stone · Appeal to tradition · Appeal to wealth · Association · Bulverism · Chronological snobbery · Ipse dixit (Ipse-dixitism) · Poisoning the well ·Pro hominem · Reductio ad Hitlerum (Blood libel)
Appeals to consequences Appeal to force · Wishful thinking
Absence paradox · Begging the question · Blind men and an elephant · Cherry picking · Complex question · False analogy · Fallacy of distribution (Composition · Division) · Furtive fallacy · Hasty generalization ·I’m entitled to my opinion · Many questions (Loaded question) · McNamara fallacy · Name calling · Red herring fallacy · Special pleading · Rationalization (making excuses) · Slothful induction
Correlative-based fallacies False dilemma (Perfect solution) · Denying the correlative · Suppressed correlative
Deductive fallacies Accident · Converse accident
Inductive fallacies Sampling bias · Conjunction fallacy · False analogy · Hasty generalization · Misleading vividness · Overwhelming exception
Vagueness and ambiguity Amphibology · Continuum fallacy · False precision · Slippery slope
Equivocation Equivocation · False attribution · Fallacy of quoting out of context · No true Scotsman · Reification
Questionable cause Animistic · Appeal to consequences · Argumentum ad baculum · Circular cause and consequence · Correlation does not imply causation (Cum hoc) · Gambler’s fallacy and itsinverse · Post hoc · Prescience · Regression · Single cause · Slippery slope · Texas sharpshooter · The Great Magnet · Unknown Root · Wrong direction
Masked man fallacy · Appeal to probability · Circular reasoning
Fallacy of propositional logic Affirming a disjunct · Affirming the consequent · Denying the antecedent · Argument from fallacy · False dilemma
Fallacy of quantificational logic Existential fallacy · Illicit Conversion · Proof by example · Quantifier shift
Syllogistic fallacy Accident · Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise · Converse accident · A dicto simpliciter · Exclusive premises · Existential · Necessity · Four-term Fallacy · Illicit major ·Illicit minor · Negative conclusion from affirmative premises · Undistributed middle

7 fake TSA -related headlines

This topic makes for easy jokes. Of course, the disgust of the general public has made some fake headlines appear quite authentic.
(Two have emerged as most popular. First is the one about the Denver TSA worker and the girl’s basketball team; and the other is about “Perry Cummings,” from San Francisco.)

SNOPES reveals the truth about these two most commonly-mistaken-for-true, TSA related headlines here.
Come up with one of your own related-headlines in the comment section, and see if you can last through reading these 7.

Let’s just say, it seems we have crisis on our hands.

1. Phrase heard most often by TSA workers, “Sir, that’s not a gun.”

2. Joe Biden admits thinking TSA stood for “Touch Someone’s Assets”
(Actual definition of acronym here)

3. Vegas Sex Worker sues TSA worker for not paying her standard fee-for-service

4. TSA worker offers boys candy before pat down, because “he’s a new friend”

5. TSA workers agree to mutual fondling with travelers

6. Advocate magazine names TSA work “Best New Job of 2010”

7. Texas Prison Work Release Program trains convicts to work as TSA agents. “Oh, yeah, man. This is my dream job!” says inmate.

8. [this one is for your to write]

Hipster Pundit, Brett McCracken Responds to 5 cool questions

Here is the much-anticipated interview with Brett McCracken, author of Hipster Christianity: When Church and Cool Collide. Thank you, Brett! This was fun.

Brett's face in the City

5 Questions for
Brett McCracken


1. Does the hipster Christian phenomenon pivot on the “Be in the world, but not of the World” Scriptural directive?
I think the hipster Christianity phenomenon is absolutely about this notion of how to be in the world but not of the world (with emphasis, perhaps, on the “being IN the world” part). Christian hipsters want, above all, to engage with the culture at large. They want to have a meaningful dialogue and cooperation with the wider world, rather than being cut-off or segregated from it. Rather than having a Christian music industry, a Christian movie industry, Christian this-that-and-the-other, these Christian hipsters long for a faith that is relevant in and among the culture. They don’t want to be set in opposition to the culture, but rather they want to be productively engaged with it. Their instincts tell them that if Christianity is true, it is not something meant to be separatist, overly legalistic, and anti-everything. Rather, it should be something that speaks into every aspect of life and illuminates the beauty and wonder of existence. They resonate with the famous C.S. Lewis quote that says, I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.

2. If you could communicate one thing to your readers that they would remember forever (and in so doing, change them forever), what would it be?

Wow, that’s a big question! I guess I would want to communicate the notion that the “coolest” thing about Christianity has little to do with how trendy, cutting-edge, and “of the moment” it appears to the culture, but has everything to do with the transcendent truth of a Gospel that changes lives.

3. Every writer has “haters”, what do yours complain about? (Mine complain about nipples, but that’s a rather long story, and this interview is about YOU.)
A lot of the critics of the book suggest that I’m not giving enough due to the cultural context and “mode-of-delivery” through which the Gospel is communicated. They maintain, rightly, that the Gospel always has to be presented in ways that are embodied, formed, packaged, and specific to the context/audience in which it is being presented. I totally agree. I’m not suggesting that the Gospel is just some nebulous cloud of ideas or concepts that we can communicate apart from form. Of course we have to consider the medium, the context, etc. All I am saying is that form influences content, and we have to be careful that the various new strategies we are undertaking (placing tons of emphasis on looking cool, cutting-edge technology, etc) are not negatively impacting the content of the message or distracting us from making sure we are communicating a deep, rich, transformative message. At it’s core, my caution in the book is that we not get so preoccupied with hip/cool/attractive packaging that we forget what is actually rich and powerful about the message itself.

4. To you, is “cool” more of a state of mind than anything? Why or why not?

Hmm, that’s an interesting question, because I think it is and it isn’t a state of mind. In the sense that the pursuit of “cool” is very self-conscious and a sort of existential endeavor to be “in the know,” I definitely think it is a state of mind. But then again I think that there are plenty of “naturally cool” people who never really think about or try to be cool. It’s not something they consciously strive for as much as it is just a side-effect of them truly liking certain bits of culture that happen to be fashionable or appear cool in a given cultural context.

These days, it’s hard to tell where “cool as a self-conscious state-of-mind” ends and “cool as a natural outgrowth of who one is” begins. The problem is complicated by the fact that cool today (as in, “hipster” cool) is largely defined on the superficial “how one dresses” level, so you have “true” hipsters who dress in a certain way but then you have the “I want to be cool” hipsters who can simply purchase the exact same look at American Apparel or Urban Outfitters. On a phenomenological level, there is no difference between the two. Both types signify “cool,” which we take to mean “elitist/snobby/annoying.” So whether one actually IS elitist/snobby/annoying doesn’t matter, because “the look” communicates this regardless.

5. Have you ever considered offering McDonalds a signature menu item? (For instance, like the McCracken Sandwich: 8 crispy strips of bacon, melted sharp cheddar cheese, and sweet horseradish sauce on crispy, lightly toasted Sourdough bread pocket.) [Seriously, that whole thing came to me in one package like that. It must be a God thing.] If you have not, this could plague your mind, and I’m sorry about that. I too am feeling hungry.

If I were to have a McDonalds signature item, it would probably include arugula, grass-fed beef and raw goat cheese, just to cover my hipster bases.

For a signed copy (For beginners, that means eXtra cool) of Brett McCracken’s book, Hipster Christianity: When Church and Cool Collide. You can link over, and leave YOUR comment. YOU might be the lucky winner.

Post here and share any questions, thoughts, comments, etc.

Thanks for reading.

Review: "Hipster Christianity: When Church and Cool Collide"

Um. Brett, Justin Bieber called, and he wants his hair back.
photo: Brett McCracken

I’ve finished with McCracken’s book and now it’s time for my “review” (which is an official sounding way of saying, I’ll be sharing my take on the thing.)

PLEASE NOTE:

You may (or may not) have read my previous post in which I set up a giveaway for a signed copy of Brett McCracken’s book, Hipster Christianity: When Church and Cool Collide. You can link over, and give it  a try: Maybe you’ll be the lucky winner.

BOOK REVIEW:

My Rating: 4.45 of 5 stars

(For Liger fans, this apparently translates to 94.5% approval score. [High])

[Within text HC= “Hipster Christianity”]

One sentence assessment (“Tweet Review” version):

Author, McCracken may end our present era of “cool Christianity” single-handedly.

Summary:

McCracken does much to observe and detail the Christian (cultural, or rather sub-cultural) landscape. This book serves as a mirror for Christians so they may assess whether their “image” (whether they may be primping it consciously, or accidentally) helps or hurts the greater cause of Christ. For a certain percentage of readers, (perhaps from rural, or smaller congregations), this book will seems other-worldly and depicting that which appears to be on the fringes of Christian culture. But for many semi-rural, suburban, and urban church folk, between the ages of 21-50, McCracken’s depictions will seem, at first, like standing in front of an embarrassing Fun House mirror. Then, it will give you the reasons and how-tos to do better.

HC exposes the self-referential, pop-culture influenced realm of many Christian leaders, and laity. His 12 descriptions of hipsters varieties can make you both laugh and cry.

[Think: über irony to the point of deprecation. Sometimes funny “haha”, and sometimes funny in horrible, cringe way.]

Mental vignette: (While reading it I pictured Tony Jones reading it also and saying the F-bomb 18 times, followed by, “I’m RUINED!” near a group of pre-school children, or a Social Media Bootcamp (consisting 4 over-protective parents, 3 folks over age 81, and 17 recently ex-Amish); and then–with added and great displeasure–spilling his Ristretto Venti with soy, and a hint of nutmeg on his stylish skinny jeans.)

General Style of the book:

Adjectives: Informative, funny/clever, intellectual, helpful, jargon-heavy (not always in a helpful way), thorough (both in historic overview and cultural contextual), hyper saturated with cultural references and information, well-intentioned (constructive) and non-cynical (a nice surprise!).

Will Most Likely be enjoyed by:

18-50 year olds (anywhere on a spectrum of Mildly Stylish thru and including Tragically Hip & Techno Savvy) who will no doubt find themselves pictured in the descriptions, much to their [combined] amusement and chagrin.

Could be improved by:

Realizing many of the 12 varieties of hipsters, who are the likely target audience, won’t have the attention span to read the whole thing.

Recommendation 1: Tweet a version of the book, in a series.

Recommendation 2: Write a “translation” for non-hipsters. Possibly include an emerald green decoder ring.

One surprising find:

Mark Driscoll is practically pigeon-holed as a semi-pervert, “frat-boy testosterone” laden, misogynist who’s hanging on to his election by some sort of  tiny, irresistible thread, but doing well at really just not getting it.

(Which makes it all so HiLarIOuS!)

It may be that I’m too cynical, but my unsolicited guess for his strange hyper-masculinity syndrome involves the preventative tactic that goes something like: “I’m so very manly, so please, don’t think I’m gay..because, of course, that would be extremely ridiculous, and, duh, of course, I’m total %110 NOT even a smidgen gay, or even homosexual, nor do I like to gaze at really burly men who workout in tight clothing, who drive even guys crazy…so we hope our scantily clad wife at home can ease that sort of burden after for me, I mean, other hot looking guys, who are NOT like me, when we, er…they work out.” Not that any of us have witnessed this, from pro-wrestlers, or firefighters, or policemen, or interior decorators, or hairdressers, or rodeo cowboys, or anything. [For that brand of insecure men, maybe it only takes 1 weird or ambiguous camping trip experience, or communal shower situation, to instigate this sort of overcompensation…Right, guys?]

But,  hey, what do I know?

Did I find out I that was a hipster?

Yes, a bit more than I liked, but not as much as I feared.

Publishers Weekly said:

Being hip is about valuing independence, freedom, and reinvention. But when evangelical Christian culture adopts hip’s rebellious nature, what happens to the message of the institutional church? In his book debut, magazine editor McCracken steps outside of his own hip subculture to question whether the quest to be hip is “turning Christianity into a shape-shifting chameleon with ever-diminishing ecclesiological confidence and cultural legitimacy.” This critical analysis reads like a sociological study aimed at evaluating a demographic segment of churchgoers. From the Jesus People of the 1960s to the Missional Church movement of today, McCracken demonstrates how hip came to collide with the values of the church. By bowing to trends in order to reach youth, Christianity may be sacrificing content and authenticity. McCracken’s analysis isn’t wholly scientific and unbiased; with lists like the “12 common types of hipsters” and an appreciation of pop culture, he may unintentionally fuel the very subculture he’s attempting to question. Yet his “gut check” offers a much needed perspective that will make Christian leaders question the direction of their postmodern undertakings. McCracken successfully sets the stage for an important debate.
Copyright
© Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

(link to amazon)

Faux-hipster summary:

It’s not lame. It’s cool. You may feel like you’re a dork after he exposes you for your hipster ways–SNAP. But yet, HC transcends cool, and that’s really what we all should want, dude.

Potential ramifications:

By reading it you may realize it’s the Unforgivable sin if one is labeled a hipster. That will be the “end of cool” as you’ve known it. Also it’s possible the multiverse could implode; or a black hole could suddenly suck in every Whole Foods before one can blow a clove-scented smoke ring. (BUT-If you’re gutsy you’ll take your chances anyway.)

If you’ve read the book, share your thoughts.

If you haven’t, ask your questions.

COMING SOON:

You’ll hear from Brett McCracken himself. He’ll be answering my (oh, so exclusive) questions, and you can leave questions for him to respond to.