Once in a while, as I'm trying to get the latest "This Modern World" out of the Working for Change website, I will read Molly Ivin's column, because I have often seen witty quotes by her in other people's sigs.
So far, she hasn't impressed me. "Texas wit" is almost an oxymoron, and while she may be the best humor columnist from Texas, that's kind of like saying "the shiniest wheel on a wheelbarrow" or "the heaviest feather."
However, this week's column is a meta-column (about a subject, rather than new information on a subject) about comedy and wit, and I thought it would be helpful to share it here.
The science of comedy
Key West Literary Seminar investigates what makes humor tick
KEY WEST, Fla. -- Tough gig here. A weekend in Key West holding forth on the subject of humor with a lot of funny people. A pundit's work is never done. [for the sake of speed, further quotes in this diary will be traditionally quoted with ""]
What I want to point out about this article is not her humor per se, but her dissection of humor which I found relatively valuable for all you jerks here."
"Actually, being earnest about humor is deadly -- if you have to explain a joke, you kill it."
Quite obvious in and of itself. But, how often do kossacks look for the joke first before reacting to a few key words?
"There was some agreement, I think, on the proposition that jokes, though often funny, are inferior to wit and storytelling as comic art forms."
Here, I disagree. The teller does not get to make the rules about what is funny and what is not. In regards to the first "rule" above, if the audience doesn't "get it," then it's not a joke nor "wit." Here, the teller is at the mercy of whatever audience they happen to be given. It is up the teller to be funny, not the audience to educate themselves enough to appreciate it.
"Several speakers tried to tackle the slippery topic of if, when and why there are times when humor is either inappropriate or just cruel and vulgar."
For many people, cruel and vulgar jokes are the limit of what they can appreciate and recognize as "humor." Adam Sandler understands this perfectly, which is why there is a pee, toilet, fart, or doodoo joke in every one of his films. Again, the teller is at the mercy of the audience. Here's the proof: go up to anyone at random on the street, and say "doodoo." I can almost guarantee that over 50% will laugh before saying anything else.
"In my opinion, nothing is off-limits in theory, but in practice, the dicier the subject, the funnier the material has to be. For example, the Holocaust: not funny. ... If you're going to be funny about the Holocaust, it is necessary to be a comic genius on the order of Mel Brooks... Since few of us are comic geniuses, we should not try this at home."
Molly! I'm shocked! Last column I read, I could have sworn you were a free speech advocate!
But anyway, she is both right and wrong: The more difficult subjects need the greatest skill: I agree. We should not try it ourselves: Wrong, wrong, wrong. Satire and parody have their roots in "dicey subjects," and are one of the greatest tools in changing the government. Satire and parody are so powerful, they are specifically protected in the constitution, even against "big business"'s copyright and trademark laws.
But, more to the point: if we avoid doing it, how can we become skillful at it?
"Among the tangentially political types at the conference, there was general agreement that 2004 was a lousy year for political humor. "
Wrong again. One need look no farther than Jay Leno, Dave Stewart, Conan O'Brien, SNL, South Park, or many more to figure out that at the center of the greatest comedy lies the greatest pain. The key to comedy in these cases is not the superficial details of say 9/11, the elections, nor the war, but the underlying themes that drive these issues: Fear, for example. I refer here to the SNL sketch of the people trapped on an escalator with Ben Affleck as an example. It is also no coincidence that the greatest comedians are also the most depressed.
And finally: "I think the best humor comes from character."
Sorry honey. Not just any character: YOUR character.
In terms of meta-analysis of comedy, my take always has and always will be: what is funny is what makes you laugh. the first person who laughs should be yourself. if you don't find it funny, then how can you find like-minded people to truly create humor? if you share a seinfeld joke, you are borrowing on seinfeld, but giving nothing from yourself...and that is not comedy, that is tragedy.
In terms of "wit", my take has been: if you require somebody to hear it, it's not wit. if your only audience is yourself, and YOU find it hilarious, that is true wit.
ps. Dorothy Parker is dead, let her rest in peace. Find somebody else to use as the one-and-only example of Wit. (Hello? Shakespeare? Hello?)