Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Comedy Theory (2022)

rpgadventures.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 182 posts

Re: Comedy Theory (2022)

#51

Post by OisinMoran »

“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

The equating of jokes and comedy here is an affront for anyone who has explored different avenues of comedy in any way. The analysis is fine and even interesting for (as others have pointed out) one specific type of joke but just flippantly calling that all of comedy is very jarring as it is obviously wrong.

I just completed a clown workshop this weekend where I was in tears laughing from an exercise of simply playing peekaboo, my improvised musical team has gotten laughs and applause from our piano man simply starting to play music and from us rhyming two words, I've seen TJ & Dave erupt a room from being as realistic and truthful as possible in their improv, one of my Edinburgh Fringe highlights was a performer crashing a live podcast recording multiple times and falling over, spilling many pints in the process.

That is all just to say that comedy is much more than just jokes, and especially much more than jokes that fit this theory. To be clear though, I am not against attempting such formalisms and theories (I have many myself and do think this kind of thinking is great for generating ideas), I've just yet to see a good comprehensive one.

Re: Comedy Theory (2022)

#52

Post by lyu07282 »

everdrive wrote: post #7

I've yet to see a theory of comedy which actually addresses that there are multiple kinds of comedy: - Bullying, where the joke is not particularly funny, but instead relies on attacking someone's status in front of a crowd. The crowd laughs in recognition of the successful attack, not because the joke is clever. - Epiphany humor -- the joke relies on some new thought, connection, or idea, and the "joke" is the leap…

Where does something like this fall into (story-based?):

> I don't stop eating when I'm full. The meal isn't over when I'm full. It's over when I hate myself. (Louis C.K.)

I think the best jokes of the greatest comedians that ever lived were jokes that don't even work when you write them down, its all in the greater context, delivery and timing. One of my favorite types of jokes are references to earlier parts of a show, it feels like more work for the setup intensifies the punch line.

Re: Comedy Theory (2022)

#53

Post by mewpmewp2 »

Miraltar wrote: post #47

Imo these one liners are only fun when they're actually not one liners, meaning when the context is part of the setup.

Yeah, to me, comedy is only actually funny if it's based on something that plausibly happened to the person in real life and it's an interesting, original or clever take on this situation. Not bruteforcing plays on words unless they also come up organically or tie absolutely well to the plausible real life situation. But then it's more like a cherry on top rather than the main funny part. I think a good comedy should also be able to work through multiple languages. It shouldn't be dependent on having those specific words in that specific language.

Re: Comedy Theory (2022)

#54

Post by wrp »

qwery wrote: post #27
wrp wrote: post #21

Completely serious, I think Calvin & Hobbes had the best concise explanation. ( https://mymorningmeditations.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/... )

I'm not sure if I'm missing something (perhaps the joke, as it were) but the Calvin & Hobbes strip seems to be entirely about having a sense of humour, rather than a theory of comedy .

The C&H explanation has two parts, what triggers the humor response (perception of things that don't make sense) and why we have the humor response (evolutionary fitness). A theory of the humor mechanism should be congruent to a theory of comedy.

The physiological manifestation of the humor response is also explained by evolutionary fitness when you consider it as countering the physiological reaction to the perception of stressful ambiguity.

Re: Comedy Theory (2022)

#56

Post by konschubert »

My personal theory is that a joke has to be always both surpising, yet fitting.

The pattern presented in the article fits that requirement. Maybe it is even equivalent.

But that’s just a necessary condition for a good joke, not a sufficient one.

Re: Comedy Theory (2022)

#57

Post by nvader »

gosub100 wrote: post #38
itronitron wrote: post #19

I like the theory that jokes are funny to the extent they enable a discovery of 'shared knowledge' between the teller and audience. I'll provide a light bulb joke as an example... Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb? A: That's not funny.

Shared beliefs, when they start complaining about things the audience relates to. Or completely obvious things we haven't noticed. A really funny monologue I saw once was a European comedian remarking how many different meanings can be carried by the word 'ass' and how often they are contradictory. Very clever observation.

For the curious, I suspect this was Ismo. I love his with on pointing out the incongruities in surface level features of English.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=RAGcDi0DRtU

Re: Comedy Theory (2022)

#58

Post by clucas »

OisinMoran wrote: post #51

“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” The equating of jokes and comedy here is an affront for anyone who has explored different avenues of comedy in any way. The analysis is fine and even interesting for (as others have pointed out) one specific type of joke but just flippantly calling that all of comedy is very jarring as it is obviously wrong. I just completed…

Yes, the article mistakes punchlines for comedy. Watch some of Norm MacDonald's stuff on Conan (troubled moth, Jacques de Gatineaux, drunk dart thrower, Andy the Swedish-German)... sure, the punchlines fit the model in the article, but the real humor comes from his delivery and the weird worlds he creates leading up to the punchlines.

Re: Comedy Theory (2022)

#59

Post by everdrive »

patcon wrote: post #48
everdrive wrote: post #7

I've yet to see a theory of comedy which actually addresses that there are multiple kinds of comedy: - Bullying, where the joke is not particularly funny, but instead relies on attacking someone's status in front of a crowd. The crowd laughs in recognition of the successful attack, not because the joke is clever. - Epiphany humor -- the joke relies on some new thought, connection, or idea, and the "joke" is the leap…

Really love your thoughts here. Very thought-provoking to someone like myself who has spent quite a bit of time thinking about and researching the evolutionary origins of laughter and its relation to surprise/play To respond to just one part: > Bullying, where the joke is not particularly funny, but instead relies on attacking someone's status in front of a crowd. The crowd laughs in recognition of the successful att…

That's a great distinction, and I definitely think it's the better characterization. Similarly, the class clown will often fare _worse_ from the teacher if the joke doesn't land. The whole class laughing really turns the tide against the teacher. (although sometimes that just yields a more aggressive response)

Re: Comedy Theory (2022)

#60

Post by [deleted] »

forgotacc240419 wrote: post #15
bazoom42 wrote: post #11

Now explain why some jokes following this formula are hilarious but most are painfully unfunny. This would seem to be the hard part. > I’m awful at jogging. I run slower than Windows 95. Yeah you have definitely cracked the secret to comedy.

Windows 95's start menu was drastically faster than Windows 10's with its default settings. Things like that mean the joke just results in thoughts like "By what metric?" and "Was Windows 95 ever considered famously slow?" Or is the point that the reference doesn't need to be accurate but just has to catch a general vibe of "old = slow"

[deleted]
Post reply on HN