Most of the humor analysts that are commonly known for works about rhetoric claim that jokes are about the superiority of the teller or the laugher in contrast to the relative inferiority of the person the joke is on. These authors, Aristotle, Hobbes, and Freud to name a few, do try to define a difference between humor and other similar ideas like wit and comic-ness by various subtleties, however I think I have an example of funniness that does not fit any of these models. I believe that my example is also humorous, but you do not have to agree with that in order to ponder where a joke or funniness like this fits in.
So what is the joke? It is one that you hear probably every year at Halloween time if you open up your doors to the little people in costumes. It was funny the first time, but probably isn’t now. It is the Boo-berry Poptart Joke. The scene: A small child walks up to your door in a ghost costume, probably below the age of 8, because after that the joke is not as cute. The child says, “Trick or Treat! Do you want to hear a joke?” and you say, “Why yes, tell me your joke” in a humored manor. “What kind of Poptart do ghosts eat?” the small child asks. “I don’t know. What?” you might ask. “Boo-berry!” the child says gleefully.
Now one could argue that A) this joke is not funny at all. I concede that to a good deal of people, this is not funny or humorous or what-have-you. However, I know from personal experience that to some people it is incredibly humorous, mostly to old folks who love little kids and have never heard the joke before. After hearing it a thousand times I also concede that for most people, it is no longer funny. However this is true with all humorous things.
One could also argue that this has to do with delivery. The little child is cute and might say it in a humorous manner. I concede to that the humorousness has something to do with delivery, but I maintain that it is not the only thing that makes the joke humorous. This is the same with many humorous jokes. Unlike Freud who might say that we belittle the children by humoring them (instead of the other way around). In other words, we laugh at their jokes not because they are humorous to us, but because we are superior to them and will be nice enough to humor them. However, again, from my experience that is only part of the equation, and for some people, it is not even part of the equation. For example, my grandmother could not stop talking about how funny the joke was the first time she heard it, and no, she did not hear it from me. Her friends were the same way.
In conclusion, I believe that I have proven Aristotle, Hobbes, Freud and a number of influential rhetorical and analytical writers wrong in their assumption that humor necessarily. I am superior (whoops, did I say that?). Not all humor has to do with superiority and inferiority. What could possibly be inferior or superior about a boo-berry Poptart joke? Although much humor does deal with inferiority and superiority (namely when there is an object or but of the joke which of course is not present in the boo-berry joke), not all of it does.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Do you think that children react/relate differently to humor? If so, then we are talking about a leaned response--I think about the first jokes that children tell 9or try to tell) and they are often not funny to adults. For example, the knock-knock jokes children tell often don't have the same linguistic wordplay that the typical one involves. Children seem to randomly insert words, and they find it hysterically funny, tho we do not.
ReplyDeleteI agree that people do humor children with their simple jokes because they are young and naive and there doesnt seem to be a reason for rejecting them with their terrible jokes. I also believe that when a child says something beyond their years, much like the little girl in the youtube video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=95Rd84e1aK4) it is ALWAYS funny. Another fine example would be the Funnyordie.com video with Pearl the Landlady.
ReplyDelete