A lot of comics express (perhaps unknowingly) the idea that audiences are passive objects that they “make laugh,” and Daniel Fernandes is another one – and his goal is every 30 seconds. In his interview with Punita Maheshwari of edexlive.com (8/28/2017), Fernandes has some brief answer about stand-up.
Truth telling
When asked about threats in response to his political remarks, Fernandes responds,
Not really. My writing is very layered. There is some truth to it. A lot of people are doing this.
So, Fernandes is not one of those who argues that he’s telling the complete truth, though there may be some.
Comic intent
Continuing, Fernandes says,
Plus, to attack my jokes, they need to understand them first. Moreover, comedians are the only people without any agenda. Our only job is to call out bullshit.
The ordering of this seems to say that his layering displays that he doesn’t have an agenda, but we could note that perhaps his execution of the humor obscures his agenda and thus prevents blow-back. Because comics aren’t supposed to have an agenda, other than to produce laughter, they frequently get away with it when they have one. After all, isn’t “calling out bullshit” an act with potential political and social consequences?
On “censorship”
Although Maheswari moves on to another point, Fernandes seems stuck on the previous, he says,
When you look at it in terms of an art form, there is no censorship and no restrictions.
We should note that there are many countries where there is censorship and restrictions on free speech, in any form including art. Further, we’re coming off a discussion about how he layers his jokes, perhaps to prevent such attacks. So no, comics and comedy don’t operate in a play space without rules that allows them to speak truth to power – unless they meet certain criteria that we grant them, and those criteria are always being reassessed and readjusted.
Summary
Yes, this is a short piece and perhaps I’m nitpicking. However, I do so here because my goal in this blog is to display how widespread these notions are. They crop up in far more articles than I have time and space to address. The “make people laugh” metaphor is so pervasive and insidious that I couldn’t possible document them all. I note it in pieces like this, but if it’s the only thing in an article, I pass it by. Much more exciting is when people say something different, and I try to get at those as well, but it didn’t happen here.
Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?
