Cases and Current Events/Comics Talking Shop/Humor Theories/Stand Up Comedy/Theories About Comics

Update: Elle.com’s 2017 Women in Comedy

Posted on by nwilson

Here’s something I came across recently that sparked an update to the post on Persona– where I talk about the idea of comics being themselves on-stage, or if they put on an act. [BTW: I’m changing the name of that post to just Persona, as it’s grown a bit.]

In a piece on Elle’s 2017 Women in Comedy (6/16/2017) written by Seth Plattner, Kezia Wier and Amanda Fitzsimons, Natasha Leggero says the following,

When I was showcasing for Mitzi Shore, I’d show up every Sunday at The Comedy Store, and there was this little sign: ‘You don’t have to be funny for three minutes. You just have to be yourself.’ That’s always taken a lot of pressure off me. It’s like the old quote: ‘Stand-up is your evil twin.’ You just have to find that place where you’re able to be yourself—if a little bit, well, heightened.

In these statements, Leggero seems to note that it’s not really being yourself as the sign she’s quoting would have it, but a version of yourself – that it’s a negotiation.

Similarly, Jaime Lee gives the following advice for writing Bits (Bit-Writing 101) “a crash course on success at open-mic night”:

STEP ONE: Tell the Truth

In stand-up, you notice your time line doesn’t make sense. In one joke, you’re like, “I just went through a breakup!” And then in another, you’re like, “I just got married!” So you’re like, “Which one is it?” That’s a problem with not telling the truth: It starts to not make sense in your act.

STEP TWO: Mine your personal life for material

STEP THREE: COMMIT

STEP FOUR: Have a Backup Joke

What this seems to say is that telling the truth is practical, and comedy should come from you, but she doesn’t quite say that you have to tell the truth, all the time, let alone stray away from making jokes funny.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

Cases and Current Events/Comics in the News/Stand Up Comedy

TheRichest.com’s 15 Hottest Comedians

Posted on by nwilson

There is a perception in stand-up that beautiful women get more breaks because of their looks – breaks they don’t necessarily deserve. In his article, Bhav Patel of TheRichest.com in talking about the 15 hottest comedians (6/23/2017) – and by hottest, he means attractive, not talent – preserves this notion.  However, along the way he also says some other things of note. Let’s dispense with those first.

On laughs

The stereotypical view of a stand-up comedian used to be… someone who’s not very attractive, isn’t great looking, has a poor physique standing on stage and making the audience laugh. In fact, not being good looking used to benefit a comedian – rather cruelly, people used to laugh at the person in addition to their act, but hey, they didn’t really care, because at the end of the day, laughs are laughs.

Here we see first the popular idea of audiences as objects that can be made to laugh.  There’s also the laughing at distinction.  Then there’s the common interpretation that all laughs are the same, even if one is laughing at the comic.  Patel does, however, posit that, “Of course, the better the comedian, the more people will come, but if the woman standing on stage telling gags is super hot, that’s also going to sell tickets.”

Here’s the problem: he casts a woman’s appearance not as something that will build goodwill and audience (and promoter) rapport, but as something that will overshadow the performance.

Looks first

At number one is April Macie, about whom Patel says,

[W]hen she does [stand-up], it’s fair to say a lot of people aren’t really paying attention to anything she’s saying – they’d be doing a lot of looking, not a lot of listening.

He credits her with being, for those who have listened, “a kick-ass comedian too,” but it’s the “too” part that bothers.  It should be, “and she’s hot too.”

He doesn’t do this with any of the others, like Iliza Shlesinger (#12), about whom he says,

Of course, people come to her shows, buy her DVDs primarily because of her comedy routine, but the fact that she’s a stunner must have something to do with it too.

My experience

I’ve heard this in my own community (Kansas City), where I’ve heard people talk about giving courtesy laughs to encourage young women they thought were cute to keep coming out.  Hell, I’ve done it. And though I know laughs are different, when taken collectively, they can all sound the same.

Iliza Shlesinger recently critiqued women for doing basic (hacky) jokes and talking too much about their vaginas, and I’ve seen a lot of that too.  One young woman did five minutes at open mics for about three months on it, and I know she’s booking shows.  I’ve also seen one older woman do some hacky, small penis jokes and get booked. Some guys in the scene are bitter about this, but then, they’re also the ones giving courtesy laughs.

Of course, another issue that bookers talk about is representation.  We don’t have as many women trying to do stand-up here, and the mics that I go to don’t represent the full range of nationalities in Kansas City.  We had a post recently on our Facebook group asking about this – should you book and a less funny woman or Person of Color to make the show more inclusive, broaden appeal and build talent?

This crops up in other places as well, in an interview with Michael Stahl of Narratively.com, Chris Crespo, a differently-abled comic, expressed worry about this:

“When I started, I didn’t want to talk about my disability. I want to be on a lineup because I’ve proved my worth. I always feared that I’d be booked on a show to fulfill some diversity bullshit. I don’t want to be on a show because they need a cripple; I want to be there because people want to see me perform.

It probably wouldn’t be a concern if it weren’t happening.

Summary

Yes, one could read it as an article celebrating hot women, who also happen to be comics, but it also reads as a misogynistic way to put a woman’s looks first and her comedy second – something I haven’t ever seen done with men and I don’t want to.  Not just because I wouldn’t make the list, but because why does it have to matter?

Again, it feeds the idea that women get booked on looks, not talent, when a lot of women who aren’t stunners but are hilarious get booked: Roseanne Barr, Fortune Feimster – the list goes on and on.  And there’s no shortage of bookings for men.

You still want to do a beauty contest? Fine, rather than one guy’s opinion, I’d like to see this list flipped and voted on by the masses based on both their humor and their looks and see who comes out on top of each category (and who we should add to each list).

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

Humor Theories/Stand Up Comedy/Theories About Jokes

Ironic Satire

Posted on by nwilson

I’m still talking about Bill Maher’s 2007 HBO stand-up showcase, Bill Maher: The Decider, where, after greeting the Boston crowd, Maher begins with a critique of President George W. Bush.  Only 50 seconds later, he comes to this nugget:

The country has fuck-up fatigue.  [Laughter]  Which is what happens when the guy [George W. Bush] fucks up so much that when he fucks up again, people go [Resignedly]  “Well, what do you expect. [Laughter]  He’s a fuck-up.”  And that’s fucked up!  [Laughter]

He has now convinced himself that history will be kind to him.  [Sarcastically]  It’s just US, in the PRESENT who don’t get it.  [Laughing to himself].  He’s the Van Gogh of Presidents, you know, not appreciated in THIS lifetime but…

I swear to god a couple of weeks ago he was defending his legacy and he said [in imitation of George W. Bush], “They’re still debating our first President.”  No they’re not.  Who’s debating whether George Washington was a good President?  He’s on the one.  [Laughter]  He’s on Mount Rushmore. [Laughing himself]  They named the capitol after him – I think the jury is in on this guy.  I do.  [Laughter and applause]

This is clearly satire. We’re encouraged to read Maher’s statements unironically – that he means to call the President a “fuck up.”  But does he?

Possibility of verbal irony

Inherent in a theory of verbal irony that the intended meaning is they opposite of and therefore negates the stated meaning is the problem of deciding when someone is being ironical, and then about what; to which part of the stated should we apply the negation, and with what effect on our evaluation?

Here, while Maher clearly is ridiculing the President, we might be unclear why exactly he is doing so and to what purpose. We know it’s supposed to get us to laugh, so in the version of absolute stand-up, he might not mean any of it. Maher is laughing to himself, good-naturedly while he says the jokes, so he doesn’t appear to be in earnest.  In essence, we can read the attempt at satire itself as ironic, as non bona fide, as a friendly jibe because Bill Maher is also and unreliable narrator.

Unreliable narrator

While satirical ironic texts may be polyvalent (Gring-Pemble & Watson), because of unreliable narrators and ironic or parodic personas, stand-up comedy routines are more frequently polysemic.  These texts are designed to possess multiple layers of overlapping verbal and nonverbal codes, intersection with multiple contexts, and are colored with multiple perceptions (Ceccarelli).  In other words, to expand their appeal, comics introduce gaps, alternatives in meanings, into both their personas and their text.  This, however, may cloud the intended meaning.

When Maher uses kettle logic in his routine, since the arguments refute themselves, Maher doesn’t have to.  When he chooses to argue against them, Maher opens himself up to criticism, both as a figure who would reduce the President to an illogical caricature, and as one who believes these kinds of arguments need refutation. Because of this, we can question his judgement, and we are not sure that Maher didn’t mean for this to happen.

Further, in the whole routine, Maher delivers critique after critique aimed at Republicans, yet as he does so, he chuckles to himself.  This is somewhat discordant as, if we take him at his word (e.g. if we accept that George W. Bush is a fuck-up), there would seem to be an obligation to do something about it.  When confronted with our own apathy, we should correct our behavior.  However, Maher is laughing to himself as he tells us what a fuck-up the President is, as if his act is just a bit of good-natured ribbing aimed at a friend.  He frequently states, “I kid the President, because I love.  I hope that comes through.”  Some may miss (or choose to ignore) the irony in this statement.

In any case, Maher doesn’t seem to be worried about the state of the nation, so why should we? While his laughter and unconcern may be read as ironic performances to help him sell the satire – after all, to avoid being taken as earnest, hurtful ridicule, the satirist must maintain goodwill (Gilbert) – there is also the possibility that he is using his satire ironically; that he doesn’t mean any of it.

This is possible, because [as I’ve argued before and will put up here soon] jokes aren’t enthymemes to be solved or “gotten,” but porous, open texts that require supplementation.  Ultimately, the audience makes a joke ironical (or not) by supplying information that isn’t there; by inferring the meaning.

Summary

In his performance, Maher’s persona becomes another way comic can create as sense of (or we can find) irony.  Maher maintains goodwill through an entertaining wit as well as a likable stance. However, this good-natured act may evoke in us a feeling that Maher thinks that those at fault (e.g. Republicans and G. W. Bush) are not bad people, but frail, foolish and ultimately, human.  Thus these humans can be corrected to their – and society’s – benefit.  Maher’s act may actually make Bush more likeable.

It seems that when satire is used in conjunction with irony and/or parody, it often increases the humorous potential, but the humor loses its critical edge.  For this reason, humorous satire seems to be at odds with any bona fide political goal, yet we will soon reexamine this assumption.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

References:

Ceccarelli, Leah.  “Polysemy: Multiple Meanings in Rhetorical Criticism.”  Quarterly Journal of Speech 84 (1998): 395-415.

Gilbert, Joanne.  Performing Marginality: Humor, Gender and Cultural Critique.  Detroit, MI: Wayne State University, 2004.

Gring-Pemble, Lisa and Martha Solomon Watson.  “The Rhetorical Limits of Satire: An Analysis of James Finn Garner’s Politically Correct Bedtime Stories.”  Quarterly Journal of Speech 89.2 (2003): 132-53.

Maher, Bill. Bill Maher: The Decider.  Original air date 21 July, 2007.  New York: Home Box Office.  Available (in 8 parts).  Retrieved 30 December, 2007.

Wilson, Nathan. Was That Supposed to be Funny? A Rhetorical Analysis of Politics, Problems and Contradictions in Contemporary Stand-Up Comedy. Dissertation in partial completion of the Ph.D. August, 2008.

Cases and Current Events/Comics in the News/Ramblings/Stand Up Comedy

More Problems with Satire

Posted on by nwilson

Brian Raftery of Wired.com (11/11/2016) points to the problems with satire as it is commonly understood:

In fact, my dependence on satire was so severe this year that I occasionally wondered if the combined forces of Oliver’s army, along with satirical powers that Bee, could maybe steer the conversation (and votes) to a degree unseen in previous elections. In a year full of ridiculous beliefs, this one was a doozy, but at least this one was rooted in optimism: Throughout this openly hostile year, I saw people creating and exchanging comedy that both assuaged my fears and affirmed my worldview—so much so that, once in a while, I sometimes allowed myself to think that the comedians could somehow break through in a way that objective information could not. Maybe you believed it, too.

Comedy Is Too Essential to Abandon

But the idea that satire could ever enact quantifiable change is, of course, a notion worthy of satire itself. And it places an unbelievably cruel burden on satirists, whose job is to reflect (and often reject) what’s going on in the world, not to help steer it. There’s a nearly instant disposability to modern political satire, no matter how strong it is: The references quickly grow old (Ben Carson something something pyramids?), and the main arguments can easily get lost in all the inevitable online rebuttals. Bee and Oliver and the Onion and their ilk created some of the sagest, most appropriately damning political satire we’ll likely ever see—but in comedy, as in politics, there are limits on power. The most they could do (and likely all they ever wanted to do) was share our rage, make us feel OK about it, and maybe inspire us to use it somehow.

This critique is rooted in a number of aspects of litige.  First off is the idea of humor as a simple carnivalesque space in which change is impossible. Then there’s the notion of authorial intent or intentionality – that the comic has no desire other than to play, to “reflect (and often reject)” the status quo in a way that, rather than subverts it, merely affirms it [I have more on this, détournement, in the pipeline].

Additionally, we see Booth’s notion of local irony, in the idea that the references get too old, too fast.  Then there’s all the rebuttals, which recast the irony and satire as unstable.

The combined effect is that comedy can’t do anything on its own. That’s not to say that the audience can’t do anything.  As Raftery notes:

But all [they] need to do is share a little truth, and spur us to seek out some more.  The rest is up to us.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

Ramblings

1 Month in the Tank

Posted on by nwilson

Hey everyone (all 1-3 of you who occasionally check in!),

Today marks 1 month of posts!

Ok, I actually missed two days, but have made them up and there’s more than 40 substantive posts for the first 30 days!  Unfortunately, only 3 “controversial” incidents came up, but if I know comics, more will soon follow.

Anyway, stay posted, as I’m nowhere near done – I haven’t even begun to flesh out my theories – I’m still working through the big guns in the field, and laying the groundwork.

If there’s anything you’d like more of, or any questions you have, feel free to comment, subscribe, whatever you need to do!

Thanks for reading,

 

N

Ramblings

Update to Traditional Verbal Irony

Posted on by nwilson

Just to keep everyone abreast of the updates I make to the site, I decided I should announce them in separate posts, under Ramblings.

This update is to Traditional Verbal Irony; two passages, as follow:

Booth describes irony in terms of two binary relations: stable/unstable and local/infinite. In stable ironic texts, the alternative interpretation is clear to a “reasonable,” “qualified reader” (Gournelos, 2). Unstable irony, on the other hand, is less clear; clearly the literal meaning must be rejected, but multiple interpretations are possible. Local irony deals with specific events, places and times, whereas infinite irony deals with subjects that span space and time, such as life or the world in general.

And later:

Claire Colebrook has further suggested that all language is ironic as it is potentially unstable.  [This is a concept I will discuss soon.]  It’s not just that we can take any statement as a joke – we can guffaw, or laugh it off – but that we can take any statement as ironical, as having a different meaning that the one stated. This is the benefit of studying humor, as it reveals the limits and possibilities of all communication.

Ramblings

Update to Political, Social and Entertainment Comedians

Posted on by nwilson

Just to keep everyone abreast of the updates I make to the site, I decided I should announce them in separate posts, under Ramblings.

This update is to the post previously titled Social and Entertainment Comedians, which I always knew would need to be expanded.  Here’s the new bit:

Social vs. political

This isn’t the only way to cut it, some make the distinction between social and political. In an interview with Neal Conan on National Public Radio, Lewis Black describes himself as a ‘social’ (or perhaps ‘topical’) comic, not a political comic, because he draws material from whatever is in the news that excites him, from Superbowl half-time performances to the weather.

Hip hop

In an interview with Rolling Stone’s Jesse Serwer about his 2017 Netflix special (7/1/2017), They Can’t Deport Us All, rapper turned comic Chingo Bling talks about his stance on immigration:

A lot of comedians have bits about growing up Mexican, but I feel like [immigration] is one of those things where people think they might hurt endorsements or it might make them seem too political if they talk about it. People are scared to touch it. I like to consider myself a hip-hop comic, somebody that is going to say something of substance. And that’s what I’m working towards.

Summary

Any way you slice it, as Mike Acker of oregonlive.com notes in an interview with Solomon Georgio (7/3/2017) about his upcoming special: “Conscious comedy is on the rise, whether it’s overtly political or social commentary.”

Humor Theories/Stand Up Comedy/Theories About Jokes

Problems with Satiric Irony

Posted on by nwilson

I’m still talking about Bill Maher’s 2007 HBO stand-up showcase, Bill Maher: The Decider, where, after greeting the Boston crowd, Maher begins with a critique of President George W. Bush.  Only 50 seconds later, he comes to this nugget:

The country has fuck-up fatigue.  [Laughter]  Which is what happens when the guy [George W. Bush] fucks up so much that when he fucks up again, people go [Resignedly]  “Well, what do you expect. [Laughter]  He’s a fuck-up.”  And that’s fucked up!  [Laughter]

He has now convinced himself that history will be kind to him.  [Sarcastically]  It’s just US, in the PRESENT who don’t get it.  [Laughing to himself].  He’s the Van Gogh of Presidents, you know, not appreciated in THIS lifetime but…

I swear to god a couple of weeks ago he was defending his legacy and he said [in imitation of George W. Bush], “They’re still debating our first President.”  No they’re not.  Who’s debating whether George Washington was a good President?  He’s on the one.  [Laughter]  He’s on Mount Rushmore. [Laughing himself]  They named the capitol after him – I think the jury is in on this guy.  I do.  [Laughter and applause]

Stanley Fish’s critique of Booth

As I’ve mentioned earlier, Booth talks about stable ironies easily understood (or “gotten”) by a “reasonable,” “qualified reader” as opposed to unstable ironies that could mean a number of things, and also local ironies, where one must possess specific knowledge as opposed to infinite ironies, which anyone could potentially “get.” Stanley Fish disputes this characterization on the grounds that these binary oppositions – stable/unstable, local/infinite – quickly break down in real life.

First off, who is this “reasonable,” “qualified reader” who can easily decide what the stable, intended meaning is? Is such a reader ever guaranteed? Shouldn’t we bank on the idea that all ironies are potentially unstable? But at the same time, how unstable can they be? Specific people in specific places and times will understand the joke and author in a specific way.

These interpretations, what I call the uptake of the joke, how the joke is taken up by actual people, help ground or fix the number of possible interpretations of the ironic joke. Ultimately, however, I would add that the potential meaning of any joke is fixed by the text of the joke itself – not its audience or context, both of which will change over time; however, in any context with any audience, there are only so many possible interpretations.

Further, the differentiation between local and infinite irony has at its heart an idea that some things require specific information, and other things everyone knows, a concept that is problematic for many cultural scholars. Is there an infinite irony that crosses all borders, languages, ethnic groups and religions? Probably not; to some extent, all irony is probably local.  At the same time, can’t any local example be taken up to display broader, universal themes? Probably, if thought about in a particular way.

If, as Colebrook says, irony since Socrates “is the resistance to a single fixed point of view” (80), then it cannot be truly stable and limited.  However, it must be capable of being understood from particular points of view, so it cannot be truly unstable or infinite.  It must be anchored to be meaningful, but expansive to be ironical.

Unreliable strategies

Lisa Gring-Pemble and Martha Solomon Watson believe the rhetoric of verbal irony as a discrepancy between two (or more) possible meanings, when used for satire is self-defeating.  Using Booth’s model to examine satiric irony, these scholars note that it is more likely for different audiences to reach quite different conclusions about the text and still be amused.  In this sense, these texts are polyvalent, affording one the opportunity to apply different values and thus choose the object of the humor.  Thus Gring-Pemble and Watson find that satiric irony is an ineffective rhetorical strategy because “the audience can laugh at the humorous elements in the ironic discourse but reject the disparagement that is its goal” (138).

Other reasons to laugh

For instance, though we may recognize Maher’s attempt to ridicule the President, we can laugh at his “dick joke”: the repeated use of the work “fuck” and the reference to the President as a “fuck-up.”  This is classic Relief theory, though we could also feel Superior to those who are “fuck ups.” We could also find its usage unexpected and therefore Incongruous.

We also can laugh at Maher’s wit evidenced by the reference to Van Gogh – it’s a novel connection, kind of artsy and nerdy, and we weren’t expecting it.  Thus Incongruity theory more squarely enters the discussion.

We may just laugh at Maher’s impersonation of Bush, which some might think is a fairly accurate caricature. Or we may laugh because we think the caricature is hyperbolic and untrue, it’s a reductio ad absurdum. In both of these we might find more Incongruity, and perhaps more Superiority.

Or we may find the President’s own favorable comparison of himself to George Washington laughable (even if we like Bush) – and this is not to say that a comparison with a more modestly influential president is not warranted. Here we could link in all three theories.

Or perhaps we can note how Maher structured the argument to be parallel to the old “borrowed kettle” joke that Freud and Zizek reference, thus casting Bush as a laughable figure who uses contradictory arguments.

Kettle logic

Briefly, when confronted with having borrowed and damaged a kettle, the borrower responds:

  1. Either I never borrowed a kettle, or
  2. I returned it to you unbroken, or
  3. The kettle was damaged when I borrowed it.

The humor stems from the fact that in trying to cover all his bases, the borrower’s arguments negate one another – you said you never borrowed it, now you’re saying you did, and why would you borrow a broken kettle? It makes no sense.  This form of humor is sometimes referred to as literary irony (Mueke).

As Maher would have it, Bush’s logic runs thusly:

  1. Either I am not a fuck-up (or not thought to be a fuck-up), or
  2. History will prove that I was not a fuck-up (those in the future will not think I was a fuck-up), or
  3. Even great presidents are forever thought by some to be fuck-ups (I will always be thought by some to be a fuck-up).

In casting Bush in this way, Maher reduces Bush’s arguments to an absurd level (another reductio ad absurdum), and we can derive humor from the wit of this reduction (not just from a reduced Bush).  This also allows fans of Bush an “out,” in that it does not rule out arguments whereby Bush can escape the title of “fuck-up.” Maher isn’t covering all possible arguments, just the ones that support his point, and that may not convince the unconvinced.

Summary

What these various readings display is that readers don’t have to treat a text as stable, though it never becomes completely unstable.  To a certain extent, they can apply local knowledge or expand their understanding to larger contexts, and they can find (or fail to find) humor in a number of different places, even if they “get” the satirical intent.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

References:

Booth, Wayne C.  The Rhetoric of Irony.  Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1975.

Ceccarelli, Leah.  “Polysemy: Multiple Meanings in Rhetorical Criticism.”  Quarterly Journal of Speech 84 (1998): 395-415.

Colebrook, Claire. Irony. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Fish, Stanley. “Short People Got No Reason to Live: Reading Irony.” Daedalus, 112, 1998: 175-191.

Gilbert, Joanne.  Performing Marginality: Humor, Gender and Cultural Critique. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University, 2004.

Gournelos, Ted. “Irony, Community, and the Intelligent Design Debate in South Park and The Simpsons.” Electronic Journal of Communication, 18 (2, 3 & 4), 2008: 1-18.

Gring-Pemble, Lisa and Martha Solomon Watson.  “The Rhetorical Limits of Satire: An Analysis of James Finn Garner’s Politically Correct Bedtime Stories.”  Quarterly Journal of Speech 89.2 (2003): 132-53.

Maher, Bill. Bill Maher: The Decider.  Original air date 21 July, 2007.  New York: Home Box Office.  Available (in 8 parts).  Retrieved 30 December, 2007.

Mueke, D. C.  The Compass of Irony. London: Methuen and Company LTD., 1969.

Wilson, Nathan. Was That Supposed to be Funny? A Rhetorical Analysis of Politics, Problems and Contradictions in Contemporary Stand-Up Comedy. Dissertation in partial completion of the Ph.D. August, 2008.

Humor Theories/Stand Up Comedy/Theories About Jokes

Satiric Irony and Litige

Posted on by nwilson

To continue with Bill Maher’s 2007 HBO stand-up showcase, Bill Maher: The Decider, I’ve indicated the part after he greets the Boston crowd, where Maher begins with a critique of President George W. Bush.  Only 50 seconds later, he comes to this nugget:

The country has fuck-up fatigue.  [Laughter]  Which is what happens when the guy [George W. Bush] fucks up so much that when he fucks up again, people go [Resignedly]  “Well, what do you expect. [Laughter]  He’s a fuck-up.”  And that’s fucked up!  [Laughter]

He has now convinced himself that history will be kind to him.  [Sarcastically]  It’s just US, in the PRESENT who don’t get it.  [Laughing to himself].  He’s the Van Gogh of Presidents, you know, not appreciated in THIS lifetime but…

I swear to god a couple of weeks ago he was defending his legacy and he said [in imitation of George W. Bush], “They’re still debating our first President.”  No they’re not.  Who’s debating whether George Washington was a good President?  He’s on the one.  [Laughter]  He’s on Mount Rushmore. [Laughing himself]  They named the capitol after him – I think the jury is in on this guy.  I do.  [Laughter and applause]

Tearing this bit apart using Wayne Booth’s model of verbal irony, we can see that in his second point, Maher uses irony satirically (in the form of sarcasm): that history will be kind to President Bush.

He states – with the President – that we don’t “get it,” comparing Bush to Van Gogh, a great artist who was unappreciated (and thought crazy by some) in his own time, but who, via his works, attained immortality. He signals his ironic intention in the set up, but also through emphasis on specific words (e.g. “It’s just US, in the PRESENT who don’t get it… [Bush is] not appreciated in THIS lifetime”) and through his own laughter at the statements while stating them. Thus Maher seems to be effective in both stating one thing and signaling that it means something else, and the end result is to make Bush look ridiculous, as I’ve indicated.

Litige

However, the problem with this interpretation is that it presupposes that dispute resolution will take place via litigation or litige, “a dispute where both parties articulate their claims in a language they mutually share with a court or judge whose legitimacy they both recognize,” in which “the decorum of the court is known and respected by both parties, and the judgment imposes closure” (Charland, 221-22).

This tradition of litige is commonly inferred whenever we talk, including when we tell jokes.  Generally, we think that everyone communicates like we do, and therefore, everyone knows exactly what a person means when they say something, either because of the words they’ve chosen or the way they say it – we know how they’re supposed to act, the decorum, and therefore we can all judge the way they did act.

If only it were that simple.

Above, Charland’s description requires shared language, shared decorum and a shared estimation of and respect for authority. These elements of litige are fairly well recognized as requirements in not only satire, but basic conceptions of irony as well. Ettema and Glasser admit that for the journalist’s sense of outrage to shine through when using irony, the writer and reader must share a particular moral frame and vocabulary. Booth argues that irony requires a tremendous amount of shared meaning and the fact that a shared sense of irony can occur at all is astonishing. These authors seem to recognize that for irony to be received, all involved must engage in the logic of litige.

In this case, Maher seems to be stating his case in transparent language, which he expects to evoke the proper meaning and therefore judgment from the audience. However, [as I’ll describe soon,] we can’t easily rely on litige when we’re trying to both move people politically, and at the same time say something funny. A particular problem for comics is authorial intent – that they are speaking plainly and mean what they say; that they are bona fide – when we know that they’re supposed to be just joking. But strangely, even if we grant that they mean what they say, it does not ensure the message will have any effect. The process of irony itself can affect the reception and clarity of the message. We might read Maher’s satire as ironic [as I’ll describe tomorrow].

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

References:

Booth, Wayne C.  The Rhetoric of Irony.  Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1975.

Charland, Maurice.  “Property and Propriety: Rhetoric, Justice, and Lyotard’s Différend.”  Judgment Calls: Rhetoric, Politics, and Indeterminancy.  Ed. John M. Sloop and James P. McDaniel.  Boulder, CO: Westview, 1998. 220-36.

Ettema, James S. and Theodore L. Glasser. Custodians of Conscience: Investigative Journalism and Public Virtue.  New York: Columbia University Press, 1998.

Freud, Sigmund. Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious. 1905. Trans. James Strachey. New York: W.W. Norton, 1963.

Lyotard, Jean François.  The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge.  Trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi.  Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 1984/2002.

—.  The Différend.  Trans. George Van Den Abeele.  Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 1988.

—.  “Lessons in Paganism.”  The Lyotard Reader.  Ed. Andrew Benjamin.  Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1989/1993. 122-154.

Maher, Bill. Bill Maher: The Decider.  Original air date 21 July, 2007.  New York: Home Box Office.  Available (in 8 parts).  Retrieved 30 December, 2007.

Mueke, D. C.  The Compass of Irony. London: Methuen and Company LTD., 1969.

Wilson, Nathan. Was That Supposed to be Funny? A Rhetorical Analysis of Politics, Problems and Contradictions in Contemporary Stand-Up Comedy. Dissertation in partial completion of the Ph.D. August, 2008.

Humor Theories/Stand Up Comedy/Theories About Jokes

Satire (and Litige)

Posted on by nwilson

In his 2007 HBO stand-up showcase, Bill Maher: The Decider, after greeting the Boston crowd, Maher begins with a critique of President George W. Bush.  Only 50 seconds later, he comes to this nugget:

The country has fuck-up fatigue.  [Laughter]  Which is what happens when the guy [George W. Bush] fucks up so much that when he fucks up again, people go [Resignedly]  “Well, what do you expect. [Laughter]  He’s a fuck-up.”  And that’s fucked up!  [Laughter]

He has now convinced himself that history will be kind to him.  [Sarcastically]  It’s just US, in the PRESENT who don’t get it.  [Laughing to himself].  He’s the Van Gogh of Presidents, you know, not appreciated in THIS lifetime but…

I swear to god a couple of weeks ago he was defending his legacy and he said [in imitation of George W. Bush], “They’re still debating our first President.”  No they’re not.  Who’s debating whether George Washington was a good President?  He’s on the one.  [Laughter]  He’s on Mount Rushmore. [Laughing himself]  They named the capitol after him – I think the jury is in on this guy.  I do.  [Laughter and applause]

[I’ll use this example for the next couple of days, as it is good for making a couple of key points.] This is clearly an attempt at satire, defined as a directed effort to correct, censure or ridicule, to bring about contempt or derision and therefore to enforce the status quo (Cuddon; Gring-Pemble and Watson; Morner and Rausch).

Moreover, as Brian Raftery of Wired.com (11/11/2016) states,

The most effective political satire doesn’t merely affirm our viewpoints; instead, it digs into *why* we feel the way we do, and lets it loose our frustrations at a volume we’re either too cowed or confused to muster on our own.

Satire is thus marked by a teleological (or end) goal that its cousins, irony and parody, may lack–it’s supposed to enforce the status quo.  Because satire has a goal other than humor, it is considered the most politically active of the humorous forms.  Because of its connection to ridicule, contempt and derision, it is intimately linked to theories of superiority, especially in its classic, system maintenance function.

Maher is pretty clear in his conviction that the President doesn’t just make mistakes, but is characterized by making mistakes; that he is less competent than we, the audience, should expect him to be.  Maher is also clear in indicating that this assessment is not blinded by proximity; it’s not that we are just too close to the historical moment to appreciate W.  Further, it’s not that all presidents are controversial figures, debated for all time.  The jury is in on George Washington, and it may also be in on George W.

Taken together, these humorous arguments seem to ridicule Bush in order to bring about our derision, ultimately aimed at returning us to a state of common sense when choosing our next leader. Maybe it worked and we got Obama.

Litige

However, the urge to determine the exact meaning, as I’ve done above, stem from what Jean-François Lyotard calls rhetoric’s republican roots–as coming from the citizens in the Republic, as opposed to the pagans outside of it.  This republican system presupposes that dispute resolution will take place via litigation or litige (“Lessons”). Maurice Charland describes litige as “a dispute where both parties articulate their claims in a language they mutually share with a court or judge whose legitimacy they both recognize,” in which “the decorum of the court is known and respected by both parties, and the judgment imposes closure” (221-22). We have to share a perspective with Maher, and recognize his language as critique.

Other possibilities

However, as Gring-Pemble and Watson point out, humorous satirical texts often include other forms of humor; therefore “getting” (let alone agreeing with) the satire is not necessary to finding humor.  Perhaps most notably, we can also read the text ironically.

Satire is sometimes thought to be a subset of verbal irony and sometimes the superior term.  The distinction is problematic because one can employ irony for satiric ends, yet this is not the full scope of irony; however, one can also employ satire ironically, that is to say, speak satirically while meaning something different [I’ll have more to say on each of these in the coming days].  Such distinctions between satiric irony and ironic satire at some point become moot to the extent that they are always potentially present and yet never guaranteed uptake by any particular audience.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

References:

Charland, Maurice.  “Property and Propriety: Rhetoric, Justice, and Lyotard’s Différend.”  Judgment Calls: Rhetoric, Politics, and Indeterminancy.  Ed. John M. Sloop and James P. McDaniel.  Boulder, CO: Westview, 1998. 220-36.

Cuddon, J.A.  A Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory.  4th ed.  Rev. C.E.  Preston.  Williston, VT: Blackwell, 1998.

Gring-Pemble, Lisa and Martha Solomon Watson.  “The Rhetorical Limits of Satire: An Analysis of James Finn Garner’s Politically Correct Bedtime Stories.”  Quarterly Journal of Speech 89.2 (2003): 132-53.

Lyotard, Jean François.  The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge.  Trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi.  Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 1984/2002.

—.  The Différend.  Trans. George Van Den Abeele.  Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 1988.

—.  “Lessons in Paganism.”  The Lyotard Reader.  Ed. Andrew Benjamin.  Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1989/1993. 122-154.

Maher, Bill. Bill Maher: The Decider.  Original air date 21 July, 2007.  New York: Home Box Office.  Available (in 8 parts).  Retrieved 30 December, 2007.

Morner, Kathleen and Ralph Rausch.  “Satire.”  Dictionary of Literary Terms.  Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company, 1991. 194.

Wilson, Nathan. Was That Supposed to be Funny? A Rhetorical Analysis of Politics, Problems and Contradictions in Contemporary Stand-Up Comedy. Dissertation in partial completion of the Ph.D. August, 2008.