| Title | : | The Humor Code: A Global Search for What Makes Things Funny |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 1451665415 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9781451665413 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Hardcover |
| Number of Pages | : | 239 |
| Publication | : | First published April 1, 2014 |
Two guys. 19 experiments. Five continents. 91,000 miles. And a book that will forever change the way you think about humor.
The Humor Code: A Global Search for What Makes Things Funny Reviews
-
Thanks to GoodReads First Reads for a free copy of the book in exchange for my honest review.
The Humor Code is the journalistic account of a professor and a journalist traipsing about the world in search of what makes things funny. Their basic questions aim to identify the rules that make people, jokes, performances, situations, and cartoons funny. They also explore the capacity of humans to laugh and the conditions that allow for such a reaction.
Joel Warner, the journalist part of the duo, is a good writer with a keen eye for detail. He is also the less excitable of the pair, making him the perfect outsider to their outsider adventures, and hence, as per their theory of comedy, he is in the best place to identify violations and present them in a benevolent frame, which makes for some very funny moments in the book.
Peter McGraw, the professor, is very enthusiastic and willing to put himself in the most uncomfortable and laughable situations for the sake of his research. He also has a very good sense of humor (but what makes me say that? aha!) and cracks a good many jokes as they travel from Japan to the Amazons to LA. His main theory of what makes things funny is "the benevolent violation" theory (well, a hypothesis, is what I would call it), which models very many types of funny-ness around the world pretty well. Basically, the book argues that for something to be funny it needs to have a violation that is presented in a way that the person who is supposed to laugh finds it harmless. They test out this hypothesis in different ways and they also learn about the various types of humor cultures, joke generation methods, stand-up routines, and the like to see if these things that make the world laugh fit their model. They also try to find out the limits of the violations that are allowed, that is, when a comic or cartoon goes "too far" and stops being funny. Along the way, they ask whether women are really less funny than men, whether extremely bad situations suppress humor or bring it out more, and whether it is possible to make things funnier without making them more offensive.
Together the professor and the journalist cover stand-up comedy, improv, cartoons, clowning, comedy schools, satire, and more, and they meet famous comedians, the editor of the New Yorker cartoons, the head of the Japanese comedy empire, Patch Adams, the cast of the only satirical TV show in Palestine. All in all, they find humor in places ranging from one of the least religious and happiest countries in the world (Denmark) to the occupied territories of Palestine to the impoverished slums of Peru.
They start and end their year with Peter doing a stand-up routine. Applying all the things they learned about humor and what makes things funny, and with practice, we witness Peter become a pretty good comic from his humble beginnings as a mildly funny professor. The final routine is rather funny, and manages to get the audience to laugh a lot, a huge improvement over the performance at the beginning of the year.
My only complaint with the book is the way it is organized. Wagner and McGraw go to places with particular questions in mind, so each chapter is dedicated to that trip and question. Within each chapter they explore the main question in that locale, but obviously other questions arise, and so Wagner takes short digressions to explore those questions, sometimes with historical research of that particular question. Sometimes this works well, and sometimes it is distracting, and sometimes I wondered if this subject could be explored a bit more rather than remaining in the sidelines.
Recommended for those who like fried octopus balls (ha!), stand-up comedy, and caricatures. -
Occasionally, while mired in the middle of some writing some turgid paper on the economic ramifications Treaty of Maastricht or an equally-engaging area of the dismal science I would get distracted and get creative with my queries in my school's academic journal database. I would look for strange articles about football (turns out there are quite a lot) in hopes of avoiding my mind from completely going numb. I quickly reached the conclusion was that despite the best efforts of econ professors everywhere to dissuade me of the notion, academics sometimes actually studied interesting topics. Certain fields have generated a considerable amount of volume, and it turns out that the field of humor studies is no different. In The Humor Code: A Global Search for What Makes Things Funny, a writer published in Wired, The Boston Globe, and Grantland teams up with a marketing and psychology professor to identify the scientific, sociological, and cultural factors behind what we find humorous. Equal parts travelogue and pop-science examination, The Humor Code manages to be an amusing and informative read on what makes us laugh.
The book grew out of a series of articles Warner wrote about McGraw including a feature in Wired and the book reads like an extended magazine article. Thankfully, there is enough substantive material for the book to succeed with the extended format. While McGraw and Warner are both listed as authors, it appears that the journalist Warner is the one behind the keyboard chronicling the pair's exploits.
Warner and McGraw traverse the globe to codify the elusive concept of humor. They visit locales such as Tanzania (to research the great 1962 Tanganyika Laughter Epidemic, Japan (to examine those ridiculous game shows where many comedians act as contestant), and Scandinavia (investigating the fallout from the Muhammad comics). Closer to home, the authors also attempt to determine how to win the New Yorker caption contest and consult with some strange characters including Lisette St. Claire, the "laughter queen of Los Angeles." Their journey culminates in McGraw attempting to apply his learnings by performing at the Just for Laughs comedy festival in Montreal.
The Humor Code also contains a bit of intellectual heft and reviews several items from the surprisingly abundant volume of humor research. McGraw is at the vanguard of the field as the direct of the Humor Research Lab (HuRL) and is a proponent of the "benign violation" hypothesis of humor, which strikes me as intriguing yet not entirely airtight (though my economics background puts me firmly within a glass house in that regard). The book covers studies about whether Democrats are funnier than Republicans and even conducts some original research, such as analyzing New Yorker caption contest winners. These segments were the highlights of the book for me and helped The Humor Code become more than a collection of fascinating and odd anecdotes about their travels.
I found The Humor Code to be a very enjoyable and fun read. It probably wont make you any funnier (which is not the book's intent in the first place) but it will yield some fascinating insights and strange anecdotes about global humor. The book has a light feel and despite a few weak sections and disappointments (such as a rather wasted interview opportunity with Louis C.K.) it is one of my favorite books of 2014 thus far and highly recommended for anyone interested in psychology or what makes things funny.
In Sum
The Humor Code is an original, engaging, and oftentimes illuminating pop psychology book about what makes us laugh and why. Recommended for those seeking a light science read with some observations on global culture and, of course, humor.
8.5/10 -
This review might be a tad rambling but so is the book so that is fair. I am very split in my mind about this book 2 stars or 3? Why doesn't GR allow 2.5 stars dammit! Okay I ended up giving it three because while the end result didn't match my expectations or what the authors set out to do it was a worthy attempt and their hearts were in the right place.
Pros: I like the main author (not sure why Peter McGraw is listed as first author here, the book is written in first person narrative from Joel Warner's perspective). I like, in particular, his honesty about the process and the experiences. When Peter fails at his stand-up, Joel doesn't sugar coat it.
I like the intent - test Peter's hypothesis on humour the Benevolent-Violation hypothesis (which is really just the Incongruity hypothesis with the emphasis that the incongruity needs to be non-threatening. I like the idea to visit places around the world to look at humour around the world: Japan, Palestine, Israel, Africa, Peru, New York, Denmark and to insert themselves into the situations so they gain first hand understanding.
I like the bookends of seeing Peter on stage for the first time and a year (?) later at Just for Laughs.
But there were things that didn't sit well with me and frustrated me. Let's start off with the theory (it's not really a theory because it has never been tested but a lot of people like Peter misuse the word "theory") the book was supposed to be testing. It really didn't test it at all. And there was no scientific inquiry into it. No research, no tests which could falsify the hypothesis, in fact the premise of the book seems to be abandoned after the first chapter. He doesn't even use the theory to help develop his stand-up routine. He uses some of the stuff he learned over the year to insert into the act. And let's be clear - like all humour "theories" it falls short. In fact, Louis C.K. gets it right in one sentence in the world's shortest interview (because Peter asks like an ass and gets thrown out of Louis' hotel room - is he really a professor or a 5 year old I am left to constantly wonder) - after being presented with McGraw's theory he says "It's not that simple". I've read a lot of books on the psychology of humour and no one theory will ever get it right because things like beauty, love, comedy are to riddled with individual differences and thousands of variables to ever distill in one theory.
Another big problem I have is the forgotten premise of getting Peter to use science to develop a stand up act. We never see it happen. Yes, he gets more laughs at the end of the year but we don't see the process of why that happens. at lest Joel is honest and admits to get better you need to practice and Peter never did that. But then why use that as the premise to the book? Joel also admits the real "science" to humour is trying new material in front of a crowd and keeping what works and refining what doesn't.
A smaller problem I have is the way each chapter jumps from new topic to new topic. All the topics ARE interesting: Why is humour in Japan so different; Can there be humour in the most depressing places on Earth, how can "humour" cross the line, how do they pick the New Yorker cartoons? But each interesting topic is only barely touched upon in the most superficial ways and it feels unsatisfying.
Bigger problem - Peter McGraw comes across as an ass all the way through the book. Inappropriate attempts at humour. Misunderstanding of what a theory is. He got a one on one interview with Louis C.K. and asks him how big his penis is and then tells him he most have a small penis if he won't tell him how large it is. What a creep. He's like that embarrassing uncle who thinks he is funny but is really just inappropriate.
Biggest problem - the book never delivers on its title to crack the Humor Code. Although, as I said - no book ever will but I find books written BY comedians and how they describe their processes much more illuminating that this book.
I read this book while preparing to do a lecture on the psychology of humour and I can tell you the book did not help me one bit (thankfully other books did). So as a science book - fail. As an interesting account of a journalist going around the world asking different questions on humour while having an ass of a professor tag along - it was mildly entertaining. -
Many of my friends in the comedy scene have wondered why people who are self-proclaimed to be not all that funny would spend this much time, energy and insight into finding out what is humorous. The result is this book - the perfect example of "those who can't do, teach". And being taught is just as rewarding as doing in this instance. Pete and Joel do a great job of taking you to places and putting real life examples in front of you, while presenting many other studies and cases to back up their arguments. This book is not bogged down with nuances of pop culture, but found many instances where their theory proves true and gave great insight into the facets of humor which have fascinated and perplexed humanity for so long. I give this book 4 stars because I wanted accompanying pictures while reading.... The people they describe and the situations they are in would do well with some additional photographic context.
-
Very few books are able to both teach me something and be interesting and enjoyable to read. But rarely I read a book that not only does so, but also leaves its mark on me. “The humor code” was one of those books.
After reading “The humor code”, I can tell the reason behind my smiles and my laughter. A little part of my brain looks for the benign and the violation part of everything that I find funny. And what amazes me is that the theory this book introduces never fails.
The book is very well written I couldn’t put it down. I believe no one should miss a chance to get entertained and learn at the same time. Therefore, I strongly recommend adding reading “The humor code” to your to do list. -
This rating/review is based on an ARC I got from netgalley.
This book was definitely interesting, but like a lot of “fun” non-fiction I think it got too caught up in a hypothesis. I find my favorite
sciency non-fiction books are
Mary Roach’s. She doesn’t try to prove a point, she just follows her interest. Plus she is actually funny. There were a lot of really interesting tangents, but they weren’t able to flesh them out because they were working towards a narrative. Basically since
Jonah
Lehrer, I have a huge distrust of narrative non-fiction. I also didn’t think a lot of the articles/studies they referenced really served their point.
I would have been a lot more interested in this book if either of the authors were funny. They’re engaging writers, but I find neither author funny. There were even points where I was a bit bored. Basically I wish Mary Roach had written this instead. -
It doesn't pull any punches or get any laughs and has little in the way of great revelations about humor but it is fun to read and not very long... so you might as well read it.
-
The only thing worse than not funny is boring. This book was a rarity for me...it was a book I chose not to finish.
-
RTF
-
A book on humor is a bit dry.
-
I may come back to it another time, but I though I found the topic interesting the way the book was written didn't grab me. I got about halfway through before putting it down.
-
The theory behind The Humor Code is that benign "moral violations" are funny. The example that he gave that set the author off on his research was about a church giving away a hummer which made the class he was teaching laugh. The example was supposed to cause disgust so one student asked why they were laughing instead. He didn't know and now we have this book where you can fall asleep -- I mean find out. Because as interesting as the ideas and travel stories are, I've never read such a dry and boring book about humor.
Right from the introduction, the author mentions books that came before him to explore humor. One that he mentions is called "Leviathan or Matter, Forme, and Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil" that was published in 1651. We must have very different definitions on what humor is because that book sounds dull. Later in the book he even says that "Nobody liked [Peter Sellers] anywhere (pg 98)." Aw sad :( I liked Peter Sellers. Even though I didn't find this book funny at all, there are some things I liked about The Humor Code.
After getting tired of reading so much about humor but not laughing, I would get on YouTube after reading a chapter and try to apply his theory of benign violation to stand-up comedians. It's definitely a new way to see humor that I hadn't thought about before. The definition of the benign violation theory is "when something seems wrong, unsettling or threatening (i.e., a violation), but simultaneously seems okay, acceptable, or safe (i.e., benign). (pg 9)" He gives two strategies for applying this kind of humor. The first one is the Sarah Silverman strategy which makes shocking things like AIDS seem more harmless. The second on is the Seinfeld strategy which points out what is wrong with everyday things that we've accepted as harmless. Sometimes I could see this strategy in the YouTube videos I watched and sometimes I couldn't. Either way, I enjoyed being a little more analytical of why things are funny.
Writing humor is odd. Comedians work really hard to get a subconscious response from people. The author describes writing humor as "if the point of the Sistine Chapel ceiling were to get the Pope to sneeze. (pg 42)" Not an example I would have used, but ok. Point taken.
Here are some vague and random tips on how to be funny:
Fuse two frames of reference that have nothing to do with each other
Be clever so you can have lots of frames of reference to work with
I found the chapters on the dark side of humor and the ability of humor to undermine power structures really interesting. I was disappointed in the chapter about Japanese humor which explained absolutely nothing about it other than it's the kind of humor you have to be there to get. The author really didn't need an entire long and tedious chapter to tell us that. I also didn't see the point of the extremely awkward and short interview with Louis CK. And the chapter about finding the laughing disease in Africa that they never actually found made my entire book club mad. The consensus from my book club was that it would have made a great TED talk or podcast episode but it was pretty boring as a book. -
(click the image below to watch the video review)
I’ve read a lot of comedy studies books. Well, three, but that’s a lot compared to most people, because most people aren’t sadists.
Luckily, this book isn’t like most humor studies books. This one is readable. It’s interesting. It actually contributes to an overall better understanding of, wait for it, what makes things funny (appropriate subtitles are all the rage right now). -
A mildly entertaining tour through the humor business including the academic theories that try to dissect comedy to see what really makes it work. The twist on the theory of humor as researched by the academic co author Pete McGraw amounts to successful comedy relying on the idea of a benign violation of norms. Hmmm....I wasn't sold on this and the theory's strength isn't seriously tested but rather brought up very now and then somewhat incidentally to measure up against all the unusual comedic situations that the authors expose themselves to in the course of their travels. They explore Palestine, Tanzania, Peru and elsewhere in the course of the book and it is an entertaining ride. This is down to the main writer of the book co author Joel Warner who has crafted a carefully constructed tale from it all. Oddly enough humor researcher Dr McGraw comes across as a bit of a square and all his attempts at humor recorded by Warner in the book fall dully flat.
-
Peter McGraw and Joel Warner decided to study what makes something funny. In Pete's words:
“Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process.”
So there wasn't any laughter while listening to this audiobook, and often times it was slow going. However, humor has fascinated me because I love things that are funny, but most of what gets termed "humor" is just stupid to me.
I completely agree with what Joel said:
��Most experts today subscribe to some variations of the incongruity theory, the idea that humor arises when people discover there's an inconsistency between what they expect to happen and what actually happens. Or, as seventeenth-century French philosopher Blaise Pascal put it when he first came up with the concept, "Nothing produces laughter more than a surprising disproportion between that which one expects and that which one sees.”
That said, I don't need to be hit over the head with an inappropriate disproportion! -
Hi so I've read a lot of other comedy books and they felt kind of biased one way or another to stand up. They talked about all the trials and tribulations of doing stand up. I absolutely LOVED this book because the two men (who are not professional comedians by the way) went to five continents and had a very objective point of view about what makes things funny. I would give this book 6 or 7 stars out of 5 if I could because I just thought it was so well researched and offered some very good pointers on how to be funny, and how humor incorporates into our lives. I've taken a lot of comedy classes and loved how they went into all the different kinds of comedy, ie cartoons, improv, stand up, as well as clowning, and other rituals in other countries. LOVED IT!!
-
This book provides some interesting insight into what makes things funny. I like how the author describes their travels across the world trying to understand how different cultures impact humor.
Also liked how they did a lot of comparative analysis of existing theories around humor and how they tried to test their own theory in real world situations. The authors clearly did a lot of groundwork and while the findings aren't really groundbreaking or compelling, they make for an interesting read. The narrative itself is light and humorous in parts. -
Very good. Ideas about why we laugh, different cultures approach to humor, and whether anything is "off limits"...which was funny because I caught a Ricky Gervais special right after finishing this book that definitely pushed the limits.
-
يتحدث الكتاب عن نظريات الكوميديا
ويمزج بين النظريات العلمية في الكوميديا واضحاك الاخرين وبين التطبيقات العملية. من خلال رحلة قام بها حول العالم لدراسة تلك النظريات وتطبيقاتها على الواقع -
If you don't love the first few pages, just wait a few more pages and then set yourself on fire because it only gets worse.
-
Here’s a deceptively simple question for you … what makes something funny? If you weren’t able to come up with a good answer don’t feel bad, psychologists, philosophers and scientists have been trying to answer this question for decades and they haven’t made much progress either.
The Humor Code, written by Peter McGraw an associate professor of Marketing and Psychology at the University of Colorado Boulder and journalist Joel Warner is an attempt to unravel the secret of humor. And it just so happens (though this is hardly a coincidence) that one of the authors (McGraw) has a theory of his own that he’s dubbed the ‘benign violation theory’. According to this hypothesis we find something funny when:
1. It violates the way we think the world should work
2. It does so in a way that’s not threatening
The book is basically and extended defense of this idea as the authors travel around the world investigating various aspects of humor and laughter.
My two main take-aways from the book are:
1. That humor is a subject that is poorly understood.
2. That psychologists don’t understand the meaning of the word 'theory'.
Let’s take these in order.
How do we know that our understanding of humor is incomplete? Because no one has managed to program a computer to write good jokes. It sounds trite, but it’s true! If the algorithm behind comedy were completely understood it could be turned into computer code and we’d be surrounded by digital humor. We aren’t and if you want proof simply do a search for “The Joking Computer” and have it write a joke for you. Here’s the one I got:
What kind of an ointment is a boy?
A son - screen.
OMG … If you laughed at that, it was only because it was the stupidest thing you’ve read today.
As an aside, one reason we can be sure that computers are no closer to achieving artificial general intelligence today than they were 50 years ago is because they aren’t at all funny.
Wiki summarizes several theories of humor at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorie...
These broadly fall into two categories:
1. Explanations as to why humor exists (its role in sexual selection or in social situations).
2. Descriptions of what makes something funny (such as something unexpected or surprising, or a benign violation).
Of the two the first seems the more tractable problem. It’s clear that humor serves a social function. People with a good sense of humor are considered smarter and more attractive than those without. Humor might just be the intellectual equivalent of a peacock’s tail.
As for the second, it’s clear that humor falls into broad categories that can be described, but in order for a description to rise to the level of a working theory it would have to have broad explanatory power. Let’s apply the benign violation theory to the following statement:
Yesterday it rained jelly doughnuts.
Does it violate the way we think the world should work? Yes.
Does it do so in a way that is not threatening? Yes (unless you envisioned thousands dying from hyperglycemia).
Is it funny? No. Not in the least.
Here’s another example – the winner of the 2019 Darwin Award:
Rhino poacher killed by elephant and eaten by lions.
Does it violate the way we think the world should work? Yes – hunters are supposed to kill animals, not the other way around.
Does it do so in a way that is not threatening? No – the dude literally passed through the digestive tract of several predators.
Is it funny? It’s fricking hilarious.
So, what can we conclude from this little experiment? The benign violation theory has little explanatory power.
Given the above, why would psychologists use the word 'theory' in this context. It makes no sense. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. Gravitation is a theory, as it evolution by natural selection, both of which are supported by numerous experiments and a mountain of facts. The 'theories' of humor barely rise to the level of ‘untested hypotheses’.
Also, a theory would not only explain known facts; it would also allow scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable. No theory of humor can predict why one joke is funny and another is not.
So, in conclusion … the benign violation theory is not a ‘theory’ at all. Also … it has no explanatory power and makes no testable predictions.
As to the book … I’d characterize it as … uninspired. I think it had the potential to be interesting, or funny, or both, but it wound up being somewhat aimless instead. I think it could have been improved by more science (which was given only a cursory treatment) and/or actual humor and less of the author’s travels. -
http://ensuingchapters.com/2014/03/31...
The Humor Genome Project
A journalist and a scientist walk into a bar… travel the world, return to the lab and come out with what is likely the best book you’ll read all year
by Vince Darcangelo
In my graduate form and technique class, our instructor, Steven Schwartz, devoted a three-hour class period to humor. I was shocked to learn that there was a dearth of comic literature to study.
Why had so few serious writers ventured down that rabbit hole?
“Comedy is not kind,” Schwartz explained to us. “There is blood in comedy, which is why most people shy away from being comic writers.”
Joel Warner and Peter McGraw would agree.
“We’re here to explore the dark side of humor, how comedy can divide and degrade,” they write in their new book, The Humor Code: A Global Search for What Makes Things Funny.
“Here,” in this case, is Denmark, but also Japan, Palestine, Peru and beyond. For more than two years, this odd couple of comedy—Warner a journalist (Westword, Wired, Slate) and McGraw a humor researcher/marketing instructor (at the University of Colorado at Boulder)—traveled the world to learn what incites nasal milk projectiles in other cultures.
Specifically, the intrepid twosome tested whether McGraw’s Benign-Violation Theory (BVT) of humor applied to an international audience.
The theory itself is quite intuitive and elegant in its simplicity: Humor arises from the violation of a norm (be it political, social, personal), but in a way that is recognized as harmless or good-natured (“jk”) by all involved.
The prime illustration is tickling. Taken outside of its traditional context, tickling is a clear violation of personal space, yet it sometimes elicits laughter.
More importantly for the BVT, sometimes it does not.
If a stranger on the bus jabs his fingers in your armpits and begins to wiggle them, the appropriate response is a slap or the tossing of a hot beverage in his face. This is a close encounter of the non-benign kind.
Now, pause for a moment and try to tickle yourself. Go ahead, no judgment. Couldn’t do it, could you? Your fingers go through the motions, but it’s just not the same. That’s because though your intention was benign, it was not a violation of personal space.
Therefore, not funny.
But let your personal tickle monster have at the back of your ear lobes, and you just might cry with laughter. It’s a violation of personal space, but by someone on the guest list—ostensibly with good intentions.
*
So that’s the theory of BVT, how about the application?
For that, Warner and McGraw visit a humor science library in Japan; deliver clown therapy to a Peruvian barrio alongside Patch Adams; interview notorious Danish cartoonists; participate in laughter yoga (yes, that’s a thing); attend comedy festivals; and McGraw even gives stand-up comedy a try in Denver’s toughest room.
That’s a lot to fit into a single book, but you’ll want to read every word. The Humor Code is an engaging blend of science writing, travel writing and narrative nonfiction. This is one of the best books you will read this year, and it is deserving of major awards.
*
Here I’ll pause for a short disclaimer. Let it be noted that Joel Warner is a friend of mine. I have cat-sat for him on occasion, not to mention the numerous times we’ve helped each other stumble home from the Boulder bars at 2 a.m.
For three years, Warner and I were co-workers at an alternative newsweekly in Colorado, and on a daily basis I was witness to his talent, integrity and work ethic. From our earliest days in the newsroom, the editorial team knew he would be writing best-selling books someday.
That day is today.
*
If I had to make comparisons, I would liken The Humor Code to Sam Kean’s The Disappearing Spoon and Eric Weiner’s The Geography of Bliss. Like those two books, the reader comes away knowing more about the topic, and about the world at large, than they would’ve thought when they first cracked the spine—and in a way that makes you laugh as much as you learn.
Mixing the experimental with the anecdotal, here are a few of their discoveries:
■“Japan is a high-context society. The country is so homogenous, so unified in its history and culture, that most zingers don’t need set-ups at all.” (“The United States, on the other hand, is as low context as you can get.”)
■“…A sense of humor is seen as a sign of intelligence, social desirability and overall genetic fitness. In other words, good jokes are a guy’s version of colorful peacock plumes…”
■“We found humor designed to ease people’s pain, a laughter shared by Palestinian street kids and Israeli Holocaust survivors alike.”
The latter observation is the exclamation point to a friendly interaction between a Palestinian shopkeeper and an Israeli policeman. It was a beautiful moment that even had this cynical bastard singing “We Are the World.”
*
But there’s more to humor (and The Humor Code) than just the har-hars and the touchy-feelies. Alongside the camaraderie is the reality of political and cultural blowback. For the tender moments observed in Palestine, there is the reminder that the sketch comedy television show was shut down when it became too controversial. We learn that real life goes on for Patch Adams after his Hollywood ending. There is personal tragedy and, lest we forget, reminders of the embassies and churches that were set on fire, the people who were murdered and those who remain captives in their own homes for fear of their lives because of a newspaper comic.
Yes, because of a newspaper comic.
In a commentary that would do Professor Schwartz proud, Warner and McGraw write:
“We laugh loudest at the most arousing humor attempts, the stuff that’s laced with a bit of danger. So in order to come up with the best comedy, we have to skirt ever closer to the realm of tragedy, hurt and pain. For some people, the result will hit that perfect, hilarious sweet spot. For others, it goes over the line.”
Warner and McGraw aren’t afraid to get their hands dirty, whether they’re mining gallows humor in war zones, dissecting the world’s funniest joke or bombing onstage before a crowd of angry drunks, these guys bravely submerse themselves in the blood sport that is comedy.
They write: “It’s almost as if making people laugh during dark and troubling times is so vital, so crucial, that it outweighs common sense, and maybe even self-preservation.”
Their observations are sharp, insightful and they’re not afraid to explore the breadth of emotions comedy elicits. They’re even bold enough to be funny on five continents.
Their conclusions? Well, you’ll have to read the book for those, but of course, as with all great literature, you’ll soon learn that the joy is in pursuing the question, not necessarily finding a definitive answer.
The journey might take you to some dark places, so be sure to pack a clown nose with your Band-Aids.
And may all your violations be benign. -
Peter McGraw and Joel Warner’s book seeks to identify the ingredients of humour by studying how humour is created, construed and received in various cultures around the world.
While the book does cite existing work in the field of ‘Humour Research’, it doesn’t aim to be a pedagogical document but a journey towards answering some of the most pertinent questions like - What makes up a joke ? Why are certain things funny while other aren’t ? How can humour exist even in war-ridden states ? What are the limits to humour ? How does humour affect us psychologically and physiologically ? - and so on.
While it is easy to dismiss a joke as just a ‘funny quip that makes others laugh’, its origins go way deeper than we realise. Even the simplest jokes may have arisen from decades of cultural conditioning, things that are subconsciously understood by a particular society that may not be apparent to people outside of it. Japanese slapstick comedy for instance is very different from American anti-political humour.
While both nations are developed in their own right, Japanese humour places a certain reverence on its politicians and government while it is completely acceptable to poke fun at the President in America.
The Humor Code is highly engaging, filled with case studies gathered by the writers and their first-hand experience of travelling around the globe to understand humour in various cultures.
From the American comedy clubs to African tribes with laughing sickness to war-ridden Palestine to the provocative Danish cartoons, you are taken on a fascinating journey towards figuring out the formula for humour.
At the end of it all, you cannot definitively say what consitutes humour but you do gain a certain appreciation of why the study of humour is also a study of human history.
