07 Feb 2010
Every day we hear a lot of jokes around us, but we even don’t think how they appeared and why it happens. In this essay I want to talk about jokes and their main features, also we can’t leave without our attention comedies and their interpretations. When we hear word joke, of course, we associate this word with humor and such associative row is normal for every person. People like jokes and try to tell them in everyday life: sometimes it is really funny, but sometimes no. Why it happens in such a way? It is rather interesting question and let’s tries to answer on it.
A person without sense of humor is not able to jest, to tell funny anecdotes and jokes, and such person in general, is very difficult in communication. Did you clash with such in life? What does mean the presence of this sense of humor for you? Is it only understanding, and laughing at stranger jokes in a company…. There are people, talking freely, quietly, always logically, and consistently expounding an idea. I think it will be important to talk about such phrase that “there is no such thing as a joke. There is just the telling of jokes”. As for me it is very disputable question and sometimes it is really true, and I can find a lot of examples for this situation acknowledgement. Now I want to tell you one situation from my life and it will be an example of my words about jokes and the art of telling jokes. For instance, several days ago my friend told me joke and I was laughing on it, because it was new for me, then in two days another friend tell me this joke once again and it wasn’t funny. At first I think that it happened, because I know this joke and to hear once more the same joke it is not funny. Next day I knew that this joke is popular in their company, that’s why they tell me it and when my third friend tried to tell me this joke I was ready to hear it and waiting that it will be bored. Do you believe me that it was not bored? I think no, and I have arguments for you: when my third friend told me once more the same joke I was laughing more than at first time and understand that it is really funny joke. It is not mean that I have no sense of humor and can’t understand jokes from the first time, no it is not in such a way. My third friend told this joke so emotional and with bright colours that it was really very funny. This situation shows me that jokes, even very good can be spoiled by the person who can’t tell it or do it in very boring form. I know people, who can tell even events from everyday life so funny that it seems that this situation was special create to laugh on it.
It is really art to be funny and to tell funny stories and jokes for the audience. A speaker comes running to the humor as instrument of ideas transmission and emotional attitude, assuming that there are his like-minded persons in an audience. An obligatory condition that makes public laugh effective it is strict sense of measure, time and high artistic taste. It is impermissible to jest primitively or not to the point. Inappropriate quip can inflict appearance irreparable harm, and to create sorrowful reputation for a speaker. Using a humorous example or joke, it is necessary to think and about that, as far as an audience geared-up to their perception, whether it is capable to feel salt of humorous example. A fine humor requires preparation of audience usually, otherwise, a joke can not reach the audience, will hang in mid air. The absurd impression is made by the type of speaker, complacently laughing loudly above an own joke.
Returning to the topic of sense of humor I want to explain it using an example of situational humor. Sense of humour is ability of a person to notice their comic sides in the phenomena, emotionally on them answering. Sense of humour is supposed by the presence of positive ideal without which it degenerates in the negative phenomena like pettiness and cynicism. Raskin (1985) wrote: “a humor is an inversion of life. In such a way will be better: a humor is an inversion of good sense. Smile of the mind.” A smile is expression an emotion, in itself emotion, sense. Mind by its nature has no emotion, only logic and facts. Two oppositions – reasonable and perceptible, ice and fire, – generate a humour. We can call it reasonable emotion.
Satire, causticity, sarcasm – concepts are similar, but in them less than from an emotion, anymore from mind. And emotional constituent in them other – wicked. Grin is not smile. And in relation to the object of humor which as though is exposed to original emotional criticism, friendliness is saved.
It is talked, that laugh makes our life more long. It is talked, if a person can laugh, yet not all is lost. But what such is it sense of humor? What does it stand in general? And if does sense of humour for a person (kind, good, clever) absent completely, is it necessary to do some conclusions? And if yes, what?
Is it possible to “teach” a humour? We can teach to understand different science, but with senses all is more difficult. If a man does not have an ear for music, he can master a musical instrument; learn by heart the rules of game and as a result to develop an ear for music. Is it possible to teach a semiliterate a correct letter and competent speech, but is it possible to teach a man to feel a language?
Krichtafovitch (2003) said: “most of the existing researches on humor are full of surface-level conjectures and contain little empirical data. These researches have a severely limited scope and completely ignore the big picture. Some of these researchers surround themselves with fancy terms, or terms they invented themselves in hope of substituting them for a true understanding of the phenomenon of laugh.
Existing empirical studies, in turn, describe valuable insights, but do not provide generalizations which make it possible to explain them.
The study of numerous works and discussions with specialists, professionally studying questions of humor, has led us to the emphatic conclusion that the mechanism of the funny is far from having being understood. A theory of humor, fully, logically, and convincingly revealing its nature, does not as of yet exist.”
An old Italian comedy is remembered “Taming obstinate” with Adriano Celentano. There is a remarkable episode: a hero of Celentano looks a comedy with his familiar, where a man constantly slips on a banana skin and falls. A humor is not too distant, but it is put funnily. A familiar laughs loudly, a hero of Celentano looks a gloomy heavy look both at her and on a screen and tries to understand, what it sees funny. He tries not to feel, but to understand. Efforts are vain, and he simply accepts for an axiom: “if a man slipped on the skin of banana and fallen down, it is funny”. Some time after a familiar slips and over heels flies from a stair, a hero of Celentano laughs and then puzzled sincerely(?), why this reaction is again perceived in bayonets – in fact situation exactly as in a film; why is it then was necessary to laugh, and now – it is impossible? What is a difference in?
In sincerity of this bewilderment I really doubt. Yes, a hero of Celentano is shown as a specific egoist and in general “especially heavy case”, and even so it is difficult to present this impossibility to distinguish a context. It is more simply to present intentional sarcasm, jeer and demonstration of position “in a film there were not reasons for a laugh”.
Difference “funny / not funny” straight depends on a context and ability to feel this difference, play with it, and feel the comic element of situation, rather than just actions as such. Ability to notice “funny moments” in circumferential is necessary “making” senses of humor.
A humor is different. Its most primitive forms – “emotional”: “cake humor” (from the series of throwing of cake in a person, funny falling and etc.) and humor, involved on the relations of chaffs. More chances have the last variant smooth to pass to pettiness, first – in foolishness.
More difficult, refined variants -”reasonable”: situational humour, comedy of positions and, finally, play of the words. However, is and maximum vulgar play of the words, and fine jokes from a “primitive area”.
By the way, combination of words a “primitive humour” contains the not so much negative coloring (area of emotions), how many estimation of level of joke: level of development, necessary in an order to estimate a causticty (area of reason).
Sexual distinctions are in perception of situation – one of popular that for jokes. The American scientists assert that right and reverse: men and women perceive jokes variously. Thus women get more pleasure from indeed amusing lay up. Reason is in that women are more inclined to analyze jokes and expect less, it’s mean that any phrase will be amusing. And in the total anymore glad jokes which indeed showed funny for them. It seems on results research, that men anymore gravitate to the monosyllabic jokes, slogans and aphorisms, and women value amusing histories anymore.
A primitive humour is a humour of “red clown”, based on that “old as the world” and does not require tension of grey cells. For example, comedy of positions the “American pie” primitive, but one’s own way good. Humour on verge of pettiness, but in any way not after a verge. Merrily, amusing, easily. Causes a laugh, but does not induce to the idea. If speech called about “simple” comedies, it is impossible not to remember a concept “French comedy” – it is remarkable easy films with Louis de Funes and Per Rishar. Yes, humour in them not very much distant, but easy and clean, even light in some sense.
Judging about a presence or absence of sense of humor is possible already on that, how a person understands jokes, whether catches the comic element of situation, whether can laugh above a joke, directed not only in a stranger but also in own address.
All, related to the humor, more than relatively. Film “Bridget Jones’ Diary”- funny and easy on a background of the book which it was taken on, and looks little bit foolish.
Absence or lack of sense of humour testifies both to the reducing emotional level (non-acceptance of “simple” jokes as such) and about insufficient intellectual development of personality (lack of ability to understand the situational humor, play of the words etc.). In first case a man “makes” a face, as considers that an interlocutor said foolishness, in the second – often suspects in the incomprehensible joke or a jeer on the own address. In both cases it is necessary to exclude from intercourse any hint on a humor – in order to avoid misunderstanding. That does intercourse more tense. In fact however much sense of humour is remarkable sense…
As a conclusion I want to say that jokes’ telling is an art and maybe it even a talent. Not every person can find funny in different situations and tell them so brightly that you will laugh on them with great pleasure. Sense of humour is very important part of our life and as we see from examples many comedies has own structure to make us laugh and show situational humor. Of course, the contents of the joke play a big role, but the good content is not enough for the joke to be successful.
There were many questions in this work and I believe that answers were found. Krichtafovitch (2003) observes: “the following statements, which we call – 13 Theses. The reader won’t find anything new in them. These theses are, as a matter of fact, borrowed from existing works and have undergone only the slightest rephrasing. An overwhelming majority of the scholars would agree with them:
1. Humor is an innate phenomenon, and plays an essential role in the survival of the species.
2. Humor is not the most complex, but one of the most primitive of emotions. There are evidences that humor is innate in primates and other animals.
3. Smiles, laughter, exploding with mirth, brought by a wit, are all expressions of pleasure.
4. Any joke is characterized by certain illogicality, a “shining contradiction”, a riddle, separating it from the usual logical thought.
5. Pleasure from humor is reached from gaining either
a. superiority over another, or
b. intellectual triumph from solving the riddle, thus…
6. “A keen word said twice becomes dull.” (Alexander Pushkin)
7. An audience reacts more enthusiastically to jokes if it is in a good mood.
8. An orator laughs at a joke he knows well with greater pleasure than the audience.
9. Humor is perceived differently (frequently with opposite signs) by the joker and the audience, and the person or persons being ridiculed; by the “aggressor” and his listeners on one side, and the “object of aggression” on the other.
10. A well-done joke can elevate or offend a person to whom it’s addressed more so than a flat joke.
11. Humor is a social phenomenon, an intellectual weapon. It doesn’t exist outside of the human factor. Humor is a weapon of aggression in the strong, and fulfills a defensive function in the weak.
12. The greatest effect is reached if the time spent solving the “riddle” is small.
13. For the best apprehension of the joke, the listener should be prepared (forewarned). “
References:
Boyle GJ, Joss-Reid JM. (2004). Relationship of humour to health: a psychometric investigation. Br J Health Psychol 9(Pt 1):51-66
Krichtafovitch, Igor. (2003) Humor Theory: Formula of Laughter
Rapp, Albert. (1951). The Origin of Wit and Humor. New York: Dutton
Raskin, Victor. (1985). Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht: Reidel
Thorson JA, Powell FC. (2001). Undertakers’ sense of humor. Psychol Rep. 89(1): 175—176.
http://www.humortheory.com
http://www.lebed.com/HumorTheory/HumorTheoryfinal1.htm
Custom essay writing service Essay-911.com. Buy essays!
Tags: Free Essay, Media Research Essay
