Only Joking — A Better Read than Morreall

     I greatly enjoyed the readings from Only Joking. What I found particularly interesting was reading about the different interpretations of the theories of humor.

     Interpreting the superiority theory as having joke winners and losers is a cool way to look at things. I think in the general sense of a superiority theory joke, there are winners and losers. The winners are the people who consider themselves superior and the losers are the inferior people. However, how do you decide who wins? The author makes us question this. In a riddle, the joke-teller outwits the audience, so he or she is superior to audience members; therefore, the joke-teller wins, right? Maybe not.

     What is winning? The superiority theory postulates that the winning party is the one who is laughing at the losing party. This means that winning equals laughter. But if it takes audience members longer to understand the riddle than the joke-teller, and when they finally get the joke and laugh, do they win or lose? The audience members get the reward of winning (the laughter), but they’re also the butt of the joke (the losers). Similarly, if the joke-teller outwits the audience by telling a riddle nobody can understand, his or her intellect is superior to that of audience members’. This means that the joke-teller technically wins, but doesn’t receive the reward of winning by people laughing at his joke (so he or she kind of loses too). Does the superiority theory allow one party to win and lose at the same time? I think that’s a hole in the theory that nobody has quite patched up yet.

     I think Freud’s interpretation of the relief theory is a bunch of bull. The man has some interesting psychological theories, but there’s a point where he pushes them too far. He reached that point by trying to relate most types of humor to the relief of sexual tension. I think the relief theory can be applied to any type of negative energy that a person has built up. We’ve all heard of comic relief. It’s a concept that applies to all types of frustration, from anger to sadness. The fact that Freud just tries to make it all about sex says more about him than the relief theory, I think.

     Only Joking was a good read. Although I question the accuracy of some of the humor theories presented, I appreciate reading the different points of view. I not only enjoyed the content of the reading, but I also enjoyed the manner in which it was presented. The author turns out to be pretty sassy throughout the reading, which is something I greatly enjoyed. I liked the author’s sarcastic and sometimes cynical sense of humor throughout all the chapters, and often found myself either laughing or shocked into silence at what was just said.

     This was definitely a more interesting and entertaining way to learn about the theories of humor. Morreall was very dry and textbook-like. The prose of this piece flows much better. The only thing that I think could’ve made this reading better would’ve been the opportunity to read it alongside or right after Morreall for a direct comparison and class discussion.