I find the theory of comedy as a benign violation of expectations to be the most parsimonious however I think it links very well with this idea of crossing lack with excess: so I would now say comedy (think comic relief) is a benign violation of expectations: particularly the expectations surrounding lack and excess.
I am intrigued by a small detail here, which I don't know if it was accidental... The use of 'can' laughter after the jokes. (I think it was used three times). Not only they are three different versions (estranging in itself), but all of them are so - let's say - artificial that cannot have another effect, but create some sort of critical distance from merely laughing with the joke, or perhaps, interrupt some sort of interpassivity... Hmmm... am I wrong?
Yes, I think that it does interrupt interpassivity. I meant that canned laughter as another joke, something out of proportion with the expected response to the jokes.
Thanks Todd, I enjoyed wathing your video. Your theory that comedy emerges through the intersection of lack and excess is interesting. In fact, I am wondering if the commic effect produced by this intersection would not be created by a momentary illusion that the lack no longer exists, making the subject believes that the lack is running out for a short period of time. This would momentarily release psychic energy that makes him laugh.
That's an interesting idea and fits, more or less, with Freud's theory. But I think if one isn't aware of lack, one cannot laugh. I can't think of a comic moment where lack wasn't totally apparent.
Interesting theory, but if you swap "comedy" with, say, "romance" or "action film," everything you said still makes sense. Whenever we try to express anything outside of pragmatic matters, we end up in this intersection of lack and excess. Imagine a bell curve where the middle area, within one standard deviation, is where most of our communication takes place, like when we conduct business or teach in a classroom. But, we cannot express everything within this area, so the area to the left would be "lack," and the area to the right would be "excess." Whenever we try to express ourselves artistically, emotionally, and philosophically, we traverse these areas. The reason the entertainment industry is predominantly liberal is no surprise from this point of view. Liberals are constantly trying to push our society to expand the middle area (stretch the standard deviation), whereas conservatives are trying to moderate that pressure. Since the latter group tries to stay within the middle area (as an overreaction to liberal pressure), everything they say becomes business-like. To say anything interesting, we have no choice but to go beyond the standard deviation.
Can I ask a question about conservative comedy? In the UK, we seem to have a problem with political comedy TV shows (such as Have I Got News For You) which, even though they ruthlessly mock all politicians and deploy all manner of puns, seem only to reinforce the existing "beautiful order" (to borrow a phrase from Samo Tomsic) of the existing system. They seem to take on a role of the court jester in order to maintain the coherence of the court. Is this because although, through their relentless mocking they circulate around the system's lack, they don't react excessively enough? I hope you can shed some light on this.
I think the problem is in this case the figure telling the joke. The joke must also reveal the teller as divided and subject to contradiction. But many instances of political comedy--I don't know the ones you are referring to--preserve the teller from being riven by the contradiction that is visible in the target of the joke. When one tells a joke from a safe position, I think the joke necessarily functions in a conservative way.
I feel like word/language jokes are more about the sheer surprise of the observation. It's kind of hard to find any form of lack or excess in the idea of a bar tender not charging a Neutron.
The ambiguity of the signifier is what makes possible the surprising observation or juxtaposition that is made in (the joke containing) wordplay. The signifier is ambigous because it lacks stable referent and is context dependent. The LACK of stable correspondence between words and things creates EXCESS of words and meaning. But in the case of wordplay, to be precise, what is actually ambiguous is the phoneme because it functions as two entirely different signifiers.
Todd, doing the dishes and cleaning the house I watched Bridget Jones Diary I thought about you and your understandings of comedy and contradiction. I don't know if youve seen it, but I think you would like it.
in this sense, doesn't capitalism become a joke itself once we realize that it is based on excess (the limitless creation of capital, eternal growth of the economy, continuous fetishist enjoyment of surplus value, etc.) which is entirely built upon its lack (the failure to recognize the limits of the availability of resources, presenting itself as a whole master signifier, etc. )? .. somehow I still don't have to laugh though
This is wonderful !
Excellent video. I think a dialogue with Zupancic's book on comedy would be of high value here. Thank you so much for all this work on UA-cam!
I find the theory of comedy as a benign violation of expectations to be the most parsimonious however I think it links very well with this idea of crossing lack with excess: so I would now say comedy (think comic relief) is a benign violation of expectations: particularly the expectations surrounding lack and excess.
I'll give this to Bush: he never stops being an endless source of laughter.
I am intrigued by a small detail here, which I don't know if it was accidental... The use of 'can' laughter after the jokes. (I think it was used three times). Not only they are three different versions (estranging in itself), but all of them are so - let's say - artificial that cannot have another effect, but create some sort of critical distance from merely laughing with the joke, or perhaps, interrupt some sort of interpassivity... Hmmm... am I wrong?
Yes, I think that it does interrupt interpassivity. I meant that canned laughter as another joke, something out of proportion with the expected response to the jokes.
Love the book!!
Thanks Todd, I enjoyed wathing your video.
Your theory that comedy emerges through the intersection of lack and excess is interesting.
In fact, I am wondering if the commic effect produced by this intersection would not be created by a momentary illusion that the lack no longer exists, making the subject believes that the lack is running out for a short period of time. This would momentarily release psychic energy that makes him laugh.
That's an interesting idea and fits, more or less, with Freud's theory. But I think if one isn't aware of lack, one cannot laugh. I can't think of a comic moment where lack wasn't totally apparent.
Interesting theory, but if you swap "comedy" with, say, "romance" or "action film," everything you said still makes sense. Whenever we try to express anything outside of pragmatic matters, we end up in this intersection of lack and excess.
Imagine a bell curve where the middle area, within one standard deviation, is where most of our communication takes place, like when we conduct business or teach in a classroom. But, we cannot express everything within this area, so the area to the left would be "lack," and the area to the right would be "excess."
Whenever we try to express ourselves artistically, emotionally, and philosophically, we traverse these areas.
The reason the entertainment industry is predominantly liberal is no surprise from this point of view. Liberals are constantly trying to push our society to expand the middle area (stretch the standard deviation), whereas conservatives are trying to moderate that pressure. Since the latter group tries to stay within the middle area (as an overreaction to liberal pressure), everything they say becomes business-like. To say anything interesting, we have no choice but to go beyond the standard deviation.
Can I ask a question about conservative comedy? In the UK, we seem to have a problem with political comedy TV shows (such as Have I Got News For You) which, even though they ruthlessly mock all politicians and deploy all manner of puns, seem only to reinforce the existing "beautiful order" (to borrow a phrase from Samo Tomsic) of the existing system. They seem to take on a role of the court jester in order to maintain the coherence of the court. Is this because although, through their relentless mocking they circulate around the system's lack, they don't react excessively enough? I hope you can shed some light on this.
I think the problem is in this case the figure telling the joke. The joke must also reveal the teller as divided and subject to contradiction. But many instances of political comedy--I don't know the ones you are referring to--preserve the teller from being riven by the contradiction that is visible in the target of the joke. When one tells a joke from a safe position, I think the joke necessarily functions in a conservative way.
I feel like word/language jokes are more about the sheer surprise of the observation. It's kind of hard to find any form of lack or excess in the idea of a bar tender not charging a Neutron.
The lack/excess is of the signifying chain itself.
@@Th3J0h4nn Can you clarify? I'm not sure how this relates to my point.
...But is that funny?
The ambiguity of the signifier is what makes possible the surprising observation or juxtaposition that is made in (the joke containing) wordplay. The signifier is ambigous because it lacks stable referent and is context dependent. The LACK of stable correspondence between words and things creates EXCESS of words and meaning. But in the case of wordplay, to be precise, what is actually ambiguous is the phoneme because it functions as two entirely different signifiers.
Welcome to the Society of the Spectacle.
Todd, doing the dishes and cleaning the house I watched Bridget Jones Diary I thought about you and your understandings of comedy and contradiction. I don't know if youve seen it, but I think you would like it.
I have seen it and agree with you about its theoretical aptness for me. Thanks.
in this sense, doesn't capitalism become a joke itself once we realize that it is based on excess (the limitless creation of capital, eternal growth of the economy, continuous fetishist enjoyment of surplus value, etc.) which is entirely built upon its lack (the failure to recognize the limits of the availability of resources, presenting itself as a whole master signifier, etc. )?
.. somehow I still don't have to laugh though
☺️☺️☺️🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸😘😘😘
So leftist comedy is self-sundering and conservative comedy is self-(pre/con)serving?
That's how I would see it.
Todd McGowan cool thanks for the video