Off the Map

I’ve been noticing for the last several months a particular usefulness for my personal definitions of comedic terms.  I thought I’d take a moment to share with you my definitions for the words “funny” and “joke” for what those definitions might benefit you.

***

I work a lot of time in background on film and TV productions.  There can be a lot of downtime, which for me can mean social time and silly time with other background actors.  Frankly, I like to make people laugh.  I get a huge joy out of it and it can come pretty easily for me.  Over a short time, my humor can turn more and more outrageous, and it can test the boundaries of what some people find acceptable or even polite.  These people might object to some of my humor or find it even rude.

When I’ve hit a boundary in a particular person, I might hear that person say, “That’s not funny.”  Usually, though, there is someone laughing at what I said or did.  Sometimes even the person saying “That’s not funny” is laughing!  It is around this time that I present my definition of the term “funny.”

For me, “funny” means “something that makes a person laugh.”  If I trip and fall and you laugh, it was funny.  Well, at least to you.  If I trip and fall and you don’t laugh but instead you are shocked and run to my help, it wasn’t funny.  Why?  Because it didn’t make you laugh.  If you were alarmed but I laughed, it was funny.

“Joke” is another comedy term.  People have a hard time putting into words what a joke is.  For me, “a joke” is simply “something designed to make a person laugh.”  While a joke could be a story or a pun, it could also be an object, an action, or a stunt.  If it was designed, and if that design was intended to make a person laugh, then I would call it “a joke.”

The rebuilding of the World Trade Center is not a joke.  It wasn’t designed to make people laugh.  Carrot Top’s props are jokes–they’re designed to make people laugh.  So is his routine a joke–designed to make people laugh.  It makes no difference if the joke is funny (i.e., “makes someone laugh”); a joke requires design and intent.

Both of these definitions share a key word, and that word is “something.”  In neither definition do I try to give a replacement word for the definiendum.  I don’t define “funny” as “hysterical.”  I don’t define “joke” as “a sentence.”  By using the word “something,” I leave a lot of important leeway for the use of the words “funny” and “joke.”  I also arrive at an extremely practical way to talk about comedy and humor, not getting caught up in overanalysis about the essence of funny or the nature of jokes.  What’s funny and what’s a joke becomes actually measureable.  Did someone laugh at it?  Then it was that much funny.  Was it designed to get someone to laugh?  Then it was a joke.

The overlap with general semantics is not just in the careful attention to definition of undefined terms.  The overlap is also with the lecture I presented in the 2006 Making Sense Conference in Ft. Worth, Texas.  In that lecture (which kicked off the conference!), I presented an analysis of my own sense of humor.  I explain that much of my humor is simply the provision of nonsense when people are expecting sense.  Sense and nonsense are relative to people’s theories, definitions, and, in general, expectations.  Sense is expected, nonsense is surprising.  Since that presentation and the raised awareness about my own sense of humor, I’ve been able to develop and tweak my humor more and actually get better and being funny and joking.  General semantics helped me to improve my comedy.  (Watch the essay and/or read the published lecture here.)

So there you have it: Alfred Korzybski and his general semantics, influencing comedy.  In truth, it’s no joke!

See also: alfred-korzbyski, comedy, definiendum, definition, expectations, funny, humor, jokes, nonsense, sense, surprise, undefined-terms