Report: Due to the clog in the One Too Many factory, there have been some issues with chronology as well: this blog entry will explore the humor behind Halloween costumes.
Yale’s celebration for our beloved Halloween lasts a full week. Why do we treat a holiday with no religious or patriotic significance so seriously unserious? In a most basic sense, people want to explore various characters and personalities without bearing the potential negative consequences. Although these blog entries do not all correlate with topics discussed in English 114: American Humor, I believe that the connection to Mikhail Bakhtin’s discussion of carnivalesque humor in Rabelais and His World fits this topic too perfectly to disregard. In the Middle Ages, carnivalesque humor was roughly what Halloween is today. I think that I concisely addressed the importance of this form of humor in my lens essay earlier in the course:
"As a result of the positive humor, 'carnival celebrated temporary liberation from the prevailing truth and from the established order' (10), which in turn created a second life for many people to explore new ideas and beliefs. The liberty gained through festive laughter allowed for people in the Middle Ages to enter alternate worlds in which social structure as well as 'religious and ecclesiastic dogmatism' (7) did not exist. The most valuable asset of carnivalesque humor is its ability to create social flexibility through positive humor."
Now, step forward a few centuries. Halloween fosters the same concepts as carnival humor: social order is suspended in order for people to take on different roles and laugh in good fun. Unlike any other day of the year, Halloween allows people to laugh, joke, and play one day and then be completely back to normal the next. This notion explains why costumes tend to be more physically revealing and why taking on the role of even the most corrupt of people is understandable as a Halloween costume. Yale students are often confined to a certain personality, so it comes as no surprise that we take full advantage of the chance to be goofy for a day (or a week!).
Thursday, December 9, 2010
A Facebook Joke: Why, When, and How
Report: There was a clog in the One Too Many factory; as a result, entries are coming in rapid fire! I hope that you’re as excited as I am.
The mission of One Too Many has been to capture humor surrounding Yale students’ social lives. However, to disregard the comedy that surrounds Facebook, a virtual world full of humor, would be doing you dedicated readers out there a great disservice. I will take a look at how wit, timing, simplicity, and flirtation are fundamental in developing humor on Facebook. Given the excessive amounts of time students spend on their computers, Facebook provides an ideal forum for college humor.
Facebook has developed from a simple means of communication to a cyber social network. With this transition has come more room for jokes, mocks, insults, and flirtation. The key to cracking a successful joke online, however, requires different standards than that of a joke in a face-to-face conversation. Most importantly, any joke online must be concise and full of wit; anything beyond a few sentences works against the goals of Facebook communication. Almost as important as the wit is the timing of the joke. If a joke is initiated—perhaps with a wall post or photo comment—too quickly after the event discussed or the picture posted, it can viewed as a bit odd, as you probably spend too much time on Facebook. Conversely, if a joke is made too long after the post, it often loses significance. There is always a sweet spot with timing, and this is definitely no exception. In addition to timing, simplicity is essential. The funniest jokes on Facebook are often the shortest or address the simplest issues; long, drawn out jokes don’t really have a place in the quick cyber world. Lastly, jokes on Facebook play a crucial role in online flirtation. All jokes and comments online stem from a deeper desire to essentially play with another person. In most cases, this happens with the opposite sex. For those less witty, or perhaps less courageous, an option even exists to virtually “poke” a friend. When all of these aspects come together and form one amusing Facebook joke, our online world is improved for the better.
The mission of One Too Many has been to capture humor surrounding Yale students’ social lives. However, to disregard the comedy that surrounds Facebook, a virtual world full of humor, would be doing you dedicated readers out there a great disservice. I will take a look at how wit, timing, simplicity, and flirtation are fundamental in developing humor on Facebook. Given the excessive amounts of time students spend on their computers, Facebook provides an ideal forum for college humor.
Facebook has developed from a simple means of communication to a cyber social network. With this transition has come more room for jokes, mocks, insults, and flirtation. The key to cracking a successful joke online, however, requires different standards than that of a joke in a face-to-face conversation. Most importantly, any joke online must be concise and full of wit; anything beyond a few sentences works against the goals of Facebook communication. Almost as important as the wit is the timing of the joke. If a joke is initiated—perhaps with a wall post or photo comment—too quickly after the event discussed or the picture posted, it can viewed as a bit odd, as you probably spend too much time on Facebook. Conversely, if a joke is made too long after the post, it often loses significance. There is always a sweet spot with timing, and this is definitely no exception. In addition to timing, simplicity is essential. The funniest jokes on Facebook are often the shortest or address the simplest issues; long, drawn out jokes don’t really have a place in the quick cyber world. Lastly, jokes on Facebook play a crucial role in online flirtation. All jokes and comments online stem from a deeper desire to essentially play with another person. In most cases, this happens with the opposite sex. For those less witty, or perhaps less courageous, an option even exists to virtually “poke” a friend. When all of these aspects come together and form one amusing Facebook joke, our online world is improved for the better.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Ha-Ha Harvard
After an extended break from my blogging on One Too Many, I am now back and stronger than ever to discuss one of the biggest jokes in the land—wait for it—HARVARD. For those of you fortunate enough to be unaware of the absurdity that is Harvard University, it is the oldest American university, founded in 1636, and it is located in the town of Cambridge, Mass-a-two-shits. Ok, I’ll admit it: I may come on a bit heavy in the hating Harvard department. However, despite my innate aversion to Harvard given my love for Yale—its most classic collegiate rival—I have several reasons to support my belief that Harvard is one big conceited joke.
The exclusivity at Harvard—this unnecessary sense of self-importance—ruins the college experience. While I’m sure the homogenous group of students that are members of the Finals Clubs enjoy their time, going to the same place night after night with the same group of students defeats the purpose of attending one of the most diverse universities in the world. Long lines outside of the Clubs are patrolled by underclassmen grasping onto every ounce of power given to them, dressed spiffily in coat and tie. Conversely, at Yale fraternities (our equivalent social houses), the doors remain open to anyone who wishes (dares?) to attend and booze is free for the taking. Even more, wearing a coat and tie to a Yale fraternity is laughable; the dress code for the brothers usually requires no shirt, or at least one soaked with beer. Simply put, Yale fosters an infinitely friendlier and happier environment than our bitter rivals. Yalies, often ranked “#2” by unknowing outsiders, enjoy their college experience significantly more than Harvard students who simply bask in their exclusivity and ooze the conceit that comes with their famous name.
And finally, let’s reminisce with some old-school SAT analogies:
1. Exclusive is to Harvard as _________ is to Yale.
a. Stylish
b. Embracing
c. Cool
d. Toad’s
2. Mean is to Harvard as _________ is to Yale.
a. Dick
b. Smart
c. Loving
d. Nasty
3. Misery is to Harvard as _________ is to Yale.
a. Distress
b. Ecstasy
c. Gloom
d. Depression
Answer Key:
1. b
2. c
3. b
The exclusivity at Harvard—this unnecessary sense of self-importance—ruins the college experience. While I’m sure the homogenous group of students that are members of the Finals Clubs enjoy their time, going to the same place night after night with the same group of students defeats the purpose of attending one of the most diverse universities in the world. Long lines outside of the Clubs are patrolled by underclassmen grasping onto every ounce of power given to them, dressed spiffily in coat and tie. Conversely, at Yale fraternities (our equivalent social houses), the doors remain open to anyone who wishes (dares?) to attend and booze is free for the taking. Even more, wearing a coat and tie to a Yale fraternity is laughable; the dress code for the brothers usually requires no shirt, or at least one soaked with beer. Simply put, Yale fosters an infinitely friendlier and happier environment than our bitter rivals. Yalies, often ranked “#2” by unknowing outsiders, enjoy their college experience significantly more than Harvard students who simply bask in their exclusivity and ooze the conceit that comes with their famous name.
And finally, let’s reminisce with some old-school SAT analogies:
1. Exclusive is to Harvard as _________ is to Yale.
a. Stylish
b. Embracing
c. Cool
d. Toad’s
2. Mean is to Harvard as _________ is to Yale.
a. Dick
b. Smart
c. Loving
d. Nasty
3. Misery is to Harvard as _________ is to Yale.
a. Distress
b. Ecstasy
c. Gloom
d. Depression
Answer Key:
1. b
2. c
3. b
Monday, October 4, 2010
Hey Squirrel: Gimme Your Lunch Money!
October brings a variety of changes at Yale: the colored leaves of Autumn, the first set of Mid-Term tests, and all sorts of freshman initiations. The most prevalent of these initiations, of course, is fraternity pledging. The rumors of different fraternities’ methods of pledging often run rampant due their secretive nature. However, some can catch a glimpse of these stunts late at night around campus—and yes, they are usually pretty absurd.
As with my Quinnipiac example, humor often depends on one’s perspective; the most common format of a joke frequently entails the “aggressor/victim” contrast. Pledging takes the aggressor/victim conundrum to an entirely new level; brothers take pride in bullying their pledges. This past Wednesday on my way back from Toad’s, I witnessed an initiation that caught me by total surprise.
Two shirtless pledges were standing at the base of a tree, one holding a jar of peanut butter and the other grasping a shoebox. At first I was puzzled by their shenanigans, but I soon realized their goal: to catch a squirrel. Although this pledge challenge was unique in several ways, one particular reason sticks out in my mind given its close connection to the theme of this blog. Catching the squirrel adds another component to the aggressor/victim contrast; “aggressor/victim(aggressor)/victim” represents the catching-the-squirrel task more appropriately. The fraternity brothers remain the aggressors—they will laugh regardless of the result. The pledges, on the other hand, are in a unique position. If they fail to catch the squirrel, they continue to be victims; however, if they actually catch the squirrel, they miraculously transform into an aggressor. The possibility of a potential role reversal for the pledges adds much incentive.
Given these unique circumstances, the humor behind this pledge challenge has the capability of changing dramatically. If the pledges fail, they will most likely become frustrated and find little humor in the game. (Remember, of course, this would mean that they are still the victim.) With a stroke of luck, however, the pledges could catch the squirrel and, in turn, find great humor in their pledge challenge due to their new position as the aggressor. In essence, humor can depend solely on one small twist in fate.
As with my Quinnipiac example, humor often depends on one’s perspective; the most common format of a joke frequently entails the “aggressor/victim” contrast. Pledging takes the aggressor/victim conundrum to an entirely new level; brothers take pride in bullying their pledges. This past Wednesday on my way back from Toad’s, I witnessed an initiation that caught me by total surprise.
Two shirtless pledges were standing at the base of a tree, one holding a jar of peanut butter and the other grasping a shoebox. At first I was puzzled by their shenanigans, but I soon realized their goal: to catch a squirrel. Although this pledge challenge was unique in several ways, one particular reason sticks out in my mind given its close connection to the theme of this blog. Catching the squirrel adds another component to the aggressor/victim contrast; “aggressor/victim(aggressor)/victim” represents the catching-the-squirrel task more appropriately. The fraternity brothers remain the aggressors—they will laugh regardless of the result. The pledges, on the other hand, are in a unique position. If they fail to catch the squirrel, they continue to be victims; however, if they actually catch the squirrel, they miraculously transform into an aggressor. The possibility of a potential role reversal for the pledges adds much incentive.
Given these unique circumstances, the humor behind this pledge challenge has the capability of changing dramatically. If the pledges fail, they will most likely become frustrated and find little humor in the game. (Remember, of course, this would mean that they are still the victim.) With a stroke of luck, however, the pledges could catch the squirrel and, in turn, find great humor in their pledge challenge due to their new position as the aggressor. In essence, humor can depend solely on one small twist in fate.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Q-Pac Invasion
Americans love making fun of other people. Those who are not innately funny turn to mockery as an easy alternative to humor. By obtaining the (false) power position of the aggressor, people gain a sense of cockiness—to be sure, though, cockiness is very different than confidence. Actually, the desire for cockiness often times informs us of an even deeper lack of confidence. Turn to the classic example of an elementary school bully: traditionally, the stereotypical bully lacks friends, so he seeks physical power as a replacement for his inability to obtain genuine, social power. Similarly, taunting humor varies from other types of humor in that not everyone will find the joke to be funny. In fact, often times more people will find the joke to be offensive than those who will find it to be comical; this variance is why we find some topics funny, and others not.
This past Saturday night at Toad’s I witnessed the quintessential aggressor-victim comedic situation. Clearly in the height of his Toad’s blur—an all too familiar state already—a Yale freshman boy approached a chick that clearly rode the “Slut Bus” from Hamden earlier that evening. (Side note: the term “Slut Bus” bears zero negativity towards or hatred of the lovely women of Quinnipiac University; they use the same name for the bus, too.) The conversation between these two dancers was short, yet it generated antithetical reactions from those involved:
Yalie: “OMGZZZ DO YOU GO TO Q-PAC??!”
Q-Pac: “DUHHH!”
Yalie: “I am so, so, so, SO, so, sooo, sorry. My sincere condolences.”
Depending on one’s perspective, this brief exchange can be interpreted in several ways: arrogant Yalie, asshole Yalie, or amusing Yalie. As an onlooker, I immediately fell into the arrogant Yalie camp. As with most “victims” in aggressor jokes, the Q-Pac girl leaped into the asshole Yalie camp—and I seriously doubt she’ll ever leave. On the contrary, the “bully” in this example—the Yalie—no doubt sees this interaction as amusing.
Hmmm… three people, three varied reactions: is something that lacks universal acceptance as “funny” still humor? Yes; No; kind of. Humor stems from content, but content does not create humor. Rather, the perspectives and interpretations of the people involved form the humor. Therefore, one cannot look at a situation and deem it to be generically “funny” or not—it all depends on how you have lived your life.
This past Saturday night at Toad’s I witnessed the quintessential aggressor-victim comedic situation. Clearly in the height of his Toad’s blur—an all too familiar state already—a Yale freshman boy approached a chick that clearly rode the “Slut Bus” from Hamden earlier that evening. (Side note: the term “Slut Bus” bears zero negativity towards or hatred of the lovely women of Quinnipiac University; they use the same name for the bus, too.) The conversation between these two dancers was short, yet it generated antithetical reactions from those involved:
Yalie: “OMGZZZ DO YOU GO TO Q-PAC??!”
Q-Pac: “DUHHH!”
Yalie: “I am so, so, so, SO, so, sooo, sorry. My sincere condolences.”
Depending on one’s perspective, this brief exchange can be interpreted in several ways: arrogant Yalie, asshole Yalie, or amusing Yalie. As an onlooker, I immediately fell into the arrogant Yalie camp. As with most “victims” in aggressor jokes, the Q-Pac girl leaped into the asshole Yalie camp—and I seriously doubt she’ll ever leave. On the contrary, the “bully” in this example—the Yalie—no doubt sees this interaction as amusing.
Hmmm… three people, three varied reactions: is something that lacks universal acceptance as “funny” still humor? Yes; No; kind of. Humor stems from content, but content does not create humor. Rather, the perspectives and interpretations of the people involved form the humor. Therefore, one cannot look at a situation and deem it to be generically “funny” or not—it all depends on how you have lived your life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)