The "I Didn't Comment in Another Thread" Thread

[Cadence]

What do y'all older folks do on your birthdays when nobody really cares anymore?

Click like a lot on Facebook. Order myself something that I want that might be a bit more expensive than usually would. Maybe go on out to eat.

Happy Birthday if it is! (Or hold on to this a bit until it is if it isn't!).

 

[payn]

Click like a lot on Facebook. Order myself something that I want that might be a bit more expensive than usually would. Maybe go on out to eat.

Happy Birthday if it is! (Or hold on to this a bit until it is if it isn't!).

Its tomorrow, which I have to work but that's no big deal. Just trying to figure out what to do after. Besides Bourbon.

Edit: Maybe I'll try one of them new dill pickle pizzas.

 

[prabe]

Thats what I do everyday.

Then you're ahead of the game!

 

[Umbran]

Any bit of comedy that employs satire, irony, or sarcasm in a proper and correct fashion requires that some portion of the audience be confused (or even hurt) by the comedy.

Yes. So, it pays a great deal to think about when, how, and whether to use such comedy with a particular audience.

This ambiguity is not a bug - it is the distinguishing feature.

"Bug" is context-dependent, not universal. Whether a thing is good or bad depends on the when and how.

 

[el-remmen]

What do y'all older folks do on your birthdays when nobody really cares anymore?

Everyone still seems to care?


I usually try to run D&D during the day and maybe do some patio grilling with friends and loved ones afterwards, if it falls on the weekend (or do it the weekend before or after depending on when it falls in the week). Or might have a board game day. When we still lived in a tiny NY apartment my wife would arrange for a beach day or a trip to the zoo and then we'd get a fancy dinner and meet friends for drinks afterwards.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yes. So, it pays a great deal to think about when, how, and whether to use such comedy with a particular audience.

"Bug" is context-dependent, not universal. Whether a thing is good or bad depends on the when and how.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. It's not context-dependent, here. The very nature of this specific type of comedy is that it is ambiguous.

It's similar to someone saying that they don't like stories with unreliable narrators because they don't know what "really happened." That's fine as a preference, but that preference precludes the entirety of that form. *

Now I will go back to the fundamental point- the best satire, the best irony, the best sarcasm ... it relies on that tension. It doesn't mean you can't critique it for other reasons- bad comedy can be bad for all sorts of reasons. But it does mean that the whole, "Some person didn't get the joke, so it's a bad joke," misses the point entirely when it comes to those specific forms. And again, it's not about knowing your audience. The point is that portion of the audience won't get it (and sometimes ... that is the point).

Or just look at the disparate reactions to Nathan Fiedler's various projects.





*And this idea of audience reaction should never be used when it comes to art. Look at this-

Google Search

webcache.googleusercontent.com

Some things need to come out. Do you think Opalka stayed up at night worrying if people "got it?" Life is weird, and people do things for all sorts of reasons- good, bad, or none at all. Communication is partly about making sure your audience understands your message, but we also forget the other important part; expressing yourself. In the end, the idea that some might not understand what you are communicating is not something that people will worry about. Have I placed acrostics in some posts? Maybe. Was that for you benefit or my own amusement? Hard to say ... don't you think?

 

[overgeeked]

What do y'all older folks do on your birthdays when nobody really cares anymore?

Hang out with the fewer people who actually care. For my most recent birthday my wife and I had my kid and the one brother who’s in town over for food and drinks.

 

[overgeeked]

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. It's not context-dependent, here. The very nature of this specific type of comedy is that it is ambiguous.

It's similar to someone saying that they don't like stories with unreliable narrators because they don't know what "really happened." That's fine as a preference, but that preference precludes the entirety of that form. *

Now I will go back to the fundamental point- the best satire, the best irony, the best sarcasm ... it relies on that tension. It doesn't mean you can't critique it for other reasons- bad comedy can be bad for all sorts of reasons. But it does mean that the whole, "Some person didn't get the joke, so it's a bad joke," misses the point entirely when it comes to those specific forms. And again, it's not about knowing your audience. The point is that portion of the audience won't get it (and sometimes ... that is the point).

Or just look at the disparate reactions to Nathan Fiedler's various projects.

*And this idea of audience reaction should never be used when it comes to art. Look at this-

Google Search

webcache.googleusercontent.com

Some things need to come out. Do you think Opalka stayed up at night worrying if people "got it?" Life is weird, and people do things for all sorts of reasons- good, bad, or none at all. Communication is partly about making sure your audience understands your message, but we also forget the other important part; expressing yourself. In the end, the idea that some might not understand what you are communicating is not something that people will worry about. Have I placed acrostics in some posts? Maybe. Was that for you benefit or my own amusement? Hard to say ... don't you think?

Stephen Colbert’s character on the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. The fact that many of the same people he was parodying actually thought he was on their side made it all the more delicious. That misunderstanding does not somehow change it no longer being a parody.

It’s the distinction between what’s comedy by genre and what individuals find funny. Comedy is a genre where the creator’s intent is to evoke laughter. Whether you personally find something funny or not is entirely subjective. Importantly, you finding something unfunny in no way changes whether the piece is a comedy or not. Your subjective sense of what’s funny doesn’t change the creator’s intent that the piece evokes laughter.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Stephen Colbert’s character on the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. The fact that many of the same people he was parodying actually thought he was on their side made it all the more delicious. That misunderstanding does not somehow change it no longer being a parody.

It’s the distinction between what’s comedy by genre and what individuals find funny. Comedy is a genre where the creator’s intent is to evoke laughter. Whether you personally find something funny or not is entirely subjective. Importantly, you finding something unfunny in no way changes whether the piece is a comedy or not. Your subjective sense of what’s funny doesn’t change the creator’s intent that the piece evokes laughter.

There can be a distinction between what "most people" find funny, and what people that really work at comedy find funny. I am reminded that (for example) there was a time when Dane Cook was wildly popular with large numbers of people, but was not considered a great comedian by people who really knew comedy (like the difference between Thomas Kinkade and Anselm Kiefer, or James Patterson and Haruki Murakami).

On the other hand, there are those like Norm MacDonald, Dave Attell, Colin Quinn, Bill Burr et al. who are (or were ... sigh) "comedian's comedians" who may not have the same wide reputation with the general public, but are respected for their craft by people who know.

 

[payn]

There can be a distinction between what "most people" find funny, and what people that really work at comedy find funny. I am reminded that (for example) there was a time when Dane Cook was wildly popular with large numbers of people, but was not considered a great comedian by people who really knew comedy (like the difference between Thomas Kinkade and Anselm Kiefer, or James Patterson and Haruki Murakami).

On the other hand, there are those like Norm MacDonald, Dave Attell, Colin Quinn, Bill Burr et al. who are (or were ... sigh) "comedian's comedians" who may not have the same wide reputation with the general public, but are respected for their craft by people who know.

Oh, I haven't heard any Dave Attell standup in ages. I always liked Colin Quinn too, but always seemed like a sore thumb on SNL.