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

[Ryujin]

Counterpoint-

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

Ambiguity is not a bug, but the central feature of any type comedy that plays with or invokes satire and irony. Simply put, the possibility that a reader can misunderstand the message is necessary to the proper conveyance of the message.

See, e.g., Linda Hutcheson, Irony's Edge: The Theory and Politics of Irony.

Sure, just so long as said comedy isn't "punching down."

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Sure, just so long as said comedy isn't "punching down."

I have yet to internalize the newest sheen on the old Aristotelean definition of humor.

 

[payn]

Sure, you could blame someone for responding to you. Or... you could take responsibility for your own post on a topic and tone.

Your condescending shrug man is yuge.

 

[CleverNickName]

Counterpoint-

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

Ambiguity is not a bug, but the central feature of any type comedy that plays with or invokes satire and irony. Simply put, the possibility that a reader can misunderstand the message is necessary to the proper conveyance of the message.

See, e.g., Linda Hutcheson, Irony's Edge: The Theory and Politics of Irony.

Writing comedy is even harder. It is still your responsibility to make sure the reader understands that what you are writing is intended to be humorous, or satire. And now, it is also your responsibility to make sure that the reader is also entertained or amused by what you're writing! The comedic author doesn't get a free pass to write vague or poorly-researched material only to blame the audience for "not getting the joke," or being "too sensitive" if the reader finds the material offensive.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Writing comedy is even harder.

Yes, it is difficult.

It is still your responsibility to make sure the reader understands that what you are writing is intended to be humorous, or satire.

Absolutely, positively, 100% no.

And now, it is also your responsibility to make sure that the reader is also entertained or amused by what you're writing! The comedic author doesn't get a free pass to write vague or poorly-researched material only to blame the audience for "not getting the joke," or being "too sensitive" if they find the material offensive.

Bad comedy is bad comedy, always. But I think that this assertion (and this style of assertion) is not just incorrect, it is anathema to comedy.

Bad comedians (and bullies) have always hidden behind the "it's just a joke." But it's also just as true that the humorless scolds of society have tried to constrain comedy by telling people what is, and isn't, acceptable.

 

[prabe]

So, ambiguity is a tool in the writer's kit. It's fine to use it. If you use it, I think you need to know using it means there will be people who don't understand what you've written the same as you do, and you need to accept responsibility for being intentionally ambiguous--you don't get to blame your audience for not understanding you.

It's possible to be ironic, satiric, or any other form of ambiguous, and not be a bully.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So, ambiguity is a tool in the writer's kit. It's fine to use it. If you use it, I think you need to know using it means there will be people who don't understand what you've written the same as you do, and you need to accept responsibility for being intentionally ambiguous--you don't get to blame your audience for not understanding you.

Again, no. Readers have responsibilities as well.

You know what? It sucks when you don't get something. If you were a Whig who didn't get A Modest Proposal, that must have sucked. If you were Reagan's campaign, and you couldn't quite parse the lyrics of Born in the USA ... probably embarrassing! If you re bopping along and exercising to Rage Against the Machine and didn't realize quelle horreur that they are a political band ... well, oops!

But demanding that the author of the text has to accept responsibility for every dumb a** out there? Yeah, no.

This is not just wrong, but a terrible idea. It infantilizes all of our discourse.

IMO, etc.

 

[Cadence]

So, ambiguity is a tool in the writer's kit. It's fine to use it. If you use it, I think you need to know using it means there will be people who don't understand what you've written the same as you do, and you need to accept responsibility for being intentionally ambiguous--you don't get to blame your audience for not understanding you.

It's possible to be ironic, satiric, or any other form of ambiguous, and not be a bully.

So, this made me wonder about other things we take for granted.

A readability checker that uses various formulas judged your post* as being a 10th grade reading level. Is writing at too high a reading level, especially on a sight with folks from different nations, almost gatekeeping of a sort?

* Well, two copies of it to get to the minimum number of words.

 

[prabe]

Again, no. Readers have responsibilities as well.

You know what? It sucks when you don't get something. If you were a Whig who didn't get A Modest Proposal, that must have sucked. If you were Reagan's campaign, and you couldn't quite parse the lyrics of Born in the USA ... probably embarrassing! If you re bopping along and exercising to Rage Against the Machine and didn't realize quelle horreur that they are a political band ... well, oops!

But demanding that the author of the text has to accept responsibility for every dumb a** out there? Yeah, no.

This is not just wrong, but a terrible idea. It infantilizes all of our discourse.

IMO, etc.

I didn't say--I don't even think I implied--that readers have no responsibility. I said that if you are intentionally ambiguous, you need to own the ambiguity. I didn't go into whatever responsibilities readers (or listeners, since you mentioned music) have--mainly because I don't feel like mocking people for not understanding one thing or another, and I didn't feel I could discuss those responsibilities without mocking those people.

 

[CleverNickName]

Yes, it is difficult.


Absolutely, positively, 100% no.



Bad comedy is bad comedy, always. But I think that this assertion (and this style of assertion) is not just incorrect, it is anathema to comedy.

Bad comedians (and bullies) have always hidden behind the "it's just a joke." But it's also just as true that the humorless scolds of society have tried to constrain comedy by telling people what is, and isn't, acceptable.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying that there's a difference between "Humor is the subversion of expectation," and "I'm going surprise my reader with a joke." I'm also saying that not every joke is going to be funny, and when that happens, the author of those jokes can't blame the audience.