This is my response to Alex's lead blog post.
For his lead blog, Alex posted two videos of what he describes as absurdist humor. As well as being very good examples of absurdist humor, they, according to Alex, demonstrate a very interesting point. This being that none of the theories can adequately explain such humor. So fundamentally, these videos act as counterexamples to each of the theories. On the face of things, Alex seems to be perfectly correct in this point. I myself found it to be quite difficult to understand how any of the humor theories could apply to the videos that Alex posted. So he makes his case well. In fact, of all the lead blogs posted (including my own) this one made me think the most.
However, I do disagree with Alex's claim that none of the theories can explain the absurdist counterexamples he gave. Obviously, I can not explain here every absurdist statement given in the "funniest patch notes" video. However, I believe we can analyze a running theme in the video which allows us to explain how it fits into the Incongruity Theory. This, in my opinion, is the use of the phrase "no longer." Take the example "become enemies with child no longer appears." In this, the statement asserts two things. First, it asserts the wish to become an enemy with a child does not appear. This is of course quite typical. We would never hear someone say their birthday wish was to become a enemies with anyone, much less a child. However, the statement does not assert this in the way we typically would; that is, by saying that people simply do not wish for that state of affairs. It asserts that people no longer wish for that to happen. Wait, people at one time actually wished to become enemies with a child? This is the second implied claim in the statement, and this claim is something entirely surprising. So, notice what is happening here. The statement is denying something that everyone already assumes in regard to what people wish for, but it is doing it in a manner that completely breaks our expectations. By doing this, it connects two ideas that are completely opposite: making a wish as one would for one's birthday, and desiring to become enemies with a child. This linking of opposites by means of some surprising connection is by definition what Incongruity Theory states.
Now, in most(but not all) of the examples, the phrase "no longer" occurs. So, in other words, all the examples that have this phrase have the exact same pattern. Due to this, Incongruity Theory can explain all such examples. In standard examples of incongruity(like a knock knock joke) the person giving the joke leads us down an expected path, and then surprises us by saying something unexpected. However, in the examples above, the order of the expected and unexpected are implied by the use of the phrase "no longer." However, even though the Incongruity is implied, it is still there. In conclusion, even though I believe that Alex is correct in noticing the difference between absurdist and non absurdist humor, I also believe that he is incorrect in asserting that Incongruity Theory can not explain the examples given.
For his lead blog, Alex posted two videos of what he describes as absurdist humor. As well as being very good examples of absurdist humor, they, according to Alex, demonstrate a very interesting point. This being that none of the theories can adequately explain such humor. So fundamentally, these videos act as counterexamples to each of the theories. On the face of things, Alex seems to be perfectly correct in this point. I myself found it to be quite difficult to understand how any of the humor theories could apply to the videos that Alex posted. So he makes his case well. In fact, of all the lead blogs posted (including my own) this one made me think the most.
However, I do disagree with Alex's claim that none of the theories can explain the absurdist counterexamples he gave. Obviously, I can not explain here every absurdist statement given in the "funniest patch notes" video. However, I believe we can analyze a running theme in the video which allows us to explain how it fits into the Incongruity Theory. This, in my opinion, is the use of the phrase "no longer." Take the example "become enemies with child no longer appears." In this, the statement asserts two things. First, it asserts the wish to become an enemy with a child does not appear. This is of course quite typical. We would never hear someone say their birthday wish was to become a enemies with anyone, much less a child. However, the statement does not assert this in the way we typically would; that is, by saying that people simply do not wish for that state of affairs. It asserts that people no longer wish for that to happen. Wait, people at one time actually wished to become enemies with a child? This is the second implied claim in the statement, and this claim is something entirely surprising. So, notice what is happening here. The statement is denying something that everyone already assumes in regard to what people wish for, but it is doing it in a manner that completely breaks our expectations. By doing this, it connects two ideas that are completely opposite: making a wish as one would for one's birthday, and desiring to become enemies with a child. This linking of opposites by means of some surprising connection is by definition what Incongruity Theory states.
Now, in most(but not all) of the examples, the phrase "no longer" occurs. So, in other words, all the examples that have this phrase have the exact same pattern. Due to this, Incongruity Theory can explain all such examples. In standard examples of incongruity(like a knock knock joke) the person giving the joke leads us down an expected path, and then surprises us by saying something unexpected. However, in the examples above, the order of the expected and unexpected are implied by the use of the phrase "no longer." However, even though the Incongruity is implied, it is still there. In conclusion, even though I believe that Alex is correct in noticing the difference between absurdist and non absurdist humor, I also believe that he is incorrect in asserting that Incongruity Theory can not explain the examples given.
I think that's a great point that "no longer" set ups an expectation that a simple mistake will be fixed. This does not seem so much like a glitch as it does the program trying to imagine the sorts of things that humans would like and failing miserably. So, the clash between human wishes and the machine simulation of them may be the essence here.
ReplyDeleteGreat points! I love how you really dived in depth into Alex's post and his points by taking one very specific example to explain in depth.
ReplyDeleteI really like your interpretation of the second video. I think you were right on with the points of incongruity. I think that the contrast between societal norms and what was previously occurring is what makes these statements so incongruous and so funny. I think the part of these notes that makes audience members laugh the most is, like you said, the phrasing of "no longer" implying that these things once were allowed in the game.
ReplyDeleteThat's a really good point about implied incongruity. I guess that also works for if the order was switched. "No longer can you wish to become enemies with a child" seems a whole lot less funny. Further for your point, it goes to show that the incongruity isn't apparent until the very end. In this scenario, there isn't really anything incongruous until the phrase "no longer appears."
ReplyDelete