The Problem with Humor Theories

The problem with Humor Theories is just that: They are theories. Plural. Not just the one. And they all add something interesting to the discussion. Some can explain all lot of jokes but sadly none of them can explain all of them to complete satisfaction.

And what surprised me the most is that humor researchers still don’t have a commonly agreed upon definition for “humor”. True story. So for this book I lifted the definition for Humor from the “Benign Violation” - Theory.

In order for something to be humorous it needs to fulfill at least one of the following conditions.

  1. Cognitive - One has to think: “Oh this is funny.”
  2. Physical - It needs to elicit a grin or laughter
  3. Emotional - It needs to lead to a feeling of amusement

Now the Holy Grail of Humor Studies is to find all the ingredients that are “necessary AND sufficient” to elicit laughter. Meaning we would have found the definitive formula to create laughter.

Or as Professor John Morreal put it in his excellent book “Comic Relief”:

“Seeking necessary and sufficient conditions, they try to formulate definitions that cover all examples of amusement but no examples that are not amusement.” Comic Relief by John Morreal (New Directions in Aesthetics) Wiley, Kindle-Version, page 7

Hella complicated quote, I know. Let me break it down for you: Humor theories are all about creating a framework that, when applied, will only encompass things that are truly funny. And not even one tiny little bit that isn’t funny.

Now, current humor theories only define what is necessary to elicit laughter but not what is sufficient. What’s the difference?

One example would be surprise. Many people argue that surprise is necessary to make someone laugh. People who see the punchline coming aren’t surprised and thus won’t laugh. But surprise isn’t sufficient to make someone laugh. Otherwise coming home and finding a angry tiger in your bedroom would make you laugh and not just… mauled.

Another example: The Play Theory and the Benign Violation Theory both tell us that the laughee needs to know that the joke means no harm in order for the him or her to feel amused.

But somthing being unthreatening is in no way a sufficient condition to make someone laugh. Otherwise it would suffice to tell someone “I love you!” in order to elicit laughter.Granted, sometimes saying “I love you.” is actually sufficient to make someone laugh. But enough about me. Being nice to someone, which fulfills the condition of not being harmful, isn’t enough to make someone laugh.

Luckily our aim isn’t to actually find this Holy Grail. It’s merely to find clues on how to write better comedy while searching for it. And accordingly in the following sections about the different Humor Theories I don’t want to be the most right, but the most useful.

In that spirit let’s be comedy pirates: We take what is useful and burn the rest! And a bottle of rum.

SUMMARY TIME

Ok, this chapter is way to short for even five sentences. So, in your own words and without looking, tell me what are the three conditions for something to be considered humorous?