Varieties of humor

[superluser]

Llearch asked me to post this here, so I am.

This is a brief table of a variety of humorous paradigms.  It comes from HW Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage, which is a great reference, so long as you get the one that was actually written by Fowler.  If it doesn't contain an entry on why `electrocution' should be `electrocussion,' you've got the wrong book.  The tables below are as close as I could get to the original without scanning.

Another source that helps to illuminate these words is Bergen Evans' Dictionary of Contemporary American English (which is, in part, a reaction to Fowler).

Anyways, onto the tables.

(PNG with opacity here)

This should be pretty self-explanatory, but I might use some of Bergen Evans' definitions to help.

- humor is that which gets the humors to flow; that which amuses us
(Carson: It was really hot in California today.)
- wit surprises us by showing connections or analogies
(Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.)
- satire is the use of irony and ridicule to expose or denounce something
(This is the best of all possible worlds. --Pangloss)
- sarcasm is irony used to tear at on another
(And yet my statement remains. . . Oh wonder of wonders!)
- invective isn't really humor, just a biting statement of abuse
(How long, Catiline, will you continue to abuse our patience?)
- irony is a contradiction in what you expect to happen and what actually happens.  In the sense of humor, it typically means a sort of subtle sarcasm
(Your film is easily better than all of Ed Wood's.)
- cynicism is more a sort of jaded outlook than humor
(Hey, look!  It failed!  What are the odds of that happening?)
- The sardonic is forced humor in an attempt to lighten an oppressive mood.  It's sort of like sarcasm, but the audience is the self
(DR. EVIL: Every diabolical scheme I've hatched has been thwarted by Austin Powers. And why is that, ladies and gentlemen?
SCOTT: Because you never kill him when you get the chance and you're a dope?)

Moving on, Fowler also lists a variety of different types of parody/satire.  He doesn't put them into a table, so I thought I'd make up my own.  The first two columns are essentially Fowler and Evans (Evans includes an entry on lampoon). but the last two are largely mine. and bathos is an entry all my own.

(PNG with opacity here)

- bathos is the glorification of the mundane.  When the Earth is destroyed not because it houses the one person who knows how to make the world a good and happy place, but rather because they need to build a bypass, that's bathetic (or bathotic).  It is meant to appeal to those familiar with the original
(See Douglas Adams)
- Burlesque is the opposite.  Bringing down the high or powerful.  It is directed to those unfamiliar with the original, or those whose experience with it may be limited
(Spitting Image)
- Caricature is a simplification of form.  It is intended to alert the audience that the original is what is being referenced with a minimum of effort by the author
(Spitting Image, again.  Also Tom Toles)
- lampoon is an ill-humored parody.  The purpose is to mock the original.  I'm not sure if the audience is those who agree with the author, or if it's supposed to gain converts, so both probably apply
(Jack Chick)
- parody is an imitation of another's work, usually humorous, but in some circumstances, it may be serious.  The typical method is to find a few very notable aspects of the original and expand on them to the point of absurdity.  It differs from caricature in that a parody is more of a complete and independent work.  A parody is also freer to amplify small portions of a work that would grossly unbalance a caricature
(The Wind Done Gone)
- travesty is sort of an undifferentiated category for the above, but it always has the characteristic of debasing the original.  As such, I placed it in the category between bathos and burlesque.  Things that are described as travesties typically involve misinterpretation, so that's why that's there
(travesty of justice)

OK.  So why should you care?  Shouldn't you just make up your own brand of humor and go with it?  That's not a bad idea, but sometimes it helps to see what sort of humor you've been doing so far and to see what methods and audiences your work is best suited for, and continue to push your work in that area.

Also, the lists are not necessarily the best.  If you've got suggestions for where I've screwed up or where I can make improvements, let me know.  Especially in the definitions and the latter chart.  The former chart is almost verbatim from Fowler, so I don't expect anything to be wrong there.

Hope this helps!

(Note to any aspiring typesetters out there: TeX may be very, very good.  Lyx is not.)

[Sienna Maiu - M T]

Check your links there, with out them I feel as though I'm missing something. Especially when you say that they're self-explanitory...

But that wit one made me chuckle.
Some good info, this is indeed the perfect place for it. I however shall likely never take the advice this topic implies, as I shall probably just continue to use stupid-humour. Or, in other terms, stupidity as humour. (Anyone ever heard of a little film called "Jackass, the movie"? -that basic idea)

[superluser]

Check your links there

What links, where?

with out them I feel as though I'm missing something. Especially when you say that they're self-explanitory...

What do you feel like you're missing?

[Sienna Maiu - M T]

my soul...

[superluser]

my soul...

OK.

How about more text based?  Is there anything text-based that you feel is missing from the work I posted above?

[Sienna Maiu - M T]

oh.
You were actually being serious.

Okay, the situation was that at first your pictures weren't showing up, so I tried finding them with their URL's but that didn't work either.
As for text, Part A works very well and with the image I needed just a few seconds to understand what exactly was going on. I am suprisingly bad with tables, and yet I can use my multiplication table and Punnett squares just fine...

oh well.
I'll get to Part B at a later time.

[superluser]

Okay, the situation was that at first your pictures weren't showing up, so I tried finding them with their URL's but that didn't work either.

Are you talking about the images in the thread or the images linked?

They're the same image, it's just that one's JPG and one's PNG with transparency.  I included the transparent ones (through the link) because they would show up better on light backgrounds, but since this board has a black background, I had to use the JPG versions with a white background.

If the PNGs aren't showing up, you may have issues with your browser.  If you're using IE6, you should probably upgrade to IE7 (or Firefox).  It's got a lot of security improvements, and it will show images like these properly.

If not, I'd be interested in figuring out what the problem is.

As for text, Part A works very well and with the image I needed just a few seconds to understand what exactly was going on.

Is it clear?  Is there any way to make it clearer?

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

... but since this board has a black background, I had to use the JPG versions with a white background.

That depends entirely upon the theme used. The default theme, yes. The DMFA theme, which is the second most popular, no.