Using “Benign Violation Theory” to Make Your Writing Funnier (Humor Writing Mini-Course, Class 2)
Welcome to class two of your 4-week, humor writing mini-course. In this lesson we’ll talk about how to choose the right level of detail to make your writing fit into the “Benign Violation” Theory of humor. (And if that’s not a hilarious class description, I don’t know what is.)
How to use “Benign Violation” Theory to Make Your Writing Funnier
Remember Peter McGraw’s “Benign Violation Theory” from lesson one? (Here’s the link if you missed it.)
(You can also read about it in more detail in McGraw’s book, The Humor Code.)
Here’s a quick recap of the theory as it relates to today’s lesson:
To be funny, something has to be a “violation”… That means it has to go against what we expect and/or feel is appropriate. If your joke is not enough of a violation, you’ll probably find yourself getting a sympathetic nod instead of a laugh.
…but it also has to be benign. That means it’s safe enough not to hurt. If your joke is not benign enough, you’re likely to find yourself on the defensive, complaining that your Facebook friends take everything too seriously and that people need to chill out. Or having to fall back on the cliche classic followup line for a not-benign-enough joke: “Too soon?”
Microscope vs. Telescope
Today’s exercise is designed to help your writing fall into the sweet spot on the Venn Diagram below. The first thing to do is think about your subject matter (or your current draft) and decide where it falls on the diagram. Then decide whether you need to take the “microscope” approach or the “telescope” approach to make it funny.
The “Microscope” Approach
If the subject matter is small and frivolous and unemotional, it naturally falls into the benign category. You can use a “microscope” approach by bring it closer to your readers and violate their expectations. (Comics and writers who do this well include Kevin Hart, Jerry Seinfeld, Woody Allen, John Mulaney, Steve Almond, and Roz Chast)
Steve Almond in Against Football
(Describing his favorite team, the Oakland Raiders)
“For those who are not familiar with the Raiders, they are the epitome of the term once proud, a franchise incapable of accepting that its best years are past. I think of them as the NFL’s version of a wildly popular child actor who starred in a couple of minor hits in the eighties and has now grown into an ugly, entitled, coke-addicted adult who struts around D-list parties in mirrored sunglasses and parachute pants reeking of Polo cologne and insulting women who decline his invitation to head back to his pad to check out his python. There is a chance I have given this analogy too much thought.”
This violates our expectations because analogies are usually short and simple. Think about some of the analogies that have become cliches: Shooting yourself in the foot. Biting the hand that feeds you. The shorter the image, the more quickly we’re able to grasp the comparison. We could have understood the childhood star analogy in just a couple of words, but the longer the description goes on, the funnier it gets.
Roz Chast
Another great example is this “Cozy Cardigan” cartoon by Roz Chast.
(In hhe narrator is someone who is supposed to be writing catalogue copy for a sweater. Readers expect very little personality and emotion to come through in this type of writing, but as you can see in the cartoon, that’s not the case for this narrator.
Tips for putting your subject under a “microscope”
-Overdo the details to the point that it becomes an inappropriate level of detail, as Steve Almond does in the example above.
-Exaggerate the emotional impact felt by the person involved so it becomes an inappropriate reaction, as in the Roz Chast cartoon.
-Tell the story through the eyes of a child. (David Sedaris does this well.)
-Act as if the story just happened. (i.e. A traffic-related story might be interesting or funny the day it happened. If you’re still telling the same story of getting cut off by some jerk eating a muffin ten months later, it’s not as funny.)
The “Telescope” Approach
If your subject matter is something very serious or sad, it’s already on the violation side of the spectrum. To make it funnier, you need to lighten it up a bit by giving readers some distance. (Comics and writers who do this well include Sarah Silverman, Anjelah Johnson, Mishna Wolff)
Paraphrased example from standup comic Anjelah Johnson:
“My mom had four kids… my dad had five… so, that’s what happened there.”
Tips for using the “telescope” approach to give readers distance from a subject:
-Deliberately withhold details
-Minimize the emotional impact
-Show that a lot of time has passed
-Show that it turned out okay for the person in the end (AKA – your painful childhood bullying experience is funnier if you are a now successful comic or a millionaire author like David Sedaris)
-Showing that the person learned the lesson and is better for the experience
-Make the narrator unsympathetic, even if the narrator is you
Today’s Writing Assignment
Write something based on the prompt below. As you write, think about where you can use the “microscope” approach to bring something closer to readers or the “telescope” approach to add distance between the readers and the subject matter.
Prompt: Write a piece that starts with the words, “I don’t know why I still remember this…” Then, describe the memory in as much detail as possible, hopefully until the reason you do remember this random thing becomes clear.
+++++
Click here to navigate back to the class overview, which contains links to all lessons.
+++++
The humor writing mini-course is a free, four-week email series. If you’re not enrolled in the class and want to start these lessons from the beginning, click here to sign up.
(Note: I don’t like to overload any of my lists with unwanted emails, so even if you are signed up for one of my main email lists, you will need to click the link above to sign up for the course.)
