The Name of the Rose
discussion
the question of humor
date
newest »
newest »
It is beyond me how anyone could read the book of Jonah and insist there is no humor in religion.
Inadvertent humor or deliberately intended humor? Thanks for the comment!
It might be in countenance with religion, but totally incompatible with fanaticism/religious extremism. And that applies to all areas of endeavor, spiritual or otherwise; that's at least in my personal experience.There is something about close-mindedness that's unwelcoming to all things humorous.
One has to wonder though, what Eco's views in this matter really stand, since it was a pretty dull, humorless book.
I do enjoy this book as it gave an insight into the religious community of medieval times when the church was still the authority on most things in the "civilised" world. The man knows his material which should be expected from a person of his profession.I found the history part and the ongoing discussion about faith and it interpretation most fascinating. And I found that there was lot more to be learned about the history of the various Christian persuation in Europe nad the Middle east.
And I do believe that humor was considered work from the devil, if only because a lot of it was aimed at the church as well and they did not enjoy that. So more a sort of censorship when they did have that power.
So I guess Dan Brown is lucky he lives in the twentyfirst century.
Wasn't Eco just trying to show the age old contrast between the stoics and the epicureans? I think he demonstrates that either extreme is detrimental
It seems to boil down to believing whether Christ every laughed. In the book it was stated that this topic was one that was hotly debated by theologians over many centuries. So if a monk believed that Christ never laughed, and that priests should be models of Christ, then humor/laughter was counter to true religion.I don't think Eco himself was taking a stand. In fact, a lot of the book is just exposing little known bits of medieval history (Eco was primarily a historian). Bit of a showoff in my opinion.
But the humor issue did provide the motives for the murders, so was important to the plot.
Agreed. Ty for these comments/insights. I agree..Eco took pains to show both sides of the debate.But, a 'show-off'? If that's the case, let's have more of it. Can you imagine how dull things would be if he had never written this book? Considering the thin, pathetic, fumbling, un-researched medieval-style fantasy shyt we see published lately?
Anyway..as I recall his friends had to coax him to publish, he was perfectly content being an obscure professor...nice dilemma I'm sure we'd all like to enjoy someday..
I seem to remember somewhere that in Jewish theology it is stated that laughter is a mitzvah (commandment).And the story of David dancing before the Lord, and the response to his wife's disapproval, seems to state the Old Testament position.
So there is a long-standing religious tradition that does NOT see humour & devotion as antithetical.
I enjoyed Eco's exploration of mediaeval theology immensely - particularly once I worked out that William's Pope was the one that history has decided is an antipope! So much so, that I started reading up on Cathar doctrine...
I admit that I now am surprised that Eco ascribed the humourless position to the Catholic side of the debate. It seems to me to fit closer to the Cathar ethos. Maybe Salvatore had had an influence on the murderer...?
William of Baskerville is a medieval Sherlock Holmes, and this book provides a "hook" for Eco to drape his extensive historical expertise over and around a trope, ie (damn spell corrector won't allow the periods between i and e), a murder in a medieval monastery. It also allows him to demonstrate the vast distance we have traveled in reasoned discourse and the logic of following our noses (clues). That he throws in some banter between theological positions on laughter serves two purposes: to flesh out the villain and to increase the reader's sense of verisimilitude. Please note that the abbot's short discourse on the riches of the abbey are taken from Abbot Suger, a famed medieval churchman and head of the abbey at Cluny, France.
Of course, Dorothy. But understanding that Eco's purpose is literary surely does not preclude our choosing to here join in with the mediaeval theological debate. It existed before Eco referenced it, and can continue to do so.
Laughter and Religion are not incompatible. However, it would be if one were to laugh during a solemn ritual. I haven't checked, but it is probable that this was a typical Theological debate of the era depicted.
I'm a big fan of Abbot Suger. You're preaching to the choir.
It seems to me laughter always has a disruptive element. Some Buddhist traditions (Zen?) seem keen on laughter, despite it being meditative religion (if you class them as religions). I wonder if that is because it disrupts or stops thought. That's different to a Christian contemplative tradition.A related question is "why are there no right-wing comedians?" Is humour naturally anti-authoritarian?
My view is that almost all humour involves an element of carnival, of inversion. It's funnier to see a wealthy person slip on a banana skin than a poor person. (And if you disagree, there's something wrong without.) Which also links to Christianity being dubious towards humour while a more anti-authoritarian tradition like Zen Buddhism might be more positive. (Assuming my view of Zen Buddhism is correct in the first place.)
I suppose the big counter-example is making fun of out-groups (eg. racist jokes). Does that outweigh the anti-authoritarian aspects of humour?
Good insights. Yes, I certainly agree that the roots of humor are in a reaction to authority. Its said to be a nervous reaction to 'stiffness' and 'formality'...the grimness inherent to that. Laughter erupts out of that tension; which I suppose (going all the way back to our hominid roots was really the domination of the alpha male over the beta males). Baring one's teeth being a way to show that one was de-escalating conflict.There's also an argument which says that a good joke is almost always going to be coarse, tasteless and offensive to some. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with that; it seems the perfect antidote for self-righteous, prudery, and priggishness.
Well, wasn't one of the complaints that the Pharisees levelled against Jesus that he was hanging out with "the wrong people"? Given that he replies with a condemnation of their assumption of grave expressions, it seems he himself was OK with smiles and laughter.
Ironically, immediately after reading this thread, I was given the following link: https://www.academia.edu/477378/Humor...
To me, a large part of the interaction between Jesus and his disciples reads like a straight man/funny man act. (eg. Jesus warns about "the yeast of the pharisees", the disciples worry he means they didn't bring enough bread.)
"I have a v-wew-wy gweat fwiend in Wome named..'Biggus Dickus'..."
I agree with all that's been said about humor and religion--but I want to shout that The Name of the Rose has LOTS of humor in it. I remember chuckling a lot while reading it, whether at something like lovesick Adso reading "erudite" texts about his condition or at the wonderfully LONG and detailed lists of things like all the rogues and rascals wandering around the country or at a detail like tired monkish copyists writing in the margins things like, "Oh, if I had a good glass of wine." Surely the book is also serious, suspenseful, awful, and philosophical etc., but it's also a funny book (partly) about humor.
Perhaps the morality of laughter depends not on the act but on the cause. That is to say, it is immoral to laugh at suffering, but it is a requirement that we laugh in spite of suffering.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
What I wanted to kick around is the passage in Eco's novel in which his villain (prior to his unmasking) vehemently insists that religion and humor are incompatible. This is the most curious point which I took away from the read. In the book, Eco merely arrays the arguments against each other; which--although edifying--the purpose of the dialog was to 'clue in' his protagonist (William of Baskerville) that there is fanaticism present in one of his suspects; and I don't recall either side winning its case.
Anyway what do you think about the dilemma? Is laughter in countenance with devotion and contemplation? Or is it too earthly, too animalistic, and therefore an interruption and distraction to spiritual reverence?