The Humour Club discussion
Writing
>
Is it possible for humor to be too dark?
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
Sounds darkly hilarious! Clones can be funny IMHO.
Mod
I'm a sucker for really dark jokes. Like Sauron losing one finger and an eye in a work related incident, and having to take a Disability Working Allowance test as a result
Some of the funniest jokes will come in the middle of a dark moment when least expected. I put that theory to the test once, during a funeral, and almost wound up with my own casket.
I don't know why y'all just don't turn on the lights. Ba dump bum. I swear I read somewhere once (I don't seem to have as many brain cells as I used to so I'm not sure where I read it) that true comedy falls in that space between truth and pain, which would rather suggest that there is at least some darkness on all comedy. And isn't true.
Think about it -- the most basic joke: someone gets a pie in the face as a reward. The pie is an award, something he wants. That's the truth. Getting it on the face is a mean pain. Yet we laugh. (If we're not cowering from our fear of clowns)
Sorry for the typos there. I'm on my phone and I'm not a teenager! Who has fingers that skinny and nimble for the tiny letters on the screen? That is a painful truth for me: I'm too "old" to use this bleeping machine that is really too expensive for any young person to be held accountable for.
Sorry for the typos there. I'm on my phone and I'm not a teenager! Who has fingers that skinny and nimble for the tiny letters on the screen? That is a painful truth for me: I'm too "old" to use this bleeping machine that is really too expensive for any young person to be held accountable for.
Mod
A believer in free speech, I can understand we should be able to stretch the limits of any form of expression, including dark, humorous writings and cartoons, with no boundaries applied. But at what point do they become too reprehensible to be published? Some of Charlie Hebdo's caricatures of religious figures were downright depraved (Like a spread-eagle Mohammed). But he did what he believed, and died standing.No one would want their young children to see those front page drawings and I can understand some of the outrage. We all have a tolerance point, I suppose. But I guess it's a bit harder to tell a fundamentalist to "lighten up".
I'm just back from attending the Cardiff Je Suis Charlie solidarity rally.My view boils down to this: some of the cartoons were outrageous, and some Islamic groups tried (via the french courts) to have publication stopped. That's entirely fine by me: the rule of law wins. The rule of the AK47 however is one we all need to protest, or the terrorists win by default.
Mod
I heard someone on NPR last night saying that in part Charlie Hebdo published such things as way to put European Muslims on notice: If you can't cope with this sort of thing, you don't belong in Europe. That's an interesting attitude with it's own layers to sort out, but I have to kind of agree. If you need to be in a world where no one thinks differently from you, then create one and stay there.
That, of course, is what most conservative Americans have done with Fox News: created a world where everything confirms their viewpoint and stayed there.
Everyone focusses on the religious stuff, but of course Charlie Hebdo did a huge level of political satire too.I'm just back from the Cardiff rally, where the biggest applause was for the muslim leader who tore into the murderers
Back to the religious stuff, Charlie mocked every diety and religious leader equally, as he had every right to do, without being killed. But, in turn, the incident has managed to bring those cartoons even more publicity, more 'sacrilegious' images views world-wide, than had the terrorists just left them alone.
Rebecca wrote: "That, of course, is what most conservative Americans have done with Fox News: created a world where everything confirms their viewpoint and stayed there. "That's why you don't put all your trust in one network, they all have their agendas, not only FOX news! I see the New York magazine's website calls Fox the old people network...??? The simpletons forget that old people have experienced the world a bit more than rappers and hollywood movie stars.
Mod
Of course, those of us on the other side have plenty of options for hearing only our own viewpoints, too.
As in Fox's recent faux pas in allowing one 'expert' to announce that the third biggest city in the Uk was now a muslim only enclave into which no white people venture.(Muslim population varies between 15% and 21% of the total population of the city. I climbed Snowden at the same time as a bunch of them last year, and they were brilliant lads)
Will wrote: "As in Fox's recent faux pas in allowing one 'expert' to announce that the third biggest city in the Uk was now a muslim only enclave into which no white people venture.(Muslim population varies b..."
That anyone would even believe a story about Muslims having over-run even the thirty-third biggest city in the UK would be something worthy of going viral on Youtube. We've heard experts testify with skewed reports from the far left as well as the far right, why trust one source over another. The big money on either side edits the news content. But, I believe his point was that in many major cities in Europe, there are sharia zones allowed. I wouldn't be happy with christian-only zones or yiddish-only zones, harekrishna-only! My God it doesn't bare thinking about!
Mod
No, just some areas where it is permissible to solve disputes over contracts that have been written under Sharia law by refering to the principles of sharia law to determine the original intention of the parties involved, in order to come to a legal conclusion on the dispute.
Rebecca wrote: "I wouldn't say Fox is limited to old people! Actually, many older people are liberal. Fox is limited to those who don't much care if their news has any factual basis whatsoever, so long as it supports their viewpoint. Of course, those of us on the other side have plenty of options for hearing only our own viewpoints, too. .."
I read a great sci-fi book last year called Lexicon. Its about a cabal of people who have learned to manipulate everyone else into doing their will. One minor technique they use [not a spoiler] involves an on-line news site based on the very principles Rebecca mentions above. The first time you visit the site, the news, op-eds, etc. are truly 'fair and balanced," but the site is keeping track of what viewpoints you 'like' or 'dislike' and spend the most time on. The next time you sign on, you begin to see more stories and editorials that fit your particular world view. After the user has been on the site numerous times and the site has had time to thoroughly analyze the reader's profile, conservatives are only seeing materials that reinforce their ideas, liberals see stuff that seems to prove their views are correct. Racists, Christians, moderates, radicals etc. all see stories and opinion pieces that reinforce their own beliefs. Then, eventually, once the reader has learned that he agrees with virtually everything on the site, the cabal, working through the site, uses the reader's own biases to convince them to believe anything the cabal wants them to believe.
This 'business model' may very well be the future of the 'news'. And yes, I am wearing my tin-foil hat right now, just in case Goodreads is trying to read my mind.
Sorry, but I am emphatically "not Charlie". Yes, the extremists should not have resorted to a gun attack to get across their point of view. But Charlie Hebdo should not have published those cartoons in the first place. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to publish anything. We have limitations around libel and slander, around pornography and racial or sexual discrimination - and rightly so.
IMHO, we should all unite to oppose extremism and racial hatred, whether this is enforced by the pen or the gun.
Pseudonymous wrote: "Rebecca wrote: "I wouldn't say Fox is limited to old people! Actually, many older people are liberal. Fox is limited to those who don't much care if their news has any factual basis whatsoever, so ..."Exactly my point. Don't pick on one viewpoint and say the other is filled only with lies and extremism, when they both obviously have their agendas. I really take pleasure in discussing current events with two neighbors harboring opposiing viewpoints. One of them, the liberal, just today told me that a good source reports the Republicans are trying to dispose of social security. The other, a conservative extremist was getting his rifle, camping equipment and moving up to the hills of Tennessee- his wife had other plans.
As far as Sharia zones in Europe, even ABC news had a feature on it made by a muslim woman journalist, who was disrespected by one of the roaming gang members she was interviewing. They also show extreme alternative gang members. Sad to see all that hatred.
And Will, I agree about feeling "not Charlie". Although he should have the right to express his views, the man has to think of his family first. To place everyone in his vicinity in danger by ignoring the warnings was foolish and unbelievably selfish.
Andre, Charlie Hebdo was not one person: the magazine name arose based on a scurrilous nickname for De Gaulle.Will knows I believe his argument to be morally flawed. Some of the cartoons may well be OTT - I personally would not have supported their use: but they fell within French law, as tested in that instance: to say 'Not Charlie' is therefore to condone the use of force instead of the use of law.
Let me copy something from a half french mate of mine,perhaps you will understand a little more, then we should close the discussion:
'I have noted, with sadness, that some commentators in the press are, in an effort to present both sides of the argument, giving in to the pressures of political correctness and labelling Charlie Hebdo as sexist, racist and homophobic. There seems to be a need in some parts of the press to describe Charlie Hebdo as no more than a vehicle for mindless hate.
They are missing the point, and they are cheapening the very serious labels they apply in such facile manner.
Yes, Charlie Hebdo could (and still can) be immensely offensive. I think many of those who rushed to buy a copy from the 3 million print run, for whatever motives, might be a little shocked by the contents, and might understand why it normally sold comparatively few units. They might be the proud owners of a piece of history they hide away and never look at again. But that publication was not (and I hope will not ever become) a simple repository of hate.
Its purpose was to mock hate. It existed to be an agent provocateur, goading haters into making even bigger fools of themselves. It used disgust and revulsion to mock oppressors and hypocrites in a humorous tradition that goes back to the French Revolution and centuries before. Even if its not always funny. That's why the latest Charlie Hebdo lambasted the politicians who marched in support of the recent demonstration in Paris.
Please don't let political correctness skew the debate about freedom of speech. Charlie Hebdo was a distorting mirror placed before society. By shocking society, it intended to make people think, challenge prejudices and question the status quo. Remember that Charlie Hebdo took on everyone. Absolutely everyone. For example, my earliest memories of it as a child growing up in France was that it used to regularly demonise the police for discriminating against young Muslims.
It used to support causes just as much as it used to take causes down a peg or two, from one edition to another. No-one was particularly targeted, because no-one ever was spared.'
Will - "I am not Charlie" does not mean I condone the violence. Far from it.You said it - the cartoons are OTT and you would not have supported their publication.
That's my position too. Because of that I simply cannot say "I am Charlie". For me "I am Charlie" implies several things - sympathy for those hurt or killed, unity of purpose against terrorism, support of free speech (within limits) and support for Charlie Hebdo's publication of those cartoons.
I can do all of that except for the last bit. I don't want anyone to read my support for the people of Paris to include support for the publication of those cartoons. Je suis Paris. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis policier. Mais je ne suis pas Charlie.
Interesting response from your French friend. The main argument is that Charlie Hebdo attacked everyone, so it's okay. They are trying to take the moral high ground.
I don't know if Charlie Hebdo took on everyone. It's not the sort of magazine that I would ever buy. But I do know this ...
Islam has a prohibition on the publication of images of the prophet. It is not just offensive to Muslims, it is prohibited. Is Charlie Hebdo publishing any other material which is specifically prohibited by someone's faith?
This idea of a distorting mirror placed before society ... exactly how does mocking a core tenet of someone's faith help to challenge prejudices?
Far from mocking hate, Charlie Hebdo has become a vehicle for hate. I suspect that some copies of their latest edition are being bought by extremists as examples of why we are the Great Satan and why they believe jihad is justified.
That does not condone the violence in the slightest. It is morally wrong to take a life to prove a point.
But Charlie Hebdo should not have published those images before the shootings and they should not have published them afterwards. The fact of the shooting does not change that.
Dressing it up in fancy ideals does not change the basic point. There is no excuse for the publication of those cartoons.
Mod
As I understand from a piece on NPR, the prohibition against depictions of the prophet are not Koran-based, but are specific to one branch of Islam. That branch is the most vocal these days, but they are not the whole story. And, finally (even though our other Will suggested we lay the topic to rest, and I'm stirring it up more), there is the question of whether an atheist really does have to adhere to the restrictions of any religion, any more than the laws in certain countries against unflattering depictions of their rulers prevent people outside the country from mocking them.
Christians have certainly put up with some offensive depictions of Christ without resorting to violence, and in general without winning the right to say that no one can insult their god. I'm not saying some haven't screamed bloody murder about it, just that the courts seem to uphold the idea that we in fact do NOT have to follow the rules of any religion. Obviously, that is not true in those countries that have religious rule, but...
Rebecca - you are comparing chalk and cheese. There are very small numbers of people who object to having their photographs taken, or minority Christian sects who have a particular view on idol worship.That's hardly a comparison with the 1.8 billion followers of Islam, many of who consider depictions of Mohammed to be prohibited. And most of whom are deeply offended by mocking cartoons of Mohammed.
Why does an atheist need to respect the rules of another religion? For the same reason that white people respect people of colour, men respect women and heterosexuals respect people from the LGBT community. Because it's the right thing to do. We shouldn't have to be part of a community in order to have a basic level of respect for that community.
The fact that I am white does not stop me from refusing to say the n word.
And why do you think that some courts have upheld the publication of images of Mohammed? Courts exist to uphold national laws - laws that are devised and changed by Governments. That does not mean that the courts are deciding between right and wrong. They are simply interpreting the laws as they are written.
Or put it another way, in the 1930s the German Nazi party "legitimised" anti-Semitism by passing a series of anti-Semitic laws. In 1988 the UK Government passed a law preventing the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities (which has since been repealed). Just because something has been judged to be legal does not mean it is right.
Mod
I personally think American football is a barbaric sport as well as mostly boring. I deal with that by not watching. Sure, it's not the same thing, but the fact is that the world is FULL of stuff that offends people, especially people with conservative religious values. If we start by saying that we have to respect the rule against images, do we draw the line at saying there can't be any more photos published of women in bikinis? I honestly don't see the difference, and I am very worried by the implication that sheer numbers make it okay to go along.
We may have to agree to disagree on this one.
You don't see the difference between something that might offend some people ...... and something that is specifically prohibited by law for a large proportion of the world's population?
Sure, a comparison with women in bikinis or American football makes it sound like a small thing. But how about if we were talking about child pornography? What if Charlie Hebdo had published a picture of a man raping a ten year old?
After all, it's only an image, right? Freedom of speech and all that. The right to annoy. Let's walk down the street with pens held aloft for our right to publish child pornography. Je suis Jimmy Saville?
Ah, but you will argue that it's not the same. A pornographic image is clearly unacceptable. An image of Mohammed is different. It's "only" an image of someone's prophet.
And there's the problem. You don't know how offensive an image of Mohammed is for some people if you don't share their religion.
Mod
I think this may answer the OP's question: maybe if humor is too dark, it leads to serious discussions and kills laughter.
On the other hand, I have been convulsed with laughter at the decision of one of our stand up comedians to stand for election to parliament against the populist loony far right party leader.Policies include bricking up the Channel Tunnel (using British bricks, but probably Polish brickies) reducing the cost of beer and revaluing the pound so that it is worth more...
Will wrote: "On the other hand, I have been convulsed with laughter at the decision of one of our stand up comedians to stand for election to parliament against the populist loony far right party leader."Only one? We have a lot of clowns running for office here in the U.S.
We've only elected one professional comedian to the Senate, though. The rest of the Senators are amateurs.
Will, we, on this side of the pond also enjoy our ex-wrestlers, and movie actors, all of them, as Psudo points out, comedians, putting on a beneficent front to the public and playing to each party doctrine. We all know that politics world-wide is basically just standup comedy done from podiums, with good marketing, and lots of serious money. Most voters vote for the most personable candidate rather than the more experienced.
I say let's get rid of all of them all, sweep the floor, start from scratch.(Beatle's song "Revolution" starts in right about here)...
Either way we feel about Charlie, the sad thing is it is not 'over' by a long shot.
Peace!
Mod
I'm working on my horror sequel at the moment: to keep from writing jokes, I've dug out my Black Sabbath on vinyl.
Yes, moving on ...I don't know which is more terrifying. The thought of Al Murray becoming an MP, that he might split the anti-Farage vote or that the public would vote for either of them.
Back to the OP's question, or rather the first and most explicit part of his question ... yes, humour can be too dark if it drives people apart. The best humour brings at least two people together. The author finds something funny and then shares it with an audience of at least one other person. And when it works there is a shared spark, a common experience.
My dog has no nose. How does it smell? Awful.
And the shared experience is that "how does it smell" has more than one meaning. Zzzap of connection between joke teller and audience.
But that wasn't the OP's question, was it? He'd really like us to concentrate on his book. Bill - if you do want feedback feel free to drop me a PM.
Mod
dark humour:How can an examination of four people's agony be so enthralling? - The Guardian.
A Long Way Down
It's very funny and absorbing at the same time
The Humour Club
Books mentioned in this topic
A Long Way Down (other topics)Lexicon (other topics)
Link: http://amzn.com/B00NQP0SD0