Humour

[The Atheist]

I guess I rate humour as my preferred way to read social commentary. Political satire is usually the best way of chopping politicians down to size, and writers of the standard of Ben Elton and Tom Sharpe have left a legacy of the 20th century viewed through satirical literature which I believe outclasses most of their competitors.

I wonder if it's the most under-rated form of literature.

I see great weight given to philosophical heavyweights which I wouldn't use as toilet paper, while satire is dismissed as lightweight. In really good satire, the message is obvious, coming with a short, powerful left hook. Maybe some people like to have it wrapped in multiple layers? A good satirist is more akin to a surgeon than a writer, needing sublime timing and precision to achieve the result, and there are a hell of a lot more triers than winners.

I'd hope that the growth and participation in internet forums has shown just how hard it is to get sarcasm across in written English, so maybe it's time we devoted more time to those writers who can make you laugh and cry in the space of two paragraphs.

[Veva]

I have to agree with what you say, besides I often feel that some people classify satire as sub-literature (just like all the B-rated love stories). I study politics at university and what I particularly like are political satires on 21st century society. :D

[bazarov]

To understand satire, you have to know what's behind it, like Bulgakov or Gogol or anyone else. If you don't know it, then satire is useless.
How can I understand British political satire when my knowledge ends with awareness that there are some Charles, Brown and Blair, and that's it?
I think that would be the main reason why you see it as under rated. It's not people don't like it; they don't get it.

[Kafka's Crow]

As far as humor goes, I read The Ode Less Traveled last week. Stephen Fry turned a highly academic subject into a very entertaining and humorous affair. Even his satire is not strictly political. He makes fun of universal afflictions like television and reality TV etc instead of remaining within the confines of 'current affairs'. Strange that a non-fiction, academic book should be treated as one of the funniest books in recent times, believe me it is. A highly recommended book indeed:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0099509342/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

[parap]

I didn't realize satire was underrated.. I always thought it was a highly respected literary genre.

[WICKES]

P G Wodehouse and Evelyn Waugh are the funniest writers in the English language as far as I'm concerned.

Aldous Huxley is witty rather than laugh out loud funny. Huxley and Waugh are great satirisers of the British upper class, but in his way so too is Wodehouse.

[The Atheist]

To understand satire, you have to know what's behind it, like Bulgakov or Gogol or anyone else. If you don't know it, then satire is useless.
How can I understand British political satire when my knowledge ends with awareness that there are some Charles, Brown and Blair, and that's it?

Sure, but political satire is only a small part of it. I'm quite sure you'd enjoy Ben Elton - his work tends much more towards the human condition. Lots of others, but I reckon he's the best of them.

[AuntShecky]

Americans in recent times are extremely literally-minded and don't seem to "get" understatement and irony. They'll read or hear sarcasm and take it seriously.

[byquist]

I stand w/you in favor of a good dose of humor. Sara Polin had some witty stingers last night in her Rep. convention speech. I wonder if she wrote those lines or w/speechwriter's help. Don't really care; she delivered them with flair.

Woody Allen touches my funny bone, although he can be a bad boy. I've seen him on the set and in real life he's rather serious and quiet, then turns into a wired performer. He has immense comic talent.

[The Atheist]

Americans in recent times are extremely literally-minded and don't seem to "get" understatement and irony. They'll read or hear sarcasm and take it seriously.

Yes, the difference between US and UK comedy is stark.


I stand w/you in favor of a good dose of humor. Sara Polin had some witty stingers last night in her Rep. convention speech. I wonder if she wrote those lines or w/speechwriter's help. Don't really care; she delivered them with flair.

I so wish I could discuss that with you!


Woody Allen touches my funny bone, although he can be a bad boy. I've seen him on the set and in real life he's rather serious and quiet, then turns into a wired performer. He has immense comic talent.

Speaking of "getting" comedy, I have never, not even once, "got" Woody Allen. Just not my cup of tea at all.

[WICKES]

To be fair I think many Americans do get irony, but they don't realise just HOW ironic the British are. The British are steeped in irony.

[LitNetIsGreat]

To be fair I think many Americans do get irony, but they don't realise just HOW ironic the British are. The British are steeped in irony.

Yes there is a funny part in one of Bryson's books Notes from a Small Island, when Bryson discusses this very matter. He says that humour is juch a daily part of life in Britain that we don't even realised we are doing it.

He recalls a simple example when buying a train ticket and the ticket seller saying "OK, that is one free ticket but the receipt will cost you £15." Just small things like that, he goes on to comment that a typical American reaction would be: "YOU TELLIN' ME THAT THE TICKET IS FREE, BUT YOU ARE CHARG'N ME FOR THE RECEIPT? WHAT KIND OF G'DAMN COUNTRY IS THIS ANYWAY?"

Of course these are only stereotypical situations but there is sometimes a grain of truth in them, and I think in this case it is so.

[JBI]

There is more to humor than satire. Satire seems to have peaked for the most part in the Enlightenment, and has been heading downhill ever since. In truth, in our age, there are just too many people and concepts to make satire a strong form of comedy, as relative to the time of Pope and Swift's era, where people actually knew who exactly, and what exactly, those guys were writing about. In truth, Tele-satirists have taken over the form, because they are able to actually have someone on their shows, who knows, or is, the person being satirized. The visual is far more successful, I think, for this genre, because it is far easier to recognize things visually, than it is literarily.

[The Atheist]

There is more to humor than satire. Satire seems to have peaked for the most part in the Enlightenment, and has been heading downhill ever since. In truth, in our age, there are just too many people and concepts to make satire a strong form of comedy, as relative to the time of Pope and Swift's era, where people actually knew who exactly, and what exactly, those guys were writing about. In truth, Tele-satirists have taken over the form, because they are able to actually have someone on their shows, who knows, or is, the person being satirized. The visual is far more successful, I think, for this genre, because it is far easier to recognize things visually, than it is literarily.

Certainly tv lends itself to satire, but so does the written word when it's done well enough.

As to whether there's more to humour than satire (in literature), I'm not so sure. I can't recall reading a non-satirical really funny book. Slapstick doesn't work in writing and puns belong in joke books.

Letting tv have a free pass on satire because it's difficult to write seems a bit of a cop out.

[Statistic]

The Colbert Report is about as far into political satire as I'll go, and I think it's because written humour just seems too reserved. With television, you get funny voice impersonations and goofy pictures, but in a book it's all dry words.

Now don't get me wrong, I love Terry Pratchett and Walter Moers and such, but I always feel like a pretentious bookworm when I laugh at something on the page, like I'm drinking spots of tea and playing gentle old sports nobody's ever heard of.

I guess my point is that people don't like written humour so much because people don't like written anything when they can relax their brains and have a video do the processing for them.

[kasie]

It's all right to laugh at something you're reading, Statistic, honest. People may regard you as a (mostly) harmless eccentric but your laughter is contagious and they will be smiling themselves before the end of the journey - some may even ask what you are reading and - hey presto - you've put someone on to a book they may never otherwise have read. (It's happened to me, anyway.)

re: pretentious bookworms - you may have to be one to appreciate all the jokes in Jason fforde's books (or maybe even a pretentious British bookworm) but possibly that is what I am, because I really enjoyed The Eyre Affair and the titles that followed it, also his Nursery crimes series, which poke gentle fun at people who 'live in books'. They are however definitely not for public consumption because they are laugh-out-loud funny but cannot be explained to a non-reader.

[Dori]

Americans in recent times are extremely literally-minded and don't seem to "get" understatement and irony. They'll read or hear sarcasm and take it seriously.

:lol: