Final Exam Essay
There are countless articles and list on the internet of jokes that only this certain group will find funny. While, some people may argue that there are jokes that everyone will find funny the fact is that it is not always the case. Jokes are largely based on the social conditions of the group of people that are listening to the joke. Take the category of “dad jokes”, which are the cheesy jokes that dads are known to tell, to a group of kids they may seem like the funniest things in the world but to teenagers they may seem annoying. However, it is not just age groups that define if a joke is a hit or miss it also depends on a person’s culture and even within a larger culture where the person is from. A person from the Midwest might find jokes funny that people from the South find to be insulting.
Examples of jokes that only a
…show more content…
The Superiority Theory follows the notion that laughter comes from a feeling of superiority over others which in some cases can be the truth. Take the invading Russian in the winter joke, a group of historians or people who are interested in history may laugh because they find it funny but they could also laugh when someone does not understand it. They laugh because they understand it and others do not and that makes them feel superior to the others.
The joke is more of a spontaneous joke pattern because people have to recognize that it is a joke. There is no set pattern to how the joke will go. Douglas focuses on Freud’s definition of a joke more so in the article because it plays more on the role on the subconscious. To Freud what makes jokes funny is that it is about the relaxation of the conscious control in favor of the subconscious. For the joke it may be funny to some people because they can just image what that scale would
“Everyone has a sense of humor. If you don't laugh at jokes, you probably laugh at opinions.” Once said an American poet, essayist, and existentialist philosopher Criss Jami, Killosophy. I also believe that humor and laugh play a big role in our lives. However, there are two types of people’s personality; people who understand humor and more open minded, and those who just cannot get it, and that, in my opinion, just makes their live harder. The article, “That’s Not Funny” by Caitlin Flanagan, is talking about college students that are not allowed to joke because of comedians restrictiveness in what they are talking
“The practical disengagement of humor…helps explain the opposition between amusement and negative emotions.” (530) There are three effects of humor; irresponsibility, blocking compassion, and promoting prejudice. Humor can take away what we are/should be doing in life and sometimes there isn’t anything wrong with that. Sometimes when we hear a hateful thing we just laugh it off as if it was no big deal when it really was. “An
Humor: Tactic that plays on social group bias. When we laugh at something, we join with people who are of like minds to laugh at the other—the distorted, the unusual, or the exaggerated.
The majority of comedy is centered on identity. Comedy, like many other aspects of different cultures contains barriers that are broken only by an understanding of the context of the comedy. In order words, it is unlikely that an African would fully understand a joke by an American comedian if the joke draws from a primarily American historical or social context. Hence, what one can identify with affects what kind of jokes one can relate to. Identity is predicated on the ability to relate because identities are formed through personal interpretations of the environment one finds himself or herself in. These personal interpretations can be highly influenced by a manipulation of the context or amount of representation. Using Bigsby and Ruckus
Raskin (1985) introduces his approach as being concerned with ‘verbal humor’, but his analyses are based on all types of humor conveyed in language, that is, our ‘verbally expressed’ humor. The widely-cited general theory of verbal humor (Attardo, 1994), which we have not space to discuss here, is about humor expressed in language, not merely humor dependent on specific language devices. To complicate matters further, Norick (2004) uses non-verbal to describe jokes which cannot be effectively conveyed in written language, since they are dependent on audible material (e.g. tone of voice) or on non-linguistic devices such as gestures; ‘verbal’ jokes would then be those which can be expressed successfully in writing. In this chapter, we will stay with the terms outlined earlier: anything conveyed in language is ‘verbally expressed humor’; ‘verbal humor’ is dependent on language-specific devices, ‘referential humor’ is based solely on meaning.
Both 1984 and The Handmaid’s Tale are dystopian novels, however, these books are a lot more complex than mere portrayals of dystopia, it can be argued that they are explorations of dystopia rather than mere portrayals. In order to explore dystopia, many themes must be considered, such as; feminism, love and repression. Nonetheless, it is apparent that human characteristics are the driving point of the two novels, predominantly, the depiction of human resilience. In an imperfect world, it is important to have certain qualities which, if plentiful, it can mean success, whereas if it lacks, it can mean failure, this characteristic is resilience. The protagonists in each novel, Winston in 1984 and Offred in The Handmaid’s Tale face situations which leave them both in disarray, and both even consider suicide. The authors tentatively highlight human resilience, its limits and most importantly its strengths into the two novels.
The films The Searchers and Avatar both make use of the master narratives of regulating social order and disorder. One is used as a way to reinforce this narrative, while the latter is shaped more towards critiquing the overall of ideal of the American social order. The struggle presented by an external threats in both films give the opportunity of interpreting and contrasting the master narrative and the effects that can come from imbalances in social orders.
As a young graduate student who never been to Congress, Woodrow Wilson criticized the founding fathers on the separation of powers. Between his first book, Constitutional Government, in 1884, and his second book, Constitutional Government in the United States, in 1908, Wilson shifted his position on important structural features of the constitutional system. The first changed Wilson did in Constitutional Government, was to define the term “constitution” which he ignored in his first book. Second, Wilson focused his study on the presidential power defined by the constitution and third he also realized that external forces are now shaping American politics more than the intentions of the founders.
• Incongruity Theory posits that comedy is derived from the perception of something incongruous violating our mental patterns and expectations. Sunny Prestatyn initially constructs an idyllic image of femininity only to undermine it through coarse sexual innuendo, offensive language, and violent imagery to comedic effect.
“‘They score! Henderson has scored for Canada!’” Foster Hewitt wordlessly described” (Pelletier) when Paul Henderson scored the series-winning goal. This allowed Canada to win the 1972 Summit Series, a moment that no one would ever forget since it all happened during the climax of the Cold War. Prior to this, the Soviets had won the previous three Olympic gold metals since Canada could not use its NHL players. Thus, this provided Canada with the chance to play hockey against the USSR using its best players. This raised the question: if Canada were able to send its best players, would it still be enough to beat the Soviets? Everyone in Canada was certain that the Soviets would not win a single game, but little did they know they underestimated the extent of the Soviets abilities. Tied in the last few minutes of game eight, Canada had to score or they would lose the series. However, when Paul Henderson scored the game-winning goal, never before had a single sporting event meant so much to Canadians. Therefore, Paul Henderson’s goal is a defining moment for Canada in the twentieth century becauseit provided Canada with the opportunity to evolve hockey, proved that Canada and our democratic society were superior to the USSR and their communist society, and brought citizens together to unify Canada as a nation.
When you think something is funny you stop and laugh it off. You might even consider reading it again to see what the message of that joke or humor is in the
Scott Hightower’s poem “Father” could be very confusing to interpret. Throughout almost the entirety of the poem the speaker tries to define who his father is by comparing him to various things. As the poem begins the reader is provided with the information that the father “was” all of these things this things that he is being compared to. The constant use of the word “was” gets the reader to think ‘how come the speaker’s father is no longer comparable to these things?’ After the speaker reveals that his father is no longer around, he describes how his father impacted him. Details about the father as well as descriptions of the impacts the father has distraught on the speaker are all presented in metaphors. The repetitive pattern concerning the speaker’s father and the constant use of metaphors gives the reader a sense that the speaker possesses an obsessive trait. As the reader tries to interpret the seemingly endless amount of metaphors, sets of connotative image banks begin to develop in the reader’s mind. Major concepts that are expressed throughout the poem are ideas about what the speaker’s father was like, what he meant to the speaker, and how he influenced the speaker.
Psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists study humor because it is a fundamental culture value, but they still can’t determine why certain things make some people laugh and others not. There are “humor quotient” tests that are designed to measure an individual’s sense of humor, but these tests are questionable. These tests aren’t accurate because almost all humor depends on cultural background knowledge and language skills. Not every person in the whole world, or even in one country share the same background knowledge and skills, therefore they cannot have the same type of humor. “The fact remains that individuals vary in their appreciation of humor” (Rappoport 9). Since humor varies from individual to individual, humor lies in the individual. How successful or funny a joke is depends on how the person receives the joke, humor cannot be measured by a statistical
For some, the punchline to this joke falls flat. Others react with shock and disgust. Finding a listener who both understand the joke and thinks that it is funny is quite difficult, but immensely rewarding. Before explaining the format of the joke, or why anyone would find it funny, the requisite knowledge for understanding it needs to be explained.
Writers at the time such as Aristophanes and Menander wrote comedy similarly to how we do today, mocking politicians, fellow writers, and Greek philosophers (Mark Cartwright). The word ‘comedy’ is derived from Middle English, from Medieval Latin comoedia, from Latin, ‘drama with a happy ending’ (Merriam-Webster). This joyful type of performance may be why we commonly use the word ‘comedy’ to talk about jokes, humor, and hilarious performers. Comedy is meant to bring us joy and relief from reality’s negativity. Mary O’Hara wrote about comedy for a BBC article titled “How Comedy Makes us Better People”: “Comedy is more than just a pleasant way to pass an evening, humour more than something to amuse. They’re interwoven into the fabric of our everyday existence. Whether you’re sharing an amusing story down the pub, making a self-deprecating joke after someone pays you a compliment or telling a dark joke at a funeral, humour is everywhere. (O’Hara)” This is certainly an accurate statement about modern comedy. Comedy is not sadness, but rather a way to forget the woes of everyday life. What is the point in humorous incidents and ridiculous jokes if they do not make a person smile or laugh so hard their gut