As a preface, this paper will contain certain
elements of the official style (besides already this sentence), and therefore,
will bask in hypocrisy from its intention: to examine the irony in using the
communication method most conducive to anti-laughter- the official style- to
explain humor. The critique will start with contextual analysis of two
scholarly articles examining humor, followed by examples of how comedy writing
and the official style often clash, but also show certain striking similarities.
My first source, titled “Comedy and History,”
explores, fittingly, historical pieces of literature that contain traces of
humor. It is written by Richard Keller Simon, and published in the journal
“Studies in the Novel” at the University of North Texas. This is the only
section of the journal pertaining to humor; the rest consists of topics ranging
from “The Young Adult Novel” to “18th Century British Novels.”
Richard Keller Simon is no stranger to studying humor, either. He is a well
respected author who is arguably best known for his book “Trash Culture,” where
he entertains the possibility of the sitcoms “Friends” and “Seinfeld” as modern
adaptations of “Much Ado about nothing” (Shakespeare) and “The Man of Mode” (a
restoration comedy of manners by Sir George Etherege).
My second source is written by Dorothy Markiewicz,
a professor of psychology at Brock University, and Ph.D. from Ohio State
University. It's titled “The Effects of Humor on Persuasion,” and takes a
psychological approach to examining humor. It was published by the American
Sociological Association. This should be an Official Style red flag for
everyone, and sure enough, the article is drenched in it.
The point of boring contextual analysis is to
ensure that even if a piece of writing’s only intention is humor, it can have
that humor extrapolated entirely by use of the official style. Lets look at
specific passages indicating notable patterns:
“In the late sixties and early seventies interest shifted to the
ways in which comedy was an adaptive response to suffering, and, in general, to
questions of social utility” (Simon, 322).
And,
“Relevant studies typically employ satire in producing humor;
those reviewed in this section omit serious message counterparts making the
results difficult to interpret. That is, the humor-only designs used confound
the effect of humor with other variables also likely to influence attitudes”
(Markiewicz, 408).
Now, it's obvious from looking at these
two examples that the official style is in use. Excessive prepositional
phrases, relative clauses, noun modifiers, the typical things you would see
when becoming Lanham-esque and reviving sentences individually. But one
rhetorical device stood out while reading these two pieces, the recurring use
of sentential adverbs. In the first passage, the sentential adverb is “in
general,” and in the second passage, it's “that is.”
Sentential Adverbs are single words or
short phrases used to lend emphasis on the words proximate to the adverb and to
maintain continuity of the thought. But what’s intriguing is how the use of
sentential adverbs in the daunting Official Style relates to comedy writing. In
comedy writing, a small amount of text that’s used to clarify a thought and
maintain continuity of that thought is coined by a different term: a tag line.
Tag lines in comedy writing, in conjunction with the set up of the joke (or,
for comparisons sake, the first piece of information given in the Official
Style), provide continuity of the joke by adding more material.
Of course, when you take them out of
context and compare the two, they look shockingly different. But, they both
fundamentally share the same purpose. They’re words used to modify proximate
phrases and maintain continuity by adding additional pieces of- information in
the official style, and jokes in comedy. Sentential adverbs allow for increased
flow of information, and tag-lines allow for increased flow of humor. Both
completely different, used in different contexts, and defined differently,
however serving similar functions.
I’ll give an example of tag-lines from a
stand up comedy act. And since this is critiquing the official style, it would
only be right to use George Carlin’s joke about euphemisms. He expresses his disinterest in using euphemisms to
hide behind the magnitude of specific phrases, and starts the joke by
describing the evolution of the phrase “shell shock” into “post-traumatic
stress disorder.” He then says,
The set up- “And it is a function
of time. It does keep getting worse. I'll give you another example. Sometime
during my life…”
Punch line- “Sometime during my life, toilet paper became bathroom
tissue.”
The joke gets a good laugh. But then, to modify and express continuity of the original thought of
euphemisms changing language, he adds a multitude of tag lines. They are as
follows:
“Toilet paper became bathroom tissue. Sneakers became running
shoes. False teeth became dental appliances. Medicine became medication.
Information became directory assistance. The dump became the landfill. Car
crashes became automobile accidents. Partly cloudy became partly sunny. Motels
became motor lodges. House trailers became mobile homes. Used cars became
previously owned transportation. Room service became guest-room dining. And
constipation became occasional irregularity.”
Each one of those sentences is a tag
line, and each serves its purpose of modifying and continuing the original thought
of euphemisms destroying language.
Comparing these to the sentential adverbs in the
passages given, notice the similarities. In Simon’s quote, “In general” is used
after the conjunction, maintaining continuity of the intended message (“In the late sixties and early seventies
interest shifted to the ways in which comedy was an adaptive response to suffering,”)
and adding an additional piece of information “to questions of social utility.”
The difference between sentential adverbs and tag lines, besides the fact that
tag lines always come after what they're modifying and sentential adverbs can
modify phrases before or after them, is that sentential adverbs connect and
modify pieces of research, and tag-lines connect and modify pieces of humor.
In Markiewicz, the sentential adverb “that is,” is
used to modify the previous piece of information, “those reviewed in this section omit
serious message counterparts making the results difficult to interpret,” and to
add more information after, saying “the humor-only designs used confound the
effect of humor with other variables also likely to influence attitudes.” Modifying
continued thought, and adding more to that thought.
Tag lines and sentential adverbs: used
in completely different contexts, yet functioning in similar ways. The
difference between sentential adverbs and tag lines, besides the fact that tag
lines always come after what the punch line they're modifying and sentential
adverbs can modify phrases before or after them, is that sentential adverbs
connect and modify pieces of research, and tag-lines connect and modify pieces
of humor.
It's easy to pry the differences
between humor and the official style. In comedic writing, the object is to be relatable
and understandable. The average reading level for Americans is the 7th
grade; Carlin’s readability score showed an average grade level of 6.1. But
when the intention changes, and the writing is now to educate ABOUT humor, that
preferable 7th grade reading level is neglected, making the piece less
relatable, understanding, and funny. The average grade level for Simon’s piece
is 13.3, and for Markiewicz’s it's 15.5.
The intention of the official style is
widely speculated. It could be used to whole-heartedly inform, to intentionally
confuse the reader, or as a writer’s way
of puffing out their chest and showing off their writing skills. All can,
and have been argued. But the official style effectively does one thing:
distance the writer from the words they write. There’s no use of personal
pronouns, no emotion, and therefore barely any writing voice.
Writers use the official style to
dissociate themselves from their words just as comedians use the idea of humor
to hide behind theirs. Comedians are known for saying crude, inappropriate
things. There’s a specific branch of comedy called “insult comedy,” and we
watch them get on television and “roast” celebrities once a year. But we’ve all
heard the same line when a comedian crosses that very fine line: “c’mon, it's
just a joke.” Their job is to tell jokes, and if what they say gets a laugh,
that’s what it's going to be; just like the author of a scholarly article will write
pertinent information from their research. Both comedians and well-respected
authors use their words with a certain effectiveness that allows them to
dissociate from their words completely. Both humor and the official style are
hid behind.
It's ironic, yet understandable that
the official style is used to explain humor. Sure, they are seemingly entirely
different things: comedic writing lacks the official style, and nothing about
the official style is humorous. But, different spheres of activity require
different methods of writing. One is to inform (official style) and one is to
create laughter. Arguing for the official style to be abolished, and for it to
be necessary that whenever writing about humor, the author need be humorous is ill
informed in the same sense that reading about the effects of depression doesn’t
make everyone sad. The official style is used to educationally inform, not
convey laughter. It lacks emotion and doesn’t strive for it. but, However
contrasting the intentions of official style and humor may be, the use of rhetorical devices
and comedic techniques show that they do share similarities.
No comments:
Post a Comment