Funny.

Kind of funny?


Seriously NOT funny.


Funny again?




Humor, irony, failure are all working together in my work, but here's why I'm sort of conflicted with this whole thing: when someone uses humor to highlight the absurdity and contradiction of difficult conflicts (like when someone makes a funny-but-true rape joke as opposed to an always-funny fart joke), it would seem as though by laughing at this fearful event, it proves how powerless that fear really is. Or at least, it proves that it is not unapproachable from a perspective other than stoic seriousness. But I also think then that people often put too much faith in the power of laughter then, because laughing at something sad doesn't actually fix it. Laughter or humor may be a way of coping with something difficult, it may allow one to live in spite of sadness, or to make suffering more bearable, but after a while the jokes stop being funny and the pain and sadness persists, you know?
It seems like a great challenge to always make something funny again once it starts to get too serious, but that feels more like a cavalier attempt at endlessly deferring real engagement with conflict. It gets to be a kind of nihilistic, mean-spirited coyness that doesn't really make sadness approachable, rather it seems to be abetting it.
Does this make sense?
Irony is seductive, but it's not an answer.
I guess I'm also just looking for a way to understand joke making and humor as being engagement, and not an alientated, distanced approach to the world.
I mean, The Daily Show seems like something that might be considered engaging right? But is it really? Or is it the distanced coyness that I've been blathering about? Does that show actually motivate anyone to behave differently in their lives, or does it reduce the individuality of various conflicts into a generality of punchline jokes, where the only action is to recognize the conflict, laugh, and wait for the next joke?
I guess the choice to act is an individual one, and we shouldn't rely on other people to MAKE US make that choice, but there's still something to be said for motivation I hope.
Again, I'm really sorry if this sounds like some kind of mindless judgment that doesn't have a point. I've probably got some holes in this logic that I haven't worked out yet.
I was in New York at the beginning of the Summer and I met David Cross at a lecture he was moderating about "the state of contemporary comedy." I asked him about this stuff that I've just written here. he was no help. He was actually really nice at first, but then he started acting defensive and pretty much told me to fuck off. Probably because I sounded to him like some jerkstore academic who was trying to prove him wrong or attack him or something. I don't know. I wasn't trying to do that. I'm just an over-analyzing grown-up. Anyway, I'm not trying to do that now either. I just thought I'd catharticate it out.
Now I'm out.
Peace.