Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ucbvax!brahms!weemba
From: weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener)
Newsgroups: net.jokes.d
Subject: Re: traditional values, Salome, and a Siberian joke at the end.
Message-ID: <12006@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Mon, 24-Feb-86 05:28:55 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12006
Posted: Mon Feb 24 05:28:55 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Feb-86 06:35:14 EST
References: <263@galbp.UUCP> <418@cisden.UUCP> <1124@oddjob.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 57

In article <1175@oddjob.UUCP> apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) writes:
>In article <140@midas.UUCP> jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes:
>>If you don't think a joke is funny, you look pretty silly trying to explain
>>to everyone where its humor lies.
>
>Glib, but wrong. You might as well say that, if you don't like a play, you
>look pretty silly trying to explain what the author was trying to do. It's
>perfectly possible intelligently to criticize humor which you don't find
>funny. All you need is the ability to understand and write text.

It varies.  Half of the time I've seen reviews trashing a movie or play,
and they seemed perfectly on the money.  The other half I wanted to trash
the critic, as he seems to have picked completely irrelevant features as
the basis of the review.

My favorite example is the opening reviews for Samuel Beckett's modern
classic _Waiting For Godot_.  All but two of the London critics and all
the Miami critics trashed it as the stupidest thing they had ever seen,
and that it made no sense, and nothing happened, and the characters were
dirty and filthy, and Godot never came anyway, etc.  Talk about missing
the point!

(Nowadays Beckett suffers the opposite problem: reviewers jump over each
other to outsay how his latest three minute tragicomedy has every meaning of
life, perfectly describe man's fate, poignantly captures eternal suffering,
etc.  Not that he minds, of course.)

But jokes are different than plays, and I'll agree with Jeff:

>>If you don't think a joke is funny, you look pretty silly trying to explain
>>to everyone where its humor lies.

I've had lots of talks with friends about what is funny and what isn't,
and the disagreements astonish me.  I have one friend who does not like
the film _Dark Star_ nor the novel _A Confederacy of Dunces_.  Another
friend doesn't understand the B.C. cartoon I have taped to my office
door that goes (M=male character, F=female character) M:"But I feel
nothing for you but respect." F:"Men, you're all so transparent." and
F stomps away as M and the reader simultaneously notice that M wasn't
casting a shadow all along.  He agrees with the mechanical explanation
of the humor, but still didn't think it funny.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every time I see this subject line come up I keep expecting a Siberian joke
at the end.  So here goes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deep in the far Siberian Gulag the local radio is blaring.  "Wake up, o
comrades, wake up.  Comrade Gorbachev is getting up just now, and it is
time for all of you to wake up in joy and happiness with Comrade Gorbachev."
Every wakes up as begrudgingly as possible.  The radio now blares some more.
"Exercise time, o comrades, exercise time.  Comrade Gorbachev is doing his
morning exercises, and it is time for all of you to do your glorious morning
exercises in joy and happiness with Comrade Gorbachev."  Everyone does one
toe touch as slowly as possible.  And now the radio blares one more.  "And
now Comrade Gorbachev is eating a hearty breakfast.  Say thanks with Comrade
Gorbachev, say thanks in joy and happiness with Comrade Gorbachev!"

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720