Theories of Comedy

Hello, and thank you for checking out Why Theory, a podcast that brings philosophy and psychoanalytic theory together to explain cultural phenomena. In our first episode, we will briefly define theory and explain some of the overarching goals and aims of this podcast, before an in-depth theoretical exploration of our first topic. Comedy. Thanks for listening. I hope you enjoy the podcast. You got record. We got levels. Yep. All right, very good. Okay. All right. Hello. My name is Ryan Engley, one of your hosts for Why Theory. The other host is Todd McGowan. Say hi Todd. Hi Ryan. I said say hi Todd. Come on. All right. And this is going to be a hopefully monthly podcast where we talk about theory. Now before we get into why theory and answer that question, it's probably important to answer what is theory. When we say theory, we are referring to a specific strand of intellectual thought that begins in earnest probably with Kant in the beginning of the period that is largely referred to as a German idealism. And so theory for us moves from Kant to Hegel, Marx, Freud, who people variously describe as inheriting either the Kantian tradition or the Hegelian tradition, it depends on who you read. But either way, from him, we move forward to closer to the contemporary time with the work of Jacques Lacan. So if you had to look at this, what we have is a body of thought that has Kant on one end and moves all the way to things as far away from Kant as a queer theory today, but someone like Lee Edelman might be a good exemplar of this. So this wide-ranging historical body of thought is broader, I think would be the word. It applies universally. And so there's a universality to it that I think we will insist on in these podcasts. And I think Todd, this is actually something that your comedy book does a good job of insisting on as well. In just a word on universality, what we mean is this thought allows us to see universal features that do not designate universal outcomes. So when Todd talks about his book in a minute, this will show us a little bit of what we mean when we say universality as well. Again, looking at imminent features that do not designate specific outcomes. So anyway, that's what we mean when we say what theory is. So Todd, I'm going to kick it to you. Why theory? Why are we doing this? Yeah, sure, thanks, Ryan. I think that our ideas that our daily lives are so full of theoretical experiences, but we're constantly failing to recognize them as theoretical. You and I think we've guilty to this as well. So we think in order to watch a film, view a sporting event, or even engage in a typical conversation, we have to perform a series of theoretical operations. But our everyday life functions by keeping theory repressed. This repression extends even, I think, into the academy where today stem disciplines are totally de-placing the humanities. And even within the humanities, historicism and empirical research is displacing theory. At least theory in the sense that we, that Ryan just described it in the way in which we understand it. And we view this podcast as an attempt to resist this and resist the marginalization of theory. And again, we're not trying to say that we're going to merge all theories into one or come up with one single, all-encompassing theory. But our idea is that we can, in this kind of a malgum that Ryan mentioned, that we can articulate a theory that hopefully people will find helpful for understanding the world that they're dealing with in the events that they're watching and taking part in. All right, fantastic. Yeah, that's, and that is our mission statement. And so the first context in which we're going to apply the insights of theory is going to be comedy. This is not by any means an accident. You wrote a book a while ago. That book has just been published called Only a Joke Can Save Us A Theory of Comedy. Now in that work, theory of comedy emerges in your writing where you see the comedic as something that arises through the convergence of lack and excess. So take me through the dominant theories of comedy and then what does your theory of comedy do? Sure, sure. Thanks, Ryan. So basically, in sort of history of philosophy, there have been three dominant theories. So the first one, which usually gets us to play, and play those being critical of it, is what's known as the superiority theory, which views comedy as this mode of domination. Like it's a form of bullying, I guess you could say. So in other words, you make fun of the comic object by saying, "Oh, look, you're fat." Right, right. Fat guy falls down. That kind of thing. Right, fat guy falls down. You know, you kick the short person in the gut or some. Sure. sharp or anything. Yeah. And it's funny, right? But it's not. I mean, this is why Plato thought comedy was nefarious because it made it. It made people feel better and it played this important role in domination. And so then the second theory is this. Oh, okay. I want to slow down. I want to slow down. Sorry. No, no, no. So this. Would you say so that you were generally speaking, you were. Like your racist, homophobic, sexist, trans. Like these jokes fall into the superiority theory. And this is the reason why Plato rejects it as like this kind of. I don't know, like it's a divisive form of comedy or. Yeah, for sure. For sure. That all of those. I mean, all of the racist, sexist, homophobic joke, they play into this. They play into this. They sort of fit the superiority theory. So it's as if Plato never heard us a verse of joke and only heard his fellow Greek making like racist or jokes about barbarians or something like that. Or jokes about slaves probably. Slaves, yeah. Women maybe. I mean, you know, because the republics are pretty. It's a pretty ideal. You know, they're women have an equal spot. There's no slavery. So, you know, so. So maybe he saw that as the danger and. That's how he. That was the thing he was really responding to. That's interesting. All right, okay. I'm sorry, I interrupted. No, no, no, no, no, it's good. So then the second sort of historical theory is the incongruity theory, which is sometimes associated with Kant, even though Kant doesn't fully develop. And that's the sort of thing about all these theories. They don't really get fully developed until much later, it's still the 20th century that they've become real serious theories of comedy. But the incongruity theory states that when we. We have a comic experience when our expectations are not met. So we're expecting something to happen, something towards those expectations. That's comic. And, you know, so that's. And there's something to be said for that, I think. There's a lot of. You know, one can at least say that every comic instance this applies to, problem is maybe it applies to other instances that aren't comic. And this is sort of the problem with all of these. The famous example from the philosopher of humor, John Moriel, which is it's incongruous to come home and find your family murdered, but it's certainly not funny. Not funny. Not funny. I mean, even if you. I mean, really, you can't even imagine an instance when it's funny, because if you wanted it to happen, it would be satisfying. It would be funny, right? It would also not be incongruous. But it would be incongruous, right? And I think, too, that that's a. I'm thinking a lot about contemporary American comedies, like your parks and recreations, your offices, 30 Rock, things like that. When you watch a series like this, which I think all of them are great, but there comes a time where in dialogue between characters, one of. One of, like, I think probably modern family does this more than any other TV series is that you have two characters, like it's a classic thing. You have two characters talking to each other, and the dialogue makes perfect sense, but each character thinks they're talking about something else. So the conversation goes on, like, one person thinks that one person is hitting on the other person and another person thinks that they're planning a birthday party for somebody else. And like, you, as a viewer, you expect these kinds of things at a certain point where it so it becomes like, oh, it's like what? Like, three companies. It's like, that's just another misunderstanding. Right. So that's a great point about the way in which the incongruity becomes congruous, right? Like, at least for the spectator. Yeah, and of course for the actors too, but I mean not for the characters, I guess but Yeah, I think that that's a real and the questions do you still laugh? And I think you probably do so that's that's that's sort of interesting. Yeah. Yeah anyway So the third theory is the relief theory and this gets associated with I think wrongly with Freud In the book developed in the book jokes and they're relatively unconscious in which the ideas this is the idea of the relief theory Not Freud's idea the ideas that we we seek in comedy to give Expression to our repressed our repressed desire so we're you know, we go to and then I think that's there's certainly truth of that that we go to a You know a comedy club to to build a laugh at things that aren't you can't say in polite society sure sure, you know You know in the sense that you know comedy is like you know porn like you can you can do these things that you You know you wouldn't do them yourself, but you'll watch other people do them you wouldn't say them yourself But you would you would watch other people say them. So I think that's what Freud is is getting at and it's interesting because Freud sees Seas comedy and I the mention of porn was an accidental because Freud sees comedy is modeled on what he calls smut So so so there's a way in which there's a kind of nice That that a joke is for Freud to stay a kind of refined diversion of Well because so that's his actual joke theory that is the actual It's a short circuit it's a short circuit this like a quick connection between two disparate Ideas and he usually through a pun right that's right through like the I think that that's the paradigm for comedy for Freud is the pun like he uses this That hyena joke a million times the hyena kina joke about a a millionaire who treats me too Familiarly and he gets the the character slips and says he's a familiar He's a familiar right right right, so it actually works in German and English kind of It's pretty good. Yeah, which is rare There's that was puns don't translate well And not from yeah enough German to English I guess that The for whatever reason and speaking about smut there. Um, there's this great I mean, it's not really a pun, but it is absolutely a short circuit There's a character in the TV series arrested development who is a therapist and he quits being a therapist eventually to try to be an actor This is a character played by David Cross and he's a terrible actor There's also this suggestion that he is himself repressing actively his own homosexuality and on one of his business cards He became the first Analyst and therapist and on his cards. It said an alrepist Which is of course anal rapist, so that's what you know, so that was that that's like that's good Yeah, that's a smuddy. I Mentioned a couple puns in the book about you know from James Bond that I you know like One do you know this one where I think I forget I think it's world is not a nut I think it may be tomorrow I don't know but um money penny calls Bond to sort of tell him time to come in for the mission and he's having sex with someone as he often is and and and he says Oh, I'm gonna I mean a linguistic session and he goes I'm learning a new tongue and he's Racing with some women and then and then money penny says back. You always were a cunning linguist That's great because obviously, you know in a PG 13. Well, I don't know It's an interesting question in a PG 13 movie where you whether you could say kind of lingus or not But I assume you couldn't Well, that's isn't that that's the whole thing with like I mean this is a side topic, but like that's the whole thing with With like PG 13 rating is that like you know the you can heavily suggest something but then to come outright Right, which makes those films, you know linguistically more interesting than our rated films, right? Oh, sir, and I think maybe funnier, you know like that's like that the one that bond line I wouldn't have had to invent it if he could just say oh, I'm engaging in kind of like it's right Well, yeah, that wouldn't be very funny like a production you're a Hollywood films, right? Right, you have that great dialogue, you know, and like I like the big sleep or whatever, you know like it's Right like the big right that's a great example of the dialogue of the big sleep Which is very funny and sexually suggestive about horse racing. Yes, that's right. Yeah, yeah But but it wouldn't you know, you just you couldn't even imagine such a dialogue today because they wouldn't they would just say Do you want to fuck? Yeah, you look like you're pretty hot. I would like to fuck you like Hey, where's it good? We're the two attractive leads. Let's make sure you get together the people on it Yeah, so yeah, so I think there's an argument to be made for the production code Yeah, I think so that's a maybe another topic another topic yeah, depending on the production later show Yeah Okay, yeah, so um, so then those are the three major Right or 20th century 21st century you have Freud you have barracks on re barrackson who Who wrote a book called laughter and which he argues that comedy is the Point at which the human becomes Mechanical or machine-like, okay, you know his exact I think his his sort of Example that it comes after he wrote the book so we obviously wasn't thinking about this But would be Charlie Chaplin to be in a modern times when he'd like get stuck in the machine Right right, so that would be like the perfect interestingly Does he not I thought I thought in that in that book he he talks about like at the absent-minded Professor who's walking along the street and not thinking and then they'd like walk into a lamppost yeah correct and that's and that is Because his he was a vitalist and so this is life bursting forth from a Machine yeah from the machine. Yeah, right, right? So so that's his that's his theory and then and then it's about a hundred years later That what I think is maybe the best theory Up till now is is articulated by a link as a pancic in the odd one in hmm the odd one in And her idea is that that The comedy the comic is occurs when the universal Becomes has to become concrete like so so the yeah the sort of canonical example would be the king sort of falling on a Binnie an appeal like I was said and the king this figure of you know representing universality gets We see the way in which he's actually you know the and he he it's not that he also is a body And this is a I think the key point of hers is that the universal itself can fall on a banana peel That's that so it's a kind of it's a nice it's a really nice an appealing theory I think and again it that term you mentioned earlier the short circuit that's that's her idea too right that the The comedy sort of short circuits this these two things like universal and it's concrete But I guess my only thing and this kind of will get to be what I yeah develop is in the in the book is that You know, I think that's a little narrow and you know that that it's actually any form of any time any form of excess gets Meets some kind of lack and then we get exposed to that so something triggers us to see that I see then Then that's comedy because it's not necessarily like and I think it's you know like you can think of a lot of Points in which lack and excess come together. It's not funny at all like like addiction, right like addiction is excessive Well, it's addiction is interesting because of the kind of triple relation like first there's You're lacking subject. How do you respond to the lack you fill it in with too much of something right too much alcohol that fills it doesn't fill it all Yeah, so you're trying to fill but then it it doesn't fill it at all What does it do it creates even more like like you're like no one who has Become an alcoholic becomes more Satisfied as a result of their alcohol right I don't think I mean yeah, I mean my grandfather Maybe was the closest and he he sort of most of the time he was miserable, but he had to know Over a great lover of you know, he probably drank like a case of beer a day and then oh geez Just like ungodly amount so you know what I'm thinking of right now like I Know I don't not don't mean this to challenge your example, but I think it's someone like WC fields appears To be actually gaining something through Being an alcoholic, but yeah, yeah, but I actually think that's only because of prohibition It's only because it's prohibitive. That's interesting. Yeah, I did I think that yeah I think you have the bank dick where he actually his alcoholism allows him to get the job that you know Is would it get right right right so but that's what makes it funny right because I mean I don't think fields is that funny Right yeah partly because it's interesting. I mean like a lot comedy and this is I I think this is a key part of it It dates pretty that it's I think it's a very very hard to yeah, I think it's you know this idea that that You know you hear people say if you say a giant this happens to me you say a joke and people say too soon Yeah, which is itself a kind of a joke actually. Yes, that's true But people say too soon and my my feeling is it's much greater sin to be too late You know like to like like you can't really tell a joke about Caesar right yeah, no one cares Yeah, or I mean I'll leave or McKinley being assassinated right or I dare say even Lincoln being a said it's not really that funny Right like I think it's you almost could I don't, maybe this is wrong, but I think you almost could tell, it would be better to tell the joke about Linga's assassination on, you know, Saturday morning after the assassination right today. Yeah. Yeah. Obviously that would be too soon and that would be inappropriate and etc. But I do think now it's just way too late that joke is just not going to be, it's not, you know, you often hear these jokes about Mrs. Ling, you know, how did you enjoy? How did the mad, how did you enjoy the way Mrs. Ling, it's just not that funny. Yeah. It's a bit akin to like what's black and white and red all over, right? Sure. Yeah. That's right. That's great. There's a link in joke in, do you know the British series, The Black Adder, The Great Rowan Act 2? There's a lot of the humor in that show comes from, and I think actually this might be a good example of black and excess, like an excessive number of similes actually is where the, like a lot of the humor comes from. And anyway, so the one character has an idea, it's like kind of like a series long thing where one character has a cunning plan to get them out of anything, but it's always, always wrong. It's always terrible. And so Black Adder says that it's the worst idea since Abraham Lincoln said, you know, tired of kicking around the house tonight, let's go see in a show. And like, but I think that it's funny. Like I actually think that you remove that. You do that in 1980s in England, and I think that's, it's like, it's a much funnier joke because it's referencing another culture and another culture's history. And that's not so proximate for the other. That's interesting. Yeah. I think it's true. You like move the joke around the teller, the side of the teller, and you can make it funny or not funny. Yeah. I think that's absolutely true. Absolutely true. Well, anyway, so yeah, so I think you have to have this, you know, so I think alcoholism just, even though we, in some, there's a real way in which Black and excess come together, I think the problem is it's not evident that they're together. Like the whole point of addiction is in some sense to try to keep them apart, you know? So I think that's the, that's the, you know, I mean, obviously addiction isn't a conscious decision, so we can't really speak of an error in addiction. But I, in some way, I think addiction or, you know, it's the kind of opposite of comedy, the opposite of comedy because the sort of ideas that you can, that it's possible to split Black and excess apart, whereas I think the nature of us as subjects is we're both, we're, that it's precisely because we're lacking that we're excessive. You know? That's the, okay. Well, can you get, so can you give an example from either from your book or just in general of, yeah, I can't, yeah, I'll just give a joke example. So sure. So, so this is a nice, I like this joke. It's a joke about Jesus and Moses playing golf in heaven. So Jesus Moses is playing golf in heaven. There, if you know anything about golf, so they're in a little par three, they're in there but 180 yards away and, and, and, and Jesus pulls out a club, it's, he says, I'm going to hit a, I'm going to hit a seven iron, which is the sort of inappropriate. It's a club he shouldn't, he can't make go that far. He can make the ball go far enough and there's a lake in between them. He had to, and Moses says to him before he had to, Moses says to him, you know, you can't hit a seven iron, you need to hit a club that'll make the ball go further. He's like, no, no, no, no. Tiger Woods would hit a seven iron here. I'm going to hit a seven iron. This is a kind of, all right, you do what you want, you're Jesus. And so Jesus hits the ball and it goes, as you would expect, it goes right into the middle of the lake, but he's Jesus, he walks out the lake, goes, picks up his ball, brings it back to the tee and, and, and sets it up again, ready to hit a second shot or is, this, this, this, he's, he's, he gets a mall again since it's his first shot. Sure. And Moses goes, look, you can't hit a seven iron and Jesus, you hit a five iron, it's more your appropriate club and Jesus goes, no, no, no, no, no, no, I can, I can do it. Tiger Woods would do it. I'm going to do it. So Jesus hits the ball, goes out and goes, goes in the lake again and he walks out the lake to pick up the ball. By this time, the next group of golfers has caught up to them because they're delaying play. And they see Jesus walking on a mullink and they go to Moses. Who does that clown think he is? Jesus Christ and Moses goes, no, he thinks he's Tiger Woods. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. So, so the idea is that when someone told me, I've known this joke my, my whole life and so it just, it, someone, someone told me, I was, the, the, the golfer in question was Jack Nicholas, not Tiger Woods. So that shows you how. Oh, wow. Yeah. Well, I, you, I don't think anyone of know who, you know, anyone younger than 40 would not know who Jack Nicholas. They probably, they probably think you mispronounce Jack Nicholson, I think. All right. So anyone. So, so it's a great because it's precisely, so you get this incredible coming together of. So Jesus, his lack in his golf game requires him to be this excessive, this excessive act and walk on water. So to me, that's like the, the key. And there's a nice, a Louis C. K. joke. I don't know if you know this one. I'm sure you do because you know, well, where he says, my bank is the worst or charging me money for not having any, yeah, right, right. So the idea of the bank fee, which is a normal thing, right? You pay a bank fee because you don't have enough money in your account or you overdraft or whatever. And, but it's a nice, it's funny if you think about it as this the way in which what you don't have in like your lack is, it ends up producing this excessive fee. Yeah, no, that's, that's funny. I mean, that whole, that whole bit, I mean, that comes from the, like an early career thing from him, like the difference between the rich and the poor, which is that when you're rich, the bank gives you more money. It's like, you have all this money. That's what interest is. We'll just give you more money. And then your poor, you don't have enough money. So we're going to take it from you. And, and I think that that also nicely figures into your, your, your matrix of, or the interrelation of, of, of lack in excess. Yeah. And that, but that's interesting too, because so with that, with the Louis joke or at least with that context is that that's, that's funny in, that's funny in the context of standup comedy. It's in everyday reality that is like heartbreaking. And it's hard breaking. Yeah. And so it requires the, I don't know, it requires like the comedians touch to, to bring the, or is the quality of the community there? Yeah. Well, here's what I would say. I think when you're, so say I'm, I go to the bank and I don't have any money at all and I learn that I've been, I've, I've overdrafted a check and, and, and then I, I owe another $25. I'm like, oh my god, what am I going to do? I mean, I think that you don't, I think the problem, why that's not funny. I think it's sort of, it's not, I don't think anything is objectively funny. Also, I think that it depends on the relation. But I think why you don't think that's funny is you can only view yourself as a lacking subject when you, when you, when you, when you're, all you see yourself is I'm an indebted, you don't see the, the role, any role that excesses playing there. So I think that's why that's not funny at all to you. You know, I think it's very, it's interesting because isn't it, like we often think it's like the worst thing to do to someone is to laugh at them when they're down. You know, like, like, I don't know, teenage boys bullying a, a homeless person sitting on the side of the road, right? That's a horrible thing. Like they're laughing at them. But if you think about it, like, is that attitude worse than someone who feels bad for them and gives them money and, you know, like, okay, I'm obviously for getting people money rather than bullying them. Bullying, of course. And making fun of them. But, but really, like, when you think of someone as comic, you're inherently thinking of them as capable of being excessive and not just as purely pathetic. Being, I almost wonder if that's what, if the, our attitude to toward Trump shouldn't be rather than finding him comic, finding him just pathetic. Interesting. Like, even though he seems like he's doing all these excessive things, now he's really just a pathetic lacking, purely lacking being. Yeah, I, I really think you're right on that. Like, I don't know. I mean, I just was thinking that the other day that like, like, he's not really, he doesn't have the dignity of comedy. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, look, I'm getting, I'm not laughing for laughing at people that are almost my own, but, but I just want to, like, if you think about it, like, to make someone the object of a joke is already to sort of raise them above the level of pure pathos, right? Yeah. And I think, you know, that's why we don't laugh at our pets. I mean, you know, maybe that was wrong. Yeah, I mean, there's, I think maybe some people do think of their pets as also capable of that. Well, I'll say this, people like, I don't, this is not my point. This is, and I don't know who to attribute this to. But we like when animals do things that are like being a human, and we do not like when they act like an animal. And good point. So I, so maybe that's where that sort of pathos comes from. That it's, it's this sort of reflective thing. But you, you're bringing up the dignity reminds me there's a Simpsons episode where David Hyde Pierce guest stars. And as Kelsey grammar does too, Kelsey grammar always does the voice of side show Bob. And David Hyde Pierce, who, of course, they were on Frazier forever, he is, he plays side show Bob's brother, who name is Cecil. But it turned out that Cecil wanted to be a clown for Kelsey the clown a long, long time ago. And he wasn't any funny and Kelsey the clown excoriates him for not being funny and he says, you see, the problem is you don't. have dignity, okay? And then he throws a pie at Cecil's brother, Bob, who was like a lawyer. He was in like a suit. And then he throws a pie at him. And his like, he drops his suit and his hair goes crazy. And then Kelsey Grammert just says, oh, dear. And then they all laugh. He said, see, that's comedy. And anyway, it's sort of. No, that's a great, that's a great example of what I would, I would, you know, this, the sort of necessity of some kind of like comic dignity to be fun. Like I really don't think that you can make fun of a purely pathetic, something someone you consider to be purely pathetic. That's, I think maybe that's a problem with the superiority theory, you know, that, that you don't, it doesn't really make you like even, I think, yeah, I don't know. I mean, obviously, I'm against racist sexist, you know, homophobic jokes totally. But it does, it does make you realize that there is, there is some kind of even in that kind of joke, I think, you know, there's some way in which superiority is undermined. That's interesting. Well, I wanted to talk about this. So, the, oh, I guess I'll start with my conclusion that will work our way to why I have this conclusion, which is obviously how anyone should write a paper. That's right. Always begin with the colline. Always begin with what you're going to say. Exactly. Yeah. So is that the, um, the superiority theory that Plato attempts to disavow, I do think is a haunting specter of many, theories of comedy, particularly recent ones, that like, unlike his, who pancic and like, but you have tried to proper. And it's that the idea for, for those thinkers is that, um, what is the comedy is always liberatory. It's always, it's always this thing that elevates that has this potential for radical change. And yet you have these, you have these jokes, like again, that going back to Plato, that Plato tries to do something with that, that we, you, like, what do you do with this? So, yeah, it's interesting. Yeah. Go ahead. No, no, no, I want you guys going to say, I think for, for, for, for, a link about do, a lot of bad do, you know, the, maybe Buccane, I don't know, uh, this guy Robert Fowler, who's a, who's an incredible theorist of comedy from Austria, not the golfer. Uh, nothing golfer now. I don't think he gals. Uh, uh, that, for them, comedy is always subversive. And if it's not subversive, it's not real comedy. Right. So it's like, that it's like this joke from, uh, from Jacques Lacan, which, which says, uh, my fiance is never late for a meeting with me. Otherwise, she's no longer my fiance. You know, like, yeah. So, you know, that's the, so that it seems to me like, that's the problem with that theory. Like, you know, like, if the, if it ceases to, if it doesn't fit my theory, then it doesn't, it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Uh, so, yeah. That do famously says, you know, he distinguishes between comedy as such and what he calls like funny. You know, he's talking about drama and when he develops this theoretically. So he calls there. So they're funny plays that can be, you know, like he would say he would, I don't know, he would never probably watch hangover bridesmaids. But he would say those are funny films, but they're not comedy. That's huge. And so, um, I think that's the, so I think that you're right that there's some, the problem is that there are a lot of jokes and comedies that do that aren't, are really funny. And people find them funny. And yet they're not, they, they're not, you wouldn't call them subversive or liberatory at all. Sure. In fact, I think, you know, it's, I think it's arguable. I mean, it's interesting because the contemporary, um, political scene, I think maybe due to Trump or, I don't know, it's, I guess it started with Bush. Like, there's this sense of, um, that comedy is, is, is sort of critical of, of, of the conservative authority figures. Yeah. Yeah. But, but I don't think it's necessarily, I mean, I think, again, I think that comedy, most people, and not maybe that's unfair to say most people, but a lot of people engage in a lot of the time is, is, you know, like sharing a joke that makes them feel like they're included and somebody else is excluded. Excluded. Like, I think that, that kind of comedy is pretty, pretty common. So there's a conversation in a, um, to reference another podcast, uh, that, um, the comedian Pete Holmes has with, uh, Zach Alfonakis. And it kind of touches on, on this, which is that amongst comedians, uh, that this is what they, as two comedians, they make this point that one should make the racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic joke. That, to not do that is the offensive thing amongst comedians. And the story that, Zach Alfonakis doesn't tell the story. And I don't, I don't, so I don't actually know what it is, but what do he, uh, Pete Holmes brings up that when Zach Alfonakis met Chris Rock, he told him a very racist joke. Like that, that's how they, he introduced himself to him, because they knew, they both knew Luis, okay? And that's how, that's how they met. And what Pete Holmes said and what Zach Alfonakis said and that he said that he get Chris Rock loved it. He thought it was great. And that the offensive thing would have been if he thought that and didn't do it. That, that's the thing. Now, what I think is interesting there is that amongst comedians, like I, like I do, and you, you, you'll see this if you watch enough stuff on, on like comedians talking about comedy. Like, like Jerry Seinfeld's, uh, comedians and cars getting coffee, like whenever he talks to comedians, it's like, he's describing a community of people that exist, like outside of the regular world. Like there are, he actually tells the story of, I guess he and Chris Rock were at like a, um, I don't know, some kind of function. It might have been like a wedding even of friends of like theirs. And at one point, um, Chris Rock came up to, uh, to, to Jerry Seinfeld and he just, he, he, he didn't say, he didn't say hi. He just put his, he just like slapped his hands on his chest and said, oh, comedian. Like, like it was like a breath of fresh air to not be talking to regular people. And so what, there seems to be there then is this idea that, um, being a comic is part of being part of a shared community in which you like since that elevates the joke above anything else. And so when there's nothing else that matters more than that, then these kinds of, uh, perhaps, uh, racist hierarchies and, and sexist hierarchies and, you know, had a normative hierarchies that exist in everyday life. They maybe don't in the, uh, community of comics. Yeah. I think it's true that you can tell, um, like, the jokes that you tell in private are, are totally different than the jokes that you can tell in public. I think that's totally true, right? Because there's a, well, because, and I guess this is the point that I'm building toward is that because there's an equality there amongst the tellers. Right. So because everyone's, uh, a comic, it doesn't matter that Jack Alfonax is white and Chris Rock is black because I don't know about that. I don't know if I agree with you, Ryan. Yeah, I don't know if I agree with that. I mean, I think it is possible that, uh, don't you think it's possible that Rock is so used to white guys doing that? Yeah. Like whatever. Yeah. Sure. Sure. That's true. No. So I think that maybe, maybe you're right. But I think, um, I would also, I would just think that, like, if you're in a, if you're in like, you know, like when I'm talking to, uh, you know, like my spouse or my, my kids, like they, they, they basically, you know, not basically, they know what my views are. So if I say, like, like my son, uh, one of my son's, Dashel loves to tell, he's Jewish. He loves to tell anti-Semitic jokes to his friends. But, you know, it's not just that he's Jewish. It's that they, they, it does bother them, actually, but, um, you know, like we don't really reprimand him for doing it because we know, obviously, that he's not anti-Semitic. So I think that that's part of the thing too, is that if you're telling it within a, within a, uh, confined, you know, I just think it's totally different what you say in public versus what you're saying private. Like, like no one, no one would have, no one could stand to have their private, you know, uh, conversation, pleased in the way that our, our public conversation, I think even has to be. So that would be, yeah, I think that's pretty, I think it's pretty radically different. So maybe, I guess I would agree that maybe that community of comedians constitutes its own kind of, you know, separate space. Yeah, I guess, yeah, no, I, I see, I see that point. I think that's a, that's a very, uh, worthwhile challenge to, like, to, you know, and I'm, I, it's true. Like I'm working with, like, Zach Alf and Aga said that it was okay because Chris Rock said it was okay, but maybe it wasn't. I mean, you maybe it wasn't. Yeah. You're talking, I mean, I did, given the films, Jack Alf and X has been in, I don't know that I would give him the I mean, some are good, but some are, some are, some are, the TV series is very good baskets. I, I, I, it redeems a lot of the, the films for me. Well, so anyway, I guess that, um, the, if we, and then this is, I suppose, heavily qualified now then, but if we take that seriously, like, if there is this equality among comedians, comedians, then, uh, the superiority theory of comedy falters there because it's, and I, and I, and I, yes, it's, it's idealistic and maybe it's comics thinking too much of the community of comics, uh, that you, that kind of shared, um, that kind of share community super. like anything else that's in the real world, but that doesn't exist. But you cannot apply that to, as you're saying, like, public, like, everyday kinds of-- Right, right. Like, I think the-- I think it's a sort of major advance that certain things can't be articulated. Like, certain jokes used to be acceptable. And it's interesting, because now we're seeing the way people will say things that are offensive, and then they'll say, I was just joking. Right. Yeah, I'm just-- Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical of that. Like, I think that it's-- I think it's-- certain things not being able to be said. Obviously, you can say them, right? Like, there's no log on saying them. But in fact, you won't get arrested. Right, you won't get arrested. But the fact that you can't say them, sort of, and then still be held to be a credible subject. I feel like that's-- there's something pretty important about that step. Like, you can't just-- You know, I mean, maybe I'm being too idealistic, because I think if you asked a lot of women, they'd say this still happens all the time. But like, you can't just slap your female coworker on the butt and say if she's under you in office rank, and then say, go get me a cup of coffee. You know, that kind of behavior. And similarly, you can't say certain jokes are not acceptable. Like, sexist. Like, part of the problem is that it-- I mean, I think the community question is interesting, right? I think this gets to the politics of the joke. Pretty-- gets right to the heart of it. Like, part of the way that it forms a community is by excluding. Yeah, right. So I think men have done this for a long time. I've told jokes about women. My dad, who was a sort of normal sexist guy, but he was basically treated women nicely. But he was very well inscribed to sexist ideas. And whenever we would go golfing, he would just-- it was just an onslaught of sexist humor. Because we'd be playing with a couple-- always with other guys. I don't know why. I mean, I do know why. Women not allowed at the club. I would-- we all played at public courses. Yeah. I mean, I'm like, right. So women were allowed. But he used to play my mom, so it wasn't the time. OK. But he would-- because it was a great way for him-- like, part of the way he bonded with me his son was to tell sexist jokes while playing golf. Like two things that were in his mind exclusively male activity. So I think that that really-- I mean, obviously, in race, it works the same way. Like he'd tell the racists joke. And then he'd feel like I really belong to-- This white community. Or the white community, right? And because I know who does it belong. That's the way in which community really gets formed. It gets formed through this exclusion. And that's what a joke does. I would say almost better than anything, wouldn't you? So that is-- I mean, even-- like, I guess there's-- so this is the thing that I found. So we tried to record this yesterday, and we had technical difficulties, and it didn't work out. And I've been thinking about this since our conversation yesterday, that it's very, very hard to reckon philosophically with the racist sexist, with the exclusionary joke, even in my attempt, which was based on like maybe you can do this in the community of comics. You rightly point out that that might be a lie. Like that might-- Right. It could just be-- that's founded on a kind of-- An exclusion, right? Or some kind of fundamental lie. I mean, I think most communities, maybe community has such as founded on a lie in an exclusion, right? Yeah. So-- Yeah, but I guess for me-- I do want to say something about the technical difficulty was my fault. I kept recording the same 17 seconds, so which was funny. It was so funny. It was so-- It was very funny. Yes, it was appropriate that our first podcast about comedy was ruined by a comic act. It was nicely kind of lack and excess-- like it was excessive, this kind of 17 seconds repeated. My spouse, by the way, Hillary said to me, I think it was the computer telling you that you have about 17 seconds worth of something to say on comedy. That is so funny. That was her-- She never tells jokes except my expense, so that was nice. Well, so OK, we cannot reckon with the superiority theory. It doesn't go away. It does not go away, no, it does not. But no, but I do want to-- I think I want to pull back to your-- where I think your theory-- I don't know if I want to use the word succeeds, but I think where it accounts for this may be better than like a baju and Zupantek is that by not claiming that the comic has to be this liberatory thing and anything that is-- it's sort of like to make a wild departure of an example. It's sort of like in data analytics of sports that like, oh, we can't come up with a good number for crunch or pressure time performance. Therefore, it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist. It just doesn't get me. Yeah, you know? So anyway, so what your theory does, though, is that I think that this lack and excess it accounts for this. And you do not put this like-- which doesn't mean that it's OK, but you don't put this moral qualification on comedy. Right, right. I mean, I do think-- I mean, it's interesting because I do think comedy-- look, the title of the joke is actually a joke, because I don't think comedy can save us, because I don't think there's any saving. But it's a reference to this interview that Martin Heidegger gave in the late '60s. It was only published after his death with the German magazine Der Spiegel. And he-- the title of it, which quotes him in the article, that he says this. He says, only a god can save us. And in my book, I talk about how Heidegger is maybe the only thinker in the entire tradition of the Western tradition that has no moments of comedy throughout his entire uva. And I try to link this to the way in which Heath-- I think for us-- I mean, for Heidegger, we're inherently an only pathetic being. So it's interesting that he can only see us as victims. And which I think one could make an interesting connection to his-- the reason why he found Nazia some seductive. But I don't want to go down that road. Maybe we should do a whole thing on Heidegger's future. But I do think that-- so I do think that said, I do think that comedy can be incredible. It can be a real sight of a man's-- it has a real emancipatory potential. Because to my mind, this ability to see that you're-- that lack and excess coincide is the ultimate political gesture, right? Because I'm tempted to say every oppressive act is the result of the attempt to push lack onto the other and let me be excessive while the other has all the lack. And I think that's a real-- and for one thing, it's impossible. And I think it's the source of so much oppressive violence in the world. So I really think that comedy has this emancipatory potential. Sorry, go. No, no, no, no. I'm sorry that I-- and I interrupt on the closing sentence there. But what I wanted to say was I think that that is-- that exactly was the basis and is the basis of Trump's appeal. I think-- you think about the things that he says-- the things that he said about Mexicans. I mean, I'm trying to think of the first group he offended on his campaign. And it was like, these are criminals, they're rapists. They come here, they do all these things. They take-- it's actually-- it's not-- so this is maybe my challenge to But But You, obviously, is much smarter than I am. But what Trump says-- and this thing I'm about to say-- is comic, but definitely not funny, which is that-- and this is the whole narrative about Mexicans and illegal immigration is that these people come here and they take all the jobs. And also, they're incredibly lazy. So how is that possible? Right? Right. How can you have those two things? I used to use that as an example when I taught writing in rhetoric. On the first day, I would say that in discourse, you always want to see some sort of-- you want to look at some inherent paradox or some sort of contradiction that kind of drives things forward that people don't necessarily are always aware of. And I would put that on the board. And that was when I had taught this several years ago. That's what still people said. But nobody literally said it. And Trump, he did it. He put those two things together. And rather than people thinking, what that's stupid, it's like, we should listen to this guy. He maybe got a point about that. And it's-- anyway. So that is-- Now that's a great point, Ryan. Yeah. That's a great point. In your point, this big, big push. to throw all of this lack on a community that doesn't need that. That means the complete opposite. Right, I mean, it's interesting because it also posits that we were enjoying excessively prior to this lack being introduced by him. Which I wasn't sure at all. So it's a fascinating, it's both, and this is I think very common. It both posits excess in the past that's been destroyed by this introduction of lack. And then it promises excess in the future. I mean, obviously, it's almost like written, like, be excessive again, like make America great again. Right, right. It's almost so obvious. It doesn't even need anyone to point it out. But I think so, I think there is really, I mean, I think just to say that I do think there's something really emancipatory about comedy because it forces us for a moment. I mean, I guess that's the, for me, one of the names, there's two problems with it. But one problem with it is it's always momentary. Because comedy by definition can't be sustained because it requires that moment of that when lack and excess, that conjunction takes us by surprise. And so if it doesn't, once it becomes hackneyed, it's not funny anymore. Or you're even, or you're even, or you're even, or you need Shakespeare's jokes explained. Yeah, yeah. In the way that you don't need the tragedy of edifice explained. Correct, yeah. Correct. Right. I do think that, for instance, this is probably not true. But my feeling is that if Shakespeare didn't write tragedies, we wouldn't still perform his comedy. And comedy does not really have a great, it just doesn't have any staying power because it's, it's fleeting. I will, I will support what you're saying to say that like people don't do not generally, and again, this is like arguing by way of a common sense, which is maybe a bad argument to begin with. But I don't think generally, people know Shakespeare, but generally speaking, I don't think they know Thomas Middleton, John Webster, they don't know Ford. Right. Maybe no, Mar-o. Wait, am I going to write Christopher Marley? Yeah, Christopher Marley. Yeah, because of tragedy and some, but you don't know. But anyway, so like Middleton and Ford and Webster, like these were, they wrote in the Jacobian period, like almost exclusively like city comedies. Right. And you have to be interested in Renaissance drama to have heard of them, I think, to support your. I mean, look, Shakespeare, I think Shakespeare, I mean, for like, if you laugh at merchant event, I mean some things are funny, merchant event is, but I don't think modern audiences, I mean, I saw merchant event is once performed as a tragedy. It is, I mean, but that's a tragedy of Shylock. So, you know, so I do think there's a way in which that Shakespeare nicely shows, I mean some of them obviously, like, you know, I think Kenneth Brainau's version of much of you about nothing, it's pretty hilarious. So, you know, but he kind of smuggles some modern stuff into it. Because then I saw this, I think it's the Joss Whedon one, which I thought was just un-matchable. Like, I just thought, like, they've really captured the spirit of the 17th century. That is, it should stay in the 17th century, like it was really, it was terrible. So, that was a modern update and that goes to your point, which is that, with comedy, the, the, the emancipatory potential is locked to, like, the momentary. So, I interrupt it. It's momentary and then the other, the other big problem I see, and this is what I think is the basis of racist, sexist, homophobic comedy, is that it can give us a sense of wholeness by, through the act of excluding someone. But, or it can even, it can create a sense of wholeness even in the comic target. You know, and I think so. That, for me, is the real danger of comedy. Like, if everybody kind of has this dividing, like, for, that do their things that are comedy and not comedy, for me, it's the kind of divide within comedy between a conservative comedy, which wants to create a sense of the wholeness of the both the comic spectator and the, and the comic object, whereas, I think, a emancipatory comedy wants to show the divide within both the spectator and in the, and in the object. So, like, for instance, I think Chaplin does a great job of showing how even the, the, the most marginalized figure, you know, the, the little tramp is, is funny, right? Like, he makes fun of that figure in order to show that even that figure is divided. So, I think that's, to me, that's the key to any kind of, you know, liberatory or emancipatory comedy. Mm-hmm. That's interesting. To, to go back to my, the Chris Rock, Zach, Galvanac, Galvanac's example is that, um, for, to believe that that's okay means that you, that the community of comedians is whole. And therefore, Chris Rock is no longer an African American and American. He's no longer Black when he says, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And that's probably, yeah, that's pretty good point. Yeah, I think that's probably that, you know, that, that that's the, that's the problem with that kind of. But, you know, I'm not, I'm not saying it's time is wrong. Like, maybe it's right. Yeah, I just don't think we can know. And, yeah, yeah. But I do think that there's something, one thing I like about, uh, what I really like about comedy is that it forces you to, like, there's something always kind, you're always sort of engaged with something traumatic. I think if you're, which is funny because we, we think of comedy as an escape, right? Like an escape like from the, but I don't think it's, we think of it as an escape from trauma. I think if we think of it as escape from the drudgery of everyday life. And what is, it's interesting. What is drudgery? Like, what does everyday life do? It separates, doesn't everyday life just separate lack from excess as much as it can like it. Like work is the time of lack. And then you come, you know, you get, or you get drunk, you, you know, go to an orgy or go to a movie. For me, like, go and see a movie is for much more excessive. Right. Right. But so, so, and then comedy kind of, you know, is, is, is, is respite from that, is that drudgery? And, but I don't think it's respite from trauma. Like, I think it's, what's nice is it forces us to really get, like, you know, I love this, do you know this joke about the priest, the nun in the rabbi? I'm sure you know this joke. I don't know. Yeah. Okay. So, so God is ending the world and he wants to know what to do with people and he can, can commune a priest and a rabbi and says, you know, what should I do with the world and the nun goes? Whatever you do, save the children and the rabbi thinks this is ridiculous. He goes, fuck the children. And the priest says, do you think they'd let us do that? So, you know, so, so my point would be, it's funny. That's just an objectively funny joke. I think, but it's funny. And, but it's funny because it allows the spectator, the spectator in order to laugh, I think the spectator has to in some way identify with the priest as pedophile, which is horrific. Right. It's horrific. But unless you do, then you're like, if all you do is just condemn that kind of thing, you can see someone saying, like, look, you can't make a joke about that. It's too horrible. Right. Sure. And, yeah. And so, I think if that's your attitude, then it's not funny. And then you're not laughing. And then you're not, you're not engaging the trauma of that. I think, I think, I believe every joke that has this kind of traumatic kernel, yeah, dramatic kernel, which makes it, which I think that's the best part, or that that's the best part of comedy. No, that's great. I mean, I think that you think about things like, like, like, gallows humor, you know, like, yeah, I do think good. Oh, no, I was going to tell that you must know this story about Groucho Marx, who became friends with TS Elliott. Do you know this? No, I did not. Oh, man. Yeah. So Groucho, in one of the records, you can get it, like, like an album of interviews with Groucho. And he talks about how I don't know if it was like through agents or whatever, but like, he was told that TS Elliott wanted to meet him. And Groucho was like, oh my god, like, this is this is this is this great poet. Like, so he sat down to read, like, Proofrock and Wasteland or whatever. And he met Elliott and all he wanted to do was talk about Marx Brothers. That's all he wanted to do. And so then Elliott, if I remember this right. So Elliott died and Groucho was invited to the funeral and they're like in the wake. And there was this thing where people were everyone was going up to say things about about Elliott, like afterwards. And in someone said that, you know, Groucho should really go up there and he was like, I don't have any kind of eulogy or anything prepared. So he just, I guess he went up to talk in front of everybody and what he said, what he told, he told, he told a joke. And the joke he told was he said, he said, there's a man who's about to be hanged. And news is around his neck. And he's asked by the executioners. As he's looking out across all the people he says, you have any last words in the man who's about to be hanged. He looks around. He stops for a second. He says, yeah, I don't think this thing is safe. And that was it. And so like, I actually think that that so that joke is much funnier than he told that. And T.S. Eliot's funeral again. I remember the story correctly. So yeah, but anyway, so the trauma, so actually the trauma in that joke moves, right? Like it moves from this practice of killing people to this person has died, this friend, you know? Like, and so you can't, you laugh, and then it doesn't, I don't know, does it allow you to apprehend the trauma because you're not approaching it directly? - Yeah, I think that's a good point. I think it's right. I do think that there is only gallows humor. That's what I do think. I think it's true. I think it's true. You know, I just a funny thing happened. My, the acknowledgments in that, I have, I sort of sprinkled jokes throughout the, but there's a joke too in the index, and there's a joke in that, all the acknowledgments are kind of jokes. And so my, my mother has a, her, her, her husband was reading the acknowledgments, and he was just astonished because he, it's high on this one, and he thought, this is terrible. I think I think that there should be a kind of revolt against your son. (laughing) So the, here's what it says. So here's the thing that really bothered him. I said, I'm grateful to my film in English Department of Colleges at the University of Mont that I named him, who have encouraged me to work on this book rather than waste time teaching or meeting with students. This has enabled me to finish it quickly. And he thought, he thought, if his students ever read that, they're just gonna revolt, they're never gonna be good. (laughing) Wow, that's pretty, that's pretty, that's pretty funny. I thought that was even better than my joke. - Than your joke. - His reaction. - Yeah. - His reaction, yeah. (laughing) - Clearly. - He doesn't know your students, yeah. - Well, but if, I mean, I don't know, how many people would, for one thing, people that, that believe time spent teaching is wasted time, do not tend to articulate that. - No, that's certainly true. - Publicly for sure. - No, you would never say that, it's too close to the truth. - Right, even as a joke, you wouldn't say that. - Even as a joke, you wouldn't say it. - Yeah. - Yeah. - So anyway, so I thought it was, I thought that was funny, that it was precisely the, you know, like for him, it was like a sort of synectomy for the, for the excessiveness of the college professor, who's like insulated and I, doesn't go on a teach. - Yeah, yeah, yeah. - So it's probably part of some edibles struggle too. But that's, that's, you know, that's probably more than, (laughing) - Neither here nor there. - Or it's everywhere. - Oh, yeah, I don't know. - Yeah, it's going beyond the comic. - That's true. - That's great. Do we wanna wrap up this an hour? - Yeah, yeah, it'll wrap up. And so we were thinking about some future topics. And I think we're gonna talk soon about the, well, Ryan and I both agree is the greatest comic film ever made, which hardly anyone has seen. So which, so I think we're gonna give it a little, we wanna give it a little attention. - Yeah. - I think most people, when they, I think, what one AFI's list, the cross-dressing one? What is that? - Oh, Tutsi. - No, the other one. But Tutsi's up high on there too. I think too high. What's the other one? - Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, you're really on some roll line. - Some like a hot, yeah. - Some like a hot, yeah, yeah. So I think that's up at the top. And then, you know, Dr. Strangel, I was probably the alternate one that's either first or second. But we both are pretty convinced that to be or not to be is the great filmic comic. - Yeah. - It's a stunning film. And well worth talking about in depth, absolutely. - My Ernst Lubich. So we will visit that topic soon. And we're gonna visit the topic of sports, which is becoming even more thankfully politicized. So that's nice. And so we'll talk about some sports things. - I just wanna put a thing here. I find it, I'm quite happy that the president is saying these things because it's the, it means the reality is awful. But it does show, I really believe this. I think that protest matters. The site in which protest matters most is sports. I think that you think several years ago and you think about what's his name, losing the Los Angeles Clippers because of the racist statements that he made. And he should have lost the team for his racist actions of his entire life. But that's a thing that we could talk about. But there was the threat of-- - Donald Sterling, I think. - Donald Sterling, thank you. - Right, so the Clippers were gonna, they practiced without logos on. They were going to protest. I think it was a playoff game that they were gonna walk away from. There was gonna be a team-- - Yeah, they were gonna walk away. - They were going to walk away. And then he lost the team like that. That's a kind of direct action through protest that I think is not possible in general. Like I think, which is not to say don't protest. It requires a lot more effort and a lot more time. But I think protest in sports for some reason. I don't know, maybe this is where it's going to be. - Well, more people see it. I think that's one thing. And I think people are really invested in it who aren't necessarily, who are often invested in sport in lieu of politics. - Right, right. - So I mean, most people that are really engaged in politics are, you know, most that I know are pretty indifferent to sport. That's why the people that I try to gulm onto are interested in both. But it's not, they're not that common. Like it's not a common thing. And so I think that, you know, like I mean, one of the great acts of the '60s and '70s, which is the time of incredible protest was that John Carlos and Tommy Smith, the black power solid, the Olympics. I mean, that was it. Like that just had it resounded throughout, you know, American society. They were, I think they were stripped of their medals. They were, you know, they were in the cover of time in a, you know, in a, in a, you know, as a critical way. And so it was, you know, it was, it was, it was just people, they were thrown out of the Olympic Village. It was, it was a disruptive thing. And I think it, it, it sheds, obviously, the situation hasn't much changed, right? But, but it did shed some light on things. I agree with you. Yeah. So we'll talk about sports. We'll talk about maybe Martin Heidegger and-- Yeah, perhaps. Yeah, that's fine. And stuff like that. OK. So-- Thank you very much for the line and the comments. Thanks for your answer. Yeah. OK, thank you. [MUSIC PLAYING]