A short essay on the sense of humour
Answers
Answered by
5
If a funny thing occurs, like Laurel and Hardy appearing on the screen and beginning their antics, there are few people who will not laugh. Most of those who do not laugh are probably beset by personal problems, and therefore their not laughing is perfectly understandable.
If there are others who are not in their situation and yet do not laugh, there is certainly something wrong with them, and perhaps they should get themselves examined. But surely there is nothing particularly admirable in the ability to laugh at situations that are inherently funny, although the absence of this quality reveals a fundamental lack.
We, then, need to concentrate on that definition of humour which states that it is ‘the ability to be amused’. Can I take the liberty to extend the definition to say that it is the ability to be amused, in an inoffensive way, by things, situations or people, that on the face of it, do not appear to be comical.
Let us suppose a speaker is delivering a speech on stage when a member of the audience hurls a shoe at him. He can take it as an insult or be wary of repetition; he may become apprehensive about falling in the estimation of others. No doubt all these would be negative reactions, but given the circumstances, one would not be over-critical. To be fair, one would give the speaker some time to come to terms with what happened. Now what if, following the attack (let us assume the shoe missed him, whizzed past his ear, and fell on the floor behind him), the speaker briefly pauses, collects himself, and remarks.
‘It worries me to think that the gentleman who took the trouble to hurl this missile at me must presently be in only one shoe. Apart from being uncomfortable, it must be terribly embarrassing for him as well. Now that he must be feeling considerably lighter and more relaxed, I would like to invite him to retrieve his possession.’
We are to imagine that the speaker turns around now and gives the shoe a pitiful glance. ‘How forlorn the shoe is looking without its better half!’ The speaker concludes, ‘I am confident it will appreciate the gesture as much as we will.’
..............
Hope it helps you .............
Pls Mark as Brainliast........... Plzzzzzzz.......
If there are others who are not in their situation and yet do not laugh, there is certainly something wrong with them, and perhaps they should get themselves examined. But surely there is nothing particularly admirable in the ability to laugh at situations that are inherently funny, although the absence of this quality reveals a fundamental lack.
We, then, need to concentrate on that definition of humour which states that it is ‘the ability to be amused’. Can I take the liberty to extend the definition to say that it is the ability to be amused, in an inoffensive way, by things, situations or people, that on the face of it, do not appear to be comical.
Let us suppose a speaker is delivering a speech on stage when a member of the audience hurls a shoe at him. He can take it as an insult or be wary of repetition; he may become apprehensive about falling in the estimation of others. No doubt all these would be negative reactions, but given the circumstances, one would not be over-critical. To be fair, one would give the speaker some time to come to terms with what happened. Now what if, following the attack (let us assume the shoe missed him, whizzed past his ear, and fell on the floor behind him), the speaker briefly pauses, collects himself, and remarks.
‘It worries me to think that the gentleman who took the trouble to hurl this missile at me must presently be in only one shoe. Apart from being uncomfortable, it must be terribly embarrassing for him as well. Now that he must be feeling considerably lighter and more relaxed, I would like to invite him to retrieve his possession.’
We are to imagine that the speaker turns around now and gives the shoe a pitiful glance. ‘How forlorn the shoe is looking without its better half!’ The speaker concludes, ‘I am confident it will appreciate the gesture as much as we will.’
..............
Hope it helps you .............
Pls Mark as Brainliast........... Plzzzzzzz.......
NishantKing1:
Pls Mark as Brainliast
Answers
Plzzzzzzz
Answered by
4
Novelist and grocer Evan Kingston states that, “Humour is a tool, like characterization or dialogue, and its foolhardly for any writer to rise to the impossible task of communicating the unspeakable with less than all”. In literature to use humour in a narrative is often justified along the lines of a comedic structure. It is a genre that can be mixed and connected with more than one type of literary work. In Canadian literature, I have noticed that works, like King and Compton, often illustrate social issues regarding gender, oppression and multiculturalism. We normally sense the of rage and empathy that the author tries to convey but I find that humor can portray these themes in a way that can easily interest the reader. In literary works like Thomas King’s short story “Borders” and Wayde Compton’s poem “Where Heaven Lies”, these works prove that humour can project these social issues in a manner that is just as effective as anger can. Kingston also notes that humor in literature is not only a tool but it is also a sense. We can consider it as a “sense of humor”— where it engages in all the senses: making the story come to life by stimulating every input the reader has (Kingston). Humour has the ability to not only draw in and fascinate people, but it allows readers to have a relatable connection to the literary works. It parodies stereotypes and humor allows us to consider the idea of identity and freedom in these kinds of work. Kingston’s connection with humor as both a tool and a sense is exemplified in Compton’s poem and King’s short story plays with the readers senses and draws them into these works and thus makes it relatable.
Since humour in these literary works allows us to feel a sense of commonality, we feel that we can relate to the narrator through their tonality and description of the scenes. In King’s narrative, the child narrator reflects a general depiction of a child’s frustration of having to deal with his mother’s ‘protest’. For example, he states that, “It would have been easier if my mother had just said “Canadian” and been done with it, but I could see she wasn’t going to do that” (King 4). We have all been in a situation in which we are stuck with our parents who are discussing politics, economics, social issues or even some nonsensical story. The frustration that is associated with these conversations as a child depicts the fact that children are aware of what is happening but sometimes do not understand why adults act in a certain way. The child narrator demonstrates the idea that through his anguish it becomes relatable to us. In a way, humour takes real-life scenarios and reflects it back to the reader.
Since humour in these literary works allows us to feel a sense of commonality, we feel that we can relate to the narrator through their tonality and description of the scenes. In King’s narrative, the child narrator reflects a general depiction of a child’s frustration of having to deal with his mother’s ‘protest’. For example, he states that, “It would have been easier if my mother had just said “Canadian” and been done with it, but I could see she wasn’t going to do that” (King 4). We have all been in a situation in which we are stuck with our parents who are discussing politics, economics, social issues or even some nonsensical story. The frustration that is associated with these conversations as a child depicts the fact that children are aware of what is happening but sometimes do not understand why adults act in a certain way. The child narrator demonstrates the idea that through his anguish it becomes relatable to us. In a way, humour takes real-life scenarios and reflects it back to the reader.
Similar questions