Dear Joel Warner,

I hope you will forgive me for not responding
to your two phone messages about humor theory
a few weeks ago.  Life got busy lately.  A
couple of comments on your article.

First, Preston's theory as you present it in
your article, is in direct, empirically
testable conflict with Veatch 1998 in which
temporal precedence of V before N is not
required whereas according to Preston V must
precede N in time.
 
(Sorry, I think people should be using V and N
to talk about Violation and Normal
interpretations or as McGraw says Violation or
beNigN(Ness).  If that's okay by you.  McGraw
might want to use B and V, which would be
conceptually okay but Spanish speakers will
not be able to tell the difference since they
pronounce them the same, so I prefer N and V.)

Second, the third condition of the N+V theory
of Veatch 1998, namely, simultaneity of N & V
in the mind of the humor perceiver, is not
present in Preston's theory which describes V
as preceding N, not as simultaneous with N.
So these are not the same theory at all. I
would argue Preston's sequential V then N
theory overgenerates because it would call
humorous such situations as non-humorous
relief.  I.e., Preston's theory as you
describe it is false.

(A good theory neither overgenerates (says
things are funny that aren't) nor
undergenerates (calls things not funny that
are).  It should get things right, in short.
And if it doesn't, it is wrong.)

Hmm, let's see, what's next.  Oh, I was not a
"Stanford student" at the time I wrote Veatch
1998.  I was a "Visiting Assistant Professor"
in 1991-1993 during the time I submitted it to
journals. Obviously Veatch 1998 took a while
to finally get published.

(Some have commented with resentment that not
being peer-reviewed or not being written by a
PhD doesn't keep a person's theories or
contributions from being valid, timely, or
even historically significant.  I agree with
them.  Anything you can do without a PhD you
can do with a PhD.  So perhaps those with that
resentment will be happy to know that I wrote
N+V partly while working as a modem salesman
in Fremont California, finished it off as a
software salesman in East Palo Alto, and that
now I'm a plumber but I still have the right
to speak and the self-possession to take my
own thoughts seriously.)

What's important is, Was it right, and Did you
influence people?

Was it right? So far I'm still looking for
counterexamples to N+V.  If someone can find
one for me, I'd love to hear about it.

Did I influence people?  Clearly people have
used it, Professor McGraw being a clear case,
and I'm grateful to him for the
acknowledgement. As another example, a PhD
came out from the University of Washington a
couple years back on musical humor, which used
N+V.  And really there have been several
follow-on efforts that have come from it,
tested it, verified it, etc., so it is clear
that I did somehow influence a few people.  As
far as contributing to academic knowledge is
concerned, I can die happy.

But I have one more hope for N+V, if a mere
plumber may be permitted to hope, which is
that people will learn how to use it to
understand each other better.  See
http://www.tomveatch.com/else/humor/paper/node36.html
for the details.

Okay, that's what I've got.  I get off work
plumbing at 3:30pm if you want to call me, my
cell is 206-947-2953.  Humor theory is always
fun to talk about.

Best,

Tom

Copyright 2010, Thomas C Veatch.

You may use this content in any publication so long as you acknowledge
its source.