Jamel's Opening

Introduction.

Here are my replies and comments on all your submitted comments on Jamel's Opening.

(Unintended) Dick Joke Commentary.

First, I did receive a lot of great (unsolicited) analyses of "how my dick taste" and "dick residue" jokes and about the bad quality of a girlfriend being her ex, and the whole rest of Jamel's routine AFTER 0:16. These responses were sophisticated and excellent analyses about the sexual politics, the different insecurities of men vs women, etc.

Multiple students wrote that an audience of (straight) men makes jokes against women seem more funny (to them); whereas women might not find them equally funny. Indeed, two people noticed that the camera captured an uncomfortable, certainly unamused, woman with a staring man with her, him apparently thinking about the V attributed in the joke, making it true and real by the example shown reiterating the point of the joke. Brilliant. Also someone reported (her?) boyfriend watching the videos with her and he laughed harder (at the dick jokes?) than (she?) did. That is real data, the most valuable thing in science!

Someone pointed out that Jamel is making fun of people who make fun of women, rather than himself making fun of women (This could create a distance that enables an N perspective. If "they" are bad then "we" can be good, and that is N+V in the form of moral superiority.)

Someone else made a difference between a 'positive subjective moral violation' (like feminism) vs a 'negative subjective moral violation' (like female serial killers). I think they missed the point that violations are negative and non-violations are neutral or positive. So a positive violation is a contradiction in terms.

Mostly people were on point, they got the idea what N and V mean, and they could say why some aspects of the situation made it seem N and V to at least some people.

---

(Intended) "I do the jokes now" joke commentary.

Now, let's discuss the actual intended joke, though, which was Jamel saying "I do the jokes now", in the 0:00 to 0:16 section of the video.

Bad answers, and why

I found 10 ways you could have done better. See which applies to you. It'll suggest how to do better, or if you already did perfect it'll help you teach it to others by understanding different ways of tripping up. Because I'd like you to be able to both use this and teach it too!

• (1) Several found it not funny and that was all they could say.

  I wanted you to dig a little deeper. Was there no V, or no N, which blocked you? Usually not getting the point means not seeing a V perspective. So try to search for something wrong, difficult, painful, embarrassing, etc., in the situation.

  Mark Twain supposedly said, "Anyone who can only think of one way to spell a word obviously lacks imagination.“

  I myself think it's funny to say, "A man with no complaints has a lack of imagination".

  So in this homework item, if you're drawing a blank, try some things. Is it very hard to see things that might be wrong in the situation? Try to empathize with the speaker, could he be having a hard time at that moment? or pretending to? Why? Or, empathize with the audience, or different kinds of people in the audience like the other comedians, the men and the women, etc.: Could they have hostile or judgemental feelings? Be hurt? Feel offended? Or, with the different people in the situation being described, do they have a loss of face or comportment? Is their status being challenged? Would they be happy to hear this said about them? These kinds of general questions can get to the root of why someone might find something funny. They are ways to find possible V interpretations. Generally speaking, empathize!

• (2) Then there were some folks who said, "not funny for me but I could see how and why others might find it funny." This goes deeper than saying Not Funny and stopping, but not far enough. Same reasons as above, please re-read them.

  It is imaginable that N or V isn't there, but if one isn't there AND it's funny then the whole N+V Theory is actually wrong and it's time to publish a counterexample. So meanwhile, be patient and consider, What might be some V's imaginable in a comedian saying that? Put yourself in the place of everyone in the situation and ask how you might feel, what toes have been stepped on, or clumsiness, or failure or fear. V is a big world, you could try a lot of things. At least you could describe some things that you tried but that don't work.

• (3) Someone who couldn't identify N+V said 'It's funny because it's a comedian saying "I do the jokes now".' While that's true, I'd say that doesn't go deep enough, you haven't made the issues in there explicit. Try to break it down further. For example, you might say, a comedian who ought to know what he is doing, acting like he has to break it down to first grade level, like he doesn't know what he is doing: this is a violation of how professional comedians ought to be, competent instead of like first-graders, so that's V. Give us some more traction on the moral expectations that mean comedians shouldn't say that. Why shouldn't they?

• (4) Some people who didn't get it proposed things that I don't think quite explain the humor, for example, perhaps V is that he isn't doing original jokes. I'll make the argument myself, as a linguist. The word "the" in "I do the jokes" is what linguists call a "definite determiner", and it means there is shared knowledge of what is being referred to. If I say "a dog" it means you don't know which dog yet, but if I say "the dog" it means you already know which dog I'm talking about. So "the jokes" could refer to a determinate (mutually known) phase of the routine, namely the jokes part (we all know I'm going to do a jokes phase in my routine, but only I know my jokes) or it could refer to a determinate set of mutually known jokes (we all know the jokes I'm going to do, I know them and you know them too), which implies they might be not his own jokes. I think that's a subtle interpretation, whoever you are, and maybe Jamel was indeed doing Kevin Hart's jokes in front of Kevin Hart -- if he were, then that would indeed be a violation of the mores of the society of comedians against stealing others' jokes. Good idea. To strengthen the idea, you would have to ask someone who laughed at it to see if it's true for them.

• (5) Some folks seemed to think that someone else thinking something is funny makes it funny. Like, by the comedic authority of Kevin Hart, who stated it was "pretty damn funny", so (now) "I think that idea is funny". You see the issue of subjectivity? It's always subjective. So you can't actually say something "is" or "isn't" funny, because what "is" and "isn't" are facts in the circumstances, not in people's heads, unlike the subjective and optional responses to the circumstances. Speaking objectively, something is only funny from someone's particular perspective, it's not that it "is" funny objectively -- from someone else's, it might NOT be. Do you see my point? There's only a right answer for each person, and it might be different for each person, not for all reality.

• (6) Another person mentioned it was funny because of the delight and satisfaction of the audience. But isn't that the wrong way around? Saying it's delightful because of the humor perception, isn't that a circular argument? You can't say it was funny because it was funny (well you could but it means you can't explain it to anyone that disagrees) so also you can't say it was N because everyone liked it. Which way does the logic proceed? From N to humor to liking it! It was N because everyone sympathized (N) with his discomfort (V), and their feelings of empathy made it N. Or, it was N because of the immediately preceding confidence he showed, that confidence is N. And THAT (combined with a V perception) made it funny, and THAT made people like it. So people liking it and experiencing delight and satisfaction doesn't explain the humor, those are the OUTCOMES. I want you to reason from N and V to humor, in that direction, to explain why something is funny.

• (7) Someone said it wasn't funny for them and their theory was that maybe it was offensive. I think that's a good case of, if you don't laugh, then you might not have a good analysis. It's a step in the right direction, because offending the audience would indeed be a case of V but what exactly would someone take offense at there? Give us more.

• (8) Someone asked, 'When something isn't deemed "funny" by someone, is it the audience that isn't distinguishing the N+V or the comedian hasn't presented N+V? If I remember correctly, the N is NOT subjective, so is it the V that changes among the audience? And the absence of that is what makes it not funny to a person?'

  No, N+V says, BOTH N and V are subjective. So if the comedian doesn't persuade YOU that it's N and that it's V, both at once, then the comedian won't get you to find it funny. On the other hand, if the comedian persuades someone else that it's N and V and funny (as N+V predicts for sincere laughing) even though you didn't find it to be funny, you can infer that the other, laughing, audience members did see those elements and that the comedian presented those elements successfully to them, though not successfully to you.

  Isn't it strange that you can hear the same thing and hear something completely different? Strange but true, when it might or might not be funny.

• (9) Someone wrote 'This joke would fall best under the "V" category.' So that's a definite error, because the point of N+V is that everything is in BOTH the N category AND the V category, and if it's just V then it's not funny, yet, unless it ALSO has an N interpretation. It's not N OR V, it's N AND V.

• (10) Someone said it transitioned from lively (N) to serious (aware of V), and that Jamel was telling Kevin that Jamel not Kevin was going to do the jokes now (V, being pushy, or abruptly taking over the floor from someone else). Then this person, who had identified N and V elements in the situation, wrote "Not entirely sure how N+V comes in here." You seemed to have got it right, already. Just label the N and V parts which you already laid out, then you've got a good answer.

Good answers, and why

Here were some good answers collected together (many came from multiple sources).

Jamel saying "I do the jokes now" is variously:

• V:
  • Stating the obvious, implying inexperience as a comedian, non-professionalism.
  • Announcing a beginning, which is normally not done.
  • Discomfort. Awkwardness. Stage fright.
  • Forgetting one's material or one's place in the routine.
  • (Sudden) lack of enthusiasm
  • Some unknown V visible especially for comedians.

• N:
  • Being greeted by the performer.
  • Confidence and enthusiasm by the performer.
  • He is happy to be there.
  • Literally transitioning to the good bit where jokes are told.
  • Relief because the show does go on.
  • He does do the jokes.
  • Some unknown N visible especially for comedians.

All these answers are good, if they work for someone that laughed. If you "got it" (found it funny), and your reasons were in here, you got a correct answer. Is there only one correct answer? No.

My own analysis of the audience member, Kevin Hart, professional comedian, who said "That's pretty damn funny" in the video -- and perhaps found it funnier than anyone else in the audience -- is that Kevin could empathize with Jamel's portrayal of comedic death (V) and paralysing stage fright(V). A successful (N) comedian "kills" (N), while a failing (V) comedian "dies" (V) as they are booed off the stage (V). In a few seconds Jamel portrayed a blocked (V), self-unblocking (N), stumbling (V) comic staring comedic death in the face (V); a death that is comprised of failure to do their job (V), which happens while they are valiantly still trying (N), within their incapacity (V), to do their job (N). It's full of paralysing (V) stage fright (V), somewhere from terror to discomfort or nerves (V), that the comic has to go through, standing up at the mic; Jamel was representing that terror (V) by performing a slight and self-conscious violation (V) of how you're supposed to go about doing a comedy routine (V), really a simplification to the barest bones, an abbreviated representation of the whole routine (N). An actor that can only recite the title of a scene is a failing actor, a comic that can only do that is a failing comic, right? (V) But Jamel is playing that as a role, isn't not actually him (N), as indeed he shortly pops out of it and proceeds (N). Also it's [not [a terrible fail](V) ](N) yet; he hasn't totally lost his audience and getting booed off yet, (thus relatively N), he's merely making a neutral and descriptive statement of the place in the program (N).

Okay that's my take, but I've been doing this for a while. Please use these examples to refine your own skills at finding the inner emotional essences in every kind of situation. I think it will make you more empathetic, wiser, diplomatically skillful, in a way detached and therefore unattackable, and even perhaps a little funnier, though mostly people who do humor research are not the least bit funny.

---

To read everyone's responses (individually identifying information removed) using your browser menu system do "Show Page Source" on this pace and read below here; the data is in a long HTML comment so you can look at it if you want to.