I've been researching ways to teach humor to my creative nonfiction students, as this is by far the hardest unit to really pin down, I've found. So, like always, I try to just Google my way to something curious, a way to spark my own inner teaching muse. I like to think if they can find cool stuff on Google, so can I. Why not show them the best of the web, when appropriate.
So after a crystal-ball-type-search of "Why is humor individual?" I came across this astoundingly logic-based
blog posting. It reads like one of those really great Newsweek articles that you find wedged between all the horrors of politics and the economy. A spark of something truly, intellectually brilliant, in a shiny-magazine-article-packaging way: humor can be understood as a cognitive act, i.e. we've sorta figured out how the brain recognizes this thing called humor. The first paragraph as an
amuse bouche:
"The theory is an evolutionary and cognitive explanation of how and why any individual finds anything funny. Effectively it explains that humour occurs when the brain recognizes a pattern that surprises it, and that recognition of this sort is rewarded with the experience of the humorous response, an element of which is broadcast as laughter."
Humor is based on patterns. When I recognize something (it is now a pattern, having occurred more than once), it makes me laugh as a reward for being observant. I notice something "funny" about my hubby--his fly is unzipped, let's say--I laugh because I recognize that it should be up, not down. The pattern of zipped flies is broken by this oddity; I get a laugh at his expense because, hey, I noticed it first. This type of humor, I can only imagine, strengthens when the actual "oddity experience" becomes a pattern. So, when I notice my hubby's fly unzipped the fourth time this week, it's EXCEPTIONALLY funny, because a) I recognize that it should be up, generally, and b) I recognize that he does this all the time. Double Bonus Humor.
The article does say the humor of patterned content IS debateable though, since "no content can be inherently more or less funny than any other. It's all about the person looking on the scene, since "[t]he individual is of paramount importance in determining what they find amusing, bringing memories, associations, meta-meaning, disposition, their tendency to recognize patterns and their comprehension of similarity to the equation."
What I'm really interested in, though, is trying to push my students to understand this by looking at two humorous essays of completely different styles and subjects. When I have taught these two essays together (in the past), students invariably have one that they like better. Why?, I ask. They usually can't explain, and if I try to do the same it ends up begin more about technique than an actual preference. (Thus the curse of the lit major. We can't just read an essay, we deconstruct it, right?) I'm happy with just figuring out what we like in these, but as we move toward actually writing humorous pieces of their own, I want a stronger arsenal of suggestions.
I'm thinking/hoping to use this article as a springboard to help them deconstruct their favorite scene (after an interim away from the piece) and see what patterns might exist. Then, to move forward, I'll ask them to think about patterning something that the reader can associate with, as a way to better their chances for being humorous. I'll tie this to a freewrite they'll have just done on "life's irritations" or "obsessions & phobias" and I'm hoping, convince them to make these seemingly inconsequential subjects "ring true" in the minds of the readers. It should make them laugh every time, right...at least that's what all the latest research shows. : )
