THE POINT OF THE JOKE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19215, 2 January 1926, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE POINT OF THE JOKE.

WITH SOME EXAMPLES.

BY JOHN DOE.

What causes laughter, why do we laugh on hearing a story or a joke ? Many learned men have discussed this question, but none have given really satisfactory reasons or solved the problem of humour. Was it Thomas Hobbes, the learned author of the Leviathan, who found the origin of humour in some sudden glory in ourselves when contemplating the less envious position of someone else ? Certainly a good deal of humour of funny stories, of children's sayings, of schoolboy " howlers" and tho general stock of humour is to bo found in the sense of superiority we feel over the person who says or does things that we, knowing better, would not do.

Tommy Jones, when sternly asked by the dread school inspector "Who wrote 'Hamlet?' " nervously replied "Please, sir, I didn't," and when the inspector related this to Tommy's dear old aunt she, knowing Tommy, said " And of course the little rascal had done it all the time."

Why do wo laugh both at Tommy's repudiation of the authorship of " Hamlet" and at his aunt's comment ? Is it because of our own superiority at being better informed ?

No» doubt this element is largely present in practical jokes, or situations in which another is in an unpleasant- or awkward situation—an old gentleman running after his hat blown off by the wind, Mr. Pickwick unable to control himself on the slippery ice slide, and promising half his wardrobe to Sam Weller to save him, a drunk man unable to control his legs or his tongue. We laugh at another who is in an unpleasant position in which wo are fortunately not placed; Mr. Punch gives his famous advice to thoso about to marry as one who has experienced matrimony; the heroes of Mr. W. W. Jacobs' stories give many instances of the same nature; we pity the man who has a scolding mother-in-law. Indeed the mother-in-law is a classic example of the humour of seeing others in a predicament we have ourselves escaped or experienced. Wit and Humour.

Can we get any assistance from learned men ? Murray's great New English Dictionary defines humour as " That quality of action, speech or writing which excites amusement; oddity, jocularity, facetiousness, comicality, fun." It distinguishes it from wit as being less purely intellectual, and as having a sympathetic quality, in virtue of which, it often becomes allied to pathos. It is also the faculty of perceiving what is; amusing. This definition does not tell us what that quality is, what it is that constitutes humour and amusement. The distinction between wit and humour is important, and it is stressed in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which says that laughter is "the visible and audible expression of mirth and pleasure, or the sense of the ridiculous by movements of the facial muscles," and does not really define humour, but discusses it historically, ( and quotes Goldsmith, who said that, "wit raises human nature above its level; humour acts a contrary part and equally depresses it." A good deal of humour certainly is depressing, if not exactly as Goldsmith meant.

Goldsmith gives a sample of humour: a man .without a nose being extremely careful in the choice of his snuff box, "We applaud the humour of it,, because he is guilty of an absurdity of which we imagine it impossible for ourselves to be guilty,, and, therefore, applaud our own good sense." Goldsmith then agrees with the theory', that it is a sense of our own superiority which causes humour in us. But, as the Encyclopaedia says, Goldsmith's instance is one typical of the 18th century; it is not one we would prefer, nor is it Falstaff's humour or that of the great humorists.' What is the great difference between wit and humour, apart from the intellectual. element ? Modern writers lay stress on the element of sympathy underlying real humour; we not only laugh at but we have a fellow-feeling for the victim of 'the joke. We have made the same mistake, we have been in a like predicament. Our host's breakfast eggs ha,ve been good in parts; many of us have mothers-in-law, some may even have put a penny in the posting box under the Auckland Post Office at. 2.10 a.m., and, looking at the clock, have muttered: "Well, to have losht two shtone somehow. The Element of Surprise.

Surely one of the chief factors in 3. joke is the unexpected, especially when it is also incongruous. The unexpected contrast between what we naturally expect and what we hear or see first surprises us and then amuses us. We see a picture of a smart town firl looking at- some fine sheep on a farm, and saying to the farmer, "What's all that stuff on their backs?" "That's wool," he replies. " Wool ? Huh, I bet it's half cotton. He r e no doubt we contrast the knowingness of the girl, who has learned of the shoddy sold as genuine m shops, with her ignorance otherwise. Sympathy seems to have little place here. Charlie Chaplin, who stands as the living symbol and exponent of humour for thousands of people throughout the world, in his earlier pictures gave us " slaplick " comedy, in which he threw various unpleasant things over waiters ana others in restaurants, making us laugh at their predicament. Now he knows that the best, truest humour is accompanied by sympathy, and in his latest picturesi, as in " The Gold Rush," ho is the under clog, unfortunate, unhappy, lonely, appealing and amusing in his pathetic earnestness and his painstaking mistakes. He falls in love, 'and fights a great big man, and when his opponent goes down to a, blow, we applaud, and then we know, though Charlie does not, that his fist hit not the big bully but a pillar which* dislodged a clock on the head of his opponent. Charlie's triumph and glory in his strength, all false, make us laugh in sympathy with him. Charlie is starving, and in desperation boils one of his 'famous boots, and. when eating the unwholesome leather, after carefully seeing that the plates are quite clean, he solemnly treats a big nail in the boot as a wish-bone—-and every one who sees him, in spite of his uproarious laughter, must sympathise with the earnest, pathetic little chap.

National Humour. There are endless stories and jokes about the Scotch, the Jew, the Irishman and the American, but there is no typical English joke or form of humour. The Englishman professes to see a great deal of humour unconsciously perpetrated by these nationalities," especially in the case of the two former, contrasting with his more liberal, or more wasteful nature regarding money. The Jew is portrayed as always on guard, perhaps in recognition of his history. " Ikey, vill you have a cigar?" " Vy, vot's the matter vith it?" replies Ikey. • There seems to be little of S3>rnpathy in the Englishman's point of view in his countless national jokes at the expense of his neighbour. Quite probably it is his sense of superiority. The main element in American jokes is, perhaps, exaggeration, which contrasts with the English tendency derstate everything. Lawyers again provide an endless field for wit and humour. They are often the cause of wit, as when recently Mr. Patrick Hastings, KC., in the course of a case before Mr. Justice Darling, himself an incorrigible humorist, happened to mention the name of George Robey. The Jtfdge saw an excellent opportunity for displaying judicial ignorance, and blandly asked,, " Who is George Robey?" "I understand, my Lord,' came the quick reply, " that he is the Darling of the music halls." A hit, a palpable hit.