🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1175@oddjob.UUCP> apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) writes:
>In article <140@midas.UUCP> jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes:
>>If you don't think a joke is funny, you look pretty silly trying to explain
>>to everyone where its humor lies.
>
>Glib, but wrong. You might as well say that, if you don't like a play, you
>look pretty silly trying to explain what the author was trying to do. It's
>perfectly possible intelligently to criticize humor which you don't find
>funny. All you need is the ability to understand and write text.
>Of course, you may think that a particular person (e.g. me) is failing to
>give intelligent criticism, but that's a different question.

But with the same answer. You look silly failing to give intelligent
criticism. :-)

Seriously, I disagree with your implication that the statement about plays
is wrong.  If you don't like something, you're perfectly qualified
to say why you don't like it - with whatever degree of intelligence is
at your command - but true understanding comes only with a certain basic
amount of sympathy. 

For example, I don't much care for what is usually called "pop" music.
I can be quite articulate on why I don't like it, but I would be hopelessly
inept trying to give information about a certain piece to someone who
*does* like it. And this is not for lack of musical knowledge.

I like a little different analogy - if you can't stand eggplant, how
can you tell someone what tastes good about it? If you don't think a joke
is funny, how can you tell someone what's funny about it? (= where the
humor lies)

>>I've got a theory: Most people are not assholes. Most people do not think
>>rape is funny. Therefore most people who found the joke funny, did for the
>>reason Fr. Woolley claims. 
>
>Your "therefore" doesn't actually reflect any logical implication (draw a few
>sets of differing sizes and you'll see what I mean).

Of course not. It represents reasonable inference. Remember that the
language as used in mathematics is not identical to the language as used in
everyday speech. What I wonder is, why did you bother making this
statement...

>                                                     However, I'm beginning to
>think that you're half-right. A significant fraction of those net-readers who
>enjoyed the joke did so because they interpreted it in Fr. Woolley's sense,
>and didn't notice other messages in the joke.

...especially since you apparently understood what I said?

And, by the way, that "significant fraction" is, I strongly suspect, damn
near 100%. Or do you really think a "significant fraction" of net readers
think rape is funny?

>                                              The interesting question is:
>why weren't those messages picked up? (Or, if you want to frame it from the
>other point of view: why did many people see something offensive in the
>joke?) 

I personally am not very interested in this question. If you go to an opera,
will you complain because much of the action is ridiculously stylized? Or
will you accept the context and enjoy it? There are those who do both.

Which raises another point - apparently part of the context in this 
particular case for some readers was Fr. Woolley's political opinions
expressed elsewhere on the net. I suppose I might have found the joke
less humorous if I had been aware of that context, but I still would
accept his explanation of the source of the joke's humor.

					Jeff Winslow
					"Why do you hate me?" - Socrates