It Isn't Total Bull$#!(

The readings presented this week have been the most unusual I have ever read for any class I have ever taken. This is a new experience to read such literature, but it is a great one to open my eyes to the broad range of literary topics there are in the world. Many times, I believe literature is interpreted to be too serious. Seeing the poem, The Shit List, and the story of Nanabush and the Laxative Bulb, brings a new light to all literature for me. I have always been taught to pass gas in public was rude, but many times if I was around familiar people it was welcome as a joke as long as it did not get out of hand. In the story of Nanabush, he goes a little too far with his passing gas and eventually his defecating in the forest. He cannot help it, though, which adds a factor that makes the story quite hilarious. Passing gas is something that can get old fast if it can be controlled, but in Nanabush's case, he could not control his urges, which is what creates the humor. The passing of gas is a natural body process, so there is no reason it has to be frowned upon so by culture. It is not all cultures, though. Also, it is not each culture as a group. The reaction to passing gas is mostly constant through each family, so depending upon how the parents react, the children will be the same. Laughing at bodily funtions such as passing gas and defecating is something most children do naturally when they are old enough to start recognizing sounds and laughing. I have never seen a parent sit down with there baby and try to instil laughter about passing gas into the baby's nature. It is just there.

Ladies aren't supposed to laugh at that!!

The type of humor that was studied this week was a kind which many of our mothers would not find to be so comedic. My own mom would say that urine, excretion, and other characteristics of Rabelais’ writing are not appropriate topics “for a lady” to discuss. However, it is this mindset of unsuitableness which urges us to laugh at the writings of Rabelais. I believe that laughter at these types of writings such as “Trickster Eats the Laxative Bulb” and “Gargantua” comes from a combination of nature and nurture. As kids we would all have naturally laughed hysterically at these stories with no reservations or thought as to why we are laughing. Yet when girls began to mature many were taught by our culture that they should not laugh at such foolishness because it is not becoming. This is where the nurture begins to show its influence. Regardless of gender, as American children grow they are told that defecating a pile of dung the height of a tree is not a subject which should be discusses openly. Brakhtin mentions that sayings in America do not have the same effect on people of other countries. For example, “if God has urinated here” is more of a blessing in France than a disgusting idea as it would be to most Americans. This shows that one’s discretion on what is comedic and what isn’t is due in part to one’s culture or nurture. Nurturing can also be a reason why we would find these stories to be comedic. If one has never read a story about a woman’s defecation resulting from the consumption of too many tripes being mistaken for her baby then one might be extremely intrigued by Rabelais. The shock of reading such a filthy and ridiculous story might have the effect of producing laughter in the reader because he/she doesn’t know how else to deal with it. Regardless of one’s discretion of what id humorous and what in fact is not, one cannot help but be affected in some way by Rabelais’ unique billingsgate comedy.

Understanding Language is imperative to understanding Rabelais

Blake Ogden

I believe that understanding language plays a huge role in the full understanding of the audience and the piece’s intent. The quote Bakhtin opens his analysis with is very true. In order to understand someone, it is imperative that you first understand their language. This is especially important in literature when often times what we are studying was original written in another language, another point in time, or simply another place that may uses different colloquialisms than us. If we don’t understand the language it can be very easy to misinterpret the meaning and the intended audience.
Bakhtin makes a very good point of this when he examines the language of Rabelais. When I first read the piece, it seemed very strange to me that he would use such degrading language and talk about such taboo subjects, but Bakhtin makes it clear that the way we understand the story and the way the original audience understood it are very different. Bakhtin demonstrates that our very negative view of excrement and urine would have been seen in a different light in Rabelias day. Bakhtin notes that excrement played a large role in sacred services, and while the flinging of excrement and drenching of urine are viewed very negatively to us they actually saw these actions in a positive light. The people of Rabelais time saw that since we give birth the same place we release bodily waste the slinging of excrement and drenching of urine are not so bad after all. Understanding this idea changes the whole way we understand the piece and its intent. Instead of just being aghast at the subject matter, we understand that the audience found it fun and enjoyable. They weren’t pushed away by the fact the Rabelias used this language and subject matter we find so taboo. On the contrary, they were actually drawn in. However, if we do not understand this we simply read a story with a lot of curse words and dirty potty humor. We completely miss the point of Rabelais’s stories and how they are meant to be understood. It is through this understanding of his language that we further understand the audience, how they believed, how they acted, how they interpreted things. Without the understanding, Rabelais simply writes strange stories, but with this we are able to shed light upon an entirely different world.

Women do NOT poop.

Brakhtin suggests that the reason we laugh at ‘billingsgate’ is because the organs that we defecate with are in the same vicinity as the ones that we create life, therefore, saying that these things are tied together as are life and death, sin and purity, and repulsion and humor. I think that it is nature to laugh at billingsgate but we are nurtured out of it. In western culture it is bad taste to let the neighbors see your dirty laundry. Laughing at a filthy joke is almost the same thing. You do not want people to know that you think these things are funny. When I was younger, I was stuck in beauty pageants, and cotillion lessons with the thought that I would one day be a debutante like all the other women in my family. They are all southern belles but all I wanted to do was be a cow girl. They reprimanded me up and down to do things that were deemed lady like. I would say, “I need to go pee.” They would say, “No, you need to powder your nose!” The moral of this story is that I was nurtured into being a lady, it was not my nature. It is nature to think a fart is funny. It is nature to laugh at someone taking a shit so much that he has to climb up into a tree to make room for it. It is something, however, that is nurtured out of us. Most of our parents want us to grow up to be doctors, lawyers, or politicians so we are supposed to have a since of humor that is more sophisticated. Going even farther than that, as Americans we consider ourselves to be privileged among the other nations. Why would we laugh at something as low and vulgar as poop? We are clearly much better than that. All this goes back to the age old notion that women do not poop, and as our cultural sense of humor would have us believe, neither does any other American.

Language identifies the target audience

The language used in texts and songs allows people to understand who the intended audience is. The language in the text Gargantua seems to be directed at a somewhat knowledgeable audience. Rebalais uses a lot of allusions to mythology and in order to fully understand what they mean and how they relate to Gargantua being born the audience must know about how the mythological characters were born. The language in A. R. Ammons's Shit List seems to be directed at everyone. It is simply a list of animals and how they all defecate. The parentheticals placed at certain points sometimes add explanation to what the fecal matter looks like. For example, the parentheticals in “caterpillar shit (so many dark/kinds, neatly pelleted as mint seed)” show that there are many kinds of caterpillars and they each have different feces. However, the language seems to target the general audience, at least those who are not opposed to the profane word, because everybody knows that living creatures defecate. In a way, the poem is funny, not because it talks about feces, but rather because it uses that specific word. “Shit” (the word) is funny. The language in the Trickster seems also to be directed at everyone. The story talks about the trickster being so arrogant that he decides to eat a bulb that warns him that eating it will make him defecate. He breaks wind in a very exaggerated manner, then he defecates (also in an exaggerated manner) and eventually falls into his own feces. This story teaches everyone not to be arrogant because it can have some negative consequences. The song Sex With Ducks seems to be aimed at both supporters of gay marriage and those against it. The song takes something that an anti-gay marriage individual uses to exaggerate the consequences of same sex marriage and turns it into something supporting same sex marriage. The song makes having sex with ducks seem like something desirable. It is like when pornography used to be illegal but now it can be found just about everywhere. There is still opposition, but it is legal and abundant. Similarly, gay marriages and having sex with ducks will be something objectionable, but legal and abundant.

Trickster= Funny as Shit; Shit = Not Funny

Laughter at any one of the pieces we read this week is natural. Many people may be embarrassed to laugh at the pieces, though, because they have been taught not to laugh at them. People have been trying to remove the use of ‘potty language’ for centuries. According to Bakhtin, the vulgar and coarse language is, “precisely [what] the Abbé Marsy and Abbé Perraud tried to expurgate in the eighteenth century and George Sand in the nineteenth” (145). These people may be able to take the humor out of vulgarity by nurture, but that instinct to laugh at a juicy, wet fart is always going to be there. I believe that even the most prude person would have to laugh at “Trickster Eats the Laxative Bulb” when Trickster farts so hard and loud that he is on all fours and feels proud of the inhuman fart. The author of the Trickster story uses much more literary terms than I have, and this makes the story all the funnier. While laughing at a fart is harder to nurture out of a person, it is not so hard to remove the fondness and humor from curse words. A.R. Ammons’ “Shit List” has its funny parts, but I feel that the repetitive use of ‘one of the seven words you can’t say on TV’ is less humorous because, like most children, I really never got to appreciate the humor of ‘bad words’ because I was punished if I ever said one. Now that I am older, I use the words in emotional situations. This poem is not very funny to me because my upbringing taught me that saying bad words was wrong and my observations taught me that they should only be used occasionally. The story about Trickster and his abnormal passing of gas and defecation is easier to understand because the humor used, essentially what my parents taught me to call potty humor, is universal. True, according to Ammons, everyone shits, but that is nowhere near as humorous as Trickster’s uncontrollable farting because fecal matter is seen in such a low light that it truly seems to be nature that causes people to find it so repulsive. Farting is funny because it is a sound that is not often emitted in polite company. Shitting is not funny because there is an actual substance involved which the world has grown accustomed to seeing as vile.

It's always funny when someone steps in shit.

Bakhtin suggests that readers should fully understand the meaning of a text's language in context, rather than assuming definitions transcend time. Though the spelling and even usage of a particular word or phrase may be used for centuries, the underlying meaning is likely to have changed dramatically. For instance, when Gargantua's tales are compared to A.R. Ammons' poem, the language appears to us to imply the same "trivial meaning" (Bakhtin 150) of modern times. When examined further, yes, the general definition is similar, but the deeper connotations of the terminology suggest cultural ties to a specific time period, which determines additional reasons for laughter. As Bakhtin explains, Rabelais' society's understanding of excrement and debasement is closely associated with the other functions of the lower bodily organs such as sex and birth. He does not intend his stories to be purely grotesque. This is seen perfectly when Gargamelle eats so much tripe that she induces her own labor. The midwives comically confuse the birth of her child with "her straight entrail" (Rabelais Chapter IV). Immediately after the mixup, Gargantua is actually born. So, the same vicinity produces both defecation and life, sometimes even at the same time. The lighthearted humor in Rabelais' writing is in the fact that though his characters suffer from debasement or gross defecatation, they are simultaneously left with the hope of renewal and life. On the other hand, A.R. Ammons, a contemporary writer, uses our crude, shallow meaning of shit in his poem "Shit List." He uses the word over and over to create a sense of unity and absurdity. The repetitiveness of the expletive makes his poem humorous. If he had just used shit once or twice, people, particularly conservative individuals, would have been slightly appalled rather than engaged in laughter. Thus, the use of defecation for humor is seen in both of the works showing a timeless appreciation for billingsgate, but the individual cultures interpret the specific definitions in such a way as to incite laughter for somewhat different reasons.

The ubiquitous use of billingsgate humor in literature through the ages reveals a natural instinct in human beings to laugh at feces and excrement. We think that other people's misfortune (as Hobbes describes) of being covered with body waste is funny because we are so happy something that disgusting did not happen to us. But, cultural niceties and traditions also dictate the interpretations of words and actions in reference to feces (e.g.: throwing poop). Nowadays, for example, shit is generally thought of as negative and vulgar. Ammons' poem is humorous to us because of the flippant repetition of a taboo word. Because of this, when someone writes crudely and openly about it, people laugh out of shock and awkwardness in addition to the joy of seeing a person uncomfortable. Rabelais' piece was humorous to his society because of the preposterous extent of defecation and debasement, common and accepted practices. In his time, excrement was used to severely degrade someone so the mention of defecation caused people to laugh at a gross manner of humiliation. Therefore, though as a general subject, excrement is humorous, the societal understanding of it often underlies many of the particular reasons why people find it so funny.

Oh Sh...t?!?!

Carmen Solis

After reading Mr. Bakhtin’s novel, it gave me a much deeper knowledge of the words. While I was reading his novel, a sentence grabbed my attention. It said: “…he rushes madly on, across the puddles, besmirching passerby with mud and laughing merely when lumps of clay cover his legs and face, ruddy with springlike, animal gaiety” (Bakhtin 241). The word besmirching with mud caught my attention. I have never heard the word besmirching in my life and I try to find a synonym for the word and it said “damage.” My first impression was that the “boy” was throwing mud at the crowd but after reading the novel, I was surprised that it meant something else. This is where Mr. Bakhtin’s opening quote came handily when he said: “I want to understand you, I study your obscure language.” He is examining language, more specifically words and their meanings. Words have meanings, but their meaning always change as time passes by. Like in the sentence above, the word besmirching with mud does not mean throwing mud, but debasement with excrement. Specifically, it means that the boy was throwing excrement and urine at the crowd. It was their tradition. Mr. Bakhtin wanted to take a step further beyond the obvious and try to connect with their culture, which he did. He reached his goal when he understood the word, but also the culture that had behind it.
Mr. Ammon also used excrement in his story and poem. The story was passed orally to teach the little ones a lesson. Excrement or urine was thought, back then, that it was connected with the cycle of life: Death and Birth. To understand the story about Trickster, I believe that the reader has to understand in what period was the story passed down. We as the readers have to acknowledge those people’s thoughts and understand the words as Mr. Bakhtin said. For me, I only can see that the story is entertaining and talks about poop. But, in reality, it is talking about that we do not have to be prideful and think that we rule the world. They said this but in a funny way. In Mr. Ammon’s poem, I only see that he is talking about shit. Maybe it has a meaning behind it, but I just cannot see it. I know that he uses sarcasm and the words between the parentheses add a little more humorous meanings. In general, I really enjoy the stories and poems and I got the chance to comprehend the words even though some of them did not make sense.

I understand you...kinda.

“I want to understand you, I study your obscure language.” This quote, written by Bakhtin, leads to a lot of psychological thinking in response to the idea brought up. Through this quote, Bakhtin is giving language a lot of power. I agree with this idea, I feel like to truly understand someone, especially something written, understanding its language to the fullest will benefit you. If I sat down and read something written in Spanish and had to constantly use a dictionary to translate words, I would not get nearly the same effect from it as would a native speaker.

Applying this idea, while reading stories such as the Trickster story or the poem by A. R. Ammons, in order to fully grasp the ideas conveyed, one must also fully understand the language both culturally and linguistically used. The Trickster story is an orally passed down story told by Native Americans to their children, to teach them many things about life. The use of the word defecate is quite interesting, being that the story is about shitting, but the word used is defecation. Why would the more prim and proper word be chosen when we all know it’s referring to shit? Obviously, there must be something lost in the translation that can only be understood when heard in the original language.

As for the A. R. Ammons poem, which spends the entire song talking about different types of shit, it’s a little bit more difficult to understand what language I should be understanding. The original text is in English, so I’m not really sure. I do know that the poem is full of hidden meanings besides just different types of shit. The author uses the very versatile nature of the word to create sayings such as “Bull shit (the classic)” as well as “Gopher shit (or go broke)”. I’m sure there are many more that I did not catch, but all in all it’s a very humorous piece.

Blog #3: Billingsgate, Art, and Meaningfulness

Dear All,

Answer ONE of the questions below with a thoughtful, original, polished response of between 300 and 450 words. 

1.  Bakhtin opens his exploration of Rabelais's billingsgate language with the quote:  "I want to understand you, I study your obscure language."  How can we better understand the intended audience for the pieces we had for this week (Rabelais, A. R. Ammons, the Trickster story, and "Sex with Ducks") through examining their language?

2.  Use Bakhtin (or, in addition, the other theorists we've read) to discuss whether laughter at one or more of our pieces this week is the product of nature, nurture, or some combination of the two.  (As Emmalyn suggested, perhaps we're trained away from our natures...)  Does the fact that we've seen billingsgate humor from Renaissance France, Native America, and twentieth/twenty-first-century America  suggest that there's something universal (natural) about this kind of humor?  Or, does the fact that we have to work to understand the pieces suggest that cultural (nutured) about humorous billingsgate?

Good luck!
Jennifer

Freud with Emma

The story of Emma and her little picnic is comprised of several comic effects. There is the awkwardness created by the presence of the Eltons, who are of the same age as the rest of the guests, but act like they are so much older. This feeling of awkwardness is intensified the by the fact that Mr. Elton and Emma were once in a relationship. This adds to the comic effect because I know I see awkward situations as being quite humurous. Even though there is a awkward feeling present, the overall mood seems to be cheerful and happy at Box Hill, for the text of the story Emma states "They had a very fine day for Box Hill; and all the other outward circumstances of arrangement, accommodation, and punctuality, were in favour of a pleasant party." In this Jane Austen presents the reader with a mood and prepares them for a comic event in the future. This goes along with Freud in the way that he says "The most favourable condition for the production of comic pleasure is a generally cheerful mood in which one is 'inclined to laugh'." Freud is meaning that for a situation to be funny or for comedy to be created the mood must be set in a positive light. This is done in Emma, and shown by the manner in which everyone attends. Unfortunately, though, everyone seperates slightly which creates less of a feeling of being together. As a result, Mr Churhchill requests everyone to create a small amount of clever remarks to lighten the mood once again. Also, this is done to create an attention toward Emma, which is quite funny to witness a group of middle age adults trying to please a teenager. The mood is cheerful and remarks are being made to please Emma, so, she is happy, until Miss Bates begins rambling on about how she is going to have a hard time only saying three stupid remarks. This is in a way setting up a situation in which a degrading, yet hilarious joke is to be made. Freud says in his article, "A similarly favourable effect os produced by an expectation of the comic, by being attuned to cominc pleasure." In this, Freud is saying an additional requirement, to the mood, for a comic effect is the set up for the comic event.
Freud's article and view on comedy is in many ways weird and difficult to understand, but when reading Emma in comparison with Freud's work many of his points make much more sense. Emma emphasizes the comic effects necessary to make a situation funny, and goes along with Freud's interpretation of comedy very well.

Let's all laugh at Emma 'cause she was knocked off her high horse. Epic fail Emma

Reading and watching Emma reminded me of certain parts of Hobbes's statement on laughter and a part of Bergson's description. When the Ms. Bates says that the game will be easy because she can say three very dull things, Emma feels that she will be funny because she points out the strict limit. As Hobbes states, people laugh because of “apprehension of some deformed thing in another, by comparison whereof they suddenly applaud themselves”. Emma thought that that she would be seen as funny because she implied that Ms. Bates constantly said nonsense and thus would have a hard time adhering to the limit of three. Emma's plan backfired because the people thought that it was indecent to make fun of and laugh at people of lower class. They thought like Hobbes in that “much laughter at the defects of others is a sign of pusillanimity” thus they reproved Emma for being so thoughtless. They thought that they should only “compare themselves only with the most able” (Hobbes) that is to say that Emma's actions would be justified if Ms. Bates was of the same social status. The disintegration of the humorous situation comes because the people do not find Emma's remark funny. As Bergson states, “laughter appears to stand in need of an echo”. Emma was not backed up by the laughs of the other people, thus the humorous situation could not exist. The reader is encouraged to laugh, not at Ms. Bates, but rather at the situation created by Emma. It is true that the remark was funny, but the situation becomes much more humorous because most people really want to see (and to laugh at) snobbish people being pushed off their high horse. Emma, considered by many a snobbish individual, was no exception to the reader's laughter.

Not very funny after all

Blake Ogden
After first reading the chapter of Emma, I had trouble finding humor in the situation. The circumstances followed the ideas of Hobbes in what creates a humorous situation. Emma observes and mocks “the imperfections of other men,” who happens to be Ms. Bates in this circumstance. I also follow Hobbes and believe that this may be a “sign of pusillanimity.” However, I disagree with Hobbes’s statement that this is what creates “those grimaces called laughter.” I was unable to find humor in the situation much less laugh. Instead, I felt pity for Ms. Bates and anger towards Emma. Even in the end of the story when Emma is reprimanded, I wonder if it is out of regret that Emma tears up or was it the fact that she was reprimanded and her perfect image she had created of herself was hurt that caused her tears. As Freud says, “unfavorable conditions” arise that disallow me to see the humor presented. My feelings of humor are outweighed by sympathy and fury. Mr. Knightly notes that had Ms. Bates been of somewhat equal standing then the joke may have been appropriate. I agree with Knightly’s approach to the situation. Had the remark been directed towards someone being loud and overbearing humor may have emerged, but instead, Emma viscously attacks poor defenseless Ms. Bates who already seems to have trouble fitting in. Emma should have simply punched a baby and laughed. We may have found more humor in this situation because we do not know the baby and we can detach ourselves from it. Instead, Emma attacks the weakest person there, and I am unable to separate myself from this fact. I am unable to separate myself from the idea that Ms. Bates has done nothing wrong except try to fit in. She is obviously not as blessed as Emma and though she has done nothing wrong to her, Emma still mocks her. Had Ms. Bates retaliated Emma’s remark with an equally witty remark the situation may have been humorous, but unfortunately this did not happen and rather than being humorous the circumstances create a heartbreaking and tragic sight. To me the situation moved from joking to the simple mockery Hobbes describes, and while there humor can be found by laughing at the expense of others I find very little in the piteous case of Ms. Bates.

Badly Done, Jane Austen.

Freud says that, “The most favourable condition for the production of comic pleasure is a generally cheerful mood…” It is safe to say that even though, “They had a very fine day for Box Hill” no one was in a cheerful mood. From the moment they arrived there seemed to be an unspoken animosity. Everyone separated into groups because in reality, no one got along. There is no room for humor when the people in your party do not even get along. Things did not get any better for these mismatched seven when they sat down for lunch. Frank Churchill vainly attempted to start a game up in the hopes of living the company. This is where the day begins to rip apart at the seams. In their company there is a woman, Miss Bates, who is of a class lower than all the rest. She is prone to babble on and on so when the rules of the game are stated as, “one thing very clever, be it prose or verse, original or repeated—or two things moderately clever—or three things very dull indeed” Miss Bates says that she will have no trouble in saying three dull things. The passage says that Emma cannot resist and blurts out, “’ Ah! ma'am, but there may be a difficulty. Pardon me—but you will be limited as to number—only three at once.’” There is no doubt that Emma meant for that statement to be a joke. The dashes that Jane Austen use to show a break in what Emma is saying are like a standup comedian pausing for effect while telling a joke. It does not work so well for Emma. It is as Freud says, “A similarly favourable effect is produced by and expectation of the comic…” No one was expecting Emma to say something so demeaning. Miss Bates is of a lower class and to insult someone of a lower class is as insulting someone who cannot defend themselves. It is extremely poor taste. Jane Austen is not a Freudian when it comes to laughter. Badly done Jane Austen, badly done.

"They had a very BAD day for Box Hill"

“They had a very fine day for Box Hill” (Austen). However, this day did not end as pleasantly as it started. According to Sigmund Freud, five conditions must be in affect or lacking for a comic situation to take place. These conditions are directly involved with chapter 43 in Emma. Freud’s first condition is the presence of “a generally cheerful mood in which one is ‘inclined to laugh’” (Freud 271). As the guests begin arriving in Emma, everyone was in a good mood and excited about the day, but the guests separated into parties. These parties reflect one of Bergson’s main ideas as well. “Laughter always implies a kind of secret freemasonry, or even complicity, with other laughers, real or imaginary” (Bergson 64). As the guests split into parties, each comic situation became an “inside joke” for two or three people only. These separate groups of people ruined the light and cheerful mood, and therefore, they ruined the inclination to laugh as well. The second condition highlighted by Freud is “a similarly favourable effect is produced by an expectation of the comic” (Freud 272). Everyone has an intention to laugh and will laugh when watching a humorous movie in the theatre, even if the comedy is not up to normal standards. In the text of Emma, Mrs. Elton declares, “These kind of things are very well at Christmas, when one is sitting round the fire; but quite out of place in my opinion, when one is exploring about the country in summer” (Austen). Therefore, in Emma, no one is inclined to laugh, even at Emma’s considerably funny joke about Miss Bates. The other condition that is very apparent in the text of Jane Austen’s novel is “the comic is greatly interfered with if the situation from which it ought to develop gives rise at the same time to a release of strong affect” (Freud 273). Out of the three conditions above, this is the most obvious in the text. When Emma insults Miss Bates, Miss Bates is so hurt and it affects the emotions of Emma as well when Mr. Knightly scolded Emma on her behavior. Overall, the mix of guests, the clash of social classes and wealth, the not very cheerful mood of most of the guests, and the harsh insult towards Miss Bates combine to create a very bad day for Box Hill.

Freud Knows Why Emma is not Funny

According to Freud, Jane Austen was not quite on track with creating the proper mood for laughter in the beginning of a chapter of her book Emma where Emma, Frank Churchill, Mr. and Mrs. Elton, Mr. and Mrs. Weston. Harriet, Miss Bates, Mr. Knightly, and Jane are having a picnic on a place called Box Hill. Freud says that, “The most favourable condition for the production of comic pleasure is a generally cheerful mood in which one is ‘inclined to laugh’” (271). The mood Austen sets in the beginning is somewhat dismal when she says, “There was a languor, a want of spirits, a want of union, which could not be got over” (Ch 7, p 1). However, she does bring the mood around by having Frank Churchill focus his attention on Emma, which makes her more agreeable and livens up the mood, which is the mood necessary for humor according to Freud. Then Frank Churchill attempts to engage the rest of the party by having each person say, “Either one thing very clever… two things moderately clever, or three things very dull” (Emma. Ch 7, p 2) This little exercise is suppose to produce so good mannered humor from the rest of the people attending the picnic, but when Miss Bates, an old friend of Emma’s family who tends to rattle away saying nonsense and is not of the same social class as the rest of the party, is given the question of saying something clever or dull things start to sour. Miss Bates says that she would have no problem saying three dull things. The funny part is supposed to be when Emma says that Miss Bates might actually have trouble with the game because she will be limited to just three dull things, which implies that Miss Bates cannot say anything but dull things. The reason the reader, and the rest of the party, do not laugh is explained by Freud’s assertion that, “The comic is greatly interfered with if the situation from which it ought to develop gives rise at the same time to a release of strong effect” (273). This applied to Emma’s situation is that Emma intended her remark about Miss Bates which was intended to be funny actually turned out to be an insult. Therefore the reader is not made to laugh because he or she feels sorry for Miss Bates instead of laughing at her.

Jane Austen's uses a "fine day for Box Hill" to satirize the backhanded joking and frivolous laughter of high society. This falls most closely in line with Hobbes' view, yet his argument cannot suffice once again because of his failure to recognize the breadth of human reasoning, which Austen subtly explores. For example, Emma demonstrates cruelty in wit towards someone she believes to be inferior to her. Though Emma considers Miss Bates a friend, she believes her biting humor to be far beyond Miss Bates' understanding. It seems that Emma intends her joke to be an opportunity for she and those also in her social class to have a laugh at someone more unfortunate than themselves. In her mind, "[Miss Bates] did not understand," and so, if the jest had been success, a sort of inside joke for the superior members of the party would have been created. Even if Miss Bates had not caught on to the real meaning behind Emma's statement, her exclusion from the laughter would have enforced the stratification of classes. Emma, "in thoughtless spirits, and the pride of the moment, [laughs] at her, [humbles] her" just as Hobbes claims people generally do when they laugh. In this scene, Emma simultaneously exemplifies both of Hobbes' ideas: "some sudden act of their own that pleaseth them; or... the apprehension of some deformed thing in another, by comparison whereof they suddenly applaud themselves." Her quick wit pleases her and Miss Bates' dull, annoying manner and her pathetic position boosts her desire for superiority. This is not, however, the only time laughter is used in the chapter. Hobbes' conclusions cannot account for the flippant laughter meant to brush over a deeper feeling or intent that is used several times throughout the text. Emma's will is to be paid attention to completely. Laughter serves as a way to keep all eyes on her and to keep her selfishness hidden by a facade of giddy enjoyment. Lastly, when Mr. Knightly confronts Emma about her rude behavior she "recollected, blushed, was sorry, but tried to laugh it off." She expects her laughter to display casualness and innocence so she does not have to admit her fault. Whether a jab, a slight laugh at a bad joke or a type of mask, Emma uses humor and laughter as a way to save face.

"Badly done, Emma"

Carmen Solis

After watching the movie Emma, I saw how a sudden awkwardness grew among the characters when Emma spoke to Miss Bates with hidden meanings in her sentence; this caused me laughter. On the contrary, when I was reading the text of Emma, I could not capture that moment. I even felt sorry for Emma at the end of the text because she could not express to Knightley that she was sorry for what she did. In both, the movie and the text, I could see what Mr. Freud, Mr. Hobbes, and Mr. Bergson wrote about, which was laughter. Each of these three writers has their own opinion, but in Emma they all contributed to what laughter is about. Emma thought that by saying mean words to Miss Bates would “pleased” her and make the others giggle, as Mr. Hobbes stated of what laughter is, which is “pleasing themselves.” Emma did not thought what she was about to say before speaking causing her to make to Miss Bates and the others characters feel uncomfortable. This occurred as a consequence of “a mind that always is thinking of what it has just done and never of what is doing,” as Bergson stated in An Essay on Comedy. She used wordplay, and witty talk against Miss Bates. Freud stated that there is a need of a “third-party” to be present to be able to tell a joke. Basically, there has to be a jokester, an audience, and the poor person who the joke is on. In Emma all of these three factors appear. Emma is the jokester who is peeking on Miss Bates; while, her friends listened without stopping her. The laughter of this scene is how awkward the moment turns out to be for Miss Bates. If we, the readers, were the ones performing this action we would not laugh. Emma feels“superiority” among Miss Bates because of her social status. So in a sense, Mr. Hobbes was right when he stated that “much laughter is at the defects of others,” in this case social status. There are comic effects all over the play. For instance when Mr. Churchill is courting Emma using cheesy lines or when the Eltons feel they are too “grow-ups” to be playing silly games. Somehow, all of the meanings of laughter that we have heard are drawn into the play of Emma.

Poor Miss Bates..

Amber Sawley

In Chapter 43 of Emma there are examples which support all three of the philosophers on why people laugh. Much of my laughter is credited to the awkwardness created by Miss Bates and the quick, witty conversation of the other characters. Bergson states that a “comic character is generally comic in proportion to his ignorance of himself”. This is true in the case of Miss Bates whose constant scatterbrained rambling unknowingly grates on the nerves of those around her. From an insider’s perspective this might not be particularly funny but as an outsider not immediately involved in the conversation it is humorous because the person is ignorant of his/her effect on others. Hobbes’s idea that we “keep… in [our] own favor by observing the imperfections of other men” and laughter ensues is also supported by Emma’s joke on Miss Bates. Emma believes herself to be superior in social skill and intelligence to the older woman and therefore makes her the brunt of the joke. However, in the words of Freud, an “unfavorable condition” arises and the mood of cheerfulness vanishes as the viewers begin to feel pity for Miss Bates because Emma’s comment hurts her feelings. The worry of the characters for the feelings of the woman “interferes with the capacity of the cathexes for discharge”. Despite the pitiful ending to the picnic, the scene remains funny. As I stated earlier this is due in part to the awkward situation created by Miss Bates but also by the seemingly harmless banter between characters like Mr. Elton and Emma when he states that he “has nothing to say that can entertain Miss Woodhouse”. Also, the situation as a whole is a little humorous because going on a picnic with such a diverse group of people with a wide range of ages does not really happen in today’s society. The inside perspective which the reader receives also adds a comic effect as in the case of Frank Churchill. He seems to believe that his obvious efforts to win Emma’s favor are working yet the reader knows that Emma has no romantic interest in Churchill.

Questions for Blog #2

Dear All,

Please respond to ONE of these two questions with a clear, analytic essay of 300-450 words:

1.  Use Freud, Hobbes, or Bergson to discuss the creation (and perhaps the disintegration) of the humorous mood in the text of Emma.  Is the reader encouraged to laugh, and at what?

2. Jane Austen is a celebrated classic humorist, known for her "gentle satire" of society.  What view of laughter and joking do you see her taking in the creation of this scenario?  Feel free to alighn or distinguish her from Freud, Hobbes, or Bergson.

Take care,
Jennifer

Hobbes vs. Bergson... I cannot make up my mind!

Both Hobbes and Bergson make compelling arguments about why people laugh, but which philosopher is more believable? Hobbes statement that laughter, “Is caused either by some sudden act of their own that pleaseth them; or by the apprehension of some deformed thing in another, by comparison whereof they suddenly applaud themselves,” really makes sense to me because it does seem like the most applicable foundation of laughter. So maybe I like Hobbes better, but I am not sure because I also enjoy Bergson’s view that the effect of laughter causes humans to, “At once endeavour to appear what we ought to be (Comedy, 71).” So Hobbes says we laugh because we see someone else do something that we know we would never do. Bergson says that if we were the person being laughed at, then we would want to correct whatever action elicited that laughter so we could be like all the normal people in the world. I have to agree with both arguments and say that I do not have a favorite at the moment.

Of Bergson and Hobbes, I believe that the best case for why people laugh is made by Bergson because he provides ample examples to support his argument that laughter is very social. Bergson says that, “Our laughter is always the laughter of a group,” and that when we hear other people laughing we do not laugh, but, “Had [we] been one of their company, [we] would have laughed like them, but as [we] were not, [we] has no desire whatever to do so (Comedy, 64). Therefore, we like to laugh when we are part of a group, but we almost feel alienated when we hear others laughing and wish we could join in their mirth.

On the basis of who has the more kindly and who has the more cynical view of human nature, I believe that Hobbes has the more kindly and Bergson the more cynical view. Hobbes is more kindly because he says that, “Sudden glory is the passion which maketh those grimaces called laughter.” The kindly part is that he says that glory causes the laughter. A cynical person would find fault in others actions, not glory and enjoyment. Bergson is more cynical because he believes that there is an “Absence of feeling that usually accompanies laughter (Comedy, 63).” How can a person be laughing if they are not feeling something? Some people must find some laughter in a situation that makes them cry so that they are able to stop crying. It is cynical to believe that a person has to abandon all other feeling on order to have laughter.

Hobbes. No, Bergson! No, Hobbes! UGH!

Ok, out of the two, Hobbes and Bergson, I cannot decide. On the one hand, I will be completely honest and admit that I laugh at people who I feel are inferior to me. I see someone make a dumb decision or say something completely ridiculous and I shake my head and laugh. That's the Hobbes theory in action. Hobbes says that laughter is caused "by observing the imperfections of other men." Even in television we see characters that are inferior to others due to lack of intelligence or skills. That is because it is funny. So I think that in many cases Hobbes is 100% right.

On the other hand, however, Bergson describes laughter as a result of life's "little surprises." We laugh at things we don't expect. For example, in the film Get Smart, Dwayne Johnson's character, a kick ass agent for a government defense team called "Control", is returning from being out in the field and strutting his stuff. Yeah, he's totally cool, muscles, clean cut, all man and then some. So he walks into the office, blows a kiss to the secretary, and then BAM! He slams right into the door frame! Hilarious! This is because we expect someone as cool as this guy to be smooth. He's a Control Agent for cryin' out loud! There's humor in that because we don't expect it. So in some cases Bergson is 100% right.

Well, if you can do basic math, you'll have realized that I have given away 200% of rightness. I know what you're thinking "Paul, that's dumb! Pick a side!" Ok, I'll pick, but only because you asked me to. I'm going to have to go with Hobbes as the overall winner on this one. Why? Bergson makes a good argument with the whole "surprises = laughter" thing, but when you think about it, normally the "surprises" that make us laugh are also things that make us feel superior to that individual. "Wait! That's like what Hobbes said!" Good job my fellow bloggers, you're catching on quite quickly! Let's go back to my Get Smart example from before. So Dwayne Johnson runs into this door frame and you laugh because you don't expect it, but why don't you expect it? Oh that's right, because any normal person can walk through a door without running into the frame. So you then laugh and think "I'm better than him because even if I'm not a Control Agent, I can still walk through doors." Well, maybe not those exact words, but you get my drift.

Overall I think both writers make excellent points, however, I think that Hobbes's theory is applicable to Bergson's theory making it superior to Bergson's.

Hobbes

The arguments presented by both Hobbes and Bergson have very distinct perspectives on what laughter is based on and what laughter is. Hobbes implies we as people enjoy other's misfortunes, and I believe that is true. It is only true to an extent, though, because I do not know anyone who is truly rude enough to laugh at someone who is seriously injured or in a very negative situation. Now, of course I laugh at my friends and even sometimes people I do not know if they fall or if something happens that is just a misfortune, but usually not at them as in a manner of making fun of them. I will laugh with them and try to be courteous and help them if they have fallen, for example. Bergson, on the other hand, believes laughter is just a release of emotion when a person is in a joyful state of being. I agree with this as well. When I am around friends and family I am usually happy, so, as a result, I laugh quite often. This is also caused by a very humurous set of individuals I surround myself with. I believe that being surrounded by happy and funny people encourages me to be nicer and easier to be around others. Also, Bergson states "On the other hand, how often has the remark been made that many comic effects are incapable of translation from one language to another, because they refer to the customs and ideas of a particular social group." When Bergson states this, it applies to more than just different languages, but to every group of friends who has inside jokes and personal comedy features between only select people. I know in my closest friends there are many jokes and sayings that we laugh at, not because it is funny, but because noone else knows what it means. I think laughter is based on the situation, person, and persepective of life each person has.

Bergson

Christine Durniat

Bergson says that we laugh at the spontaneity of life, as in when we see something that we were not expecting. Hobbes talks more of laughter being something associated with disdain, that we laugh at those who we know to be beneath us simply because we can. I personally agree with Bergson. I have read a longer excerpt of the Leviathan and I know that Hobbes was a very cynical man. I also have been told that he was certifiably crazy. I do not think that people laugh at other people because they observe, “the imperfections of other men” but rather that people can see the imperfections of other men as the imperfections that they too have and so they are also laughing at themselves. Also, Hobbes presents his argument in such a way that I can only think to call in vulgar. He calls laughter “grimaces”. Not once in my life have I grimaced and been in a state that I would laugh at the same time. It is also to be noted that the human psyche has a great capacity to understand facial expressions because back before the time of language that was the only way our early ancestors knew how each other felt. A grimace is not a feeling I want to join in with someone. In fact if I see someone grimacing, I would more than likely walk away, but if someone was laughing I would want to share in that feeling. Someone who can call laughter a grimace probably does not laugh often enough. Bergson also says that we laugh at other people, but it is not in spite. He says we laugh at, the “mechanical inelasticity” of humans. Bergson’s argument does not read in such a way that I come away from it wanting to cry (which is how I felt after reading the Leviathan) and is therefore, easier to connect with. It is easier to picture oneself in a situation that Bergson describes than it is in one that Hobbes describes. Both men are talking about laughing at another person, but it is in the nature of the laugh that is important here: Bergson suggests that we laugh WITH the person; Hobbes suggests we laugh AT the person. It is always better to laugh with than to laugh at.

I definitely agree with Bergson...

Laughter seems to be a very common activity, especially with my friends and me. I believe that laughter has a “social signification.” Therefore, I agree with Bergson’s view of laughter compared to Hobbes’s. According to Bergson, “our laughter is always the laughter of a group.” In addition, he mentions that comedy “refers to the customs and ideas of a particular social group.” Bergson is right; most jokes that provoke laughter are “inside jokes” and some jokes are only funny to a particular sex, race, or social class. To reinforce the fact that most jokes are only funny to a particular group, Bergson imagines the situation in which a group of people on a train car is laughing about something. He states, “Had you been one of their company, you would have laughed like them, but, as you were not, you had no desire to do so.” Bergson and Hobbes have two different views on what kinds of activities provoke laughter. Bergson mentions that involuntary clumsiness causes laughter, while Hobbes states that “observing the imperfections of other men” causes laughter. In addition, Hobbes’s opinion is that “sudden glory is the passion which maketh those grimaces called laughter.” First of all, I would not consider laughter a “grimace,” and second, I do not believe that glory is the product of laughter. I do not laugh because I think I am better than someone else is. Overall, laughter is a way to release stress and bond with my friends for me. I would never use someone else’s bad luck or lack of knowledge to make myself feel better; I would rather laugh with the other person, than at the other person. Bergson seems to view laughter in a similar way as me, as a carefree way to have fun, while Hobbes takes a cynical and harsh view on laughter.

I agree with Hobbes... for now...yeah

Hobbes's description of the nature of laughter relates to my thoughts about laughter more than Bergson's. Bergson states that people laugh more in groups “laughter always implies a kind of secret freemasonry... with other laughers” but I laugh the same amount, if not more, when I am alone than when I am around others. I think that Bergson explains what a humorous situation consists of more than the reason for laughter. He explains that people laugh when someone does something unintentionally. He uses examples of people falling. When people fall, they do so unintentionally and that makes the fall a humorous and laughable situation. Another situation Bergson describes is thinking that “a deformity that a normally built person could successfully imitate” is funny. But humorous situations do not cause everyone to laugh. As Hobbes points out, “much laughter at the defects of others is a sign of pusillanimity.” Hobbes states that laughing at the imperfections of others is a sign of weakness and cowardice. He also states that people can laugh at “some sudden act of their own that pleaseth them”. Therefore, I agree more with Hobbes because I too think that laughing at other people's disabilities is a sign of immaturity and ignorance. Also Hobbes acknowledges that people laugh at themselves and does not state that others need to be present to laugh along with one person. However, I think it is fair to say that I base my opinions of Hobbes and Bergson on the small passages that I have read. With further reading, I may change my opinion of each, but for now, I agree with Hobbes more than Bergson.

Hobbes is just a baby who got picked on... just kidding... but seriously

Blake Ogden

Trying to find the root of laughter to me is similar to trying to solve a puzzle with pieces missing. The solution is simply impossible. It seems unfeasible to believe that the root of a reaction as broad as laughter and humor might be broken down into a few small paragraphs. However, between Bergson’s and Hobbes’s arguments I agree much more with Bergson. Bergson’s statement that “laughter appears to stand in need of an echo” is very true. Even if we are to find something funny is it usually those surrounding us that help stir up our laughter. When one begins to laugh and no one else around him does, he quickly becomes silenced. Laughter helps to signify“freemasonry” as Bergson states. It is something we share. I agree with Hobbes that we may laugh at the “imperfect ions of other men”, but it is not out of superiority or cowardice. I believe it is as Bergson’s argument states the “involuntary movement of change.” This is the exact same reason we are able to laugh at ourselves when we fall and no one is around. If the root of laughter came out of pusillanimity as Hobbes argues, we would never laugh at ourselves when we fall. Instead, we do the complete opposite we laugh at ourselves and even tell our friends so they can laugh to. This all links back to the idea that “laughter is always the laughter of a group.” Many times the man who falls on the street is able to laugh just the same as those who are watching, and often times when someone of our group falls on the street we laugh much more than had it been a complete stranger. I believe Hobbes creates a very interesting view for why people laugh. He approaches laughter in a very cynical manner. Hobbes seems to have a bitter outlook towards those that laugh. It makes me believe that he is the victim of being mocked. I do believe that some people mock others, laughing at them to make themselves feel better, but I do not feel this is the majority opinion. When most people see a mentally handicapped person, they do not laugh at them. They do not have insecurities that cause them to act cowardly and mock them. While a small minority seems to need to fill a void inside my taking joy in the disabilities of others, most would help. Hobbes appears to argue that laughter is mockery and mockery alone. I agree with Bergson’s idea that laughter is a social interaction between friends rather than a childish immature act as Hobbes labels it.

At first, I was quite unsure of whose view was truer, for not everyone is so cruel as to only laugh at another’s expense as Hobbes describes. Yet, condescending a person’s actions or traits is often a source of laughter, which Bergson excludes. But, I agree more with Bergson’s opinion than Hobbes’ because I believe that involuntary action is a greater source of hilarity than disdain.

Hobbes portrays people who are intelligent and secure with themselves to be devoid of laughter. Instead, they “help and free others from scorn, and compare themselves only with the most able.” This is contrasted with the self-doubting population who laughs at others solely to raise their own assurance by lowering of someone else’s. I know many people with “great minds” who do not demean others, but I cannot, however, name even one that does not laugh. So, the reason behind laughter cannot derive exclusively from “pusillanimity.”

Though we all have moments of pride where another’s stupidity incites a laugh, there are more opportunities for most people to laugh at the “lack of elasticity” that Bergson discusses. Whether accidental or intended by a “mischievous wag,” Bergson’s idea of surprise being the primary cause of laughter has quite a lot of truth to it. When the audience can see the mishap awaiting the unfortunate person with “absentmindedness and a kind of physical obstinacy,” the reaction is excitement and laughter. This is not a menacing humor like Hobbes suggests but one of sharing joy or “secret freemasonry” between a group.

Despite my difficulty choosing the best view, deciding the best argument is much simpler. Bergson presents his opinion in a more superior fashion than Hobbes through his many examples and extensive explanations. To prove his theory, Bergson established that laughter has a “social signification” by showing that it is done in groups, usually between people that are at least on good terms with one another. Further, his general idea that people find humor in “mechanical rigidity” when a person’s situation requires flexibility is demonstrated through several examples. He describes a man falling on the street, someone being fooled by another’s tinkering, and he even connects his assertion to the theater. All of Bergson’s illustrations are congruent enough to flow right back to his central theme. So, contrasted with Hobbes’ sheer opinion of the heart of man, Bergson has a more concrete approach to his argument.

To conclude, the reason I have trouble choosing one view over the other as an absolute best is because the two authors are rather extreme in their beliefs about humanity. Both Hobbes and Bergson make accurate observations about why people laugh, but I think that they each limit the broadness of human personality and motivation. Hobbes is so cynical about human nature that he cannot describe laughter any gentler than “grimaces.” Believing that people could not possibly laugh out of joy or friendship shows how lowly and cruel he sees the human race to be. On the other hand, Bergson only focuses on the kindly aspects of humor when much laughter is truly a reaction to unkindly actions. If their ideas were meshed, I think they would have a very precise explanation of the root of laughter.

Superior? I dont think so!

Carmen Solis
Dr. Hughes

After reading both of Mr. Thomas Hobbes’s and Mr. Henri Bergson’s statement about laughter, I find myself more inclined to what Mr. Bergson’s definition of laughter is. Laughter is a joy that we feel inside which urge us to chuckle when someone else is in a humorous situation; it is also“complicity” between two or more people. Sometimes, we laugh for no reason at all or at ourselves when remembering some anecdotes. We laugh at ourselves because we know that the anecdotes occurred for our absentminded, not paying attention to the situation. We tend to laugh at jokes or at someone else when they are in an amusing situation. For instance when a person is in a crowded and noisy place, and suddenly everyone gets quiet and someone farts, we laugh. This is not because the “fart” sounded funny but because of how embarrassing that situation looks. Mr. Bergson gives a more interesting view of laughter. He leads us, the readers, with vivid situation that let us picture it. However, Mr. Hobbes has some interesting points. He states that laughter is seeing the “imperfections of other men” which cause us to feel great with ourselves. I do not agree with what he is stating but I have to give credit that this statement has some kind of the truth in it. Sometimes, some people make jokes or laugh at others’ disability. They think that “those” people are below the human standard of life and that they are not the same as them because they do not look like them; this is irrational. But in the other hand, I think that the majority of people do not laugh people they think that they are superior to others, I think that they laugh because of how the situation is looking or turning up to be. So, laughing is a joy not superiority.

Bergs

Laughter is such an interesting mechanism performed by the human body, of which there is no real understanding as to why people laugh, what causes it, and the effects it has on the human mood. Both Hobbes and Bergson make valid hypotheses as to why people laugh, though they certainly take different approaches to it. Hobbes states that laughter is a “sudden glory” caused by viewing the imperfections in others and favoring ourselves over others. Bergson, on the other hand, looks at laughter more philosophically. The way he discusses laughter through a “comic” is very interesting, and greatly helps with his point of view, discussing the inelasticity of the comic’s movements. Personally, I find Bergson’s much happier view on laughter closer to my own view. His view that “laughter always implies a kind of secret freemasonry” between people, or a brotherhood, is very valid in my own sense. I laugh when I’m with the people I love, but I don’t laugh around people I dislike. Hobbes, on the other hand, treats laughter much more cynically. He devises good points that make sense to me, such as other people’s errors being a cause of laughter, but his arguments are disconcerting to me. People laugh because they are cowardly just isn’t agreeable to me. Bergson does bring up the point that people laugh at others, such as in the case of the man running and falling because his body does not change its actions despite the change in circumstances. The way he words it is much friendlier, and a lot less spiteful. In Hobbes’s writing, I feel a lot of unhappiness, of which take away from the validity of his arguments. Bergson stays on the straight narrow, giving his view on the topic, and making understandable arguments towards his case.

Bergson

Hobbes makes a good point when he states that we tend to laugh at the “imperfections of other men” because we believe that we are more superior in some aspect. Bergson provides an example of this philosophy when he presents us with the instance of a man running down the street and suddenly falling. However, Hobbes tends to take a more cynical approach to laughter than I do. We do not always laugh because we feel superior to others or because we are pleased with our own self. I am inclined to relate more with Bergson’s case on why people laugh. Although we do laugh at the actions of others quite often, it is not always because we feel superior to that person. Bergson states that one reason why we laugh is due to the “mechanical inelasticity” of others. This happens when a victim of laughter gets caught up in the momentum of habit and does not adjust to new variables or continues “to perform the same movement when the circumstances of the case called for something else”. The involuntary accidents of others might cause us to chuckle yet it is not because we laugh at their failure but because we know that we too are capable of this absentmindedness. As Bergson points out, laughter is also social. In my humble opinion, laughter is not always the laughter of a group as he states, but often times this is the case. He provides the example of one listening in on the comedic conversation of a group and finding the chat to be humorous yet one does not laugh. This is because one does not have any connection with the group and therefore does not feel free to laugh. Bergson contends that laughter is not always as spontaneous as it seems because to laugh with someone implies that there is some type of comradeship and understanding between the laughers. All things considered, I believe that Hobbes and Bergson both make good points on why people laugh but I tend to agree more with Bergson’s kindly view rather than Hobbes more cynical approach.

BLOG 1: Bergson V. Hobbes

Dear All,

For this blog (300-450 words) you will need to compare your reading of Henri Bergson to this statement by Thomas Hobbes's Levianthan (1651):

Sudden glory is the passion which maketh those grimaces called laughter; and is caused either by some sudden act of their own that pleaseth them; or by the apprehension of some deformed thing in another, by comparison whereof they suddenly applaud themselves. And it is incident most to them that are conscious of the fewest abilities in themselves; who are forced to keep themselves in their own favour by observing the imperfections of other men. And therefore much laughter at the defects of others is a sign of pusillanimity. For of great minds one of the proper works is to help and free others from scorn, and compare themselves only with the most able.

Which view of the cause of laughter do you agree with most -- Bergson or Hobbes?  On a more objective note, which philosopher do you think makes the best or most interesting case for WHY people laugh?  Of Bergson and Hobbes, who do you think has the more kindly or the more cynical view of human nature?   Quote their words in order to make your argument. 

Welcome to Honors English!

Dear All,

I'm looking forward to a rollicking and challenging semester with you! This blogsite is where you will be doing your weekly posting. Take a few minutes to look around the site and get comfortable with it.

Enjoy the last day or so of your break, and I'll see you all on Wednesday!

Best,
Dr. Hughes