The first chapter of John Morreall’s Comic Relief builds a theoretical blueprint of humor. Morreall
expounds at great length humor’s turbulent journey through the centuries, paying
special attention to early Christian thinkers’ and philosophers’ condemnation
of humor and laughter as poison to a sturdy and productive society. Of
particular interest to me are the theories regarding humor, which are
laid out in a manner that rouses recollections of Harvard
Business Review articles read in the early morning hours of my sophomore year
in preparation for ethics quizzes.
Let me first defend Morreall’s bulky prose. The majority of
my classmates loathe Morreall’s Comic
Relief for its longwinded attempt to define humor, both conceptually and
psychologically. Can you blame them? I argue that despite its utter dullness, Morreall's structure is absolutely
necessary in producing a scholarly argument. I prefer a more minimal style such
as that of Ernest Hemingway or George Orwell, but these authors have divergent goals. Morreall
defines whereas Hemingway and Orwell describe.
In defining humor, Morreall adopts an argumentative style. He is required to cover all his bases, leaving no room for confusion. His composition follows the ideal structure presented to me when crafting my first argumentative essay in high school. That is, a general preface followed by the articulation of the first point, its counterpoint, the defense against this opposition, and so on. In the end, Morreall has made himself clear. The reader then agrees or disagrees with each condition, but there is no confusion regarding the argument set forth. Morreall presents a well-researched definition of humor and its respective theories. I do not agree with Morreall's entirely, but he has provided sufficient information for me to draw my own conclusions. For this, I find his writing effective.
In defining humor, Morreall adopts an argumentative style. He is required to cover all his bases, leaving no room for confusion. His composition follows the ideal structure presented to me when crafting my first argumentative essay in high school. That is, a general preface followed by the articulation of the first point, its counterpoint, the defense against this opposition, and so on. In the end, Morreall has made himself clear. The reader then agrees or disagrees with each condition, but there is no confusion regarding the argument set forth. Morreall presents a well-researched definition of humor and its respective theories. I do not agree with Morreall's entirely, but he has provided sufficient information for me to draw my own conclusions. For this, I find his writing effective.
I have one gripe. Morreall’s language is too elaborate
at some points. Words such as chthonic, cachinnation, eutrapelos and pusillanimity
sprout up throughout the paragraphs in his first chapter. Adding insult to
injury, such language only makes the meticulous process of following Morreall’s
discourse even more time consuming. Was it worth sending an hour with Comic Relief in one hand and a dictionary in the other? I finish each reading with a sigh of relief and my
brain in a knot.
No comments:
Post a Comment