101. Uh-Oh ... Aristotle | Essay
'sup from SUT
In his Poetics, Aristotle says that tragedies are about the flaws of men who are better than the average man, and comedies are about the flaws of men who are worse than the average man. Per Aristotle, for the comedy to be a comedy, the comedic character has to be worse in ways that makes him “ugly,” through mistake or distortion or deformity, but not in ways that cause pain or harm to others. This makes the character … ridiculous … comedic. (A perhaps inaccurate paraphrasing by yours truly)….
Not that my opinion is a particularly informed opinion, but I like Aristotle’s explanation of comedy. It helps explain why we tend to laugh at some things and not at others. It is also offers a good, high level guide for creating new jokes.
Here are some of the principles I’ve extracted:
Causing pain or harm to others is not comedy. It might get a laugh, but the thing that is vicious in it will also leave a guilty feeling in the one who laughs at the joke. Also in the one who tells it.
Flaws in the truly great don’t generally register as funny. They register as tragedy. We like jokes about those who are otherwise stationed “above us” in life, when the joke shows that they are really “like us” or even “worse than us.”
Distortion and incongruity are wellsprings of comedic energy.
If I’ve misinterpreted Aristotle, let me know. If there are other principles I should have extracted, let me know. If you think I should have heeded the implied warning of the “Uh-Oh” in the title and left well enough alone, let me know. You can use the Comment button right here to do that:
Haven’t read Aristotle but what you write rings true for the most part. That said, Punch and Judy, Road Runner and Tom and Jerry spring to mind as comedy that flirts with the boundaries of your premise. I guess knowing that Punch, Wile and Tom’s pain is fleeting allows the humor of their ridiculousness to keep the center stage…?