Lots of good stuff in Julian Gough’s lament on the preponderance nowadays of tragic over comic writing:

Many of the finest novels—and certainly the novels I love most—are in the Greek comic tradition, rather than the tragic: Rabelais, Cervantes, Swift, Voltaire, and on through to Joseph Heller’s Catch-22 and the late Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse 5.

Yet western culture since the middle ages has overvalued the tragic and undervalued the comic. We think of tragedy as major, and comedy as minor. Brilliant comedies never win the best film Oscar. The Booker prize leans toward the tragic. In 1984, Martin Amis reinvented Rabelais in his comic masterpiece Money. The best English novel of the 1980s, it didn’t even make the shortlist. Anita Brookner won that year, for Hotel du Lac, written, as the Observer put it, “with a beautiful grave formality.”

Monotheism takes some of the blame: not very open to humour, these religious types:

It is interesting, but unsurprising, that all the satirists murdered and allegedly murdered on Muhammad’s orders were, among other things, Jewish. With its vigorous tradition of Talmudic debate, and with no Jewish state to stifle or control that debate, Judaism never fell into the paralysis of the younger monotheisms. It was, to put it mildly, never state-approved. Judaism, excluded from the establishment in so many Christian and Muslim nations, has consequently produced a high proportion of the world’s great satirists, comedians and novelists. And, in Yiddish, it produced perhaps the world’s first compulsively comic, anti-authoritarian language, with its structural mockery of high German.

In Christian Europe, the Renaissance rediscovery of the classical texts occurred when the habit of submission to authority was at its most extreme. When printing was invented, no one thought to use it for anything other than the Christian Bible, for that was the myth of Europe, the one true myth.

Then there’s the familiar problem, with so many of today’s authors having graduated from creative writing courses, of professionalism:

Professions generate private languages designed to keep others out. This is irritating when done by architects. But it is a catastrophe for novelists, and the novel.

And, one might add, for philosophers, or literary critics.

Finally, a welcome riposte to this absurd article (via Pootergeek):

With its cartoon event-rate, a classic series of The Simpsons has more ideas over a broader cultural range than any novel written the same year. The speed, the density of information, the range of reference; the quantity, quality and rich humanity of the jokes—they make almost all contemporary novels seem slow, dour, monotonous and almost empty of ideas.

Posted in

2 responses to “Not Funny”

  1. Dom Avatar
    Dom

    It’s fun, in a way, to go through the comments to the Simpson’s article. Here’s one:
    “…it’s funny, but it also maintains the conservative status quo (as I suppose comedy has done since the year dot, the old ‘feast of fools’ idea) – Homer causes meltdown at the power plant – does anyone ever get Leukaemia? Everything’s nice – no one’s really racist/homophobic/thoroughly bad, etc. , and it doesn’t matter that Homer’s dumb, because it always works out in the end. Ever wondered how it came to pass that a nation thought, hey, George Bush jnr., he’s a bit dumb, but he’s the sort of guy you could have a (Duff) beer with, and what’s the worst that could happen?”

    Like

  2. whatsforsupper Avatar
    whatsforsupper

    Here’s a simpler explanation. Some people just have no sense of humour. Any fool can see that a novel is trying to be deep and meaningful, but not everyone understands a joke. That’s why you don’t often hear people talking about how funny Proust is, but he is.

    Like

Leave a reply to whatsforsupper Cancel reply