A Call

[Imladris]

*Imladris creeps towards the massive bulletin board and hastily pins up a missive before slinking away*

What is humour? No, honestly, what is it?

Humour:

• The quality that makes something laughable or amusing; funniness
• That which is intended to induce laughter or amusement.
• The ability to perceive, enjoy, or express what is amusing, comical, incongruous, or absurd. See Synonyms at wit.

Wit:

• Keenness and quickness of perception or discernment; ingenuity.

However, I am afraid that humour is often confused, or affiliated with stupidity, which is a gross mistake.

The next question, obviously, must be, what is stupidity?

• The quality or condition of being stupid.
• A stupid act, remark, or idea.

Ah, but what is stupid?

• Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
• Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless

Courtesy of a very useful book

As you can see, humour is not at all related to stupidity.

This is a call to save the Mirth forum. I browse through it and am constantly amazed at what various members call humour is actually blatant stupidity. The posts are careless, the grammar and spelling is often mortifying, and usually, the post has no quality. If it is not funny, do not post it. If it has no relevance, do not post it. And I beg you all, on my knees, to not post what you would never say in the 101 Things Barrowdowners Would Never Post. Why do I beg none of you to do that? The thread is for what Barrowdowners would never post and you're a Barrowdowner, right? Right? Well, yes, of course. But, you see, no thought, no wit, no requirements is involved in stating what you would never say.

Humour is an art, just like everything else. Do treat it as such. Humour requires the care of a sharp mind, wit, and intelligence.

[The Barrow-Wight]

Imladris and everyone,

Some of you may remember, but most of you haven't been here long enough to recall the time I nearly closed Mirth for good. It was called Middle-earth Mayhem then, and was filled with the generally unfunny remarks Imladris is referring to. Sure, one person's idea of humor may be quite different from that of another, but there is a fairly obvious line between good humor and base or crude humor. Likewise, funny-odd and funny-ha-ha are usually two distinct things. The latter is clever and brings a smile or a laugh to everyone, the former is seemingly only amusing to the person who posted it.

Humor is also often a affected by several factors: age, gender, education level, and location. These four things greatly influence our ideas of what is funny. Some people like slapstick and some like more subtle jokes , but, again, we all are capable of seeing when something is just foolish.

Some examples of humor in the LotR that make grin every time I read them are:

Presently Sam appeared, trotting quickly and breathing hard; his heavy pack was hoisted high on his shoulders, and he had put on his head a tall shapeless fell bag, which he called a hat. In the gloom he looked very much like a dwarf.

The image of Sam's flashes to my mind every time. Funny! Not a knee slapper, but funny just the same.

"Chestnuts, chestnuts," he hissed. "Teeth! teeth! my preciousss; but we has only six!"

And he still manages to bite off a finger 50 years later (when he may have been all out of teeth).

Thing I personally find unfunny are topics where people are trying too hard to find something to do, as if bored. Just look at the topics with locks by their title and you will see the completely useless ones. But there are a host of others that I won't name, simply because I don't want to publically put someone in the spotlight like that. We do have a few culprits that are always opening topics that make me groan, but I'll not get into that right now.

I'm going on, so I'll wrap it up, but I will ask that people heed Imladris' plea and separate the funny from the stupid. That doesn't mean you should weigh every post against a laugh-meter to be sure it's a good one, but at least ask yourself "Is anyone going to get this but me?"

Thanks

[Elennar Starfire]

...though I must admit to having posted some very stupid comments. *blushes bright red*

[Lush]

*feeling sorry for my 101 thread, left to its own fate, hijacked, raped, beaten over the head, occasionally revived by a few Good Samaritans (you know who you are), and ultimately put out of its misery*

All things must pass. And no, it wasn't that clever in the first place, but it was fun for a while. I'm glad people enjoyed it.

Per the Mirth forum itself, I think it maye be due for a renaissance shortly, as soon as people realize that posting for the sake of increasing one's post count is a bit, er, trying on us all.

[The Saucepan Man]

I'm surprised with the conclusion that I came to when I gave some serious thought to this issue, as there have been many times when I have found myself irritated when clicking on a Middle-earth Mirth post only to be disappointed by the content (particularly in the days before I got Broadband, when pages took ages to download). So, when I first read this thread, my immediate reaction was unhesitatingly to agree with the sentiments expressed.

However, when I considered further, it occurred to me that, while some of what I read may not tickle my fancy, it is clearly (from the reactions expressed) highly amusing to others. As The Barrow-Wight said:

Humor is also often a affected by several factors: age, gender, education level, and location. These four things greatly influence our ideas of what is funny.

So, it seems to me that what some people might think of as:

A stupid act, remark, or idea

may well seem to others to be

amusing, comical, incongruous, or absurd.

Sure, there is stuff in the Mirth forum that I find wholly unfunny. But I am sure that I have posted stuff myself which I have thought to be incredibly amusing but which has left others cold. It is a diverse world, and so people have incredibly diverse tastes and opinions, in humour as well as in other matters. Generally, I learn not to click on the threads that I know will not be my cup of comedy tea.

That is not to say that there are not points made here that are worth raising. It will always be important, particularly on a site such as this, to ensure (as far as we are able, given that English is not the first language of many here) that our posts are grammatically correct and free from typographical errors. And of course, gibberish posts and ones which have nothing substantive to say are pointless and annoying. Equally, overly crude posts on a forum such as this are to be avoided (although personally, I find the odd bit of slightly risqué humour rather amusing). But it seems to me that these are in the minority, particularly with the advent of the Reputation system which has done much to eliminate posts simply commenting on how funny a previous post was.

Really, I am just concerned not to apply some kind of quantative value to the humour posted in Middle-earth Mirth based upon that which we personally regard as funny or amusing. By all means condemn "waste of time" posts (ie those without anything to say) but it is, I think, healthy and worthwhile to have all kinds of humour represented in the forum, whether I personally find it amusing, indifferent or downright unfunny.

Now I never thought I'd end up saying that, but it is after all a funny old world.

Mind you, I do think that the Monty Python-based Tolkien parodies have reached the end of their shelf life.

[Lord of Angmar]

I don't see any need to enforce strict guidelines to humour - as Saucey suggested, one man's honey is another's tar. Everyone need not necessarily agree on the merit of a particular post. What gets me, though, is the epidemic of strange 'inside jokes' that have overtaken Mirth; one simply cannot find something funny if there is no decipherable realm of origin visible to the joke-teller and the reader.

[Imladris]

Thank you, Angmar, for proving my point (I am referring to the inside jokes -- they are funny, but not funny to people who are not on the inside).

I wasn't clear in my first post, obviously. What one person views as humour one might view as stupidity. However (and I am sure most of you will agree with me on this) humour and stupidity are different things. Surely one can avoid blatant stupidity that is called "humour." That is all I am saying.

I wasn't suggesting strict guidelines. It was a merely a gentle nudge for some raise the quality up a notch. But that is my opinion, nothing more.

[The Saucepan Man]

I don't mind inside jokes per se. They are inevitable in a community such as this where members will have "shared mirth experiences", sometimes quite long standing. And often they can have their roots in some very funny posts (such as the competition on "Crazy Scenes with pics" in which Boromir won his Disco King crown). But I do think think that where in-jokes are mere references, without substance, they should really only be included within a more substantive post, one which actually has something to say (or as part of a sig).

The continuation of in-jokes as just that (ie without substance) tend to lead to more chatty posts and that, I think, is the greater problem than mere silly humour. And it does seem to me that this partcular sin is more frequently committed in this forum than it is in the Mirth forum. One thing that does annoy me is the posting of an ill-thought out "on-topic" comment (whether "humourous" or otherwise) simply as an excuse to carry on a chat conversation ...

[Kransha]

(Sorry, I could not resist the pun in this post title. It called to me, like a stray donkey in Birmingham after hours [note: this joke is not meant to be understood])

Humor is, as it has always been, a rather touchy subject. I wish to point out a little fact, relating to said 'quick' humor. In Threads such as those mentioned, there is always good intention, but many do not actually read the threads for purposes of enjoyment, they simply post, hoping to get a laugh, or credit, or up their post count. I respect trying to get an honest laugh, but a thread ceases to be a humorous one when no one simply sits back, reads it, and has a nice healthy fit of guffaws. That is why the strength of really intellectual, humurous threads, should never be overlooked. Certain types of humor can still be funny and fitting, even if they are not as apt in a certain situations.

Over the centuries, many authors and playwrites and poets and that ilk have defined humor in all its forms. Good humor has wit, sometimes sardonicism, and is understandable to most. A joke should be intelligent, but not so intelligent that it is lost upon the boorish serfs (read: inside joke). It can be, under circumstances appropriate, of course. The following are examples of categorical humor.

-Shakespeare, William, the globally renowned playwrite and sonneteer, perfected some of the first high humor, as he was writing for a high humor. Many of his works included 'low' humor, but only to appease the 'low' sort. In a way, even his crude humor was aptly placed and spaced, thus making it 'high' 'low' humor. If a Barrow-Downer must stoop to the level of primitivity where humor is concerned, keep in mind, perhaps, the incredibly vulgar sequence from Henry V, which is one of Shakespeare's most R-Rated comedic montages but managed to retain its classical nature. I doubt any Barrow-Downer would EVER be forced to go so low, but if one must, it is not impossible to still be side-splittingly funny and clever in one's crude humor. Just keep the expletives to a minimum, thank you.

-The art of the sketch should also be kept in mind. Par example: Monty Python, over the years, compiled a mound of near-infamous sketches, many filled with random, crude, low-class humor. The sketch art form could be crucial for B-Ders, though, for it is longer, more verbose, and, despite the inclusion of inside jokes and randomness, can be made both funny and thought-provoking. Script-format sketches typed into threads have often spawned some of the Barrow Downs' famous one-liners, and etcetera. This too can be used sparingly as a device.

-Dark humor too has its place, as does political humor, but neither should be allowed to become controversy, unless that was the focus. I suggest a lack of political humor, and use the times as a tool, rather than the administration of the times. This is, of course, Tolkien discussion, but parodying the world around us is not irrelevant to Tolkien. Tolkien's works take place in a different world, one which is constantly parodied by the modern world. Since we are semi-inhabitants of Tolkien's world, it is only fair that we get to parody the world which parodies us, eh? If one is to do this, do your research where you can, unless your remark is off-hand. It would be good to study the work of Jonathon Swift, or perhaps Evelyn Waugh. If you're going for modern ironicism, cynicism, or darker variety of comedy, check out Orwell when you can, or maybe Douglass Adams.

-The humor that I believe has it's place fully on the Downs is the genuine, clever wit that is present in comedy on a whole, as posted above. Mark Twain had this in excess and used it, though he also parodied the world around him, much to the joviality of his readers. Strive for this, my brethren, for it is what should be striven for, I suppose. This humor can be brief, can be concise, and is rarely directed at a trivial subject unless it is meant to complicate said subject. This wittiness should ne'er be spared, unless a situation's application would be totally, brutally innapropriate.