[lit-ideas] Re: Laugh Tracks
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Mike Geary <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:40:58 -0230
Quoting Mike Geary <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> RP:
> > On a more serious note, if people 'literally' can't be trusted (the
> > deceitful buggers) to recognize humor without the prompting of a laugh
> > track, why should they ever laugh at movies, plays, or books?
>
> Excellent question, Professor Paul. Why indeed should they laugh? Ms
> Andy's assertion that people laugh only in response to laughter is not borne
> out by the recent research (soon to be published by Phoenix University
> Press) by my colleague, graduate assistant George-Ludovico Hoffnung and I
> which proves, definitively, we believe, that while, indeed no one ever
> laughs without provocation, that said provocation can vary greatly.
WO: There's something interesting about the idea of "proving" that laughter is
always the effect of provocation. I'm thinking that a more cogent
interpretation of the utterance would view it as a principle or article of
faith posited by a scientific research programme, rather than a proposition or
hypothesis amenable to empirical proof, confirmation, falsification, etc.. For
how could it possibly be amenable to falsification?
And don't say "Ralph just now burst into uncontrollable laughter, and there was
nothing to provoke it whatsoever."
Not easily provoked,
Walter O.
So the
> question becomes then what prompts laughter? And how can we control it?
> Laughter itself does indeed prompt laughter as Ms Andy claims. Laughter
> seems to be an infectious behavior. Almost a disease, But there are very
> many other causes of laughter besides laughter. One is the misfortune of
> others. Seeing, hearing or reading about the misfortunes of others can
> bring on fits of guffaws. My colleague and I have yet to determine whether
> this kind of laughter is a sympathetic physiological response to the
> victim's plight -- an inverse way of crying perhaps-- or is just pure evil
> glee. Other provocations include surprise, quirky-smirky-ironyisms, and
> George Bush. But that doesn't answer Robert Paul's question: "why should
> they ever laugh at movies, plays, or books?" Well, they shouldn't ever
> unless they find them funny.
>
> Mike Geary
> Memphis
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
