Letters to the Editor
shuvalkin
Published Letters: 49 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Sheesh
[Read the article: "Sarah Silverman: Jesus Is Magic"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The discussion between Mr. Anderson and Mr. Ben-Yehuda is certainly more interesting than most of what Ms. Zacharek writes in any given week on Salon.
Yes, humor is a thorny subject. Freud, for instance, devoted a rather large book to the subject, and, while i'm not sure whether he's right or not, i am sure that any theory of humor would require at least as lengthy an analysis.
My observation is this. I don't understand why Mr. Ben-Yehuda is willing to say that Mr. Anderson is completely wrong to point out that Silverman's humor is offensive when the point he is making is largely that Silverman's humor IS offensive, but that it's funny because of the specific way in which that offensiveness is mobilized. More to the point, Mr. Anderson was certainly offensive in making a deliberately anti-semitic remark under the guise of simply making more obvious his point about the offensiveness of certain kinds of humor.
However, what Mr. Ben-Yehuda recognizes is that the offensiveness of certain kinds of humor is not necessarily grounds for moral outrage. He's probably aware that there are many popular jokes in Israel about, for instance, how many Jews can fit in an VW (by making use of the ash trays); that humor is always localized in some way; that it may be a method for coping with horrors; and that, unfortunately, it may also be used to perpetrate violence, as well.
I think Mr. Anderson, on the other hand, has a fairly unsophisticated understanding of humor, and seems to believe that offensive jokes are so morally outrageous that they defeat the purpose of humor to make us laugh. But, making people laugh is only one aspect of the role of humor, and offensiveness is a cheap and easy way to accomplish this. Hence the jokes like: "Don't get me wrong, my best friend's a ____, but aren't all those ____s just a bunch of _____s?" These aren't particularly reflective sorts of jokes, and they say more about the comic than the comic is saying about the society in which she lives. The question seems, then, to be whether Silverman's offensiveness is of this superficial and probably racist variety or whether it's of the more interesting kind that forces an audience to confront its own tacit racism.
Personally, I believe that Silverman does accomplish something more interesting, but i'm not so certain of this that i'm uninterested in hearing how others' understand her performance. But, perhaps this explains why i fundamentally don't understand Mr. Anderson's bizarre anti-semitic reference. Is he trying to illustrate the point that comics can be racists? Surely Mr. Ben-Yehuda doesn't doubt that! Who could? Or is Mr. Anderson simply trying to demonstrate his moral purity by pointing out that he doesn't think calling someone a kike is a laughing matter? I'm glad to know that he feels that way, but then why would he do it? To illustrate that a person can be offensive without being funny? We all know that, too. When Chaplin parodied Hitler, it wasn't because Hitler was funny but because he was contemptible.
Probably Mr. Ben-Yehuda's psychoanalysis of Mr. Anderson comes close to the truth. And, now, that's funny, isn't it?
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
-
more of the same, i suppose
[Read the article: "Sarah Silverman: Jesus Is Magic"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I completely understand your point, Mr. Anderson, and i also agree that George Carlin provides ample material to illustrate either of our claims about "legitimate" transgressive humor. What i don't understand is how the "legitimacy" of transgressive humor is adjuticated. Indeed, isn't that a bit of a contradiction in terms?
Perhaps Silverman's performance is racist. I am certainly not willig to discount the possiblity that it is experienced that way (AsianChick seems to be making this point emphatically, and i do appreciate it). It's certainly true that a lot of comedy these days in the mainstream entertainment industry is racist. Personally, i can't bear Margaret Cho, for instance (to name but one of a slew of them, but perhaps one that allows me to suggest that my appreciation of or discomfort with instances of transgressive humor isn't simply a matter of a privileged Caucasian perspective on race -- and, by the way, since i don't identify myself that way, why assume that i am Caucasian?). But i imagine that someone could make a perfectly reasonable case for why Cho is legitmately transgressive where Silverman isn't.
Or how about all the misogynistic or homophobic comedy out there? Is there any comic out there that could be nominated for sainthood? And... what would be the point?
Look, most comedy fundamentally rests on some sort of violence. This isn't meant to excuse comedy that perpetuates violence against those already at the shit end of the stick. I prefer comedy that attempts to speak truth to power (Carlin at his best, Dick Gregory, Lenny Bruce, Tom Leherer, Lili Tomlin, Mel Brooks, etc.). Maybe Silverman does; maybe she doesn't. Maybe there are moments or instances of both in her comedy. It's something i'll be giving thought to, but i confess that i lack a theoretical apparatus that makes it easy for me simply to dismiss Silverman as UNlegitimately transgressive, and i very much doubt that such an apparatus is likely to be provided in this forum... a point that i think was implicit in Mr. Ben-Yehuda's initial responses.
Finally, i should like to point out that i haven't said Mr. Anderson's evaluation of Silverman must be wrong but only that i don't understand the justification for the claim. It seems grounded on a notion of propriety that is now all the more incongruous by citing George Carlin as an illustration of what classifies as transgressive but without explaining why Carlin's transgressivness is legitimate and Silverman's isn't. As for Mr. Anderson's attempts to make a point "without critical obfuscation," i should say that i don't like BS anymore than the next person, but i do appreciate critical clarity.