Humor Authority Podcast on January 16, 2012 at 1:05 PM
A new episode! I converse with my brother, the honorable Dr. Kurtis Straub, on our shared sense of humor growing up together and where they diverged. We talk about scatological humor, specificity, observational humor versus joke construction, and more.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Hm, it seems to skip ahead around 18:50? You were talking about Straub Brothers getting hit with bottles, and then it cuts to you talking about a business and a reason to not do the right thing.
In my grand experience of Straub-related podcastery, Kris usually creates a jump in the podcast to cut out long laughter or unrelated banter.
I'll fix it. It seems like the recording skipped one sentence.
Hey Kris, have you ever tried to dedicate a podcast to a case study of a successful show/strip/cartoon? You've made examples of shows in other podcasts, but you never dig into them specifically.
In the podcast you talk about a joke where the audience has to pair John Wayne with an unconventional fart sound, and how the mental work you have to do is what makes it so great, which I tend to agree with. But in the previous podcast, you and Brad talk repeatedly about the Murphy Brown kind of joke that *also* asks the audience to conjure some celebrity and imagine him in an unexpected situation, and how it seems lazy, which I also tend to agree with. But what's the distinction between the two? Structurally they seem identical (Imagine Celebrity A in Unexpected Scenario B).
I think the distinction again falls on where the reference hinges. In the Mr. Show scenario, we're mostly laughing because this man has ostensibly built a career around celebrity fart impersonations. So the mental energy expended on the part of the audience is answering the question, "why did this guy decide that THAT was what John Wayne would sound like?" We are questioning not only the scenario presented but the framing one as well.
The lazy area to me is when the reference is the whole thing. It's one thing to be specific, because specific is funnier, but it's another thing to throw out the John Wayne reference because it's built for a reaction from this audience. In other words, I think the Mr. Show setup works with anyone, whereas the Murphy Brown setup only works because this is a show about news anchors, and they know you know who Sam Donaldson is.
More bluntly: it's the difference between telling a joke involving the game Portal, versus going on stage and screaming "THE CAKE IS A LIE, RIGHT, GUYS??" The latter will also get an excited response and applause, but it's not humor.
I have a question. It's honestly not meant as a criticism or a 'gotcha', I'd just like to hear you explore it in future shows.
In the Brad Guigar episode you talked about how reference humor was a weak form of comedy because the funny is only created in the audience's head. In this episode you talked about how some of the strongest forms of humor was humor where the audience is led to a conclusion, but has to figure it out themselves. This seems like a very thin line, how do you make sure you're on the right side of it?
Edit : Oh. I wrote this post without fully reading the one above it. Apologies. I'm going to leave this one here though because I think my question is subtly different.
The difference to me is that if you can lead an audience to a conclusion, and they end up creating a picture in their heads that they didn't think they'd create, the laugh is huge. It's like blinding doing a connect-the-dots and winding up with an unexpected picture once you actually look at it. It's cool. Observation humor sort of lazily pings the center of the brain that identifies something they already like. The analogy would be that you like Super Mario, so I hand you a finished connect-the-dots that I did, and it's a picture of Super Mario.
Jesse Joyce, a comedian, said the same thing on the KATG podcast a few years ago and it's true. Give the audience parts A and B to make joke C and when they mix them together it's much funnier for the audience. Make them do a little bit of the work and they'll enjoy it more.
The example he used on the podcast: "They had to recall every GPS unit in all the cars in Germany a couple years ago because the satellite was telling Germans to turn six feet too early, and they were all just smashing into buildings. Which is more fuel for my argument that if you have a charismatic speaking voice, Germans will follow you anywhere." –credit to comedian Jesse Joyce.
In other news, this show is super enjoyable. This episode was the first one I listened to and I can't wait to sit down and work on some arts while listening to the rest.
Kris, I am truly enjoying the development I'm seeing so far and this is fast becoming one of my favorite podcasts. This is my favorite of the four so far, probably because of the conversational ease you share with your brother. Personally, I'd love to hear more interaction with friends and family members, moreso than humor professionals, though I'm sure there is crossover to a certain degree. Anyway, love the podcast so far, thanks mostly to you're unique comedic voice.