This Isn't Funny

by Jason Roth

The failure of this essay to be humorous, I intend to prove, results primarily from the premise that treating an absurd topic with seriousness is itself sufficient to result in humor. The seriousness of the style of this essay, although meant to provide a satirical contrast against the relative triviality of its content, is obvious, unoriginal, and repetitive. This "style as a substitute for punchline" approach insults the reader's intelligence, resulting in an emotional rejection, implicitly summed up with the words, "No, I will not suspend my disbelief. I know where you're taking me, and I will be damned if I'm going to let you take me there."

Self-referential humor can be funny, as in the case when a stand-up comedian makes fun of his own failed joke. However, even in this example, it might be argued that the resulting humor therein derives from a better joke being made (i.e., the joke about the joke), not in the fact of joking about a joke per se. Irrespective of your opinion on this matter, it is assumed that you agree with the premise that the essay you are now reading is most definitely not funny.

Once the "joke" has been identified by the reader in this essay, subsequent sentences attempting to recycle the comedic premise fail even more miserably than each previous attempt. The accumulative effect desired is one in which each joke serves as the premise for the next joke, with the process snowballing until layer upon layer of humorous premise yields the opportunity for a "high-level" punchline, shall we say, or possibly the literary equivalent of pulling out the carpet from under the reader, in hopes that the reader will burst out laughing upon the realization that everything written up to this point is simply nonsense. Yet, this essay fails as humor from the start. Its serious treatment of itself fails even as a premise due to the reasons mentioned above, cutting off all hope for humor at the root.

At best, the reader's determination of this essay to be humor may alternate between skeptical and uncertain. To the extent that the reader remains uncertain, humor is possible. Ultimately, though, the reader will conclude that the intention of the essay is to be humorous. This conclusion is necessitated from the essay's reference to itself as "humor" (albeit failed humor). For what possible reason would a serious analysis involve the consideration of itself as humor? Making a mockery of one's position on humor is surely no way to make a case for that position. On one hand, if the essay was intended not to be humorous, then its reference to itself as "humor" would be false and would undermine its serious arguments. On the other hand, if this essay was intended to be humorous, then to the extent to which it is funny, all arguments posited would be serious. Therefore, this essay must either be serious and false or unfunny and true.

Now we come to the difficult task of defining the "unfunny". Can we, in fact, conclusively differentiate between the "unfunny" as in "serious", and the "unfunny" as in "intended to be funny but not funny"? If this essay is "serious" and true, then this contradicts our previous determination that this essay, to be serious, must be false. We can, therefore, rule out the "serious" connotation of "unfunny". However, if this essay is "intended to be funny but not funny" and true, then this is a blatant contradiction in terms. The "funny" and the "true" denote distinct concepts, and even attempted but failed humor must surely exist in a realm outside the "true". (We occasionally hear the bromide that "it is funny because it's true", but the mere presence of truth can hardly provide the sufficient causation for the funny.)

There are several other possibilities. Perhaps this essay is partially serious and therefore partially false, and partially unfunny and therefore partially true. The truth of its arguments, however, could only be accepted as serious when those arguments are made seriously. Again, since those arguments rest on the premise that this essay is funny, even those serious arguments are negated.

Another possibility is that this essay is intentionally unfunny. If it were intentionally unfunny, one might assume its goal is not to be funny but "clever". "Clever", as we know, is often seen as a substitute for humor. Substituting humor with "cleverness" is really the act of conspiring with your reader to feign mutual intelligence. Essentially, the writer and the reader say to each other, "We both agree that this isn't funny, but let's call each other 'clever' because the joke, which isn't anywhere to be found, is really on everyone else not intelligent enough to pretend along with us that it exists."

The possibility of cleverness as an intended goal, however, would be undermined by the admission of intentional cleverness coupled with the derision of cleverness as such. One might argue that the cleverness of this essay results from the reference to its own non-cleverness. But if it is indeed "clever" to refer to the act of non-cleverness as "clever", then the contrast of this hypothetical cleverness with the overall negative evaluation of cleverness still applies, strengthening the argument that this essay is not clever, but rather funny. Therefore, we must accept that this essay is either non-clever and unfunny or clever and funny. But if this essay were truly funny, then its arguments would be true, making the essay both funny and unfunny, a logical impossibility.