No one dislikes a fine joke. We all have a funny line now and then to share and enjoy. One that can tickle the funny bone of even diehards practising sombreness and refusing to laugh. On any given day, I love humour, be it raw or refined, lighthearted or heavy, regional or foreign in origin, captured/drawn in photos/cartoons, enacted in plays, movies, TV shows, etc. I loved reading jokes online about Obama, Modi, former presidents and prime ministers, chapathi or sambar, sweetmeat or beef , non-natives vs natives, vegetarians vs the rest, green card holders, greenbacks, blondes, brunettes, gays/straights, including my own class of lawyers (example, lawyer’s tombstone has this written on it, his own favourite quote, ‘Here he lies still’).
The offhand way in which a joke is told often adds to the humour, setting off more guffaws. Humour could also be cruel. There could be also jokes that are weird and far-fetched. Certain jokes are critical about society and its idiosyncrasies, some educate — through the ironies of life. If a joke is pedestrian, it falls flat, like any insipid news.
Again, if the news on TV says a dog bites a man, it makes no news. If the same man bites the dog, and when such dog dies, it would make a great breaking story. We find from chats on Facebook, WhatsApp and other platforms that the present youth while typing out their messages most often insert smileys and other symbols of expression, including abbreviations such as ROFL (Rolling On the Floor Laughing). In the early days of social networking, I had no idea what that meant. I thought it was all profanity in short-form.
So many jokes are created, read, revised and recycled and circulated on social media, and if you attempt to read all of them at one go, you would probably need a sitting with a psychiatrist. So, moderation in ingesting humour, especially in these days of online glut, should be the watchword.
Good humour does not use religion or caste tags. So misusing humour in the context of divisions in society is unpardonable. Likewise, it is cheap comedy that targets the vulnerable and those with bodily challenges.
It is also not funny to ridicule creative stuff (critique is always welcomed, even harsh; only the same should not attack the person behind the artist).
Moreover, in the unfortunate event of any unexpected tragedy befalling someone, it should not be referred to in jocular manner. If the same thing were to happen to us, we wouldn’t find it funny, would we? Most comedians comes across as serious people off the screen. For example, Charlie Chaplin.
Ideal humour is when we can laugh at ourselves. Assuming I were a monkey, I would ask a guy, “Why do you wear clothes?” Likewise, a dog in philosophical mood would say, “Hey, why do you build toilets in the first place?” Aren’t the humans the most fun-loving species ever? Humour, therefore is subjective. If we can say that humour is a game too, then it has to be played by some set rules. But, alas, humour has no formulae. Yet your right to wield your walking stick stops where my nose begins.
Wit is serious stuff to be used on a level-playing field for everyone to enjoy, to make us see the world in the right perspective from an apparently skewed way, just to redefine our ideal roles and at the same time making us forget our worries temporarily. Humour, for sure, adds to our humility and vulnerability.
c_seshu@yahoo.com