A Spectre is haunting comedy...

[John Bailey]

That's why I said we agree - I don't think either side has enough
power to deserve uniform condemnation, and I think any bad actors in
this regard are more symptoms of systemic problems rather than nasty
individuals (or very naughty boys). Pynchon doesn't cast shade on
individuals as much as structures that produce misdeeds, and I feel
that sense of the bigger canvas of inequity might be what draws people
to the P-list. But that's just a guess.

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com> wrote:
> We've managed the trick of agreement while talking past each other :-) I was
> trying to say that it's because of a comedian/satirist's *lack* of actual
> power that I don't  invest much indignation in an offensive joke or routine.
> Nor, from the other side, am I exercised over the "political correctness
> menace" of those who *do* get indignant, protest, crank up Facebook
> campaigns, etc. I just think they could find targets that matter more.
>
> I see a very salient difference between the situation of, e.g., Lenny Bruce
> in the 1950s and 1960s -- when he was arrested and jailed for "obscenity"
> and clubs where he performed were raided, fined and closed -- and that of
> Seinfeld, Colbert or Schumer.
>
> Ditto for Pynchon; NB the excellent discussion in Herman & Weisenburger of
> the Free Speech Movement and antiwar/freak press as context for the writing
> of GR. The Pulitzer judges' epic fail was funny, in part, precisely because
> literary "obscenity" by then was argued in the realm of taste rather than
> law: Brigadier Pudding's midnight snack or the Anubis party/Bianca sequence
> (GR, 1973), or even the siege party at Foppl's (V, 1963) might well have
> been taken to court in many US venues as late as the 1950s. For Ulysses,
> Lady Chatterley's Lover, or even Lolita, serious people had to present
> serious arguments of the form "the readers' sexual arousal is permissible
> because it's integral to earnest literary art." Pynchon has been part of
> the evolution from that to today's default: "Readers' sexual arousal? You
> say that like it's a bad thing..."
>
> I vaguely recall an article about R. Crumb circa 1972 -- most likely Rolling
> Stone -- in which an earnest interviewer asked him whether his 'Incest
> Comix' had been a commentary on the repressive patriarchal hegemonistic
> family structure, etc, and Crumb replied, God bless him: "No, I was just
> being a punk."
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 7:08 AM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with you entirely, Monte, but perhaps to different ends. I
>> don't see those who object to rape jokes, or racially charged humour,
>> as coming from a position of power and thus deserving of excoriation.
>> Still, I don't agree with the noxious culture of shaming, either,
>> which Laura brings up.
>>
>> However, I do think there's a big difference between saying "I can
>> choose not to respond to this" and saying "no one should object to
>> this". Hell, does anyone here not *secretly* get a kick from the
>> Pulitzer Board's decision to overturn the GR award on the basis of its
>> supposed obscenity (etc)? Interesting stuff SHOULD get a rise from
>> certain people. But calling for the heads of those who are offended
>> seems... counterproductive.
>>
>> Anyway, my own experience is simply that too often these arguments are
>> about as sophisticated as those of young white men wanting to use the
>> N-word. Of all the things you could fight for in this world, that's
>> your priority?
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > JB> Isn't the alternative - that we stifle our discomfort, accept what
>> > we're
>> > shovelled even when it rankles - the most conservative attitude of all?
>> >
>> > What does "accept what we're shovelled" mean? It connotes compulsion or
>> > absence of alternatives... and I honestly, literally don't know what
>> > that
>> > might mean in the context of standup, or comedy in general. Or Seinfeld
>> > in
>> > particular, because as it happens I've seen maybe four episodes of the
>> > show
>> > and one or two of JS' standup performances (on TV) in my life -- which
>> > suggests that the You Must Silently Accept Repugnant Attitudes Embedded
>> > in
>> > Comedy Police have not been doing their job.
>> >
>> > As I said before, my own commitment to identify and raise my voice in
>> > opposition to offensive attitudes is in proportion to the actual *power*
>> > involved. Comedy performance (1) doesn't AFAIK impose mandatory
>> > attendance
>> > or attention, and (2) has always flown cultural flags --  call them
>> > trigger
>> > warnings if you like -- of "this discourse is going to play along the
>> > edges
>> > of your comfort zone." So it's way way down the to-do list for me.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 8:22 PM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> This is a really interesting debate, or at least interesting to me
>> >> since I'm a big fan of the art of stand-up (and it is an art... some
>> >> of the most profound stuff I've seen this year has been stand-up).
>> >> It's probably also a debate that's been around since at least the old
>> >> and new comedy of the Greeks. I don't think comedy is on its deathbed.
>> >> Seinfeld might not feel comfortable playing college campuses but I
>> >> have a feeling he's gonna be oooookaaaay.
>> >>
>> >> I think it's worth playing devil's avocado and considering how comedy
>> >> is often deeply conservative and reactionary. This isn't an argument
>> >> for censoring that heavy strain of humour, which is absolutely central
>> >> and mainstream. But as often happens when someone writes a screed
>> >> lamenting apparent racism or misogyny or homophobia or whatever, the
>> >> calls of 'but free speeeeech!' don't address the charges but sidestep
>> >> them. If it's a comic's right to explore any territory, however taboo,
>> >> then it's also a punter's right to object to it. It's not the comic's
>> >> responsibility to rebutt the complaint, or anyone's responsibility,
>> >> really.
>> >>
>> >> The right to be offended is rarely defended today, it seems to me. But
>> >> isn't there great power in getting angry, arguing for change, letting
>> >> feelings override reason? Isn't the alternative - that we stifle our
>> >> discomfort, accept what we're shovelled even when it rankles - the
>> >> most conservative attitude of all?
>> >>
>> >> Not that there's anything wrong with that.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Hey, just to wrench (sic) it up....any jokes offend anyone?
>> >> > How about that notion going around...."no rape jokes are--can
>> >> > be--funny"
>> >> > ?
>> >> >
>> >> > I have had Rightward friends send me Obama, Hillary jokes......which
>> >> > I
>> >> > would
>> >> > never want censored BUT.................
>> >> >
>> >> > Some make me cringe. Almost all I cannot find even remotely funny
>> >> > .....(and it is because I see a different set of facts than they do,
>> >> > among other reasons. )
>> >> >
>> >> > One thing that interests me is when and why certain joke themes catch
>> >> > on in a society.
>> >> > Why, for example, did that comedian who broke the comedian club rule
>> >> > and joked about
>> >> > Cosby's actions---widely believed and even brought out over some
>> >> > media
>> >> > years ago--
>> >> > finally hit a nerve, go viral and...voila.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:27 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> Comedy is Irrevrance.  It is designed to offend, startle, tickle,
>> >> >> provoke.
>> >> >> It should never be predictable. It is sometimes also very wise...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The "Other" in comedy is often ourselves, fat & stupid like Homer
>> >> >> Simpson.
>> >> >> That Identity factor of Comedy is a deeper relevance in us than an
>> >> >> offense
>> >> >> against this "Other" character. Our own experience, identified
>> >> >> feeling,
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> why we laugh. Comedy is an offense against ones's own self, ones's
>> >> >> Shadow.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> David
>> >> >> I think the difference between the US and the Euro is obvious:  one
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> country, the other is a currency.  Currency, like Corporations,
>> >> >> aren't
>> >> >> people. A Country is made of people.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The EU was never a sincere Union.  It was a bankers deal, pure and
>> >> >> simple.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Monday, July 6, 2015, Dave Monroe <against.the.dave at gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I have what I think is a basically ACLU attitude towards free
>> >> >>> speech,
>> >> >>> you can't be selective, you gotta protect all of it if you want to
>> >> >>> maintain it.  I wouldn't sign on, most recently, a "fire Donald
>> >> >>> Trump"
>> >> >>> (who by all rights should have "fired" himself the moment he
>> >> >>> declared
>> >> >>> his candidacy, who under the Fairness Doctrine [1949 - 2011,
>> >> >>> requiescat in pace] would have basically required NBC to give ALL
>> >> >>> the
>> >> >>> candidates their own "reality" [sic] shows [or so it goes in some
>> >> >>> parallel universe]) petition 'cos I'd just as soon have idiots
>> >> >>> identify themselves clearly (and, in this case, @ least,
>> >> >>> repeatedly,
>> >> >>> not to mention loudly) as such.  And, lo and behold, a couple/three
>> >> >>> days later, either out of some sort of corporate conscience, or
>> >> >>> (more
>> >> >>> likely) threats (explicit, implied and/or anticipated) of pulled
>> >> >>> sponsorships, did ihe deed "itself" (sic)..
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:14 PM,  <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> >>> > I agree with you, Mark. My real issue with most comedy out there
>> >> >>> > is
>> >> >>> > that
>> >> >>> > it's just not very funny, precisely because there are few, if
>> >> >>> > any,
>> >> >>> > boundaries left. Maybe, in an oddball way, the finger-pointers
>> >> >>> > are
>> >> >>> > serving
>> >> >>> > the long-term cause of comedy by putting the boundaries back. As
>> >> >>> > Michael
>> >> >>> > Flanders, of the old comic singing duo, Flanders and Swann, once
>> >> >>> > quipped:
>> >> >>> > "The purpose of satire is to strip off the veneer of comforting
>> >> >>> > illusions,
>> >> >>> > and cosy half-truths. And our job, as I see it, is to put it back
>> >> >>> > again."
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > I think odious PC tongue-clucking, in general, is related to the
>> >> >>> > broader
>> >> >>> > phenomenon of crowd-shaming:
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html?_r=0
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Personally, I refuse any calls to pile on to any online shaming
>> >> >>> > campaigns of public figures, in their various guises: "You won't
>> >> >>> > believe
>> >> >>> > what [blank] said." or "Demand that [blank] be fired for his
>> >> >>> > [blank]
>> >> >>> > statement," etc. I decry laws and policies, never people. If a
>> >> >>> > public figure
>> >> >>> > brags about how great the KKK is, it's my right to feel
>> >> >>> > revulsion.
>> >> >>> > But I
>> >> >>> > support free speech, even if it's Limbaugh or O'Reilly or Palin
>> >> >>> > or
>> >> >>> > McCain or
>> >> >>> > any of the Bushes doing the speaking.  Maybe it's because in the
>> >> >>> > 18
>> >> >>> > years I
>> >> >>> > worked in the construction industry, during which I was called
>> >> >>> > honey, baby,
>> >> >>> > bitch, cunt, dyke, Jewess, Jewish cunt, etc., I learned to either
>> >> >>> > ignore the
>> >> >>> > slurs or respond with dignity. When I was sexually harassed or
>> >> >>> > threatened
>> >> >>> > with rape or even murder, the system was so out of whack that the
>> >> >>> > focus was
>> >> >>> > on saving MY job, not getting the other person fired. And, you
>> >> >>> > know
>> >> >>> > what? I
>> >> >>> > was still able to discern that there was a broad range of intent
>> >> >>> > and
>> >> >>> > intelligence, even among the slur
>> >> >>> >  -makers.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Are there exceptions to what I'm saying? Of course there are.
>> >> >>> > That's
>> >> >>> > the
>> >> >>> > cool thing about humans - we're nuanced, self-contradictory, and
>> >> >>> > constantly
>> >> >>> > evolving. No point in defining any of us by a few random
>> >> >>> > statements.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Laura
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > From: Monte Davis
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Sent: Jul 6, 2015 10:12 AM
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > To: Mark Thibodeau
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Cc: pynchon -l
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Subject: Re: A Spectre is haunting comedy...
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > I have some broader and more ambivalent misgivings about how the
>> >> >>> > progressive version of "more outraged than thou" has accelerated
>> >> >>> > with social
>> >> >>> > media... but very little ambivalence when it comes to comedy,
>> >> >>> > which
>> >> >>> > has been
>> >> >>> > a "firewalled" space to say *anything* in a lot of cultures for a
>> >> >>> > long, long
>> >> >>> > time before the First Amendment. See court jesters, satyr plays,
>> >> >>> > carnivals &
>> >> >>> > Lords of Misrule, giggly scandalous children's rhymes, etc etc.
>> >> >>> > IMHO
>> >> >>> > that
>> >> >>> > has been and remains a good thing: if there's anywhere the
>> >> >>> > Voltairean
>> >> >>> > "...but I will defend to the death your right to say it" should
>> >> >>> > be
>> >> >>> > absolute,
>> >> >>> > it's comedy.
>> >> >>> > To put it another way: my own preference when I vehemently object
>> >> >>> > to
>> >> >>> > expressions of racism, sexism, etc. is to prioritize targets with
>> >> >>> > actual
>> >> >>> > legal/political power...
>> >> >>> > Followed at quite a distance by random celebrities NOT in the
>> >> >>> > sphere
>> >> >>> > of
>> >> >>> > comedy/ satire...
>> >> >>> > Followed by the random racist/sexist/etc bozos in my face who
>> >> >>> > attempts
>> >> >>> > to sweeten his venom ingenuously with "Hey, just kidding! You
>> >> >>> > [bien-pensant
>> >> >>> > advocacy label here] are so humorless!"
>> >> >>> > Followed, at the very very bottom of the priority list, by those
>> >> >>> > who
>> >> >>> > explicitly fly the cultural flags/tags of comic/satiric
>> >> >>> > performance.
>> >> >>> > Too
>> >> >>> > many of my own cherished progressive tenets started out and/or
>> >> >>> > gained
>> >> >>> > momentum there.
>> >> >>> > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 2:46 AM, Mark Thibodeau
>> >> >>> > <jerkyleboeuf at gmail.com>
>> >> >>> > wrote:
>> >> >>> > I wrote this for my blog a couple days ago.
>> >> >>> > I realize it may rankle some here in terms of its implications,
>> >> >>> > but
>> >> >>> > I
>> >> >>> > would really appreciate feedback from a group of people whom I am
>> >> >>> > pretty
>> >> >>> > much certain are, for the most part, a lot smarter than I am.
>> >> >>> > So, by all means... critique away!
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Here's the link:
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > http://dailydirtdiaspora.blogspot.ca/2015/07/thats-not-funny-manufactured-crisis-of.html
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Thanks in advance for your help!
>> >> >>> > Mark T. aka Jerky LeBoeuf
>> >> >>> > -
>> >> >>> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>> >> >>> -
>> >> >>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>> >> > -
>> >> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>> >> -
>> >> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>> >
>> >
>
>
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l