A Spectre is haunting comedy...

[gary webb]

or lack there of... a strange public opinion machine

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:04 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> Gary,
> "Internet Consensus"???
> Waa....
>
> On Wednesday, July 8, 2015, gary webb <gwebb8686 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> At the risk of sounding too paranoid, but considering that this is the
>> P-list... Maybe this whole fear that Comedians have of being labeled
>> "racist' or "homophobic" from whatever so-called Internet Crusader.. Or
>> Jerry Seinfeld afraid to offend righteous college kids... have less to do
>> with the art of Comedy, because a good Comedian will go there,
>> irregardless, damn the consequences... Not saying that the others mentioned
>> in the Article aren't bad Comedians... And they have taken those "risks" in
>> their careers... but that's just it, a facebook or twitter campaign lead by
>> whoever, based on either truly genuine outrage or misconstrued, could end
>> up costing these mainstream comedians money, endorsements, etc. Like anyone
>> in the public eye these days, they are beholden to the weird and unyielding
>> digital public consensus... Maybe the debate has less to do with the state
>> of Comedy, and more to do with corporate paranoia...
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 8:46 AM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20150709/925e3c98/attachment.html>