Ruining the #Joke

If you enjoy this post, please retweet it.

Well, time for my second mean post in about a month.

I unfriended someone on Facebook last weekend. He kept coming onto my posts and ruining jokes by asking dumb questions, explaining the joke, or trying to change the joke’s premise so he could leapfrog off my sense of humor. That’s literally the only thing for which I have no tolerance. I don’t care if you make differing, or even objectively stupid, sociopolitical statements. People are doing the best they can in a complex world with little time on their hands to properly research. Talking with each other helps us learn (if we’re open to it). But there’s no excuse for ruining a joke. We’re all just trying to have fun, and ruining a joke kills that fun. There’s a science to comedy, but this is intended to be a short, simple, and one-sided analysis, focusing on common audience errors. Let’s start with a very basic, if antiquated, joke.

The Joke: A horse walks into a bar. Bartender asks, “Why the long face?”

Asking Dumb Questions

Do not respond: “How did the horse fit through the front door? Why didn’t they throw it out? Why did the bartender try to speak with a horse? Horses don’t speak.”

None of these questions are relevant. You shouldn’t care how we got to this point. Just roll with the joke.

Explaining the Joke

Do not respond: “That’s because horses have long faces, but having a long face is a way of saying someone is sad, and so the bartender thinks the horse is sad, but it’s really just a pun, and ….”

Explaining the joke is just your insecure way of telling everyone you were clever enough to get the joke. No one’s impressed, but they’re usually disappointed. Explaining a joke ruins it. Everyone stops in their tracks and doesn’t have anywhere else to go.

Subverting the Premise

Do not respond: “But the horse didn’t have a long face. He had a short face, which is funny because horses don’t have short faces.”

It’s okay to continue the joke with a chain of responses that build on it. That can be very useful because the initial telling of the joke shouldn’t ramble on too much. Sometimes the original joke must leave out some funny stuff because you don’t want to say too much, especially if it results in internal conflict within the joke. However, what this response does is completely changes the premise, which invalidates everything that came before it in the chain. Even if the chain at that point consists of only the original joke, invalidating it removes the humor, making your task of replacing that humor insurmountable. In other words, whatever you say will probably fail anyway because you’ve killed the vibe. If you don’t like the premise of the joke or legitimately think you can do better with your own, walk away and post your own joke on your wall. However, if you don’t understand why your redirection is going to running the original joke, don’t be surprised if what you think is funny turns out not to be.

None of these responses make you funny, and all of them ruin the joke. I know you want to be a part of something, but sometimes you’re just a spectator. Try to be satisfied by the fact that you got a good laugh. Even remarkably funny people know when to sit one out.

Bonus Point #1: The Geneva Convention

Much like the “horse in a bar” joke above, it’s never funny to say, “That line was so horrible it’s a violation of the Geneva Convention.” Some lines, even if they’re still somehow relevant decades after their creation, have worn themselves out. Unfortunately, that’s something you sometimes must learn through trial and error. It’s okay to bomb, but don’t go running in circles through known minefields.

Bonus Point #2: In-person Jokes

I was with some friends before the pandemic. I told them two of my favorite jokes, but one of them required a set up. I asked a friend a question, but because he knew he was about to be the butt of the joke, he refused to answer, bringing the entire joke to a standstill. Because everyone knew the joke was coming, it was already going to be a tough sell, but by refusing to answer and forcing me to turn to a less insecure friend and repeat the question made it even tougher to get a good laugh.

Don’t do that either. For Shatner’s sake, just roll with it.

I am a comedy god!

Follow me on Twitter @gsllc

Happy Mother’s Day? #MothersDay #Vorhees #Psycho

If you enjoy this post, please retweet it.

Sorry, but my mind goes to horror when I think of my mother, but for those that have a different perspective, I hope you both enjoy your day. 🙂

Norman Bates, Pyscho, Jason Vorhees, and Friday the 13th are all properties of Paramount Pictures.

Follow me on Twitter @gsllc

Dr. Who’s Other Car is a … @DrWhoWatch #DoctorWho #DrWho #TV

If you enjoy this post, please retweet it.

Going forward, Sundays are lazy days for me. I either post something silly or other people’s work. Usually both. Today, I address a nerdy intellectual property that I’m not fond of for the oddest reasons.

No photo description available.

I know, I know. I should piss off.

Follow me on Twitter @gsllc
Get your news, rumors, and recaps of BBC’s Doctor Who @DrWhoWatch

Art Is in the Eye of the Beholder @billyjoel @StarWars @kesseljunkie #movie #music #art #StarWars #BillyJoel

If you enjoy this post, please retweet it.

I have a phrase I like to use. By now, you should know it, but I’ll repeat it anyway: Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. There’s a meme running around . . .  okay, going viral that completely misses this point. I’d like to trash the meme, but it goes all “sociopolitical,” and I’ve already done my annual sociopolitical post for the year. Instead, I’ll address another meme that reimagines the story told in Billy Joel’s fantastic song, Piano Man. The song is actually about Joel during his early days playing seedy bars filled with alcoholics and underachievers. The meme could be said to be sociopolitical too, but I don’t see it that way, so here it is.

Now, there’s a problem with the theory of this meme: Paul never had time for a wife. This means that if would have had a wife if his priorities are different. Also, not everyone who’s an alcoholic, failure, underachiever, or sailor is gay. That makes the statement at the end, “yep, it’s definitely a bar full of gay dudes,” to be rather arrogant, but that doesn’t mean that one can’t fairly infer that it’s at a “gay bar.” It still fits, and you just ignore the imperfections in the spirit of having fun with the lyrics.

Another Theory: They Still Live

Well then, it’s no less legitimate to instead imagine that Piano Man takes place in the They Live universe, but in a sequel called They Still Live in which a few surviving aliens have recovered their ability to hide their true selves. Joel is playing to bunch of extraterrestrials and doesn’t know it. Why can’t Billy tell they’re aliens?

Because those sunglasses are just ordinary ones. Instead of a bunch of homosexuals having a betting pool, it’s a bunch of aliens wondering when he’ll figure out that they’re aliens in hiding. They’re reluctant underachievers because they must remain in hiding until they reclaim control over the Earth. Is this a perfect inference? No, but remember, neither was the “gay bar” interpretation. This interpretation also has no clear contradictions within the lyrics, so it’s just as good. So would any interpretation in which people, extraterrestrial or otherwise, we’re in hiding. I’m sure the song could be put to use in a pretty good Al Qaeda recruitment video, and I doubt Joel would approve.

Revenge of the Sith

Let me give you another example. This one’s more on point with the meme I don’t want to discuss. In Revenge of the Sith, Mace Windu, et al. attack Emperor Palpatine, a.k.a., Darth Sidious. The others fall, so it’s just Mace and Sidious going at it, and Mace gets the upper hand. He starts to reflect Sidious’s force lighting back on him. According to the dialogue, as wells as a (long-lost) interview with George Lucas, the reflection disfigured Palpatine.

I never bought that, and I think Kessel Junkie and I have discussed it.

My interpretation from the moment I saw it was that Sidious was already disfigured from his long term use of the Dark Side. Within the movies – I don’t concern myself at all with the Expanded Universe – there’s nothing in canon to contradict that. With Mace Windu’s attack, Sidious’s power was being tasked, so his veil dropped. Everyone was seeing him for what he really was. He initially lied to Anakin to complete his turn to the Dark Side, then maintained the lie to convince others of the treachery of the Jedi. That in turn meant that he no longer had to use a portion of his power to maintain that veil. Win-win as far as he was concerned.

Am I wrong? Not according to me, so why do I care whether George agrees? Why would he care if I disagree with him?

The point is that you can interpret art, especially good art, in a way that suits you, even if it contradicts the intent of the creator. Unless you’re way off base, your interpretation is as legitimate an interpretation as anyone else’s. Whatever makes the art work for you is fine.

As long as you’re buying it, the creators won’t mind.

Follow me on Twitter @gsllc
Follow Billy Joel @billyjoel
Follow Star Wars @StarWars
Follow Kessel Junkie @kesseljunkie

Groot! @Bartoneus @newbiedm #GotG #MCU #Groot #comic #Hulk

If you enjoy this post, please retweet it.

Ah, the Internet. So stupid at times, but also so wonderful. I recently put out a call for help based on a vague memory.

I don’t like comics, but I hate losing knowledge even more, so I really wanted to hunt down this reference. My TV doppelganger, Danny, came through.

Once I saw this cover, the memories started pouring back in. There are still some holes, so I’d love to re-read the comic, but … hey, is that … GROOT?! The “tree monster” is one of the characters I had forgotten, so this was quite a jolt. I love the Guardians of the Galaxy movies and was wondering whether that was the Groot or just another member of his species.

For what it’s worth, Wikipeida confirms this, though all but the mastermind among Hulk’s enemies were actually copies of other creatures.

I love how these two tied together. One of the few comics I’ve ever read introduced me to a character that 38 years later would be part of a movie that I love, all within the context of a medium that I don’t particularly like. What are the odds?

Well, probably not bad. Nerds do what nerds do.

I’m glad I went down this path.

Follow me on Twitter at @gsllc
Follow Danny @Bartoneus
Follow Enrique @newbiedm

Happy #Easter

If you enjoy this post, please retweet it.

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood the message of Easter.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to watch the Life of Brian.

Follow me on Twitter @gsllc

Vampires Have Their Ways #undead #vampire

If you enjoy this post, please retweet it.

I saw this rather irresponsible meme on social media.

I know this is tempting — who wouldn’t want to draw a dick on a dick? — but you should know the consequences. Vampires can’t see their reflections in mirrors made with silver, but not all are. Some are made with aluminum, chromium, nickel, or tin. Besides, a vampire could certainly see his reflection in a pool of water. What happens when vampires come to running water and pause because they can’t cross it? They’ll have far too much time to reflect. They’re going to notice the ink on their faces.

Don’t tempt fate. They will find out and murder you.

First. They’ll murder you first. Eventually, vampires will murder everyone, but do you want to be first?

Follow me on Twitter at @gsllc

Happy Ides of March! #IdesOfMarch

If you enjoy this post, please retweet it.

So what’s today?

No, that’s not quite it.

So there’s more than one name for it?

Let’s end on a positive note.

That said, please note that accidents can and do happen.

Follow me on Twitter @gsllc

A Useful Meme: Apathy #meme

If you enjoy this post, please retweet it.

Going forward, Sundays are lazy days for me. I either post something silly or other people’s work. Usually both. Today, I provide a helpful statement you may want to use as a response to the drivel often posted nowadays.

May be an image of text
Please ignore the unnecessary ink.

To make this easier, I’ve copied the text below so that you can simply copy and paste it. I changed the text a bit to express the idea using the least similar text possible. Can’t help it.

The Amazon River is 3,977 miles long, running through barely explored areas of the rain forest, and leaking its water through the porous limestone. The water flows into the depths of the earth, forming underground pools almost a mile below the surface. Evolution has resulted in the development of small, blind fish that have never seen the sky, sun, or surface of the earth, and thus isolated from human interaction.

These fish care more about this than I do.

Or don’t use it. I don’t care.

Follow me on Twitter @gsllc

What Was Nebula’s Crime in Avengers: Endgame? @karengillan @Russo_Brothers @MarvelStudios #MCU #Nebula #Avengers #Endgame

If you enjoy this post, please retweet it.

Ah, Endgame. The movie that keeps on giving. To lawyers. I watched it again earlier this week, and had yet another thought. As I and many others have discussed before elsewhere, the Thanos Snap and Hulk Snap opened up a lot of legal questions. Here’s one suitable for a pedant like me.

When 2019 Nebula killed 2014 Nebula, what crime did she commit? Note: Self defense (really, defense of others) is an affirmative defense that comes into play only if a crime is committed, so it’s a valid question. She certainly killed a sentient being, so there must have been a crime to add to her litany of malfeasance (which is okay!). But what should we call it? The MCU has once again required legal analysis!

Remember. This is goofy pedantry at work. Just roll with it.

Homicide is killing a homo sapiens. Patricide is killing your father. Matricide is killing your mother. Suicide is killing yourself. Nebula didn’t really kill herself in Endgame. That was another Nebula from another reality. Also, I’m not a comics reader, but I don’t think she was ever a homo sapiens, and even if she were, she barely is one now. What kind of -cide did she commit then?

Sororicide doesn’t quite work either. She isn’t her own sister. In fact, despite what a DNA test would likely show, they aren’t even related, so even parricide (close relative) doesn’t work. Besides, even if you claim that similar DNA means they are related, parricide isn’t as precise as it could be. I demand precision!

No, we need a new term. Here are my suggestions.

  • Mirrocide
  • Clonocide
  • Robocide
  • Dimensiocide
  • Temporacide (“killing time”?)
  • Alterocide
  • Attornicide (tempting, eh?)

Okay, parricide it is, unless you’ve got a better idea. Though perhaps it’s best not to think too hard about this.

Yes, I’m a goofball.

Follow me on Twitter @gsllc
Follow Karen Gillan @karengillan
Follow the Russo Brothers @Russo_Brothers
Follow Marvel Studios @MarvelStudios