4/27 THE GRAND FINALE?!!????????!?!?!

ITS' NOT SO GRAND IS IT WHEN YOU HAVE 2 MINUTES TO EXPLAIN 5 MONTHS OF RESEARCH IS IT?!?!?!

HOWEVER. I think this is legit-ish I dunno. It's very difficult to put all of the work into a "final phase" per say because I think this very blog kind of IS the final phase already? That sounds weird let's go into detail.



So my project was totes about humor and identity and the Internet and how having an online presence is a super easy catalyst when it comes to being humorous. My "thesis" per say was that the power of technology allows for an increased power of expression... Increasing the things people find funny and the capacity for people to BE funny.



This blog proves that that statement is true. It is my blog. It is not like any other blog because it is mine. yes.  Individualism is funny. But while I've been preaching that YES YES THIS IS GREAT! There is another side that must be considered indeed!



This is a very unromantic view of comedy. This is a very unromantic view of what humor is supposed to be. By unromantic I mean it in the Romanticism during the Renaissance way. Ya see the Romantics believed that EVERYTHING WAS CONNECTED. THAT BEETLE. THAT TATTOO ON YOUR WRIST. THE MOON. ALL CONNECTED IN ONE BEAUTIFUL UNIVERSE! This is so unamerican though. In American society at least, everything has its little box. Beetles have nothing to do with the moon.

Comedy however is one of the few things that have some semblance of romance in it. Not as much as the silent film era where the banana peel gag was universally funny... But it still has the same "let's all laugh at the same thing" stigma. There is still a universality to it. But my theory that anyone can be funny suggests that even this is changing.

Let's take a look back at the definition of comedy established by that TED guy from earlier in meh blog. Humor is about benign violations. But with individualism comes all sorts different emotions as to what is benign and what counts as a violation. I deduce that being a comedian is becoming more difficult because it is becoming more difficult to accommodate every individual.

Will humor become a more personalized endeavor? I dunno I'm not a psychic why would you even ask me that question? Because I've predicted things correctly before?!? Touche.

But yeah. My project is a thing and it exists. Go Frolic.


*Unit 3*

4/14 GrapHIC nOVELS DOEE

So Italian.

So I read Interiorae, a graphic novel by Gabriella Giandelli

It's a weird one. But I liked it.

Death is treated very weirdly in this thing.

It's basically about an imaginary rabbit who's job is to be an eavesdropping little turd towards everyone in the apartment complex. His boss is this wierd Satan blob thing that's in the basement of the apartment that likes to feed on people's dreams and collects their secrets as well... Yeah.

Yes, this is the Satan Blob

There are barely any rules in this book a bunch of weird stuff happens and like... Just read it you'll see.

THE CHARACTERS

The dopest part of all of this are how all of the people in the apartment are characterized cuz they're so insanely REAL. The contrast between real and surreal is very interesting and this book doesn't play around. They are directly linked and I don't knwo how I like feel about that lol.

COLORS

This book is incredibly dark for the whole thing and the pretty colors don't come until the end. It's like the characters that reside in the apartment are stuck in some kind of perpetual purgatory that is somehow resembling real life and nobody gets to face true ascention until the end of the book.

Or maybe it's not that deep and this graphic novel is just trying too hard to be artsy. In this case I actually think it's the former, and I'm pretty cynical... you be the judge.

I read the whole thing. It's a good book. Read it peeps.

*Unit 3*

4/7 How 2 Documentary Review

Alright, so I couldn't stick around for the first half of Watch Kids Go ta School: The Movie... But I DID recently watch a documentary titled The Two Escobars. It's about Pablo Escobar, the drug guy who was really freakin good at being a drug guy; and Andres Escobar, a soccer guy, who was part of the Colombian National soccer team that went to the world cup. And the relationship between Pablo's drugs and Andres's lives. Cuz the drug money was being turned into soccer money and the players were hella good too. It was an ESPN documentary too so I was very impressed cuz I am not a sports man.

Anyways this was the review I read

http://www.avclub.com/review/the-two-escobars-46374

I was surprised when I was searching for and reading reviews for the documentary because they focused mainly on explaining what is happening and the climate of the documentary. Whenever I look at reviews for a fiction movie, sure they explain the plot but then they usually get super technical. Fictional movie reviews are like "Oh I didn't like how they did ______ because it took away from the believability" or whatever. These reviews were all commenting on the actual message of the documentary and evaluating how plausible the message was.

I'm tellin ya we're all still puritans. We're much less harsh on documentaries cuz they actually happened but if it's fictional things can still turn into a version of "CRAZY UNGODLY WITCHCRAFT".

So I guess the rules for a documentary review would be:

1. Have a thorough understanding of what is being documented so you can determine if the argument being made is valid regarding the situation

2. Determine if the argument is argued well. If the connections make sense. I'm Ira Glass STAY. WITH US.

3. And ya know what? Tie in the technicalities too. Was the documentary actually well made? Because that will definitely affect the other two points I made. Treat it as equally as fiction, because the making of it requires just as much artistry in my opinion.

*Unit 3*

Portfolio Time!?!?!? 3/29

OKAY. HERE WE GO. GRAND FINALE NUMBER 2 ISH.

So I actually read some of that poorly written Hokenson book and found that while I dislike the language, I enjoyed the points being made. Hokenson moves through history, explaining the role of humor as an agent in challenging and redefining the societies where it resides. While I much more appreciate humor as it relates to individual identity, I feel like the concept naturally must go hand-in-hand with humor as a piece of the social identity. Reading Hokenson, I more or less got the same idea from the many examples she provides in the text.

This is the idea that humor serves as a two sided fun house mirror of sorts in relation to society. On one hand, it is reflecting our values in our faces and setting the stage, on the other, it is distorting our values and constantly causing us to redefine what is and isn't "funny". I mean, and this is truly a constant cycle I'm talking about here. Jokes that may have been funny in the 1970's (a rather violent time in media history) might be seen as vulgar today.

Hokenson talks a bunch about comedy in the theatre as it related to social identity, so I tested out her theories by reading The Mandrake by Niccolo Machiavelli, an Italian Renaissance philosopher. It's five acts and I kind of felt like I was reading a Will Farrell movie. None of the characters were like, good people. There is a huge amount of deception and sleeping with your friend's wife. Fun. Also, nobody really gets punished for like being a douche. Usually in old comedies, the good people win and there's a marriage. Yeah there's a marriage, but like everyone's still a douche. It's a really raunchy play too.

Anyways, this play was written because the Italian higher ups in Florence basically Facebook Unfriended Machiavelli and he was like hella salty about it. He basically thought politicians and authority figures were a deceitful doodyheads who would do literally anything to maintain their power. Hence, now we have Machiavellianism, which is a pretty legit personality type in psychology. People who are Machiavellian have a natural knack for being deceptive, conniving little pricks. It just goes to show that mistrusting your government was never a new idea. I'mlookin at you millenials!!!! *incriminates a mirror*.

And this ties back to the TEDx Talk about the very structure of humor, doesn't it? Humor is about benign violations, and the way Hokenson describes how humor and its theories have evolved through different time frames feels very familiar. Because humor is a benign violation, if a bunch of people consistently find the same things funny, they will feel less and less violated by the same things as time goes on. It's a psychology thing. As different things happen in society, different kinds of humor become more or less funny. This shifts a lot.

BUT THE INTERVIEWS I CONDUCTED WITH PEOPLE AND THE ARTICLES I READ IN UNIT ONE TELL A DIFFERENT STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or at least change the way the story is told! Yes, humor is universal because there is always something to laugh at. But, in Modern America at least, the Internet is changing the game. Now, collaborating to find something funny is more of a choice because now all the rhetorical power and all the information in the world is literally at our fingertips. The Internet encourages individualism in us. Which is both a blessing and a curse. Yes, face to face interaction is still cooler in my opinion, but it automatically makes one less of an individual because there is an inherent desire to be agreeable in public. It's manners and what not. The Internet is also pretty much a public space, but most people don't use it that way. More accurately, the Internet represents an infinite number of private spaces that people can plug into at their leisure. By spending our free time surfing on the web and whatnot, we're individualizing our own sense of right and wrong, good and bad, and our own sense of humor. Everybody is taking in the constant flow of information (and misinformation) and formulating their own perspectives.

This explains why the people I interviewed were the same age in the same place, but had utterly different senses of humor. The social identity IS the individual identity. Whoa.




REFLECTION TIME!!!


The annoyingly wordy book helped provide a nice framework for unit 2. It helped in like connecting so many dots. I mean I spent most of my project time trying to friggin make it through the thing, looking up phrases and stuff. 

The project pretty much became getting through that book because I knew a smart person who does smart things wrote it so the more I hopelessly stared at the pages the more I would find out. 

Frankly, I'm glad I did that because now everything seems so like solidified and goes beyond like article analysis. I wish there were more academic articles about like humor in a sociological frame that lays out a wide blanket on the topic. I found stuff but it was usually way too specific.

As for the new sources I used, that was pretty much the main thing. But it was a difficult source and it was pretty much holy grail tier because it fit so dang well into my argument and looks so pretty next to my other sources. It was packed with capital I Information too.

I still would have preferred Hokenson use smaller words and wrote a bigger book. I'm still mad about that.

Moving forward, I guess the next question would be specific to American Humor. How did "funny" get to become individualized like it is for my generation? Was it just the Internet or SOMETHING MOOOORE?!!???!?!??????!?!????????!??!?!??


*Unit 2* 

3/10 Humor burger helper?!?!?

Alright so I watched another TEDx event about humor. I mean there are a lot of TEDx videos about comedy so yeah expect a bunch of those with some articles and stuff too for my project.

Anyways. This is a TEDxDhaka event in which Naveed Mahbub talks about how through humor people have come to understand him better. One particular instance he describes happens after he finishes a set talking about his difficulties about the airport. After, an intimidating southerner pulled him aside and said that from the humor he understood more about muslims than he ever learned, even when he was in the Middle East.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeO701Zyjnk

That's the link dudes.


Anyways! This is interesting when it comes to humor because it demonstrates the value that face-to-face comedy can provide. The genre of stand-up comedy is unique in that the literal identity of the speaker is what sells the humor. I wonder how this translates to internet humor if it does at all. Is it as if everyone becomes their own stand up comedian through the social platoforms they use; or is there something different at play? Can we achieve the same level of understanding that Naveed experienced that day?

I doubt it. But it's something to look into fo sho.

*Unit 2*

3/8 Jan Walsh Hokenson writes too many big words.

So I rented The Idea of Comedy  out from the library and I tried to read it and it was an unsettling experience. I'm very much used to reading things in plain english, and I feel like this lady had a word count limit and used the most exuberant and extravagant words to be within the limit.

Like the book is basically in latin. I have to read very slowly just to follow what she's saying and that fact is getting on my nerves. I'm lucky enough to actually know some of the references she makes so at least there's that.

In the book Hokenson basically puts on her analyzing glasses and analyzes/explains the different theories of comedy and the sociological worlds surrounding them throughout history. 

That sounds very interesting, how can you POSSIBLY make it boring? By USING TOO MANY TEN SYLLABLE WORDS IN CONSTANT SUCCESSION. OK. I GET IT. YOU HAVE A LOT OF PEER REVIEWED PUBLISHED WORK. GOOD JOB SMARTY PANTS. (No but it's actually really hard to do that props gurl.) 

I dunno I just don't think knowledge that can't be understood by even an undergrad is knowledge that shouldn't be published. We're expected to refer to books like this one in our super duper mega essays or whatever so please, stop with the latin. It's a DEAD language. Holy crap.

It's not that I don't understand the words. I just want to be able to like read and learn what's in it at a faster pace. But the way in which it is written literally prevents me from being able to just read a sentence and be like "yea I understood that".

This book is a stressor.

3/3 OK SO I PITCHED IT I THINK??

I basically sent a link to this blog to one of the writers on Clickhole.com

Clickhole seems pretty relevant to my topic because it capitalizes on internet humor and earlier on I touched on the idea that the internet's reformulation of our perception of humor is allowing individuals to gain their own unique sense of humor because the internet is so darn HUGE.

Longest sentence ever wow.

Anyways the email pitch looks like dis:

Hello, Adam...

Meh name is Rafiq and I go to ze college and for my writing class I had to make ze blog and "pitch" it to a person with more money than me I. E. YOU.

I know what you're thinking actually I don't but frankly dear, I don't give a *hoot*. 

My project for this blog thingy is about humor as it relates to identity and millenials and all that stuff. I try to sound intelligent but I'll let you be the judge as to whether I actually DO or not. 

http://cleverspiffystuff.blogspot.com/

Click that hole, man. 

I figured, why not turn my pitch into a horrible attempt at humor? The dude's a writer for Clickhole I mean cmooooon!

*Unit 2*