I realize the question itself is a little absurd, but I think not without merit of consideration.
Comedy is such a magical little rascal, it feels almost inherently impervious to scientific tactics. In-depth analysis of a joke tends to make it less funny, and we simply accept that the “sense of humor” is a fairly innate quality of people, almost like their sexuality, which is given since birth and cannot be altered. Some people are clearly better at it, while with others it may just be a matter of having different senses of humor.
Clearly, people who are professional stand-up comedians do practice their craft heavily to get good at it, like with any other skill. But that is performance art, and not necessarily the question I’m asking. I’m wondering if making an effort to understand the mechanisms of comedy can give a person a better ability to find humor in various situations.
Would someone who got their PhD in jokeology be able to consistently and demonstrably craft (or even simply appreciate) a qualitatively better joke than your run-of-the-mill layman?
Comedians often don’t laugh at the jokes of other comedians because they are studying them to see how they work. It’s been noted that Johnny Carson laughing at a comedian was very high praise indeed, since the stuff was funny enough to break through the study.
There is a structure to lots of jokes which help them be funny, like the rule of three. The “would you believe?” jokes on Get Smart were good examples - always had three pieces.
That doesn’t mean that someone who has studied jokes will be funny - but it might help tell him or her the reason for them bombing.
In practice, yes, because studying can easily lead to stealing… And not direct plagiarism, but just having a stockpile of motifs that can quickly be modified. A hell of a lot of jokes are “modular,” and can quickly be re-fitted to apply to different situations.
“What’s the difference between X and Y?”
“X is a [complicated list of properties,] while Y is just a jackrabbit.”
That one has hundreds of variations. I once heard Buddy Hackett make this point in an interview: a professional comedian can change the parameters of a joke almost instantly, so it fits whatever situation he needs.
But, also, I think yes, because having a knowledge of the psychology of humor gives one a better intuitive notion of what “funny” means. The more you know about human nature, the better you will be at telling jokes (and also nearly anything else you put your hand to.)
I’ll say yes. Rigorous thinking and learning about almost anything can’t help but improve personal performance. The greatest value, I think, would be in developing, expanding or maybe refining what you think is funny (it’s possible to be funny with material that you wouldn’t laugh at, just as it’s possible to sing a song in a language you don’t understand, but it’s ultimately a losing game). Once you better understand your own sense of humor, you’ll be funnier, at least to others with similar tastes.
I remember that comedian Steve Allen started to really study comedy in depth. Afterwards he seemed to be not as funny to me. At the time he was moving towards other interests.
There’s an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation where Data studied comedy in an attempt to be funny. It didn’t turn out well.
For example, in the Times the other day was “one is an insane leader with access to nuclear weapons, while the other is dictator of North Korea.” (In the context of Trump’s foreign policy.
Having a good memory helps also, but you can make lots of people laugh just by knowing joke templates. And I think professional comedians listen for new ones.
Brilliant comedians invent new ones.
My WAG is that it is like a bunch of other skills. Can studying theory help someone be a better basketball player, a better artist, a better musician? Or is skills development exclusively a result of practice combined with natural talent with no gain in any case from the understanding of theory?
Anyone who goes up on stage has to have stage presence, a kind of charisma that anyone who has been around actors and the like can identify. I’m not sure that people who are just writers have that. But anything is like that - reading a calculus book does not make one a great or even good mathematician.
I don’t think I’ve ever even heard of a comedian who DIDN’T study comedy in order to get better at it.
I read an autobiography of Steve Martin a couple of years back, and that confirmed that for him as well, it was a long and carefully crafted bunch of work to achieve what he did.
Now, if you ask the OTHER question related to this, whether or not it’s possible for someone with NO talent to become a great comedian by study and practice alone, you might get a more interesting answer.
I think so yes, I’ve heard Louis C. K. In interviews sort of deconstruct jokes or things people find funny. You can tell he has a sort of analytical mind towards comedy and has talked about being younger in comedy clubs and how young comics closely observe and study the older veterans. He’s probably a funny guy anyway but I would say it was probably a great attribute for him in the comedy world and helped him hone his talent. I don’t think it’s necessary to be funny though.
Sort of like some musicians can read music and are well-versed in musical theory, while others are just naturals with a lot of soul that probably couldn’t explain to you what they were playing they just have the gift.
Analysing what makes jokes work may mean you can take a funny idea and craft it into a successful joke. If you were to go to an open mic and watch a beginner comedian, you may be able to see a good idea in amongst their clumsy delivery, but from your analysis of comedy figure out how to fix it so it works more successfully.
Yes, Louis CK is really a force of nature. Like anything involving the cult of celebrity, and comedy especially, there are inevitably some naysayers. But anyone who is really smart and with it appreciates his humor.