Delta Ebonics Ad. Just the sound.
Thanks for the heads up, Roland.
Askia, thanks for the kind words, though I doubt if I deserve them. Lamia, I’ll have to look up that Cafe Society thread. Understanding something is key to satirizing it, otherwise most of the humor is lost and you’re left with a debased form that relies on the mere fact of contrast between people with no real content. It can still get laughs from an audience that doesn’t know or doesn’t care about more subtle things, but it’s the difference between a Raphael and a stick figure. I’m not so sure you have to like, or even respect, the subject: one of the greatest parodies ever performed was The Great Dictator, and I doubt Chaplin was inspired by a warm regard for Hitler. But the more you know about something, the more effective you’ll be talking about it whether the intent is humorous, academic, or vitriolic. Audiences can sense the difference between someone who knows his stuff and someone who doesn’t, even if they have no expertise in the subject matter themselves. I think this is what some people call “authenticity,” the listeners’ instinctive reaction as to whether the performer’s knowledge and experience with respect to a subject is sufficient to make her worth their attention.
I accept the notion that just as there are jokes which should be told fast or slow, or use profanity or not, there are jokes which are more effective with a certain accent, vernacular or dialect. Try to perform one of Marshall Dodge’s “Bert and I” stories and fail to elide your 'r’s and you’ll kill it. It is comedic folklore that certain jokes are only funny, or at least funnier, in Yiddish (though I suspect that this situation is more complicated than others). So I’m open to the idea that there can be jokes that are enhanced by AAVE. But a joke that is funny in Yiddish is not likely to be funny in garbled Yiddish, and a Marshall Dodge story told in a poorly-done Down East accent will be even worse than if none were attempted. This is because you’re alienating exactly what the non-standard language is meant to gain: the audience’s recognition of the character and the associations and memories that recogition evokes. What you’re left with, what the people still laughing are responding to, is the evocation of stereotype, which is not necessarily bad. But if it’s a false stereotype, because you’re getting the language wrong, then, in my opinion, you’re asking for trouble. At the very least, you are relying on a certain cultural trope for humor but not repecting the culture enough to get it right, which I think would be enough to insult (or at least irritate) anybody.
I cannot believe that you would actually try to suggest that there is in any way any similarity between what I have said in this thread, and the sentiments expressed in that thread. I urge you to search any of my prior posts in any thread having to do with race relations. I have never in my life even come close to suggesting that anything that’s happened to white people would somehow cancel out the atrocity of slavery in the U.S. You’ve really gone too far.
Wow. Just, wow.
I’m sorry, but you just don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. “Converse” is the correct word.
So fuck you…son.
Aw. HEY EVERYBODY, LOOKEE HERE. blowero’s trying to put me in my place using “son” all nonchalant and deprecating like I do! Aw. Next he’ll be trying to beat his old man in a dick measuring contest. I’m SO proud of the boy.
Who’s your daddy, son?
O.K., I obviously really ruffled some feathers here, so I’m going to bow out before this gets even more out of control.
Bye…
I’m acutely aware that this thread has already had enough of me, but the topic interests me enough to give it just one nudge in the hope of attracting others back to continue the discussion. Pizzabrat, what do you think of the proposition that comedians and would-be comedians are apt to take their laughs where they find them, and shouldn’t be strictly accountable for the errors that annoy you? Lamia, can we work out a standard for parody that might guarantee a modicum of understanding, if not respect, for the thing lampooned? Askia, what if Billy Crystal’s regard for the subjects of his impressions is unquestioned, but his skills were not quite so sharp? At what point does his obligation to be accurate in his mimicry conflate with the amount of respect he is deemed to accord those subjects? Would it make a difference if his subjects were not real people but composites and wholly imaginary characters like those conjured by Whoopi Goldberg (at the start of her career) or Lily Tomlin or, heck, I need another character-comic’s name and the only ones that come to mind are Jackie Gleason and Red Skelton so those will have to do? Finally, everybody, what do we make of this:
One week in St Louis I opened for a comic whose on-stage persona was a tough Brooklynite. His Brooklyn accent was truly awful, all dese-and-dose with none of the actual flavor or style anyone who had heard the real thing would expect. And the Italian accent he did for jokes about his relatives was even worse. But the audience ate it up, so he always got away with it. The weird thing was, when I talked to him offstage his accent was a hundred times better. I told him that. Well, as anybody but me might have guessed, that’s because he actually was a second-generation Italian-American from Brooklyn. When I asked him why he didn’t just go on and speak normally he looked at me as he would a pigeon that had just challenged him to a fist-fight. Because they won’t laugh if I give them the real thing, he said. They think the real thing is the crap they’ve been hearing all their lives that they’ve been told is a real Brooklyn accent. It took me a while to learn it, he said, and I have to learn a different one for every city I play that isn’t New York. Oh, I said.