As a big fan of the Anthony Shaffer play Sleuth*, I’ve always been puzzled by one brief exchange:
When I first saw the play, I figured the humor of this interplay relied upon knowledge of things British, and that as an American I Just Didn’t Get It. But it’s been a long time since then, and I still don’t get it.
Looking it up on the internet, this is the only explanation I could find, in answer to someone else’s exasperated query about this perplexing line:
That doesn’t feel very satisfying. Did Shaffer really go to all that trouble to make this weak a joke, or is there still something I’m missing?
*Even more than the 1970 Mankiewicz film starring Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine. And much more than the Harold Pinter-scripted remake with Caine and Jude Law.
My guess is that Anthony is saying any blood left on wood would “fertilize” woodworms, as in giving them food to grow on.
Milo is jokingly saying “where would you find a homosexual woodworm?” changing the meaning of fertilizing to the the type which requires sex, possibly insinuating that if Anthony were going to have sex with anything, it would be a male something, making it a gay joke.
Pretty obvious. Assume that “tall” wasn’t part of “tallboy.” And leave out “woodworm.”
Q. Where would you find a homosexual?
A. In a boy.
The “woodworm” and “tall” just makes a change to fit into that and make it a joke. A homosexual woodworm would be in a piece of furniture with “boy” in its name.
Those both still seem like reaches. A joke ought to be simple, straightforward, and provide you with the paradox /double meaning that is its raison d’etre directly. The more work you have to do, the less funny it is.
I think the implication is clear, but I’ve been known to have a distorted sense of humor.
The part RealityChuck wrote was really obvious. He answers his own question. “In a tall-boy”, because it’s made of wood and the double meaning because it includes “boy.”
The point is that you don’t have to do any work. “Gay (woodworm) in a tall boy” isn’t particularly obtuse or even all that subtle. It’s wordplay on “tallboy” and “tall boy.”
So? The guy you cited also came up with the dumbest possible interpretation.
It’s not laugh out loud funny, but the joke is still obvious (at least the second punchline, regarding where one would find a gay woodworm).
It’s not a stand-up routine. It’s two guys bantering, and the playwright is probably more interested in showing the relationship between the two- what kind of jokes can be told and the personalities of the one telling and the one hearing it. It’s not meant to have the audience bust out laughing. Although, the delivery might have gotten some laughs. It’s not just the joke, but how it’s told. I can see Milo answering his own joke question as at least mildly amusing. Also, asking about a a homosexual woodworm would probably have been at least a little risqué at the time.
Is the definition of a tall-boy as a kind of furniture obscure to you? It was written almost 50 years ago by a Brit.
Sometimes a joke in a play is not meant to get a laugh, but to elucidate the character of the teller, or the relationship of the joker and jokee, or allow the response of the jokee to elucidate his/her own character.
Not knowing the play I can’t evaluate, but does the context or follow-up to the exchange tell you anything important about who they are or how they relate?
Also, the time period of origin can be really important. Not too terribly long ago homosexuality was so verboten a topic that it would have to be raised in a fairly straightforward manner to get an audience to follow the story. Is it possible that this was just a wake-up that yes, the topic was in play . . . er . . . in the play?
