Again not really following the OP. I seem to find short story collections funnier than “humorous novels “.
The Vital Spark
In Highland Harbours with Hurricane Jack
Hurricane Jack of the Vital Spark
All three by Neil Munro (who wrote his less serious stuff like this under the name “Hugh Foulis”).
All short pieces but about the same set of characters in the same setting (an old puffer plying the waters off the west coast of Scotland approximately 100 years ago).
One of my two favourite authors. These are incredibly funny (to me anyway).
The story (chapter) called “Hurricane Jack” in the first volume is probably the funniest thing I’ve ever read.
The old stereotype of the Germans were that they were unworldly philosophers and artists; not people you would expect anything serious from. And it was the French who had the stereotype of being military.
Yes, Saki is great, although mostly for his short stories. And yes, it’s easier to be funny for the length of a short story, especially if it’s the kind that ends in a humorous twist.
I thought ALL of Vonnegut’s work was “played for laughs,” but mixed in with poignancy. Slaughterhouse Five is my favorite novel of all time–IMO a much better example of writing “comedy about war” than Heller’s much less funny Catch-22.
I guess I might prefer to say “played primarily for laughs.” Billy Pilgrim tromping around in boots that have been painted silver is, I think, a ridiculous image that invites a laugh. I mean, I find it amusing at surface level, although it’s never provoked a literal “laugh out loud” from me. But there’s more to it than that. I would suggest that it has generous doses of both the poignancy you mention and the absurdity I mention. This is what war has reduced him to.
Redshirts by John Scalzi. Particularly if you are familiar with Star Trek tropes.
The Hundred-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out the Window and Disappeared by Jonas Jonasson. This one just struck me as quite funny. I loved how he was on the run from the law, but had to have a nap now and then. YMMV
To Say Nothing of the Dog by Connie Willis. Oxford Time Travel book. Best if you read Three Men in a Boat by Jerome K. Jerome first. Although this latter book was written in 1889, it’s humor stands up remarkably well.
I think that Goodreads lists like that one are arranged in the order of how many people “voted” for each book. Which means that the books near the top of the list will tend to be the most popular or widely known, not necessarily the funniest.
So, while *Pride and Prejudice isn’t especially funny, it’s written with enough wit and humor that it’s not out of place on a list of funny novels. And once it’s on the list, its popularity will push it toward the top.
I had to read read Pride and Prejudice for a college elective on humor. I found it to be torture. Not only is it not remotely funny, I found it an intolerable slog. One thing I learned from the course is that there’s a HUGE range of what different people consider “humor” or “funny”. I recommended B ored of the Rings for reading in the class, because nothing else we were reading made me laugh.
College english electives are weird. I once signed up for a Science fiction elective. Once I saw the reading list, I dropped the course. I was OK with the earlier historical works, as I understand you need a framework to discuss later novels. But whoever designed the curriculum had a very … different… idea of what constituted SF than I did. (Or from what I could tell, different from anyone, at any time, in any place)
I have no idea why The Death of the Heart by Elizabeth Bowen was in this course. Actually, I do know. The instructor loved the book.
Indeed. If I had to read something for a class on humor, I wouldn’t necessarily expect to find it funny myself, but I would at least expect to understand why some people find it funny.
Here, for anyone who cares, is what some people find funny in Pride and Prejudice:
I should also note that I don’t find David Sedaris at all amusing. I’m not fond of Garrison Keillor. Lake Woebegone could be gone and I wouldn’t miss it.
