The Challenge of Creating Comedy (Without Creating Offense)
An essay by Travis J. Hawke
While reading a paragraph of my book, ‘The Bachelor Life’, to my sister (on whom I can routinely count to play the role of morality police), I said the words ‘Ethiopian-like physique’ and she brought me to a halt quicker than Kanye West crashing the stage of a Taylor Swift acceptance speech. I motioned for patience, finished the line, and received a very different reaction. While her initial response had been a guarded ‘Oh no, you can’t say that’, it was quickly replaced by genuine amusement as I rounded out the sentence and the punch-line of the joke. The way in which I used the ‘Ethiopian’ example to create humour, however, created a point of issue on which she felt the need to offer me caution. An in-depth conversation on comedy quickly ensued and became the reason for this essay. It centred on my sister’s heartfelt statement:
‘I don’t want you to sound misogynistic, racist, or homophobic in this book, because I know that you’re not. But what about the people reading it who DON’T know you the way I do?’
This gave me reason for pause. As someone who has a genuine appreciation for the art of comedy and an admiration for the craft that goes into being a successful stand-up, I can draw the line between a joke that touches on a subject of, let’s say... homosexuality, and something that is just blatantly homophobic, inflammatory, and wrong. I expressed this in as many words to my sister, yet her swift reply of ‘but what about the people who can’t draw the line?’ painted me into a corner. I had no immediate answer, because other than putting ‘this is only a joke’ in brackets behind every could-be-seen-as-controversial line (in which case, my book would immediately double in size), what more could I do? To lessen the impact of this predicament, I sought to make the case that people are smarter than that. But I quickly realised that a portion of the population aren’t (something that has consistently been proven to be the case given the controversy some comedians can find themselves in over the telling of a joke). With this in mind, I decided to put together an extended essay to examine and justify the pursuit of creating humour, and explain how such a pursuit has been used throughout my work with the aim of creating laughter and insight, but not offense.
‘You can have no prejudices with comedy. A joke comes from either a good or a bad place. It’s why a racist joke isn’t funny.’ Ricky Gervais
Within a close-knit circle of friends, there are few jokes that are off-limits. The reason for this is that all who are present have an intimate knowledge of the person who is telling the joke, and therefore know the good-natured place that joke is coming from. Should an outsider overhear that same joke, it is possible that they may view it in a completely different light and consider it to be malicious, inflammatory, or offensive in intent. From this arises a point of issue that faces many comedians, and is also the point of issue my sister raised to me in our discussion; for the trouble is not so much in the telling of a joke, but in how it is received by an audience who may not have a level of familiarity with the comedian – and therefore not understand the spirit in which the joke is being told. For a joke to be received as intended, it is vital for the audience to know the place (or mindset) from which the joke originated. Should there be a lack of understanding on this, a joke can instantly lose its context and intended purpose, and can therefore be seen as something it is not. This is something that can also arise with an audience not understanding the mechanics of certain forms of comedy.
‘The subject of a joke isn’t necessarily the target of the joke. You can make jokes about race without any race being the butt of the joke. Racism itself can be the butt.’ Ricky Gervais
With every crafted joke, there is an overall subject and an identifiable target. Although the two are closely related, by no means are they the same. To showcase this, consider the following over-exaggerated and stereotypical male line mentioned during ‘The Bachelor Life’: ‘the cleanliness of a bachelor’s kitchen is of utmost importance to a prospective girlfriend, because if things evolve into a long-term relationship, it will be the place she spends the majority of her time’. To some, this can scream ‘misogyny’. As a joke, however, and considered in the context of satire, it is anything but. Despite the line being completely fictitious, the joke isn’t about women being homemakers, but more about the completely misguided and erroneously exaggerated viewpoint of the stereotypical male who would make such a claim (and who, most likely, would be destitute without their better half). This is satire at its very best, for the perceived ‘misogynistic joke’ is not misogynistic at all, but is in fact mocking the stereotypical viewpoint and the few who incorrectly believe it to be true. As my favourite form of comedy and a common theme throughout much of the humour I seek to create, satire is a complex art, but brilliant when used correctly and understood. To explore the use of satire further, consider the following definition:
‘Satire is defined as a genre of literature in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon and as a tool to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society. A common feature of satire is strong/militant irony or sarcasm. This irony or sarcasm often professes to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack.’ (Wikipedia)
By viewing the aforementioned line that ‘the kitchen is where a girlfriend will spend the majority of her time’ through the spectrum of satire, the target of the joke instantly separates itself from the subject and becomes clear. While it may appear to use an untrue stereotype to create the joke, it is, in actual fact, the stereotype that is the joke. Being able to make this distinction is something that easily offended and quick-to-judge people fail to accomplish, for they overreact to the subject of a joke, and do not differentiate it from the target. This is especially true when a particular subject can be considered as ‘controversial’ or ‘taboo’.
‘When dealing with a so-called taboo subject, the angst and discomfort of the audience is what’s under the microscope. Our own preconceptions and prejudices are often what are being challenged.’ Ricky Gervais
Some of my favourite forms of comedy come from testing people’s individual boundaries (my own included). It is about taking an audience to a place they haven’t been before, or have never even considered. It is about challenging the imaginary line of what each person deems to be ‘politically correct’ or ‘right and wrong’, artfully prodding at it and examining it (to draw the introspective ‘oh, can he say that?’ reaction), and then skilfully navigating your way through the topic to create laughter. Quite often, these taboo subjects draw the most ire and negative reactions, and it was the thought of these reactions that gave my sister reason to offer me caution. Many of the jokes littered throughout my work can be regarded as offensive, purely for the fact that they deal with a taboo subject that not all are comfortable being faced with.
The task of separating the subject of the joke and its target is made all the more challenging by taboo subjects, which the recipient of the joke may feel uncomfortable dealing with. Due to this discomfort, the recipient may blindly reject the joke or deem it offensive without giving thought as to why this was their initial reaction. There is an art, craft, and purpose to comedy, and this is never more in evidence than when you are dealing with jokes that touch on these so-called ‘taboo’ or ‘sensitive’ subjects. To be received as intended, the audience must be able to identify the humour from a subject that may initially conflict with their own preconceived moral standings. It can be a revealing process and one that not all wish to confront, and therefore may resist or blindly rally and fight against. With comedy, however, and with an understanding of the machinations of satire, exaggeration, and irony and how each can be used, these taboos can be explored on a personal and societal level, and, in a way, disarmed.
‘Most people have a little bit of anxiety with taboo subjects. So, if you make them laugh... you get the normal laugh, and then you get the extra energy that comes from that little bit of anxiety being liberated when you deal with taboo subjects.’ John Cleese
As well as creating laughter, the value of approaching taboo subjects using humour is that it can allow us to analyse topics that would otherwise go unexplored, purely because of their deemed ‘taboo’ status. For instance, if something was consistently given a wide berth in modern culture because of its so-called taboo nature, it would therefore remain taboo (and perhaps even have its status reinforced), purely on the basis that it has yet to be dissected and understood. By using comedy as a tool to do this, the anxiety attached to these topics can be removed, thereby stripping away any apprehension and fear and allowing it to be regarded and openly discussed without emotional prejudice.
‘For some people... there is a lot of anxiety (with taboo subjects), so when a subject is raised, they freeze up and feel very uncomfortable and they hate that other people are laughing... and they say “I’ve been offended”.’ John Cleese
At its heart, comedy is an individual pursuit that resonates with each of us independently. What is also of an individual nature is the level of anxiety a person experiences at the mentioning of a taboo topic. This emotion can determine how a joke is received, and also how people react to it. To this end, while one person may find a joke to be amusing and laugh at it, another may deem it unamusing and take offense. In the past, this was an uncomplicated matter. If you didn’t like an act or a particular comedian’s work, you exited the club, changed the channel, or put the book you were reading to the side. Nowadays, however, when something happens to conflict with an individual’s idea of humour or sense of what is politically correct, it seems that people’s first reaction is to take offense and attack, and then seek to impart their feelings and beliefs on others with the mindset that they alone are right. Since social media and the Internet have not only allowed someone to have an opinion, but also to voice it to the masses, nothing in society is left untouched. At its most basic level, this seems like a productive forum to generate intellectual discussion and healthy debate so as to form new and more learned opinions. Sadly, this has not occurred. It has almost become a competition to say ‘I’m right’ and ‘you’re wrong’, and then to stand steadfastly behind your viewpoint, impose it on others, and rally against anything that strays from your opinion or personal belief. This exists across all forms of media, but translates directly to the realm of comedy – which draws much debate and attention over what you perceivably ‘can’ and ‘can’t’ say and whether something is considered offensive, even if the recipient has wrongly misinterpreted what has been said.
‘Just because you’re offended by something, doesn’t mean you’re right.’ Ricky Gervais
Since comedy resonates on such a personal level and an individual’s attitude towards a taboo topic is of an equally personal nature, everyone will have their own opinion on what is deemed amusing and/or acceptable. For instance, while my Dad (who is in his seventies) and I share many overlapping appreciations for different styles of comedy, some things that I find humorous he can find unfunny, tasteless, and even offensive. But just because my Dad doesn’t approve of a joke or style of humour when I do, does it then suddenly mean it is improper, unfunny, or offensive, and therefore shouldn’t be utilised? Of course not. It is purely down to individual taste. Not everyone has the same taste in music, films, art, or food. So, does that mean that anything that strays from one’s opinion should not be made and offered to others who happen to appreciate it for its artistic merit? Again – of course not. It all comes down to someone’s personal opinion. And opinion is not a fact. This relates to comedy where someone can view a joke as offensive and claim it shouldn’t be told for that very reason, when, in fact, they may not understand the mechanics of the comedy being used, or are perhaps having their judgement clouded by emotionally overreacting to an existing anxiety they carry towards a specific subject (despite the subject not being the target of the joke).
‘The clear problem of the outlawing of insult is that too many things can be interpreted as such. Criticism, ridicule, sarcasm, merely stating an alternative point of view to the orthodoxy, can be interpreted as insult.’ Rowan Atkinson
In today’s world of sensationalised media, what appears to drive consumption and generate talking points is no longer fact, but personalised opinion. There is danger in this, for opinions can be wrong, rallying, and detrimental to what is actually taking place and what is real and important. Clear thinking and sound judgements based on fact rather than emotion are what is required, for the erroneous and misguided cries of offense and outrage of a few should not dictate what is consumed and enjoyed by the many who appreciate and understand it. In comedy, too often jokes that touch on or shine a light on taboo subjects face wrongly affronted outcries for censorship, when, in fact, these outcries can be detrimental to the actual issue the offended party is seeking to protect.
‘When I see something that's sensitive, I go, “You've got to put that out there.” You need to keep the dialogue going and shine a light on the bad guys. If you sweep it under the carpet, people forget about it. People stop talking about it.’ Jeffrey Ross
The value in using comedy to discuss societal ills and stigmas and navigate taboo subjects is that it keeps them alive and fresh in the public conscience. If a taboo subject is left undiscussed, this can only reinforce its status as taboo and further remove it not just from the public conscience, but from actually being solved. For instance, if the telling of a well-constructed, satirical joke about starvation in a third-world country draws more offense than the actual problem of starvation in such a country, society and humanity is lost. Instead of a minority’s public outcry for a well-constructed and well-spirited joke to be censored, the outcry should be directed towards actively finding a solution to the problem, not the mere mentioning of the problem (which can be, in fact, the satirical comedian’s intention). The censoring of it does nothing to solve the root cause of the actual problem, but reinforce the problem by halting discussion of it and removing it from the public conscience.
‘Comedy is an intellectual pursuit. A comedian’s job isn’t to make someone laugh, but to make them think.’ Ricky Gervais
Once the perceived offense has been removed from a comedian’s work, a world of freedom is opened up for them to gain new material and navigate and explore every aspect of society. There is benefit in this - not just for the comedian and the immediate audience, but also for society as a whole, as it creates open discussion on subjects that may not be adequately discussed. Over time, a level of trust and goodwill is gifted to the comedian by the audience, and through familiarity with the presented style of humour and the knowledge that a joke is coming from a well-spirited place free of prejudice and malicious intent, the audience will no longer look for fault, flaw, insult, or offense, but instead, be able to enjoy the comedy for what it is, and perhaps learn something new along the way. At the end of the day, laughter is one of the joys of life, and if you incorrectly see offense where others see intended humour, you cheat yourself of that from which you could gain enjoyment and insight in the long run. There is an art and craft to comedy that involves the use of satire, irony, and exaggeration to delve into taboo topics, and when they are utilised and understood to full effect, it adds immense value to society – not just by creating laughter, but by challenging the individual’s point of view on a diverse range of topics, thereby widening their perspective of the world and their place in it.
‘I don’t want you to sound misogynistic, racist, or homophobic in this book, because I know that you’re not. But what about the people reading it who DON’T know you the way I do?’
This gave me reason for pause. As someone who has a genuine appreciation for the art of comedy and an admiration for the craft that goes into being a successful stand-up, I can draw the line between a joke that touches on a subject of, let’s say... homosexuality, and something that is just blatantly homophobic, inflammatory, and wrong. I expressed this in as many words to my sister, yet her swift reply of ‘but what about the people who can’t draw the line?’ painted me into a corner. I had no immediate answer, because other than putting ‘this is only a joke’ in brackets behind every could-be-seen-as-controversial line (in which case, my book would immediately double in size), what more could I do? To lessen the impact of this predicament, I sought to make the case that people are smarter than that. But I quickly realised that a portion of the population aren’t (something that has consistently been proven to be the case given the controversy some comedians can find themselves in over the telling of a joke). With this in mind, I decided to put together an extended essay to examine and justify the pursuit of creating humour, and explain how such a pursuit has been used throughout my work with the aim of creating laughter and insight, but not offense.
‘You can have no prejudices with comedy. A joke comes from either a good or a bad place. It’s why a racist joke isn’t funny.’ Ricky Gervais
Within a close-knit circle of friends, there are few jokes that are off-limits. The reason for this is that all who are present have an intimate knowledge of the person who is telling the joke, and therefore know the good-natured place that joke is coming from. Should an outsider overhear that same joke, it is possible that they may view it in a completely different light and consider it to be malicious, inflammatory, or offensive in intent. From this arises a point of issue that faces many comedians, and is also the point of issue my sister raised to me in our discussion; for the trouble is not so much in the telling of a joke, but in how it is received by an audience who may not have a level of familiarity with the comedian – and therefore not understand the spirit in which the joke is being told. For a joke to be received as intended, it is vital for the audience to know the place (or mindset) from which the joke originated. Should there be a lack of understanding on this, a joke can instantly lose its context and intended purpose, and can therefore be seen as something it is not. This is something that can also arise with an audience not understanding the mechanics of certain forms of comedy.
‘The subject of a joke isn’t necessarily the target of the joke. You can make jokes about race without any race being the butt of the joke. Racism itself can be the butt.’ Ricky Gervais
With every crafted joke, there is an overall subject and an identifiable target. Although the two are closely related, by no means are they the same. To showcase this, consider the following over-exaggerated and stereotypical male line mentioned during ‘The Bachelor Life’: ‘the cleanliness of a bachelor’s kitchen is of utmost importance to a prospective girlfriend, because if things evolve into a long-term relationship, it will be the place she spends the majority of her time’. To some, this can scream ‘misogyny’. As a joke, however, and considered in the context of satire, it is anything but. Despite the line being completely fictitious, the joke isn’t about women being homemakers, but more about the completely misguided and erroneously exaggerated viewpoint of the stereotypical male who would make such a claim (and who, most likely, would be destitute without their better half). This is satire at its very best, for the perceived ‘misogynistic joke’ is not misogynistic at all, but is in fact mocking the stereotypical viewpoint and the few who incorrectly believe it to be true. As my favourite form of comedy and a common theme throughout much of the humour I seek to create, satire is a complex art, but brilliant when used correctly and understood. To explore the use of satire further, consider the following definition:
‘Satire is defined as a genre of literature in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon and as a tool to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society. A common feature of satire is strong/militant irony or sarcasm. This irony or sarcasm often professes to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack.’ (Wikipedia)
By viewing the aforementioned line that ‘the kitchen is where a girlfriend will spend the majority of her time’ through the spectrum of satire, the target of the joke instantly separates itself from the subject and becomes clear. While it may appear to use an untrue stereotype to create the joke, it is, in actual fact, the stereotype that is the joke. Being able to make this distinction is something that easily offended and quick-to-judge people fail to accomplish, for they overreact to the subject of a joke, and do not differentiate it from the target. This is especially true when a particular subject can be considered as ‘controversial’ or ‘taboo’.
‘When dealing with a so-called taboo subject, the angst and discomfort of the audience is what’s under the microscope. Our own preconceptions and prejudices are often what are being challenged.’ Ricky Gervais
Some of my favourite forms of comedy come from testing people’s individual boundaries (my own included). It is about taking an audience to a place they haven’t been before, or have never even considered. It is about challenging the imaginary line of what each person deems to be ‘politically correct’ or ‘right and wrong’, artfully prodding at it and examining it (to draw the introspective ‘oh, can he say that?’ reaction), and then skilfully navigating your way through the topic to create laughter. Quite often, these taboo subjects draw the most ire and negative reactions, and it was the thought of these reactions that gave my sister reason to offer me caution. Many of the jokes littered throughout my work can be regarded as offensive, purely for the fact that they deal with a taboo subject that not all are comfortable being faced with.
The task of separating the subject of the joke and its target is made all the more challenging by taboo subjects, which the recipient of the joke may feel uncomfortable dealing with. Due to this discomfort, the recipient may blindly reject the joke or deem it offensive without giving thought as to why this was their initial reaction. There is an art, craft, and purpose to comedy, and this is never more in evidence than when you are dealing with jokes that touch on these so-called ‘taboo’ or ‘sensitive’ subjects. To be received as intended, the audience must be able to identify the humour from a subject that may initially conflict with their own preconceived moral standings. It can be a revealing process and one that not all wish to confront, and therefore may resist or blindly rally and fight against. With comedy, however, and with an understanding of the machinations of satire, exaggeration, and irony and how each can be used, these taboos can be explored on a personal and societal level, and, in a way, disarmed.
‘Most people have a little bit of anxiety with taboo subjects. So, if you make them laugh... you get the normal laugh, and then you get the extra energy that comes from that little bit of anxiety being liberated when you deal with taboo subjects.’ John Cleese
As well as creating laughter, the value of approaching taboo subjects using humour is that it can allow us to analyse topics that would otherwise go unexplored, purely because of their deemed ‘taboo’ status. For instance, if something was consistently given a wide berth in modern culture because of its so-called taboo nature, it would therefore remain taboo (and perhaps even have its status reinforced), purely on the basis that it has yet to be dissected and understood. By using comedy as a tool to do this, the anxiety attached to these topics can be removed, thereby stripping away any apprehension and fear and allowing it to be regarded and openly discussed without emotional prejudice.
‘For some people... there is a lot of anxiety (with taboo subjects), so when a subject is raised, they freeze up and feel very uncomfortable and they hate that other people are laughing... and they say “I’ve been offended”.’ John Cleese
At its heart, comedy is an individual pursuit that resonates with each of us independently. What is also of an individual nature is the level of anxiety a person experiences at the mentioning of a taboo topic. This emotion can determine how a joke is received, and also how people react to it. To this end, while one person may find a joke to be amusing and laugh at it, another may deem it unamusing and take offense. In the past, this was an uncomplicated matter. If you didn’t like an act or a particular comedian’s work, you exited the club, changed the channel, or put the book you were reading to the side. Nowadays, however, when something happens to conflict with an individual’s idea of humour or sense of what is politically correct, it seems that people’s first reaction is to take offense and attack, and then seek to impart their feelings and beliefs on others with the mindset that they alone are right. Since social media and the Internet have not only allowed someone to have an opinion, but also to voice it to the masses, nothing in society is left untouched. At its most basic level, this seems like a productive forum to generate intellectual discussion and healthy debate so as to form new and more learned opinions. Sadly, this has not occurred. It has almost become a competition to say ‘I’m right’ and ‘you’re wrong’, and then to stand steadfastly behind your viewpoint, impose it on others, and rally against anything that strays from your opinion or personal belief. This exists across all forms of media, but translates directly to the realm of comedy – which draws much debate and attention over what you perceivably ‘can’ and ‘can’t’ say and whether something is considered offensive, even if the recipient has wrongly misinterpreted what has been said.
‘Just because you’re offended by something, doesn’t mean you’re right.’ Ricky Gervais
Since comedy resonates on such a personal level and an individual’s attitude towards a taboo topic is of an equally personal nature, everyone will have their own opinion on what is deemed amusing and/or acceptable. For instance, while my Dad (who is in his seventies) and I share many overlapping appreciations for different styles of comedy, some things that I find humorous he can find unfunny, tasteless, and even offensive. But just because my Dad doesn’t approve of a joke or style of humour when I do, does it then suddenly mean it is improper, unfunny, or offensive, and therefore shouldn’t be utilised? Of course not. It is purely down to individual taste. Not everyone has the same taste in music, films, art, or food. So, does that mean that anything that strays from one’s opinion should not be made and offered to others who happen to appreciate it for its artistic merit? Again – of course not. It all comes down to someone’s personal opinion. And opinion is not a fact. This relates to comedy where someone can view a joke as offensive and claim it shouldn’t be told for that very reason, when, in fact, they may not understand the mechanics of the comedy being used, or are perhaps having their judgement clouded by emotionally overreacting to an existing anxiety they carry towards a specific subject (despite the subject not being the target of the joke).
‘The clear problem of the outlawing of insult is that too many things can be interpreted as such. Criticism, ridicule, sarcasm, merely stating an alternative point of view to the orthodoxy, can be interpreted as insult.’ Rowan Atkinson
In today’s world of sensationalised media, what appears to drive consumption and generate talking points is no longer fact, but personalised opinion. There is danger in this, for opinions can be wrong, rallying, and detrimental to what is actually taking place and what is real and important. Clear thinking and sound judgements based on fact rather than emotion are what is required, for the erroneous and misguided cries of offense and outrage of a few should not dictate what is consumed and enjoyed by the many who appreciate and understand it. In comedy, too often jokes that touch on or shine a light on taboo subjects face wrongly affronted outcries for censorship, when, in fact, these outcries can be detrimental to the actual issue the offended party is seeking to protect.
‘When I see something that's sensitive, I go, “You've got to put that out there.” You need to keep the dialogue going and shine a light on the bad guys. If you sweep it under the carpet, people forget about it. People stop talking about it.’ Jeffrey Ross
The value in using comedy to discuss societal ills and stigmas and navigate taboo subjects is that it keeps them alive and fresh in the public conscience. If a taboo subject is left undiscussed, this can only reinforce its status as taboo and further remove it not just from the public conscience, but from actually being solved. For instance, if the telling of a well-constructed, satirical joke about starvation in a third-world country draws more offense than the actual problem of starvation in such a country, society and humanity is lost. Instead of a minority’s public outcry for a well-constructed and well-spirited joke to be censored, the outcry should be directed towards actively finding a solution to the problem, not the mere mentioning of the problem (which can be, in fact, the satirical comedian’s intention). The censoring of it does nothing to solve the root cause of the actual problem, but reinforce the problem by halting discussion of it and removing it from the public conscience.
‘Comedy is an intellectual pursuit. A comedian’s job isn’t to make someone laugh, but to make them think.’ Ricky Gervais
Once the perceived offense has been removed from a comedian’s work, a world of freedom is opened up for them to gain new material and navigate and explore every aspect of society. There is benefit in this - not just for the comedian and the immediate audience, but also for society as a whole, as it creates open discussion on subjects that may not be adequately discussed. Over time, a level of trust and goodwill is gifted to the comedian by the audience, and through familiarity with the presented style of humour and the knowledge that a joke is coming from a well-spirited place free of prejudice and malicious intent, the audience will no longer look for fault, flaw, insult, or offense, but instead, be able to enjoy the comedy for what it is, and perhaps learn something new along the way. At the end of the day, laughter is one of the joys of life, and if you incorrectly see offense where others see intended humour, you cheat yourself of that from which you could gain enjoyment and insight in the long run. There is an art and craft to comedy that involves the use of satire, irony, and exaggeration to delve into taboo topics, and when they are utilised and understood to full effect, it adds immense value to society – not just by creating laughter, but by challenging the individual’s point of view on a diverse range of topics, thereby widening their perspective of the world and their place in it.