The Benign Violation Theory

[wingedbeast]

This entry is late and I blame being sick for the past week. But, thanks to my body being able to fight off the infection and modern symptom-management medications, I'm capable of doing something to meet my self-imposed posting requirement.

That excuse out of the way, here's an entry into my Encyclopedia.

Benign Violation Theory seeks to explain why some things are funny and some aren't, as well as the specifics of who finds what humorous. The name pretty much explains it. In order to find something funny, you must both sense a violation of some sort and feel safe. Something is being violated, but nothing that causes you to feel yourself or those you care about to be harmed or under threat.

This is important. I believe that this is the answer to several questions about comedy.

"Are there some topics that it's just not ever okay to joke about?"

By benign violation theory, there isn't such a thing, but a different question. Where is the violation and who feels safe?

"Why do people laugh at blatant cruelty?"

Because they enjoy the feeling of the targets of the jokes being violated and don't feel enough empathy to feel the injury or threat.

"Why are some jokes just too safe to land?"

Because they don't violate anything.

This isn't to say that all jokes are acceptable in the name of achieving that violation. The question always has to be asked, where is the violation and who senses it while still feeling safe? At the very least, it provides a way of looking at comedy that can illuminate several questions about people and cultures.

Comments

[dragoness_e]

So how do puns fit this theory?

[wingedbeast]

That... is a good question.

Cede ov Ismuth

[(Anonymous)]

perhaps a violation of grammar or spelling? And maybe that's why it gets so many groans in USA because we idolize correct spelling.

Re: Cede ov Ismuth

[wingedbeast]

The groans are more because of how overplayed and often overly simplistic puns can be. They're the realm of the quintessential "dad jokes", which were funny when you were a child but then become embarrassing and annoying that he still expects you to laugh when you're not six years old anymore.

But, less violations of grammar and more violations of sets and definitions, but that's a semantic point... but puns are semantic... a metasemantic point... which is just like... we may have achieved a new level of pedantry.

Seed of Bismuth

[(Anonymous)]

to be pedantic a higher level would be called Hyperpedantry.

[(Anonymous)]

That seems too specific. Instead of a violation, the perception may be of an incongruity. It may seem like a violation if one sees the incongruous things as offending some natural order, some way things are supposed to be.

[wingedbeast]

Incongruity can be a violation of expectation. But, incongruity, itself, wouldn't explain things like slapstick or mockery.