Humor, timeless? (Response to Hokum, 107-139)

The passages from “Hokum” offered a different humorous experience as compared to the experiences of “The 50 funniest American Writers” or “Cat’s Cradle.” I noted the time period when these passages were written, who wrote them and who the intended audience was. Being an anthology of African-American humor, these humorous pieces were written by African-American writers for African-American readers. This reinforced the idea of how humor is shaped and how it differs depending on an individual’s background. It also reinforced the idea of how humor can change over time; something that was once funny may not be funny years after. Perhaps, this may suggest that certain humor isn’t exactly timeless. However, I found this insightful because it allowed for further exploration into why people laugh at certain things.

Personally, I did not find the passages from “Hokum” as hilarious as those from “The 50 Funniest American Writers.” I felt that this is because the humor presented in “Hokum” dealt with sensitive issues such as slavery and social/racial inequality. I was relatively surprised that such sensitive issues were being used as a foundation of humor, especially during the time when these pieces were written, the early 1900s. I am definitely not an expert in African-American history but perhaps at the time, these issues were not as controversial as they became later. This is because the inequalities seemed to be a normal thing as dictated by society at the time so it was acceptable to use it as a foundation of humor. However, I feel that these passages could have been means of social commentary, whether intentional or not or as a coping function.

Nonetheless, I found that there were common comic techniques, as previously recognized in Morreall’s “Comic Relief” in the passages of “Hokum.” Take for example the “Assorted Jokes Compiled by Alex Rogers.” Many of these jokes played on one’s mental schema and used cognitive shift. One of the jokes that really amused me follows:

He was colored and he said he was a carpenter.

“Do you thoroughly understand carpentry?” he was asked.

“Yas suh.”

“You can make doors, windows and blinds?”

“Oh, sho’. Yas suh.”

“How would you make a Venetian blind?”

He scrated his head and though for a few seconds, then finally replied,

“Well, I reck’n ‘bout de easiest way would be to poke him in de eye”

            It used wordplay and created a cognitive shift with the punch line at the end of the joke. However, I found that this might have reinforced some stereotypes at the time because it suggested that the “colored carpenter” misunderstood what he was being asked. Although, using stereotypes could have been a way of setting that mental schema on which the cognitive shift could be built. Overall, though I didn’t personally find the pieces hilarious, I could see how certain techniques had been used to create humor. On a different note, I liked how the pieces managed to give a preview of society at the time. For example, Rudolph Fisher’s “The City of Refuge” provided an impression of Harlem and how it contrasted with other cities at the time. Also, the use of slang showed how people spoke. Maybe I’m pushing it, but I felt that this served as an example of how literature and civilization are connected. It changes over time and can intentionally or unintentionally portray civilization at the time.

While reading “Hokum,” I feel that I gained further insight into the reasons why people laugh, why things are humorous. Overall, I found that culture and personal background influences an individual’s perspective and therefore influences what he or she finds funny. In the case of the passages from “Hokum,” the current social situation of that time had a great impact on humor and how these writers created humor. But to end, I leave you with a thought to ponder, is humor timeless or not?