There are two main points to this analysis: one, that Sedaris is a
traditional American humorist because of his subtle humor and two, perhaps
another avenue of humor to explore is when we are making fun of our own
experiences, maybe that sort of self-deprecating humor does not require as much
of an audience to give that gratification of laughter—his stories are
independently funny with or without my participation. Therefore, both Twain and Sedaris are connected in perhaps making laughter a choice. They put the joke out there in how they told the story and if we want to laugh, we can, but it is not crucial to the success of the joke.
First, Mark Twain writes in his essay “How to Tell a Story” that
“the humorous story is the American story…the humorous story depends for its
effect upon the manner of the telling” (17 Twain). Twain’s argument is that American writers are
challenged to incorporate absurdities without blatantly pointing out that they
are absurdities. Americans are
challenged to string together seemingly purposeless stories while maintaining
an air of nonchalance and casualness-- almost creating laughter as a choice, as if this story may or may not be funny, you decide.
Sedaris is clearly an American writer because he tells his stories in
this exact manner—he rarely emphasizes anything too much, rather we as readers
are supposed to enjoy his subtleties and chuckle coolly. He writes about drowning a mouse casually as
though that was normal, meanwhile I was actually laughing out loud at the
thought of this pathetic mouse trying to swim.
In the last line of the book, Sedaris writes “so pleasing to the eye”
which I think is what ties the entire book together and makes the book not
purposeless, but purposeful. That last
line almost seemed like Sedaris was winking at us as readers because this book
about an average guy’s life which seems pleasing enough, but it is actually
absurd and are full of intricacies that are not visible until Sedaris makes
them visible which Sedaris does on purpose.
Secondly, this is the first time an author’s entire work is strictly
turning the work on himself and his own insecurities, awkward childhood
memories, and other times that were painful and now are funny. In a way, this sort of humor seems to require
vulnerability, without as much trust from the audience. If you are making fun of yourself, you
already are admitting the oddities you have, so other people can’t make fun of
you—you already know and are admitting the joke! In this way, perhaps this type of
self-deprecating humor requires less audience participation because he is
laughing at himself; whether we choose to participate and join him in his
laughter is up to us.
No comments:
Post a Comment