… it probably wasn’t funny. But those of us who make a buck from writing jokes do sort of need to understand them, and that sometimes means being able to explain them to ourselves.
I had a moment of clarty this morning, on my walk, when for no reason at all I remembered how much I enjoyed the ‘Ralph and Sam’ cartoons as a kid.
No need to explain them. This will do.
What I realised, as I was walking around, was that this was the first example of 'recontextualising' as humour that I could recall encountering. Not that I realised that's what it was, as I sat on the floor at our cousin’s place and watched hours of loony tunes on their colour TV.
I just thought it was funny that the dog and the wolf (or coyote or whatever) were only enemies for as long as they were clocked onto the job. Looking back now, I can see what made it funny was that the writers and produces and illustrators had applied at template that was appropriate in one instance to another completely inappropriate instance. The tension between what should be and what was led directly to the Lulz.
By the time I understood what was going on and could use it to write columns like ‘Conan answers your questions’…
"Conan, what is best in life?"
To make the yellow light at the intersection with but a fraction of a second to spare, then to savour expressions of your enemies, the other, lesser drivers as they are bathed in the loathsome flash of the red light camera.
Conan, please, what is best in life?
To see a close friend stumble in public, to almost fall, and to regain his footing but only at the cost of great embarrassment. This. This is best. Most especially the embarrassment, but also the clumsiness.
Come now, Conan, what is truly best in life?
Not the Celebrity Retweet, but the envy of your closest friends at your Celebrity Retweet.
Conan, is that really what’s best in life?
For Conan there is also pleasure to be had in the awkward, slightly uncomfortable moment when another must hold the door open longer than usual so that I might pass through.
Recontextualisation is my secret go-to when I have a deadline looming and absolutely no ideas.
I don't know what it says about my sense of humour that your funniest columns are the ones you pulled out of nowhere because you were out of ideas, beyond also having grown up on Looney Tunes
Would many of the funniest parts of the Princess Bride be considered recontextualisation? I'm specifically thinking of "“Inconceivable!" "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” or is it just word play? Does recontextualisation require a visual component ? clearly not as you have said you have used it in your work.
Jack Handey does this, so no wonder you're drawn to him. Steven Wright too, such as, "I'm writing a book. I've got the page numbers done."
I don't know what it says about my sense of humour that your funniest columns are the ones you pulled out of nowhere because you were out of ideas, beyond also having grown up on Looney Tunes
Would many of the funniest parts of the Princess Bride be considered recontextualisation? I'm specifically thinking of "“Inconceivable!" "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” or is it just word play? Does recontextualisation require a visual component ? clearly not as you have said you have used it in your work.
Can't it be more like what that judge said about naughty...ahem...stuff: "I don't know how to define it, but I know what it when I see it"?