Demetri Martin

Demetri Martin is easily one of my favorite comedians, and in my opinion one of the funniest around. Other comedians on the top of my list are Jim Gaffigan, Daniel Tosh, and Katt Williams. The one thing I think makes Demetri Martin stand out from the rest is the drawings he uses to aid his standup. The video I chose is a long line of jokes that Martin puts together to accompany his “large pad”. With every one of his ideas, he flips the page to show another depiction to help the audience understand. He is not in any way a great artist, which I think may actually make all of them more humorous. Most of them consist of charts, diagrams, and other ridiculous pictures. If any random scrub off the street came and tried to draw pictures and tell jokes, I do not think it would be successful. So it is not some formula that he discovered that works for anyone; Martin is extremely clever when thinking of material for his standup. All of his jokes are incredibly creative, and his delivery helps his humor. He does not do any extraneous movements, as other comedians do, he simply moves on to the next joke as the audience rolls around. The clip of his performance I chose for class is very short, but the entirety of this special is unbelievably funny. He first brings up the old saying “people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”, and brings a complete 180 degree turn to it. Martin does this with many of his jokes. He will take common sayings or parts of life, and turn them into a clever spin like no one else. A lot of people have negative opinions of him because of the god-awful television show he came out with, but I’m sure it has made him some cash, so who can complain? His standup is great, and one of my favorites.

Who wears the pants?

After the first read of Fanny Fern’s “A Law more Nice than Just”, it is a bit tough to see the controversy of the article. However that is using the standards that we have in today’s society. A woman wearing men’s clothing would not be considered normal today, but it would not cause much of a stir in conversation. But at the time it was written, it could not have been a more risky article to write. This was exactly the type of ideas people expected from Fern; a cynical, taboo view of life. In her time, women were expected to both dress and act in a certain way. Not only was it expected, but it was considered illegal to do otherwise. Women simply needed knowledge of household duties, and not much else. At the end of the day, the wife should anxiously await the arrival of her husband. In reading Fern’s writing, it is clear that she does not agree with this standard of living. She even implies that the husbands do not want their wives leaving home because they are out causing mischief; wives would catch them during “all these little emergencies”. Fern suggests that if a woman was dressed as a man, she could sneak around and keep a more solid eye on a man. In this era, simply reading this idea would leave the average man in an uncomfortable state. Fern continues to describe the process of getting a suit fitted for her to try out this experiment. She then heads out with Mr. Fern on her leisurely stroll on a “dark” night, with no man to cater to her. She describes this experience as very liberating, because she is allowed to act as she pleases. Fern feels satisfaction in knowing she is going against the grain of society, and ignoring what is considered the norm for female behavior. It may not seem like such a large stride now, but the controversial Fern shows in this article that women had some different views on how they should be treated in that culture.

True Love

Of the three characters involved in the “love triangle”, Roxane is the only that displays the most pure love. In the early goings of the play, it seems that Roxane is only searching for a match on the exterior. She exclaims her love for Christian to Cyrano solely based on his looks. She really did not know much about who he was as a man. The thing that shows her pure love is her ability to change, and learn from her mistakes. When it becomes apparent that Christian is not the man that he appeared to be, she loses her feelings towards him. She shows that she is not the superficial woman she once was; it became much more important to her to find a man with a sound mind and heart. Roxane says that no matter the looks of the man who had been writing her the letters, she would still love him for what he had on the inside. This shows the most pure form of love; care for a true connection in another person. While the two men both show love for Roxane, a lack of confidence from both of them take away from the quality of their love. Christian had the woman’s heart, whether it be from only his looks or not. He could not express the way he felt to the woman he “loved”, so he confided in an outside source to do so. This shows cowardice and a lack of genuine love for Roxane. Cyrano shows a very pure love for Roxane, but due to no confidence in his appearance, he is too scared to pursue her. His hesitation towards the woman of his dreams shows weakness. The two men had opportunities to win the heart of Roxane, but neither had the courage to make an honest attempt. Even though Roxane is initially shallow, she shows change, and shows the purest love for the mystery man that is writing her.

When you make assumptions...

Throughout the chapter Blind Panic, Douglas Adams is forced to confront many of the assumptions that he has within his mind. The majority of them lie within differences between his own Western customs and those of the places around the world. These disparities start in the first paragraph of the chapter when Adams talks about New Zealand. He explains how jarring it was when he first “[took] the plug out of a wash-basin in Australia and see the water spiraling down the hole the other way around. Next he explains how the numbers on a telephone are dialed anti-clockwise in New Zealand. All through the chapter he informs the reader about unusual practices of the foreign countries he visits on his trip. One main point is the calamity that occurs on the streets of China. Practically no people in China own private vehicles, so Adams sees hundreds of bicyclist weaving through buses and streets, with the incessant sound of the bicycle bell resonating in the city. He also talks about the other sound that is common to every street corner: spitting. The Chinese people spit into small “spittoons” on the corner of every street. Seeing these things first hand is a sort of rude awakening for Adams, which exposes him to things he would have never expected. The most challenging passage of the chapter is a conversation between Adams and a Japanese guide. Adams was visiting the “Gold Pavilion Temple” in Kyoto, Japan, a building originally built in the fourteenth century. When he first sees the great shape the building is in, he is skeptical of its age. He is then informed that it had in fact been burned down quite a few times in its long history. Adams asks his guide, “So how can it be the same building?”.
“It is always the same building” the guide replied. What the guide meant is that even though the building had been reconstructed many times, the intention behind it is and always was the same. Adams says he is not comfortable with that idea, as it “fought against [his] basic Western assumptions”. Western views rely heavily on materialistic value, so the burning down of a building would ruin it in essence. Adams feels that “assumptions are the things you don’t know you’re making”. In his travels things he considers staples in everyday life are contradicted on a regular basis. Adams describes this feeling as “disorienting”, and one he certainly does not enjoy. When a person’s assumptions are challenged, often times an irrational reaction can be the result. However, it may be spun in a positive light, as also many times may have a more open mind from that sort of experience.

Why Money doesn't Grow on Trees...

On page 213, Vonnegut inserts a short dialogue between Trout and the newspaper girl during a meeting; this passage is used to convey Vonnegut’s most basic thoughts about war. The girl and Trout are having what seems like a meaningless conversation with each other. The girl asks Trout if she wins the competition, if she could bring along her sister to “Martha’s Vineyard”. He quickly responded with “Hell No, you think money grows on trees?” Billy explains to the reader the irony of that statement, as Trout had written a book about a tree that did actually grow money. Its leaves were “twenty dollar bills”, its flowers were “government bonds”, and its fruit was “diamonds”. In the book, Trout dictates that constant fighting occurs at the base of the tree; this results in the deaths of all who attempt to get near the tree. The remains of these attempts in turn rot in order to fertilize the tree. This is where Vonnegut’s true opinion on war can be applied. He makes a parallel between the tree in Trout’s book and the nature of mankind at war. Vonnegut hints this parallel on the previous page when talking about how familiar Trout looks to Billy. He even says Billy thinks he looks like a “prisoner of war”. The tree depicted in the book shows the irrational actions of humans when greed is involved. It is implied that not very many people get to reap the benefits of this magical tree, because they are too busy killing each other and fertilizing the tree. Rather than work together and have mutual gain from it, greed sets in and leads to the deaths of all the people going to the tree. This is how Vonnegut feels about war; people’s greed ends in countless deaths for no apparent reason. Instead of coexisting peacefully and having a successful planet, humans deem it necessary to kill each other mindlessly. On the same token these people are going to their deaths at the base of this tree all because of the rotten nature of mankind. Vonnegut makes a great parallel between Trout’s book and his opinions. He shows the intentions of the novel in a brilliant way in just a short passage.

Alas, the fleeting years glide on.

On page 14 of the novel, Vonnegut uses a latin quote. It was a quote by the famous Roman poet Horace. “Eheu, fugaces labuntur anni.” Alas, the fleeting years glide on. Throughout the novel, Vonnegut uses many examples to show that he has a skewed perception of time, and it seems so boring. After the latin quote, Vonnegut references the two limericks he used earlier in the chapter. “My name is Yon Yonson. There was a young man from Stamboul”. This was the first example in the novel of his problem with time. The first limerick shows how useless his memory is now that he is an “old fart”. The next is a limerick that is recited over and over again. It is used to represent the post-war life of Vonnegut. He is constantly repeating the same actions, and eventually they all seem to blur together. The sentences leading up to the Latin quote talk about Vonnegut’s desire to go and meet with his old war buddy, Bernard V. O’Hare. He wanted to speak with him about war memories to help him with his book. Vonnegut explains that he did follow through on his call, and he went to meet with his old buddy. He explains that it was probably around 1964, but not definitely. This is where both the latin quote and both limericks come into play. They all work together to show the point of this passage. Vonnegut cites these limericks many times before this to lead into the quote. Vonnegut is displaying that after the war all of his years have been boring and very similar. So much so that he cannot even distinguish between some of them. It is hard to read sometimes when viewing just how ridiculous the memory of Vonnegut has become post-war.

How Poop gets the point across...

In the Native American tale "Trickster Eats the Laxative Bulb", human excrement is used to both draw in the reader, and also to exhibit the moral of the story. Needless to say I did not ever think a laxative plant would ever teach a lesson; but it is the case in this story. Sometimes in literature, or in movies and media, profanity or “taboo” topics are overused. It leaves the reader questioning the necessity of this content, and with a dislike for the piece. I did not have this feeling after I finished reading the Trickster story. I found the story surprisingly humorous, and I understood the lesson. If the story had a more serious tone, I do not think this lesson would be as easily received. The lesson learned is that arrogance can get us in deep shit. Joking aside, the story begins with a bulb telling the Trickster “If you eat me you will defecate.” Rather than heeding this warning, he lets his ego take over, and eats the bulb. In his head he knows nothing will happen, because a plant could not affect a “great one” like himself. Little by little, the Trickster begins to experience the effects of the bulb. It starts with him “breaking wind”; it progresses into him being shot up into the air, and nearly being crushed by a tree. That is when the defecation starts. He does all he can to avoid being surrounded; he evens climbs a tree. Eventually he is still engulfed. When he climbed out of the steaming pile, he had to rely on the older trees to guide him to the water to clean off. I think the trees symbolize the Trickster’s wise elders, who help him learn his lesson. The Trickster learned the hard way that arrogance can end badly. This story can be appreciated by a full spectrum of readers. I got something out of this lesson; I also think children could take it in, as it is not too vulgar. The humor helps anyone understand the moral, because let’s face it, poop is funny. I do not believe this taboo topic impedes the story in any way, but rather helps it function.

Emma

In reading both the chapter from the novel Emma and watching the scene from the film, the movie had much more humor. In some cases directors will alter the dialogue pretty greatly from the book to the movie. This is not really the case in Emma. Almost all of the parts of the book, and also the dialogue hold true in the movie. The only real difference between the book and the film is actually seeing the scenes being played on-screen; a very crucial element. After reading this chapter in the text, I struggled to find very much humor, or even comprehend the actions of the scene at all. But after watching the film, my views had been changed totally. The way the actors portray the scene at Box Hill made it much easier to see both the humor and the awkwardness intended by Austen. You can easily miss these details when reading. When Emma takes a stab at Miss Bates’ dullness, I found myself laughing at first, but then soon after feeling sorry for Miss Bates. This is due to the acting in the film; I laughed at the initial joke, but stopped when seeing Miss Bates’ reaction. If I had to compare this type of humor with one of the quotes from our class discussion, it would be the one by Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes explains that people laugh “by the apprehension of some deformed thing in another”. This is precisely what Emma does to Miss Bates. Miss Bates is older, and is quite honestly a mundane, boring woman. Emma decides to make this apparent to everyone at Box Hill that afternoon. It is no surprise that Miss Bates is upset by Emma’s comment, which is felt in dept by the viewer when watching. Hobbes says that people use this “comparison” to “suddenly applaud themselves”. It is apparent very early on that Emma likes to be the center of attention. When arriving at Box Hill, she is having an awful time. Then as soon as Mr. Churchill begins putting the spotlight on her, she starts to enjoy herself. This was the same reason Emma made the comment to Miss Bates. Hobbes’ quote perfectly defines the type of humor shown in this portion of the novel.