What do you think?
Rate this book
The Humor Code: A Global Search for What Makes Things Funny
Part road-trip comedy and part social science experiment, a scientist and a journalist detail their epic quest to discover the secret behind what makes things funny.
Two guys. 19 experiments. Five continents. 91,000 miles. And a book that will forever change the way you think about humor.
Part road-trip comedy and part social science experiment, a scientist and a journalist detail their epic quest to discover the secret behind what makes things funny.
Dr. Peter McGraw, founder of the Humor Research Lab at the University of Colorado Boulder, teamed up with journalist Joel Warner on a far-reaching search for the secret behind humor. Their journey spanned the globe, from New York to Japan, from Palestine to the Amazon. Meanwhile, the duo conducted their own humor experiments along the way—to wince-worthy, hilarious, and illuminating results.
In their quixotic search, they questioned countless experts, from comedians like Louis C.K. to rat-tickling researchers, and answered pressing (and not-so-pressing) questions such as, “What’s the secret to winning The New Yorker cartoon caption contest?”; “Who has the bigger funny bone—men or women, Democrats or Republicans?”; and “Is laughter really the best medicine?” As a final test, McGraw uses everything they learned to attempt stand-up—at the largest comedy festival in the world.
Funny, surprising, and often touching, The Humor Code is a revealing exploration of humor, society, and an unusual friendship.
Two guys. 19 experiments. Five continents. 91,000 miles. And a book that will forever change the way you think about humor.
Part road-trip comedy and part social science experiment, a scientist and a journalist detail their epic quest to discover the secret behind what makes things funny.
Dr. Peter McGraw, founder of the Humor Research Lab at the University of Colorado Boulder, teamed up with journalist Joel Warner on a far-reaching search for the secret behind humor. Their journey spanned the globe, from New York to Japan, from Palestine to the Amazon. Meanwhile, the duo conducted their own humor experiments along the way—to wince-worthy, hilarious, and illuminating results.
In their quixotic search, they questioned countless experts, from comedians like Louis C.K. to rat-tickling researchers, and answered pressing (and not-so-pressing) questions such as, “What’s the secret to winning The New Yorker cartoon caption contest?”; “Who has the bigger funny bone—men or women, Democrats or Republicans?”; and “Is laughter really the best medicine?” As a final test, McGraw uses everything they learned to attempt stand-up—at the largest comedy festival in the world.
Funny, surprising, and often touching, The Humor Code is a revealing exploration of humor, society, and an unusual friendship.
239 pages, Hardcover
First published April 1, 2014
141 people are currently reading
3973 people want to read
About the author
Peter McGraw
3 books35 followersDr. Peter McGraw is a bachelor, behavioral economist, and business school professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder.
He hosts the podcast Solo-The Single Person’s Guide to a Remarkable Life, he writes for Single Insights – The Science of Solos, and hosts The Solo Salon. His latest book, Solo: Building a Remarkable Life of Your Own, launches in 2024.
As a global expert on the scientific study of humor, McGraw founded the Humor Research Lab (aka HuRL) and has spent more than fifteen years examining the antecedents and consequences of humor. In 2014, he co-authored The Humor Code: A Global Search for What Makes Things Funny. In 2020, he authored: Shtick to Business: What the Masters of Comedy can Teach You about Breaking Rules, Being Fearless, and Building a Serious Career.
As a marketing and psychology professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, McGraw has completed research that has been covered by The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, NPR, BBC, TIME, CNN, Wired, and Harvard Business Review. McGraw has also written for Slate, Wired, Fortune, Huffington Post, and Psychology Today.
McGraw teaches graduate courses in Behavioral Economics for the University of Colorado, Boulder and MBA courses in Marketing Management for London Business School, University of California, San Diego’s Rady School, and University of Colorado, Boulder.
He has spoken at Fortune 500 companies, public events, and universities around the world.
He hosts the podcast Solo-The Single Person’s Guide to a Remarkable Life, he writes for Single Insights – The Science of Solos, and hosts The Solo Salon. His latest book, Solo: Building a Remarkable Life of Your Own, launches in 2024.
As a global expert on the scientific study of humor, McGraw founded the Humor Research Lab (aka HuRL) and has spent more than fifteen years examining the antecedents and consequences of humor. In 2014, he co-authored The Humor Code: A Global Search for What Makes Things Funny. In 2020, he authored: Shtick to Business: What the Masters of Comedy can Teach You about Breaking Rules, Being Fearless, and Building a Serious Career.
As a marketing and psychology professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, McGraw has completed research that has been covered by The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, NPR, BBC, TIME, CNN, Wired, and Harvard Business Review. McGraw has also written for Slate, Wired, Fortune, Huffington Post, and Psychology Today.
McGraw teaches graduate courses in Behavioral Economics for the University of Colorado, Boulder and MBA courses in Marketing Management for London Business School, University of California, San Diego’s Rady School, and University of Colorado, Boulder.
He has spoken at Fortune 500 companies, public events, and universities around the world.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 182 reviews
April 28, 2014
This book was a disappointment. The premise was quite intriguing in that that these two gentlemen would travel to different cultures in search of what made people laugh, and if there was a common element that held true through these cultures. The two, a professor of marketing and psychology and a journalist, propose that that common element is one of "benign violation." This is where there is something presented that is sensed to be unsettling, wrong or threatening, but then is found to be all right, or safe. It's a good theory, and is often easy to see in humor across cultures, but it does appear to have its flaws and contradictions. Still, it would be fascinating to delve into different cultures and see what makes people laugh.
Unfortunately, this book does not do this. The book is written more as a travelogue at best, or as a personal journal for the author. The relatively short book is full of travel details, personal asides, and stories not dealing with main subject. The journalist author seems to write this more as a human interest story where personal details of the people they meet, such as the nonessential elements of their background, or even what they are wearing, are described at length. There is also a lot of wordage devoted to the details of the trip. The entire first page on Japan is about their flight to Japan, without any reference to humor or comedy. There is a chapter devoted to the laughing disease outbreak many years ago in Tanganyika (now Tanzania). We read exhaustive details of their search for what caused the outbreak. We hear about their mode of transport, their guide and the rugged country into the middle of nowhere to find one of the last living people afflicted by that outbreak only to find out she's not talking. Even if she would have talked to them, I doubt she would have contributed anything as to what makes people laugh.
So I considered this book a waste of time as far as finding out about what people find funny and why, or if there is really anything that is universal across different cultures. If you want that, then there are volumes of other works are far more intriguing and elucidating.
Unfortunately, this book does not do this. The book is written more as a travelogue at best, or as a personal journal for the author. The relatively short book is full of travel details, personal asides, and stories not dealing with main subject. The journalist author seems to write this more as a human interest story where personal details of the people they meet, such as the nonessential elements of their background, or even what they are wearing, are described at length. There is also a lot of wordage devoted to the details of the trip. The entire first page on Japan is about their flight to Japan, without any reference to humor or comedy. There is a chapter devoted to the laughing disease outbreak many years ago in Tanganyika (now Tanzania). We read exhaustive details of their search for what caused the outbreak. We hear about their mode of transport, their guide and the rugged country into the middle of nowhere to find one of the last living people afflicted by that outbreak only to find out she's not talking. Even if she would have talked to them, I doubt she would have contributed anything as to what makes people laugh.
So I considered this book a waste of time as far as finding out about what people find funny and why, or if there is really anything that is universal across different cultures. If you want that, then there are volumes of other works are far more intriguing and elucidating.
January 14, 2014
Thanks to GoodReads First Reads for a free copy of the book in exchange for my honest review.
The Humor Code is the journalistic account of a professor and a journalist traipsing about the world in search of what makes things funny. Their basic questions aim to identify the rules that make people, jokes, performances, situations, and cartoons funny. They also explore the capacity of humans to laugh and the conditions that allow for such a reaction.
Joel Warner, the journalist part of the duo, is a good writer with a keen eye for detail. He is also the less excitable of the pair, making him the perfect outsider to their outsider adventures, and hence, as per their theory of comedy, he is in the best place to identify violations and present them in a benevolent frame, which makes for some very funny moments in the book.
Peter McGraw, the professor, is very enthusiastic and willing to put himself in the most uncomfortable and laughable situations for the sake of his research. He also has a very good sense of humor (but what makes me say that? aha!) and cracks a good many jokes as they travel from Japan to the Amazons to LA. His main theory of what makes things funny is "the benevolent violation" theory (well, a hypothesis, is what I would call it), which models very many types of funny-ness around the world pretty well. Basically, the book argues that for something to be funny it needs to have a violation that is presented in a way that the person who is supposed to laugh finds it harmless. They test out this hypothesis in different ways and they also learn about the various types of humor cultures, joke generation methods, stand-up routines, and the like to see if these things that make the world laugh fit their model. They also try to find out the limits of the violations that are allowed, that is, when a comic or cartoon goes "too far" and stops being funny. Along the way, they ask whether women are really less funny than men, whether extremely bad situations suppress humor or bring it out more, and whether it is possible to make things funnier without making them more offensive.
Together the professor and the journalist cover stand-up comedy, improv, cartoons, clowning, comedy schools, satire, and more, and they meet famous comedians, the editor of the New Yorker cartoons, the head of the Japanese comedy empire, Patch Adams, the cast of the only satirical TV show in Palestine. All in all, they find humor in places ranging from one of the least religious and happiest countries in the world (Denmark) to the occupied territories of Palestine to the impoverished slums of Peru.
They start and end their year with Peter doing a stand-up routine. Applying all the things they learned about humor and what makes things funny, and with practice, we witness Peter become a pretty good comic from his humble beginnings as a mildly funny professor. The final routine is rather funny, and manages to get the audience to laugh a lot, a huge improvement over the performance at the beginning of the year.
My only complaint with the book is the way it is organized. Wagner and McGraw go to places with particular questions in mind, so each chapter is dedicated to that trip and question. Within each chapter they explore the main question in that locale, but obviously other questions arise, and so Wagner takes short digressions to explore those questions, sometimes with historical research of that particular question. Sometimes this works well, and sometimes it is distracting, and sometimes I wondered if this subject could be explored a bit more rather than remaining in the sidelines.
Recommended for those who like fried octopus balls (ha!), stand-up comedy, and caricatures.
The Humor Code is the journalistic account of a professor and a journalist traipsing about the world in search of what makes things funny. Their basic questions aim to identify the rules that make people, jokes, performances, situations, and cartoons funny. They also explore the capacity of humans to laugh and the conditions that allow for such a reaction.
Joel Warner, the journalist part of the duo, is a good writer with a keen eye for detail. He is also the less excitable of the pair, making him the perfect outsider to their outsider adventures, and hence, as per their theory of comedy, he is in the best place to identify violations and present them in a benevolent frame, which makes for some very funny moments in the book.
Peter McGraw, the professor, is very enthusiastic and willing to put himself in the most uncomfortable and laughable situations for the sake of his research. He also has a very good sense of humor (but what makes me say that? aha!) and cracks a good many jokes as they travel from Japan to the Amazons to LA. His main theory of what makes things funny is "the benevolent violation" theory (well, a hypothesis, is what I would call it), which models very many types of funny-ness around the world pretty well. Basically, the book argues that for something to be funny it needs to have a violation that is presented in a way that the person who is supposed to laugh finds it harmless. They test out this hypothesis in different ways and they also learn about the various types of humor cultures, joke generation methods, stand-up routines, and the like to see if these things that make the world laugh fit their model. They also try to find out the limits of the violations that are allowed, that is, when a comic or cartoon goes "too far" and stops being funny. Along the way, they ask whether women are really less funny than men, whether extremely bad situations suppress humor or bring it out more, and whether it is possible to make things funnier without making them more offensive.
Together the professor and the journalist cover stand-up comedy, improv, cartoons, clowning, comedy schools, satire, and more, and they meet famous comedians, the editor of the New Yorker cartoons, the head of the Japanese comedy empire, Patch Adams, the cast of the only satirical TV show in Palestine. All in all, they find humor in places ranging from one of the least religious and happiest countries in the world (Denmark) to the occupied territories of Palestine to the impoverished slums of Peru.
They start and end their year with Peter doing a stand-up routine. Applying all the things they learned about humor and what makes things funny, and with practice, we witness Peter become a pretty good comic from his humble beginnings as a mildly funny professor. The final routine is rather funny, and manages to get the audience to laugh a lot, a huge improvement over the performance at the beginning of the year.
My only complaint with the book is the way it is organized. Wagner and McGraw go to places with particular questions in mind, so each chapter is dedicated to that trip and question. Within each chapter they explore the main question in that locale, but obviously other questions arise, and so Wagner takes short digressions to explore those questions, sometimes with historical research of that particular question. Sometimes this works well, and sometimes it is distracting, and sometimes I wondered if this subject could be explored a bit more rather than remaining in the sidelines.
Recommended for those who like fried octopus balls (ha!), stand-up comedy, and caricatures.
February 17, 2014
Occasionally, while mired in the middle of some writing some turgid paper on the economic ramifications Treaty of Maastricht or an equally-engaging area of the dismal science I would get distracted and get creative with my queries in my school's academic journal database. I would look for strange articles about football (turns out there are quite a lot) in hopes of avoiding my mind from completely going numb. I quickly reached the conclusion was that despite the best efforts of econ professors everywhere to dissuade me of the notion, academics sometimes actually studied interesting topics. Certain fields have generated a considerable amount of volume, and it turns out that the field of humor studies is no different. In The Humor Code: A Global Search for What Makes Things Funny, a writer published in Wired, The Boston Globe, and Grantland teams up with a marketing and psychology professor to identify the scientific, sociological, and cultural factors behind what we find humorous. Equal parts travelogue and pop-science examination, The Humor Code manages to be an amusing and informative read on what makes us laugh.
The book grew out of a series of articles Warner wrote about McGraw including a feature in Wired and the book reads like an extended magazine article. Thankfully, there is enough substantive material for the book to succeed with the extended format. While McGraw and Warner are both listed as authors, it appears that the journalist Warner is the one behind the keyboard chronicling the pair's exploits.
Warner and McGraw traverse the globe to codify the elusive concept of humor. They visit locales such as Tanzania (to research the great 1962 Tanganyika Laughter Epidemic, Japan (to examine those ridiculous game shows where many comedians act as contestant), and Scandinavia (investigating the fallout from the Muhammad comics). Closer to home, the authors also attempt to determine how to win the New Yorker caption contest and consult with some strange characters including Lisette St. Claire, the "laughter queen of Los Angeles." Their journey culminates in McGraw attempting to apply his learnings by performing at the Just for Laughs comedy festival in Montreal.
The Humor Code also contains a bit of intellectual heft and reviews several items from the surprisingly abundant volume of humor research. McGraw is at the vanguard of the field as the direct of the Humor Research Lab (HuRL) and is a proponent of the "benign violation" hypothesis of humor, which strikes me as intriguing yet not entirely airtight (though my economics background puts me firmly within a glass house in that regard). The book covers studies about whether Democrats are funnier than Republicans and even conducts some original research, such as analyzing New Yorker caption contest winners. These segments were the highlights of the book for me and helped The Humor Code become more than a collection of fascinating and odd anecdotes about their travels.
I found The Humor Code to be a very enjoyable and fun read. It probably wont make you any funnier (which is not the book's intent in the first place) but it will yield some fascinating insights and strange anecdotes about global humor. The book has a light feel and despite a few weak sections and disappointments (such as a rather wasted interview opportunity with Louis C.K.) it is one of my favorite books of 2014 thus far and highly recommended for anyone interested in psychology or what makes things funny.
In Sum
The Humor Code is an original, engaging, and oftentimes illuminating pop psychology book about what makes us laugh and why. Recommended for those seeking a light science read with some observations on global culture and, of course, humor.
8.5/10
The book grew out of a series of articles Warner wrote about McGraw including a feature in Wired and the book reads like an extended magazine article. Thankfully, there is enough substantive material for the book to succeed with the extended format. While McGraw and Warner are both listed as authors, it appears that the journalist Warner is the one behind the keyboard chronicling the pair's exploits.
Warner and McGraw traverse the globe to codify the elusive concept of humor. They visit locales such as Tanzania (to research the great 1962 Tanganyika Laughter Epidemic, Japan (to examine those ridiculous game shows where many comedians act as contestant), and Scandinavia (investigating the fallout from the Muhammad comics). Closer to home, the authors also attempt to determine how to win the New Yorker caption contest and consult with some strange characters including Lisette St. Claire, the "laughter queen of Los Angeles." Their journey culminates in McGraw attempting to apply his learnings by performing at the Just for Laughs comedy festival in Montreal.
The Humor Code also contains a bit of intellectual heft and reviews several items from the surprisingly abundant volume of humor research. McGraw is at the vanguard of the field as the direct of the Humor Research Lab (HuRL) and is a proponent of the "benign violation" hypothesis of humor, which strikes me as intriguing yet not entirely airtight (though my economics background puts me firmly within a glass house in that regard). The book covers studies about whether Democrats are funnier than Republicans and even conducts some original research, such as analyzing New Yorker caption contest winners. These segments were the highlights of the book for me and helped The Humor Code become more than a collection of fascinating and odd anecdotes about their travels.
I found The Humor Code to be a very enjoyable and fun read. It probably wont make you any funnier (which is not the book's intent in the first place) but it will yield some fascinating insights and strange anecdotes about global humor. The book has a light feel and despite a few weak sections and disappointments (such as a rather wasted interview opportunity with Louis C.K.) it is one of my favorite books of 2014 thus far and highly recommended for anyone interested in psychology or what makes things funny.
In Sum
The Humor Code is an original, engaging, and oftentimes illuminating pop psychology book about what makes us laugh and why. Recommended for those seeking a light science read with some observations on global culture and, of course, humor.
8.5/10
October 12, 2015
This review might be a tad rambling but so is the book so that is fair. I am very split in my mind about this book 2 stars or 3? Why doesn't GR allow 2.5 stars dammit! Okay I ended up giving it three because while the end result didn't match my expectations or what the authors set out to do it was a worthy attempt and their hearts were in the right place.
Pros: I like the main author (not sure why Peter McGraw is listed as first author here, the book is written in first person narrative from Joel Warner's perspective). I like, in particular, his honesty about the process and the experiences. When Peter fails at his stand-up, Joel doesn't sugar coat it.
I like the intent - test Peter's hypothesis on humour the Benevolent-Violation hypothesis (which is really just the Incongruity hypothesis with the emphasis that the incongruity needs to be non-threatening. I like the idea to visit places around the world to look at humour around the world: Japan, Palestine, Israel, Africa, Peru, New York, Denmark and to insert themselves into the situations so they gain first hand understanding.
I like the bookends of seeing Peter on stage for the first time and a year (?) later at Just for Laughs.
But there were things that didn't sit well with me and frustrated me. Let's start off with the theory (it's not really a theory because it has never been tested but a lot of people like Peter misuse the word "theory") the book was supposed to be testing. It really didn't test it at all. And there was no scientific inquiry into it. No research, no tests which could falsify the hypothesis, in fact the premise of the book seems to be abandoned after the first chapter. He doesn't even use the theory to help develop his stand-up routine. He uses some of the stuff he learned over the year to insert into the act. And let's be clear - like all humour "theories" it falls short. In fact, Louis C.K. gets it right in one sentence in the world's shortest interview (because Peter asks like an ass and gets thrown out of Louis' hotel room - is he really a professor or a 5 year old I am left to constantly wonder) - after being presented with McGraw's theory he says "It's not that simple". I've read a lot of books on the psychology of humour and no one theory will ever get it right because things like beauty, love, comedy are to riddled with individual differences and thousands of variables to ever distill in one theory.
Another big problem I have is the forgotten premise of getting Peter to use science to develop a stand up act. We never see it happen. Yes, he gets more laughs at the end of the year but we don't see the process of why that happens. at lest Joel is honest and admits to get better you need to practice and Peter never did that. But then why use that as the premise to the book? Joel also admits the real "science" to humour is trying new material in front of a crowd and keeping what works and refining what doesn't.
A smaller problem I have is the way each chapter jumps from new topic to new topic. All the topics ARE interesting: Why is humour in Japan so different; Can there be humour in the most depressing places on Earth, how can "humour" cross the line, how do they pick the New Yorker cartoons? But each interesting topic is only barely touched upon in the most superficial ways and it feels unsatisfying.
Bigger problem - Peter McGraw comes across as an ass all the way through the book. Inappropriate attempts at humour. Misunderstanding of what a theory is. He got a one on one interview with Louis C.K. and asks him how big his penis is and then tells him he most have a small penis if he won't tell him how large it is. What a creep. He's like that embarrassing uncle who thinks he is funny but is really just inappropriate.
Biggest problem - the book never delivers on its title to crack the Humor Code. Although, as I said - no book ever will but I find books written BY comedians and how they describe their processes much more illuminating that this book.
I read this book while preparing to do a lecture on the psychology of humour and I can tell you the book did not help me one bit (thankfully other books did). So as a science book - fail. As an interesting account of a journalist going around the world asking different questions on humour while having an ass of a professor tag along - it was mildly entertaining.
Pros: I like the main author (not sure why Peter McGraw is listed as first author here, the book is written in first person narrative from Joel Warner's perspective). I like, in particular, his honesty about the process and the experiences. When Peter fails at his stand-up, Joel doesn't sugar coat it.
I like the intent - test Peter's hypothesis on humour the Benevolent-Violation hypothesis (which is really just the Incongruity hypothesis with the emphasis that the incongruity needs to be non-threatening. I like the idea to visit places around the world to look at humour around the world: Japan, Palestine, Israel, Africa, Peru, New York, Denmark and to insert themselves into the situations so they gain first hand understanding.
I like the bookends of seeing Peter on stage for the first time and a year (?) later at Just for Laughs.
But there were things that didn't sit well with me and frustrated me. Let's start off with the theory (it's not really a theory because it has never been tested but a lot of people like Peter misuse the word "theory") the book was supposed to be testing. It really didn't test it at all. And there was no scientific inquiry into it. No research, no tests which could falsify the hypothesis, in fact the premise of the book seems to be abandoned after the first chapter. He doesn't even use the theory to help develop his stand-up routine. He uses some of the stuff he learned over the year to insert into the act. And let's be clear - like all humour "theories" it falls short. In fact, Louis C.K. gets it right in one sentence in the world's shortest interview (because Peter asks like an ass and gets thrown out of Louis' hotel room - is he really a professor or a 5 year old I am left to constantly wonder) - after being presented with McGraw's theory he says "It's not that simple". I've read a lot of books on the psychology of humour and no one theory will ever get it right because things like beauty, love, comedy are to riddled with individual differences and thousands of variables to ever distill in one theory.
Another big problem I have is the forgotten premise of getting Peter to use science to develop a stand up act. We never see it happen. Yes, he gets more laughs at the end of the year but we don't see the process of why that happens. at lest Joel is honest and admits to get better you need to practice and Peter never did that. But then why use that as the premise to the book? Joel also admits the real "science" to humour is trying new material in front of a crowd and keeping what works and refining what doesn't.
A smaller problem I have is the way each chapter jumps from new topic to new topic. All the topics ARE interesting: Why is humour in Japan so different; Can there be humour in the most depressing places on Earth, how can "humour" cross the line, how do they pick the New Yorker cartoons? But each interesting topic is only barely touched upon in the most superficial ways and it feels unsatisfying.
Bigger problem - Peter McGraw comes across as an ass all the way through the book. Inappropriate attempts at humour. Misunderstanding of what a theory is. He got a one on one interview with Louis C.K. and asks him how big his penis is and then tells him he most have a small penis if he won't tell him how large it is. What a creep. He's like that embarrassing uncle who thinks he is funny but is really just inappropriate.
Biggest problem - the book never delivers on its title to crack the Humor Code. Although, as I said - no book ever will but I find books written BY comedians and how they describe their processes much more illuminating that this book.
I read this book while preparing to do a lecture on the psychology of humour and I can tell you the book did not help me one bit (thankfully other books did). So as a science book - fail. As an interesting account of a journalist going around the world asking different questions on humour while having an ass of a professor tag along - it was mildly entertaining.
December 22, 2013
Very few books are able to both teach me something and be interesting and enjoyable to read. But rarely I read a book that not only does so, but also leaves its mark on me. “The humor code” was one of those books.
After reading “The humor code”, I can tell the reason behind my smiles and my laughter. A little part of my brain looks for the benign and the violation part of everything that I find funny. And what amazes me is that the theory this book introduces never fails.
The book is very well written I couldn’t put it down. I believe no one should miss a chance to get entertained and learn at the same time. Therefore, I strongly recommend adding reading “The humor code” to your to do list.
After reading “The humor code”, I can tell the reason behind my smiles and my laughter. A little part of my brain looks for the benign and the violation part of everything that I find funny. And what amazes me is that the theory this book introduces never fails.
The book is very well written I couldn’t put it down. I believe no one should miss a chance to get entertained and learn at the same time. Therefore, I strongly recommend adding reading “The humor code” to your to do list.
December 18, 2013
Many of my friends in the comedy scene have wondered why people who are self-proclaimed to be not all that funny would spend this much time, energy and insight into finding out what is humorous. The result is this book - the perfect example of "those who can't do, teach". And being taught is just as rewarding as doing in this instance. Pete and Joel do a great job of taking you to places and putting real life examples in front of you, while presenting many other studies and cases to back up their arguments. This book is not bogged down with nuances of pop culture, but found many instances where their theory proves true and gave great insight into the facets of humor which have fascinated and perplexed humanity for so long. I give this book 4 stars because I wanted accompanying pictures while reading.... The people they describe and the situations they are in would do well with some additional photographic context.
August 7, 2014
This is a remarkably engaging, and of course humorous treatise on the universal and cultural aspects of humor. The authors have traveled to several continents in search of the answer to the question "What makes us laugh?" Their travels include New York, L.A., Japan, Scandanavia, Tanzania, Peru, and Montreal. Venues include everything from professional comedy clubs to emergency intervention in flood-ravaged Peru. The latter chapter is most poignant, with 100+ clowns, some from Patch Adams' Gesundheit Institute, arriving by military transport plane to lift the spirits of the elderly, orphans, and other disaster victims who have lost nearly everything. This chapter is very inspiring.
May 7, 2014
The only thing worse than not funny is boring. This book was a rarity for me...it was a book I chose not to finish.
February 22, 2014
This rating/review is based on an ARC I got from netgalley.
This book was definitely interesting, but like a lot of “fun” non-fiction I think it got too caught up in a hypothesis. I find my favorite sciency non-fiction books are Mary Roach’s. She doesn’t try to prove a point, she just follows her interest. Plus she is actually funny. There were a lot of really interesting tangents, but they weren’t able to flesh them out because they were working towards a narrative. Basically since Jonah Lehrer, I have a huge distrust of narrative non-fiction. I also didn’t think a lot of the articles/studies they referenced really served their point.
I would have been a lot more interested in this book if either of the authors were funny. They’re engaging writers, but I find neither author funny. There were even points where I was a bit bored. Basically I wish Mary Roach had written this instead.
This book was definitely interesting, but like a lot of “fun” non-fiction I think it got too caught up in a hypothesis. I find my favorite sciency non-fiction books are Mary Roach’s. She doesn’t try to prove a point, she just follows her interest. Plus she is actually funny. There were a lot of really interesting tangents, but they weren’t able to flesh them out because they were working towards a narrative. Basically since Jonah Lehrer, I have a huge distrust of narrative non-fiction. I also didn’t think a lot of the articles/studies they referenced really served their point.
I would have been a lot more interested in this book if either of the authors were funny. They’re engaging writers, but I find neither author funny. There were even points where I was a bit bored. Basically I wish Mary Roach had written this instead.
June 2, 2014
I rarely say that I wish I had never read a book; but honestly, I wish I had not wasted my time on this one. The writer tries to be funny numerous times - doesn't quite make the grade.(I know funny) If he had used the words "hip" or "hipster" one more time I think I might have puked....I started circling the words in the 2nd chapter - really, the book is only 239 pages long - felt like reading War and Peace - It is beyond me how many people are giving it 5 stars.....
I implore you, don't waste your time on this one; when there are so many wonderful books out there!
I implore you, don't waste your time on this one; when there are so many wonderful books out there!
February 13, 2014
I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this book :) Fascinating, scientific, and yes, witty! One section went on a bit long, but it is an interesting read about what makes the world laugh.
January 26, 2015
It doesn't pull any punches or get any laughs and has little in the way of great revelations about humor but it is fun to read and not very long... so you might as well read it.
May 16, 2015
Was not what I expected, just could not get into it and certainly could not finish it!
August 23, 2018
Many instances of contrasting, simultaneous emotions are not humorous. This is one of the reasons, perhaps the most obvious, why benign violation is not constitutive of humor, although the theory reveals an observable pattern in humor. To date, the only cited practical use of the theory has been psychological distance. For example, McGraw mentions that The Onion considered psychological distance in humor about 9/11. But that creative concern has nothing to do with the essence of humor. It is something that can be observed without a larger theory that also claims to describe the essence of all humor, or even to be instructively useful in humor creation in other ways. The theory does neither of those further things. The theory doesn't identify what is constitutive of humor itself. And if it teaches or prescribes various types of benign violation for writers or comedians, it merely attaches a label to those things which are normally created or worked out without such a theory.
Counterexamples to the theory are numerous. It would have to explain, for example, why it doesn't apply to a general attitude toward a situation about which a person is ambivalent, such as a job that they dislike. This seems to fit "benign violation" perfectly. In this case, there is not necessarily an excess of feeling "not OK" -- too much violation-- which would make such ambivalences not humorous.
But there must be a reason, then, why those cases of "benign violation" are not funny, while others are. There are specific kinds of benign violation that create humor, not all benign violations, even those with an equal balance of feeling OK and not OK. That is what, in fact, makes the theory both a bad descriptive theory (for humor's essence), and also not a very important prescriptive/compositional theory. To use the theory effectively (prescriptively), one must at least know what kinds of benign violations are funny and which ones are not. There really is, however, an idea that describes the essence of all humor. All humor either represents self-deception directly, or else alludes to it indirectly. But it has to be a blameworthy self-deception, and this may even comprise all the ways that prevent it from becoming too serious. For instance, a tragic character is often self-deceived. But since we pity them, it is hard for us to ridicule them. But this is not because tragedy has an excess of violation or "feeling not OK," on the contrary our attitude toward the tragic character could even be more positive than negative.
What really makes tragedy mostly unfunny, is not that it is sad or violent, but that it is serious, and provokes more reflection than either comedy or humor. A comedy by Shakespeare may have serious moments. But can you point to the serious element in the humorous moments, or where they exist at the same time and in the same respect? Never. Humorous self-deception, similarly, cannot be defined as a limitation of violation, though it must have that property. Humorous self-deception is, more importantly, blameworthy, and on an average or small scale that distinguishes it from tragedy. This idea will always be funny and it is also the essence, ultimately, of everything that is humorous. Eventually, academe and scholarship, and so on, will have to concede this.
If one considers those types of benign violation that actually are humorous, interestingly, in every case this turns out to be because self-deception is involved. For example, in the so-called "Seinfeld strategy" mentioned by Peter McGraw, Seinfeld criticizes things like . But what is actually funny is not the very fact that something is truly benign, and is being transformed into a violation -- though that is what is being done. What is funny here is that a customer -- and a seller -- both expect something to be convenient and functional in every way, and this turns out not to be true, literally. It is not a complete exaggeration.
Another kind of benign violation that is humorous for another reason, not the fact that it is benign violation, is the vast category of every kind of humorous assault or act of ridicule, whether deserved or not (for instance, if they suffered a prattfall or were pushed and then ridiculed), and every kind of politically or sexually inappropriate insult. The humor in all these things is never the benign violation that also describes the situation, but always something else. So for example an insult may fail as humor because it is far too insulting, but to tone down the level of malice and insult doesn't constitute the humor, it just observing a negative condition, a condition of what must not be present. Toning down the insult and its violation removes what is preventing the insult from being inherently funny, which it is because it points to a sense of self-deception in the one who is being insulted.
Benign violation is too general to be specifically a theory of humor, not only not describing the essence, but not even very effective as prescriptive or instructive, either. It does not apply meaningfully in all cases, and does not apply always in the same way, these are indications that the theory is a hoax.
Do we perhaps give Simon and Schuster the benefit of the doubt? A press could be attracted to such a hoax, maybe not because they're incompetent, but because they are clever. They might know that deep down people want to be fooled and duped -- really because that is funny and they want to laugh at themselves. But I doubt this, rather, this is incompetence.
Counterexamples to the theory are numerous. It would have to explain, for example, why it doesn't apply to a general attitude toward a situation about which a person is ambivalent, such as a job that they dislike. This seems to fit "benign violation" perfectly. In this case, there is not necessarily an excess of feeling "not OK" -- too much violation-- which would make such ambivalences not humorous.
But there must be a reason, then, why those cases of "benign violation" are not funny, while others are. There are specific kinds of benign violation that create humor, not all benign violations, even those with an equal balance of feeling OK and not OK. That is what, in fact, makes the theory both a bad descriptive theory (for humor's essence), and also not a very important prescriptive/compositional theory. To use the theory effectively (prescriptively), one must at least know what kinds of benign violations are funny and which ones are not. There really is, however, an idea that describes the essence of all humor. All humor either represents self-deception directly, or else alludes to it indirectly. But it has to be a blameworthy self-deception, and this may even comprise all the ways that prevent it from becoming too serious. For instance, a tragic character is often self-deceived. But since we pity them, it is hard for us to ridicule them. But this is not because tragedy has an excess of violation or "feeling not OK," on the contrary our attitude toward the tragic character could even be more positive than negative.
What really makes tragedy mostly unfunny, is not that it is sad or violent, but that it is serious, and provokes more reflection than either comedy or humor. A comedy by Shakespeare may have serious moments. But can you point to the serious element in the humorous moments, or where they exist at the same time and in the same respect? Never. Humorous self-deception, similarly, cannot be defined as a limitation of violation, though it must have that property. Humorous self-deception is, more importantly, blameworthy, and on an average or small scale that distinguishes it from tragedy. This idea will always be funny and it is also the essence, ultimately, of everything that is humorous. Eventually, academe and scholarship, and so on, will have to concede this.
If one considers those types of benign violation that actually are humorous, interestingly, in every case this turns out to be because self-deception is involved. For example, in the so-called "Seinfeld strategy" mentioned by Peter McGraw, Seinfeld criticizes things like . But what is actually funny is not the very fact that something is truly benign, and is being transformed into a violation -- though that is what is being done. What is funny here is that a customer -- and a seller -- both expect something to be convenient and functional in every way, and this turns out not to be true, literally. It is not a complete exaggeration.
Another kind of benign violation that is humorous for another reason, not the fact that it is benign violation, is the vast category of every kind of humorous assault or act of ridicule, whether deserved or not (for instance, if they suffered a prattfall or were pushed and then ridiculed), and every kind of politically or sexually inappropriate insult. The humor in all these things is never the benign violation that also describes the situation, but always something else. So for example an insult may fail as humor because it is far too insulting, but to tone down the level of malice and insult doesn't constitute the humor, it just observing a negative condition, a condition of what must not be present. Toning down the insult and its violation removes what is preventing the insult from being inherently funny, which it is because it points to a sense of self-deception in the one who is being insulted.
Benign violation is too general to be specifically a theory of humor, not only not describing the essence, but not even very effective as prescriptive or instructive, either. It does not apply meaningfully in all cases, and does not apply always in the same way, these are indications that the theory is a hoax.
Do we perhaps give Simon and Schuster the benefit of the doubt? A press could be attracted to such a hoax, maybe not because they're incompetent, but because they are clever. They might know that deep down people want to be fooled and duped -- really because that is funny and they want to laugh at themselves. But I doubt this, rather, this is incompetence.
April 2, 2021
An interesting look into not just jokes but the societal impact Humor can have in shaping our world. I found this book most valuable not in its ability to tell you how to be funny but in its ability to show how comedy is a societal glue. Humor is a laxative for the emotions of hard times. Humor, while not great for discussion of serious matters, is "like a thermometer, not a thermostat" in helping get a pulse on society, its emotions, and its boundaries. And if you're doing it right, toying with the boundaries is how you figure out where they are.
July 1, 2018
A book on humor is a bit dry.
December 9, 2019
I may come back to it another time, but I though I found the topic interesting the way the book was written didn't grab me. I got about halfway through before putting it down.
May 15, 2017
A bit unfocused, and not as entirely scientific as I had hoped, but it's an entertaining read with some great bits of analysis concerning comedy, humor, and laughter.
April 5, 2018
The theory behind The Humor Code is that benign "moral violations" are funny. The example that he gave that set the author off on his research was about a church giving away a hummer which made the class he was teaching laugh. The example was supposed to cause disgust so one student asked why they were laughing instead. He didn't know and now we have this book where you can fall asleep -- I mean find out. Because as interesting as the ideas and travel stories are, I've never read such a dry and boring book about humor.
Right from the introduction, the author mentions books that came before him to explore humor. One that he mentions is called "Leviathan or Matter, Forme, and Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil" that was published in 1651. We must have very different definitions on what humor is because that book sounds dull. Later in the book he even says that "Nobody liked [Peter Sellers] anywhere (pg 98)." Aw sad :( I liked Peter Sellers. Even though I didn't find this book funny at all, there are some things I liked about The Humor Code.
After getting tired of reading so much about humor but not laughing, I would get on YouTube after reading a chapter and try to apply his theory of benign violation to stand-up comedians. It's definitely a new way to see humor that I hadn't thought about before. The definition of the benign violation theory is "when something seems wrong, unsettling or threatening (i.e., a violation), but simultaneously seems okay, acceptable, or safe (i.e., benign). (pg 9)" He gives two strategies for applying this kind of humor. The first one is the Sarah Silverman strategy which makes shocking things like AIDS seem more harmless. The second on is the Seinfeld strategy which points out what is wrong with everyday things that we've accepted as harmless. Sometimes I could see this strategy in the YouTube videos I watched and sometimes I couldn't. Either way, I enjoyed being a little more analytical of why things are funny.
Writing humor is odd. Comedians work really hard to get a subconscious response from people. The author describes writing humor as "if the point of the Sistine Chapel ceiling were to get the Pope to sneeze. (pg 42)" Not an example I would have used, but ok. Point taken.
Here are some vague and random tips on how to be funny:
Fuse two frames of reference that have nothing to do with each other
Be clever so you can have lots of frames of reference to work with
I found the chapters on the dark side of humor and the ability of humor to undermine power structures really interesting. I was disappointed in the chapter about Japanese humor which explained absolutely nothing about it other than it's the kind of humor you have to be there to get. The author really didn't need an entire long and tedious chapter to tell us that. I also didn't see the point of the extremely awkward and short interview with Louis CK. And the chapter about finding the laughing disease in Africa that they never actually found made my entire book club mad. The consensus from my book club was that it would have made a great TED talk or podcast episode but it was pretty boring as a book.
Right from the introduction, the author mentions books that came before him to explore humor. One that he mentions is called "Leviathan or Matter, Forme, and Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil" that was published in 1651. We must have very different definitions on what humor is because that book sounds dull. Later in the book he even says that "Nobody liked [Peter Sellers] anywhere (pg 98)." Aw sad :( I liked Peter Sellers. Even though I didn't find this book funny at all, there are some things I liked about The Humor Code.
After getting tired of reading so much about humor but not laughing, I would get on YouTube after reading a chapter and try to apply his theory of benign violation to stand-up comedians. It's definitely a new way to see humor that I hadn't thought about before. The definition of the benign violation theory is "when something seems wrong, unsettling or threatening (i.e., a violation), but simultaneously seems okay, acceptable, or safe (i.e., benign). (pg 9)" He gives two strategies for applying this kind of humor. The first one is the Sarah Silverman strategy which makes shocking things like AIDS seem more harmless. The second on is the Seinfeld strategy which points out what is wrong with everyday things that we've accepted as harmless. Sometimes I could see this strategy in the YouTube videos I watched and sometimes I couldn't. Either way, I enjoyed being a little more analytical of why things are funny.
Writing humor is odd. Comedians work really hard to get a subconscious response from people. The author describes writing humor as "if the point of the Sistine Chapel ceiling were to get the Pope to sneeze. (pg 42)" Not an example I would have used, but ok. Point taken.
Here are some vague and random tips on how to be funny:
Fuse two frames of reference that have nothing to do with each other
Be clever so you can have lots of frames of reference to work with
I found the chapters on the dark side of humor and the ability of humor to undermine power structures really interesting. I was disappointed in the chapter about Japanese humor which explained absolutely nothing about it other than it's the kind of humor you have to be there to get. The author really didn't need an entire long and tedious chapter to tell us that. I also didn't see the point of the extremely awkward and short interview with Louis CK. And the chapter about finding the laughing disease in Africa that they never actually found made my entire book club mad. The consensus from my book club was that it would have made a great TED talk or podcast episode but it was pretty boring as a book.
August 19, 2014
Eh.
I read this book, I believe, on the recommendation of Howard Tayler of Schlock Mercenary and Writing Excuses. No blame to him for his review; I can see why he likes it. It was an easy read, and entertaining enough, and the core idea is sort of interesting but ultimately disappointing.
The core idea is the "benign violation theory" of humor: things which are funny are at the intersection of things that are benign, and those that are violations of... uh... something? Expectations, mores, safety, I dunno. All of the above. Violatey things. So, when an anvil falls on your head, it isn't funny, because it isn't benign; but when it falls on the Roadrunner's head, it is (or it would be if we weren't all used to falling anvils by now.)
This is a nice enough metaphor, and possibly useful as a way of brainstorming funny things. But it's the sort of theory that can't fail, it can only be failed. Is something funny? Then the authors will find a way to explain why the theory would have predicted that, even if their logic gets kind of stretched. Is something not funny? Again, if you give them enough words, they can make an argument that the theory would have predicted that too.
I would have liked a book that had a lot more on different theories and their failings and successes and comparative strengths and weaknesses.
I read this book, I believe, on the recommendation of Howard Tayler of Schlock Mercenary and Writing Excuses. No blame to him for his review; I can see why he likes it. It was an easy read, and entertaining enough, and the core idea is sort of interesting but ultimately disappointing.
The core idea is the "benign violation theory" of humor: things which are funny are at the intersection of things that are benign, and those that are violations of... uh... something? Expectations, mores, safety, I dunno. All of the above. Violatey things. So, when an anvil falls on your head, it isn't funny, because it isn't benign; but when it falls on the Roadrunner's head, it is (or it would be if we weren't all used to falling anvils by now.)
This is a nice enough metaphor, and possibly useful as a way of brainstorming funny things. But it's the sort of theory that can't fail, it can only be failed. Is something funny? Then the authors will find a way to explain why the theory would have predicted that, even if their logic gets kind of stretched. Is something not funny? Again, if you give them enough words, they can make an argument that the theory would have predicted that too.
I would have liked a book that had a lot more on different theories and their failings and successes and comparative strengths and weaknesses.
June 24, 2014
(click the image below to watch the video review)
I’ve read a lot of comedy studies books. Well, three, but that’s a lot compared to most people, because most people aren’t sadists.
Luckily, this book isn’t like most humor studies books. This one is readable. It’s interesting. It actually contributes to an overall better understanding of, wait for it, what makes things funny (appropriate subtitles are all the rage right now).
I’ve read a lot of comedy studies books. Well, three, but that’s a lot compared to most people, because most people aren’t sadists.
Luckily, this book isn’t like most humor studies books. This one is readable. It’s interesting. It actually contributes to an overall better understanding of, wait for it, what makes things funny (appropriate subtitles are all the rage right now).
June 13, 2014
A mildly entertaining tour through the humor business including the academic theories that try to dissect comedy to see what really makes it work. The twist on the theory of humor as researched by the academic co author Pete McGraw amounts to successful comedy relying on the idea of a benign violation of norms. Hmmm....I wasn't sold on this and the theory's strength isn't seriously tested but rather brought up very now and then somewhat incidentally to measure up against all the unusual comedic situations that the authors expose themselves to in the course of their travels. They explore Palestine, Tanzania, Peru and elsewhere in the course of the book and it is an entertaining ride. This is down to the main writer of the book co author Joel Warner who has crafted a carefully constructed tale from it all. Oddly enough humor researcher Dr McGraw comes across as a bit of a square and all his attempts at humor recorded by Warner in the book fall dully flat.
June 20, 2014
Peter McGraw and Joel Warner decided to study what makes something funny. In Pete's words:
“Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process.”
So there wasn't any laughter while listening to this audiobook, and often times it was slow going. However, humor has fascinated me because I love things that are funny, but most of what gets termed "humor" is just stupid to me.
I completely agree with what Joel said:
“Most experts today subscribe to some variations of the incongruity theory, the idea that humor arises when people discover there's an inconsistency between what they expect to happen and what actually happens. Or, as seventeenth-century French philosopher Blaise Pascal put it when he first came up with the concept, "Nothing produces laughter more than a surprising disproportion between that which one expects and that which one sees.”
That said, I don't need to be hit over the head with an inappropriate disproportion!
“Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process.”
So there wasn't any laughter while listening to this audiobook, and often times it was slow going. However, humor has fascinated me because I love things that are funny, but most of what gets termed "humor" is just stupid to me.
I completely agree with what Joel said:
“Most experts today subscribe to some variations of the incongruity theory, the idea that humor arises when people discover there's an inconsistency between what they expect to happen and what actually happens. Or, as seventeenth-century French philosopher Blaise Pascal put it when he first came up with the concept, "Nothing produces laughter more than a surprising disproportion between that which one expects and that which one sees.”
That said, I don't need to be hit over the head with an inappropriate disproportion!
July 11, 2014
Hi so I've read a lot of other comedy books and they felt kind of biased one way or another to stand up. They talked about all the trials and tribulations of doing stand up. I absolutely LOVED this book because the two men (who are not professional comedians by the way) went to five continents and had a very objective point of view about what makes things funny. I would give this book 6 or 7 stars out of 5 if I could because I just thought it was so well researched and offered some very good pointers on how to be funny, and how humor incorporates into our lives. I've taken a lot of comedy classes and loved how they went into all the different kinds of comedy, ie cartoons, improv, stand up, as well as clowning, and other rituals in other countries. LOVED IT!!
December 7, 2013
After reading the description, I was concerned that this would be a buddy-travel book full of shenanigans and fart jokes, but it's not. This is a rigorous examination of humor from political, cultural, psychological and entertainment/art perspectives -- as told through a travel/journey of discovery narrative, so the "science" doesn't get overwhelmingly wonky. And when there are fart jokes and antics, it's entertaining and appropriate. A pleasurable, easy read that leaves you well-informed about all things humor along the way.
August 2, 2014
This book provides some interesting insight into what makes things funny. I like how the author describes their travels across the world trying to understand how different cultures impact humor.
Also liked how they did a lot of comparative analysis of existing theories around humor and how they tried to test their own theory in real world situations. The authors clearly did a lot of groundwork and while the findings aren't really groundbreaking or compelling, they make for an interesting read. The narrative itself is light and humorous in parts.
Also liked how they did a lot of comparative analysis of existing theories around humor and how they tried to test their own theory in real world situations. The authors clearly did a lot of groundwork and while the findings aren't really groundbreaking or compelling, they make for an interesting read. The narrative itself is light and humorous in parts.
November 29, 2018
tl;dr - benign violation
A light read talking about the science of humor, following the authors through a year long road trip where they deconstruct what makes things funny. It's like the Hope and Crosby series of road pictures, but focused on the how of jokes instead of the joke itself. Needless to say, "Road to Morocco" is funnier than "Chapter 7: Palestine, can you find humor where you least expect it" but their insights and their stories are good, and worth listening to.
A light read talking about the science of humor, following the authors through a year long road trip where they deconstruct what makes things funny. It's like the Hope and Crosby series of road pictures, but focused on the how of jokes instead of the joke itself. Needless to say, "Road to Morocco" is funnier than "Chapter 7: Palestine, can you find humor where you least expect it" but their insights and their stories are good, and worth listening to.
February 22, 2021
This book had such an interesting premise and I had high hopes from it. I was hoping to learn more about the art of humour. To become better sadly. Sadly the book was a huge disappointment. I gave up after 4 chapters and couldn’t finish. There was nothing I learnt about the art of humour. The writers debated the definition of humour and digressed randomly. Still looking for a good book on the subject.
March 5, 2019
This guy's review nailed it. https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Too much of a travelogue and not enough devoted to the subject of figuring out if there is something that is funny universally. I tend to think not since cultures are so different, but since humor is so important in our lives that I was willing to give the author's a listen.
Too much of a travelogue and not enough devoted to the subject of figuring out if there is something that is funny universally. I tend to think not since cultures are so different, but since humor is so important in our lives that I was willing to give the author's a listen.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 182 reviews