What do you think?
Rate this book
Take My Course, Please! The Philosophy of Humor
In recent decades, the philosophy of humor has been recognized as a legitimate subfield of philosophy. The reason for this? Because to understand how humor works is to better understand the nature of human experience.
In these 24 insightful, informative, illuminating, and (yes) humorous lectures, explore the philosophical theories and explanations of humor, from blatantly obvious puns to complex narratives to sly twists of language. Rooted in analytic philosophy, the natural and social sciences, and the observations of thinkers ranging from Aristotle and Jonathan Swift to Sigmund Freud and Robert Latta, these lectures will leave you with a stronger appreciation of the jokes you tell and the jokes you hear.
You’ll ponder the possible universality of humor in history and culture, the debate over humor’s objectivity or subjectivity, and the complex relationship between humor and tragedy. You’ll also unpack each of the six existing theories of humor, including the superiority theory (in which to joke is to mock and put someone beneath your level) and play theory (in which humor is a species of the phenomenon of play).
You don’t need a philosophy degree to explore the philosophy of humor. All you need is an open mind. (A funny bone or two helps as well.)
PLEASE When you purchase this title, the accompanying PDF will be available in your Audible Library along with the audio.
In these 24 insightful, informative, illuminating, and (yes) humorous lectures, explore the philosophical theories and explanations of humor, from blatantly obvious puns to complex narratives to sly twists of language. Rooted in analytic philosophy, the natural and social sciences, and the observations of thinkers ranging from Aristotle and Jonathan Swift to Sigmund Freud and Robert Latta, these lectures will leave you with a stronger appreciation of the jokes you tell and the jokes you hear.
You’ll ponder the possible universality of humor in history and culture, the debate over humor’s objectivity or subjectivity, and the complex relationship between humor and tragedy. You’ll also unpack each of the six existing theories of humor, including the superiority theory (in which to joke is to mock and put someone beneath your level) and play theory (in which humor is a species of the phenomenon of play).
You don’t need a philosophy degree to explore the philosophy of humor. All you need is an open mind. (A funny bone or two helps as well.)
PLEASE When you purchase this title, the accompanying PDF will be available in your Audible Library along with the audio.
12 pages, Audible Audio
Published November 9, 2018
7 people are currently reading
70 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
March 26, 2021
The philosophy of humour, it turns out, is a novel and deeply energised field of philosophical thought. Steven Gimbel’s erudite and–yes, funny–account of this area was a joy to read and listen to; from his extensive examination of the six leading theories of humour to a number of ethical questions very much relevant to our own present, Gimbel brought an endless supply of fascinating questions about the role humour plays in our present, past, and future to the fore. Structured in an accessible and clear way, each of the twenty-four lessons was gripping and not a one of them failed to draw at least a chuckle from me.
To those of you who dislike dad jokes, however, might I recommend you TURN AWAY AND SHIELD YOUR EYES, YOU POOR, INNOCENT SUMMER-CHILD!
It’s very much an entry-level course; don’t expect it to be something different. Gimbel drives home the point that “seeing how the sausage gets made” does not diminish the enjoyment you might draw from humour and making jokes; rather, it amplifies the process, offers insight, and no end of further reading for all you nuts who can’t get enough of unravelling the mysteries of humour. My only regret is, I couldn’t experience Gimbel’s teaching first-hand–he sounds an absolute lark!
To those of you who dislike dad jokes, however, might I recommend you TURN AWAY AND SHIELD YOUR EYES, YOU POOR, INNOCENT SUMMER-CHILD!
It’s very much an entry-level course; don’t expect it to be something different. Gimbel drives home the point that “seeing how the sausage gets made” does not diminish the enjoyment you might draw from humour and making jokes; rather, it amplifies the process, offers insight, and no end of further reading for all you nuts who can’t get enough of unravelling the mysteries of humour. My only regret is, I couldn’t experience Gimbel’s teaching first-hand–he sounds an absolute lark!
April 5, 2022
Comment, comment, comment!
Steven Gimbel is very, very knowledgeable about philosophy, He has read deeply in philosophical works, as well as social science and psychological works, concerning humor. What makes us laugh? What accounts for the experience of humor? Are there jokes that cannot be told? Are there jokes that should not be told? Are there jokes that some people should not tell? And so on.
As a reader, writer, and speaker, I found the most useful parts of this course the suggestions on what makes some statement humorous. This analysis can be very helpful in discovering why a given joke succeeded or failed, and can enable one to improve humorous writing.
Jokes are only the very short form of humorous writing and speech. The same principles may apply to short stories, essays, speeches, novels, plays, and movies. The Incongruity Theory teaches us that humor arises when there is a sudden, and unexpected, turn in the story. Spend the first part of your story building certain expectations in your audience, and then conclude with a totally unexpected ending. Shazam! You have a funny story.
Steven Gimbel is very, very knowledgeable about philosophy, He has read deeply in philosophical works, as well as social science and psychological works, concerning humor. What makes us laugh? What accounts for the experience of humor? Are there jokes that cannot be told? Are there jokes that should not be told? Are there jokes that some people should not tell? And so on.
As a reader, writer, and speaker, I found the most useful parts of this course the suggestions on what makes some statement humorous. This analysis can be very helpful in discovering why a given joke succeeded or failed, and can enable one to improve humorous writing.
Jokes are only the very short form of humorous writing and speech. The same principles may apply to short stories, essays, speeches, novels, plays, and movies. The Incongruity Theory teaches us that humor arises when there is a sudden, and unexpected, turn in the story. Spend the first part of your story building certain expectations in your audience, and then conclude with a totally unexpected ending. Shazam! You have a funny story.
April 17, 2023
A neat little introduction to the field of humor philosophy. I would not commend it someone who would like to dig deeper into the answers of the major research questions, but this is most often the case with audiobooks in general. Although generally superficial and at times digressive and excessive (e.g. when depicting theories of truth), Gimbel is a highly sympathetic and competent lecturerer, providing jokes at the beginning of every lecture for an occasional laugh.
My notes
Is humor objective or subjective?
- According to Gimbel, humor is an objective phenomenon because there is a fact about the matter whether something fulfils the criteria of a definition of humor or not about which one can disagree. Humor is not funniness which most likely is subjective.
- The rational argument test: whether something is subjective, can be tested by trying to change the item of investigation by rational argument. Is it possible? Then it is objective. If not, then not.
What is the relation between truth and humor?
- Jokes do not resemble the truth. Rather they contain an element of truth that is approximated by a simplified model of reality.
- Very often a joke is funny because it contains an element of truth.
What is the relation between humor, comedy and tragedy?
- Tragedy depicts human hardship, heroe, virtues, obstacles, difficulty. A fictional representation of human perfection, not being able to grow, he perseveres.
->Contemporary action movies depict tragedy without the tragic: the heroes are faced with a problem no one can solve, but solved it anyway with their brute force of will; instead of dying, they save the day; they are rewarded for their hubris, not punished; we can be gods is the message
- Comedy
-> no hero, but common people; a clown, a fool, or a caricature
-> they fail spectacularly
-> depicts humanity’s flaws
-> laughter is effaced by the hero being different, the difference residing in his deception, lying himself or being mistaken
-> laughter can also be effaced by the hero being like something or someone by imitation
-> Comedy has happy endings, the comic figure doing something absurd, but ending up “being effective in helping a flawed individual overcome a major hurdle” The comic figure is creative and adaptive.”
-> comedy encourages the individual to be rational, critical and adaptive (John Morreal from Comic Relief: A Comprehensive Philosophy of Humour)
- Comedy and humor develop out of tragedy.
-> “Comedy and Tragedy are not distinct in content, just in how they allow the audience to view the tragic content of life” (29)
->> “Comedy emerges from the choice not to see the tragic as tragic but as absurd. We view ourselves as rediculous figures not as tragic ones.”
->> “Dont worry about making a fool of yourself. It will happen soon enough.”, expressing the sentiment that life is inevitably suffering. So, why worsening it by worrying about it instead of taking it lightheartedly, i.e. with humor?
->> “If you stop worrying about being rediculous and embrace it, you free yourselves from artificial social constraints, allowing you the space to become more fully yourself”
->> Tragedy activates the deep, ancient brain. Comedy activates multiple regions of the higher brain. Just as humor involves creativity, the comic figure needs to be creative in order to solve his problem.
-> Comedy is tragedy plus time.
->> How soon is too soon to laugh about a tragic event? Different positions. Some say, its never too soon to joke because it aids the healing process by creating distance between oneself and the tragic event, others say one ought to pay respect by taking the tragic seriously.
Where is the humor in satires, parodies and spoofs?
- Satire
-> In the first, greek sense, the term is derived from the mythological creature of Satyrs, who have largely human bodies but a tail of a horse and similarly horse-like ears. They are the companions of Dionysus, the greek god of wine. They were infamous for their insatiable pursuit of bodily pleasure with women. Satyur plays made fun of prominent figures in local life, a “rowdy, bawdy” behavior that would never have been appropriate outside of a celebration of Dionysus.
-> In the second, roman sense, developed by thinkers such as Horace and Juvanel, the term refers to a work of fiction, relates to real life, is intended to be humorous, and points out flaws. Thus, satire is a tool to expose aspects of society that need fixing, and so a moral activity.
->> Example of British satire: A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift
-> A danger of satire arises from parody. A character can be too authentic such that the allusions to real life, aimed at making fun of prominent people, get lost.
- Differences between Satire, Parody and Spoofs
-> parody: a form of humor based on imitation, intentionally adopting the style of its target; purely formal, i,e. containing no moral element
-> Satires: a parody of politically relevant events motivated to efface political change by ridicule
-> Spoof: a subcategory of parodies; a parody of artworks motivated to express love and admiration (e.g. Tarantino’s Kill Bill); they can be satirical (e.g. Tarantino hints at blaxploitation films and the attractiveness of meaningless violence in film noir)
What is irony?
- most common usage: coincidence or synchronicity. Something is ironic, on this definition, if a desired goal is served or foiled by a happening that involved no intentional action on the part of the person whose goals are served or foiled by it.
- classical meaning: what appears to be true turns out not to be such that one learns how things really are; one reasonable, but false interpretation among many possible interpretations which gets corrected later on
- Socrates employed irony in a non-humoral way
- Irony in Greek theater: a human acts rationally given the limited amount of information he has under the circumstances, but the truth, always known by the gods, later exposes the falsity of his acts. His mistakes make for the comedy or the tragedy.
- Ironic humor deals with a flawed human who acts irrationally
- Postmodern Irony: there is no longer *****the***** truth to be exposed through falsity, but only individual beliefs (interpretations), the ironic 20th century twist being that there never was any truth to be exposed
- Modern ironic humor points to the meaninglessness of life (e.g. Seinfeld).
What are the theories of humor?
- Play theory
- Incongruity theory
- Relief theory
- Superiority theory
- Inferiority Theory (Robert Solomon): “Humor results when a person placed in a position of superiority acts in such a way as to knowingly bring himself down to the level of the audience with a mistake presented in order to inspire empathy or connection.” (67) This empathy is based on an understanding of one’s shared human condition: the suffering of life. An existentialist stance. That is why the Three Stooges are funny.
- Cleverness theory: “humor is an intentional, conspicous act of playful cleverness”, emphasising its creative element
Who can tell ethnic jokes?
- argument of universal impermissibility view: ethnic jokes entrench stereotypes. Recognising non-bona-fide communication, people do not critically reflect on the joke’s content and therefore risk to learn bias.
- arguments of universal permissibility views:
-> meaninglessness position (utilitarian): ethnic jokes are meaningless; they are just fictions, just demonstrating the absurd (or flaws) and audiences know that
-> positive political view (utilitarian): ethnic jokes play a crucial role in the organisation of society; comedians speak truth to power, thereby highlighting flaws in society by ridiculing them
-> positive sociological view (care-based): ethnic jokes are a social signal that the ridiculed group has been assimilated and accepted
-> Raskin: Jokes are non-bona-fide communication, i.e. they are not intended to convey true beliefs and ideas. So, comedians can say whatever they want.
-> Roseanne Barr: By attending a comedy show, people implicity agree to a social contract which allows offensive jokes (rights-based approach).
- limited permissibility views: Comedians should make jokes, but they should not cross all boundaries (duty-based approach).
-> only if the teller of the joke is member of the ridicules group (group-identity view, rights-based)
-> only if the teller is in a socially inferior position, possessing less power, wealth and control than the ridiculed ethnicity (rights-based)
-> only if the joke is funny. The more offensive it is, the funnier it has to be.
Does the funniness of a job depend on its moral element?
- Comic Moralism: field in which philosophers are concerned with whether jokes’s funniness depends on their immorality. Four stances: immorality decreases funniness, immorality increases funniness, immorality and funniness are independent (structure not content determines funniness).
What are the mechanisms of humor?
Jokes are based on six knowledge resources (Raskin)
- script opposition: invoking one script at first, but then switching to another, e.g. by word ambiguity
- logic: faulty logic, figure/ground reversal, faulty analogy
-> e.g. absurdity, accident, definitions, eccentricity, exaggeration, grotesque, ignorance, impersonation, insults, (irony?), mistakes, stereotypes (Arthur Asa Berger)
- situation: setup
- target: what or who is the butt of the joke?
- narrative strategy: one-liner, setup/punch-line joke or a riddle
- language: word choices
My notes
Is humor objective or subjective?
- According to Gimbel, humor is an objective phenomenon because there is a fact about the matter whether something fulfils the criteria of a definition of humor or not about which one can disagree. Humor is not funniness which most likely is subjective.
- The rational argument test: whether something is subjective, can be tested by trying to change the item of investigation by rational argument. Is it possible? Then it is objective. If not, then not.
What is the relation between truth and humor?
- Jokes do not resemble the truth. Rather they contain an element of truth that is approximated by a simplified model of reality.
- Very often a joke is funny because it contains an element of truth.
What is the relation between humor, comedy and tragedy?
- Tragedy depicts human hardship, heroe, virtues, obstacles, difficulty. A fictional representation of human perfection, not being able to grow, he perseveres.
->Contemporary action movies depict tragedy without the tragic: the heroes are faced with a problem no one can solve, but solved it anyway with their brute force of will; instead of dying, they save the day; they are rewarded for their hubris, not punished; we can be gods is the message
- Comedy
-> no hero, but common people; a clown, a fool, or a caricature
-> they fail spectacularly
-> depicts humanity’s flaws
-> laughter is effaced by the hero being different, the difference residing in his deception, lying himself or being mistaken
-> laughter can also be effaced by the hero being like something or someone by imitation
-> Comedy has happy endings, the comic figure doing something absurd, but ending up “being effective in helping a flawed individual overcome a major hurdle” The comic figure is creative and adaptive.”
-> comedy encourages the individual to be rational, critical and adaptive (John Morreal from Comic Relief: A Comprehensive Philosophy of Humour)
- Comedy and humor develop out of tragedy.
-> “Comedy and Tragedy are not distinct in content, just in how they allow the audience to view the tragic content of life” (29)
->> “Comedy emerges from the choice not to see the tragic as tragic but as absurd. We view ourselves as rediculous figures not as tragic ones.”
->> “Dont worry about making a fool of yourself. It will happen soon enough.”, expressing the sentiment that life is inevitably suffering. So, why worsening it by worrying about it instead of taking it lightheartedly, i.e. with humor?
->> “If you stop worrying about being rediculous and embrace it, you free yourselves from artificial social constraints, allowing you the space to become more fully yourself”
->> Tragedy activates the deep, ancient brain. Comedy activates multiple regions of the higher brain. Just as humor involves creativity, the comic figure needs to be creative in order to solve his problem.
-> Comedy is tragedy plus time.
->> How soon is too soon to laugh about a tragic event? Different positions. Some say, its never too soon to joke because it aids the healing process by creating distance between oneself and the tragic event, others say one ought to pay respect by taking the tragic seriously.
Where is the humor in satires, parodies and spoofs?
- Satire
-> In the first, greek sense, the term is derived from the mythological creature of Satyrs, who have largely human bodies but a tail of a horse and similarly horse-like ears. They are the companions of Dionysus, the greek god of wine. They were infamous for their insatiable pursuit of bodily pleasure with women. Satyur plays made fun of prominent figures in local life, a “rowdy, bawdy” behavior that would never have been appropriate outside of a celebration of Dionysus.
-> In the second, roman sense, developed by thinkers such as Horace and Juvanel, the term refers to a work of fiction, relates to real life, is intended to be humorous, and points out flaws. Thus, satire is a tool to expose aspects of society that need fixing, and so a moral activity.
->> Example of British satire: A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift
-> A danger of satire arises from parody. A character can be too authentic such that the allusions to real life, aimed at making fun of prominent people, get lost.
- Differences between Satire, Parody and Spoofs
-> parody: a form of humor based on imitation, intentionally adopting the style of its target; purely formal, i,e. containing no moral element
-> Satires: a parody of politically relevant events motivated to efface political change by ridicule
-> Spoof: a subcategory of parodies; a parody of artworks motivated to express love and admiration (e.g. Tarantino’s Kill Bill); they can be satirical (e.g. Tarantino hints at blaxploitation films and the attractiveness of meaningless violence in film noir)
What is irony?
- most common usage: coincidence or synchronicity. Something is ironic, on this definition, if a desired goal is served or foiled by a happening that involved no intentional action on the part of the person whose goals are served or foiled by it.
- classical meaning: what appears to be true turns out not to be such that one learns how things really are; one reasonable, but false interpretation among many possible interpretations which gets corrected later on
- Socrates employed irony in a non-humoral way
- Irony in Greek theater: a human acts rationally given the limited amount of information he has under the circumstances, but the truth, always known by the gods, later exposes the falsity of his acts. His mistakes make for the comedy or the tragedy.
- Ironic humor deals with a flawed human who acts irrationally
- Postmodern Irony: there is no longer *****the***** truth to be exposed through falsity, but only individual beliefs (interpretations), the ironic 20th century twist being that there never was any truth to be exposed
- Modern ironic humor points to the meaninglessness of life (e.g. Seinfeld).
What are the theories of humor?
- Play theory
- Incongruity theory
- Relief theory
- Superiority theory
- Inferiority Theory (Robert Solomon): “Humor results when a person placed in a position of superiority acts in such a way as to knowingly bring himself down to the level of the audience with a mistake presented in order to inspire empathy or connection.” (67) This empathy is based on an understanding of one’s shared human condition: the suffering of life. An existentialist stance. That is why the Three Stooges are funny.
- Cleverness theory: “humor is an intentional, conspicous act of playful cleverness”, emphasising its creative element
Who can tell ethnic jokes?
- argument of universal impermissibility view: ethnic jokes entrench stereotypes. Recognising non-bona-fide communication, people do not critically reflect on the joke’s content and therefore risk to learn bias.
- arguments of universal permissibility views:
-> meaninglessness position (utilitarian): ethnic jokes are meaningless; they are just fictions, just demonstrating the absurd (or flaws) and audiences know that
-> positive political view (utilitarian): ethnic jokes play a crucial role in the organisation of society; comedians speak truth to power, thereby highlighting flaws in society by ridiculing them
-> positive sociological view (care-based): ethnic jokes are a social signal that the ridiculed group has been assimilated and accepted
-> Raskin: Jokes are non-bona-fide communication, i.e. they are not intended to convey true beliefs and ideas. So, comedians can say whatever they want.
-> Roseanne Barr: By attending a comedy show, people implicity agree to a social contract which allows offensive jokes (rights-based approach).
- limited permissibility views: Comedians should make jokes, but they should not cross all boundaries (duty-based approach).
-> only if the teller of the joke is member of the ridicules group (group-identity view, rights-based)
-> only if the teller is in a socially inferior position, possessing less power, wealth and control than the ridiculed ethnicity (rights-based)
-> only if the joke is funny. The more offensive it is, the funnier it has to be.
Does the funniness of a job depend on its moral element?
- Comic Moralism: field in which philosophers are concerned with whether jokes’s funniness depends on their immorality. Four stances: immorality decreases funniness, immorality increases funniness, immorality and funniness are independent (structure not content determines funniness).
What are the mechanisms of humor?
Jokes are based on six knowledge resources (Raskin)
- script opposition: invoking one script at first, but then switching to another, e.g. by word ambiguity
- logic: faulty logic, figure/ground reversal, faulty analogy
-> e.g. absurdity, accident, definitions, eccentricity, exaggeration, grotesque, ignorance, impersonation, insults, (irony?), mistakes, stereotypes (Arthur Asa Berger)
- situation: setup
- target: what or who is the butt of the joke?
- narrative strategy: one-liner, setup/punch-line joke or a riddle
- language: word choices
March 7, 2023
Gimbel is an excellent lecturer, frankly one of the best.
I started college doing quite well in Formal Logic and Epistemology but discovered I wasn't mature enough to handle either Political Philosophy or Ethics and Morals so I became an Engineer (micro-politics was still unavoidable but no need for morals or ethics ;-). This is relevant because this course ends strongly with a compelling series of lectures on Ethics and I found my, more mature self, able to tap into Ethics in a formal, meaningful way. Through this process I have reflected on previous questionable "jokes" I've made and have been able to understand analytically whether in hind sight they should have been told. The frameworks provided in these lectures are applicable in real life, my favorite type of Philosophy!
The History of Philosophy is sampled through this series because, as it turns out, many Ancient, Continental, and other Philosophers had/have something to say about Humor; so one gets a glimpse of what many of History's Philosophers were "about"; I am anticipating revisiting those Philosophers with a little more understanding of who they were from what I learned about them from their views on Humor in this course.
I've already started the Great Questions Physics and Philosophy series, another Gimbel.
I started college doing quite well in Formal Logic and Epistemology but discovered I wasn't mature enough to handle either Political Philosophy or Ethics and Morals so I became an Engineer (micro-politics was still unavoidable but no need for morals or ethics ;-). This is relevant because this course ends strongly with a compelling series of lectures on Ethics and I found my, more mature self, able to tap into Ethics in a formal, meaningful way. Through this process I have reflected on previous questionable "jokes" I've made and have been able to understand analytically whether in hind sight they should have been told. The frameworks provided in these lectures are applicable in real life, my favorite type of Philosophy!
The History of Philosophy is sampled through this series because, as it turns out, many Ancient, Continental, and other Philosophers had/have something to say about Humor; so one gets a glimpse of what many of History's Philosophers were "about"; I am anticipating revisiting those Philosophers with a little more understanding of who they were from what I learned about them from their views on Humor in this course.
I've already started the Great Questions Physics and Philosophy series, another Gimbel.
June 26, 2022
In 2018 The Teaching Company released Prof Steven Gimbel’s 24 lectures on the philosophy of humor. The course title is “Take My Course, Please.” Gimbel is Chair of The Gettysburg University’s Philosophy Department where he also serves as a distinguished professor. He is an author of many books related to the philosophy of humor; the principles of space in relationship to time and motion; and physics at the intersection of politics and religion. His Teaching Company lectures are captivating and laced with funny jokes as well as profound observations about mental/physical health, social imperatives, and ethical principles associated with morality and social values. The 24 lectures are 11.5 hours long and the 152 page guide book is well written and includes 144 pictures and images. His course guidebook also has an excellent bibliography. (L)
December 10, 2021
This was an interesting overview of the roles humour plays in society, it's ethical implications, and the various perspectives of the general theory of what makes us laugh, including one of the author's. However, what it's lacking is practical engagement with the content. It doesn't really attempt to you equip you with skills for applying the philosophies to bettering your understanding of how to use humour in certain social contexts. It remains purely abstract, although interesting, which means quite forgettable.
January 5, 2025
This is a pretty good analysis of humor, but like explaining a joke, it isn't all that funny. I was once a member of an improvisational comedy group and a professional clown. How and why humor works is interesting to me.
October 6, 2020
Very interesting series of lectures on the philosophy and study if humour.
December 1, 2020
Interesting and concise take on different philosophical views on humour, far from being exhausting it is though an enjoyable reading
January 27, 2021
Something as simple as humor, can have behind it a heap of knowledge.
This course does exactly that and explains how a joke was, is and will affect the world around it.
This course does exactly that and explains how a joke was, is and will affect the world around it.
June 14, 2021
An interesting series of lectures on the philosophy of humor and the ethical responsibilities of comedians.
February 15, 2023
Too much modern philosophy, too little humor
January 14, 2024
It's a fairly entertaining read. Some history, some theory, some philosophy. Jokes aren't so good, though :)
July 26, 2024
I enjoyed the course, not just for its humour, but also for its simplicity. It felt like a breeze, effortlessly guiding me through the material.
November 13, 2020
Steven Gimbel did a great job delivering an easy to follow, playful and very informative account of what different schools of thought in this subject matter are.
Great educator!
Great educator!
December 21, 2018
It's a great survey of the various schools of thought on humor, from Plato to the author's own theory. But it didn't go deeper than overview. And he deliberately avoids taking a position on almost every view. So, in the end, it didn't give have enough detail to master any element or enough clarity to select a general view of humor.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews