“A moment whiltht I adjutht my accoutrementh.”

In Dripalong Daffy, the immortal D. Duck sports a grotesquely outsized pair of chaps with two gun holsters attached. Fast-drawing his shootin’ arns, he rips off the chaps, exposing his boisterous undershorts. His next line is the title of this post.

That’s what I’m doing with this brand-new blog. Though the WordPress design system is as easy to use as advertised, I’m still lip-reading my way through it. Stay tuned for further electrifying improvements over the next few days (assuming you haven’t got a life). I promised some simple word definitions to be used in this blog, but I’m trying to figure out how to stuff them up the left-hand column, so they’ll stick around instead of sinking into the compost of aging epistles.

Meanwhile, how about embarrassment? Why is it so funny to some people and so painful to others (like me)? The audience all around me is creasing itself with laughter at the humiliation of some poor schlub on the screen, while I close my eyes and hum Rock of Ages to handle my acute physical response to this torture.


Very Funny!

Dismayed by the Wikipedia entries for COMEDY and HUMOUR (I’m a Yank, but the article uses Brit spelling) I promised them an outline for a more rational entry. After four hours and eight filled legal pad pages, I realized why comedy and humor have defeated the heavy guns from Aristotle to Miss Piggy.

I thought I might make more progress if I ruminated, bloviated, expatiated, and ran off at the mouth — all in small pieces. That way readers — why not dream? — by the twos and threes could comment, amend, argue, counter propose, or just say, Oh, horse pucky!

I’ll start by arguing for a few definitions — not because mine are better, but because half the problem with humor discussions is a lack of agreement on vocabulary.

But that’s for my second post, after  heavy surfing and eight more pages of legal pad.

If anyone else is similarly obsessed — or even mildly interested — please weigh in. And one last thing: praise makes me feel warm and fuzzy but only criticism really helps me.


Jim S.

How about this one: Woody Allen wrote, Man does not live by bread alone. Frequently there is a beverage.

That seems easy to deconstruct: the aphorism is a metaphor but the person who amended it took it literally. I think the result is very funny. But consider:

Man does not live by bread alone. Sometimes you get a drink.

Not funny. Why does Allen’s use of the mealy-mouthed, institutional word “beverage” make all the difference?