The one thing I gleaned from Emerson’s essay The Comic, is that he doesn’t like to laugh. What is particularly odd about this is that Emerson is frequently described by friends and acquaintances as cheerful, good natured, and generous. Yet he doesn’t like to laugh. Throughout the essay he makes it clear that laughter is ugly and disgusting. It is unfortunate that we are victims of spasms of the diaphragm, when even the lower animals don’t laugh.
The problem with the comic, and hence laughter, is Emerson’s definition of it. The essence of comedy, he believes is a “halfness,” either well-intended or not. Comedy is
The balking of the intellect, the frustrated expectation, the break of continuity in the intellect….
If something is whole, it is not funny. “Reason is the whole” and not just any whole but the “eternal Whole.”
Reason does not joke, and men of reason do not; a prophet, in whom the moral sentiment predominates, or a philosopher, in whom the love of truth predominates, these do not joke, but they bring the standard, the ideal whole, exposing all actual defect; and hence the best of all jokes is the sympathetic contemplation of things by the understanding from the philosopher’s point of view.
The comic results in a split between the intellect and Reason, for if one is entirely reasonable, nothing is funny, nor is there anything to joke about. Reason, for Emerson, partakes in the moral sense. All of his philosophy is rooted in a moral sense and because the comic is not part of that, he cannot endorse it.
Interestingly, Emerson has a great sense of humor. I have laughed out loud while reading his essays and he apparently made frequent jokes about himself during his lectures. And, according to Richardson in Emerson: The Mind on Fire, he “laughed all the way through” a short satire called the “Transcendental Bible” his wife, Lidian, wrote. Richardson excerpts part of it. A few of my favorite tenets he quotes:
- Never confess a fault. You should not have committed it and who cares whether you are sorry?
- Never speak of the hope of immortality. What do you know about it?…
- Loathe and shun the sick. They are in bad taste and may untune us for writing the poem floating through our mind.
- Despise the unintellectual and make them feel that you do by not noticing their remark.
His wife had quite the wicked sense of humor.
The Comic makes me a bit confused because it seems Emerson has lumped all comedy into the same category but not really. It’s okay to make fun of himself. It’s okay for his wife to write satire poking fun at him. But he cites in the essay as terrible political jokes, comedic literature, and basically laughing at anyone but yourself. Even so, by the end of the essay Emerson lightens up a bit and admits that we need to learn by laughter as well as tears; that we need to
explore the whole of Nature, the farce and buffoonery in the yard below, as well as the lessons of poets and philosophers upstairs in the hall, and get the rest and refreshment of the shaking of the sides.
So laugh in moderation. But laugh that silly silent laugh where you sit there and kind of wobble around a little. Guffaws are verboten. Carlyle, a very good friend of Emerson’s, had “bursts of Olympian laughter” which, according to a note on the essay, “required all his [Emerson's] regard for him to make them tolerable.” Clearly, Emerson and I would not get along on this topic. I believe in laughing loud and laughing often. Some days it’s the only thing that keeps me sane.
Next week’s Emerson: Quotation and Originality
“But laugh that silly silent laugh where you sit there and kind of wobble around a little.” ~ I was grinning when I read this line.
Not an expert here – but is Emerson against comedy that demeans another? Hence, it’s okay to laugh at yourself because you’re hurting no one else? That his morality against comedy is the meanness of spirit?
Emerson should hang around more with some of the Zen monks. When one realises how seriously we take ourselves, one can only laugh at the absurdity of it all. In some of the writings on Zen that I’ve encountered, laughter – that comes from lightness of the mind/consciousness – is part of the process of realisation. Of satori.
Or maybe Emerson should just hang out with Rabelais. There are lots of robust laughter and buffoonery in Rabelais. Lots of farting and jokes on the bodily functions. But Rabelais should be able to match Emerson on wits and learning. And remind Emerson on the importance of play.
Personally I enjoy laughter. I laugh loudly – in a hearty, somewhat unrefined manner. Emerson may not approve, and I should never be caught laughing in a library or a church. But then again, tragedy is easy. Comedy a lot harder.
I think Emerson’s done the equivalent here of explaining the joke and thus rendering it totally unfunny. He’s in philosophising mode and therefore picking things apart according to his own system of evaluation. In that rarefied air, jokes become flat and unappealing. Perhaps he’s also endorsing subtle wit (I love that line about the wobbling too) rather than knock, knock jokes. But I agree with you; there’s a large section of life at which you can either laugh or cry, and I know what I’d rather do.
This seems to me like a place Emerson fails us — and he can’t get everything right, can he? Good to know he actually had a good sense of humor, even if his theorizing about humor leaves a little to be desired!
Well Dark Orpheus, if Emerson can’t provide the humor, I certainly will be glad to do so
Emerson in part is against comedy because it demeans others. But even comedy that isn’t demeaning he finds worrisome because of its “halfness.” He believes that if we are whole people, entirely possessed by Reason and hooked into the eternal oversoul, we will be so complete that there will be nothing to laugh at. Since most of us are far from being Whole, he thinks instead of laughing at each other we should be sympathetic. Emerson read quite a lot of Hundu scripture but I am not sure he read any Zen writings. It probably would have done him some good.
Litlove, I do think you are right. He mentions several jokes in his essay but I didn’t find one of them funny because he had to explain why they weren’t. I think you are right, subtle wit is fine as long as it is not at the expense of someone else. I think wobbling is funnier looking than a good guffaw and have been sent into hysterics before watching friends trying not too laugh out loud.
Dorothy, it is sad but true. I think Emerson does fail when it comes to the comic. But as you say, he can’t get everything right.
Hi Stefanie – off topic a bit, but I hope you wont mind. You asked a while back when the Booker longlist was announced. Well I finally have the dates – its tommorow!!
From their new look site – http://www.themanbookerprize.com/
‘The longlist for The Man Booker Prize 2007 will be announced on 7 August 2007. The shortlist for The Man Booker Prize 2007 will be announced on 6 September 2007. The winner of The Man Booker Prize 2007 will be announced on 16 October 2007.’
I’ll be playing along on my site – http://thekingfisherscrapbook.blogspot.com/
(Booker Prize commercial over and out!)
“It is unfortunate that we are victims of spasms of the diaphragm, when even the lower animals don’t laugh.”
Really? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen a Discovery Channel documentary or two which shows that animals do laugh and some actually play jokes on one another. A quick internet research finds me this National Geographic article
Jem, thanks for the links!
J.S., I think animals laugh. In fact, I’m certain they do because my dog laughs. Emerson, however, does not think animals laugh or play jokes. Thanks for the link. An interesting article. I had no idea humans were able to laugh before they could speak.
Pingback: Emerson on The Tragic « So Many Books