aayero
What at all does the quote have to do with this trope? It looks like it's just a really bad example of "sarcasm" or somebody not using the word sarcasm correctly. Just because it involves somebody knowing something that somebody else doesn't, that doesn't mean it's at all an example, or that it even helps to explain the trope in any way whatsoever.
Edited by aaeyero Hide / Show Replies
It's explaining a common Outside Joke—namely, "If the black box is indestructible, why don't they just build the rest of the plane out of it?"
Dunkies addict
I'm reverting this page because, frankly, this version looks like it was written by Straw Vulcans. Don't try to tell people what is funny to prove how smart you feel; the joke doesn't come from it being esoteric, but just from what has come to be. All (or nearly all) "howcum" jokes fall into this category because nothing is esoteric to someone who knows what he's talking about, and I guarantee you every one of these comedians and a fair number of their fans have heard these jokes "debunked" by condescending wiseasses like you.
My posts make considerably more sense read in the voice of John Ratzenberger. Hide / Show Replies
I slightly prefer the old version because I think we should be clear that this is not about the "how come" formatted jokes, those most of those fall into such a category. These are not "roughly equivalent" and if we consider "howcum" jokes as being like another trope then a typical format I see on other pages is for a paragraph of description and then a paragraph of connections to other tropes. Hence the word changes and the paragraph break.
Now as to not trying to tell people what is funny, technically, I'm just trying to tell people the common basis for the formatting of the jokes and how they thus relate to this trope. However I believe that the comedians do this in order to be funny. Perhaps the wording was wrong. I believe that the "how come" format exactly because it begins with "how come...?" definitely and objectively can be stated to be drawing attention to the absence of an explanation because it is asking for an explanation. Whether it is pointing out real life ironies or oddities is dependent on the material that makes up the "..." and also isn't really anything to do with the trope of being an outside joke.
I therefore believe it is better to talk about the joke using something with no apparent explanation (or at least one that doesn't quite catch up with you immediately). However there did seem to be merit in your point about irony making the actual funny happen and it seemed interesting so I tried to incorporate it more as an addendum.
You've been so polite, it has been so nice to work with you.
Edited by SomeSortOfTroper
If I'm getting what you're saying right, your point is that this basically taking out the point of the jokes just for the sake of technicality, right? Perfect example: Seinfeld making the joke about the word "rhinoplasty" (meaning 'nose-job) was "harsh" and then explaining that the etymology of 'rhino' means "nose." This becomes irrelevant when you bear in mind that the point was to be funny!
On a similar vein, there's the joke on how "politics" translates to "poli" being the Latin word for "many" (actually spelled "poly") and "ticks" being blood-sucking leeches! Obviously, anything 'political' really refers to 'something relating to the people' by Latin translation, but that wasn't the purpose of the joke. The point was to make fun of politicians!
"It's a joke" isn't a catch-all excuse; that merely tells us the genre/format. (A bad movie isn't excused with "it's a movie"). That something is "supposed" to be funny doesn't mean it is.
The problem with so many "outside jokes" is that they (very mildly) convey an agenda of sorts, implying that the thing in question ought to be different, eg, that manufacturers really should build the plane out of black boxes, aren't they just so oblivious ha ha. Knowing why something is (and should be) the way it is thus ruins the joke.
Sadly, only two sorts of howcum jokes actually "work". One is when we all do know the answer, eg, a joke about misbehaving children. (The "politics" joke is related to this category. You don't have to think that's the real etymology to laugh at it; in fact, it's funnier if you know the truth. Mostly the same with the rhinoplasty one, and really all wordplay in general.) The other is when nobody knows the answer, but I can't think of a joke like that at the moment. Come to think of it, a third category would be meta-humor where the point is that the question itself is dumb and the comedian knows it, eg, "How come boats don't have plugs on the bottom to let out water if they get filled with rain?" ( For all I know, the black boxes joke was originally meant in that vein, before it became a geuine question for many people.)
I hate to rant, it's just that I loathe willful ignorance, which many of these bits require on the comedian's part. Mere ignorance is fine but it frustrates me when someone makes declarations like these without doing basic research.
Edited by Lenoxus
Dunkies addict
Dammit, stop taking these so seriously. Few if any of these comedians or audience members think like this.
My posts make considerably more sense read in the voice of John Ratzenberger.
I'm sorry but the article does absolutely NOTHING to indicate just what the goddamn hell this trope actually IS. The given example, the image, and the description don't seem to have anything to do with each other or follow any kind of pattern. Is this for when a character doesn't get a joke, but the audience does?
Going through the list of examples, it seems that most of them... aren't jokes at all. A joke is a story with a humorous ending, or a question with a humorous answer (AKA the "punch line"). Many of these examples are just "what's the deal with X?" questions that don't have punch lines because the answers are mundane and obvious. So does this trope just refer to really lazy, bad attempts at stand-up humor?
Edited by WDS