What's your opinion of James Taranto?
September 28, 2009 10:45 AM Subscribe
I think the WSJ author of Best of the Web Today is consistently hilarious, though I think he occasionally gets it wrong. I'm wondering if my appreciation of his humor owes entirely to the fact that I'm conservative, or whether people with more liberal worldviews appreciate his wit.
This post was deleted for the following reason: this looked like a qyestion but now it's "help convince me that there's a funny liberal" -- jessamyn
Response by poster: Is there a writer on the left who is roughly as witty (or wittier)? I know it's hard to gauge and fairly subjective, but I haven't come across any — which was why I asked my original question.
posted by JamesJD at 10:55 AM on September 28, 2009
posted by JamesJD at 10:55 AM on September 28, 2009
Is there a writer on the left who is roughly as witty (or wittier)?
What? Since when does humor depend on political affiliation?
Try watching The Daily Show, reading some David Sedaris, listening to Kathy Griffin say anything... gosh, I'm trying to give you some suggestions, but what are you asking, exactly?
posted by oinopaponton at 11:01 AM on September 28, 2009
What? Since when does humor depend on political affiliation?
Try watching The Daily Show, reading some David Sedaris, listening to Kathy Griffin say anything... gosh, I'm trying to give you some suggestions, but what are you asking, exactly?
posted by oinopaponton at 11:01 AM on September 28, 2009
I just read his last one (with the "Yosi" headline), and it was not hilarious. That's a small sample size, though. Can you point to some your favorites of his for us to evaluate?
posted by aswego at 11:10 AM on September 28, 2009
posted by aswego at 11:10 AM on September 28, 2009
Response by poster: David Sedaris is funny, but is he overtly political? It seems like most of his books are a lot more broad in their subject matter (although I've only read one or two, and a few essays from some of the others).
I honestly do not find Jon Stewart funny (I did when I was 14), but that's beside the point because he isn't a writer. Nor is Kathy Griffin.
So it looks like you've struck out, no offense.
posted by JamesJD at 11:10 AM on September 28, 2009
I honestly do not find Jon Stewart funny (I did when I was 14), but that's beside the point because he isn't a writer. Nor is Kathy Griffin.
So it looks like you've struck out, no offense.
posted by JamesJD at 11:10 AM on September 28, 2009
Bill Maher. Al Franken. Chatfilter.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:14 AM on September 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:14 AM on September 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
honestly do not find Jon Stewart funny (I did when I was 14), but that's beside the point because he isn't a writer.
Really? You sure about that?
posted by dersins at 11:14 AM on September 28, 2009
Really? You sure about that?
posted by dersins at 11:14 AM on September 28, 2009
David Rees. Woody Allen. Matt Tabbi. The current staff of the Onion, both print and video. Literally every single person who contributes to Shouts and Murmurs.
posted by Damn That Television at 11:18 AM on September 28, 2009
posted by Damn That Television at 11:18 AM on September 28, 2009
Response by poster: aswego, see the last item about the logical impossibility of a bisexual couple ("The Ram Store Called, They're Running Out of Ewe") from this column: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204884404574362373568340320.html
Maybe it isn't quite your style. Sometimes he's pedantic, and sometimes the wit is subtle and only cracks a smile. It's not all spit-out-your-water, knee-slapping, side-splitting, guffawing-funny. But it's also a lot more clever than anything I've seen from a recent liberal writer.
The purpose of my question was to probe whether that's because, as a conservative, I find Taranto's conservative humor funny, but not most liberal humor, or whether Taranto is simply more clever than most liberal writers (or perhaps another possibility not accounted for in that false dilemma).
posted by JamesJD at 11:18 AM on September 28, 2009
Maybe it isn't quite your style. Sometimes he's pedantic, and sometimes the wit is subtle and only cracks a smile. It's not all spit-out-your-water, knee-slapping, side-splitting, guffawing-funny. But it's also a lot more clever than anything I've seen from a recent liberal writer.
The purpose of my question was to probe whether that's because, as a conservative, I find Taranto's conservative humor funny, but not most liberal humor, or whether Taranto is simply more clever than most liberal writers (or perhaps another possibility not accounted for in that false dilemma).
posted by JamesJD at 11:18 AM on September 28, 2009
Response by poster: @dersins. Point taken. His books are even worse than his show, though. And television is definitely his primary medium.
posted by JamesJD at 11:19 AM on September 28, 2009
posted by JamesJD at 11:19 AM on September 28, 2009
Are you trying to chat or troll here? It's difficult to tell.
posted by dersins at 11:20 AM on September 28, 2009
posted by dersins at 11:20 AM on September 28, 2009
Honestly -- I wouldn't even have known that bit about the bisexual couples was supposed to be funny if you hadn't said so. What's the funny part?
posted by brainmouse at 11:24 AM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by brainmouse at 11:24 AM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
My conservative coworkers find Jon Stewart hilarious (now that he criticizes Obama). Maybe it's you.
posted by oinopaponton at 11:26 AM on September 28, 2009
posted by oinopaponton at 11:26 AM on September 28, 2009
Response by poster: @Damn That Television:
David Rees, the cartoonist?
Woody Allen works mainly in film, although I guess he's written a lot of scripts. He's among the best counter-examples offered.
Matt Taibbi sucks (IMO, many may disagree).
The Onion writers can often be pretty funny, but they're hit-or-miss. I think people are much more exposed to the good pieces that come out and don't really read the bad ones.
"Literally every single person who contributes to Shouts and Murmurs." That's a bit exaggerated. Christopher Buckley isn't a liberal per se, although I believe he did vote for Obama.
posted by JamesJD at 11:26 AM on September 28, 2009
David Rees, the cartoonist?
Woody Allen works mainly in film, although I guess he's written a lot of scripts. He's among the best counter-examples offered.
Matt Taibbi sucks (IMO, many may disagree).
The Onion writers can often be pretty funny, but they're hit-or-miss. I think people are much more exposed to the good pieces that come out and don't really read the bad ones.
"Literally every single person who contributes to Shouts and Murmurs." That's a bit exaggerated. Christopher Buckley isn't a liberal per se, although I believe he did vote for Obama.
posted by JamesJD at 11:26 AM on September 28, 2009
Its your political affiliation.
posted by procrastination at 11:27 AM on September 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by procrastination at 11:27 AM on September 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: @brainmouse,
So we disagree. I guess it's a matter of different tastes. But it's not really worth explaining why something is funny. You either find it funny or you don't.
posted by JamesJD at 11:28 AM on September 28, 2009
So we disagree. I guess it's a matter of different tastes. But it's not really worth explaining why something is funny. You either find it funny or you don't.
posted by JamesJD at 11:28 AM on September 28, 2009
Response by poster: @ procrastination
It's starting to look that way...
posted by JamesJD at 11:28 AM on September 28, 2009
It's starting to look that way...
posted by JamesJD at 11:28 AM on September 28, 2009
Are you trying to chat or troll here? It's difficult to tell. This.
Answering the question, I've never read the column before, but perusing it now I see that it's rather straightforward right-of-center political commentary followed by the same sort of headline analysis provided by Jay Leno (another rather conservative comedian). I don't care for that sort of wit but I suppose it's popular among some people.
Liberal writers I find highly amusing:
Sadie over at Tiger Beatdown.
Amanda Hess at The Sexist.
Jon Swift, although he doesn't blog so much recently
posted by muddgirl at 11:30 AM on September 28, 2009
Answering the question, I've never read the column before, but perusing it now I see that it's rather straightforward right-of-center political commentary followed by the same sort of headline analysis provided by Jay Leno (another rather conservative comedian). I don't care for that sort of wit but I suppose it's popular among some people.
Liberal writers I find highly amusing:
Sadie over at Tiger Beatdown.
Amanda Hess at The Sexist.
Jon Swift, although he doesn't blog so much recently
posted by muddgirl at 11:30 AM on September 28, 2009
I guess -- but honestly I can't even tell that he's trying to be funny. It's not like I see the joke but I don't think it's funny, I can't even see which part of that is supposed to contain humor.
posted by brainmouse at 11:31 AM on September 28, 2009
posted by brainmouse at 11:31 AM on September 28, 2009
Response by poster: @Jaltcoh
Bill Maher — television personality who may have written a book
Al Franken — "
I'll try to narrow things down by introducing a new criterion. Are there any witty contemporary liberal writers who mostly write about political subjects and who became famous through their writing.
posted by JamesJD at 11:31 AM on September 28, 2009
Bill Maher — television personality who may have written a book
Al Franken — "
I'll try to narrow things down by introducing a new criterion. Are there any witty contemporary liberal writers who mostly write about political subjects and who became famous through their writing.
posted by JamesJD at 11:31 AM on September 28, 2009
Response by poster: @brainmouse
It might be over your head.
posted by JamesJD at 11:32 AM on September 28, 2009
It might be over your head.
posted by JamesJD at 11:32 AM on September 28, 2009
It's becoming pretty clear that your preferences in this case are based solely on your biases. You deny that there is sufficient humor to be found in the writing of Jon Stewart or the editorial staff of The Onion, both of whom are widely acknowledged by a broad spectrum of people as, y'know, funny.
At the same time you provide as your "funny" counterexample something that appears to be a pedantic-- and willful-- misconstrual of a simple phrase ("bisexual couples") that actually makes perfectly good sense on its face.
I'm not going to tell you what you, personally should and should not find funny, but it's disingenuous at best for you to pretend that this question is anything other than "LIBERAL COMEDY SUX CONSERVATIVE COMEDY RULES LOL AMIRITE?"
posted by dersins at 11:33 AM on September 28, 2009
At the same time you provide as your "funny" counterexample something that appears to be a pedantic-- and willful-- misconstrual of a simple phrase ("bisexual couples") that actually makes perfectly good sense on its face.
I'm not going to tell you what you, personally should and should not find funny, but it's disingenuous at best for you to pretend that this question is anything other than "LIBERAL COMEDY SUX CONSERVATIVE COMEDY RULES LOL AMIRITE?"
posted by dersins at 11:33 AM on September 28, 2009
Response by poster: "Are there any witty contemporary liberal writers who mostly write about political subjects and who became famous through their writing."
I'll make this my question on Ask MeFi next week, just to take a look through the best examples, not to try and rebut every one.
posted by JamesJD at 11:34 AM on September 28, 2009
I'll make this my question on Ask MeFi next week, just to take a look through the best examples, not to try and rebut every one.
posted by JamesJD at 11:34 AM on September 28, 2009
I thought these ladies would be too obvious to suggest, but Maureen Dowd and Gail Collins are both "witty contemporary liberal writers who mostly write about political subjects and who became famous through their writing."
posted by oinopaponton at 11:35 AM on September 28, 2009
posted by oinopaponton at 11:35 AM on September 28, 2009
Well, the literal questioning of "bisexual couple" is within the realm of what I'd imagine a lot of "liberal" humor writers would do, though they'd 1) never bring it up in that context, which was a deliberate misunderstanding of an obvious statement (and one he acknowledged paragraphs later), and 2) they would have done something with the idea to actually make it funnier, as it really was only the beginning of a joke. Nothing else was even close to funny.
I think you're going to have hard time, because you're talking about a newspaper's political columnist, who you happen to find funny, and everyone else is bringing up professional humorists who either have explicit political beliefs or work with explicitly political material. It's very much apples and oranges. I think a more apt comparison would be Maureen Dowd or Frank Rich (neither really my cup of tea) and the people who find them witty. Or Jacob Weisberg and his lame "Bushisms." Dowd, Rich, Weisberg, and Taranto are all trying to move an agenda, and just think they can do it in a funny way.
Compared to actual humorists, Taranto is way out of his league (regardless of what you think about Stewart).
posted by aswego at 11:35 AM on September 28, 2009
I think you're going to have hard time, because you're talking about a newspaper's political columnist, who you happen to find funny, and everyone else is bringing up professional humorists who either have explicit political beliefs or work with explicitly political material. It's very much apples and oranges. I think a more apt comparison would be Maureen Dowd or Frank Rich (neither really my cup of tea) and the people who find them witty. Or Jacob Weisberg and his lame "Bushisms." Dowd, Rich, Weisberg, and Taranto are all trying to move an agenda, and just think they can do it in a funny way.
Compared to actual humorists, Taranto is way out of his league (regardless of what you think about Stewart).
posted by aswego at 11:35 AM on September 28, 2009
The closest I can think of to this would be Maureen Dowd I don't find her particularly "funny" but I feel the same way about the "Best of the web" guy.
posted by bitdamaged at 11:36 AM on September 28, 2009
posted by bitdamaged at 11:36 AM on September 28, 2009
Actually, I think the answers in here reflect at least in part the political leanings of a lot of people on Metafilter. I think virtually everybody humorist mentioned, from the OP to the bottom of the thread - with the exception of the consistently funny Onion writers - is a wretched hack. So it isn't surprising that the conservative-leaning guy doesn't get the left-leaning humorists, the liberal-leaning people get offended and do the same thing but the other way around, and the people that can't possibly see how anyone could have political views other than their own sit there fuming.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 11:36 AM on September 28, 2009
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 11:36 AM on September 28, 2009
Response by poster: @dersins,
I find the Onion hilarious, but that's because I read the 10% of their articles that everyone reads, which are the best ones.
Right now the Onion is still the only example of liberal writers opining primarily on political subjects who became famous through their writing. AMIRITE?
posted by JamesJD at 11:36 AM on September 28, 2009
I find the Onion hilarious, but that's because I read the 10% of their articles that everyone reads, which are the best ones.
Right now the Onion is still the only example of liberal writers opining primarily on political subjects who became famous through their writing. AMIRITE?
posted by JamesJD at 11:36 AM on September 28, 2009
Al Franken "may have written a book"? OK, you have answered your own question about whether one's ideology skews one's assessment of political writers.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:37 AM on September 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:37 AM on September 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
Um, JamesJD. This reads like you couldn't find anyone around to pick a fight with about how James Taranto is so much better than whatever political writer/humorist they might mention they like, so you posted a question baiting people to mention such figures so you could have that fight here.
posted by Hello, Revelers! I am Captain Lavender! at 11:37 AM on September 28, 2009 [7 favorites]
posted by Hello, Revelers! I am Captain Lavender! at 11:37 AM on September 28, 2009 [7 favorites]
The likelihood of your getting an answer you like is pretty low, in large part because humor is incredibly subjective. What is "witty"? What is "clever"? And what, exactly, is "conservative" or "liberal" when it comes to the kind of writing you're looking for? What these things mean to you are extremely contextual, and even you admit that Taranto doesn't hit the mark that you set all the time (in your opinion); they will not mean the same thing to someone else reading this question.
And try backing off a little. The thread-modding isn't helping. People are trying in good faith to help, and sometimes replying to every suggestion just creates unhelpful noise.
posted by rtha at 11:37 AM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
And try backing off a little. The thread-modding isn't helping. People are trying in good faith to help, and sometimes replying to every suggestion just creates unhelpful noise.
posted by rtha at 11:37 AM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: @Inspector.Gadget
This was rather the point of the question, to see whether or not it's the case that what you find funny in political satire is mostly a function of your values. I'm not sure how successful I've been in establishing that though.
posted by JamesJD at 11:38 AM on September 28, 2009
This was rather the point of the question, to see whether or not it's the case that what you find funny in political satire is mostly a function of your values. I'm not sure how successful I've been in establishing that though.
posted by JamesJD at 11:38 AM on September 28, 2009
Here's a quick summary: people get butthurt easily about both politics and comedy.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 11:42 AM on September 28, 2009
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 11:42 AM on September 28, 2009
I'm wondering if my appreciation of his humor owes entirely to the fact that I'm conservative, or whether people with more liberal worldviews appreciate his wit.
Your appreciation of his humor owes entirely to the fact that you're conservative. His writing is the print equivalent of those bumper stickers that show Calvin peeing on things he doesn't like.
posted by diogenes at 11:44 AM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
Your appreciation of his humor owes entirely to the fact that you're conservative. His writing is the print equivalent of those bumper stickers that show Calvin peeing on things he doesn't like.
posted by diogenes at 11:44 AM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
I agree with rtha, and I'd add that since humor is such a holistic thing (in the 'relating to the whole' sense) that a person who is at ideological odds with a writer is unlikely to be tickled by them. You can't easily separate the moving parts of a joke (or witty turn of phrase) from the context that it is in. Politics, or ideology, or what have you, is a part of that whole.
posted by dirtdirt at 11:45 AM on September 28, 2009
posted by dirtdirt at 11:45 AM on September 28, 2009
Response by poster: FWIW,
I should mention three things:
(1.) dirtdirt put it well.
(2.) I don't find many other conservative writers funny. To be honest, I can't name more than one or two others.
(3.) I think Calvin Trillin might be a good example of a witty, left-leaning writer that nobody has mentioned yet.
posted by JamesJD at 11:49 AM on September 28, 2009
I should mention three things:
(1.) dirtdirt put it well.
(2.) I don't find many other conservative writers funny. To be honest, I can't name more than one or two others.
(3.) I think Calvin Trillin might be a good example of a witty, left-leaning writer that nobody has mentioned yet.
posted by JamesJD at 11:49 AM on September 28, 2009
"What liberal writers do you find funny?"
-- But you are shooting down the good-faith suggestions people are making, because YOU don't think they're funny.
"Do you find Taranto funny or do I just like him because I'm conservative?"
-- But when people say they don't find Taranto funny, you're making fun of them.
It kind of doesn't seem like you're asking the question in good faith. And joking about AMIRITE when your question is already pretty chatty and you're being sort of aggressive in replying to comments is just a weird tone to strike.
posted by LobsterMitten at 11:59 AM on September 28, 2009 [3 favorites]
-- But you are shooting down the good-faith suggestions people are making, because YOU don't think they're funny.
"Do you find Taranto funny or do I just like him because I'm conservative?"
-- But when people say they don't find Taranto funny, you're making fun of them.
It kind of doesn't seem like you're asking the question in good faith. And joking about AMIRITE when your question is already pretty chatty and you're being sort of aggressive in replying to comments is just a weird tone to strike.
posted by LobsterMitten at 11:59 AM on September 28, 2009 [3 favorites]
I'm inclined to think that it's hard to find humor in your ideological opposition. It's certainly difficult for me. When I was college age, I thought P.J. O'Rourke was the funniest man on the planet. As he moved to the right as a writer, I found him to be significantly less funny.
Additionally, "wit" goes along with other characteristics: high intellect, irony, emotional distance, passive aggression, disdain, and hostility, to name a few. The famous wits have also been (frequently) famous assholes.
Good luck in your quest.
posted by Carmody'sPrize at 12:02 PM on September 28, 2009
Additionally, "wit" goes along with other characteristics: high intellect, irony, emotional distance, passive aggression, disdain, and hostility, to name a few. The famous wits have also been (frequently) famous assholes.
Good luck in your quest.
posted by Carmody'sPrize at 12:02 PM on September 28, 2009
The purpose of my question was to probe whether that's because, as a conservative, I find Taranto's conservative humor funny
5 (strongly agree)
or whether Taranto is simply more clever than most liberal writers
0 (strongly disagree)
posted by Beautiful Screaming Lady at 12:06 PM on September 28, 2009
5 (strongly agree)
or whether Taranto is simply more clever than most liberal writers
0 (strongly disagree)
posted by Beautiful Screaming Lady at 12:06 PM on September 28, 2009
Response by poster: That's a very good observation about wit. I'd say H.L. Mencken fits your profile to a T.
LobsterMitten, a fair point, I shouldn't have responded as aggressively as I did. I tried to give an honest appraisal of the suggestions for funny liberal writers because over half of them weren't writers (or weren't primarily writers), but I think it's necessarily a tendentious subject.
posted by JamesJD at 12:09 PM on September 28, 2009
LobsterMitten, a fair point, I shouldn't have responded as aggressively as I did. I tried to give an honest appraisal of the suggestions for funny liberal writers because over half of them weren't writers (or weren't primarily writers), but I think it's necessarily a tendentious subject.
posted by JamesJD at 12:09 PM on September 28, 2009
(Certainly judgments about who's funny are tendentious. But the problem I'm pointing to is not that. It's that AskMe isn't structured for back-and-forth discussions like the one you seem to want.
If you want to participate in a debate over which writers are funny, this is the wrong place. For the most part AskMe functions as a one-way channel -- people give you answers. You can do a little clarifying if people are asking for it, but basically once you ask the question, you have to mostly sit back and read people's answers. It's not a place for an asker to "give an honest appraisal"; that is getting into chatfilter territory. I'm not saying your views are wrong, and I think the topic is an interesting one. But that there's an etiquette in AskMe about the mostly-one-way-channel thing. Ask a question if you want to get concrete answers from other people, but not if you want to participate in a freewheeling discussion.)
posted by LobsterMitten at 12:24 PM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
If you want to participate in a debate over which writers are funny, this is the wrong place. For the most part AskMe functions as a one-way channel -- people give you answers. You can do a little clarifying if people are asking for it, but basically once you ask the question, you have to mostly sit back and read people's answers. It's not a place for an asker to "give an honest appraisal"; that is getting into chatfilter territory. I'm not saying your views are wrong, and I think the topic is an interesting one. But that there's an etiquette in AskMe about the mostly-one-way-channel thing. Ask a question if you want to get concrete answers from other people, but not if you want to participate in a freewheeling discussion.)
posted by LobsterMitten at 12:24 PM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
I tried to give an honest appraisal of the suggestions for funny liberal writers because over half of them weren't writers (or weren't primarily writers)
And this mindset is why this thread isn't going well; you asked if people liked James Taranto, and quickly followed up with a request for people's favorite liberal humorists. If this question were in good faith, it would have ended there, sans "appraisal" of nearly every answer you found unsatisfactory. Instead, you've responded argumentatively to a number of direct, specific, non-tendentious answers to both of these questions. There is no bias or controversy inherent in naming Al Franken when asked to name a liberal humorist, yet you've stuck around to police the thread and announce that doing so is indicative of a bias, and, oh, by the way, no one has yet managed to name a humorous liberal writer who meets the towering standard of James Taranto. It's obvious you posted this just to argue, so why don't you just admit it and move on?
posted by Hello, Revelers! I am Captain Lavender! at 12:27 PM on September 28, 2009
And this mindset is why this thread isn't going well; you asked if people liked James Taranto, and quickly followed up with a request for people's favorite liberal humorists. If this question were in good faith, it would have ended there, sans "appraisal" of nearly every answer you found unsatisfactory. Instead, you've responded argumentatively to a number of direct, specific, non-tendentious answers to both of these questions. There is no bias or controversy inherent in naming Al Franken when asked to name a liberal humorist, yet you've stuck around to police the thread and announce that doing so is indicative of a bias, and, oh, by the way, no one has yet managed to name a humorous liberal writer who meets the towering standard of James Taranto. It's obvious you posted this just to argue, so why don't you just admit it and move on?
posted by Hello, Revelers! I am Captain Lavender! at 12:27 PM on September 28, 2009
Never heard of James Taranto, agree with others upthread that I wouldn't have realized he was supposed to be funny without being told & that it's likely you find him funny only because you agree with him.
I do think that Gail Collins might be a good analog; I do often giggle when reading her, but it's generally with a sense that I probably wouldn't think she was funny if I didn't already agree with her, which it sounds like what you suspect of yourself with regard to this WSJ guy.
posted by yarrow at 12:42 PM on September 28, 2009
I do think that Gail Collins might be a good analog; I do often giggle when reading her, but it's generally with a sense that I probably wouldn't think she was funny if I didn't already agree with her, which it sounds like what you suspect of yourself with regard to this WSJ guy.
posted by yarrow at 12:42 PM on September 28, 2009
JamesJD, I just read the example ewe posted.
Within the health care section, I thought the line
>In fairness, Obama did not seem to mean it when he called for a "democratic conversation," but that's no reason to doubt that he meant the rest of what he said.
had a certain charm, in the old eyelid-fluttering WF Buckley mode;
the rest of the health care article seems banal political argument, countering the inherent fluffiness of poll numbers with yet fluffier "legitimate concerns".
The raws, ewe; potAYto, potAHto; ha ha what do you call two bisexuals bit was...
well, it actually seemed a lot like one of The Daily Show's throwaway lines. Except that on TDS, it would have been part of a blizzard of similar lines, and either one would probably pan out and prove individually funny, or their accumulated weight, combined with Jon Stewart's mugging and sense of rhythm, probably would have produced a funny result eventually.*
This line had not the benefit of those auxillary factors, and gave not the benefit of its intended result.
Really, I think you'd have to be in a frame of strong expectation-- "James Taranto is right, James Taranto agrees with me, James Taranto is funny, and James Taranto will be funny today"-- to get a cracked smile, let alone a laugh, out of the comic punchline
Likewise, the couple in Triplett's example consists of two bisexuals, but there's nothing bisexual about the couple. They don't even have two sexes between them!
or
the substantive punchline
Now we get it. The president was using politically correct jargon instead of plain English. Why didn't you just say so?
It strikes me that the comic punchline, which is what those without a strong shared agreement frame with Taranto would seek value in, is probably less important for Taranto's readers than his substantive punchline, and its message of, "Once again, X is proven true."
None of this is a reflection on left/right politics or the content of tribal affiliations or ideologies as such. I'm sure there are conservative political writers who've written lines I would find funny. And maybe Taranto has written bits that I would find funny, were I to happen across them.
But to answer your question-- whether, on the one hand, your appreciation of his humor owes entirely to the fact that you're a conservative... or, on the other hand, readers more liberal can yourself can appreciate that humor... I'm guessing that your appreciation of his humor is largely though not entirely a matter of shared views, values, assumptions, and interpretations.
A shorter version of your question might be: James Taranto-- read this guy and give him a chance--... he's funny, right? A shorter version of my answer might be Maybe he is-- but if so, please offer a different example of his work, because this example of his work is not impressive.
*Note that I write probably; again, this is an example of the power of expectation-- specifically, my expectation of finding Jon Stewart's humor not necessarily spit-out-your-water, knee-slapping, side-splitting, guffawing-funny, but the sort that, owing to its subtle wit, only cracks a smile. True, one might find his approach pedantic, but it seems a lot more clever than...
et cetera
et cetera
posted by darth_tedious at 12:43 PM on September 28, 2009 [3 favorites]
Within the health care section, I thought the line
>In fairness, Obama did not seem to mean it when he called for a "democratic conversation," but that's no reason to doubt that he meant the rest of what he said.
had a certain charm, in the old eyelid-fluttering WF Buckley mode;
the rest of the health care article seems banal political argument, countering the inherent fluffiness of poll numbers with yet fluffier "legitimate concerns".
The raws, ewe; potAYto, potAHto; ha ha what do you call two bisexuals bit was...
well, it actually seemed a lot like one of The Daily Show's throwaway lines. Except that on TDS, it would have been part of a blizzard of similar lines, and either one would probably pan out and prove individually funny, or their accumulated weight, combined with Jon Stewart's mugging and sense of rhythm, probably would have produced a funny result eventually.*
This line had not the benefit of those auxillary factors, and gave not the benefit of its intended result.
Really, I think you'd have to be in a frame of strong expectation-- "James Taranto is right, James Taranto agrees with me, James Taranto is funny, and James Taranto will be funny today"-- to get a cracked smile, let alone a laugh, out of the comic punchline
Likewise, the couple in Triplett's example consists of two bisexuals, but there's nothing bisexual about the couple. They don't even have two sexes between them!
or
the substantive punchline
Now we get it. The president was using politically correct jargon instead of plain English. Why didn't you just say so?
It strikes me that the comic punchline, which is what those without a strong shared agreement frame with Taranto would seek value in, is probably less important for Taranto's readers than his substantive punchline, and its message of, "Once again, X is proven true."
None of this is a reflection on left/right politics or the content of tribal affiliations or ideologies as such. I'm sure there are conservative political writers who've written lines I would find funny. And maybe Taranto has written bits that I would find funny, were I to happen across them.
But to answer your question-- whether, on the one hand, your appreciation of his humor owes entirely to the fact that you're a conservative... or, on the other hand, readers more liberal can yourself can appreciate that humor... I'm guessing that your appreciation of his humor is largely though not entirely a matter of shared views, values, assumptions, and interpretations.
A shorter version of your question might be: James Taranto-- read this guy and give him a chance--... he's funny, right? A shorter version of my answer might be Maybe he is-- but if so, please offer a different example of his work, because this example of his work is not impressive.
*Note that I write probably; again, this is an example of the power of expectation-- specifically, my expectation of finding Jon Stewart's humor not necessarily spit-out-your-water, knee-slapping, side-splitting, guffawing-funny, but the sort that, owing to its subtle wit, only cracks a smile. True, one might find his approach pedantic, but it seems a lot more clever than...
et cetera
et cetera
posted by darth_tedious at 12:43 PM on September 28, 2009 [3 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by dfriedman at 10:49 AM on September 28, 2009