A Call

[Lord of Angmar]

I don't see any need to enforce strict guidelines to humour - as Saucey suggested, one man's honey is another's tar. Everyone need not necessarily agree on the merit of a particular post. What gets me, though, is the epidemic of strange 'inside jokes' that have overtaken Mirth; one simply cannot find something funny if there is no decipherable realm of origin visible to the joke-teller and the reader.

[Imladris]

Thank you, Angmar, for proving my point (I am referring to the inside jokes -- they are funny, but not funny to people who are not on the inside).

I wasn't clear in my first post, obviously. What one person views as humour one might view as stupidity. However (and I am sure most of you will agree with me on this) humour and stupidity are different things. Surely one can avoid blatant stupidity that is called "humour." That is all I am saying.

I wasn't suggesting strict guidelines. It was a merely a gentle nudge for some raise the quality up a notch. But that is my opinion, nothing more.

[The Saucepan Man]

I don't mind inside jokes per se. They are inevitable in a community such as this where members will have "shared mirth experiences", sometimes quite long standing. And often they can have their roots in some very funny posts (such as the competition on "Crazy Scenes with pics" in which Boromir won his Disco King crown). But I do think think that where in-jokes are mere references, without substance, they should really only be included within a more substantive post, one which actually has something to say (or as part of a sig).

The continuation of in-jokes as just that (ie without substance) tend to lead to more chatty posts and that, I think, is the greater problem than mere silly humour. And it does seem to me that this partcular sin is more frequently committed in this forum than it is in the Mirth forum. One thing that does annoy me is the posting of an ill-thought out "on-topic" comment (whether "humourous" or otherwise) simply as an excuse to carry on a chat conversation ...

[Kransha]

(Sorry, I could not resist the pun in this post title. It called to me, like a stray donkey in Birmingham after hours [note: this joke is not meant to be understood])

Humor is, as it has always been, a rather touchy subject. I wish to point out a little fact, relating to said 'quick' humor. In Threads such as those mentioned, there is always good intention, but many do not actually read the threads for purposes of enjoyment, they simply post, hoping to get a laugh, or credit, or up their post count. I respect trying to get an honest laugh, but a thread ceases to be a humorous one when no one simply sits back, reads it, and has a nice healthy fit of guffaws. That is why the strength of really intellectual, humurous threads, should never be overlooked. Certain types of humor can still be funny and fitting, even if they are not as apt in a certain situations.

Over the centuries, many authors and playwrites and poets and that ilk have defined humor in all its forms. Good humor has wit, sometimes sardonicism, and is understandable to most. A joke should be intelligent, but not so intelligent that it is lost upon the boorish serfs (read: inside joke). It can be, under circumstances appropriate, of course. The following are examples of categorical humor.

-Shakespeare, William, the globally renowned playwrite and sonneteer, perfected some of the first high humor, as he was writing for a high humor. Many of his works included 'low' humor, but only to appease the 'low' sort. In a way, even his crude humor was aptly placed and spaced, thus making it 'high' 'low' humor. If a Barrow-Downer must stoop to the level of primitivity where humor is concerned, keep in mind, perhaps, the incredibly vulgar sequence from Henry V, which is one of Shakespeare's most R-Rated comedic montages but managed to retain its classical nature. I doubt any Barrow-Downer would EVER be forced to go so low, but if one must, it is not impossible to still be side-splittingly funny and clever in one's crude humor. Just keep the expletives to a minimum, thank you.

-The art of the sketch should also be kept in mind. Par example: Monty Python, over the years, compiled a mound of near-infamous sketches, many filled with random, crude, low-class humor. The sketch art form could be crucial for B-Ders, though, for it is longer, more verbose, and, despite the inclusion of inside jokes and randomness, can be made both funny and thought-provoking. Script-format sketches typed into threads have often spawned some of the Barrow Downs' famous one-liners, and etcetera. This too can be used sparingly as a device.

-Dark humor too has its place, as does political humor, but neither should be allowed to become controversy, unless that was the focus. I suggest a lack of political humor, and use the times as a tool, rather than the administration of the times. This is, of course, Tolkien discussion, but parodying the world around us is not irrelevant to Tolkien. Tolkien's works take place in a different world, one which is constantly parodied by the modern world. Since we are semi-inhabitants of Tolkien's world, it is only fair that we get to parody the world which parodies us, eh? If one is to do this, do your research where you can, unless your remark is off-hand. It would be good to study the work of Jonathon Swift, or perhaps Evelyn Waugh. If you're going for modern ironicism, cynicism, or darker variety of comedy, check out Orwell when you can, or maybe Douglass Adams.

-The humor that I believe has it's place fully on the Downs is the genuine, clever wit that is present in comedy on a whole, as posted above. Mark Twain had this in excess and used it, though he also parodied the world around him, much to the joviality of his readers. Strive for this, my brethren, for it is what should be striven for, I suppose. This humor can be brief, can be concise, and is rarely directed at a trivial subject unless it is meant to complicate said subject. This wittiness should ne'er be spared, unless a situation's application would be totally, brutally innapropriate.