It's a Funny Thing, Humour. Proceedings of The International Conference on Humour and Laughter 1976

464 Pages·1977·27.75 MB·English

IT'S A FUNNY THING,
HUMOUR
Edited by
ANTONY J. CHAPMAN
and
HUGH C. FOOT
Welsh Branch, British Psychological Society
Illustrated by
Roy R. Behrens
PERGAMON PRESS
OXFORD • NEW YORK TORONTO • SYDNEY PARIS • FRANKFURT
U.K. Pergamon Press Ltd., Headington Hill Hall,
Oxford OX3 0BW, England
U.S.A. Pergamon Press Inc., Maxwell House, Fairview Park,
Elmsford, New York 10523, U.S.A.
CANADA Pergamon of Canada Ltd., 75 The East Mall,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
AUSTRALIA Pergamon Press (Aust.) Pty. Ltd., 19a Boundary Street,
Rushcutters Bay, N.S.W. 2011, Australia
FRANCE Pergamon Press SARL, 24 rue des Ecoles,
75240 Paris, Cedex 05, France
WEST GEPMANY Pergamon Press GmbH, 6242 Kronberg-Taunus,
Pferdstrasse 1, Frankfurt-am-Main, West Germany
Copyright (c) 1977 Pergamon Press Ltd.
A11 Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in
any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic,
magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without permission in writing from the
publishers
First edition 1977
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
International Conference on Humour and Laughter, Cardiff,
Wales, 1976.
It's a funny thing, humour, the International Confer­
ence on Humour and Laughter, held in Cardiff, July 13th-
17th 1976, under the auspices of the Welsh Branch of the
British Psychological Society.
Bibliography: p.
1. Wit and humor-Psychology-Congresses. I. Chap­
man, Antony J. II. Foot, Hugh C. III. British Psycho­
logical Society. Welsh Branch. IV. Title: It's a
funny thing, humour ...
PN6149.P5I5 1976 152.4 76-53731
ISBN 0-08-021376-6 (Hardcover)
ISBN 0-08-021377 (Flexicover)
In order to make this volume available as economically and rapidly as possible the
authors'typescripts have been reproduced in their original form. This method unfortunately
has its typographical limitations but it is hoped that they in no way distract the reader.
Printed in Great Britain by A. Wheaton & Co., Exeter
Preface
It is always difficult to trace the origins of an idea, and the idea for the International
Conference on Humour and Laughter is no exception. Suffice it to say that we became aware
of the rapidly increasing academic interest in humour and laughter, and that it was the
Welsh Branch of the British Psychological Society which provided the opportunity to organize
an international gathering. Delegates from sixteen nations were in Cardiff between July
13th and July 17th 1976, and this book contains reports of the papers that were presented.
Guest comedian, Ken Dodd, endeared himself to other delegates with an address that was
scholarly and informative. It was also very funny. He argued that no-one can 'make' anyone
else laugh - laughter, he said, is a gift. He concluded his address with a plea that nobody
should ever discover or disclose 'the key' to humour. He can rest assured that no sane
person could currently be harbouring any such irreverent ambition.
To date, analysts have barely begun to scratch the surface, revealing the vast complexities
in humour and in responsiveness to humour. Ue are still at the stage where close examination
seems only to enhance the elusiveness of humour, and that is especially the case when closer
scrutiny involves mingling with researchers having other orientations and interests. If we
are to make worthwhile statements about humour, then there is no doubt that^ much more than
at present, we need to exchange ideas and communicate knowledge across disciplines. Moreover,
within the discipline of we Editors - Psychology - we need to be extremely catholic in the
types of methodologies employed.
The majority of delegates at this Conference were academics and most were psychologists, but
other academic disciplines were represented too: for example, Anthropology, Communication,
Education, English, French, Mathematics, Philosophy, Politics, Psychiatry, Social Work, and
Sociology. Then there were school teachers and there were others from outside the world of
teaching and research. Hopefully, the balance across disciplines will be spread more
evenly at any future international humour conference.
In general terms, the structure of the book reflects the structure of the Conference
Programme, with contributions falling into ten main sections. Eight of these sections
correspond to the eight symposia presented during the Conference; they are sandwiched
between two sections arising from the various sessions of 'individual' papers. The papers
comprising the opening section are somewhat more theoretical in focus than those in the
closing section, although to some extent the division is arbitrary. Certainly many of the
'individual' papers were suitable for symposia and we were often spoilt for choice when
designing the Programme.
Each of the 'symposia sections' has an introductory chapter, a short series of papers, and
some brief evaluative comments. Opening chapters are based upon the Symposia Chairpersons'
introductory talks, and they constitute overviews of the areas under discussion. Symposia
Discussants have supplied the concluding comments, and some of them allude directly to
points made from the floor during open discussion. Only a handful of all the contributions
here appear in the form read at the Conference; most have been modified.
The bibliography is extensive and has been drawn up over a number of years. It is intended
to contain all analyses of humour, laughter and comedy published in English, We should be
grateful to be told of any errors and omissions, and also to be kept informed of new work.
The Conference was the first of its kind and it provided rich material for the press and
broadcasting media. In 1977, the BBC is to present a television programme on the Conference,
produced by Derek Trimby. The press comments have been reproduced and are available from
Pergamon in 'scrapbook' form.
On the whole, press coverage was fair and unprejudiced but some was flagrantly dishonest.
For example, 'Time' was one magazine which reported a paper that was not in fact presented.
The Speaker was in hospital and consequently his paper featured in the Programme only! Then
again, a writer in 'Punch' was guilty of the same howler and was also inaccurate on a number
of 'details'. His analysis was couched in a curious mixture of past and present tense - that
article appeared on the bookstalls immediately before the Conference was underway]
xz
xzv Preface
Most journalists did attend those papers about which they chose to write. However, it is
evident from some reports that they did not always follow what was said, but we must hasten
to admit that, on some occasions, this does not reflect any inadequacies on their parti Some
of the jargon issued from the platform was unfortunate and served to inhibit communication.
We regret that a degree of this creeps over to the book. Some of the extensive publicity
received before the outset of the Conference and during it, brought home the fact that
'humour' and 'laughter' are not yet recognized by many as legitimate topics for serious
study, and the unnecessary jargon may sometimes have slipped in as a form of defence against
anticipated criticism. Of course, the jargon itself then became the subject for fun. You
have only to thumb through the Pergamon 'scrapbook' to see this.
The smooth, day-to-day running of conference events resulted in no small part from the
resourceful and assiduous assistance given by our students, graduates and friends. Jean
Smith, Mary Jones and Liz Pritchard worked cheerfully through endless hours during July and,
at the Conference, were joined by Pauline Corbett, Ann Davies, Isabelle Davies, Nick
Gadfield, John Haigh, Brenda Klug, Rob Mason, Kathie Osborne, Alison Turnbull, and Paul
Twynham. For more than a year we had the solid backing of the clerical and technical staff
in UWIST's Applied Psychology Department. It was a pleasure working with all these people
and with those from Traherne Hall of Residence. We can imagine no finer group of fellow-
workers and friends.
In the production of the book, Liz Clarke was magnificent. All of it was typed in camera-
ready-copy during her 'spare-time' over a period of two months, and readers can see for
themselves the superb quality of her work. Pam Morris, again in 'spare-time', provided some
support towards the end when alterations were necessary and the deadline had been brought
forward by several weeks. Jean Smith and Liz Pritchard proof-read the typed plates with us,
and they were of enormous help in this respect.
Ue are grateful to the BPS Welsh Branch and, particularly to our friend and colleague Tony
Gale who formally proposed that the Conference be convened. We are also grateful to the
Social Science Research Council for allowing us to grant nominal travel awards to newly
established research workers in attendance. Otherwise, the Conference financed itself.
The book should provide interesting reading to people from all backgrounds. Within humour
and laughter, it covers a very wide range of issues, and it contains many insights and much
fresh information. But there is certainly no single 'key' to be found in these pages, and
we do not believe that such a key exists. For those who have not begun to study humour in a
systematic or serious fashion, the book will illustrate if not confirm, Ken Dodd's words:
'It's a funny thing, humour.'
Welsh Regional Office Tony Chapman
British Psychological Society Hugh Foot
c/o Department of Applied Psychology
UWIST Cardiff September 1976
Foreword
In this book are assembled the papers, or abstracts of papers, delivered at the Conference
on Humour and Laughter held in July, 1976. During the last session of that Conference, the
audience was asked if the Conference might end up by trying to produce a definition of humour.
The response was overwhelmingly negative; nor was any attempt made to work out a taxonomy of
laughter, though of course individual authors did talk about their own definitions and
taxonomies. So, as far as this book is concerned, humour and laughter must be defined in
terms of what the authors have chosen to talk about. There does seem to be some measure of
agreement, perhaps because the large majority of contributors have English as their first
language. Also the contents of this book may be taken to represent a fairly good sample of
the work English-speaking psychologists (mainly) are doing, since the conveners of the
Conference, Dr. Chapman and Dr. Foot, were very successful in their preliminary publicity.
Anyone interested was almost certain to hear about it beforehand, and as Editors they have
tried to give all-comers a platform, whatever the focus of the work or the idiosyncracies of
the authors.
It should be said that there may have been another unifying factor. Chapman and Foot's
excellent survey "Humour and Laughter: Theory, Research and Applications" was published
earlier in 1976. Many contributors to this present book were familiar with it and had been
brought up to date with current work, and, of course, with the viewpoints of the Editors.
In their Introduction to that book, the Editors make it clear that there are many kinds of
humour and laughter, and that there are no simple one-to-one connexions between them. It
is still worth referring back to Flugel's classic 1954 survey for a scholarly discussion of
definitions and taxonomies. Comparing his study with the contents of these proceedings it is
instructive to find how little change there has been in the concerns of those trying to
analyze humour. There are more experiments being done and some of the jargon is different,
but many of the hypotheses are similar, though Flugel's own background thinking was more
influenced by psychoanalysis than is the case for most of the present contributors. Also, he
was concerned with laughter as much as with humour, whereas here there are five times as many
contributions on humour.
Why study humour? As Chapman and Foot have pointed out, the lack of psychological and related
research on humour is noteworthy, especially since so much everyday behaviour and conversation
involves humour and laughter. That fact alone should be enough to start anyone with an
inquiring mind. If psychologists are to do the job properly, then it seems to me that they
should attempt to find answers to the following, with respect to both humour and laughter:
the probability of their occurrence under various conditions; their ontogeny and, according
to some contributors, phylogeny; individual differences in reactions, and differences
between cultures and sub-cultures, and changes over time; neurophysiological correlates;
the effects of humour and laughter on other people; their relation to social structure and
group dynamics. On the applied side, as this book shows, there is growing interest in the
use of humour and laughter in therapy and in persuasion. If the work is to be done rigorously,
it needs careful categorising of the various kinds of humour and laughter, sophisticated
experimental and observational techniques and new methods of measurement are still needed;
and one of the main problems in this kind of research, as contributors have shown themselves
to be well aware, lies in translating results from controlled experimental settings to what
might be expected in day-to-day behaviour.
Since probably before Plato there have been theories about humour and laughter. At present
the theories seem to be particularly related to developmental stages, to understanding the
functions of humour and laughter, and to explaining what is psychologically different about
a humorous situation. The theories have three main orientations - cognitive, social and
deriving from psychoanalysis - and of course one needs all three if all aspects are to be
covered. Functional explanations attract a great deal of attention and disagreement, not
surprisingly since they are intended to answer the most interesting questions and yet are in
practice untestable.
The writer has to admit that his main interest lies in trying to understand the functions of
humour and laughter, with related interests in developmental changes and changes with fashion.
Laughter is easier to deal with than humour, possibly because there are not so many
definitional problems. It is obvious that there are many different kinds of occasion when
laughter may occur. In his early (1942) study of laughter in young children, Walentine listed
fifteen categories. They are worth recording, to show the need for a taxonomy, and because
they are suggestive of explanations of adult laughter, and humour. They are: (1) expression
of delight, (2) response to laughter or smile of another, (3) sight of a bright or pleasing
xiii
xiv Foreword
object, (4) tickling or jogging, (5) mild shock or surprise, (6) repetition, as in the peep-bo
game, (7) the incongruous, as of the child's own name or the sight of his face in a mirror,
(9) accomplishment of some new form of activity, (10) teasing, (11) mild discomfiture of
another, (12) laughter in the course of social play, (13) laughter to make another laugh,
especially after doing something naughty, (14) incongruity in words or ideas, as i npuns,
(15) laughter at mere coincidences. The list is rather comprehensive but there have been
longer ones. Another important category might be (16) laughter as a more socially desirable
response to be substituted for crying, as for instance when the child has fallen down.
Presumably this last is an example of what Ludovici (1932) called 'the expression of superior
adaptation', one of the 'superiority theories' which are said to derive from Hobbe s(1651).
How many functions of laughter are there? Are they as numerous as are the occasions for
laughter, or can they be reduced to one, for example, superiority? As in most cases where
there is this kind of apparent polarization between multiplicity and unity (for example, how
many drives are there?), it may help to think in terms of a hierarchy. The level chosen will
depend on what the taxonomy is to be used for, but the various levels must be compatible with
each other. In the writer's view, the most general remark to be made about adult laughter is
that its functions are social, the evidence being that people do not laugh when they are on
their own. The exceptions prove the rule in that they occur when one has forgotten that one
is alone. At another level of analysis I have speculated that laughter has a most important
function in determining and maintaining group cohesion and in distinguishing between the mores
of one's own group and that of the outgroup - laughing with and laughing at. It can be argued
that these functions have played an important part in cultural evolution.
The links with humour are not obvious. While attending this Conference I came to the
conclusion that laughter has a lot to do with social development whereas many kinds of humour
have more to do with cognitive development. This latter point has been made by many
theorists and experimenters, and seems particularly applicable to those kinds of humour which
involve 'playing with cognitive categories', the kind of thing epitomised in the pun. It
would be expected that this kind of humour cannot be appreciated until a child can see that
a thing or word or occurrence can be categorised in more ways than one simultaneously, and
the experiments which are based on Piagetian theorizing do seem to suppor tthis, (is it too
much to expect that 'condensation' in dream work does not occur unti lthen?). Similar
unconventional uses of categories are found in some forms of thought disorder, as for instance
'overinclusion', and many kinds of humour are thought of as being nearly psychotic. In fact,
if one did not know that the setting (for example, of a cartoon or the comic performance) was
a humorous one, then one would be faced with the 'Buffery problem', funny peculiar or funny
ha-ha! (see Buffery, this volume). The response of laughter then means 'I know you don't
really mix up categories in this way'.
The Conference reported here received a good deal of attention from the British press and
broadcasting. The usual reaction was of amazement and amused disbelief that scientists would
be coming from all over the world to Cardiff to have a Conference on Humour and Laughter, and
that was also the reaction, though perhaps a bit mollified, of many psychologists. But is it
not generally the case that all psychologists have some niche of behaviour or experience which
they are unwilling to analyze? The musician does not really want to know why he likes music
or the religious person why he is religious. Or the humorous person why he is humorous. Oh
dear.'
The difficulties involved in analyzing humour and laughter introspectively suggest that there
is something early and basic about them, like trying through introspection to work out how
language is acquired. It looks as though both humour and laughter are concerned with boundary
phenomena, with making discriminations between what is done and what is not done, between
them and us, between sanity and insanity. To be aphoristic about it, and like most aphorisms
this one is ninety per cent untrue: laughter is a defence against neurosis, humour is a
defence against psychosis.
The Conference ranged the whole gamut from devout seriousness to obscene hilarity. It was
most enjoyable, and participants would want me to express our thanks to the University of
Wales Institute of Science and Technology for its hospitality, and to the Welsh Branch of the
British Psychological Society and especially Tony Chapman and Hugh Foot for having the idea
and organising it.
B.M. Foss
Professor of Psychology
Bedford College
University of London
Foreword xv
REFERENCES
Chapman, A.3. & Foot, H.C. (Eds.), Humour and Laughter: Theory, Research and Applications.
Wiley, London (1976).
Flugel, O.C., Humor and laughter. In: G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology.
Volume II. Addison-Uesley, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1954).
Hobbes, T., Humane Nature. Anchor, London (1651).
Hobbes, T., Leviathan. Penguin, Harmondsuorth (1968). (Originally published 1651)
Ludovici, A.M., The Secret of Laughter. Gordon Press, London (1932).
Valentine, C.U., The Psychology of Early Childhood. Methuen, London (1942).
If Hamlet Had Had A Sense of Humour
Harvey Mindess
Antioch College/West
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury:
The case I intend to argue in this courtroom is simplicity itself. If there are any wits
amongst you, they may conclude, when I have done, that that is because it is over-simplified,
inspired by simple-mindedness, and conceived by a simpleton. Before the rest of you pronounce
your verdict, however, I ask you to simply listen to the very simple points it undertakes to
make.
Our lives, I propose, extend between the poles of tragedy and comedy, but we possess more
freedom than we realize to experience our circumstances and ourselves in tragic or comic guise.
Some events, it is true, are so unrelievedly dreadful that one would have to be out of one's
mind to find them amusing. Other events, it is equally true, are so undeniably funny that one
would have to be pathological to find them grim. Host of the happenings in which we engage,
however, reside at neither pole. Our family ties, our friendships and loves, our marriage
arrangements and occupational activities, our personal strivings no less than the public
events of the countries to which we belong, are riddled through and through with both tragic
and comic elements. Our experience of them, therefore, depends at least in part on how we
choose to perceive them.
I use the word 'choose1, I confess, with malice aforethought, for I wish to contend that we
have it within our power to focus on one or the other aspect of our lives and thereby to turn
them in one or the other direction. 3ust as we are capable of replacing, or at least
augmenting, fear with anger, despair with resolve, impulsiveness with thoughtfulness, we are
capable of adding humour to our repertoire of self-perceptions - indeed, of giving it a
central place in our conceptions of ourselves - and in this act, I say, we may exert a greater
effect on the course and outcome of our struggles than anyone has yet envisualized.
Not only may a humorous view of ourselves help lighten a mood of gloom; not only may it
promote an appreciation of the tininess of our individual complaints within the broader scheme
of things; it may, I suggest, transform the very texture of our lives, rescuing them both
from horror and banality by its refusal to buy into either a tragic or- a flatly objective
outlook.
Members of the jury, if you judge this a debatable notion, let me hasten to agree with you.
Although I intend to develop it, I am not at all certain that I can muster enough evidence
to convince you of its validity. I would readily admit, in fact, that everything I have to
say may be irrelevant and immaterial. And yet I feel compelled to pursue it. Uhy? I will
tell you. It is because I sense - dumbly, dimly - that the thesis that self-directed humour
can radically alter our lives may be true, and it is because I believe that the promulgation
of this thesis could be so significant that even the weakest effort expended on articulating
it would have been well worthwhile.
I do not intend, however, to argue the case on theoretical grounds. Nor do I have any
research data to present to you. There are some anecdotal reports I could mention, but rather
than do that today I thought I would simply illustrate the notion in a somewhat fanciful
fashion. Since it is nothing more at this stage of its development than an intuitive fancy
itself, I hope you will not find it insulting to the stature of this gathering if I invite
you to join me on an imaginary journey into the world of drama and literature. If you come
along, I will try to show how the spirit of humour can penetrate the edifice of tragedy and
reduce it to something less substantial than it at first appeared.
3
4 H. Mindness
As ue all know, many great plays and novels have been created in which the leading characters
endure tragic fates. Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov, Shakespeare's Othello, Bronte's Heathcliff
and Catherine Earnshau, Medea, Prometheus, and others in Greek mythology are only the first
that come to mind. Not only are their destinies heartbreaking, however; their authors also
convince us that their tragedies are inevitable. Having read their stories or seen them
performed, ue are left uith the ominous feeling that certain individuals, often admirable and
enviable in other respects, are doomed to live out a destructive sequence of events culminating
in a dreadful or horrifying death.
Perhaps the most eloquent of all these tragic heroines and heroes is Shakespeare's 'Hamlet'.
He is certainly amongst the most uell-knoun and the most universally acclaimed in the
persuasiveness of his plight. Almost everyone, I think it fair to say, is convinced that
Hamlet cannot be other than he is and that the havoc he ureaks on himself and those about him
is therefore unavoidable.
As a student of humour, I doubt it. Despite his trenchant uit, uhat Hamlet lacks is a grasp
of himself as a mortal fool. In this lack, he is kin to the vast majority of tragic characters
in literature and life. Taking themselves and their plights uith utmost seriousness, they
invest in their oun destruction and compound it uith added interest. In order to explore the
possibilities the Prince of Denmark uould have had if he had perceived himself and his
circumstances uith humour, let us take a moment to revieu the play from that unusual
perspective.
Imagine, if you uill, that you are young Prince Hamlet. (Well, not so young; you are thirty
years of age and still unmarried, so already you should be ashamed o fyourself). Nevertheless,
your father, a noble king, has expired under suspicious circumstances. (But perhaps ue should
not say expired; it makes him sound like a library card. No, let's face it: he has kicked
the bucket, passed auay, gone to meet his Maker, breathed his last, and als odied). Barely
tuo months have passed since the sad event and already your mother has cast off her mourning
goun, and probably her nightgoun as uell, and hopped into bed uith your uncle Claudius. They
have also been legally married, so the suine has taken possession not only of your father's
uife but of his realm as uell.
You are, to put it mildly, perturbed. In more contemporary terms, you feel bummed out,
ripped off, dumped on, fucked over, and generally unappreciated. In fact, you have a strong
urge to shout, 'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark!' But you don't. You don't say
it because you are moody, disconsolate, and lost in thought - and besides, it's not your line.
Your line is, 'The time is out of joint. 0 cursed spite, that ever I uas born to set it
right'. But you don't say that either. Not yet at least. You may be disconsolate, but you
are not dumb enough to throu auay good material before you have made your entrance.
So you go to meet a strange apparition that claims it's your father's ghost. And uhat does it
do? It tells you he uas murdered by his brother Claudius, uho performed the foul deed by
pouring poison in his ears, and directs you to seek revenge.
Uel'., here I uould say is your first opportunity to exercise your sense of humour. True, the
murder of one's father is hardly a laughing matter, but the manner of this crime is hardly
the stuff of tragedy. Poison in the ears, indeed.' The villain must have gotten his degree
in otolaryngology. But never mind. Let us say that this chink in the armour of destiny,
this unbuttoned fly on the trousers of tragedy, escapes your attention. Uhat then?
You return to the royal palace, uhere you find your mother concerned about your sulking (as
uell she should be), your uncle solicitous of your uelfare (or so he shreudl yclaims), and
other friends and acquaintances, not excluding your sueetheart Ophelia, anxious to rouse you
out of your grief.
Do you allou them to do so? Not on your life. Having discoursed uith a ghost, you are nou
consumed uith suspicions about your uncle's treachery, your mother's lust, and your friends'
friendliness, so you deliver a feu verbal sallies to shou them all uhat you're made of.
'Frailty, thy name is uoman!* Get thee to a nunneryi' '0 uhat a piece of uork is man1! And
at one particularly desperate moment, uishing that you could at least have had a barmitsvah,
you mourn, 'Oh, that this too too solid flesh uould melt, thau, and resolve itself into a
Jeu1.
But nothing helps. You are pinioned on the cross of hesitation, goaded to avenge your
father's death and yet restrained by some mysterious mixture of doubt and despair, uncertainty
and ennui.
If Hamlet Had Had A Sense of Humour 5
Now once again, I suggest, your sense of humour could come to your aid. It could show you
that not only mother and uncle but also you are a little offbase (that's American for, 'off
your wicket'). I mean, what's with this walking around acting crazy, poking your sword into
other people's arrasses, and muttering, 'The play's the thing?' The time may be out of
joint, old pal, but u/hat makes you think that you're in any shape to set it right? If you'll
forgive my saying so, you would be well advised to call in Columbo, let Ophelia relieve your
misery, learn to bake Danish pastry, or at least consult a shrink.
Alright, I know what you're going to say. What kind of a shrink? A Freudian, a Jungian, a
behaviour modifier, or an existential humanist? They're all terrific, goodness knows, but
which is the best for your case? Well, I can tell you this. A Freudian would help, because
you can bet your mother's couch that he would tell you you have a terrible Oedipus complex.
Like all normal boys, you wished that you yourself could poison daddy's ears and climb into
bed with mom, so you're only mad at your uncle because he got there first. I don't say that
would cure you, but think what it would do for your sense of humour. Just compare that foxy
Ophelia with your old saggy mom and tell me, wouldn't you crack a smile?
Or how about taking a different tack? Instead of telling the shrink what's really bugging
you, you could start with a cover story to test him out. You could say, 'I have this strange
compulsion to go BEEP BEEP all the time. So wherever I am, whatever I'm doing, I'm obsessed
with the question, TO BEEP OR NOT TO BEEP.1
In other words, Prince Hamlet, instead of taking yourself and your plight so seriously -
though I admit that it is in many respects a terribly serious matter - you could try to see
the ludicrousness that is, or could be, a part of it. Although, or because, the attempt would
lead you to step off your moral podium and mingle in the playground of common silliness, I
believe it would help you immeasurably. You would, it is true, lose some of your gloomy
grandeur, but consider how many people you wouldn't have to kill. Yes, your father is dead,
perhaps murdered, and your mother is behaving badly, but as my grandmother would have said,
you still have your health and a lovely girlfriend, so why not try to enjoy?
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I suggest that we are all Hamlets to the extent that we are
undone by the injustices in our lives and the lives of those about us. And it is surely part
of our nobility, as it is Hamlet's, to attempt to right the scales. But it is short-sighted
to believe that we can accomplish this goal in any enduring sense, for the time is always out
of joint. Treachery and greed, stupidity and lust are always on the loose, and every avenging
angel partakes of those qualities too. Hamlet's predicament is real, but he compounds it by
his inability to perceive it in broad enough perspective. While as seekers of justice we may
applaud him, as psychologists of humour we must admonish him. You take yourself too seriously,
young Prince. Like most of us most of the time; you fail to register and cultivate the
humorous dimension of your plight. As you told Rosencrantz and Guildenstern before you got
all befuddled, 'There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so'. Would that we
all, in our own times of trial, could remember those words.
Ladies and gentlemen (place briefcase on lectern), in the immortal words of that great
Shakespearian scholar, Groucho Marx, 'I rest my case1.