MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2003039119 · doi:10.1353/utq.0.0179

The Pleasure of Fools: Essays in the Ethics of Laughter (review)

2008· article· en· W2003039119 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Susan Bennett

Notice bibliographique

RevueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueRhetoric and Communication Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLaughterPleasureAestheticsSociologyDisciplineComedyGreeksPoliticsLiteraturePsychoanalysisMedia studiesEpistemologyPsychologyLawPhilosophySocial scienceHistoryArtPolitical scienceClassics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Pleasure of Fools: Essays in the Ethics of Laughter Susan Bennett Jure Gantar . The Pleasure of Fools: Essays in the Ethics of Laughter. McGill-Queen's University Press, 2005. 194. $70.00 If all laughter is at someone's expense, how do we understand the ethics of laughter? This is Jure Gantar's project and he explores 'the possibility of a perfectly ethical laughter ... to see whether one can indeed find a theoretical instance when laughter as an audience reaction alienates no one.' This is, not surprisingly, a fraught task, but various meditations on the condition of laughter and related domains such as nonsense, ridicule, and insult allow for an extended investigation of theorists of comedy across history, complemented by a variety of literary and dramatic texts that have tested theory by way of creative practice. Gantar suggests that laughter might be 'described as an external display of our innate prejudices or, even more damningly, as a public [End Page 151] projection of our desire to distance ourselves from the Other and suppress the difference,' although he mostly prefers to consider more historical examples than to take on contemporary debates about the politics of difference. The seven essays that explore the ethics of laughter travel from the Greeks to post-structuralism as well as deploy the author's disciplinary training – he is a professor of theatre at Dalhousie University – through the utilization of dramatic texts as his key case studies. Of course, texts intended for a public audience work especially well for Gantar, since, as he puts it, plays are 'the only form of text where the presence of laughter can be determined empirically.' Whether that is in fact the case, certainly the explicit conditions of reception in any public performance remind us 'that the ethics of laughter depends not on the extent of its satirical content but on whether the target of laughter is a hegemonic majority or a disenfranchised minority.' The question of ethical laughter is, necessarily, one that must take account of both production and reception, intention and effect. The essays together address alternatives to laughter (looking at genre and other constraints), typologies of laughter, nonsense, ridicule, laughter in utopia (testing Bakhtin's idea of subversive laughter), self--deprecating laughter, and the comedian (stand-up as the performance of abjection). In each case, Gantar ranges across relevant critical thinking and provides effective readings of literary and dramatic texts. As his various discussions amply demonstrate, critics 'question the social and aesthetic purpose of laughter from a variety of theoretical perspectives and regularly advise against its gratuitous use.' And, in the end, there's never much chance for ethical criticism since, according to Gantar, criticism 'ends up either advocating the censoring of laughter in the interest of morality, or exhausting itself in a hopeless search for what does not exist: innocent laughter.' Put another way, 'ethical criticism can never treat a joke as a joke but always as an insult.' Gantar's argument is certainly an interesting one and it does provide a clear and distinct perspective on how comedy as a genre has been understood and, so often, dismissed. Perhaps the greatest strength of these essays comes from the wealth of example Gantar uses to stage a particular case and reflect upon it, and this approach, in the sum of its parts, makes for a provocative challenge to received ideas about the role and effects of laughter. Susan Bennett Department of English, University of Calgary Copyright © 2008 University of Toronto Press Incorporated

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,905
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,996

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,061
Tête enseignante GPT0,244
Écart entre enseignants0,183 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2008
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUniversity of Toronto QuarterlyMême sujetRhetoric and Communication StudiesTravaux en français237 207