Talk:Surreal humour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Surreal humour has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents 1 couple changes 2 expanded article 3 rurrealism isn't randomness 4 confusing 5 Jokes 6 Better pictorial example than the one in the article (which makes some sense, as opposed to this one) 7 Surreal humor vs. surrealism vs. jokes about surrealists

[edit] couple changes

I wanted to make a couple of changes here, but it looks like other people are working on this fairly actively, so I thought I'd post here before I started.

First, I think the joke should go after the reference to the joke, not at the top of the article. I think it's more encyclopedia-like, and (not coincidentally) funnier.

Second, I think you need to add some discussion of pre-Monty python surrealism. If it were me, I'd particularly mention Kafka (whose stories are meant to be funny -- his friends used to sit around as he read and laugh hysterically. Gregor Samsa is an important precursor to everything the Pythons did.) I'd also talk about the dadaists and surrealists -- a lot of that stuff was incredibly goofy. Again, Monty Python wouldn't exist without it.

I'll add some of this myself if I don't hear back in a day or so.

NoahB 20:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] expanded article

Well, nobody commented, so I decided to be bold, and pretty much completely reworte the article. I've changed the definition, which seemed a bit too limited, and added many more examples, though there could be more....in fact, as I was typing this, I realized that I should have mentioned Bunuel, too. Maybe I'll get to that in a couple days....

NoahB 15:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] rurrealism isn't randomness

surrealism usually(or always, not sure) has an underlining meaning behind its obsurdness. how do completely unrelated sentences form "surreal" humor?

[edit] confusing

"An important point of surrealism is that it can appear in different forms in a comedy; for instance, Family Guy uses relatively normal plotlines which are interspersed with outrageously irrelevant surrealism, while Futurama focuses more on unexpected humour whilst retaining a mostly surreal plotline. South Park, on the other hand, uses surrealistic, absurd plotlines which are interspersed with absurd, surrealistic jokes."

This makes my head spin. It could be poor reading comprehension on my part, but I feel this should be rewritten or omitted.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jokes

Unless someone objects, I'm going to remove the list of "jokes" at the beginning of this article. I don't believe these are strong examples of surreal humor (or any other type of humor). Does anyone feel differently? Basicially, I concur with the comment above ("surrealism isn't randomness).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 21:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, they might well be surreal but aren't particularly humorous. Some quotes from surreal comedians/comedies might be better examples Linear 19:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, Perhpas I will add some quotes from Monty Python or from Space Ghost: Coast to Coast.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 22:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think examples/quotes could be useful here. Please do. --Spyforthemoon 20:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better pictorial example than the one in the article (which makes some sense, as opposed to this one)

[1]

Jyeah. --nlitement ^[talk] 22:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surreal humor vs. surrealism vs. jokes about surrealists

This page doesn't make it clear if there's a difference between surrealism & surreal humor. It almost implies that all modern art is supposed to be funny (i.e. Duchamp's urinal). A little (content) disambiguation would be most helpful.

Also, if the jokes weren't good examples, perhaps they (or a subset) should be listed as counterexamples - 'jokes about surrealists' rather than 'surreal jokes'. I know I came to this page expecting to see the lightbulb-fish one. Without an explination they may be in danger of being added back by people who think we've simply never heard them. --Spyforthemoon 20:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)