Talk:Shaggy dog story

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 26 February 2007. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Contents

[edit] Nominate

Somebody nominate this for outstanding article or whatever. It's just awesome.

Uh... why don't you? :-) --Ihope127 15:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More Jokes?

I love this form of joke (although until i stumbled accross this article i wasn't aware that it was called a shaggy dog story, and have a bit of a collection of them. I'm wondering if people think that there are quite enough examples up, or if i should put some more in? Ignus 21:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

There are probably enough examples as it is. If you want to share these, then perhaps you could start a wikibook project for it? (I ran into wikibook projects for all sorts of jokes, so that seems appropriate) JeroenHoek 22:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I added the version of "People in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones" that I've heard, as well as what is probably my favorite joke ever (regarding Notre Dame bellringers). If either of these is inappropriate to the article, uh.. Go ahead and delete them, I guess. 3:26, 27 July 2005 (CDT)

[edit] Baseball Explanation

Hints for non-USians please... I assume the punchline must be some famous (in the US only) quote about baseball?

At the risk of being a bore here . . . when referring to baseball "it was the bottom of the ninth, the score was tied and the bases were loaded" means:

  • The game had reach the last inning (the equivalent of the fourth innings of a cricket test match, or, as a looser analogy, injury time in the second half of a football match)
  • Both teams were on the same score (ie 0-0, 1-1 or some other similar score)
  • Trying to describe "the bases are loaded" is impossible without giving a basic rundown of the game itself, but put simply it's a position from which one team is in a good position to score one or more, and is thus a tense period in the game.

I should point out that the manuscript for orchestral music is also called a score, and in US English "loaded" is a synonym for inebriated (drunk).

So the punchline of the joke is that the conductor's statement seemingly about the bass players also makes perfect sense as a comment about baseball.

Sorry to bore everyone to tears explaining this, but somebody did ask.

Some people don't find puns funny. Even after you explained how the words are used in the pun, some may simply respond "Why is playing with words considered funny?"

[edit] Originator

OK - I wrote this article and, as many people here know, I'm Australian, so I can't be accused of usian-centricity. I have told this joke in Britain, South Africa, NZ and Australia and everyone got it. In case you haven't noticed, usian culture has kinda crawled across the world. God - haven't you got a TV? (Now I agree a joke about cricket would have to be explained to usians, as they are a bit insular.) To be fair explanation may be warranted for non-native speakers of English. The dubious humour value of puns is noted on the pun page. A replacement explanation that is much shorter is provided. We don't need to explain the rules of baseball here, that belongs on the baseball page. - MB

Speaking as a Brit, I find the punchline incomprehensible. I think your British listeners were exceptional if they understood it. 207.245.124.66 15:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this kind of attitude really annoys me. I have no problem with US culture itself, but I can't stand the way US Americans expect (for example) British people to absorb and understand their culture, whilst US Americans don't do the same in return. I mean, I understood all the jokes on the page, including 'Nate the Snake', even though in the UK 'lever' rhymes with 'cleaver', not 'never'. What annoys me, though, is the way American stuff brought over here is left unaltered, but British stuff is Americanised before being released stateside.
Example: as a kid, I really enjoyed the Animorphs books, which are from the USA. Now, even though I bought them in England, the books were full of American spellings and words. Yet I knew what they meant, (because I'm not thick) and I just accepted that it was a US book so it would use US English. Contrast that with the Harry Potter books. In the US editions, the word 'jumper' is replaced with 'sweater', and 'do his nut' is replaced by 'go ballistic', to give a couple of examples. Now that just really annoys me. They're British books; they're full of obviously British culture , and, contrary to what the US media might think, US kids know this (because they aren't thick). They can accept that it's Britsh English. I know that this might cause some slight confusion (I hate to think what Americans would make of Fred's use of the expression "keep our peckers up"!), but people can live with it.
So, what am I saying? Well, Wikipedia is meant to be used by people worldwide. This article doesn't actually present a worldwide view. Now I don't have any problem with the article's content, but to expect US concepts to be recognised the world over is (at least IMHO) sheer arrogance. Sure, a Brit or an Australian will normally "get" a US joke, but maybe it would be better if we tried to get a few non-US orientated jokes here - apart from baseball, the punchlines of both "Nate the Snake" and the "Immortal Porpoise" are also dependant on knowledge of US culture. RobbieG 11:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Listen, I understand the point you're driving at. But there are two strong counterarguments here. First of all, the U.S. is by far (i.e. by at least 100%) the most populous nation where English is spoken as the native language. Thus, an English language encyclopedia is going to be primarily oriented toward Americans, if not just because of the population bias, then because of the proportionate number of internet-using Americans. That is just how the numbers work out.
Second, America is by far the greatest exporter of culture in the world (and when I say greatest I'm talking quantity, not quality). To my knowledge, there isn't a single British, Canadian, Australian or South African television program on standard American television, nor has there been at any time in memory. However, American programs get rebroadcast extensively around the world. This isn't a fact that can easily be ignored - every English-speaking country has at least some familiarity with American culture. So it's natural that references used in Wikipedia articles that aren't directly related to non-American culture will have a certain amount of American bias, simply because this makes them more comprehensible to English speakers the world over. Strictly British references might be gratifying to that subset of the wiki-going populace, but would be utterly unintelligible to everyone else.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I particularly care for American media - I don't - but it does make sense to use it as a reference point. 71.193.152.63 12:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tristram Shandy

Anyone think that Tristram Shandy belongs in this article somewhere? I'm not sure if it's the original literary shaggy dog story, but it's and oldy and a goody. It's quite punny. Actually, come to think of it, it's the original cock and bull story. ;) --Dante Alighieri 03:37, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] International

I'm canadian and some of the jokes were hard to understand without the explanations there - I'm happy that they are there - the fact that they end in a pun is pretty hilarious - I love this page - one of the best - keep up the awesome work!--Chao 23:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm Dutch, English isn't my mothertongue, however I did "get" all of the jokes here (entertaining read I might add). This page seems fine as it is with the hints, even though the jokes might be hard to comprehend for some. The baseball description ("Bottom of the 9th, all bases loaded") seems pretty well-known outside of the U.S. JeroenHoek 21:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "bassists" vs "basses"

The Symphony Orchestra joke depends not only on the similarity of the concluding sentence to "It was the bottom of the ninth, the score was tied and the bases were loaded with two outs", but also on the fact that the story actually leads up to the concluding sentence. Although the word "basses" does have more similarity to "bases" than "bassists" does, 1) "bassists" is close enough for the joke to work, and 2) according to the story, the bassists (the players of the basses) were loaded (drunk), not their instruments (the basses). KickAir8P~ 17:50, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

"basses" is used to refer to a group of people in this case, all though not very elegant English shaggy dog stories needn't be. Anyone else care to comment? JeroenHoek 18:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Except "basses" can't refer to a group of people, it can only refer to a group of instruments. Using "basses" to mean "two or more bass players" isn't inelegant or even bad English, it's just a mistake. Then the concluding sentence fails to follow from the story, and the joke is ruined. KickAir8P~ 18:18, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
      • In most band or ochestral settings, musicians are referred to by their instruments for whatever reason. It is a fairly standard procedure and thus "basses" is just as acceptable as "bassists".--24.77.35.110 9 July 2005 03:19 (UTC)
        • I agree; I don't know what orchestra you play in, but everywhere I've played it is perfectly acceptable to refer to the bass section (or the cello section, or any other), and the instrumentalists in that section, by the name of their instrument. Foxmulder 02:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
        • For instance, Richard Strauss famously said "Never look at the trombones, you'll only encourage them." No one says "oh that's not funny because you can't encourage an inanimate object." It is quite easy to understand that he was in fact referring to the people who play the trombone. And so it is with the basses. Foxmulder 02:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Also (yes I know I have no life, why am I harping on this one word in one joke, etc.) if you look up "trumpet" on Merriam-Webster online, you will find, in addition to a description of the instrument, "2. a trumpet player" In my dictionary at home, "Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary," this usage is also applied to the word "violin." Although neither dictionary has it for "bass," I think we can extrapolate that this is acceptable usage in general. Finally, a Google search for "the basses were loaded" yields 631 results, while "the bassists were loaded" gets 166. So it seems to be the more common usage, it is accepted usage both by orchestra members all over the world and by multiple dictionaries, and it makes the punchline of the joke a much closer pun, since "basses" is actually homophonous with "bases." Foxmulder 03:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
          • ..and it simply makes more sense this way. Nice argumentation Foxmulder JeroenHoek 09:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
          • I sit corrected. KickAir8P~ 02:01, 2005 July 25 (UTC)


        • The fact is, it makes much more sense if, instead of "basses" as in bass players, the joke refers to "basses" as in bass SINGERS. Not only because referring to bass singers as basses is generally more common, but also because it suits the particular case of Beethoven's Ninth, where there is a choir of singers that do nothing throughout the symphony until the fourth and final movement.192.80.95.243 16:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Aristocrats

I removed the following story because of its strong language and content. This is an encyclopedia, meant to be accesable to anyone, including children. If you don't agree with this removal, please discuss it here. JeroenHoek 07:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Eh? Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors Jeoh 09:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's offensive enough here. I'll kill it; there's a page for it with a content warning on WP...IvanP 20:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC) Original contents of removed story: (removed)

[edit] Cartoon Purple Wombat.

I think the story of the Purple Wombat should be turned into some sort of saturday-morning cartoon or a movie.

Or a webtoon. Or webcomic.

And it should have a different ending.

RocketMaster 00:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC) My email address: [1]

It can't have a different ending. It wouldn't make sense.

Or wouldn't not make sense. Whatever. :-P -69.249.85.13 03:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speaking of the Purple Wombat

Would it be unencyclopedic to include variants? In the American Midwest, the story goes by the name "Purple Muffins". The eight-year-old protagonist is told that "Purple Muffins" is the worse swear word in existence. He asks the teacher what it means and is sent to the principal's office; the principal expells him, his parents disown him, he is arrested by a police officer, and sentenced to thirty years in prison-- all for the sake of this word, and he doesn't even know what it means. Each trauma is preceeded by the hero recounting the previous traumas and then hesitantly revealing the word. In prison, even murderers and hardened criminals avoid him-- because he's in prison for saying "purple muffins". He gets out of prison, gets a drink at a bar, and recounts his troubles to the bartender. The bartender tells him that his brother knows what the word means-- he lives right across the street. Our hero heads across the street-- and is promptly hit by a truck.

Another variant I've run across gives the hero a tragic flaw: he just wanted to be cool. Some fifth graders had told him the word-- because if he was cool, he would use the word. The phrase "I wanted to be cool" becomes part of the repitition as he recites each event.

Usually the person telling the joke walks away brisquely after having said "and he was hit by a truck and died".

Here in the UK, for years I've known a very similar joke about a boy who is something of a "teacher's pet" and when he sees the other kids writing "naughty words" on the blackboard, he rubs all the words off and replaces them with a "good word", "Peanut Butter". The joke then details how the teacher comes in and is shocked and sends him to his head of year. Then the joke goes on for quite a while, detailing how the boy is sent to the head, expelled and sent home, chucked out of his house, chucked out of various relatives houses, arrested by a policeman, sent to court, sentenced to 60 years of imprisonment, and put in solitary as all the other criminals are scared of him. At the end of the joke, he is finally free, and runs out into the road, yelling "I'm free! I'm free! I'm going to start my life afresh! I'll never write 'peanut butter' on the blackboard again! I'm not going to waste my life any more..." at which point he is knocked down by a speeding lorry and killed. The story teller then asks the audience, "And do you know what the moral of the story was?" and pauses (the audience will probably say something like "Don't write 'Peanut butter' on the blackboard?") "No, always look both ways before you cross the street!" I think this version is especially funny because there are three jokes - it is ridiculous, the anticlimax, and the ending, which is a parody of road safety lessons at school RobbieG 11:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slight shift to "Fuck You, Clown" and ... content?

I know there's no "right" way to tell a shaggy dog, but I altered the punchline of the clown joke to match the only punchline I've ever heard for this joke, ever. And I've heard it (and read it, and seen it) a LOT. Revert if you so choose. Also knocked the "mister clown" stuff out of the lead-up to the last line, because it slightly diminishes the punch, but what do I know.

Well, I think my original version added more tension, and was slightly less crude, somehow. And this is sort of why. "FUCK YOU CLOWN" seems a bit unrefined, a bit, dare I say, American, and not quite 'international' enough. But most of all, I think it's actually not as disrespectful to the clown as the original saying. I lack the linguistic verve to explain exactly why, but it's almost as though following the "FUCK OFF/FUCK YOU" part with ", CLOWN" diminishes the effect of the swear word itself, and almost puts the clown on a pedestal above it. I personally think it works better by suddenly counteracting the politeness of "Mr. Clown fellow" or some such phrase, with the insult after, not before, addressing him. I think that's what makes it more funny, if anything, and it unnerves and disarms the listener (remember, shaggy dog stories are designed to be heard, not read) slightly more if they hear what sounds like a polite beginnning to an extremely witty repartee. This is why I believe the clause before the insult works better. It sounds as though the man is going to say something more like what we are expecting, which, of course, is the point of the whole preceding yarn. Have i said enough? I think so. However, I agree in retrospect, for pacing/repetition reasons, at least in written form, to the removal of the 'clown fellow' to all but the last line. I hope you don't find this unreasonable.
Oh yeah, and also, whether you agree with the above paragraph or not, don't be so silly as to put the actual punchline (whatever it happens to be) as the title of the section of the article — the odd reader might not have actually heard it before, and it wouldn't be very nice to ruin it for them before they started reading it. Just a thought. 80.177.20.202 06:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

--- As an American I would *definitely *choose to end the joke with a variant of "Fuck You, Mr. Clown!" rather than "Mr. Clown fellow? Fuck Off!" precisely because it is so "unrefined" and "American." (After sitting through that whopper of a joke I think I would get a bigger kick out of the punchline if it's more familiar, direct, and surprising. "Fuck you" is often seen here as the ideal *sarcastic* "ultimate insult," because it's so mindless and common.) Maybe the ending note should explain that the punchline, like all parts of all shaggy dog stories, requires modeling after what the audience will react to best. ---habzjrib

If there's some concern about the Aristocrats (now moved) being here, shouldn't there be a content warning for the strong language in the aforementioned joke?

No way! It would take away the element of the unexpected. When I tell that joke I say that part very loudly and distinctly.
I've heard a song that was very similar to this story, except that the protagonist was 'Willie the Circus Strongman' - strong but dim, and in love with a female acrobat. In that song, Willie's eventual response was "Go and get stuffed, you stupid red-nosed git" (though this was possibly the Bowdlerised version). It took the audience by surprise because that line was bellowed loudly, rather than sung. Furthermore, the song didn't end there - the strongman got the girl, because she was really impressed when she heard his "witty repartee"! RobbieG 10:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sultan of Brunei

Changed the explanation of 'Mickey Mouse outfit' to the correct one in the notes. Of course the company referenced in the punch line varies with the intent of the teller (and you Mac and *nix people know who you are <g>). Be gentle, it's my first time...MrFurry 12:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Too long

The article has gotten too long and has too many examples. Shouldn't this stuff be moved to Wikisource ? Kundor 04:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The shaggy dog story page is "too long"? How ironic is that? >:) Wahkeenah 07:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep, that's pretty ironic. But now it has no examples. Which is ironically ironic.

[edit] Neutron tide

Is Clarke's short story Neutron tide ("...one star-mangled spanner") a better example of a shaggy-dog story or a spoonerism?

[edit] Do yer research!

Kurt Vonnegut's story "Thomas Edison's Shaggy Dog" is a story about a shaggy dog, not a "shaggy-dog story" joke. The story is humorous, but not because it has an absurd punchline or pun. Just posting this before someone adds it in foolishly again; be sure to understand the article before you cite an improper example.

Mikeguy 16:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Examples

I have removed the examples altogether from this article. Material like this belongs at the Uncyclopedia. --DDG 14:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you do something like that? If you did, it makes sense to check with others, or set them up somewhere else. --User:Goo Goo G'joob
Vote to put the examples back. -- KillerDeathRobot
If nobody objects, I'm going to put the examples back. -- User:Goo Goo G'joob
Put them back. The certainly do belong here. -- User:NotPotable
Deleted them back. Wikipedia is not a storybook. `'mikka (t) 03:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Since there is no other collective source for these jokes - note the lack of citable sources - there is absolutely no reason those jokes should not be represented here. Better too much information than too little. I don't want to see this turn into an edit war, but that's what will happen if people insist that jokes don't belong in a joke article. Excise jokes that do not qualify as shaggy dog stories if you're that desperate to edit something. And classifying your reversion as "minor"? Low. -- User:NotPotable
No, it's exactly the opposite. The no original research and cite your sources policies apply here as much as they do to any other article. Additionally, the what Wikipedia is not policy has several causes that cover these examples, including "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought", and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Gentgeen 08:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Removed the jokes again. Wikipedia is not a jokebook; if you really need to read them, use Google. Jesus. --user.lain 21:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


I think those that arbitrarily remove the major content from an article should at least edit the remaining references to the removed sections - "...(see the examples)" and "Some of the following examples... " 139.163.138.10 03:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have particularly strong feelings about it one way or another, but if you're going to yank out all the examples then you need to edit the main article. There are numerous places in the first few paragraphs that say "see examples" or "in the examples below" or "(x) example demonstrates..." Having no examples to follow just makes the entire thing nonsensical. Either remove both the examples and the references to them, or stop removing the examples. Tuckdogg 17:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Follow the links. I would bet every one of these can be found in the Tarzan's Tripes page. Haplolology 11:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Could we make a new page for list of shaggy dog storys? That's what practically every other article does with this kind of thing. List of MMORPGs, list of simpsons episodes, list of Lists of video games and computer games. Snake712 19:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. Snake712 19:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Damn it, man, put the examples back!!
Explain why and maybe someone will. -Phoenixrod 23:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, while having an excessive number of examples as before might not be necessary, it could only help the reader to understand the concept if at least one example was included, particularly the one for which the "shaggy dog story" is named. RedSalesperson 22:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


- Re: explain why and maybe someone will - User:Phoenixrod -

It is helpful when describing a general term, to offer different kinds of examples that may be categorized under the general term. Just as there are different kinds of animals, so there are different kinds of jokes. A bird is a kind of animal, just as a shaggy dog is a kind of joke. The eagle is a kind of bird, just as the groaner is a kind of shaggy dog story.

Additionally, there are many other kinds of "shaggy dog stories", and an example of each kind of story should be included. Different kinds of shaggy dog stories include the never-ender, the anti-climax, and the bad-pun, just to name a few. Each kind of long-winded shaggy dog story ought to include an example.

This will take research. For references, see this list, it's the largest collection of shaggy dog stories on the internet: http://www.awpi.com/Combs/Shaggy/whence.html and lists the different kinds of stories, such as the original shaggy dog. The shaggy dog listed here is not the original, for which the 'shaggy dog story' is named, but a prototypical example.

Here is another collection of shaggy dog stories that end with puns as punchlines, so that users can get an idea of what shaggy dog stories are about: http://www.badpuns.com/jokes.php?section=shaggy&pos=1&numitems=3

In conclusion, I think this article should provide an example of each of the different kinds of shaggy dogs to help in the understanding of this topic.

Some examples off the top of my head include the following:

...Tramp's holiday = shaggy with a pun (I've been through many a hard ship in my life).

...Bloopmaker = shaggy with a groaner (he dropped the 34th glass orb into the water..."Bloop," it sounded.)

...Monk's Secret = the shaggy anti-climax, ("The monk opened it and do you know what he saw?...I can't tell you, you're not a monk.")

...Kermit Jagger the Frog = Shaggy puppy punner: "It's a knick-knack Paddywack, give the frog a loan, his old man's a rolling stone."

[edit] Anti-joke

Isn't this joke an example of an anti-joke? Since there's a lot of build up to the punchline, which is an anticlimax.

[edit] Examples??

Where the hell are all the examples you're discussing in the comments? I came to this page explicitly to demonstrate the concept to a friend of mine, but all the exegesis in the world won't do 1/1000th the good as a decent example. Has someone been vandalizing this page? I don't actually know much about how Wikipedia works, but if someone tells me how, I'll revert the vandalism. 71.193.152.63 12:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the discussion above this one. Snake712 19:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone should move the examples, which can be found by going to the history for this article on 02:10, 26 February 2007, and move it to Wikimedia Commons. This was already suggested on this talk page, but ultimately never implemented, since I can't see it anywhere. Comments? Uagehry456 06:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)