Humour: A Very Short Introduction

This is an awful book.Altho short, it is long-winded, especially in the latter portion of the book.A book about humor should be laden with good examples of many kinds of jokes.But the few offered in this book are mostly lame or pointless.The author does very little to define his terms -- or to illustrate what he means.The main problem may be that the author is a philosopher.Since the rise of science, a few centuries ago, philosophers have had a hard time of it.Their utterances I think mainly make sense only to others of their ilk.What is needed are books on humor penned by folks of a scientific bent.Like -- What is going on in the mazes of our minds that amuses us?In fairness to N. Carroll I should say that I have yet to find a definitive book on humor.But this 1 is maybe the worst of the several I have read.

Who could tell there’s-so much to learn about humor. This book tells it all. Another great choice for my philosophy of comedy class.

Very clear start to a few of major moral stances one can take towards humour as well as a few minor aesthetic comments regarding the "art" ( but not directly called "art") of humour. I would start here before continuing any serious study of humour

Excellent copy arrived on time.

I liked it. It was easy introduction and a good addition to my philosophy of humor and comedy course I am taking in college.

Short and informative but incredibly dry and not very engaging book about the very concept of humor. Very intellectual but not an easy read. Perhaps expecting humor in a book about humor was too much.

Needlessly confusing, I have no idea why. It's good as a pointer toward primary sources, but that's about it. He involves all these unnecessary if's and's and but's. The most annoying kind of 'philosophical' writing. He was probably just trying to take up space.Any comedian trying to understand their craft would throw this across the room in frustration. I'm an academic student who can tolerate some pretension but this an inane level.

So what did I want from an introductory book on humour? Four things: (1) to provide me with a summary of theories on humour; (2) to take a peek into some of the philosophical issues surrounding humour; (3) to provide me with some taxonomies on types and techniques of humour; and (4) to make me laugh.Of these four, the first and the third were the most important. The second was relatively important to me, only because I have an interest in philosophy, and only then in a small dose. And I want to laugh when I read a book like this because it is not a textbook, it is supposed to be a stimulating, yea entertaining, introduction to a new subject, a subject which after all is HUMOUR.This little book has three chapters: chapter one covers theories of humour, chapter two dips into humour’s relation to emotions and thinking, and chapter three faces up to the ethics of humour. The first is the best and rest slide downhill from there. Why? The author is a philosopher by trade, which means he sees almost everything in this light, and only this light; the closer he gets to his native subject, the more plodding and pedantic his style becomes.At the start I thought it would be brilliant to have a book like this written by a philosopher. I expected, and found, plenty of definitions and logical connections. For example, the author champions a theory of humour called the incongruity theory, which he explains, defends and adapts in chapter one. He carries this understanding on into the other chapters, which is good. But because there are only three chapters, it feels like there isn’t much new ground covered, only a smallish area in great depth. More chapters covering a wider area would have greatly improved the readability of the book.Chapter one was easily the best and the one least directly related to philosophy. Carroll describes all the main humour theories – superiority, incongruity, release, play and dispositional – while revisiting and refining the first of these. Chapter two asks whether comic amusement is an emotional state (probably), and whether humour serves any role in correcting our cognitive bugs (not really). I found the first of these discussions silly, and the second interesting, particularly in light of the link that the likes of Edward de Bono and others make between creative thinking and humour.Chapter three covers “humour and value” or the morality of certain kinds of jokes, both in the telling and in the listening to/enjoying of. Again, Carroll competently covers the various theories involved: comic amoralism, comic ethicism, comic immoralism, and moderate comic moralism. This should have been interesting but it kind of made me want to tear my hair out.Partly this was due to our political milieu (i.e. PCness) which underlies the discussion but was not explicitly faced, and partly because to me it felt like listening to a discussion on the morality of a recipe. But that’s apparently because I’m a comic amoralist, believing that humour is a form of play that exists beyond good and evil. The only relevant question for me is, If it’s funny, how come? I do find analysing the moral virtue of this or that joke equivalent to dissecting a still fluttering butterfly.The book utterly lacked material I expected it include, or I would have liked it to include. Such as: classifications of different kinds of humour and jokes, different methods of humour, a little on how humour has been perceived in difficult cultures and throughout history, a little on the relation between humour and politics/power. I’m very interested in the concept of ‘humour styles’ or the interaction between humour and individual personality. Nothing on this either. In an introduction like this, I think I prefer a little info on a range of topics rather than a few topics bored down to the core.Please accept my apologies for this un-humorous review. This reflects my giggle count when reading the book.

A very interesting and neglected subject. Wish I could remember all the jokes and why they are.

So what did I want from an introductory book on humour? Four things: (1) to provide me with a summary of theories on humour; (2) to take a peek into some of the philosophical issues surrounding humour; (3) to provide me with some taxonomies on types and techniques of humour; and (4) to make me laugh.Of these four, the first and the third were the most important. The second was relatively important to me, only because I have an interest in philosophy, and only then in a small dose. And I want to laugh when I read a book like this because it is not a textbook, it is supposed to be a stimulating, yea entertaining, introduction to a new subject, a subject which after all is HUMOUR.This little book has three chapters: chapter one covers theories of humour, chapter two dips into humour’s relation to emotions and thinking, and chapter three faces up to the ethics of humour. The first is the best and rest slide downhill from there. Why? The author is a philosopher by trade, which means he sees almost everything in this light, and only this light; the closer he gets to his native subject, the more plodding and pedantic his style becomes.At the start I thought it would be brilliant to have a book like this written by a philosopher. I expected, and found, plenty of definitions and logical connections. For example, the author champions a theory of humour called the incongruity theory, which he explains, defends and adapts in chapter one. He carries this understanding on into the other chapters, which is good. But because there are only three chapters, it feels like there isn’t much new ground covered, only a smallish area in great depth. More chapters covering a wider area would have greatly improved the readability of the book.Chapter one was easily the best and the one least directly related to philosophy. Carroll describes all the main humour theories – superiority, incongruity, release, play and dispositional – while revisiting and refining the first of these. Chapter two asks whether comic amusement is an emotional state (probably), and whether humour serves any role in correcting our cognitive bugs (not really). I found the first of these discussions silly, and the second interesting, particularly in light of the link that the likes of Edward de Bono and others make between creative thinking and humour.Chapter three covers “humour and value” or the morality of certain kinds of jokes, both in the telling and in the listening to/enjoying of. Again, Carroll competently covers the various theories involved: comic amoralism, comic ethicism, comic immoralism, and moderate comic moralism. This should have been interesting but it kind of made me want to tear my hair out.Partly this was due to our political milieu (i.e. PCness) which underlies the discussion but was not explicitly faced, and partly because to me it felt like listening to a discussion on the morality of a recipe. But that’s apparently because I’m a comic amoralist, believing that humour is a form of play that exists beyond good and evil. The only relevant question for me is, If it’s funny, how come? I do find analysing the moral virtue of this or that joke equivalent to dissecting a still fluttering butterfly.The book utterly lacked material I expected it include, or I would have liked it to include. Such as: classifications of different kinds of humour and jokes, different methods of humour, a little on how humour has been perceived in difficult cultures and throughout history, a little on the relation between humour and politics/power. I’m very interested in the concept of ‘humour styles’ or the interaction between humour and individual personality. Nothing on this either. In an introduction like this, I think I prefer a little info on a range of topics rather than a few topics bored down to the core.Please accept my apologies for this un-humorous review. This reflects my giggle count when reading the book.

I must say this is a very well written introduction to humor and to the most important related theories.It gives a clear and satisfactory view to this phenomenon.

Quick delivery. Product received as described

A very handy book with smart content.