This chapter examines the elusive notion of humour in Greek epic. According to Aristotle (Poetics 1448b24) it was Homer who, along with founding most other genres of literature, established ‘the schema of comedy’. Hosty begins by surveying our limited evidence for Homeric humour – both within the Iliad and Odyssey and in mysterious works like the Margites – and proceeds to examine the relationship between Greek epic and the humorous, analysing the potentially whimsical elements of the Epic Cycle, the wry domestic detail of Callimachus’ Hecale, the determinedly straight-faced pastiche of the Batrachomyomachia, and the gleeful absurdity of Lucian’s ‘prose epic’ the True Histories.

This chapter examines the conceptual relations between irony and satire. Many forms of satire, usually seen as containing elements of judgment, play, laughter, and aggression, may be considered discourse-level irony (i.e., satire is more evident in stretches of discourse, rather than in single utterances). Burgers illustrates this important point, as well as how satire expresses implied criticism, through consideration of several instances of television comedy programs, literature, internet news, and political commentaries. Satire may be differently explained by several prominent theories of irony (e.g., Gricean, pretense, echoic mention), each of which reveals the discourse-level nature of satirical communication. Burgers’ chapter describes various experimental studies looking at the impact that satirical language has on people’s attitudes toward different topics. As is all cases of irony, whether satire is successful in communicating speakers’ beliefs depends on a variety of situational (e.g., the specific media) and personal (e.g., who is the speaker, the addressee, overhearers, and their particular prior beliefs about some topic) factors. Even though satire may be a global phenomenon, how it is specifically employed in different cultures, and for different personal and social reasons, is very much a topic for future research.

A Feeling and Body Investigator would be incomplete without in-depth explorations of joyous sensations. We explore what it feels like to be so filled with energy that you cannot sit still (Ernie the Energy Ball) or when you have so much music in your heart that you have to dance around (Dancing Darrin). We investigate moments when you are so filled with joy that you feel your heart might burst out of your chest (Bursting Bella), or when you are laughing so hard that your side hurts (Lulu the Laughing Pain). In this session we move. We dance. We giggle. We explore ways to take these joyous sensations and share them and make them even bigger.

The author’s remembrance of actors speaking in Shakespearean plays is one of loss but also of delight. Memory, as Virgil put it (‘forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit’), may bring pleasure or benefit or help, depending on how iuvabit is translated. For Virgil, memory may be therapeutic and/or affective, as Shakespeare knew as he reworked Virgil’s phrase. But the pleasure of remembering Shakespeare is palpable in the voices of the people interviewed in Cecilia Rubino’s documentary film, Remembering Shakespeare (2016), and in the laughter memory generates in Thomas Tomkis’s play Lingua (1607), the records of what Simon Forman wanted to remember of performances he had seen and in the diary comments on plays seen by Samuel Pepys.

This chapter explores the genealogy of the phrase ‘from the sublime to the ridiculous’, tracing the saying from Romantic period attributions to Thomas Paine and Napoleon back to seventeenth-century debates about the sublime as a literary style. Ridiculousness haunts sublimity from Longinus’s discussions of the comic in his treatise to Kant’s consideration of humour as an affect uncannily akin to the sublime. Returning to Romantic period theorizations of the ridiculous, the chapter considers Jean Paul Richter’s aesthetics and his influence on S. T. Coleridge’s thinking about humour as providing alternative perspectives on key Romantic concepts including our relationship to nature, society, and childhood.

Especially as we age, laughter is good for the soul. For a good, long life have a sense of humor. It can take us through life’s turns and twists. Mastery and grit are important for all ages. Create art. Good for the brain is the endeavor to want to improve. Stay active in your passions. Make modifications. Do what is possible. Keep going. Keep moving! Older people too often lose their confidence. They quit trying. They grow discouraged. They just quit living. The important thing is to keep trying at something you care about. Be willing to work for something and keep at it. It is part of our human nature to want to be able to create something.

Losing someone you love. Finding love again. When my husband knew he was dying, he told me there are only two things, two assets we have that matter in this life. They are love and time. It is how you spend this time, and how you spend your love, that tells you who you are.

Chapter 8 shows that Kant’s thoughts on humor can be viewed as part of his wider aesthetic theory. Kant’s view of laughter at humor can be interpreted in terms of his theory of a harmonious free play of the faculties. What are the sources of his account of humor, and how did his thoughts about humor develop? Kant combines elements of incongruity, superiority, and release theories of humor. While responding to authors such as Moses Mendelssohn, Thomas Hobbes, and the third Earl of Shaftesbury, Kant adds his own, more original, thoughts about humor by appealing to his theory of a free play between the imagination and understanding. Once Kant begins to understand aesthetic responses in terms of a harmonious free play, it puts him in a position to connect humor to his aesthetic theory.

This chapter sets out to establish what Molière’s prefaces and meta-theatrical plays tell us about audience laughter. In these texts, Molière sets up the notion of an ideal public, primarily by means of spectator characters who act as models or counter-models in terms of reception. His laughing characters allow us to understand the link between Molière and the laughter of a public that saw itself in them. In this way, Molière echoes wider contemporary discourse on comedy at the same time as contributing to its development. He offers reflections on parody, on the connection between audience laughter and poetics, on the relationship of the social aspects of audience laughter to moral decency and on laughter as an indication of a comic author’s merit. His spectator characters reflect a contemporary discourse that saw laughter as an entirely legitimate reaction to the performance of comedies, and Molière is thereby situated at the heart of the critical re-evaluation of laughter that occurred between 1660 and 1670, of which he was at once a beneficiary and one of the driving forces.

This chapter focuses on Hughes’s friendship with the Jamaican poet and dramatist Louise Bennett throughout the 1950s and ’60s. The chapter approaches their friendship by way of letters written by Hughes to Bennett, through Hughes’s discussion of Bennett in his correspondence with other Black male diasporic writers, and by examining his discussion of Bennett’s work in a 1955 article on transnational Black migration in the Chicago Defender. While Hughes’s response to Bennett’s work, particularly his consequent laughter, alludes to his convoluted relationship to diasporic women’s writing, these sources reveal how Bennett’s Jamaican and highly gendered folk poetry influenced Hughes’s understanding of transnational Black experience and identity. In addition, by orienting Bennett’s life and work transnationally through the lens of her relationship to Hughes, the chapter also attempts to shift discourse on her folk aesthetic beyond national and domestic frames. Among other things, doing so extends the parameters through which we can interpret humor’s function in Bennett’s embodied performance of Jamaican folk culture.

Othello has long been a play that has provoked audience interjections. This chapter gives an account of a production staged by The Pantaloons theatre company in 2019 that was put together in order to explore the effects of direct audience address, playfulness and spontaneity. Player/playgoer relationships can be anticipated in the text, but they cannot be pre-programmed: they are determined by the moment-by-moment unfolding of the drama as it is played between actors and audience under specific, never-to-be-repeated conditions. Practice-as-research of this kind allows for a close-up examination of particular instances of actor/audience contact, and emphasises the creative role of the actor (and indeed the audience) in bringing ‘the play’ into its always-transient existence. Making detailed reference to the production’s rehearsal process, its development over the tour, the perspectives of its cast, and the responses of its audiences, this chapter argues that seeking opportunities for direct audience contact in Othello allows for a range of affective and ethical relationships between player and audience, some of which can have a substantial impact on the ways in which the play makes its meanings. It concludes with some thoughts about the possibilities inherent in conceptualising performance as play rather than as ‘acting’.

Chapter 2 explores the recurring dramatic stereotype of the hungry servant in plays such as John Lyly’s Campaspe, Massinger’s The Bashful Lover and The Picture, and Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew. It argues that the representation of hungry servants mystifies the conditions of the average servant’s existence, representing hunger resulting from deprivation as an insatiable appetite. It emphasises that this process of mystification is comic in function, binding the audience together through the production of normative laughter. But it also demonstrates that the servingman’s appetite could be deployed as a means to explore England’s nascent capitalist system. Lastly, the chapter considers the relationship between the hungry servant and gender. Although female servants are rarely driven by appetite, the representation of hungry male servants constitutes a significant means through which the theatre explored the complex relationships between husbands, wives and their servants.

In his exhaustive cultural history of the atomic bomb, Paul Boyer suggests that the unthinkable scale of nuclear warfare registered in the American consciousness as an aesthetic problem. “How was one to respond imaginatively to Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” he writes, “and, still more, to the prospect of world holocaust?” This chapter sees the decidedly American strain of black humor that emerged in the wake of the Japanese bombings as an attempt to build a new “atomic aesthetics” that would be capable of registering and critiquing nuclear violence. A key feature of these aesthetics is an “atomic laughter”—a shattering strain of laughter that is both interior to and elicited by these darkly comic texts. This essay offers a theory of this atomic laughter—its political and affective dimensions—by way of a close reading of Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove (1964).

Wellbeing is generally conceptualized as being essentially inner to an individual; discourse analysis would seem to have nothing to say here. In this chapter, we take the case of ageing and wellbeing as a case study for examining just what micro-analysis of interaction can offer us in terms of both understanding and researching states like wellbeing in later life. Drawing on the micro-analytic toolbox of conversation analysis, this chapter helps us see how wellbeing can be at least partly co-constructed in everyday interactions, specifically in quality interactions. The chapter examines some of the key findings of research into quality interaction among older populations in care settings and the links made to wellbeing. It then turns its attention to everyday settings in the community, still the majority experience for older people but the minority focus of interactionally orientated research studies. Discussions of such studies are interwoven with detailed analyses of naturally occurring audio-recorded interactions in a hair salon with older clients. Wellbeing, it is argued, is partly achieved through both the immediate fulfillment offered through talk – whether laughing together or telling troubles – and the positive identities that are afforded. The wider research implications are then discussed, in particular with respect to the ways in which interviews are used and the kinds of setting that need to be studied.

This section introduction introduces the theoretical concept of “collusion” in language studies, with reference to James Comey’s testimonial of what it is like to be “caught in Trump’s web.” In spite of themselves, those interacting with Trump often find themselves playing along with their designated role when their turn arrives to make a verbal contribution. Scholars of language have referred to dynamics like these as “collusion,” a kind of joint action that, in language studies, concerns the often-unwitting ways in which people coordinate and synchronize aspects of what they are up to in a speech event, playing into one another’s script while achieving a loose consensus about what is going on. Conversational collusion characterizes Trump’s congenial relationships with Fox News hosts, as well as the apparent lack of resistance when Trump enlists those around a conference table in performances of fealty to him. The chapter concludes by foreshadowing the work of this section’s chapters, concerning ritualistic routines of male in-group talk, and the ways in which collusive laughter and applause seem to ratify Trump’s authority.

This chapter analyzes President Trump’s remarks at the 2017 Black History Month Listening Session, in particular his repeated discussion of the seemingly irrelevant subject of “fake news.” Through a framing analysis (Goffman 1974) of Trump’s language, we make sense of Trump’s seemingly non-sequitur topic shifts and illustrate how the actions he takes through these shifts function as strategic attempts to build relationships with African American participants in the session. Our analysis illustrates how Trump strives to build relationships with his African American interlocutors through first praising well-known African American figures and then shifting frames to commiserate about the news media. While praising such figures functions as Trump’s direct attempt to align with the broader African American community, making disparaging remarks about news media functions to indirectly align Trump with the politically conservative African Americans in this interaction, sometimes through their laughter at his jokes. Like many politicians, Trump elicits support as much from his implicit relational messages as from the content of what he says.