Humour Classification

Posted by Eddie on the 21st June, 2008

I have developed my own system of classification for humour. I’ve outlined seven different categories for jokes, each describing the essential mechanism by which a joke derives its humour.

Also, I’d like to say I am aware that I am very likely the only person in the world to whom this is at all interesting.

Nevertheless, here goes.

Pun - This one’s obvious; a joke based around the ambiguity of language. A term can have multiple meanings and these meanings are played off against each other. Example one. Example two.

Exaggeration - Use of gross exaggeration for comedic effect. Not one of the loftier forms of comedy. Example.

Contextual – Taking something out of its own context and putting it into one in which it doesn’t belong. Juxtaposing the two settings against one another. Example one. Example two.

Meta – In which the rules of a system are applied to itself. This includes fourth wall gags. Example.

Observational – Based on an observation made of the real world. The joke could mimic the way people actually behave or offer an insight. Example one. Example two.

Misdirection – An expectation is established and then confounded at the end. The audience is intentionally mislead. Example one. Example two.

Inappropriate behaviour – A person’s actions or words are grossly out of line with what is conventionally considered appropriate in such a situation. Example one. Example two.

So those are my seven categories. I’ve been going through quite a lot of webcomics and it’s held for everything I’ve read so far (though I haven’t yet considered how it may work with other comedy mediums). I’d be really interested to see what people think about it.

Also I’m at odds as to whether I should include “Zany; anything bizarre or unexplainable.” I love zany humour, but I’m not sure if something is funny if it is only zany. I think it has to be zany and observational, or zany and misdirection. To me pure zany would be White Ninja, and I’m afraid I just don’t find anything about that funny. The other category I’m thinking I may have to add is Holocaust jokes (ooh, that’s right, I went there).

But again, let me know what you think. In time I’ll go through the archives and apply the relevant category to each comic as a tag.

6 Responses to “Humour Classification”

  1. The Great Joe Bivins Says:

    Fascinating work.

  2. wrincewind Says:

    this is very similar to something i found in a book called the joy of work, by Scott Adams, author of dilbert. Specifically, the ‘two of six (dimensions of humour)’ rule: almost everything funny contains at least two of the following:
    cuteness,
    meanness,
    bizarreness,
    recognisability,
    naughtiness
    and/or
    cleverness.

  3. Karkulka Says:

    You are not only one person with this interest! I’m searching for different humour classification since my 10 years. (Not all of the time, of course, but time after time.)
    This is first what i found(!)
    My own classification is not done yet, i have some categories, but not all jokes what i hear can classifi. Still have work to do.

  4. Protera Says:

    I like the idea a lot. Seems to be in line with how I think, at least…
    besides, the examples have introduced me to a few new comics, most of which I’ll now be following.Thanks!

  5. Chucky Says:

    Slapstick!

  6. Joe Says:

    Another category could be “Reference”, or something along those lines; Jokes that people only enjoy because they reference a recognizable celebrity, politician, etc.

Leave a Reply