Can We Talk More about Humor?

Abstract David Damrosch’s work and lectures can hardly be said to lack wit and humor, and it is rare to find scholars who write on Finnegans Wake , P.G. Wodehouse, and Korean installation art with equal enthusiasm. Yet, it could be argued that not only in Damrosch’s Comparing the Literatures but in the profession that he writes about in general, the critical vocabulary for writing about humor and the amount of space it is given stand in contrast to how important sarcasm, puns, irony, the grotesque, caricature, etc. are to the appreciation of literature. Is it because humor is a lighter subject? Because it thrives on clarity rather than complexity and thus sets the bar too low for critics? And is humor less transferable than other modes of expression? In this article, I will suggest that a more profound inclusion of humor in comparative literary studies would benefit the discipline and its relation to culture at large. A vocabulary that can build bridges between the darker and lighter sides of literature is needed if this should be seriously meaningful – and occasionally funny.