A Brief Review Of Leon Rappaport's Punchlines

As Leon Rappaport was envisioning his novel Punchlines, he tried to develop a true definition of humor. As a respected social psychologist, he tried to articulate some textbook definitions of humor but couldn’t quite seem to merge them together to form a single definition. Some psychologists and analysts might say that humor is often associated with stereotypes against minorities. Rappaport, however, disputes these claims. He argues that there is no clear way to sum up humor since it is codependent on its context, it has a vague interpretation, and it differs through time. One claim that Rappaport disputes is that the humor can be summed up with the sword and shield metaphor. The sword is used for slashing insults at minority groups, and the shield is used to protect their own interests and induce pride within a certain group. Rappaport believes that this is an erroneous definition since it at different times with different minorities, the joke may have had a different context (2). At this point Rappaport wants us to continue to believe that humor has no single definition. Another claim Rappaport disputes is the very
Aristotle articulated a definition of humor in which people laugh at weird or deranged people. Another example can be with Native Americans. For their interpretation of humor, they made people act like young and foolish kids with erratic behaviors. Archeological digs from Holland also expose that humor was used to relieve emotional tension. At this point Rappaport is trying to persuade us that humor has had a long history, and the definition fluctuates with time and people. Key themes, however, still persisted throughout time, such as Aristotle’s definition with mental patients, the Native American’s definition with Mardi Gras, and Holland’s ancient interpretation with simple wisecracks to roasts of