Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Laughter: My Definition
An outward expulsion of air and noise as a result of a build up of internal emotional stress especially joy, amusement or superiority.
A Dictionary Definition
Laugh:
to express mirth, pleasure, derision, or nervousness with an audible, vocal expulsion of air from the lungs that can range from a loud burst of sound to a series of quiet chuckles and is usually accompanied by characteristic facial and bodily movements.
(Courtesy of dictionary.com)
For some other definitions for laugh, click here.
to express mirth, pleasure, derision, or nervousness with an audible, vocal expulsion of air from the lungs that can range from a loud burst of sound to a series of quiet chuckles and is usually accompanied by characteristic facial and bodily movements.
(Courtesy of dictionary.com)
For some other definitions for laugh, click here.
Laughter in Grendel
One of the most pronounced uses of laughter in literature to develop theme and propel plot is in John Gardner’s novel Grendel. In its exploration nihilism and its causes, Gardner’s novel uses laughter to symbolize superiority, a feeling that becomes a major excuse for the monster’s abandonment of meaning and surrender to nihilism.
By tracking laughter throughout Grendel, one can see clearly how the adolescent’s inability to find a sense of belonging, in tandem with exposure to superior, self-isolated figures, brings about Grendel’s belief in his own superiority, and thus his disparaging thoughts of humans and the meaning that they create.
After Grendel realizes that he is not in complete control of his life and is let down by both his mother and the humans that he tries to befriend, the confused monster encounters the goldworker, a “lean, aloof, superior man,” who sets himself apart and “never spoke to the others except to laugh sometimes – ‘Nyeh heh heh.’” This superior laugh is echoed by the dragon later in the novel, who is another supercilious figure that directly belittles the humans by speaking ironically of “man’s cunning mind” and the “click click click” of his mechanical nature. So much did these haughty figures, with their disdainful laughter, impress upon the lonely outcast that, upon finding himself impenetrable to the human swords, “the grim laughter came pouring out [of him], as uncontrollable as the dragon’s laugh.” This final outburst convinces Grendel of his own superiority, linking him to both the goldworker and the dragon, and raising him above the human’s useless meaning making, effectively plummeting him into a state of nihilistic despair.
And for tracking other motifs in Grendel, check out the awesome Grendex!
By tracking laughter throughout Grendel, one can see clearly how the adolescent’s inability to find a sense of belonging, in tandem with exposure to superior, self-isolated figures, brings about Grendel’s belief in his own superiority, and thus his disparaging thoughts of humans and the meaning that they create.
After Grendel realizes that he is not in complete control of his life and is let down by both his mother and the humans that he tries to befriend, the confused monster encounters the goldworker, a “lean, aloof, superior man,” who sets himself apart and “never spoke to the others except to laugh sometimes – ‘Nyeh heh heh.’” This superior laugh is echoed by the dragon later in the novel, who is another supercilious figure that directly belittles the humans by speaking ironically of “man’s cunning mind” and the “click click click” of his mechanical nature. So much did these haughty figures, with their disdainful laughter, impress upon the lonely outcast that, upon finding himself impenetrable to the human swords, “the grim laughter came pouring out [of him], as uncontrollable as the dragon’s laugh.” This final outburst convinces Grendel of his own superiority, linking him to both the goldworker and the dragon, and raising him above the human’s useless meaning making, effectively plummeting him into a state of nihilistic despair.
And for tracking other motifs in Grendel, check out the awesome Grendex!
Laughter in Wide Sargasso Sea
In her novel Wide Sargasso Sea, Jean Rhys develops the theme of identity using laughter to convey the sense of comfort and belonging possessed by each character. The direction and timing of laughter in this novel clearly reveals the changing positions of characters that occurs in the novel, as well as the personalities of some of the less well described characters.
Part one of the novel focuses primarily on Antoinette’s childhood and her early relationship with her island and her mother. In this section, the laughter most clearly originates from the native island people and is directed at Antoinette and her family. White but poor, the Creole family is neither properly white nor negro. They were “something to laugh at (19),” as Antoinette’s mother admitted, often called “white cockroaches” (13), or “white nigger”(14), and when the natives walked by their house and saw Antoinette’s mother, “they stared, sometimes they laughed” (11). The early introduction of condescending laughter foretells the way that laughter is used throughout the novel to set apart those that belong as they mock those that do not.
In a slightly different but related way, laughter is also used in this section to denote power. When Antoinette’s mother marries wealthy Mr. Mason, Antoinette knows that “Mr. Mason would laugh if he knew how frightened I had been [of Christophine’s imaginary obeah artifacts]. He would laugh even louder that he did when my mother told him that she wished to leave Coulibri” (19). Although Mr. Mason is clearly not a native of the island, being in a position of power is something he feels comfortable with, and this allows him to expel condescending laughter.
This type of laughter is mirrored later in the novel by Antoinette’s husband after his will finally eclipses her own. In the beginning of part two, Rochester never laughs, presumably because of his feeling of discomfort at being in such a “strange,” “alien,” place that belongs so much more to Antoinette than to him. Antoinette, however, laughs often when first arriving on the island, with Christophine and at Rochester when he asks, “Why do you hug and kiss Christophene?...I couldn’t (54)” At one point, Rochester even admits, “I tried to laugh (82),” but his failure to do so indicates that he does not yet feel comfortable or powerful. However, as Antoinette’s unhappiness with her marriage begins to consume her, she tries and fails to enchant Rochester with a love potion-poison. The effects of her attempt disable her with despair but empower Rochester. Seemingly with newfound confidence, Rochester sleeps with the servant Amelie within earshot of Antoinette and begins laughing for the first time since they arrived on the island.
Rochester’s laughter suggests that he has finally become comfortable, both in his geographic location and in his position relative to Antoinette. Soon after his affair with Amelie, he learns that Chritophine is leaving, and this too causes him to laugh because he knows that his presence has run her off the island, just as he wished. When Rochester goes to talk to Christphine, the native woman reprimands him for his treatment of Antoinette, and Rochester laughs at her: “Of course I laugh at you – you ridiculous old woman. I don’t mean to discuss my affairs with you any longer. Or your mistress.”
Rochester’s ability to laugh at Christophine, a native of the island and Antoinette’s caretaker, reveals a stark change in his character and his level of comfort in his position. His laughter signifies the beginning of his total control over Antoinette, and it is at this point that he can bring his now crazy, powerless wife back to England and keep her locked in the attic until she kills herself and brings the house down with her.
Part one of the novel focuses primarily on Antoinette’s childhood and her early relationship with her island and her mother. In this section, the laughter most clearly originates from the native island people and is directed at Antoinette and her family. White but poor, the Creole family is neither properly white nor negro. They were “something to laugh at (19),” as Antoinette’s mother admitted, often called “white cockroaches” (13), or “white nigger”(14), and when the natives walked by their house and saw Antoinette’s mother, “they stared, sometimes they laughed” (11). The early introduction of condescending laughter foretells the way that laughter is used throughout the novel to set apart those that belong as they mock those that do not.
In a slightly different but related way, laughter is also used in this section to denote power. When Antoinette’s mother marries wealthy Mr. Mason, Antoinette knows that “Mr. Mason would laugh if he knew how frightened I had been [of Christophine’s imaginary obeah artifacts]. He would laugh even louder that he did when my mother told him that she wished to leave Coulibri” (19). Although Mr. Mason is clearly not a native of the island, being in a position of power is something he feels comfortable with, and this allows him to expel condescending laughter.
This type of laughter is mirrored later in the novel by Antoinette’s husband after his will finally eclipses her own. In the beginning of part two, Rochester never laughs, presumably because of his feeling of discomfort at being in such a “strange,” “alien,” place that belongs so much more to Antoinette than to him. Antoinette, however, laughs often when first arriving on the island, with Christophine and at Rochester when he asks, “Why do you hug and kiss Christophene?...I couldn’t (54)” At one point, Rochester even admits, “I tried to laugh (82),” but his failure to do so indicates that he does not yet feel comfortable or powerful. However, as Antoinette’s unhappiness with her marriage begins to consume her, she tries and fails to enchant Rochester with a love potion-poison. The effects of her attempt disable her with despair but empower Rochester. Seemingly with newfound confidence, Rochester sleeps with the servant Amelie within earshot of Antoinette and begins laughing for the first time since they arrived on the island.
Rochester’s laughter suggests that he has finally become comfortable, both in his geographic location and in his position relative to Antoinette. Soon after his affair with Amelie, he learns that Chritophine is leaving, and this too causes him to laugh because he knows that his presence has run her off the island, just as he wished. When Rochester goes to talk to Christphine, the native woman reprimands him for his treatment of Antoinette, and Rochester laughs at her: “Of course I laugh at you – you ridiculous old woman. I don’t mean to discuss my affairs with you any longer. Or your mistress.”
Rochester’s ability to laugh at Christophine, a native of the island and Antoinette’s caretaker, reveals a stark change in his character and his level of comfort in his position. His laughter signifies the beginning of his total control over Antoinette, and it is at this point that he can bring his now crazy, powerless wife back to England and keep her locked in the attic until she kills herself and brings the house down with her.
Laughter in Jane Eyre
As Wide Sargasso Sea is a revision of Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre, it follows that Rhys borrowed some of the symbols in addition to the characters. Therefore, it is not surprising that laughter is an important part of Jane Eyre, especially regarding Bertha, which is Rochester’s name for Antoinette.
Jane’s first encounter with Bertha’s presence at Thornfield involves Jane overhearing “a curious laugh; distinct, formal, mirthless” (127). Brontë’s description of the strange laughter is peculiar and exact, drawing attention to its importance and therefore functioning to describe the mysterious figure behind the door: “it begun again, louder; for, at first, though distinct, it was very low. It passed off in a clamorous peal that seemed to wake an echo in every lonely chamber…repeated in its low, syllabic tone, and terminated in an odd murmur…the laugh was as tragic, as preternatural a laugh as any I ever heard” (127). Although told by Mrs. Fairfax that the sound was only the servant Grace Pool, upon seeing her “hard, plain face; any apparition less romantic or less ghostly could scarcely be conceived” (127). The attention brought to the ghostly laugh and the incongruence between the sound and its presumed source clearly suggests a gap of information and create an air or mystery around Grace Poole and the maniacal laugh.
Brontë’s decision to introduce Bertha in this way, with mysterious, demonic laughter, not only allows for the furthering of plot despite her haunting existence, but also utilizes this versatile element of characterization through laughter. Just from the type of laughter and Jane’s description of it, it is clear that Bertha (though still unnamed and halfheartedly presumed to be Grace Poole) is a frightening, mad character.
In addition to portraying the voice as mad, however, Brontë’s description also prevents the reader from feeling sympathy for the prisoner in the attic. With our modern views on mental illness and treatment, simply describing Bertha as the deranged wife locked in the attic would most likely elicit some sympathy, or at the least pity. However, by describing Bertha in terms of her laugh, a menacing presence by itself, Brontë prevents the reader from empathizing with the mysterious prisoner in the attic, and instead creates a frightening antagonist who finally succeeds in burning down Thornfield Manor and almost succeeds in preventing the marriage between Jane and Mr. Rochester.
Here is a full-text, searchable version of Jane Eyre. Fo' free.
Jane’s first encounter with Bertha’s presence at Thornfield involves Jane overhearing “a curious laugh; distinct, formal, mirthless” (127). Brontë’s description of the strange laughter is peculiar and exact, drawing attention to its importance and therefore functioning to describe the mysterious figure behind the door: “it begun again, louder; for, at first, though distinct, it was very low. It passed off in a clamorous peal that seemed to wake an echo in every lonely chamber…repeated in its low, syllabic tone, and terminated in an odd murmur…the laugh was as tragic, as preternatural a laugh as any I ever heard” (127). Although told by Mrs. Fairfax that the sound was only the servant Grace Pool, upon seeing her “hard, plain face; any apparition less romantic or less ghostly could scarcely be conceived” (127). The attention brought to the ghostly laugh and the incongruence between the sound and its presumed source clearly suggests a gap of information and create an air or mystery around Grace Poole and the maniacal laugh.
Brontë’s decision to introduce Bertha in this way, with mysterious, demonic laughter, not only allows for the furthering of plot despite her haunting existence, but also utilizes this versatile element of characterization through laughter. Just from the type of laughter and Jane’s description of it, it is clear that Bertha (though still unnamed and halfheartedly presumed to be Grace Poole) is a frightening, mad character.
In addition to portraying the voice as mad, however, Brontë’s description also prevents the reader from feeling sympathy for the prisoner in the attic. With our modern views on mental illness and treatment, simply describing Bertha as the deranged wife locked in the attic would most likely elicit some sympathy, or at the least pity. However, by describing Bertha in terms of her laugh, a menacing presence by itself, Brontë prevents the reader from empathizing with the mysterious prisoner in the attic, and instead creates a frightening antagonist who finally succeeds in burning down Thornfield Manor and almost succeeds in preventing the marriage between Jane and Mr. Rochester.
Here is a full-text, searchable version of Jane Eyre. Fo' free.
A Comparison
Grendel, Wide Sargasso Sea and Jane Eyre all utilize laughter as a method of characterization in order to develop theme and further plot. However, the laughter in each of these novels has a different meaning, and even each instance of laughter in one work creates a different mental sound and picture. In Grendel, laughter directly expresses feelings of superiority that can be tracked throughout the novel’s progression. Rhys’ use of laughter seems more of an indication of comfort or power depending on the situation or character. And laughter in Jane Eyre creates a shrouded, mysterious madness that, even when uncovered, continues to deflect sympathy.
However, despite all of their differences, these examples of laughter in literature all have a common characteristic in that they create much stronger sensation and meaning than common laughter that most people experience every day. It is strange to realize that the unconscious response that most people have to stupidity or wit have such important, and often unpleasant, implications in literature. But it is true that even giggling often implies mockery, such as in Wide Sargasso Sea when the servant girl, Hilda, makes no sound except to cover her mouth and giggle whenever she sees Rochester, implying the condescension so prevalent among the island natives.
Bertha’s laughter in Jane Eyre is set apart from that in the other two novels because of the static nature of the character it describes. Because Bertha is a flat, undeveloped character whose purpose is mainly to delay the marriage between Jane and Rochester, the function of laughter is fairly static within the novel as it characterizes the mysterious demon in the attic. However, both in Grendel and in Wide Sargasso Sea, laughter helps trace the development of characters and the relationships between them. In Grendel, laughter links the dragon and the goldworker creating a strong connection between them and then revealing Grendel’s path through superiority to nihilism.
In a related way, the waxing and waning of laughter in the characters of Wide Sargasso Sea is telltale of their relative strengths. Like Grendel, Rochester builds up a certain confidence, and its climax, where he finally wins control over Antoinette, is indicated by his sudden ability to laugh. Antoinette, on the other, changes from being a part of the island to being consumed by it, and so her laughter changes from carefree laughter, like when she is washing with Christophine, to “a crazy laugh” (89) of pain and jealousy when speaking to her estranged husband. In all three of these novels, the author takes laughter out of its normal daily context in order to expose character traits in a more uncontrolled manner and thus help further plot, character development, and overall theme.
However, despite all of their differences, these examples of laughter in literature all have a common characteristic in that they create much stronger sensation and meaning than common laughter that most people experience every day. It is strange to realize that the unconscious response that most people have to stupidity or wit have such important, and often unpleasant, implications in literature. But it is true that even giggling often implies mockery, such as in Wide Sargasso Sea when the servant girl, Hilda, makes no sound except to cover her mouth and giggle whenever she sees Rochester, implying the condescension so prevalent among the island natives.
Bertha’s laughter in Jane Eyre is set apart from that in the other two novels because of the static nature of the character it describes. Because Bertha is a flat, undeveloped character whose purpose is mainly to delay the marriage between Jane and Rochester, the function of laughter is fairly static within the novel as it characterizes the mysterious demon in the attic. However, both in Grendel and in Wide Sargasso Sea, laughter helps trace the development of characters and the relationships between them. In Grendel, laughter links the dragon and the goldworker creating a strong connection between them and then revealing Grendel’s path through superiority to nihilism.
In a related way, the waxing and waning of laughter in the characters of Wide Sargasso Sea is telltale of their relative strengths. Like Grendel, Rochester builds up a certain confidence, and its climax, where he finally wins control over Antoinette, is indicated by his sudden ability to laugh. Antoinette, on the other, changes from being a part of the island to being consumed by it, and so her laughter changes from carefree laughter, like when she is washing with Christophine, to “a crazy laugh” (89) of pain and jealousy when speaking to her estranged husband. In all three of these novels, the author takes laughter out of its normal daily context in order to expose character traits in a more uncontrolled manner and thus help further plot, character development, and overall theme.
Wikipedia It!
So this is what you get when you search "Laughter in Literature."
I have to say I'm surprised there's a wikipedia page on something so perfectly specific, let alone one thats actually decently informative.
Alas, it was not helpful not helpful to my actual blog posts. But it was fun to read anyway.
I have to say I'm surprised there's a wikipedia page on something so perfectly specific, let alone one thats actually decently informative.
Alas, it was not helpful not helpful to my actual blog posts. But it was fun to read anyway.
Million Dollar Laughs
“The Execution” by Yue Minjun depicts a mesmerizing surreality created by the incongruity between the characters’ facial expressions and their situations. As its title suggests, the painting is set up to look like an execution with nearly-naked prisoners arranged in a line opposite men in T-shirt we can assume to be the executioners. “Assume” is key in this painting because the men are not actually holding guns, but rather have their arms arranged in a way that appears to be holding a gun, but the actual guns are otherwise absent or invisible.
However, as odd as an execution without guns, the aspect of the painting most noticeable, almost overshadowing the conspicuous absence of weapons, is the expression on all of the figures’ faces. For every single on of them (that we can see) seem to be in the middle of a humungous fit of laughter and only just able to hold their relative positions. Every one of the four victims and the one visible “gunman” has a wide-stretched, laughing mouth, characteristic of the characters in all of Minjun’s paintings.
The juxtaposition that this painting creates between situation and human expression creates a tension that is uncommon and disturbing. The way that the figures seem to be mocking the execution while clearly in a submissive position suggest that the artist is trying to show the ridiculousness of executions without the horrors. Instead of taking the more common approach to depict an execution with violence and helplessness, Minjun chooses how silly it is to line men up in their underwear to meet their death.
Minjun’s choice to omit painting in the guns adds further to the painting’s sense of ridicule because it would seem as if the figures were “playing” execution like they were children, with imaginary guns and imaginary death.
The strong laughing image that exists in this piece does more than just create a sense of mockery. Because laughter is such a versatile image and symbol in art, its use in this piece can be interpreted several ways. For instance, the slight differentiation between the facial expressions on each victim seem to exhibit different types of laughter and different feelings. The leftmost victim is taking what appears to be an indignant stance and therefore seems to be laughing at his executioner as if to mock him and his absurd invisible gun. The second, however, seems to be laughing at his own squeamishness, turning away from the executioners but then laughing, perhaps out of nervousness or maybe just relief. The third man hold himself as if he is laughing at the others, maybe for their awkward positions or their needless fright, and the last almost seems to be looking behind him as if to an audience and laughing with them.
And then there is the executioner in the right foreground, his arms cradling empty space and his face practically distorted with the strength of his deranged laughter. This figure in particular seems to be laughing at the entire situation, yet is literally grasping for a reality that does not exist. Perhaps he is laughing at the victims for their ridiculous carefree expressions in the face of their imminent death, still unaware that his arms are empty and there is no threat. Or perhaps this painting has religious implications and the guns are real and the viewer does not see them because the victims do not see them because they have already moved on from their earthly lives and are free and therefore laugh freely at those trying to hurt them or pity them.
The effect of laughter in a visual piece like this, as opposed to in a literary work, is surprisingly similar due to the many interpretations that laughter can elicit depending on the situation, the character and the observer. While laughter in literature depends mostly on the context and the previous characterization to help describe laughter, visual art depends upon the viewer’s ability to interpret body language or perhaps even one’s own ability to laugh. And while laughter in the visual sense is most often of a more or less harmless nature (think candid photographs, not Minjun’s piece), laughter in literature is most often importantly associated with madness, superiority, power, or some other negative characteristic. So although both media allow for several interpretations of laughter, literature (in my experience) seems to use laughter for the expression of darker motives than those in visual art.
However, as odd as an execution without guns, the aspect of the painting most noticeable, almost overshadowing the conspicuous absence of weapons, is the expression on all of the figures’ faces. For every single on of them (that we can see) seem to be in the middle of a humungous fit of laughter and only just able to hold their relative positions. Every one of the four victims and the one visible “gunman” has a wide-stretched, laughing mouth, characteristic of the characters in all of Minjun’s paintings.
The juxtaposition that this painting creates between situation and human expression creates a tension that is uncommon and disturbing. The way that the figures seem to be mocking the execution while clearly in a submissive position suggest that the artist is trying to show the ridiculousness of executions without the horrors. Instead of taking the more common approach to depict an execution with violence and helplessness, Minjun chooses how silly it is to line men up in their underwear to meet their death.
Minjun’s choice to omit painting in the guns adds further to the painting’s sense of ridicule because it would seem as if the figures were “playing” execution like they were children, with imaginary guns and imaginary death.
The strong laughing image that exists in this piece does more than just create a sense of mockery. Because laughter is such a versatile image and symbol in art, its use in this piece can be interpreted several ways. For instance, the slight differentiation between the facial expressions on each victim seem to exhibit different types of laughter and different feelings. The leftmost victim is taking what appears to be an indignant stance and therefore seems to be laughing at his executioner as if to mock him and his absurd invisible gun. The second, however, seems to be laughing at his own squeamishness, turning away from the executioners but then laughing, perhaps out of nervousness or maybe just relief. The third man hold himself as if he is laughing at the others, maybe for their awkward positions or their needless fright, and the last almost seems to be looking behind him as if to an audience and laughing with them.
And then there is the executioner in the right foreground, his arms cradling empty space and his face practically distorted with the strength of his deranged laughter. This figure in particular seems to be laughing at the entire situation, yet is literally grasping for a reality that does not exist. Perhaps he is laughing at the victims for their ridiculous carefree expressions in the face of their imminent death, still unaware that his arms are empty and there is no threat. Or perhaps this painting has religious implications and the guns are real and the viewer does not see them because the victims do not see them because they have already moved on from their earthly lives and are free and therefore laugh freely at those trying to hurt them or pity them.
The effect of laughter in a visual piece like this, as opposed to in a literary work, is surprisingly similar due to the many interpretations that laughter can elicit depending on the situation, the character and the observer. While laughter in literature depends mostly on the context and the previous characterization to help describe laughter, visual art depends upon the viewer’s ability to interpret body language or perhaps even one’s own ability to laugh. And while laughter in the visual sense is most often of a more or less harmless nature (think candid photographs, not Minjun’s piece), laughter in literature is most often importantly associated with madness, superiority, power, or some other negative characteristic. So although both media allow for several interpretations of laughter, literature (in my experience) seems to use laughter for the expression of darker motives than those in visual art.
This painting sold for $5.9 million (!)
Crazy by Gnarls Barkley
Here is the video for Gnarls Barkley's "Crazy." Think Antoinette/Bertha and inkblots.
I distinctly remember hearing a version of this song with maniacal laughter at the end, but apparently I'm wrong. Looks like I'm losing it...
I distinctly remember hearing a version of this song with maniacal laughter at the end, but apparently I'm wrong. Looks like I'm losing it...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
