Humorists

Paul Johnson wrote that book.  Here is my prediction: None of the three names you just imagined are on the list of people he profiles in this book.  Indeed, it might take you some time to come up with one of the names on his list.  To come up with half the names on the list…well, that might take infinite time.

Who made Johnson’s list? We can lump them into categories, starting with the ones who are most recognizably humorists.

1. The Comedians:
In this category we can put W.C. Fields, Charlie Chaplin, Laurel and Hardy, The Marx Brothers.

There is nothing particularly off about that set of four.  You see their names and you think, “Yeah, they are funny.” 

Or, at least you acknowledge that many people thought they were funny in their time.  It certainly tells us something about humor that not all of those comedians have aged well.  W. C. Fields?  Hardly hear about him anymore.  Indeed, I am not sure I would have heard of him if not for the fact that I had a W. C. Fritos poster in my room when I was a small child; it must have been a free poster from mailing in Fritos bags or something.  Charlie Chaplin?  Everyone has heard of him, but he was best in the silent movies and who watches those anymore?  Laurel and Hardy?  Not sure how well they are known these days; I loved them when I was a kid.  The Marx Brothers?  Still legitimately funny. 

But, thinking through that list of four, you instantly notice that there are a lot of other mid-20^th century comedians who are missing.  Off the top of my head: Lucille Ball.  Abbot and Costello.  The Three Stooges.  Bob Hope.  Jackie Gleason.  It isn’t clear why Johnson picked the four he picked.

But this is at least a category in which you can imagine choosing among people who are truly comedians.

2. Writers with Wit

In this category, we can put Benjamin Franklin, G.K Chesterton, James Thurber, Noel Coward/Nancy Mitford (they share a chapter), and, well, let’s add Damon Runyon here. 

This is where it gets a bit strange.  Start with Runyon.  I don’t think I have ever even seen his name before; his biggest claim to fame is that Guys and Dolls is based on some of his stories.  After reading the chapter about him, I think he is probably worth reading, but it is safe to say that it would be a very rare person who would put him in the top 14 humorists.  Thurber, Coward, and Mitford all have their charms to be sure.  Franklin is a humorist, but that is not the first thing that comes to mind when thinking about him. Or the second. Or the third.  Chesterton?  He is incredibly witty, but a Humorist?    Interesting way to think about him, but I can see it.

Again, why this set of names?  Consider the question at the outset—name three humorists.  I would have named: P.G. Wodehouse, Mark Twain, H.L. Mencken.  I think it is safe to say that all three of those writers are more obviously Humorists than anyone in Paul Johnson’s list.  Indeed, if you had a list of all the witty writers, it isn’t obvious any of Johnson’s names would be anywhere near the top.

3. The Artists

Here we have Hogarth, Rowlandson, and Toulouse-Lautrec. This set is really a very big stretch.  Yes, there is some humor in their work, but to call them Humorists is really straining the definition of the word.  In the last case, even Johnson can’t sustain the argument that he is a humorist.  If you look long enough at some of the work by the first two, you will see some humorous characters, but the first thought in looking at their paintings, even the ones Johnson wants to highlight, is not, “This is humorous.”

4. The…You Must Be Joking

Two names here.  First Charles Dickens.  Charming, wonderful, excellent novelist.  But a Humorist?  Yes, Sam Weller is funny.  Mr. Micawber…charming, amusing, and yes, I suppose we could say he is humorous.  Indeed, if the criterion becomes, “He wrote a book in which there is at least one character who makes me smile,” then I suppose we can call Dickens a Humorist.  But that just seems such a strange definition.

And then: Dr. Johnson.  (Why is he called Dr. Johnson and not Samuel Johnson?  I have no idea.)  This is just absurd.  Sure, some of the sayings are witty, but Samuel Johnson is anything but a humorist.  The first sentence in Paul Johnson’ biography of him, “It stretches credulity to cite of Dr. Samuel Johnson as a comic.” Yes it does.

So, what is going on here? 

I suspect this is the case of the Great Writer who no longer has anyone willing to say, “Uh, you should think about this a bit more and maybe rewrite a bit here and there.”  The problem is quite common—the most obvious recent example is J.K. Rowling—does anyone dispute the fact that the books written after she became Famous would have been better if someone had edited them a bit?  Victor Hugo had the same problem. 

Humorists would be a fine book if the title was switched to Well-written, Breezy Biographies of Some Interesting People. (Hard to figure out why they didn’t use that title.) 

The problem here is that there is no real working definition of “Humorist.”  Johnson makes a few stabs here and there in the book to categorize the humor, but the theory of humor doesn’t even approach the point where it can be evaluated.  Yes, some humorists create chaos and some create order and some note how strange people are.  That doesn’t really define anything. 

I think this explains the selections.  If you were really writing a book about Humorists, you would choose carefully, and work out a theory.  But, if you are really just looking for an excuse to write up some biographies of people you think are interesting, then you’ll have a book like this one.

All that being said, it was a pleasant book to read.  After all, if you are writing a book called Humorists, you do get to throw in a bunch of jokes. 

And Humor is important.  Very Important. It is even important enough that spending a bit of time reading a bunch of biographies about people on the fringes of being Humorists is a marvelous way to remind yourself just how important it is to fill your life with humor.  The world can use more humor.