I love inside jokes. Inside jokes are the only thing that allow you the opportunity to grunt at a friend while rolling your shoulders backwards and make them laugh. It's a unique form of humour that can make or break the believability of a friendship in a story.
Maybe I've just read too much terrible fiction lately but I've come across so many stories that have had characters do or say incredibly weird things around a friend, have the friend laugh, explained that 'She laughed because it was an inside joke' and expected the reader to find it funny. It might be amusing to picture someone doing the macarena behind the back of an unsuspecting teacher in a hallway but it's not funny to be told it's funny. This breaks the believability of that friendship, because suddenly the reader is being told that the friends are friends and they have this inside joke because they are friends and it is funny because it is a joke. Maybe this boils down to show-not-tell, but I definitely think there's something more to it than that.
Some inside jokes in stories are good, and not just because the joke is funny to the reader. In fact, the entire point of an inside joke is that it's only funny to the people that are in on it. A good inside joke should be explained in a way that ends with 'I guess you had to be there'. It should seem weird to an outside observer. It doesn't even have to be funny to the characters anymore. The hilarity of it might have worn off and now it's a force of habit for those friends.
That seems boring though, doesn't it? What's the point of a form of humour being placed in a story if neither the reader nor the characters are laughing? It's simple really, the reader believes the friendship very quickly. I distinctly remember reading John Green's 'An Abundance of Katherines' wondering why the main character and his best friend kept saying 'fug' instead of the notably more offensive 'fuck'. It wasn't even explained to me directly that it was an inside joke of theirs (which, for good measure, had lost its humourous quality and was now a habit for them, which added to the implied closeness of the friendship). It was eventually explained to another character and only then did I come to understand the origin of the joke. Up until that point I had seriously been questioning whether Mr Green had simply been lamely censoring himself.
I think this all links to a wider opinion I have on writing humour into a story. In it's most basic form, the theory goes something like this:
Only write the humour in if you understand why the humour works.
Everyone has laughed at jokes before. Some of us have had the pleasure of making others laugh at jokes before. Few truly understand why they made the other person laugh. Even if they do understand it all, they must always keep in mind that when writing you lack the ability to truly apply things like comedic timing, intonation and rants about the Oxford Comma.
Inside jokes only work if you bring the reader in on the joke at the very start imo. There's not much point convincing a reader of the closeness of their friendship if they can't identify with either character, unless they're supposed to be cringeworthy. So I would say a good writer makes you identify and put yourself in the place of one of the characters, so you feel like you're there and have an inside joke with them. Eg Jayne's hat in Firefly is a joke which not only the characters of the series understand, but has spread so far throughout the fans that it has become an inside joke for anyone who has seen that episode. That's true skill.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. I believe a story, and the characters within the story, can be made much more 3 dimensional with inside jokes (as a part). As he emphasised, the idea is only the people who know the jokes understand them. To me this make the characters all the more real to me. It gives the feeling that the story written and told is just a snapshot of the individuals relationship, and further this applies to the whole story. The tale told is just a brief adventure in a world that has existed for many years before and (depending on the storyline) will continue to exist. This is all the more important in the kind of fantasy-type that this book seems to be, where it is set in a world drastically different from our own.
DeleteAnd also I don't think you need to identify with or even understand a character. Sometimes this can be used as a tool as you are writing. You don't have to like or appreciate every character. And I don't think you can compare a tv show to a book, although I do agree that when an inside joke from something extends to the small community around it that it can be nice. But I still don't agree with your main point.
I wasn't trying to say that inside jokes should never be used, And of course if you have characters which you don't want the reader to feel close to, you wouldn't want them to be relatable. But I personally find reading much more interesting if it can transport you to the place and connect you with the characters. And how do you usually feel if someone you know pops an inside joke out with their friend, which you don't understand? I either feel curious or alienated. If you're going for either of those two then that can successfully lead the reader to feel intrigued and satisfied when they finally find out the reasoning behind the joke, or distanced from that character. Of course if you want the reader to feel closer to the characters over time, a little mystery is great, but only if you explain it later, which, as the post says, can often turn out to feel quite unsatisfying if the joke doesn't make sense.
DeleteMy main point is just that a great writer (of anything) always thinks about how the reader will feel and react. True skill is, in my opinion, taking the reader on a journey which makes them feel exactly as the author intends. So that should always be taken into account with inside jokes too I think.
And I agree the Firefly example isn't directly related. But it was a good way of illustrating humour which makes you closer to the characters. I also take back that inside jokes only work in that way, I meant it in the context of allowing a reader to connect with a character, but of course there are other purposes an author might have than that, in which case they may be appropriate.
I still disagree. Yes a writer needs to transport a reader to their world and connect them to the character. Is an inside joke a method of doing this? In my opinion not to connect them with the characters.
DeleteA truly skilled author is one who inspires differing opinions and emotions in readers. A writer can't sit down an say "ok at this part any person who reads this ever will feel sad" (obviously I'm oversimplifying). Is the only purpose of an inside joke to either inspire alienation or curiosity? Of course not. An inside joke serves the purpose of fleshing out the characters and the world. Why do I care if I don't get the joke? The point is there IS a joke, there IS a genuine relationship. Why do I care if I don't get their joke? They don't exist in my universe nor me in theirs (what I mean by this is that characters would not inspire these feelings in me, whereas real people might). And as for curiosity, the only way to sate such a curiosity would be with a 3rd character and dialogue , or some very awkward phrasing (depending on the perspective written).
You are confusing the issue. This is about the purpose of an inside joke FOR THE AUTHOR. The quality of the book or effect on the reader is irrelevant in this discussion. I'll say it again: An inside joke serves the purpose of making the characters, and by extension the world, real. It gives the characters HISTORY, and makes them real.
-Commenter 2.
Ooooh, a whole discussion.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all thanks guys for taking the time to read and comment.
I fear the first commenter may have missed my point. I'm discussing in-universe inside jokes that exist between characters. The Firefly example you brought up doesn't quite apply here as the main intention is for it to be funny for the audience. It is also funny for the rest of the characters, but that is true of many forms of humour that are not inside jokes. What the joke surrounding Jayne's hat lacks which is characteristic of inside jokes is the recurrence of it. Arguably any piece of humour from a show, book, movie or any other for of media is an inside joke among those who have seen/heard/read it, but that makes it an out-of-universe inside joke.
In the wider sense I think I disagree with you that one must feel like they relate on a humourous level with a character in order for a piece of humour to be worthwhile. I think this stems from a belief I have that the characters do not owe you anything. They are meant to exist independently of the reader and an author should therefore not feel obliged to write a character in a way that makes the reader feel a part of the character's life. A reader can easily be nothing more than an observer and the book can still be an interesting read.
That said, what you originally stated was simply your opinion and there isn't necessarily anything inherently wrong with it.
I agree that there can be humour for reasons other than identification with the characters, and that yes, a book can go on without relating the reader to the characters, but for me that would be a merely ok book. I'm a person who's interested in people. So character development, or description, is very important to me. A book which is merely about setting, or even plot, is not extremely interesting unless you have characters which can carry it off. A truly great piece of writing helps the reader to understand things about the characters, or have connections with them, and maybe through that learn something about themselves.
DeleteOf course I'm not saying that you can never use inside jokes, I just fear that, without used with much skill, or used for the wrong reasons, they can just alienate the reader from the characters, which, unless it is intended for some reason, can cause a reader to be disinterested.
Of course if your characters and story owe nothing to the readers, that's fine, but it means you're writing for yourself, not for others. It's much more didactic, rather than communicating freely. That's cool though, it's just not a type of writing I identify with.
The Jayne hat references were repeated in that episode, which just shows a different style of writing. But yes, I agree it was not a direct example of an inside joke.
Overall, I just feel that inside jokes are very risky, and should only be brought in once the connotations for the reader are considered, lest they be dead words which didn't really convey anything of interest.
I don't normally post comments on this kind of thing (truth be told, I don't even really read blogs), but here goes anyway;
ReplyDeleteGood stuff, read all (yes, all four) of your stuff just now, so keep it coming.
Sorry for not keeping on topic, but I didn't want to go through each one saying 'Cool'.
Cheers.
Thanks man
DeleteI agree btw. Good stuff.
ReplyDelete