5 ms·

can you please help us by explaining the joke (of an updated renamed Chesterton's fence)?

cthalupa 9y ago
It's pretty obviously meant to be a sci-fi riff on Chesterton's fence. I don't know, this seems pretty obvious to me.
twic 9y ago
You know, i'm not sure i can explain the joke. I can explain what i wrote, but not why it's funny (if indeed it is). As far as i know, we don't really understand what 'funny' actually is. My working hypothesis, though, is that this is mostly funny because of the conjuction between the familiar and the unfamiliar. There is then a second layer of funniness to do with absurdity. So, Chesterton's Fence is a bit of a meme (in the original sense) on HN now. I've seen it come up a few times, as something people consider obscure, but are eager to share, because it's interesting. I assumed that people would recognise it. The re-formulation as a piece of Kryptonian philosophy (Zal-Tar is the scientist guy from the 1984 Supergirl film) about something fantastical and over-the-top like an ancient evil trapped in a crystal, on the other hand, is unfamiliar. There's something about the superposition of the two that is funny. However, that feeds immediately into absurdity, because my re-formulation is rubbish; it's entirely unconvincing, and fails to disguise the origin of the quote. But that makes it more funny, because now you think i'm an idiot. Except you know i'm not really an idiot (well, something like that), you recognise that i'm playing at being an idiot. That isn't a universal element of all comedy, but it's something i personally lean on a lot - if you can make a really obviously silly statement the right way, either deadpan or hyperbolic, it can be funny. I'm reminded of "You've not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon.": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsCVuO1yeJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsCVuO1yeJc
- _h_o_d_ 9y ago
  OK, thank you! I think I might have been amused by it on another day. Or perhaps with a little linguistic style hint that you were up to such ironies (This possibility had been in my range of possibilities, but not at the top). Maybe the responder's literalist correction put me off before I had time to get the joke? Anyways, this helps with the ponderings on the tribulations of text!

It's pretty obviously meant to be a sci-fi riff on Chesterton's fence. I don't know, this seems pretty obvious to me.

twic 9y ago

You know, i'm not sure i can explain the joke. I can explain what i wrote, but not why it's funny (if indeed it is). As far as i know, we don't really understand what 'funny' actually is. My working hypothesis, though, is that this is mostly funny because of the conjuction between the familiar and the unfamiliar. There is then a second layer of funniness to do with absurdity. So, Chesterton's Fence is a bit of a meme (in the original sense) on HN now. I've seen it come up a few times, as something people consider obscure, but are eager to share, because it's interesting. I assumed that people would recognise it. The re-formulation as a piece of Kryptonian philosophy (Zal-Tar is the scientist guy from the 1984 Supergirl film) about something fantastical and over-the-top like an ancient evil trapped in a crystal, on the other hand, is unfamiliar. There's something about the superposition of the two that is funny. However, that feeds immediately into absurdity, because my re-formulation is rubbish; it's entirely unconvincing, and fails to disguise the origin of the quote. But that makes it more funny, because now you think i'm an idiot. Except you know i'm not really an idiot (well, something like that), you recognise that i'm playing at being an idiot. That isn't a universal element of all comedy, but it's something i personally lean on a lot - if you can make a really obviously silly statement the right way, either deadpan or hyperbolic, it can be funny. I'm reminded of "You've not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon.": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsCVuO1yeJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsCVuO1yeJc

_h_o_d_ 9y ago
OK, thank you! I think I might have been amused by it on another day. Or perhaps with a little linguistic style hint that you were up to such ironies (This possibility had been in my range of possibilities, but not at the top). Maybe the responder's literalist correction put me off before I had time to get the joke? Anyways, this helps with the ponderings on the tribulations of text!