Rhetoric

Essay 2: On Stand-up Comedy

Prompt
The idea of the carnivalesque embraces an ancient rhetorical ambivalence between praise and abuse without resolving it. Bishop writes,

As Bakhtin points out, the world was whole, and the joker and his audience together were a part of it. The carnival joker, by critiquing himself as well as the other and by applying ambivalent metaphors to the world, paradoxically pointed to differences and interconnections. Part of Bakhtin’s claims about this paradoxical interpretive stance is that both aspects of it were taken as denoting truth, wholeness (54).
PROMPT: Taking ambivalence as a starting point (above), consider two comedians whose work we’ve entertained (from this list, Tran, Peretti, Seales, Booster, Kondabolu, Gadsby, André, Poundstone). Consider how their comedy simultaneously subverts and confirms some specific status quo (BE SPECIFIC: For example, this is a gender norm, sexual norm, or religious norm) and to what effect. You should relate their performances to either (only one):
A. Joanne Gilbert’s ideas about the risks and rewards of performing one’s marginality, or,
B. James M. Thomas’s analysis of comedic sociotechnical milieux and their influence.
Choose only one theoretical text, and focus on how ambivalence differently affects the self-presentation and arguments of the comedians you chose. Be sure to consider how the
negative/positive simultaneity of stand-ups underscores their contributions to and/or influence on cultural conceptions they share with audiences.

Your analysis should provide your reader with a defensible account of your discussion and its underlying issue(s). Your paper should be an outgrowth of your analysis of the larger discussion in the class and the class materials (please read essay 1 to better understand the Persona of stand- ups; attached), and should serve as a contribution back to that discussion.
Any citations of comic material should include annotations of the comedian-audience collaboration. Please do not include the legend. Be specific and detailed.
*Answering this question will involve a good deal of thought as this project is not something you can B.S.

Formatting requirements
Times New Roman, 12 point, double-spaced. 1 inch margins. A meaningful title.
Page numbers.
6-8 full pages, excluding references. MLA Citations.

Good Essay Format:

Intro:
Thesis, pose your issue/question

Body:
First, write about those (two) stand-up comedians
-talk about how their comedy simultaneously subverts and confirms some specific (gender norm, religious norm, sexual norm, etc.) status quo and too what effect.
-Comedian #1 is using subversion, confirmation, OR ambivalence. While Comedian #2 is using subversion, confirmation, OR ambivalence (they are not doing the same thing).

Second, relate the comedians to one reading (Gilbert or Thomas)
-Example, “Gilberts ideas are related to…blah blah blah.” Or, “The comedians relate to Thomas analysis of this. blah blah blah.”

Third, pose your issue/question based on the work of the comedians. Then, say, “let’s look at his issue through the lens of Gilbert or Thomas, to help us ask the question this way. blah blah
blah.”
-Then, go back to the stand-up comedians, “If we understand the issue this way, is the conclusion I have come to about how the comedians use subversion, confirmation, and ambivalence.

Conclusion: ….