oh, wit.

so, continuation of rick's and puneet's posts. this sounds so much like a knowledge issue. if any of the juniors are stalking reading this, go make your knowledge issue on "how does (insert tok terms here) affect what we view as humor."

anyway.
merriam-webster defines wit (in our sense of the word) as "apt or clever humor."

yup... that's suitably vague. thanks, dictionary.
anyway. (again.)

to me, humor doesn't have to be slapstick or just outright dumb (sorry rick, i am not a fan of will ferrell for this reason, he always seems to play really just dumb slash annoying characters). humor's hard to pin down, it's hard to define. which takes me back to the conversation we had in calvert's class near the end of the year.

for me, humor (or my sense of humor) is based on a smattering of sarcasm, exaggeration, toeing the taboo, references (especially to pop culture and by that i mean music), outlandish connections, and also deadpan. deadpan has got to be my most favorite type of humor--saying something hilarious with a completely straight face. (i'm on a tangent, oops.)

in relation to rick's post, i think i'm the opposite. i love british humor and hate american humor, mainly because i also think america's just really dumb and stupid. british humor to me is what i do a lot of--i comment on the situation and hide behind my attempted humor. rick likes humor that reveals something about the characters, but i think that the british style of humor reveals things about characters. if the characters are pointing something out, then it has to hold some sort of importance slash significance to them, it wouldn't be completely just burned at random. this is also maybe why i really dislike american humor. will ferrell doesn't cease to annoy me, and steve carrell's character in "the office" makes me cringe on a regular basis.