So, we examine an essay called "Dead Man Laughing" by Zadie Smith; an essay who's underlying essence is driving by the aspect of humor, but only by the aspect of humor...not by humor itself. Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be a paradox where the "comedy" is only examined on the surface, as a specimen, and therefore does not appear to be funny at all. Maybe by doing this, Smith is able to connote seriousness and the not-so-funny ideals throughout the essay, allowing them to maintain this solemn quality, and expressing that she merely sees them as being funny (not that they actually are). The reader is not permitted to share this humor, we are only informed that it exists.
It appears that it is in laughter how Smith deals with the death of her father, how they dealt with the low-class status they lived within, and just how they dealt with life in general. Comedy is the connection within their family and I found it interesting that she readily connected death with comedy. She suggested that comedy was a way to deal with death but when she begins describing her brother's stand-up act, she intertwines the two and relates them. She worries that her brother will "die" on stage. But, she also expresses the Lazarus-like ability of comedians to resurrect themselves after "death." I think that what she accomplishes by this is in the examination of death, itself. In the beginning of the essay, she mentions that death is a joke, a meaningless place marker that is not even a real event; it's "only a word, signifying nothing." She knows, however, that death is a real event and is something that can certainly be experienced but the joke is, "in death, one person goes in [the room] and none come out." The comedy-death tie, I think, is just her attempt to reduce the reality of death, reducing it something trivial, a bad night of jokes, something that can be rectified and resurrected in the morning. And I guess, this absurdity makes her laugh...and she deals with it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The death of others is certainly an event in our life, but not an event in the life of the one who dies. That is a paradox of sorts that Smith writes about. She can see the humor in her expectations that her father's death unfold in a certain, acceptable way. I doubt she saw it that way at the time or soon afterward, but quite a while later on, in reflecting from a distance. Maybe comedy of that sort requires some distance and helps impose it?
ReplyDeleteI wonder why she said that not seeing the body was a wrong decision.
ReplyDeleteI think this is further proven by the event of Smith putting her finger into her father's ashes and then into her mouth, and then laughing about it. As disgusting as it is, it was an interesting way for Smith to change her perception about her father's death.
ReplyDelete"an essay who's underlying essence is driving by the aspect of humor, but only by the aspect of humor...not by humor itself." I felt the exact same way when reading this essay. I felt that the notion of humor was the only actual humor found in the story.
ReplyDeleteComedy helps distance pain in a way that one might only have to deal with it a step at a time, I think. Maybe that was Smith's goal the entire time?
ReplyDeletei think that she didn't see the body because she would have to see her father dead and this would cause her to mourn...she may have thought it was a bad decision, because it would have been the last time that she actually got to see him...she wondered what he looked like dead...
ReplyDelete