Some useful notes on "randomness"...

[SharPhoe]

As a member of the DeviantART community, I read a lot of the journals of the people I watch. One such person, JohnSu, wrote a very interesting piece on the categories of "random" that people use in everyday situations, and why some aren't what they're cracked up to be. Allow me to share that with you, my fellow Escapists.

There was a journal up for about half an hour before I deleted it for failing to meet quality standards. It was basically me complaining about "why is the deviantArt weird?" and concluding with a statement that was too desperately haphazard for even me.

WHICH shall bring me to the subject of this new entry: Randomness.

Recently this word has been coming up quite frequently in my feedback, and I've been thinking about how it relates to the effect I'm trying to achieve. My conclusion was that the relation is an illusion. Randomness is not particularly useful in delivering an idea. Take this scenario for example:

"Say, Peter, what's your favorite indulgence?"
"The letter N."

The audience's impression is simply confusion or disappointment. The punchline was utterly arbitrary and so failed to hit any sort of point. That sort of randomness is useless, but at least it's not as bad as:

"Say, Peter, what's your favorite indulgence?"
"Space-monkeys playing the banjo!"

THAT is a desperate grab at randomness, relying on exotic ideas like space and exclamation marks. It might tickle a poorly developed sense of humor or a sufficiently drugged individual, but a healthy brain will recognize this as a pathetic attempt at being funny. If telling a joke were a battle, the first type of random is like missing and failing to accomplish anything. The second type is like critically missing and throwing out your back. Then there's a third type, demonstrated as so:

"Say, Peter, what's your favorite indulgence?"
"Tap water from the small of a woman's back."

(My apologies for not making a better punchline, but I want to get back to doing things that aren't writing)
This is more what I'm striving for: the absurd. Randomness is based on nothing at all - absurdity is based on reason. One must consider what would be the norm or expected, then rush in the opposite direction. There might also be some other crap involved, like thinking or something, but that's too complicated for me.

Anyhow, the point I was trying to make was not How To Be Random Like John, but rather John Is Not As Random As Some Of You Might Think, Despite The Insurmountable Evidence and Hypocrisy. Indeed, many of my seemingly random deviations are based on ideas that many of you are familiar with, like rabbit feet and meeting ugly people.

I'm not upset when people call me random (as it is the listener's responsibility to try to understand what is being said given the speaker and the context), but I just thought I'd talk about this to provide you with some literary garbage and encourage people to not try to be funny by being random. It sucks.

Questions? Comments?

 

[NeutralDrow]

I thought the point of randomness as humor was to not communicate an idea...

I disagree with his conclusion.

I'm not upset when people call me random (as it is the listener's responsibility to try to understand what is being said given the speaker and the context), but I just thought I'd talk about this to provide you with some literary garbage and encourage people to not try to be funny by being random. It sucks.

Randomness is perfectly capable of being funny. People just tend to suck at knowing the right timing and method for doing so.

 

[SharPhoe]

I thought the point of randomness as humor was to not communicate an idea...

I disagree with his conclusion.

I'm not upset when people call me random (as it is the listener's responsibility to try to understand what is being said given the speaker and the context), but I just thought I'd talk about this to provide you with some literary garbage and encourage people to not try to be funny by being random. It sucks.

Randomness is perfectly capable of being funny. People just tend to suck at knowing the right timing and method for doing so.

That's the conclusion that you got? Wow, maybe I read it wrong. I thought he was saying that there were right ways and wrong ways to be random.

 

[Inverse Skies]

I guess if you're going to use completely random and/or obscure references as humour you have to have a certain flare about it, be it timing or just putting it into the right context. It sounds like the ideas you mentioned in the OP were slightly overused to the extent that they ceased to be funny anymore, and in that sense randomness has lost its art of being humourous. It's like all comedy I guess, timing and placement are the keys to being good at comedy and randomnes is no exception.

 

[NeutralDrow]

I thought the point of randomness as humor was to not communicate an idea...

I disagree with his conclusion.

I'm not upset when people call me random (as it is the listener's responsibility to try to understand what is being said given the speaker and the context), but I just thought I'd talk about this to provide you with some literary garbage and encourage people to not try to be funny by being random. It sucks.

Randomness is perfectly capable of being funny. People just tend to suck at knowing the right timing and method for doing so.

That's the conclusion that you got? Wow, maybe I read it wrong. I thought he was saying that there were right ways and wrong ways to be random.

If he was, he should have written a better ending paragraph before he's qualified to talk about "literary garbage." His body and conclusion didn't match.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

I thought the point of randomness as humor was to not communicate an idea...

I disagree with his conclusion.

I'm not upset when people call me random (as it is the listener's responsibility to try to understand what is being said given the speaker and the context), but I just thought I'd talk about this to provide you with some literary garbage and encourage people to not try to be funny by being random. It sucks.

Randomness is perfectly capable of being funny. People just tend to suck at knowing the right timing and method for doing so.

That's the conclusion that you got? Wow, maybe I read it wrong. I thought he was saying that there were right ways and wrong ways to be random.

I think it's funny that he seems to be saying that you should think about your randomness. To me, this sort of implies that you're not really being random. If you're going to be truly random you need to just say the first thing that comes to mind, but even then you'll probably not stay random.

 

[SharPhoe]

I think it's funny that he seems to be saying that you should think about your randomness. To me, this sort of implies that you're not really being random. If you're going to be truly random you need to just say the first thing that comes to mind, but even then you'll probably not stay random.

I know it sounds kinda paradoxical, but he's not saying you should stop and actually think of an answer that's sufficiently random. It's more along the line of taking a split second to filter out your thoughts before say something that's more stupid than random.

 

[SharPhoe]

If he was, he should have written a better ending paragraph before he's qualified to talk about "literary garbage." His body and conclusion didn't match.

The guy's no professional novelist, and it's not like he's trying to spread said message over the entire world, you should probably cut him a little slack. But yeah, I see what you're saying, some might get confused between what he's saying and what he actually means.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

I think it's funny that he seems to be saying that you should think about your randomness. To me, this sort of implies that you're not really being random. If you're going to be truly random you need to just say the first thing that comes to mind, but even then you'll probably not stay random.

I know it sounds kinda paradoxical, but he's not saying you should stop and actually think of an answer that's sufficiently random. It's more along the line of taking a split second to filter out your thoughts before say something that's more stupid than random.

I realize that's what he's getting at, but to me, truly random means no filter. And even then, there's a good chance you'll start falling into some sort of pattern. E.g. You are asked to say the first word that comes to mind and you say "elephant". When you are asked to say another random word your brain is already primed by 'elephant' so you're likely to say something that relates (even if it's only a connection you make).

 

[TheBluesader]

I've met people who consider genuine witty satire "random" because they're not sophisticated enough - by will or brain architecture - to know that something is being mocked, and to find out what it is.

So how can we expect people to differentiate between "pointed" randomness and "goofy" randomness? Most people don't know what they're looking at, and don't seem to care.

On a personal note, no punchline involving monkeys or banjos has been funny since 1890. And yelling "Pirate!" or "Ninja!" in response to something isn't "random," it's co-opting tired Internet memes in a desperate attempt to look Internet cool.

On the other hand, yelling "It's over 9000!" is still funny, but only if it makes rational sense in response to what was said initially. And if everyone keeps doing it, it'll get old quick.

I basically agree with John, but I'd point out that artistic absurdity and so-called "randomness" are not the same thing. Artistic absurdity leads to Dadaism, Surrealism, Abstraction, Postmodernism and in some ways, Camp. Randomness is simply a lack of comedic and artistic sophistication, no matter how "rationale" it is.

 

[Twilight_guy]

If I'm not mistaken... he's saying that there is an art in randomness? That's like saying that there is a pattern to chaos, its a nice philosophical thought to ponder, but it makes absolutely no sense and defies the definition of the original idea.

 

[TaborMallory]

I agree with the OP's presented arguments.

I think randomness can be funny if applied with good timing or context.

...or simply when it's 3 in the morning. I was at my friend's house once, and I was about to infer that we were in desperate need of sleep.
Me: Hey, I think we've been playing Nazi Zombies for way too long-
Friend: You're a sandwich.

The shock had me laughing loud enough to wake up the entire house.

 

[SharPhoe]

I agree with the OP's presented arguments.

I think randomness can be funny if applied with good timing or context.

...or simply when it's 3 in the morning. I was at my friend's house once, and I was about to infer that we were in desperate need of sleep.
Me: Hey, I think we've been playing Nazi Zombies for way too long-
Friend: You're a sandwich.

The shock had me laughing loud enough to wake up the entire house.

Why do I imagine him whipping around and growling the word "sandwich" at you?

 

[Erana]

absurd =/= random.
Absurdity is to do something in a logical manner, but ignore one crucial fact, most often a logical fallacy or physics.

 

[TaborMallory]

I agree with the OP's presented arguments.

I think randomness can be funny if applied with good timing or context.

...or simply when it's 3 in the morning. I was at my friend's house once, and I was about to infer that we were in desperate need of sleep.
Me: Hey, I think we've been playing Nazi Zombies for way too long-
Friend: You're a sandwich.

The shock had me laughing loud enough to wake up the entire house.

Why do I imagine him whipping around and growling the word "sandwich" at you?

Maybe it was the overemphasis. The point I'm trying to get across is that he was implying that I was a blasphemous sandwich who needs sleep, even whilst playing Nazi Zombies.