Christopher Hitchens Still Knows Nothing About Comedy

After dutifully ignoring Amy Sedaris, Tina Fey, Elaine May, Sarah Silverman, Samantha Bee, Kristen Wig, Lily Tomlin, Gilda Radner, Jane Curtain, Sally Hawkins, Joan Rivers and — I’m sure — countless others in a certain article, Christopher Hitchens returns to The Atlantic with  “Cheap Laughs.”

It is difficult to ascertain a thesis or even a sense of build in this. And since it seems that Hitchens’ latest interest is in taking Oxford Union theatrics to the reading public, be it resolved that I stand here to offer a kind of rebuttal.

First off: there is a difference between left-leaning politicians using humor in this country and comedians whose politics lean towards the left. Politicians have goals. Comedians have jokes. But if we are to conflate the two — don’t forget: the rules are always changing — then we can say that there is no Beppe Grillo equivalent in this country (Stephen Colbert’s attempted campaign more closely mirrored Will Rogers than anything else), nor a Horst Schlaemmer.

*

We would advise Mr. Hitchens not to become lost in useless analogies. Swift is Swift. Zola — Zola? Where did you get that one? — is Zola. Twain is Twain. And Colbert is Colbert, Stewart Stewart, and so on.

Also: while Mr. Hitchens is pretty much right in sensing a literary connection between Gore Vidal and Mark Twain, he forgets that Mr. Clemens is widely considered America’s first stand-up comedian, and that might be the hidden meme his students are drawing upon. (Just look at “Frank Fuller and My First New York Lecture.”)

*

(P.S. If Mr. Hitchens wants to name-drop anyone in relation to Mr. Colbert, we would advise Mr. Debord.)

*

One reason why these young women on the cruise-liner were laughing before Al Franken even spoke is simple: he’s a comedian, and people have a very good idea of what kind of comedian he is. Comedians use rhythm. If you know the comedian, you know the rhythm, and if you as an audience member start reacting off the rhythm, you’re adding an extra level of your reaction to the performance.

*

A factual note. Consider this line, where he quotes Al Franken:

Before reading this, I had never considered the direct line between liberal agnosticism and hard-core, radical Islam. But Hannity has a strong case. So many of my liberal, agnostic women friends from college gradually relinquished their freedoms and decided to spend the rest of their lives in chadors, avoiding the gaze of man.

If this was being intoned on-air by Jon Stewart, the cue for massive studio-audience laughter would have been activated at the word chadors, allowing him to beam modestly and likably through the mildly suggestive last four words

There are five more words before the sentence ends. We assume the last one is for John to choose how he wants to beam.

*

So: what are the charges? That Stephen Colbert isn’t Zola, and that a complicated case of grave-switching has not, in fact, occurred? That an “attitude of cultural relativism towards political Islam” has been adopted by young women on college campuses? Which campuses? We don’t know. What part of political Islam are they softening against? We don’t know. The hijab? Well, no, he references Obama on that, not a comedian, nor a woman. That it’s about how Stewart and Franken feel about religion? Is that what the article’s about? That they don’t go after Jeremiah Wright — when they clearly have? That they don’t go after Al Sharpton? That their liberalism was full of platitudes? But, wait, wasn’t this about comedy? And, no, wait, he says that Franken isn’t platitudinous, but, in fact, well-informed. That they go after targets that are too big? (As opposed to the countless crazy unknowns they feature in their field pieces?) That they’re not gentle enough when they tell their jokes? Or not subtle enough?

*

“The rebel humor on offer was rather lame even then.”

Six words: Stephen Colbert - White House Correspondents Dinner.

Or, even this: Patton Oswalt on them “Bush boys”:

*

Not only is Hitchens a comedy snob, but he’s a snob that doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Imagine someone who insisted he knew the rules of jazz, knew how to talk about “headers” and Bill Evans and the modes, then said that the only kind of jazz that made any sense was Jelly Roll Morten playing Billy Joel with Branford Marsalis, and why on earth hadn’t anybody done something about that yet?

*

The idea that audiences are only laughing because it’s “cool to laugh” is sophomoric, condescending (’you don’t know what you’re doing’), and factually incorrect: the knowledgeability of audiences of The Daily Show is a well-cited fact.

*

A “decline” in humor? From what? God-damn Erasmus?