The two basic teachings assimilated by the beginner humorist are: Do not laugh at the jokes themselves and not explain them. The more serious it is stated and the more direct, the higher the laughter will sound. There is nothing more anticlimatic at a dinner with friends than someone bothers a joke or ask to explain it. It is the When giving the twelve: they want to ask for the account and call a taxi.
A joke only fails if you receive silence and crickets. If most laugh, those who get angry or baffle are wrong. The jokes do not have a universal audience, they are in a specific place and in a time: the same joke can be hilarious in the bar of a bar, or a bleeding offense told in a wake. I have half a life reading and I have only laughed twenty in twenty years. What am I going to do, they are not for me. I’m not going to complain against the magazine, it is enough for me to read another.
All this is basic humorology: a knowledge that most people acquire in the first primary course, when the first fart joke comes up. But there are a few judges in Spain who do not know. Perhaps because oppositions to judge are so difficult that they began to memorize the Civil Code at age six and had no time to develop the sense of humor. Who knows why, but abounds in Spain a type of judge who needs to explain the jokes, and have adopted the habit of questioning the humorists, and sometimes even condemn them.
But by the courts so many comic have passed (they come to my head, without striving, Anonymous Garcia, Mongolia, who would be time to include a subject of humor theory in the lawy plans. Or not, but there is no more.
