Normalcy, Satire, and Romance

Happy middle-of-the-night, my friends! On this night we are going to discuss humor and romance using special diagrams that I have prepared, about which I learned as part of my Education. In order to do this Scientifically, however, we shall need what the Scientist ("a first rate Magician," as Satie says) calls a "control group." This "control group" in turn is called "Normalcy." It looks like this:













For those not paying attention, it is a straight line with "Normalcy" written above it. It is a metaphor for "Normalcy," which is synonymous with "Stasis" or "Expectation." This is the usual state of existence, which ideally involves no occurrences whatsoever, or at least a limited set of occurrences, but we should not push the bounds of "Normalcy" by any means into "Abnormalcy," which would not be a straight line with "Normalcy" written above it at all. It would be an entirely different kind of line with "Abnormalcy" written above it.

Now that we completely understand that which is "Normalcy," we may attempt a comprehension of the intricacies of humor and romance. Let us begin with humor, using the following diagram:













As we can see, "Satire," our embodiment of humor, is not like "Normalcy" at all. Instead of being a straight line, it has what the gardener might call "Branches," or what the Freudian might call "Phalli." Given that gardeners are delightful people and Freudians are not, we shall use the more arboreal analysis. Now these "Branches" represent deviations from "Normalcy," and it is deviation from "Normalcy" that is the essence of "Satire" and indeed of all humor. You may notice, my friends, that we do indeed begin with a bit of a straight line, though, and this is the essential "Establishment of Normalcy," without which there shall be no "Normalcy" from which to deviate. Let us consider an example. It is the plot of every mediocre comedic film ever made. First we have a character, and he has a life, the "Normalcy" of which is unsatisfactory. A situation causes a disruption thereto, followed by a number of episodes of disruption until "Normalcy" is entirely dead. Afterward, a particular deviation causes that all be mended and a new and better "Normalcy" is established once the character gets the treasure, but more on this later. For now suffice it to say that humor consists simply of "Branches" on the "Tree of Normalcy."

Now for romance, which adheres to the following form, which some think looks like a severely disfigured rocketship:













As we can plainly see, "Romance" is even less like "Normalcy" than "Satire." In order to confound us, it consists of two lines, which are a metaphor for the two protagonists that make up a romance. The begin in separation, but in order for a romance to exist the must be brought together. This is done by a "Mediator," which is not featured in the diagram. It is the duty of this "Mediator" to give premise to the togetherness. Let us consider a scenario of my own invention. Three youthful individuals sit together at a table, two of which are male, one of which is female. One male is the brother of the female, whereas the other harbors affections for that same female and enjoys to run and jump and play with the brother. Thus it is the association with the brother that "Mediates" the romantic association. Now, let us generalize the point and then specify it once more. This part of the "Mediator" is to be found best between the "Individual" and "Object" in terms of desire. In this case the youthful male is the "Individual" desiring the youthful female, the "Object."

Now I take this opportunity to digress, for I said that I shall say more on a particular point later, and now is that later, except that now it is now. In tales of heroism and epic deeds, the hero seeks one of two things: a treasure or a woman; however, these "Objects" are essentially interchangeable. Let us consider the plot of the mediocre comedic film once more. Without fail, the most significant aspect of the preexisting unsatisfactory "Normalcy" is a somehow lacking or nonexistent romance, but it may as well be a lacking or nonexistent horde of treasure that is to be "Objectified," desired, and gained. The ending is always the same: the acquisition of an "Object," so why should it matter, excepting social influences, what the object is?

Back to our youths, we see another role for this "Mediator" figure, and that is the youthful male's "Identification" of him with the youthful female (an easy identification, granted the sibling relationship), the "Object" of his desire. It is important at this point to note; however, that neither the "Mediator" nor the object of "Identification" need to be human. It simply happens to be the case in this scenario. For instance, J.S. Bach "Identified" his music with God, and his large output of sacred music was quite arguably a form of worship for him, for through his creation of all these objects of "Identification," he was more able to "Identify" with God Himself. Art, indeed, has proven a frequent source of "Identification." Thus it can be said that acting upon an object of "Identification" brings the individual closer to the "Object" of desire, so as our youthful male associates with his friend, he has an "Identification" with the youthful female. We are reminded of the the words of the King to the sheep in the twenty-fifth chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." Aside from the very nice idea that the Christ wishes to "Identify" with His sheep (a point to be taken seriously regardless of how seriously we are taking ourselves in the rest of these words), we here find another link between "Identification" and desire.

Now let us assume that in all this convoluted mess a romance begins to exist, consulting the diagram (remember the diagram?) to see its course. Thanks to the "Mediator," perhaps (if so, ironically) the feud in Romeo and Juliet for yet another example, there exists a closeness, which shall be brief, at least in literature. In literature, of course, all must collapse, and in the end the romancing couple finds itself apart, necessarily by death. Romeo and Juliet marry, and then they die, and they are as separated as separation can go, as shown in the diagram. Because of their closeness, they must wind up farther apart than ever. That, my friends, is the point of a literary romance. If Art really does imitate life, my friends, the future is bleak. It is a good thing that romance is even less like "Normalcy" than "Satire!"

In conclusion, all which you have just read is what one gets when that same one decides it is a good idea to write on subjects about which he knows nothing. That is all right, though, for the readership should recall that I invoked Science at the very beginning. To quote the quotable Julius Sumner Miller, "I invoke the Laws of Newton!" In all, I hope it was a pleasant voyage, indeed, a voyage wrought with "Normalcy," rather than a voyage marked by the pounding waves of "Satire" (which necessarily comes at the expense of its object) or the crushed on sharp rocks by the storming death of romance. I trust this was not the case, as we are not literary characters. On a final note, I have changed my mind. It would be much more frightening if life imitated Art, and when it does it is. It is more frightening, that is. As Captain Beefheart so eloquently put it, "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous. Got me?"

Until next time, Godspeed.