You prefer to focus on the _method_ of telling a joke (timing and so on)
No, I don't. That's something I mentioned that makes a joke good, but you're ignoring what I said makes a joke a joke: the silliness leading to a catastrophic collapse of a pre-conceived understanding into a different but plausible model.
You seem determined to be right about this. Again, note that I do not claim that these kind of performances aren't funny (since that is a matter for the beholder); but that they are not jokes, and their barrier to understanding is exclusionary and elistist.
Comments
No, I don't. That's something I mentioned that makes a joke good, but you're ignoring what I said makes a joke a joke: the silliness leading to a catastrophic collapse of a pre-conceived understanding into a different but plausible model.
You seem determined to be right about this. Again, note that I do not claim that these kind of performances aren't funny (since that is a matter for the beholder); but that they are not jokes, and their barrier to understanding is exclusionary and elistist.
You might have a different definition of joke to me. Is a joke not something that is said or done to cause amusement or laughter in the audience?
That sounds like a _type_ of joke, but it's quite reductionist to claim that "all jokes must be like this".
Much like claiming, "all things I find funny are jokes"