By Bowl of Soup

It is my opinion, as a Bowl of Soup, that the deconstructing of humor in all its forms provides its own unique source of comedy, to be considered as meaningful and as enjoyable as the original product it deconstructs. One has only to look at the roots of the modern alternative comedy scene to see that deconstructing humor is not just an enjoyable angle or slant to take in the comedy world, but a necessary one.

Please put crackers on me.

Imagine the American comedy scene without NYC's Luna Lounge or its founders Marc Maron and Janeane Garofolo, without Los Angeles' Largo or Uncabaret shows, without Mr. Show with Bob and David, or the Daily Show with Jon Stweart. Imagine it without the Simpsons. That's right. I said the Simpsons, and I'll say it again if I have to…the Simpsons.

Now soak me up with bread.

And the list goes on, my friends. It goes into the future and back to the past, with projects like National Lampoon's Radio Hour (the old one) and comedians like Lenny Bruce. And is not the screwball comedy itself, made popular by "Caddyshack," a form of deconstructing, breaking apart the 60's "everything gone crazy denouement" comedies?

Without this kind of comedy, which breaks the fourth wall and which points to previous humorous assays and their foibles, we have no looking glass with which to compare our own views of comedy, and through them, the world at large. Now please blow on me. I'm hot.

Silly, Innocuous Object of Diametric Nature to the First, Also Imbued with Human Traits, Argues Opposing View

By Soup Ladle

Oh Bowl of Soup. You surprise me with your naiveté. Deconstructionalist humor is by necessity not as funny as its originals or predecessors. You must know that. I could sit here, as much as a Soup Ladle is able, and list film after film, sketch after sketch, or comedian after comedian who is not as funny as the original it seeks to mock. For let us be open about this; the word "Deconstruct" in this sense is a polite term applied by obsessed categorists and intellectuals who found the word "Mock" over used.

Dunk me into your broth.

Why would anyone think deconstructionalist humor is as funny as the original? Impressionists are never as funny as the comedians they mimic, or, if you will, mock. Who ever traded in tickets to see Rich Little over Johnny Carson? Certainly not the kind of people I, a Soup Ladle, would hang out with.

Let me pour you from my concavity.

And let me assure you right now, Bowl of Soup, I am not unaware of America's alternative comedy scene or its roots. One need only to trot out a few names nowadays to invoke the spirit of alternative comedy, David Cross, Bob Oedenkirk, Janeane Blah blah blah. But that's not all they did. To be sure, making light of the sour taste left in everyone's mouth from the 80's comedy "movement" was a part of what they did, but deconstructionalist does not apply to the majority of their works, unless you include political and social satire under the umbrella of deconstructionalist." But then if you include those, what isn't deconstructionalist? And if everything deconstructs, what point in building? Do see the kind of masturbatory comedy hell we'd all be in if deconstructing were as comedically profitable as actually just creating comedy on its own?

Dip me. Dip! Dip dip dip!

If you are not yet satisfied dear reader with the humble views of this Soup Ladle, let me cite this humor article as evidence that deconstructions are never as funny as the originals. This piece seeks to deconstruct a very popular and, might I add, humorous segment published by the Onion satirical newspaper service on a semi-regular basis in its editorial section. Not only are these pieces usually the most humorous pieces on their site or in their paper on that given week, but these "Point/Counterpoint" segments usually manage to maintain some relevance to the modern world around us, themselves deconstructing world events and prominent politicians and trends--unlike this article. And when these pieces do opt for a sillier angle, e.g. Humidifier vs. Dehumidifier, they are by far more amusing than this piece of self-indulgent flotsam.

But of course, as a Soup Ladle, I understand that the recognition and admission of these facts are being used as tools to insulate the author of this piece from criticism of self-indulgence. Furthermore, the further recognition of this recognition, through the voice of a Soup Ladle, then creates a second level of protection by pointing to this, the second of many possible layers of self awareness that our author must possess if he is able to make these seemingly infinite, Escher-like self observations.

Will it work? Who cares — soup's on.