The Institute for the Decidedly Not-Funny (Interview)

My guest today is Hillary Hitswith, who has been heading the Institute for the Decidedly Not-Funny (or “IDNF”), for the last quarter-century. The science of what is, and what is decidedly-not funny is complex, its history fascinating, and its ramifications vast. The following is an excerpt from an interview I had with Ms. Hitswith in the winter of ‘Ot-six, as we toured a portion of the institute, which is situated on 150 forested acres in Hobbcleff, VT.

(The names are abbreviated M, form “me”, and G, for “Hillary”)

M: Thank you for speaking with me, Hill. So… this is quite a remarkable institution! Most people only hear about the IDNF when something tragic happens, but obviously there is much more to it than that.  What does your institute actually DO?
G: That’s quite a broad question. However, much of our activities involve research. We have cataloged the H.Q., or “Hilarity Quotient” for a wide cross-section of the human experience. Every time something new is discovered or an event happens, our institute has to test for its H.Q. This is not as easy as it seems. Many things that are apparently not-funny can become funny in different contexts.

M: Can you think of an example?
G: Well, for example… take a pencil. Pencils aren’t terribly funny objects, right? But jam one in your eye and, well… you see the point. And objects are just one aspect of our research. Ideally, we are trying to analyze every object, location, event, situation, idea… everything… until we end up with a finalized list of those things which are Decidedly Not-Funny. We think this knowledge benefits all humanity.

M: That’s an incredible undertaking! How long has this institution been at it?
G: The institution was established in 1723 by Lord Pompermeyer Fannigus Gillbert IV in London. He had a long standing disagreement with his bitter rival, Sir Norrius Tobbleton Stote of Wankchester, over whether or not blasphemy was funny. This was a widely publicized argument, and many of the leading scholars and theologians of the time weighed in on the heated debate. When Lord Pompermeyer lost the argument, he was enraged, and disbanded the institute, which fled to safety in the new world, where it has been ever since.

M: Well… what happened with the argument? Is blasphemy funny or not?
G: Yeah. It’s pretty funny.

M: I’m sure my readers are wondering: How exactly do you test to see whether something is “Decidedly Not-Funny”?
G: We mostly use “the PLOP,” or the “Progressive Laughter-Omission Protocol.”  Basically, we draw a picture of the object, situation, idea etc. to be tested. Then we look at it. If we don’t laugh, we show it to children. If they don’t laugh, we show it to stoned teenagers. Finally, if the stoned teenagers don’t laugh, we show it to stoned children. Most things can be found to be decidedly funny in this way. Cucumbers, for example, always pass as not-funny down to the stoned teenagers, and then they’re instantly hilarious. Gets em’ everytime.

M: So if it makes it passed the stoned children it’s not funny?
G: No…no…no… That’s preliminary. The same method is employed again, using contextual combinations. Lets say a plane crash is being tested. This will usually make it past the preliminaries. We then include accessory knowledge to the context. For example, with the contextual knowledge that humans are primates, it is easy to equate the incident to one involving “a jet-propelled tube of monkeys plummeting from the stratosphere; the tube-doomed primates muttering in symbolic monkey-speak for a monkey shaped deity to catch them.” That is decidedly funny.

M: How many things have been tested so far?
G: Many hundreds of millions.

M: How many things have been found to be decidedly not-funny?
G: Well, including all the ones discovered prior to our records becoming digital?
…none so far… there have many false negatives, though. Many times something will be maintained as not-funny for generations before a new interpretation or context reveals its innate funnitude. Presently, nothing holds the Decidedly Not-Funny (DNF) designation.

M: Not one?
G: So far, no. But we are still looking.

M: That’s hard to believe! There are many things which jump to mind as decidedly not-funny. Mass-murder, viral epidemics, nuclear warfare, Will Ferrel… you can’t tell me these things are funny!?
G: That’s the remarkable thing. The universe is tragically hilarious and all things are temporal. Beyond that, we’ve been unable to determine just what separates one “thing” from another, so that if any-thing is funny, every-thing is funny. It’s a complex metaphysical problem. But that’s what we do here.

M: Then why do you bother calling this place The Institute for the Decidedly NOT-Funny???
G: Because we think it’s funny.

~r