Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
This is just a religiousised version of the old joke about the man who goes to a motel where the sign says 6 shillings per night or 4 shillings if you make your own bed. He chooses to make his own bed and is given some wood and a bag of nails.

Question, was it altered to offend or just to survive longer. I think the later and as such the person who did it will I think needs extra time in purgatory.

Jengie

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
This is just a religiousised version of the old joke about the man who goes to a motel where the sign says 6 shillings per night or 4 shillings if you make your own bed. He chooses to make his own bed and is given some wood and a bag of nails.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

In fact, it fails as a pun because no one actually uses "put me up for the night" or anything similar in the context of crucifixion. The reader has to supply the link from the vocabulary of putting up a picture frame, or bookshelf, with nails.

---

Er, but they do use it in the context of staying in a motel though! All puns rely upon the listener supplying a verbal link. That is what makes them puns, no?

Again, in the context of the movie that this joke is from, it works rather well, hence the fact people remember it, I would guess. It is offensive in a "I don't care wht you think about it" kind of way.

I'm a big fan of the film, so I could be iased though!

--------------------
"I believe that the words Favour", "Owe", and "Big" were used....."

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
It's a very lame pun. In fact, it fails as a pun because no one actually uses "put me up for the night" or anything similar in the context of crucifixion.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
I don't think it's required that the phrase be used the same way in both "sides" of the pun

---

Thinking about puns ...

I'd categorise this broad sort of joke into three classes:

I. Balanced. The natural meaning of the words applies equally well to be primary and secondary meanings. An example would be the 'Adventure trip for boys' joke. The same words "screw the boys" can mean either "never mind about..." or "sexually molest..."

II. Innuendo. The words can only properly relate to the primary intended meaning, but extraneous information makes them allude to a secondary meaing. An example would be 'The Pope's new camera'. "He must have seen you coming" refers to a swindle. You wouldn't actually say those words to mean "he must have taken a photograph of you masturbating", but it does enough to raise a mental association.

III. Contrivance. The reverse of the above - the words naturally relate to the secondary intended meaning, but allude to what the speaker is supposed to have as his primary intention. This joke is a contrivance. Jesus 'wants' to be crucified, but he says words that would actually only be appropriate if he were asking for a room.

Puns of class III don't work for me because they fail to create a situation where the character in the joke has a reason for using the words. The joke-teller, not the character, is speaking the crucial line. There is no credible motivation for it. An essential part of what makes puns funny is verbal cleverness, and unnaturally contrived dialogue is lacking in cleverness.

[I am now convinced I have too much time on my hands. Writing categorisations of puns FFS ]

[ETA: italics]

[ 16. July 2005, 23:34: Message edited by: Eliab ]

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins