how often they display such a lack. My father, for instance, always maintained that he had a keen sense of humor and
would prove it as soon as he heard a joke worth laughing at (though he never did, in my experience). Why, then, do
people object to being accused of humorlessness? My theory is that people recognize (subliminally, if not openly)
that a sense of humor is typically human, more so than any other characteristic, and refuse demotion to subhumanity.
Only once did I take up the matter of a sense of humor in a science-fiction. story, and that was in my story "Jokester,"
which first appeared in the December, 1956 issue of Infinity Science Fiction and which was most recently reprinted
in my collection The Best Science Fiction of Isaac Asimov (Doubleday, 1986).
The protagonist of the story spent his time telling jokes to a computer (I quoted six of them in the course of the
story). A computer, of course, is an immobile robot; or, which is the same thing, a robot is a mobile computer; so the
story deals with robots and jokes. Unfortunately, the problem in the story for which a solution was sought was not the
nature of humor, but the source of all the jokes one hears. And there is an answer, too, but you'll have to read the
story for that.
However, I don't just write science fiction. I write whatever it falls into my busy little head to write, and (by some
undeserved stroke of good fortune) my various publishers are under the weird impression that it is illegal not to
publish any manuscript I hand them. (You can be sure that I never disabuse them of this ridiculous notion.)
Thus, when I decided to write a joke book, I did, and Houghton-Mifflin published it in 1971 under the title of Isaac
Asimov's Treasury of Humor. In it, I told 640 jokes that I happened to have as part of my memorized repertoire. (I
also have enough for a sequel to be entitled Isaac Asimov Laughs Again, but I can't seem to get around to writing it
no matter how long I sit at the keyboard and how quickly I manipulate the keys.) I interspersed those jokes with my
own theories concerning what is funny and how one makes what is funny even funnier.
Mind you, there are as many different theories of humor as there are people who write on the subject, and no two
theories are alike. Some are, of course, much stupider than others, and I felt no embarrassment whatever in adding
my own thoughts on the subject to the general mountain of commentary.
It is my feeling, to put it as succinctly as possible, that the one necessary ingredient in every successful joke is a
sudden alteration in point of view. The more radical the alteration, the more suddenly it is demanded, the more
quickly it is seen, the louder the laugh and the greater the joy.
Let me give you an example with a joke that is one of the few I made up myself:
Jim comes into a bar and finds his best friend, Bill, at a comer table gravely nursing a glass of beer and wearing a
look of solemnity on his face. Jim sits down at the table and says sympathetically, "What's the matter, Bill?"
Bill sighs, and says, "My wife ran off yesterday with my best friend."
Jim says, in a shocked voice, "What are you talking about, Bill? I'm your best friend."
To which Bill answers softly, "Not anymore."
I trust you see the change in point of view. The natural supposition is that poor Bill is sunk in gloom over a tragic
loss. It is only with the last three words that you realize, quite suddenly, that he is, in actual fact, delighted. And the
average human male is sufficiently ambivalent about his wife (however beloved she might be) to greet this particular
change in point of view with delight of his own.
Now, if a robot is designed to have a brain that responds to logic only (and of what use would any other kind of robot
brain be to humans who are hoping to employ robots for their own purposes?), a sudden change in point of view
would be hard to achieve. It would imply that the rules of logic were wrong in the first place or were capable of a
flexibility that they obviously don't have. In addition, it would be dangerous to build ambivalence into a robot brain.
What we want from him is decision and not the to-be-or-not-to-be of a Hamlet.
Imagine, then, telling a robot the joke I have just given you, and imagine the robot staring at you solemnly after you
are done, and questioning you, thus.
Robot: "But why is Jim no longer Bill's best friend? You have not described Jim as doing anything that would cause
Bill to be angry with him or disappointed in him."
You: "Well, no, it's not that Jim has done anything. It's that someone else has done something for Bill that was so
file:///E|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Princess%20...0City%20Book%204%20-%20Arthur%20Byron%20Cover.htm (2 of 79)11/19/2005 3:52:27 AM