Tonight, Jim and I were arguing about “something” (as we have been want to do lately, might be the working full time, then working on “something” until midnight every night) But, as with all of our arguments, it was about a minor point, nothing serious, and we reached an agreement and moved on.
But at the conclusion of this particular argument, Jim realized that mine and his humor was just different enough as to create a certain amount of tension. He said, and I totally agree, that his humor tends more towards the corny “dad-joke” style. Clean, semi-clever, non-obtrusive. Not laugh out loud, but more cerebral. While mine, ever so slightly, is more - as he described it - “4chan and adolescent.”
I know this would appear, at first, to be patronizing, but it’s actually pretty accurate (especially given how often I describe myself as a “man-boy”). Me and Jim have almost identical overlapping circles in the venn diagram of humor, but on the outskirts, the fringes of our senses of humor are these two polar opposites. His the overly nice and sincere lame jokes, and mine, the abrasive, socially inept kind of joke specifically designed to offend, albeit inadvertently and with the best of intentions.
But it’s our tendencies towards these extremes that creates conflict when we’re working on “something” that ultimately leads us to a final product that is accessible for everyone. Not too corny, but not too offensive. When writing these episodes, and puzzles, and blog posts, it’s the resistance I feel when I’m being too repugnant, or the resistance I offer when Jim is being too hackneyed, that gives us a well-polished and “funny for all the right reasons” end product that gives the impression that we are more professional that we probably actually are.
I mean, it must be working, we seem to be doing pretty well thus far. Hopefully we can keep it up.
