As I have explored in earlier posts, corny jokes tend to be overly sentimental in nature, and in fact an element of sentimentality is often what marks a joke as corny. By this, I mean that corny jokes work by evoking a predictable emotional response with a clichéd prompt. Moreover, corny jokes are generally less offensive in nature than most jokes that people would consider to be truly funny. Often, the “worst” or corniest jokes do not have any identifiable butt of the joke for the laughter to be directed at, and this is what makes people consider them to be bad jokes. Consider the following two jokes:
What do cows do for entertainment?--They rent moovies !
Why are pirates terrible at the alphabet?--They always get lost at sea/C!
In each of these corny jokes, the butt of the joke is not easily determined. They do not belittle any specific person or group and do not appear to derive their humor from making any derogatory stereotypes. On the other hand, many jokes that people generally do not classify as funny fall into the categories such as racial or political jokes. These types of jokes generally work by making a demeaning statement about another person or group of people, and the listener finds this statement funny in some way. Perhaps the fact that these two jokes do not say anything demeaning about cows or pirates is what makes them less funny than a joke that aims at insulting something.
So what does it say about our senses of humor if we classify those jokes that do not belittle someone or something as corny? Perhaps this can be explained by the fact that we need to direct our laughter at something, and corny jokes do not provide this. I do not think that it is necessarily the insulting factor of racial or political jokes that makes them inherently better jokes than corny jokes, but rather the fact that they provide something for us to laugh at. This is a key element of laughter that corny jokes lack, and can explain why the lack of a “butt” of a joke dooms it to being labeled as corny.