The Practical Joke
A Practical Analysis
One of the most enjoyable, most frustrating, and most fondly remembered
components of college life is the practical joke. The practical joke has a long and
honorable history within the halls of academia (or at least its residence halls), dating back
to the earliest days of higher education.1 From “short-sheeting” beds to releasing farm
animals in dormitory hallways, practical jokes in all their forms and strategies have
helped to relieve the stress associated with long hours of class, endless homework, and
$20,000 in annual tuition expenses.
Yet despite the practical joke‟s long association with higher learning, no attempt
has been made to address the value of such jokes in a scientific fashion. This paper aims
to remedy that lapse by laying down the fundamental principals of practical jokery in
such a way that they can provide a firm foundation for eventual quantitative analysis of
this singular form of humor. While one must realize that a scientific or quantitative
system of practical joking is impossible except within the context of a quantitative theory
of humor in all its forms, it is nonetheless desirable to attempt to set up guiding principals
of practical jokery in advance of such a theory in order to help to optimize practical jokes
throughout the modern academic world.
In order to understand the practical joke one must first determine the individual
components that work together to make a practical joke enjoyable or „funny.‟ A
fundamental assumption of practical jokesters is that the enjoyment derived from a
practical joke is directly related to how funny it is. Thus, the fundamental practical joke
theorem is f e , where f = funniness and e = enjoyment derived. From this point on, all
mathematical expressions will be written in terms of e; however, we know that they
might just as well be based upon f.
The first component is the pleasantness for whoever perpetrates the joke (the
„jokester‟) of setting up the joke. The ease with which a practical joke is perpetrated is
not necessarily a significant concern for the jokester; often, the harder a joke is to set up,
the funnier it is, and the more satisfying it is for the jokester. Many jokesters will recall
the effort involved in setting up a joke with greater relish than the joke itself. In fact, it is
often true that the easier a practical joke is to commit, the less amusing it actually is.
Mathematically, we can say that e d , where d = difficulty.
The next component of a practical joke is the strategy involved in perpetrating it.
A good practical joke must have good strategy behind it, or it will fall on its face. Good
strategy requires careful planning long in advance of the actual perpetration of the joke,
and, as per the first component, will increase the enjoyment of the jokester. Indeed,
careful planning can lend a practical joke an air of mystery, making the jokester or
jokesters feel that they are involved in something significant and conspiratorial. We can
say that e q , where q = complexity of strategy; it logically follows that q d . While
a practical joke may be conceived and committed entirely on the spur of the moment, it
stands a much better chance of success if it is instead carefully thought out.
1
One of the earliest records of a practical joke is found in an apocryphal endnote to Plato‟s Republic, in
which the author recalls using an inflated ram‟s bladder as a primitive whoopee cushion. He apparently
tested the device on his colleague Aristotle with, as he says, „amusing results.‟
A practical joke must have the element of surprise, and, ideally, should be set up
in such a way that its object (or „victim‟) actually enters into the joke of his own volition,
thus shooting himself in the foot, metaphorically speaking.2 This helps to deflect blame
from the jokester by making the victim feel at least partially responsible for the situation.
Mathematically, we could write e s (where s = surprise), and that s d q .
Quite possibly the core of any practical joke is the inconvenience it causes its
victim. A practical joke is most funny when it disrupts the victim‟s routine in such a way
as to genuinely upset, frighten, or anger the victim. The inconvenience caused by a
practical joke may or may not cause permanent damage to private property or even to the
victim, and the rather fuzzy line between the practical joke and mere vandalism or
thuggery lies here. Certainly it is desirable to maximize inconvenience to the victim
while minimizing permanent damage to the victim‟s property or person.3 A practical
joke that does too much damage to property (or any, it might be argued) is in grave
danger of degenerating into vandalism. At the same time, a practical joke that causes
little inconvenience to the victim is in danger of not being funny at all, except possibly to
the victim himself (note below the example of „nunning‟). If we say that enjoyment is
proportional to the ratio of inconvenience, i, to damage, D, we can construct the
following: e D . i
The embarrassment component of the practical joke is another delicate matter.
Embarrassment caused by a practical joke must be carefully calculated so as not to cause
permanent damage to the victim‟s psyche. For a practical joke to be really successful, the
embarrassment must be minor enough that the victim himself will laugh at it later. If the
victim is so embarrassed that he is unable to see the humor in a practical joke, he may
very well become violent, or retaliate with a similarly mean-spirited joke.4 Just as a
practical joke that causes too much permanent damage degenerates into vandalism, a
practical joke that causes too much embarrassment degenerates into a mean-spirited
prank. To account for embarrassment, we can add it to the Enjoyment-Damage
Relationship as a variable E: e D E . i
Here then are the mathematical relationships that describe the practical joke:
e d q s , the Difficulty-Complexity-Surprise Relationship; and e D E , the
i
Damage-Inconvenience-Embarrassment Relationship. We can convert these
proportionalities into equations by factoring in appropriate constants of proportionality:
e c1 d , e c 2 q , e c3 s , and e c 4 ( D E ) .
i
With these fundamental equations, we can begin to determine the less obvious
relationships between the variables involved. For instance, it follows from the above that
s c4 ( D E ) , which would seem to indicate that surprise of a practical joke is directly
c3
i
related to the inconvenience, damage, and embarrassment created by that joke.
2
It is generally agreed that the „trick gun‟ gags popular in the nineteenth century American West are, by
today‟s standards, so excessively dangerous to the victim as to be in bad taste.
3
A practical joke that causes excessive damage to the victim may, by many inflexible national
governments, be technically considered “murder.”
4
Such retaliation may be expected to set up a feedback loop with a potentially exponential growth curve.
A prime example is the 232 B.C.E. practical joke contest between the Roman senator Graccus Maximus
and the Carthaginian nobleman Hamil Encarna, which eventually precipitated the Punic Wars.
Unfortunately, these relations can only be used qualitatively, since we cannot
determine the values of the four practical joke constants without quantitative
experimental data. I suspect that this problem will require much intensive study before it
is solved; it seems obvious that universities would be willing to devote the appropriate
resources to research in this field, since practical jokes are, as has been mentioned before,
such an integral part of the university experience.
Now that we have the components of the practical joke laid out before us, we can
begin to use them as a yardstick against which to gauge the probable success and/or
overall quality of any given joke. A good practical joke must be pleasant to perpetrate,
must be well-planned, must be surprising, and must cause a maximum of inconvenience
and/or embarrassment with a minimum of permanent damage to the victim‟s property
and/or ego.
This set of standards allows us to make some definite statements about the nature
of practical jokes. First, we can now say that „hazing‟ and other initiation rights are not
practical jokes. These activities may have many of the components of the true practical
joke, but they lack an element of surprise (even if the victim doesn‟t know when it will
happen, he usually expects it), and usually they involve forcing the victim into the
inconvenient or embarrassing situation. Second, we can now answer the excuse, “It was
only a practical joke,” that may be offered in explanation for some destructive act of
vandalism or violence. Before, the only response to such an excuse was “Well, it wasn‟t
funny!”, but now it is possible to explain to the perpetrator that his action could not
possibly have been a practical joke, based on established criteria.
In conclusion, let‟s look at some examples of practical jokes and use the above
criteria to determine their quality.
Example 1: the penny lock. The „penny lock‟ involves shoving small coins, such
as pennies, into the space between a closed door and its frame in such a way that it is
impossible to open the door. Based on our criteria, this is a good practical joke. It may
very well require some advance planning, depending on whether its object is to lock the
victim inside or outside the door. It creates a major and potentially embarrassing
inconvenience for the victim, but does no damage that cannot be fixed with a screwdriver
and a little determination.
Example 2: nunning. „Nunning,‟ is an original joke developed by the residents of
a certain dormitory5 at Eastern Mennonite University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. It
involves placing stickers bearing a picture of a nun and the legend “You‟ve been
nunned,” all over the walls of the victim‟s or victims‟ room or dormitory hallway.
Nunning fails the practical joke test where it counts. It causes no inconvenience to the
victim, and, depending on the method used to post the stickers, may actually damage the
walls on which they are posted. Thus, the inconvenience to property damage ratio is
totally unacceptable, which cancels out any value derived from careful planning and the
element of surprise.
Example 3: the drawer switch. In this relatively simple joke, the jokester
switches one or more drawers from one victim‟s bureau with those of another victim.
The drawer switch is a good basic joke, almost elegantly simple, but it can be applied on
5
It should be obvious from context that this was an all-female dormitory. When perpetrated by a group of
males, „nunning‟ becomes „monking.‟ Of course, it seems unlikely that any but the most humor-impaired
males would attempt a similar prank, or even expect it to be funny.
a scale that would require detailed planning. Depending on the number of people
involved and the desired number of victims, this joke can be scaled up to include entire
dormitory floors.6 It could also be applied to, say, closet contents or textbooks. It
certainly surprises and inconveniences the victim, and it doesn‟t do any permanent
damage.
Example 4: computer viruses. These are an ambiguous form of joke, for they can
include anything from mild inconveniences to major damage to a student‟s schoolwork
and personal records. There are easily reversed viruses that simply eliminate the victim‟s
ability to type vowels, for example, which provides amusement without doing permanent
damage. On the other hand, modern e-mail viruses can potentially disable entire
networks, which elevates them beyond even vandalism to terrorism.7 A careful
evaluation of a virus‟ damage potential will let a jokester know how much value it has as
a practical joke.
Armed with a concrete set of criteria, practical jokesters can now evaluate jokes
before committing them, select jokes based on their value and quality, and guarantee that
they will do nothing they regret later. As advances are made in humor science, jokesters
everywhere can rest assured that their avocation will only improve in quality and
amusement potential.
6
Please remember that scaling a practical joke up in this manner may cause the normal revenge feedback
loop to inflate exponentially. You have been warned.
7
One theory as to the origin of this word is that it derives from Louis XVI‟s response to the failed practical
joke now known as the storming of the Bastille: “Pas terrible.”