Last meeting, Lisa took on the role to tell 'Humor Around Her'.  This is the first time we implemented this role, and it proves a great opportunity to use this opportunity to analyze the humor: What can we do to improve it?  Below is her story:

I have a colleague who was somewhat overweight, that she has around her belly a bulging layer of fat, that has a shape of  a lifebelt/buoy(救生圈).

One time, we took an international flight for a business trip. When we arrived at the airport, the customs officer asked my friend, pointing to her bulging fat around her belly:  What do you have under your shirt?  My friend answered, ‘This is meat.”  “Meat is not allowed through customs.”  My friend replied: “This is MY meat. 肉”

We can all agree that the story as we picture it is quite an embarrassing and humorous situation.  First, there is a funny image of the fat around her belly.  Second, there is the fact that the officer had mistaken the bulge around her belly as smuggled goods.  The reaction from the audience is, “yeah…the bulging belly does look like she’s smuggling.”  Second, there is the double-meaning (double entendres) of ‘meat’ which refers to the smuggled meat, as well as the friends’ own ‘meat’. 

A further analysis of the story reveals some areas that can enhance the humor in the story.

First, the exaggeration of that roll of fat around her belly.  The speaker had exaggerated that it looked like 救生圈。 The humor was muted because this is a common metaphor.  To elicit a stronger response, the exaggerated comparison must be new, or an existing one with a twist.  For example, a new version would focus not just on what it looks like, but what it looked like she did, or happened to her:

It looked like she swallowed a tire....... Of an airplane.

Do you see how one exaggeration opens up many possibilities for further exaggerations?

An example of using a well-known exaggeration with a twist:

It looked like she is wearing a 救生圈.  For an elephant!

Now, let’s analyze the ‘mistaken identity’ part of the story.  As the story slowly revealed the facts:  she’s at the airport, then she’s talking to customs officer, who has some reaction when looking at that layer of fat around her. Based on the facts that have been revealed, the audience can anticipate that the custom officer will have a reaction based on the nature of his job in that situation:  identifying illegal goods crossing the border.  The fact that the officer mistook the character’s layer of fat as hidden smuggle goods, is amusing, but doesn’t hold the element of surprise, which would lead to a bigger laughter.  Let’s consider how we can add surprise into the story.

First, the setup must lead the listener NOT to assume the custom officer’s judgment is related to his job.  We need to put him into a pattern which establishes that all reactions the character receives are all superficial.  Here is an attempt to rework the setup.

When she was checking in, the ticketing agent looked at her belly, and shook her head.  When she went through security, the officer patted her down and touched her fat, and shook her head; Even when she got on the plane, the flight attendant was trying to help her with the seatbelt, shook her head at the layer of fat.  Finally we arrived at Paris, got our luggage, and got ready to leave the airport.  Now the official in the luggage area took a look at her layer of fat, and pointed to it, shook his head and stopped my friend.  “Madam”, he said, “I can’t help but notice, that you look like you’re  (pause) smuggling things under your shirt.”

Granted, this is quite a long setup for the punch line.  But it is an example of how to establish a pattern in the audience’s mind, so they can be surprised at the punch line.  The previous three experiences all reacted to her layer of fat as if it is an appalling to look at—despite their occupations.  So, when we get to the last official (the fact that he’s a ‘custom’ official was not stated, as it might give away the punch line before it is delivered), the audience would better assume that the reaction is the same.  But aha!  He was reacting to something totally different!  And note, that the mistaken reaction is stated in the final 5 words of the story.

The double-meaning of ‘meat’, on the other hand, was amusing, but did not stimulate an ‘aha’ reaction from me.  I suppose it maybe that the two meanings were too similar to each other.  In which case, it is difficult to write the humor to accentuate the punch line based on the double meaning.  I suggest that the focus on the mistaken identity, and to work on the setup and misleading the audience, may elicit a bigger reaction.