Understanding humor on its own terms is not an easy task. This commentary responds to Ben Gerlofs' (2022) article, ‘Deadly serious: Humor and the politics of aesthetic transgression’, by highlighting some of the important contributions made in his article and drawing out the empirical richness of his discussion. In doing so, I hope to discuss some of the ways in which humor has been analyzed in the geographical literature as well as potential gaps that remain to be addressed.
BillingM (2005) Laughter and Ridicule: Towards a Social Critique of Humor. London: Sage.
2.
CritchleyS (2002) On Humor. London: Routledge.
3.
DouglasM (1975) Implicit Meanings: Essays in Anthropology. London: Routledge.
4.
EriksenC (2019) Negotiating adversity with humour: A case study of wildland firefighter women. Political Geography68: 139–145.
5.
GerlofsBA (2022) Deadly serious: Humor and the politics of aesthetic transgression. Dialogues in Human Geography 12(2): 232–251.
6.
MacphersonH (2008) ‘I don’t know why they call it the lake district they might as well call it the rock district’: The workings of humour and laughter in research with members of visually impaired walking groups. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space26(6): 1080–1095.
7.
Van RamshorstJ (2019) Laughing about it: Emotional and affective spaces of humour in the geopolitics of migration. Geopolitics24(4): 896–915.
