Blog 4

Christopher Caruso

Blog #4

Since the objective of this blog is to do an individual exploration of the Shaggy Dog stories based on the previously posted blog, it should be noted that my group focused on only one of the Shaggy Dog stories in explicit detail, the story about the string trying to get a beer.  Since that story has been thoroughly analyzed by the group and not much more can be touched upon with an individual exploration, I find that the most appropriate way to approach this observation by focusing my attention on a different Shaggy Dog story while applying the same questions that were asked and the same analysis that was performed in the previous blog.  As such, I will be doing  an analysis of the fifth Shaggy Dog story, which was about the lawyer and the bears.

While evaluating this story, some of the questions I will be asking include "Why does this story 'work?’” and  "Which of Gee's building tools are incorporated into this story and why are they effective?"  In other words, I wish to analyze exactly what made this story funny.  Through my analysis of the story, I was able to conclude that one of the most important tools that was utilized in this story was Discourse.  This was followed by the use of Social Languages, however, this story also contains the tiniest bit of intertextuality as well.

What Discourses are involved? How do they help develop the socially situated identities & activities?
For this story to be able to remain funny, it is crucial that the reader be familiar with and understand the concept of lawyer jokes and the stereotypes that are associated with lawyers.  One of the big stereotypes of lawyers is that despite their profession, they will actually do very little to help you out if you are in trouble.  In fact, its even said that when real trouble strikes, lawyers will actually go out of their way to safe their own skin, showing very little actual concern for the person that they are mean to protect.  This trait is first scene in the story when the lawyer and his friend are picking berries and the two bears showed up.  Instead of being concerned and making sure that both he and his friend both made it to a safer location, "The Lawyer... immediately dashed for cover", thus leaving his Czechoslovakian friend to die and to be eaten by the bears.  This trait is also seen when the lawyer finally gets a police officer to come to his property to shoot the bears.  Instead of a supposedly normal human being who would be in pieces over the fate of their friend who was eaten by the bear, the only thing that is worrying the lawyer is the idea of getting sued by his friend's family members.  During this entire experience for the lawyer, "visions of lawsuits from his friend's family danced in his head".  The idea of tainting his reputation and losing a large sum of money was more concerning to the lawyer than the well-being of his friend, only cementing the selfish nature of lawyers. Another trait of lawyers that is also prominent in this story is the idea that lawyers are very wealthy and can afford the nicer things in life.  This can be seen through the lawyers Mercedes, as that is a particularly expensive brand of automobile to own.  Even the fact that the lawyer has a summer home only highlights his wealth, since most normal individuals have trouble maintaining the payments for one house, let alone a second house meant only for vacations.  One of the last traits of lawyers that is exemplified in this story is the notion that lawyers can never be trusted, and always try to steer people wrong or lie to them.  In this story, the lack of trust in the lawyer is so strong and prevelant, not even the police officer trying to kill the right bear will believe what the lawyer has o say, even though this was a life or death situation.  For example, upon being told by the lawyer that his friend was in the male bear, "without batting an eye, [the officer] leveled his gun, took careful aim, and shot the female".

 What sorts of social languages are involved in the story and what purposes do they serve?
At the end of the story, when the lawyer tells the police officer that his friend is in the belly of the male bear, the officer immediately shoots the female instead.  Upon asking why he shot the female bear when the lawyer told him to shoot the male bear, the officer simply replied  "Would you believe a lawyer who told you the Czech was in the male?"  This one line is the most crucial line in the whole story, serving as the punchline for what all of the tension of the story was building up to.  What makes this line so effective is due to the fact that this line is a direct play on words.  Instead, the phrase sounds like "would you believe a lawyer who told you the check was in the mail?"  In order for this play on words to work, the reader of the story must be familiar with lawyer jokes and be familiar with the stereotype of just how stingy and untrustworthy lawyers are.  This is a play on the common lie lawyers make when they promise that their client's money is on the way to them, when in reality either the money does not actually exist or the lawyer has no intention of sending the portion of the money in the first place.  This phrase alters the literal meaning of the phrase that was spoken, which was supposed to convey that the Czechoslovakian friend was inside the belly of the male bear.

 What Intertextuality is involved?  How does it help develop the story?
Intertextuality is when a text makes either a direct or indirect reference to a pre-existing text or piece of literature. When the author of the story uses the line "visions of lawsuits from his friend's family danced in his head", he or she is making a direct reference to the Clement Clarke Moore poem "'Twas the Night Before Christmas".  Specifically, the line "visions of... danced in his head" is a reference to the line "visions of sugar plums danced in their heads".  This reference could have been made for several reasons, the most common of these being for comedic effect.  Using a variation of a line from such an innocent and childish poem in order to convey the consequences of such a dire, serious, and horrible situation helps to take the tension away from the situation in the story, thus bringing the reader back down to Earth and reminding him or her that this is still a Shaggy Dog story and has a comedic resolution at the end.

To conclude on what made the joke work, I saw that it is necessary to have the background knowledge of the stingy history of lawyers, as well as “lawyer jokes”. This is a type of Discourse community involving not only the nature of lawyers, but the other “stuff” that goes with it. The lawyer story also uses Social languages to make the story “work”. The play on words presented by the cop at the end is the corner stone that makes the whole joke work.  Without that one line, the story would not have a punchline, and this story would not be categorized as a Shaggy Dog story.  It also helps to have a little knowledge of intertextuality in order to understand the one Clement Clarke Moore reference.  This will help relieve some tension in the story when the conflict is at its grimmest and most serious.