Criticizing in Stand-up Comedy: The Case of Bill Burr’s Netflix Special Paper Tiger

Abstract

This thesis examines the realization of the speech act of criticizing in the stand-up comedy of Bill Burr, with the purpose of revealing how criticism is realized in a context in which humor is paramount and causing offense is intentional. The material of the study consists of a single stand-up comedy performance of Bill Burr titled Paper Tiger, released worldwide on Netflix in September 2019. In examining Burr’s criticizing, his performance is screened for any criticizing and criticism mitigation strategies by adapting Nguyen’s (2005) definition of criticism as well as Nguyen’s (2005; 2013) taxonomies of criticizing and criticism mitigation strategies. Prompted by this analysis, it is hypothesized that Burr’s criticisms are mostly indirect in relying on implication, with the function of evading responsibility for any offensive interpretations of his words. Furthermore, the findings are analyzed qualitatively in examining how aspects of stand-up comedy as well as Burr’s offensive style reflect in his criticizing, and to discover any distinct strategies of realizing criticism not covered by the taxonomy applied. Finally, to highlight any unique aspects of criticizing in stand-up comedy, a comparison is made to criticizing in teacher-student talk, as studied by El-Dakhs et al. (2019).

The findings of this study highlight Burr’s preference for criticizing strategies that allow him to amuse and cause offense while seeming witty and uncompromising. While the hypothesis is confirmed in that a slight majority of Burr’s criticisms are indirect, no signs of an attempt to evade responsibility for his words are identified. Concerning criticism mitigation, the findings suggest that in Burr’s comedy, this is mostly limited to strategies that do little to interfere with his talk. The comparison to teacher-student talk suggests that criticizing in stand-up comedy is motivated less by minimizing imposition, providing alternatives and justification, while relying more on mitigation strategies that emphasize the comedian’s personal view and attempt to have the audience accept the criticism. Implications for similar studies in the future include analysis of paralanguage and joke construction, as well as considering imitation and comparisons as distinct criticizing strategies, and laughter as a potential mitigation strategy. Finally, the findings of this study also suggest that it could be worthwhile to explore how criticism is aggravated in stand-up comedy.