‘I don’t know why we were laughing’: Representations of conflict and

humour in literatures of the ‘Troubles’.

The Northern Irish ‘Troubles’ have been represented in literature and

media since their beginnings in the mid-nineteen-sixties. It has been
argued that societies affected by conflict are transformed through these
recurring representations, becoming defined by ‘the need to exhibit
them and gaze at them’ (Ashkenazi, 2009, p.5). One notable aspect of
these representations is that – surprisingly, for a sectarian ‘society where
words kill people’ (Falvey, 1999, p.221) – they often have a concomitant
engagement with humour. Noting the connection between the tragic
and comic, Hazlitt asserted, ‘[m]an is the only animal that laughs and
weeps’. He believed laughter and tears were intrinsic parts of humanity,
comparable as ‘convulsive and involuntary movement’ (Hazlitt, 1907,
p.1), reacting to different intensities of stimuli. Despite no culture being
without humour, Berger proposes humorous responses vary greatly ‘from
age to age, and from society to society’ (Berger, 1997, p.X); the unique
comic culture fostered by the ‘Troubles’ is testament to this. The problem
with humour, however, is one which Kathleen identifies in Johnston’s
Shadows on our Skin, when she declares ‘I don’t know why we were
laughing’ (Johnston, 1977, p.61), namely, the uncertainty surrounding its
function and stimulus. Whilst there is disagreement and a ‘lack of clarity’
(Willis, 2002, p.21) as to the nature of humour, most theories are grouped
into three major categories: superiority, relief, and incongruity theory.
The superiority theory, first postulated by Plato, is the oldest of
these, and was dominant for two millennia. It is an explanation of humour
based upon an assertion of superiority, mediated through a desire to
laugh at the misfortune of others, commonly known as schadenfreude. It
is the primary response theory; it attempts to characterize the recipient
of humour by explaining the conditions and causes of humour. Hobbes
described humour as ‘sudden glory’ which arises from a comparison of

1
some ‘eminency in ourselves’ to the ‘infirmity of others’ (Hobbes, 1999,
p.54). It is not difficult to imagine the prevalence of this type of humour in
a society divided by sectarianism. In Shadows, Brendan’s prejudice is
apparent when he jokes that ‘only Prods drink their tea without sugar’
(Johnston, 1977, p.37). Although a joke, the need to highlight the
perceived inferiorities in the sectarian counterpart is reduced to a petty
level. A disenfranchised young Catholic, Brendan lives with his parents,
socialises with his infirm father, and gains only questionable employment
with the I.R.A. Hobbes argues men who fear they have the ‘fewest
abilities’ attempting to maintain their ‘own favour’ (Hobbes, 1957, p.36)
resort to this humour. Brendan’s insecurity could be the force behind
displays where his humour stretches beyond the sectarian divide to
assert superiority. His quip that Joe is ‘[a]s snotty as ever’ packs the same
aggressive message as when he pushes Joe’s ‘papers off the table’
(Johnston, 1977, p.37/66).
The danger in the binary structure of us and them which this
supports, is that it leads to the ‘dehumanization of others’ (Zelizer, 2010,
p.4); this creates a sense of justification in one’s righteousness, making it
easier to commit violent acts towards the other. In McGuinness’ Observe
the Sons of Ulster Marching Towards the Somme, this collapse of barriers
between humour and violence occurs when Anderson declares, ‘I spy a
Taig. I spy a Taig’, followed by McIlwaine impersonating an attack dog;
he follows the command, ‘use your nose’ (McGuinness, 1986, p.33-34),
snarling and snapping at Crawford, his protestant prey. For this pair, the
events are a humorous experience; they are happy to behave violently
in their humour towards a protestant. For them, humour has justified
violence, devaluing the ‘object in the subject's eyes’ (Scruton, 1987,
p.168). The boundaries are blurred further at the fatal ending of the play
when they perform ‘an imitation of an imitation’ (Herron, 2004, p.149) in
their piggyback re-enactment of the Battle of Scarva. The farce is
intensified when Anderson informs Millen, ‘[y]ou’re a horse’, and

2
becomes ridiculous when they fail in the ritual’s fundamental purpose to
‘keep to the result’ (McGuinness, 1986, pp.69-70). In this moment, the
equal functions of violence and humour are apparent. Apte proposes,
there must always ‘be a winner and a loser’ (Apte, 1997, p.222) in
humour; here the humour becomes ironic as the soldiers fail to win their
own Sham Fight. The ridicule they intend as a substitute for real battle is
twisted upon them, and they become the subjects of their own ridicule.

*****

Relief theory is the predominant functional theory; it considers the

functional role of humour rather than defining it. Originating as a theory
of Lord Shaftesbury, and developed by Spencer and Freud it is based
upon a building of tension, ‘suddenly and unexpectedly exploded'
(Lorenz, 1996, p.153). Spencer described laughter in physiological terms,
when feeling passes a certain pitch and ‘habitually vents itself in bodily
action’ (Spencer, 1977, p.302). Venting emotions and stress which
exceed a manageable level is easily equated with the ‘Troubles’. In
Madden’s One by One in the Darkness, seeing a man run into her school,
Sally thinks ‘[t]his is it’. Making the children put their heads on their arms
and close their eyes, she prepared for ‘the man to burst in’. Seeing him
run away again, realising the rain was causing him to run, she releases ‘a
shrill, edgy laugh’ (Madden, 2003, p.146); this is the expulsion of nervous
energy to which the relief theory refers.
It was Freud’s addition to relief theory, however, that remains the
area’s chief contribution. He believed humour was a liberation form
sociocultural inhibition in which ‘psychic energy normally used’ (Morreall,
2013) for supressing desire becomes superfluous, and released in
laughter. In ‘Der Humor’ he stated, upon encountering something with a
‘distressing effect’, humour arrives ‘at the cost of a release of affect that
does not occur’ (Freud, 1990, p.293). In Madden’s text, David attempts

3
to cheer up Helen by suggesting a documentary for the ‘twenty-fifth
anniversary of the start of the Troubles’; he tells her ‘that’ll lift our hearts’
(Madden, 2003, p.59). The narrator states that they watched ‘with
something between grief and hilarity’ (Madden, 2003, p.59). The ‘hilarity’
they experience comes as a release of energy at the cost of a
suppression of their grief at the ‘Troubles’. This could be considered
further, as Helen is suppressing feelings of loss for her father, and David is
concerned that his relationship ‘won’t work out’ (Madden, 2003, p.59).
Freud postulates this is the ego refusing to be ‘distressed by the
provocations of reality to let itself be compelled to suffer’ (Freud, 1990,
p.295). Here, Freud established the modern understanding of Gallows
humour.
Gallows humour is a ‘grim and ironical humour’ (Oxford English
Dictionary, 2005, p.372), in which someone faced with a ‘perfectly
hopeless situation’ (Vonnegut, 1971, p.56) manages to find humour in it.
This function of humour is widely explored in fictions of the ‘Troubles’. In
McQueen’s Hunger, an example of Gallows Humour occurs in the
conversation between Davey Gillen and Gerry Campbell, when Gillen is
first committed to the Maze:

Gillen: ‘How long did you get?’

Campbell: ‘Twelve years. You?’
Gillen: ‘Six years. Six.’
Campbell: ‘Six?’
Gillen: ‘Aye.’
Campbell: ‘Yer lucky bastard’ (McQueen, 2008).

At the end of the interaction, both laugh in a reserved manner,

engaging in humour despite their appalling situation. Along with
boosting morale in dire straits, by laughing at their situation, they are
laughing at their oppressors, and to do this is to ‘have surmounted them’
(Sypher, 2006, p.132); their laughter becomes another form of protest.

4
Similarly, in Greengrass’ Bloody Sunday, Ivan Cooper takes stage at the
end of their march, asserting to the crowd, ‘We’ve marched a long way
together here folks’, when, startled by the sound of gunshots, he
concernedly looks over his shoulder. In defiance of this, Cooper makes
the joke to Mrs Hamill: ‘I haven’t seen you march like that since sixty-
eight’ (Greengrass, 2002), and smiles to laughs from the crowd. In the
face of a mortal threat, Cooper and the crowd were able to use
‘gallows humor as an index of strength’ (Obrdlik, 1942, p.709), morale,
and bolster their determination.
It becomes important to note at this juncture that the humour here
explored falls in to two narratological categories. Thus far, humour
considered has been predominantly diegetic humour, meaning that it
takes place in the world where the ‘situation and events narrated occur’
(Prince, 2003, P.20), and is knowable to the characters present.
Extradiegetic humour takes place at the level of the narrator and is
external to the ‘sphere of the main story’ (Baldick, 2008, P.90). This
differentiation becomes significant when considering Lewis’s assertion
that there is ‘no such thing as an intrinsic piece of gallows humour’
(Lewis, 1993, p.49). To qualify as gallows humour, he states, the joker must
be on the literal or figural gallows. Returning to the soldiers awaiting their
offensive in Observe:

MILLEN: On his trusty steed –

ANDERSON: Will his trusty steed shut his mouth when I’m in the middle
of the story? Where was I? (McGuinness, 1986, pp.69-70)

The humour here, or in the ensuing piggyback fight, cannot be

considered gallows humour if the audience finds it funny, whilst it is taken
deadly serious by the soldiers. Although occurring at a time of imminent
danger, it is not the threatened individuals enjoying the humour at the
diegetic level, but the audience at the extradiegetic level. In fact,
finding their situation humorous is an oppression of the characters. A

5
further issue Lewis takes with gallows humour is with Freud’s notion that
the release of humour ‘has something liberating about it’ (Freud, 1990,
p.293). Returning to David and Helen watching their documentary in
One by One, the liberation they experience is, according to Freud,
through a denial of reality; they separate their lives from the
documentary and find it humorous. Through denying reality, however,
their humour can do ‘nothing to change the reality it evades’ (Lewis,
1993, p.49), and in truth, distracts from true liberation.

*****

Attempting to explain what is funny - opposed to defining the

recipient and purpose of humour – incongruity theory is a stimulus theory.
Because of this, the exploration moves firmly into the extradiegetic world,
surveying that which is received as humorous. Aristotle first suggested
incongruity is the stimulus for humour, an idea later taken up by Cicero, in
his claim that the most common kind of joke is one in which ‘we expect
one thing and another is said’ (Cicero, 1942, ch.63). Beattie first used the
term for analysing humour, when he suggested laughter, ‘seems to arise
from the view of things incongruous united in the same assemblage’
(Beattie, 2012, p.318). It is not our disappointment he points to, but a
merging of incongruent impressions. Kant affirmed this claim, asserting
there ‘must be something absurd’ for humour to be present (Kant, 1951,
p.172).
In ‘The More a Man Has the More a Man Wants’, Muldoon
generates humour through the use of incongruous images, creating a
‘multi-leveled parody’ which treats the ‘Troubles’ in an ‘irreverent
manner’ (Putzel, 1996, pp.86-101). Gallogly’s metamorphic nature
creates a humorously incongruent identity which constantly changes in
a parody of the Winnebago trickster cycle. Gallogly continually takes on
new animal forms; he ‘lopes’, ‘laps’, ‘pads’, and ‘paws’. Each

6
transmogrification is increasingly absurd; he adopts the form of a coyote
that ‘squats in his own pelt’; morphs into the odd conflation of a ‘baggy-
kneed… bear’; becomes a strange verb/noun combination when he
develops the ‘eye of a travelling rat’; eventually metamorphosing into
the abstract form of a beaver with ‘velveteen shoulders and arms’ and a
‘Brylcreem… quiff’ (Muldoon, 1983), somehow able to burrow out of
Armagh prison. All expectations are repeatedly overturned in images
which are not only independently and exponentially incongruous, but
also exist as an incongruous whole when juxtaposed with Gallogly the
I.R.A. fugitive. Schopenhauer affirms the humour in this arises as multiple
‘real objects are thought through one concept’ (Schopenhauer, 1957,
p.76); here the concept is the character of Gallogly and the objects are
the multiple animal and human forms he takes on. This constant shifting is
mirrored in the narrative; focal shifts from Gallogly to Mangas Jones,
through multiple named and unnamed individuals reflect Bergson’s
assertion that a situation is invariably humorous when it belongs
‘simultaneously to two altogether independent series of events’
(Bergson, 1911, p. 96), interpretable in multiple ways.
The parts of the story which follow Gallogly, blundering from one
scene to another, leaving carnage in his wake, follow this pattern of
increasing incongruity and hilarity. Muldoon juxtaposes serious and
comical images to create this incongruity. The reader is positioned as the
husband, and is forced to find it ‘[a]ll a bit much’ when Gallogly wears
‘your / Donegal tweed suit’, climbs into your Cortina’s ‘still-warm / driving
seat’ and leaves you ‘uncertain / of your still-warm wife’s damp tuft’.
Gallogly has taken on the comedic guise of a calling milkman, after
killing the real milkman when ‘his back was turned’. The incongruities in
this passage are vast; the murders of the milkman and wife are
juxtaposed with the ‘polite’ audacity of Gallogly and the ineffectual
‘mouth open’ response of the husband; the reader, suddenly forced into
the husband role, is set against the established third person; the

7
repetition of ‘still-warm’ (Muldoon, 1983) excites images that link
breaking into a car with a forced sexual encounter. Each of these
incongruities conflates violations which subvert expectations and in turn
underline the ‘senselessness of the violence in Northern Ireland’ (Putzel,
1996, p.101). These incongruities continue to unfold, up to the final event
in which the hapless Gallogly kicks a ‘black / plastic bucket… packed
with fertilizer’, resulting in an explosion which reduces Gallogly into a
‘head and torso’ with a ‘frazzled ear’ (Muldoon, 1983). This bumbling
demise puts in mind Joe’s clowns in Shadows, which like Gallogly, are
‘mad’, ‘falling about’ and blow ‘themselves up’ (Johnston, 1977, p.134).
The constant conflation of violence and nonsense in Gallogly’s plan-less
actions build a humorous expectation for the murderous clown to act all
too in character, leaving little surprise in his self-explosion. The humour of
this is explained in Scruton’s theory that it is actually the ‘total
congruence between the idea of the man and his action' (Scruton, 1982,
p.202) that is amusing. Lippitt argues, however, that it is in comparison to
‘normal’ people and ‘how we expect them to behave' (Lippitt, 1994,
p.150) that we judge, and so Gallogly’s actions remain firmly
incongruous. This difference of opinion can be resolved in Mulkay’s claim
that humour ‘display[s] congruity and incongruity at the same time’
(Mulkay, 1988, p.33). In behaving all too like himself, and different from
us, Gallogly’s incongruousness ‘is both maintained and resolved
simultaneously' (Palmer, 1994, p.96).

*****

The incongruity, relief and superiority theories can be constraining

forces which reject each other. More recently there has been
movement looking beyond these constraints, merging ideas and
developing new ones; a key example is McGraw and Warren’s benign
violation theory. It states, for humour to be elicited, three conditions must

8
be met: firstly, there must be a violation such as ‘threats, breaches of
norms, or taboo content’ which challenge one’s sense of how things
‘ought to be’; secondly, the violation must be perceived to be ‘safe,
playful… in other words benign’; finally, these appraisals must occur
simultaneously, reconciled through an ‘interpretive process’, already
discussed here as incongruity theory (McGraw and Warren, 2010,
p.1142). In Friel’s Translations, situations occur repeatedly to which
benign violation can be applied. When Jimmy correctly answers the
derivation of ‘baptise’, Doalty responds:

Doalty: I suppose you could talk then about baptising a sheep at a

sheep-dipping, could you?
Laughter. Comments.
Hugh: Indeed - the precedent is there – the day you were appropriately
named Doalty (Friel, 1981, pp.21-22).

The violation is one regarding language and translation. Doalty’s

intentional misinterpretation creates the violable image of a sheep being
baptised, and Hugh’s jocose suggestion violates further, implying that
Doalty is a sheep. Both are rendered benign as, in fact, sheep could not
be baptised in Christian doctrine, and Doalty is definitely a human. The
theory suggests those who recognise this as both violation and benign
will, like the characters in the play, find amusement in it. Furthermore, the
content is fictional dialogue and as such, is psychologically distant, a key
tool for recognising benignity. In this way, Friel is able to tackle serious
issues such as language, imperialism, culture and identity in a humorous
way, made further benign through the historical and social distance of
the play’s milieu.

*****

9
 The works looked at so far employ humour without making
comedy their focus. Two further media types remain to be looked at,
which not only employ humour, but seek to be a primarily comic
production. Firstly is the use of cartoons to ‘explain and enliven the
political debate’ (Turner, 1995, p.4). Throughout the ‘Troubles’, political
cartoons have provided commentary on events.

(Turner, 1998, p.66)

Turner’s cartoon works on several levels and can be understood through

multiple theories. It holds two key messages – that it is wise to stop
worrying about denomination (in a time where these worries kill), and it
bridges the sectarian divide through humour and shared religious
heritage. It could be understood through the benign violation theory; it
violates the norms by which the wise men are usually considered, renders
them benign through cartoonifying them, and simultaneously mediates
through the use of incongruity theory. If found funny by someone
experiencing the dangers of the ‘Troubles’, then it could be understood
through the relief theory, as a release for nervous tension.

10
 (Cummings, 1970)

Cumming’s cartoon, from a 1970 edition of the Daily Express, recalls the
archaically racist representation of the ‘Irish ape-men or simianized
Paddies’ (Curtis, 1997, p.XV), from mid-nineteenth-century Punch
magazine. The incongruity and benign violation theories can be applied
to the juxtaposition of the very human-like British soldier with the simian
Ulster Catholics and Protestants. The benignity comes from the cartoon
nature of the piece, along with the harsh cultural stereotyping designed
for a psychologically distant British audience. The cultural significance of
political cartoons is evident here as they can divulge much about the
opinions and ‘prejudices of cartoonists and their target audiences’
(Douglas, 1998). Alongside this, the cartoon can be considered in light of
the superiority theory. In its dehumanising representation of both factions,
the superior ability of the British soldier in separating them, and the desire
for both sides to ‘knock each other insensible’ (Cummings, 1970), the
artist finds humour in perceiving his own superiority.
The final consideration is comedy itself. Morreall tells us that
comedy is very much like philosophy in that it asks ‘whether familiar ideas
make sense’ (Morreall, 2013). Comedy has been a powerful art form in

11
mediation of the ‘Troubles’, asking questions which other art forms are
less willing to. As discussed, the closeness of tragedy and comedy has
resulted in a unique comic culture in Northern Ireland which ‘tends
towards the blacker side of dark’ (Falvey, 1999, p.220). James Young was
among the first to take a light hearted approach to the ‘Troubles’, in his
1972 series Saturday Night. In a typical scene from his show, a sociologist
enquires into the location of the tourist board, telling Young – dressed as
an elderly Catholic woman – ‘you’re bound to know being a local’, to
which Young replies, ‘oh, I’m no local of this dirty hole, thanks be to God.
I’m just up from the south for the day’ (Young, 2005). All theories have a
voice in this scene, relief from laughing at the predicament,
incongruity/congruity and benign violation in the character of the
Catholic Woman and a twofold superiority; Young’s character expresses
superiority over the Northern Irish, and Young’s parody of such a
character mocks such a person. As Quinn, of the Hole in the Wall Gang
affirms, the problem with Young’s comedy was that there was ‘never an
Ulster Catholic character’ (Quinn, 1999, p.220); Young’s Protestantism
resulted in failure to acknowledge the other half of the sectarian divide,
an issue the Hole in the Wall Gang attempted to address.
The Gang, ‘whose members come from both side of the divide’
(Falvey, 1999, p.223), picked up where Young left off, and by the early
1990’s had their own BBC series. Their aim - to provide a ‘way that you
could get laughs and you could get release… [whilst] making a serious
point’ (McGarry, 1999, p.224) – a conscious application of relief theory.
They satirised real life in Northern Ireland, treading the fine line of humour
in a conflict situation; McDowell has stated that making a joke about a
bomb going off is not funny but making a joke about the ‘politics that
made whatever people decide that was an excellent thing to do’
(McDowell, 1999, p.228), can be. The Gang trade superiority over the
other, for the belief that people ‘often get most enjoyment from the
familiar’ (Falvey, 1999, p.226). The Gang’s Two Ceasefires and a

12
Wedding, shows this sense of laughing at the self, the situation and the
politics; there are no losers in the Gang’s humour:

Ma: I wish they’d take the UDA and the IRA and the UVF and the INLA
and put them all on an island and let them shoot each other all they
want.
Emer: But Ma – this is an island and that’s exactly what they’re doing.

Ma’s objection is to loyalists and republicans alike. The humour arising

from Emer’s point to the reality of the ‘Troubles’ lays incongruity atop
congruity, juxtaposed to the absurdity of Ma’s statement. The benignity
of the situation is questionable, however, as the show makes humour out
of the ‘Troubles’ for people living it. It is perhaps achieved through
neutralising the violation by making ‘all sides… equally the object of
ridicule’ and articulating ‘the absurdity of war’ (Zelizer, 2010, p.2).
Humour is an invaluable tool that can create a space of
mediation; remind groups of shared social experience; challenge
assumptions; help groups deal with tensions; create a space to interact
across the divide and imagine a path of reconciliation; it can be a form
of political protest and criticism. As Hanania states: ‘if we can laugh
together, we can live together’ (Hanania, 2007). With this said, it is
important to note, in no way can humour be considered a ‘magic
solution for transforming conflicts, nor does it always have benign
impacts’ (Zelizer, 2010, p.2). It was noted in the court hearing of the
Greysteel Massacre of 1993 that the gunmen involved ‘laughed and
boasted about the shooting’ (Kerr. LCJ, 2008), and before opening fire,
one of the gunmen shouted ‘trick or treat’, to which the ‘youngest victim
- 19 year old Karen Thompson – replied "that's not funny"’ (Tourish, 2013).
Here, humour has been used as a damaging weapon for the self-
justification of murder. The major humour theories, each have
‘shortcomings’ and none works comprehensively; none are self-
contained as ‘each have a tendency to spill over into one another’

13
(Willis, 2002, p. 24-36). The psychoanalytical incongruity theory tends to
subsume relief and superiority, and it becomes increasingly difficult to
keep the three major categories apart, despite their attempts to reject
each other. Modern theories, such as the benign violation theory make
steps towards considering humour in a more plural fashion, but further
conflation and mediation of theories is needed to better understand the
presence of humour in a conflict setting such as the ‘Troubles’; no one
theory is adequate. Neuendorf states that ‘multiple mechanisms are
possible’ in humour, working ‘simultaneously when a… humorous
stimulus’ (Neuendorf, 2010) is encountered. It is also important to
consider that humour has a very human existence and that, as Lippitt
states, it is possible to simply be amused ‘at the wit itself, for its own sake'
(Lippitt, 1995, pp.57-8). Perhaps, humour is best understand and enjoyed
in terms of Morreall’s deliberately simple formula, that ‘laughter results
from a pleasant psychological shift' (Morreall, 1987, p.132).

Word Count: 3959

Bibliography:

Apte, M. L. (1999) ‘Review of Charles R. Gruner's 1997 `The Game Of

Humor'.’In. Humor 12 (2): pp. 221-8.
Ashkenazi, O. (2009) Trauma, Humor, and Nazism in Current German
Visual Culture. Jerusalem: Center for German Studies.
Baldick, C. (2008) The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms. 3rd ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Beattie, J. (1779; 2012) ‘Essay on Laughter and Ludicrous Composition’
In Essays, 3rd ed, London: ULAN Press. pp. 310-357
Berger, P. (1997) ‘Redeeming Laughter: The Comic Dimension of Human

14
 Experience.’ Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Bergson, H. (1911) Laughter: An Essay On The Meaning Of The Comic.
New York: Macmillan.
Butcher, S. (1995) Two Ceasefires and a Wedding. BBC Northern Ireland
[internet].
Cicero, M. T. (1942) On the Orator, Book II. (trans.) Sutton, E. W. and
Rackham, H. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Cummings, Daily Express. (1970) In Douglas, R. and Harte, L. (eds.)
(1998) Political Violence In Northern Ireland 1969 - 1993. Belfast:
Blackstaff Press.
Curtis, L. (1997). Apes and Angels: Irishman in Victorian Caricature.
Washington: Smithsonian Books.
Douglas, R. and Harte, L. (1998) Political Violence In Northern Ireland 1969
- 1993. Belfast: Blackstaff Press.
Falvey, D. (1999) ‘Caught In The Crossfire.’ In: Falvey, D. (ed.) Gift of the
Gag: The Explosion in Irish Comedy. Belfast: Blackstaff Press. pp.
220-240.
Freud, S. (1927; 1990) ‘Der Humor.’ In Freud, S. (ed.) Art and Literature.
London: Penguin Books. pp. 218-224
Friel, B. (2012) Translations. London: Faber & Faber.
Greengrass, P. (2002) Bloody Sunday. Paramount, [DVD].
Hanania, R. (2007) ‘Power of humor.’[internet] <http://www.ynet
.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3351225,00.html> [Accessed 23
November 2013].
Hawker, S. (2005) Pocket Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hazlitt, W. (1819; 1907) Lecture On The English Comic Writers. London:
Taylor And Hessey.
Herron, T. (2004) ‘Dead Men Talking: Frank McGuinness’s Observe the
Sons of Ulster Marching Towards the Somme.’ Éire-Ireland 39 (1&2)
pp.136-162.

15
Hobbes, T. (1640; 1999) The Elements of Law Natural and Politic: With
Three Lives: Pt. 1: Human Nature: Pt. 2: De Corpore Politico. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Hobbes, T. (1651; 1957) Leviathan. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Johnston, J. (2002) Shadows on Our Skin. London: Headline Review.
Kant, I. (1790; 1951) Critique of Judgement. New York: Hafner Publishing
Company.
Kerr, LCJ. (2008) ‘The Queen v. Stephen Geoffrey Irwin: Decision on Tariff.’
[internet]<http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/engb/judicial%20decisions/li
fe%20sentence%20tariff%20rulings/documents/2008%20nilst%205/j_j
_2008nilst5.htm> [Accessed 26 November 2013].
Lippitt, J. (1995) ‘Humour and Superiority.’ In. Cogito 9 (1) pp. 54-61.
Lewis, P. (1993) ‘Three Jews And A Blindfold: The Politics Of Gallows
Humor.’ In Ziv, A. (ed.) Semites and Stereotypes: Characteristics of
Jewish Humour. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Lorenz, K. (1996) On Aggression. London: Routledge.
Madden, D. (2003) One by One in the Darkness. United Kingdom: Faber.
McGarry, T. and McDowell, M. and Quinn, D. (quoted in) Falvey, D.
(1999) ‘Caught In The Crossfire.’ In Falvey, D. (ed.) Gift of the Gag:
The Explosion in Irish Comedy. Belfast: Blackstaff Press.
McGraw, A.P. & Warren, C. (2010) ‘Benign violations: Making immoral
behavior funny.’ Psychological Science 21, pp.1141-1149.
McGuinness, F. (1986) Observe the Sons of Ulster Marching Towards the
Somme. London: Faber and Faber.
McQueen, S. (2008) Hunger. Pathe Video, [DVD].
Morreall, J. (1987) A New Theory of Laughter. Albany: SUNY Press.
Morreall, J. (2013) ‘Philosophy of Humor’ In The Stanford Encyclopedia
OfPhilosophy Zalta,E,N.(ed.)[internet] http://plato.stanford.edu/arc
hives/ spr2013/entries/humor/ [Accessed 06 November 2013].
Muldoon, P. (1983) ‘The More a Man Has The More a Man Wants’ In.
Quoof. London: Faber.

16
Mulkay, M. (1988) On Humour: Its Nature And Its Place In Society.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Neuendorf, K.A. (2010) ‘The Four Humour Mechanisms.’ [internet]
<http://academic.csuohio.edu/kneuendorf/c32110/TheFourHumor
Mechanisms42710.pdf> [Accesses 12 November 2013].
Obdrlik, A. J. (1942) ‘”Gallows Humor”- A sociological Phenomenon’
American Journal of Sociology, 47 (5). pp. 709-716.
Palmer, J. (1994) Taking Humour Seriously. London: Routledge
Prince, G. (2003) A Dictionary of Narratology. Lincoln: U of Nebraska
Press.
Putzel, S. (1996)’ Fluid disjunction in Paul Muldoon's `Immram' and `The
More a Man Has the More a Man Wants'’. Papers on Language &
Literature 32 (1), pp. 85-101.
Schopenhauer, A. (1818; 1957) The World As Will and
Representation. London: Routledge.
Scruton, R. (1982) ‘Laughter. Proceedings of The Aristotelian Society.’
Supplement 56 pp. 197-212.
Scruton, R. (Quoted in) Morreall, J. (1987) A New Theory of Laughter.
Albany: SUNY Press.
Spencer, H. (1860; 1977) ‘On The Physiology Of Laughter.’ In. Spencer, H.
(1911; 1977) Essays On Education And Kindred Subjects. New York:
AMS Press.
Sypher, W. (Quoted in) Zhou, J. (2006) Raymond Carver's Short Fiction in
the History of Black Humor. New York: Peter Lang.

Tourish, K. ‘Greysteel (2013) 'Trick or Treat' Massacre 20 years’ on BBC

Northern Ireland. [internet] <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
northern-ireland-24736060> [Accessed 26 November 2013].
Turner, M. (1995) Pack up Your Troubles. Belfast: Blackstaff Press.
Turner, M. (1998) Brace Yourself, Bridge It!: Guide to Irish Political
Relationships. Belfast: Blackstaff Press.

17
Vonnegut, K. (1971) ‘Running Experiments Off: An Interview’ In, Allen,
W.R. (ed.) (1988) Conversations with Kurt Vonnegut. Jackson:
University Press of Mississippi. pp.52-62.
Willis, K. (2002) Making Sense Of Humour: Some Pragmatic And Political
Aspects. London: London Metropolitan University.
Young, J. (2005) Our jimmie: The Very best of James Young. BBC Northern
Ireland. [DVD].
Zelizer, C. (2010) ‘Laughing our Way to Peace or War: Humour And
Peacebuilding’. Journal of conflictology 1(2), pp.1-9.

18