English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Practitioners, audiences and critics are often dismissive of political comedy’s impact. It is argued that audiences only attend political performances if they already agree with the performer; further, that audiences will not laugh at ideas that they find too subversive. As laughter depends upon consensus and success depends upon laughter, the comedian merely preaches to the converted. This article challenges these assumptions by examining the diverse strategies of two political comedians: Mark Thomas and Stewart Lee. Through analysis of performance, and their methodology and intent as related in practitioner interviews, I demonstrate that the nature of consensus in political comedy is more complex than has generally been supposed. Far from being a sign of comedy’s impuissance, consensus is used as a tool to enhance and develop political engagement. I suggest that in order to discover whether political comedy matters, we must first broaden our understanding of how it matters.

Preaching to the converted? How political comedy matters