W 055 F

Introduction
As most Hungarian children, I learned how to read and write at the age of six. Ever since then, I continuously switch back and forth between the roles of reader and writer. For a long time this was a unconscious process; but after a certain age, I started to develop an interest in learning more about the nature of the latter. Anyone can become a professional reader; all we have to do is take all kinds of writings and read them. But with writing, the case is different. An author or a poet workes in a very different way than that of the everyday manner. Writing a letter or some official document is not the same as composing a story to entertain people.

In this study, I concentrated on fiction, on a single piece, to find out how does the author make his writing amusing and effective. My perspective is totally personal; I intended to satisfy my own curiosity concerning the matter. Hopefully looking behind the technical scenes of the process of writing -through a single fictuos story- will enable me to develop further my role as a writer.

Method
I chose a single essay from the book "Seventy-five Readings" to base my study on. The selection was partly random and partly conscious: out of the writings that I have read, I picked the one I liked the best. It happened to be James Thurber's "University Days".

Following this, I began analyzing the story by asking the question what made this composition so enjoyable for me. I examined the main figures to see how finely are they characterized, to identify what kind of characters are they, and to find out whether they are stereotype-based or not. The other aspect I looked into was the importance of situations; what are these based on, and what role do these play in making the story amusing.

There are five main scenes in the essay. In paragraphs 1-4 we can witness events in the botany laboratory, in paragraphs 5-12 we are made members of an economics class; the 13th paragraph deals with gymnasium, the 14th with journalism, and from the 15th to the end we get acquainted with military training in school. I studied the scenes in that order, and for easier and simpler referencing, I named these scenes parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Results and Discussion
The main reason why I chose this particular essay is because it is very funny. So the proper answer for my first question is that it is the humourous quality of the writing that makes it very enjoyable. Comicality can be conveyed in three forms: through characters, through situations, and through words. In the first case, the comicality lies in the laughable behaviour of the comic person, his/her funny self-determination, face, clothing, appearance and movement. In the second case, the comicality is communicated by a farcical situation with an emphasis on misunderstandings, unexpected turning-points, surprising circumstances and luck. In the third case, the humour rises from ambiguity of meaning, funny rhymes, puns, and hidden allusions (Alfoldy, 1992 p. 125). James Thurber uses all three tools in his story to create a humourous atmosphere; the main technical difference lies in combination and proportions.

Part one is based on the comicality of the two characters of the scene - the writer himself and the botany teacher. None of these figures are presented to the reader thoroughly. All we know about the professor is that he "wished to hold onto his temper" (Thurber, 1989 p.19), but cannot really manage to keep it; and that he "had come back from vacation brown as a berry, bright-eyed, and eager to explain cell-structure again to his classes" (Thurber, 1989 p. 18). No more information or detail is given about his personality. Instead, the reader is suggested a stereotype: we are invited to associate to an insignificant powerless little man who cannot handle problematic students effectively. He is not a bad teacher though; he is `all right' with most pupils, it is only the real stubborn cases he cannot deal with. Whenever he runs into such a person in class, he gets frustrated and enraged. His subject means the world to him; flowers, cells and botany are probably the only things he can talk about.

The other character in the scene is the main person of the story, the author himself. Although the whole essay is about him and his experiences at university, he is not described in advance in any ways at all. Instead of giving a general introduction about himself, Thurber starts his story right in the middle. The reader can only deduce the most basic information slowly and gradually. We are told that the main figure could not see through a microscope, but it is not clear why. The most probable explanation is that he is short-sighted, but it is only two scenes later, in the gymnasium part where we find out that he has glasses. We do not know how does he look like, what his major is, or how successful he is at his studies, although we can assume that he is not very bright. It is the way he talks that leads us to this conclusion. The usage of the expression "milk" (Thurber, 1989 p.18) in the actual dialogue instead of "lacteal opacity" (Thurber, 1989 p.19) which is used in the narration, or the continuous repetition of "I can't see anything" (Thurber, 1989 p. 19) communicate some degree of unintelligence to us. This point is further backed up by the fact that he only time the main figure can see anything through the microscope, he sees his own eye, but does not realise what it is.

When these two characters meet, a farcical situation is formed. The professor does not notice that the student is short-sighted, so he loses his temper and relieves his frustration in a ridiculous outbourst of "You didn't, you didn't, you didn't" (Thurber, 1989 p.19). The homour of the scene is based on a misunderstanding - the professor not knowing the student well enough - and on an unfortunate and unexpected event - the fixing of the lenses so that they reflect. The comicality is increased further by the exaggerated behaviour of the teacher; his quivering, his shouting and his rage are far too out of proportion with the significance of the problem.

Part two is written similarly: the stereotypes of a stupid football player (Bolenciecwcz) and a good-hearted patient teacher (Mr. Bassum) are facing each other in a conflict. Bolenciecwcz is the typical `man of muscle', "one of the outstanding stars" (Thurber, 1989 p.19) of the school's football team with very little brain: "while he was not dumber than an ox he was not any smarter" (Thurber, 1989 p.19). It is necessary for him to have good grades in order to be a member of the team, and it is the interest of the whole school - both teachers and students - to help him in his efforts if they want the team to win.

This is the point where the character of Mr. Bassum becomes important. All we know about him is that he is an economics teacher, that he is a "thin, timid man" (Thurber, 1989 p.19). He is very probably keen on sports for he does everything to enable Bolenciecwcz to play: "None gave him [Bolenciecwcz] more hints in answering questions or asked him simpler ones than [...] Mr. Bassum" (Thurber, 1989 p.19). It is exactly the professor's great goodwill and patient effort that creates the farcical situation: when the student cannot name a means of transportation, the teacher imitates the sounds made by a train. His behaviour is not only unusual, but also unexpected, childish and embarrassing at the same time. These qualities make this strange episode funny.

The scene also includes language-based humour. In a final desperate attempt to get Bolenciecwcz utter the word `train', the professor asks three questions. All of them could and should be answered by that very word; but instead of thinking and giving the most obvious reply, the student comes up with a completely unimportant and illogical response, and provides personal information that has nothing to do with the topic of the class. This can happen because the questions can be answered in more than one ways; thus the student's reaction turns humorous and becomes a pun.

A good example of situation-based comicality is presented in part 3. This time the spotlight is not on the main character of the author, but on two other students. These people are `personalities of the unknown', for the writer tells so little about them that they actually become faceless and nameless. The first boy is shown as a "quiet, amiable blond youth, number 473" (Thurber, 1989 p.21), while the second is depicted as a "lanky agricultural student" (Thurber, 1989 p.21). Since the main figures of the scene are portrayed in such a rough, outlined and sketchy way, it is the situation that conveys the quality of humour to the reader.

The essence of comicality is embedded in a trick played by students on the sports-teacher: it is funny that nobody takes the trouble to supervise the observance of the rule, and that the exchange of the gymnasium numbers can remain unnoticed. Also, the absurdity of testing situations and health-checks is ridiculed when the agricultural student is cross-examined. When someone is standing in front of an instructor totally naked, he\she obviously feels embarrassed and nervous. As Thurber put it: "It is impossible for me to be happy when I am stripped and being asked a lot of questions" (Thurber, 1989 p.21). Still, it strikes the reader as funny when the pupil provides an inappropriate answer to a simple question.

Another agricultural student, Haskins in part 4, personifies the typical impotent human character; he is the man who takes up as a job something that he is neither interested in nor talented at. "Haskins didn't seem cut out for journalism, being too embarrassed to talk to anybody and unable to use a typewriter" (Thurber, 1989 p.21). He embodies the stereotype of the incapable human being who messes up everything he gets close to. All he can come up with when he is assigned to the "big beat" (Thurber, 1989 p.21) of the school - the animal husbandry building - is a "dull and colorlessly written" (Thurber, 1989 p.22) story of some illness. Instead of composing an article which would enhance the reputation of the university, he does the exact opposite. The comicality originates from his personality, namely his incapable-character.
The humour of the final scene -part 5- is strongly based on the character of General Littlefield. It is interesting to note that not one of the sentences in the text talks directly about him. In a way, he is not described at all. It is only through Thurber's thoughts and point of view that we can get to know the General, and by drawing conclusions from the way he talks and behaves. The technique of inviting the reader to associate to the stereotype of a general is used by the author. So we all think about the typical features of such a person: rough, unemotional, strict and sturdy. This picture is amplified by a group of very significant characteristics: forgetfulness, inattention, possibly senility (although we do not have any information about the General's age), and a kind of stubborn dignity. "I don't think he remembered me or why he had sent for me, but he didn't want to admit it." (Thurber, 1989 p.23) Mr. Littlefield's speech is characterised as "snapping" and "barking" (Thurber, 1989 p.23), and his thinking works with "cold military logic" (Thurber, 1989 p.23).

The humour of this scene is also expressed through the situation: out of one hundred and ten man, the one who can solve the task properly is he who ususally gets most things wrong. The unexpected outcome in this case is not the fact that the main character ended up marching alone in a different direction from a hundred and nine other soldiers, but the fact that he was right this time. We would not suppose that so many people could be wrong against one.

In the office, the atmosphere is odd: both of the characters are unsure about what they are there for. An awkward silence settles onto the room in which everyone obviously feels constrained. The order "Button up your coat" (Thurber, 1989 p.23) is obviously adressed to the student; but when the remark "Looking back on it now I can see that he meant me although he was looking at a fly" (Thurber, 1989 p.23) is attached to it, it becomes funny.

The other important aspect of Thurber's story is its subjectivity. It is written from a very personal point of view; his university experiences are told to us in a sincere, informal manner. Humour radiates through this personal feature too: the ability to percieve himself ironically and the capacity to ridicule himself fills the composition with light-hearted, cheery disposition.

Conclusion
It is not neccessary to develop the characters in a story fully to create an atmosphere of humour. Using stereotypes and letting the reader's imagination work is a very effective method to express the quality of comicality. For me, the main source of enjoyment can be found in this special way of structuring and describing of characters and situations. If the comicality arising from this method is rounded off by self-irony, the entertaining value of the writing will satisfy me as a reader.