Shaggy Dog Stories are amusing, almost anecdotal, stories that center around the use of playful language and absurd situations in order to get a laugh. Stepping outside of the the idea that these stories only exist for a cheap laugh, we can begin to see that the stories are all successful in some way by following the basic rules of storytelling. By following the path of having a central character, having that character come into conflict with another character (or force) and then having that conflict resolved in some way, the authors of these stories are creating mini-tales that can be enjoyed without relying solely on the need for a humorous twist at the end. It is when the authors of these stories take the elements of classic storytelling (characters, confrontation/conflict, resolution, etc) and add in a touch of the fantastic, absurd and bizarre that they are the most successful.
The stories analyzed come from a data set provided by Dr Chandler. There are five stories in this set. When I refer to a set of shaggy dog stories, it is these stories and only these stories to which I am referring. The stories are as follows:
Nate - a snake in the dessert
Friars - some friars get into trouble for selling flowers
Panda - a panda misunderstands his purpose
Friday - a deathbed wish
Chess - a local chess competition goes awry
I will refer to these stories as either a whole (data set) or by one of these five names. There are a multitude of shaggy dog stories out there in the world, but these five are the only ones I am analyzing for this project.
This data set was originally analyzed by Dr Chandler’s Research Class at Kean University, in which I am enrolled. We analyzed the stories based upon what elements made them humorous. A chart was completed by Dr Chandler and posted on her class blog. I have also used this chart in my research. While I am not focusing on the success of the humor in the stories per se, I still believe there is a correlation between the overall enjoyment of the story and the elements of fantastic storytelling that are presented.
While coding the set of shaggy dog stories that I analyzed for this project I decided to break down the data in four ways. First, I created four categories out of the elements of classical storytelling. I began with characters, whether they be the central character or the antagonist. Next I had conflict and confrontation between the characters (or, in some cases, with a force of nature). Finally, I had the resolution, or the eventual outcome of the story. After looking over these categories I decided to add in circumstances as well. By adding this category I was able to cover not only the physical setting of the story, but also the level of absurdity surrounding the events.
I then decided to break these categories into specific codes that played with the idea of the “normal” versus the “outlandish.” For characters I decided to focus on which stories featured basic human characters and which stories utilized the fantastic idea of anthropomorphized animals or objects. I also added in a code for “stock characters,” or characters who only existed as their role. An example of this comes from Panda. This story features a panda, coded as an anthropomorphized/fantastic character, and a matire d’, who falls into the coding of a “stock character” because he has no discernible personality outside of his job title/city of origin.
Circumstances were coded in a similar way, breaking down the coding into either “mundane/normal” circumstances or “outlandish” circumstances. Conflict and resolution were the two categories in which I did not break down the codes, for I did not see any specific reason to do so.
After coding each story I was able to see which of the five shaggy dog stories that I analyzed had the most elements of both classic and fantastic storytelling. For example, the story Nate featured the following elements:
- Anthropomorphized Animal/Object
- Outlandish Circumstances
- Mundane Circumstances
- Confrontation
- Resolution
As seen above, this story utilizes all the basic elements of storytelling, as well as the fantastic elements of an anthropomorphized character and outlandish circumstances.
The stories of Panda and Friars also had all of these elements present. The largest difference, and one that I had not initially factored in during my coding, was the length of these stories. Panda and Friars both were the lengthiest stories of the data set. They also were the ones that were best received on the chart composed by Dr Chandler.
In examining length, for a brief moment, it can be seen through the coding that a blend of classical and fantastic storytelling elements are beneficial to the enjoyment of a story, but that length seems to be the qualifying factor.
To further this, the stories of Friday and Chess were both missing some of the basic and fantastic storytelling elements, and they were also incredibly short in length. This may show that an audience is less likely to enjoy a story of the sole purpose of its existence is for only cheap laugh. It seems that if the cheap laugh involves a more intricate web of storytelling, as is present in the Panda and Friars stories, that an audience is more likely to smile and groan simultaneously, rather than just roll their eyes.
In fact, the stories of Friars and Chess are actually quite similar in how they are structured. Both have few imaginative or fantastic elements. They involve regular people getting into a normal conflict and having that conflict resolved. The major difference, as pointed out above, is the length. The friar story tells the audience moe. The chess story leaves out everything except for the necessities for the end joke. It can be surmised, from this data, that the length of an “ordinary” story helps an audience to appreciate the resolution more.
The Friday story is the least intriguing or successful according to the coding. There are no fantastic characters. Instead there are two stock characters that the audience must have some sort of previous knowledge about. The situation is also quite mundane. The entire story, which is quite short, lacks any kind of conflict and the final pay-off is minimal. This was the lowest ranking story on the chart. It seems that without any fantastic elements, without the basic storytelling tool of conflict and with no length to develop a story, an audience will not respond well.
Overall, it can be assessed from this data that fantastic elements of storytelling are useful in an audience’s experience of them, but they are not the only important factor. Length and the basic storytelling tool of conflict are also incredibly important Further studies might examine these aspects in greater detail in order to get a better understanding of what makes shaggy dog stories work as stories and not just jokes.
