SuttaCentral
I mean, you can be a creative type and still be pretty intellectually learned in the dharma. They’re not incompatible.
To refer to a point Khemarato bhikkhu made above, Shakespeare was quite sophisticated in his philosophical references in his plays…
Jay Williams at least shows my theory not new. In 1990 he wrote:
Such statements may not strike the modern reader as exactly proper material for a stand-up comedian, but it plays upon the same themes of incongruity and improbability which have always been the comic’s stock-in-trade.
I think @Javier makes a good point. But it should be said that stories include humor. Of course an interesting story with a narrative that conveys profound and subtle information in radically new ways is going to incorporate all kinds of literary devices, humor or hyperbole included.
The difference is just that the genre itself is not comedy/humor. It is only a story that has humor. I would guess most horror films, even really gruesome ones, throw some jokes in here and there. Let alone literature meant to be didactic, in which humor is a tried and true method for engaging with the audience and helping them learn.
This to me is the ‘middle’ between @Khemarato.bhikkhu and @Javier ’s ideas, both of which contain elements many scholars have pointed out already.
Mettā