Post History
Bathos is not the mere fact of a serious moment being followed by a light one. It is an intrusion of a cheap vulgar laugh into a dramatic scene. It undermines the seriousness of the stakes, the dra...
Answer
#4: Attribution notice removed
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/48102 License name: CC BY-SA 4.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/48102 License name: CC BY-SA 4.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
#2: Initial revision
Bathos is not the mere fact of a serious moment being followed by a light one. It is an intrusion of a cheap vulgar laugh into a dramatic scene. **It undermines the seriousness of the stakes, the drama of the scene, the meaningfulness of your story. It says "don't take any of this too seriously."** Which is why it is criticised in the Marvel Universe films - it's as if the writers hesitate to commit to what they've created. They start a crescendo of emotion, get frightened by the drama and break it with a laugh instead of letting the crescendo reach its climax. Bathos can also be used intentionally to achieve the same effect, but that is not what you're looking for. You can read more about bathos on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathos) and on [LiteraryDevices](https://literarydevices.net/bathos/). @KeithMorrison, speaking of the United 232 pilot, provides an excellent example of humour that does not undermine the drama of the situation: "You want to be particular and make it a runway, huh?" Nothing about this joke says "don't take this too seriously". The opposite is true. You can hear an undercurrent of fear in that sentence, and the fact that this fear is controlled with humour builds the tension of the scene rather than breaking it. Erich Maria Remarque's _All Quiet on the Western Front_ provides countless examples of similar humour. On it's very first page the soldiers get double rations because half of them died, and what was the cook supposed to do with the extra food? When characters start seeing the humour in such a situation, as a reader you know things are bad. In both above examples, I wouldn't expect the readers to laugh. The situation is too tense. Laughter is a release. Here there is humour in the situation, but there is no release. Roberto Benigni in _La Vita e Bella_ explores this at great length: first there is romantic comedy, the jokes make you laugh. Then comes the Holocaust, and those same jokes put you on the edge of your seat, mocking the nazis is terrifying because of the danger, because you know what's going on. Finally, > there comes the tank. And you laugh, because this is a joke you did not expect, and because now you are allowed relief - the horror is over. And you cry too, because now you can release _all_ pent-up emotion, and there's plenty to cry about. So there's your answer: not every bit of humour undermines the seriousness of the situation. As @Llewellyn states, it depends both on the characters, and on the kind of jokes. But above all else, you want to avoid the kind of jokes that say "don't take this situation too seriously". Because the "situation" is the story you're trying to tell. You want it to be taken seriously. (It's fine if you don't want your story to be taken too seriously - consider comedies. But from your question it appears that you in particular, for this particular story, want it to be taken seriously.)