There's an old canard that tragedy is better than comedy. It is sometimes put into evidence that Shakespeare's tragedies are better than his comedies, followed by the spurious conclusion that tragedy outranks comedy artistically. Of course, I could counter that, were the two to meet, Shakespeare might easily have taken lessons from Wodehouse, for his comedies are better than his tragedies; then again, I'm not sure Wodehouse ever wrote a tragedy.
I called it a canard, but there is some truth to it. You'll read in Ecclesiastes that it is better to go to the house of mourning than to the house of feasting, and that sorrow is better than laughter. It is better, the preacher will say, because by a sad face the heart is made glad.
But is there no defender of comedy?
Well, I might say that Ecclesiastes gives the game away. Tragedy and sorrow are for happiness, for the gladness of the heart, but happiness is not for sorrow. As you read on in the passage, the comedy the preacher reproaches is that of fools. Wise rebukes are better than foolish compliments. It is the laughter of fools that Ecclesiastes is against.
* Which do you prefer, comedy or tragedy?
* What's your favorite comedy?
* What's your favorite tragedy?
Wodehouse on Shakespere:
One cannot arbitrate in these matters of taste. Shakespeare's stuff is different from mine, but that is not necessarily to say that it is inferior. There are passages in Shakespeare to which I would have been quite pleased to put my name. That 'Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow' thing.