A valiant defense of her joke, thanks! But no, it still doesn't make any sense as a joke and isn't funny. (Though obviously it's adorable coming from a 4 year old.)

▲

boothby 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

This is the weirdest conversation about a joke that is definitely making its target audience laugh -- as a comedian, I say that's the only honest measure of a joke. But allow me to analyze the shit out of this, because the only thing funnier than a groaner is meticulously explaining the groaner.

It's at least as funny as "why did the chicken cross the road," which is only a joke inasmuch the punchline is merely a statement of the obvious in the framing of a joke (the surprise is that the punchline sucks -- making it a groaner). I submit that that chicken/road joke wouldn't stick around if it wasn't funny. So, this joke stands on the shoulders of the chicken/road joke, making the obviousness that much funnier within the shared cultural context. Moreover, it adds a layer of absurdity (imagine the literal sun climbing a tree) with a linguistic confusion (aka pun) as we do refer to the sun "climbing" the sky. And finally: for some reason, our culture is more tolerant of groaners from "dads," so much so that some call them "dad jokes." Your child has inverted age and gender norms with this joke, making it so incredibly funny that you are blinded to the truth: this is comedy gold. Watch that kid, she's going somewhere. It might be an open mic night at a skeezy comedy club.

▲

dfabulich 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

OP author here.

A number of commenters here have argued that "Why did the chicken cross the road" is a subtle allusion to the chicken's death, but I don't think that's why it's a classic joke.

We traditionally start kids off with antijokes, jokes where the "surprise factor" is that there's nothing surprising at all, where the punchline is completely predictable in hindsight. It's more than a mere "groaner."

Another classic antijoke for kids is, "Why do firefighters wear red suspenders?" "To keep their pants up."

Many antijokes (especially antijokes for kids) are structured like riddles, where the listener is supposed to actively try to figure out the answer. For the "red suspenders" joke, the kid is supposed to try to guess why the suspenders are red. Might it have something to do with the color of firetrucks? Could there be a safety or fire-related reason why the suspenders would be red? At last, the kid gives up and says "I don't know."

Then, the punchline: "to keep their pants up." Of course, that's the whole purpose of suspenders. Inevitable in hindsight, but surprising to a kid who got distracted by the color.

"Why did the chicken cross the road" is like that, but not quite as good IMO. The chicken crossed the road for the same reason anyone crosses a road, to get to the other side of the road, but the listener is supposed to get distracted with the question of why a chicken would cross the road, and give up.

"Why did the sun climb a tree?" is definitely in the family of antijokes. The joke is to mislead the listener to focus on the tree. I think it's certainly made funnier by who's saying it; it feels inevitable in hindsight that young kids would tell jokes that are only halfway coherent. (This is part of why marginally coherent improvised on-the-spot jokes seem funnier than prepared material.)

	▲	Wowfunhappy 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> We traditionally start kids off with antijokes, jokes where the "surprise factor" is that there's nothing surprising at all, where the punchline is completely predictable in hindsight. It's more than a mere "groaner. Which I find completely strange. An antijoke doesn't make sense (and isn't funny) unless you're already familiar with a non-anti-joke! And before you say "well it makes the kids laugh"—is that because they find it funny or because they know that laughing after a joke is what you're "supposed" to do? Maybe that's one in the same to a young child.
	▲	4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

c22 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why did the chicken cross the road? is funny because the chicken is going to die. I'm not seeing the double entendre with this tree joke.

	▲	drewbeck 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I don’t think that’s the dominant interpretation of the chicken joke! It’s an anti joke, the surprise is in the mundanity of the punchline.

▲

bongodongobob 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It seems like you don't actually get the chicken joke. The "other side" is a euphemism for death.

	▲	boothby 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Heck, that just adds another level, dunnit? "The sky" being another euphemism for death, a predictable outcome of a flaming being climbing a dang tree? And, thanks for working with my claim that analyzing jokes improves them.

▲

hnthrowaway121 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I’m baffled by this because I think it’s funny - it’s why did the chicken cross the road, but with added absurdity. To me I’d be like “wow that 4 year old put a twist on the old chicken joke, nice work you hilarious child”.

	▲	vpribish 5 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		it's funny because I know it came from a 4-year old :) If an adult said it it could also be funny because they are saying a child-like joke as meta-humor.
	▲	5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]