Talk:Non sequitur (literary device)/Archive 1

Proposed rename
"(surrealist)" and "(humor)" have both been suggested, but I think Non sequitur (language) is probably the least loaded title for this page - although non sequiturs are often intended to be humorous, they can also be unfunnily confusing or artistically serious. Any other thoughts? --McGeddon 10:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Move
This article was moved from Non sequitur (rhetoric), because that article made no reference to rhetoric. Perhaps this article should be moved back to that page, if substantial information on the use of non sequitur in rhetoric is in the future incorporated into the article. ThaddeusFrye 00:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article was originally at "(absurdism)", and moved to "(rhetoric)" after discussion (with "(humor)" being suggested and dismissed). Given that the article already talks about the "comical" and "humorous" aspects being optional, and gives as much passing mention to "confusing" and "literature", I think the article made more sense where it was. --McGeddon 08:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Non sequitur (humor)
This article contains no reference to rhetoric, and concerns numerous or absurd uses. In the absence of any discussion of non-sequitur with regard to rhetoric in this article, I've redirected it to Non sequitur (humor), at least until the article can make specific reference to classical or post-classical rhetoric.ThaddeusFrye 00:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out that to rename a page, you should move it, rather than create a new page (see Help:Moving a page). Otherwise I have no comments on the rename. There's a discussion at Talk:Non sequitur (humor). &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (会話) 19:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Good example?
This page looks to be in need of a good comical example of the humerous non sequiter device. May i recommend the numerous and hilarious responses of Steve Carell's character in "Anchorman" - example below; question: 'Brick, where did you get a hand grenade? response: 'OK!'


 * Not quite as funny, but a more clear cut example;

Q: How many surrealists does it take to change a light bulb? A: Fish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.21.34 (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for new name

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Why not "non sequitur humor" without the parentheses? This would make linking to this article much easier. Some guy (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the article isn't about "non sequitur humor" as a genre of humour, it's about non sequiturs when used in contexts outside of formal logic - in humour, but also in non-humorous conversation, and literature.
 * Looking at the discussion above, I think we should really move this back to "non sequitur (rhetoric)"; a move discussion agreed on that, and an editor unilaterally moved it a few months later because the article didn't explicitly use the word "rhetoric" (although it's implied by "conversations [...] often comical" and could easily be mentioned where the article talks about "in other literature"). --McGeddon (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The primary usage of Non sequitur is the rhetorical meaning, be it in formal logic or in humor, and that should be the topic of the article at Non sequitur (a merge of this one at Non sequitur (humor) and the one currently at Non sequitur (logic)). It makes no sense to have those two separated.  The current dab page at Non sequitur should be moved to Non sequitur (disambiguation).  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Modified proposal

 * Non sequitur → Non sequitur (disambiguation)
 * Non sequitur (humor) + Non sequitur (logic) → Non sequitur (merge)


 * Support. This is my proposal. The rhetorical usage, whether inadvertent or intentional deceit in logic, or intentionally used for humor, is the primary use of the term and should be covered in the main article.  The other uses are very minor and should be linked in an explicit dab page which is noted by hat note on the main page.   --Born2cycle (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Even better. Some guy (talk) 09:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Good call. --McGeddon (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Non sequitur → Non sequitur (disambiguation) and Non sequitur (logic) → Non sequitur. Oppose merger. I think the topic of Non sequitur (humor) is sufficiently different from that of Non sequitur (logic) that anything more than passing reference to it in Non sequitur (logic) will distract from the flow of the article. Joeldl (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but the problem is that the logic usage is not primary. If anything, bringing up an unrelated point during a conversation is probably the primary usage.  I could see a very short article essentially providing the basic definition at Non sequitur, and maybe a section on how it's used in humor, with a reference to the article about the use in formal logic.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Example Again
This is quite the talk page for such a small article. Anyway, I was wondering if someone more enlightened than me could provide an example - it would help complete the article. Thanks - The  Fire  Tones  22:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added a visual example of a non-sequitur (brown goat). Hopefully it will illustrate the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.148.78 (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if that's meant to be a joke, but a picture of a goat doesn't helpfully illustrate anything to a reader unfamiliar with the concept.
 * We could maybe use a decent text example, presented in context. --McGeddon (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It wasn't a prank -- it was a genuine non sequitur. Instead of just deleting other people's work perhaps you might like to provide an alternative, in order to improve the page (rather than just bulldoze it)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.148.78 (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, but as I say, the image won't necessarily enlighten the average reader. We could label it as "This picture of a goat is a non sequitur because the article isn't about goats", but it relies on the reader having some expectation of how a Wikipedia article is normally illustrated, and explaining it further would unnecessarily labour the point.
 * I can't think of any alternative image that would illustrate the concept, off the top of my head, nor any particularly famous non sequiturs from film or television, but I'll give it some thought. --McGeddon (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The cartoon show Family Guy is known for its "non sequitur" gags (e.g. a large chicken unexpectedly fighting the main character in the middle of a scene, or a jug of red squash unexpectedly jumping into the room when someone says 'oh no!'". Not sure whether this would really help the average reader understand the concept though (as they'd need to be familiar with the story behind the show to realise that the gags are non-sequiturs). Why don't we go ahead with the example suggested by someone else above:
 * question: 'Brick, where did you get a hand grenade?
 * response: 'OK!'
 * It's straightforward and I think it would illustrate the point simply 79.79.148.78 (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The surrealist light-bulb joke is probably better, looking at it, as it has a more deliberate question-answer format - the Anchorman dialogue just looks like one person ignoring or not hearing the other's question, to someone who hasn't seen the film. --McGeddon (talk) 10:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, feel free to change it if you wish. I have no particular preference, although, having said that, there is a danger that surrealism and non sequiturs could be mixed up here (of course, they're not analogous). I don't have strong views on this though 79.79.148.78 (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Non sequitur (absurdism) → Non sequitur (language) — The non sequitur is more a general feature of language, than a specifically absurdist statement. —McGeddon 12:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support as an improvement, although non sequitur (rhetoric) might be better still. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Non sequitur (logic), then move that to Non sequitur and move the dab to Non sequitur (disambiguation). They deal with the same things, and only in slightly different contexts; they can be dealt with in the same article at the plain title. Dekimasu よ! 03:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support as an improvement, but I'd far prefer non sequitur (rhetoric) as a title as per Septentrionalis' suggestion above. Oppose the suggested merge to with non sequitur (logic), they are different topics with only superficial similarity. Andrewa 10:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 16:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me it would be better if teh search term "non sequitur" was redirected to "non sequitur (disambiguation)" so people could choose the meaning they're interested in, rather than pointing straight to this article (which is just one of several possible meaning of "non sequitur"). Would anyone have any objections to changing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.153.211 (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Joke
The joke given as example is a very poor example. The joke is not a non sequitur, but a play on the surrealist movement itself and is only incidentally a non sequitur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.34.109 (talk • contribs) (02:33, 23 June 2009)
 * Surrealism is all about non sequiturs and juxtapositions, but you should feel free to be bold and replace it with a better example, if you can think of one. --McGeddon (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I believe that it is a good example of non sequitur but not a good example of a joke. You see, when you say a joke as a non sequitur it always has to have some kind of logic in the background as an explanation for the non sequitur. Let me give you some examples:


 * So I was smoking some pot and then I started thinking to myself.
 * - I wish I could be a better husband... or a dog.


 * One day I was drunk and an officer pulled me over and asked me:
 * - How many fingers do you see, sir?
 * - Let me call my wife. She's a manicurist.


 * Another kind of non sequitur can be made by enumeration, so the last one would not respect the logic of the first ones. I believe this is the best example of pure non sequitur humor:


 * I wish I could have a pair of sun glasses, a swimsuit and a dead baby.


 * DarqFall (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Those first two are coherent punchlines, they aren't "absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing". The third is closer to non sequitur, but doesn't really set up enough context for the third item to be clearly absurd. If the dead baby is the joke, it's shock humour. --McGeddon (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right about the third one. I'll try another example:


 * Q: What does your kid think we need to fix our economy?
 * A: A giraffe.


 * DarqFall (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-sequitur is NOT Absurdism
Look, I think there is a fundamental misconception of what absurdism really is and what troubles me is that misconception is carried out in the category parenthesis of "Non sequitur (absurdism)". That (absurdism) shouldnt be there. If you read Albert Camus, nowhere does he ever give you the idea that he would condone the use of non-sequiturs. I want to suggest changing (absurdism) into something like (surrealist) or (humor) to indicate a proper context with which to approach the term. -MasonicLamb 18:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

These two topics are, in fact, two different topics. Random humor has less of a form, less of a "script" than does non sequitur. Random humor is Saturday Night Live, sadly predictable as random. Non sequitur is difficult to pull off well. Many people are incapable of non sequiturs well.

I'm not so sure all non sequitors are necessarily 'humourous'.

I think by the "absurdism" it means that this page talks about non sequitur in that context. There's another page to discuss it as a logical fallacy for example. So I don't see a problem Whodhellknew 20:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-sequitur's are not absurdism. They're often highly illogical and often don't make sense at all, but they are explainable and in many instances do get explained. In slapstick comedy a non-sequiter can equally be described as a deus ex machina, which in itself doesn't fall into the category of absurdism. Even in the case of normal comedies, viewed primarily as a single scene characters can also be deus ex machina. For example, in seinfeld Kramer often makes non-sequiturs and in many scenes plays the roll of a deus ex machina purely being in the scene to create a plot twist then only to disappear again. 83.100.235.156 17:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Surrealist" and "humor" aren't always necessarily the case - non sequitur (language) is perhaps the most simple and neutral title for this article. --McGeddon 18:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The "absurd" as used by Camus is only tangentially related to "absurdist comedy" which DOES rely on the non sequitur as a device regularly -- think of Monty Python or the Marx Brothers as examples. There *is* a relation between the existential "absurd" (life has no intrinsic meaning) and the comedic absurd (using nonsense to subvert expected meaning) -- Ionesco would be the prime example. But they are overlapping uses of the same term, and I think it is entirely appropriate to include a discussion of absurdist comedy in an entry on the non sequitur as a rhetorical device. StrangeAttractor (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A pig, in a cage, on Antibiotics!
Could we include some definitive examples? Also, how about an prenounciation for "non sequiturs" as it is a big Latin word, and people probably don't know how to say it correctly.

Dfrg.msc 07:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know how it's pronounced too. I would assume it 's something like a Hillbilly trying to say "Cicadas". Non Sa-kay-tors. Maybe I'm wrong, though.


 * I think I'm getting it wrong, but would Lewis Black's line of "If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college" be an example? 130.184.236.145 15:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite my enjoyment of Mr. Black, that's not a non sequitur, as it might make sense (though, please don't delve into how). Perhaps: "What's the weather like today?" "Balogna Sandwich" is a better example? In other words, the second part of the phrase is "out of right field," so to speak. JPG-GR 02:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In terms of definitive examples, I like the gentle use of the Ralph Wiggum link at the bottom of the page.. I stared at it for a few moments before I 'got' why it was there. I hope we don't get any wikipedants removing it...


 * I put the Ralph Wiggum link there because, as his article says, he is well known for his non sequiturs. I couldn't think of a better way to include him in this article! &mdash; AnemoneProj e ctors (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedant here. An encyclopaedia where you have to "stare at something for a few moments before you get why it is there" isn't a good thing. If you think Ralph's a particularly good example of non sequitur usage, add him prominently to the article and explain his context. --McGeddon 11:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Bees —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My cat's breath smells like cat food. StrangeAttractor (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

New Yorker magazine action comics?
Can someone please elaborate what that's about? Makes no sense to me.--24.85.68.231 (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just confusing vandalism, checking the history - it originally just said "comics" and didn't wikilink anywhere. --McGeddon (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Can someone add a pronunciation guide to the article? I don't know how to pronounce "sequitur". ··gracefool |&#9786; 03:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it like: (nahn seh kwa tour) or (nahn seh kwa ter) but i don't know how to add it appropriately with accents and correct letters all that jazz.Gabenowicki 00:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The fancy letters are referred to as "IPA". If it hasn't been added by now, I'll see what I can do. Stale Fries taste better 04:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"non séh kvee tour", é denotes the accent. And make it a short ee in "kvee". - interlingue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.21.8 (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent example found
"So what kind of message is that sending to a child? If it's OK to smoke pot in the house, is it OK to steal? Bottom line, it's illegal," said Sarah Christiansen of NotMyKid.org.

Source: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/family/13347772/detail.html

Stated formally, If pot, then stealing. That's a classic non sequitur. Although, she may have been going for a slippery slope: Pot leads to stealing. However, that's not what she said. Erudecorp ? * 20:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is just slippery slope. It'd have to be a lot crazier to act as a good example of a non sequitur. --McGeddon (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with above that the Sarah Christiansen quote, while an example of absurdist comedy (in a way), is not a non sequitur. It's absurd though because it relies upon an argument that seems formally logical but is semantically ridiculous.

I added a link under "external links" -- "Happy Paraguay" on YouTube -- that I think is almost a definitive example of the non sequitur as used for comedic purposes. However, I have strong suspicion that someone will remove it quickly on some purist fine point (it violates section 2.4.6 of the guidelines or something, or it doesn't qualify as an example of a non-sequitur because it's not a late Roman comedy written in measured trochaic feet or some such crap). But -- speaking from a professional background in writing and English literature -- the overdubbed dialogue in this video consists of one non sequitur after another in rapid succession. At least here, in the discussion -- if anyone is confused about what a non sequitur IS, well, it's this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=414TmP12WAU. StrangeAttractor (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. Typically a non sequitur is an example of illogical thinking. There may be an element of relationship to the final conclusion, but it is a mistaken association. For example, you could state: "All men have bollocks, therefore all men talk bollocks". The second statement doesn't follow from the first, but there is a relationship to the first statement. Dbnull (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Other languages
Should we really list all of the other languages here?? At least 3 of them are going to non sequitur (logic), and the Portuguese version (although not specified) only refers to NS as a logic question..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisWar666 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Should this be italicized
Should this Latin term be italicized? Other foreign terms, like in situ, are italicized in their articles. Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Side Note
I would personally like to see an article on Humor Styles and/or Humor Theory (I found the theory of humor article)... I have refrained from creating one myself, because I'm not personally familiar with humor styles... if you just type in "Humor Styles" you're redirected to Robert Charles Benchley's Humor Style section. Wolfpeaceful (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC).

I suppose this is another side note. How did we end up with the only External Links referencing, essentially, medical mental conditions? Non sequiturs are a common phenomenon in some play scripts, generally feared by actors who rely on "sequential dialog" to remember their lines. Are we getting so PC that we can't include any external links that refer to this?ExpatSalopian (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Move/Reorganize this
It seems to me that this whole article is a waste and the talk page is longer than the article by many times. There really isn't a good case for multiple articles (the proper name uses excepted). This use is not really different than the use in logic, it is just an application of the same idea to a different use. Note that dictionary entries do not have multiple entries for this, they don't even distinguish between in numbered entries. Just add a humor/literature section to the logic article. That page needs to be the 'main' article, with special reverences for the proper name uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.57.157 (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I never edited this page
I just got a message that "my edit to Non sequitur has been undone", but I've never even even been on this page, nor did I write "Do you want to walk to work, or carry your lunch?" How does that work? I've edited on Wikipedia in the past, but always under a user account, not an IP address (I was not signed in when I opened the page). 64.223.92.192 (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Why no examples?
Seems to me this article could really do with some examples. Is there a reason it contains none? —Frungi (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Because it's such a specific & ethereal concept that obvious examples are difficult to identify. I'd say the song "Let It Out" (2:10) by The Hombres is a long string of non sequiturs, assembled poetically. But I'm sure there will be those who disagree with that example, and they might be correct. Here are the lyrics, for reference: (intro, spoken) A preachment, dear friends, you're about to receive on John Barleycorn, nicotine, and the temptations of Eve...

No parking by the sewer sign. Hot dog, my razor broke. Water drippin' up the spout, But I don't care - let it all hang out.

Hangin' from a pine tree by my knees; Sun's shinin' through the shade. Nobody knows what it's all about; It's too much, man - let it all hang out.

Saw a man walkin' upside down - My T.V.'s on the blink; Made Galileo look like a Boy Scout. Sorry 'bout that - let it all hang out.

Sleep all day, drive all night; Brain a might numb; can't stop now - For SURE ain't no doubt! Keep a open mind - let it all hang out.

It's rainin' inside a big brown moon - How does that mess you baby up? Leg. Eatin' a Reuben sandwich with sauerkraut. Don't stop now, baby, let it all hang out. Let it all hang out. The 1st & 5th verses are the best examples; the 2nd, 3rd, and possibly the 4th could be interpreted as nearly sensible within themselves, but still non sequiturs to the rest of the phrases. Steve8394 (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The obvious solution to this problem is to find examples of non sequiturs (in the sense being discussed in this article) in published, reliable sources, and properly cite them. Presumably, such cited examples would not be removed from the article. - dcljr (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Several "examples" are not non sequiturs
A lot of the "examples" from Zippy the pinhead don't seem to be non sequiturs, e.g., "Accept provolone into your life." By definition a non sequitur has a premise followed by a conclusion. What makes it a non sequitur is that the conclusion does not follow from the premise. RickReinckens 07:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I concure. -dan feb. 1

Should this then be the distinction between random humour and non sequatur? because right now random humour's wiki description seems more like the true definition of non sequitur.


 * Not at all - in fact they're the same thing. I imagine "Random humour" is a neologism for people who can't cope with big Latin words, and I'm going to propose merging the pages here.


 * Also, I removed the 'Zippy the Pinhead' quotes, since none of them were obviously non-sequiturs, at least not without some context. FiggyBee 01:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This may be a response to an old debate, but there is a difference between Random Humour and Non Sequitur. -69.29.167.5


 * Non-sequitur seems to be a subset of random humour, one with a (seemingly) logical premise. Random humor may be utterly random from the very beginning.--217.144.192.83 09:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The non sequitur as a rhetoric *device* is not bound by the definition as the term is used in logic. It doesn't require the strict formalism of an actual (logical) premise followed by a (logical) *conclusion* that "does not follow." Rather, it relies upon a *situational* or *rhetorical* premise followed by a *response* that "does not follow". The use of the term in logic is far more narrow than the use of the term in literature or rhetoric. Even the online Webster's makes this distinction:


 * 1 an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
 * 2 a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said

It is the second, broader, definition that is appropriate to discussing the term as used in literature, comedy, rhetoric, etc. StrangeAttractor (talk) 07:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The current example under 'usage' is clearly not a non-sequitur, I have difficulty imagining why anyone would think it was, the joke is that it DOES follow, and presumably Chicago is burning as a result of agent 6363 accomplishing her mission, and furthermore that agent 6363 is presumably a cow. Scatterkeir (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)