Silence entails a gap within conversations or joke-telling in which no one says anything or gives any response. It is also a moment of profound political work, wherein issues that cut to the bone, often uncomfortable, are broached, ultimately forcing reflection on the part of audiences and performers. Silence also signals the diversity of an audience because not every member of the audience finds every joke laughable (Harvey, 1989, pp 347–8). In joking situations, silence can either be the bridge-gap between the moment between a punchline and a laugh or can indicate an undesirable absence of laughter ascribed to failed humour (Bell, 2015, p 101), due to the understanding that the joke may be lost on the audience or subject to unintended readings and reception. In this sense, silence is the antithesis of laughter because when the punchline comes from the comedian, especially in situations where the joke has been delivered appropriately, laughter implies that it is funny and that the comedian has done his job well, whereas silence means the very opposite; the audience does not think that what has been said is funny. Consequently, silence becomes the audience’s way of countering the (re-)definitions of its boundaries of risibility. With this in mind, consider the following story: