Sedaris' Humor: not the kind that made me laugh

Reading David Sedaris made me secretly long for Sam Irby. Not that one is better or worse than the other, but the comparison of these two modern works of humor have shown me that humor can be done differently. Irby's was shatter-the-glass-ceiling-ironic-relatable funny, while Sedaris takes a more dry, hyperbolic, and grounded funny. To be frank, I did not laugh while reading this; however, I don't think laughter is the only indication of a humorous piece. Sedaris flaunts a humor that is more of an "aha" moment; it is harder to read, but forced you to wonder why. For example, I did not find 'The Incomplete Quad' or 'You Can't Kill the Rooster' funny. Rather, I was shocked and slightly repulsed. The disrespect towards the disabled Peg and incessant swearing by the Rooster felt wholly unnecessary and uncomfortable. Could these reactive feelings indicate something deeper, though? Maybe Sedaris wanted to express the harsh reality of living as a disabled person through Peg's attempts for independence. Or perhaps, Sedaris wanted to juxtapose the north and the south, while tying in a narrative for those who don't feel suited for college, through the illustration of the Rooster? Sedaris hints at these subversive themes elsewhere in his essays, such as the reality of homosexuality, socio-economic standing, and pop culture, in his hyperbolized tales. Truthfully, I am having difficulty discerning truth from dramatization in Sedaris' writing. While it is not as outwardly enjoyable as Irby, it definitely provides opportunity to expand my scope of understanding humor in literature.