PTIJ? I don't know. You tell me. I hope this stays up long enough for me to get an answer or two.
You can approach a text with some levity (which does not preclude seriousness), with neutrality, or with severity. Witness this story from the Talmud [Berachot 48b]:
The future King Saul asks some young maidens by a water well: “Is the prophet Samuel here?” Here is what the girls answer, verbatim from the Tanach:
He is. Behold, he is before you. Make haste now, for he came today to the city, for there is a sacrifice of the people today in the high place. As soon as you come to the city, you shall find him, before he goes up to the high place to eat -- for the people will not eat until he comes, because he blesses the sacrifice, and afterwards those who are invited eat. So therefore go up, for about this time you shall find him. [1Samuel 9:12-13]
The Gemara asks: Why did they make such a long story of it?
Three rabbis give an answer:
One is funny. (Funny to ME. Your mileage may vary.) He said: Because Saul was very handsome, and the girls wanted to feast their eyes on his good looks for as long as possible.
Another is neutral. He said: Because women like to talk. (This may strike some as funny, others as sexist, but it echoes what the Talmud says elsewhere: Ten measures of speech descended to the world. The women took nine [and the men took one.] [Kiddushin 49b])
The third is a stern, no-nonsense answer: Because Saul was not meant to be king until a certain specific moment, and God made the girls talk a lot to delay him until that moment.
In this story and similar ones, which of the three is the preferred attitude? Since the Talmud records all three, are all three acceptable? Is any of them disrespectful? Can all three coexist without accusations flying back and forth?