Once again every word is the ambrosia of comedy and a valuable lesson in comedy writing.
Mike, when are you going to put out a tome on comedy creation? I need something to replace my copy of "How to Write Funny," which is now just collection of dog eared, torn pages held together in an old manila folder.
Previously, I've never dreamed of writing such a book because, as I wrote above, it's all very intuitive to me. And what each person might need to unlock this talent is very much tailored to them. But as I coach people, I find myself returning to certain principles that I think are useful, and if there's interest, I can write them down.
To get maddeningly non-linear, I like to teach comedy writing like I have been taught martial arts: first get sound basic principles. And then, after you begin to really feel the "qi" flowing in your body, what you personally should practice becomes clear. But a movement or style that really works for me, may not work for you. It may actually be harmful. Comedy writing, properly done, is probably close to one of the Taoist Five Excellences.
I suspect this memoir I'm writing will include some useful information, at least as far as how I USED to do it (pre-2012) and how I do it NOW (post-2012), which are two very different processes.
Another thing that's always made me wary about writing a book on comedy is how the explosion of direct instruction has led to a sameness to much of the material. To compare it with the greats, even when two writers start from a similar place--say, Benchley and Perelman, who as a young writer was working in a Benchleyesque style--quite quickly the two writers are vastly different. No one would mistake a Benchley piece for a Perelman one or a Thurber one or a Parker one. And this is even within the fairly narrow set of "classic New Yorker humorists."
This isn't entirely a writer-side problem; the consolidation in the publishing world has, as I mentioned in the piece, created a few outlets all with a fundamentally similar set of criteria. To be "successful" one has to occupy a pretty narrow slice of the comedy writing spectrum.
There may even be a reader problem; I know that personally the less reading I do and the more TV I watch, my sensitivity to words lessens. And so what sounds funny to me on the page, narrows. That may be happening on a large scale.
My personal reaction to all this has been to create Bystander, something that LOOKS like a professional magazine, but is much much looser a framework, to allow for wider diversity in tone and technique. This can feel "uneven" to readers--that's the word they always use, "great, but uneven"--and I always reply, "Perfect!"
I think I am finally ready to write a solipsistic and meandering memoir that could point the way for other oddballs to forge their own paths. I can't guarantee they'll end up running Weekend Update or dominating Shouts--but with stuff like Substack, they may not have to.
I sometimes think that what's going on, fundamentally, is that it's a bare-knuckled brawl for attention now, and that changes how people read/write. Human attention can only be succinctly and efficiently captured in so many ways -- you don't see a tremendous variety in newspaper headlines -- and this has forced something like a formal convergence.
(This has created funny situations, like how flash fiction dominates online short fiction but is only rarely read on paper.)
I think the reason a print magazine like The Bystander is essential right now is because it's a refuge from lawless Rosseauean eyeball combat. Which is to say that when The Bystander is working it's genuinely countercultural, with all the challenges and opportunities that allows.
But, to your point, if you look around for instance at what "comedy" substacks are raking in the $$$, it's a lot of charming, funny people mostly writing first-personally about their lives. It's what made twitter so addictive -- access to and insight on individual writers, but with more room to breathe. And in its own way outside the mainstream, it's thriving.
Honestly, just keep up the great writing here and in no time at all you'll probably have a compendium's worth of material for a book, even if it is titled "Zen and the Art of Funny Bone Dislocation."
I know of at least one person who'd buy it. Hmm, better make it print on demand to minimize the cost.
Have you cogitated on how the various AI chatdiots may be used in the world of humor writing? I have. And expect nothing but theft and fail after fail.
On the other hand, Bazooka Joe bubble gum comics might be a home for that shite.
Finally, I’d like to hear you’re thoughts on the foundational role of Highlights Magazine on magazine création since the sixties. I fucking loved that rag. The Timbertoes? Goofus & Gallant? Hilarious and surreal.
Given the corporate preference for cheap, anonymous content--and the almost mathematical nature of joke writing, I think we'll have AI comedy within five years, and it will be indistinguishable by ten.
PS I think Highlights is actually a wonderful solution to a publishing problem. But since I only read it in the millions of doctor's offices I breezed through as a child, I don't think I could bear to analyze it too closely.
Once again every word is the ambrosia of comedy and a valuable lesson in comedy writing.
Mike, when are you going to put out a tome on comedy creation? I need something to replace my copy of "How to Write Funny," which is now just collection of dog eared, torn pages held together in an old manila folder.
Thank you, Ed! You are too kind.
Previously, I've never dreamed of writing such a book because, as I wrote above, it's all very intuitive to me. And what each person might need to unlock this talent is very much tailored to them. But as I coach people, I find myself returning to certain principles that I think are useful, and if there's interest, I can write them down.
To get maddeningly non-linear, I like to teach comedy writing like I have been taught martial arts: first get sound basic principles. And then, after you begin to really feel the "qi" flowing in your body, what you personally should practice becomes clear. But a movement or style that really works for me, may not work for you. It may actually be harmful. Comedy writing, properly done, is probably close to one of the Taoist Five Excellences.
I suspect this memoir I'm writing will include some useful information, at least as far as how I USED to do it (pre-2012) and how I do it NOW (post-2012), which are two very different processes.
(Further reply after some thought…)
Another thing that's always made me wary about writing a book on comedy is how the explosion of direct instruction has led to a sameness to much of the material. To compare it with the greats, even when two writers start from a similar place--say, Benchley and Perelman, who as a young writer was working in a Benchleyesque style--quite quickly the two writers are vastly different. No one would mistake a Benchley piece for a Perelman one or a Thurber one or a Parker one. And this is even within the fairly narrow set of "classic New Yorker humorists."
This isn't entirely a writer-side problem; the consolidation in the publishing world has, as I mentioned in the piece, created a few outlets all with a fundamentally similar set of criteria. To be "successful" one has to occupy a pretty narrow slice of the comedy writing spectrum.
There may even be a reader problem; I know that personally the less reading I do and the more TV I watch, my sensitivity to words lessens. And so what sounds funny to me on the page, narrows. That may be happening on a large scale.
My personal reaction to all this has been to create Bystander, something that LOOKS like a professional magazine, but is much much looser a framework, to allow for wider diversity in tone and technique. This can feel "uneven" to readers--that's the word they always use, "great, but uneven"--and I always reply, "Perfect!"
I think I am finally ready to write a solipsistic and meandering memoir that could point the way for other oddballs to forge their own paths. I can't guarantee they'll end up running Weekend Update or dominating Shouts--but with stuff like Substack, they may not have to.
I sometimes think that what's going on, fundamentally, is that it's a bare-knuckled brawl for attention now, and that changes how people read/write. Human attention can only be succinctly and efficiently captured in so many ways -- you don't see a tremendous variety in newspaper headlines -- and this has forced something like a formal convergence.
(This has created funny situations, like how flash fiction dominates online short fiction but is only rarely read on paper.)
I think the reason a print magazine like The Bystander is essential right now is because it's a refuge from lawless Rosseauean eyeball combat. Which is to say that when The Bystander is working it's genuinely countercultural, with all the challenges and opportunities that allows.
Well said. I agree, and this was one of the things I’d say at the very beginning…but it seemed a little high-concept for most people.
But, to your point, if you look around for instance at what "comedy" substacks are raking in the $$$, it's a lot of charming, funny people mostly writing first-personally about their lives. It's what made twitter so addictive -- access to and insight on individual writers, but with more room to breathe. And in its own way outside the mainstream, it's thriving.
Honestly, just keep up the great writing here and in no time at all you'll probably have a compendium's worth of material for a book, even if it is titled "Zen and the Art of Funny Bone Dislocation."
I know of at least one person who'd buy it. Hmm, better make it print on demand to minimize the cost.
"...to minimize the cost."
Or MAXIMIZE THE PROFITS!!!!!!
But seriously, the real trick is going to be how to make my life, parts of which have been seriously gnarly, readable enough.
Have you cogitated on how the various AI chatdiots may be used in the world of humor writing? I have. And expect nothing but theft and fail after fail.
On the other hand, Bazooka Joe bubble gum comics might be a home for that shite.
Finally, I’d like to hear you’re thoughts on the foundational role of Highlights Magazine on magazine création since the sixties. I fucking loved that rag. The Timbertoes? Goofus & Gallant? Hilarious and surreal.
Given the corporate preference for cheap, anonymous content--and the almost mathematical nature of joke writing, I think we'll have AI comedy within five years, and it will be indistinguishable by ten.
"The Aristocrats!"
PS I think Highlights is actually a wonderful solution to a publishing problem. But since I only read it in the millions of doctor's offices I breezed through as a child, I don't think I could bear to analyze it too closely.
We were fortunate to have a Highlights subscription for a few years.