"I'm gonna write a whole new act this summer!" Really?

[Phil]

...I've heard a lot of comics say this. Is that seriously how some comics work? Just BOOM...30 new minutes. I thought it would be more of a gradual thing, 5 new minutes each week or something.

Any of you writing a whole new act this summer?

[punkdc]

My writing partner said this and what we are doing is fleshing out jokes that he started writing but never finished. So by the end it will be a whole new set but some of the jokes were already started.

[Vercetti]

I'm certain it can be done. Everybody works different ways. I'm definitely more of a "5 minutes at a time guy" then a "whole new set" kind of guy. To me a set is an ongoing, developing thing. Jokes get added, subtracted, moved around etc.

But ya know, different strokes for different folks.

[pg13]

I bet you could write a whole new 30 minutes over the course of a summer, Phil...

IF you wanted to...and IF you're the type of comedy writer that can work "at will" opposed to "when inspired."

Now...obviously, if you never test your material, you'd better have really good "ears"--and know exactly how people react to you and the things you say. Chances are, you write 30 minutes and, after trying it out for people, you might find you've actually got 10 good minutes worth of stuff there...

But, there are definitely some performers...experienced writers and performers...who can sit down and construct a brand new set from scratch.

It would certainly help if you had a couple of things you definitely KNEW you wanted to talk about. Having a few topics or a theme that would lend itself to prolonged and vital discussion would definitely be easier than trying to write 30 minutes of non-sequitur/one-liners.

The rest is just craftsmanship. You know you need an opening joke--and you should know what an opening joke has to do. You know you need a closing bit--and you should know what a closing bit has to do. If you have an overall theme, you can work that in throughout your set with callbacks, foreshadowing and references. If you have a few topics to write about, you can put on your Gaffigan hat and come up with every possible variation and take on those subjects and build your material, systematically, rather quickly.

...or, you may be one of those performers who can't just sit down and write jokes at a given time or on a given subject--perhaps, you can only craft your comedy when inspiration hits...when something funny happens to strike you. Then this whole idea of constructing comedy systematically is anathema to your process (and it means that you're a complete slave to your muse...which must be terrifying.)

The whole "a new hour every year" is something that Louis CK has embraced... Certainly, UK comedians spend half their year preparing a new set for the Edinburgh Fringe Festival and then the second half of their year touring the set they worked up for Edinburgh... So, it can and IS being done.

pg--Of course, some people say "I'm gonna write a whole new act this summer" more because they're tired of what they've been doing...even if it is generally working for them. It's meant as motivation to keep progressing, and more for their own sanity, than as an actual plan of action.--seattle

[Siggers]

Writing comes pretty easy too me Considering i don't really write.

[ErikNielsen]

you may be one of those performers who can't just sit down and write jokes at a given time or on a given subject--perhaps, you can only craft your comedy when inspiration hits...when something funny happens to strike you. Then this whole idea of constructing comedy systematically is anathema to your process (and it means that you're a complete slave to your muse...which must be terrifying.)

It's actually wonderfully freeing. I've tried convincing myself to write every day, or even every week, and I've found that's what horrifies me -- the kind of forced, desperate, and yes, uninspired material that comes from such an exercise, and the knowledge that no, not everything I write is even potentially good. I've never been more ashamed of myself than when I imposed deadlines on myself or forced myself to work without inspiration. It ruins my confidence to sit there and hit myself in the head and come out with garbage. Now, I write when I have something to say that I think is funny, and when I don't, I don't write. I don't let any obligations hang over my head, and I don't resent the process of constructing comedy. All this is crucial for me.

Actually, though, the best times in my career have been when I had something to work my way up to -- a new 5 minutes every 3 weeks, or whatever. Because, I mean, I can come up with that much material. Where I tend to fail is on actually sitting down and constructing it... generally, the idea sits in my head for a few weeks, then I'm at a show and I want to do something new, and I try to piece it together on stage. Which works a lot of the time, if the underlying joke is good, but it isn't efficient. Whereas if I can say, "all right, it's the third Wednesday of the month, let's distill all this stuff that's floating around into a set and get it word-for-word," that works better.

I mean, that's how I do it (/used to do it occasionally/probably should do it.) Other people do things in other ways, and it generally works for them. I also tend to write from the punchline back, which I know a lot of people don't do... the idea of starting with a basic premise and generating the funny part baffles me. But it works for some people, so I guess that's viable too. Anything that produces good material is viable, you know?

But don't get rid of your old stuff. Not unless you've done it on your album/the Tonight Show/etc. And if you're doing that, you don't need advice from me, or anyone really.

[pg13]

You know when is MY most productive writing time?

Whenever I'm at a club, about to go up...and coming up with a set list.

It's at that moment, similar to you, Erik, that the ideas that have been floating around in my head seem to best come out on paper. I can organize the thought with bullet points (a bit more detailed than the simple topic name that would normally make up my set list) as I imagine how I'd deliver it on stage...in just a few minutes.

Necessity is the motherfucker of invention, when it comes to comedy. Forcing yourself to "create or fail" is a mighty motivator.

On the other hand, back when I worked in radio, I was an advertising copywriter (award winning, too!)--so, I'm used to being able to creatively write to a subject when directed to... I can construct jokes from a topic...and that makes me a good comedy buddy, because I can work with other people's ideas and help them make more comedic sense.

But, given unlimited choices as to what "I" want to talk about in my act, I have a bit more difficulty... Unlimited choice often leads to paralysis. It's best if there's a deadline or something that needs my attention (which is why I don't mind writing topical stuff, even if I know it'll have a short-shelf life...because it gives me parameters from which to decide what to write about.)

pg--I can't imagine writing "punchline back"...because my process is to see the funny in something, not to make something out of the funny. But, that's why comedy is so exciting, because everyone comes at it from their own perspective, using the methods that work best for them... And that's why comedy advice can be tricky, because I can only tell you what works for me...not what'll necessarily work best for anyone else.--seattle

[ErikNielsen]

Whereas I basically can't write topical stuff, because if you give me a topic, I don't see anything funny in it. I'm like, "that's not a joke, that's a factual statement. The President really did say that. Why is that a joke?"

And if I really push, the first few things I come up with are pretty obvious, and it just depresses me about the whole ordeal.

Anyway, the whole deal makes me feel vaguely dirty. Even if I do something unique with them, it bothers me when even my premises are premises another comedian could do. (Which is self-inflating of me -- looking at it rationally, a lot of them are. I'd never say I'm really so original that even my basic premises are invariably unique. But I feel like I get somewhere between "acceptably original" and "notably original" by striving for "implausibly original" and inevitably not quite reaching it.) The more I rely on basic factual observations, the less I feel I'm pushing myself out there.

Which is not to say I hold other comics to that standard, or even consider it a particularly relevant standard by which to judge comedy in general.

I suppose not being fair to myself works for me? At least it does if I don't ever have to write anything to order...

I mean, I guess it's the same story. There are dozens of ways to create an act, and some of them rely on underlying beliefs or practices that don't hold up to a great deal of scrutiny -- and shouldn't be held up to a lot of scrutiny unless they stop working or interfere with one's stage performance.

[pg13]

Whereas I basically can't write topical stuff, because if you give me a topic, I don't see anything funny in it. I'm like, "that's not a joke, that's a factual statement. The President really did say that. Why is that a joke?"

Well, that's NOT a joke What makes it a joke is what you add to it--your perspective, your unique, personalized observations, recontextualizations and craftsmanship...that's what could make it a joke.

Got to go the extra step of actually working the idea, otherwise you end up with Jerry O'Hearn.

And if I really push, the first few things I come up with are pretty obvious, and it just depresses me about the whole ordeal.

Well, if it was easy, then everyone would do it.

The more I rely on basic factual observations, the less I feel I'm pushing myself out there.

And here's what I think is the interesting question...why do you feel the need to "push yourself out there"?

Is the "point" of comedy (as if there is one) to make others laugh? To make people think while making them laugh? To make people recognize how uniquely talented you are in your efforts to make them laugh?

When I examine my own comedy efforts, I come away with the following "throughline": The world is absurd and I've noticed. That's what all of my comedy is centered around. The world includes my life and my experiences...and my reactions to things I encounter, be it pop culture or politics, injustice or insignificant stray thoughts.

As someone who loves alt-comedy, who has been deeply involved in the alt-comedy scene...I admit that I probably have a more traditionalist comedic approach than some of my peers and idols. I've worried sometimes about whether or not it is enough to simply perform honest, non-intentionally pandering comedy...and I've come to assume that it is... I don't need to be weirder than I am just to fit into a template for a style I enjoy.

But I do agree that we shouldn't just remain comfortable...to do what works without putting any effort into improving or exploring. I know I'm unlikely to reinvent the wheel...but I should always remain open to discovering what else I'm honestly capable of...

That's one of many reasons I love Bridgetown. I love seeing, first hand, how what it is that I do fits in with the many other things that others do. I leave never thinking "Oh, I see exactly what it is I should be doing" but "I feel more confident to do the things that I think are funny...based on my honest perspective."

And perhaps that's why I do a lot less topical stuff and more personal stuff than I used to...?

There are dozens of ways to create an act, and some of them rely on underlying beliefs or practices that don't hold up to a great deal of scrutiny -- and shouldn't be held up to a lot of scrutiny unless they stop working or interfere with one's stage performance.

True dat, ECN.

pg--Sees a lot of "weird for weirdness sake" out there...also sees a lot of "trying so hard to do comedy exactly like your inspiration, rather than like an inspired you" too. Everybody's trying to find their way, the only way they know how...--seattle

[ErikNielsen]

I think my point -- if there is one -- is one part "if I start from premises accessible to anyone, it's more likely that I'm accidentally going to stumble upon a joke accessible to anyone -- whereas if I start from premises that very few people are going to start with, I've got a very good chance of making something unique out of it".

The other part being "if I start from premises accessible to everyone, a lot of people in the audience are going to zone out. Every word needs to do something. The set-up even needs to do something -- ideally, I want to get the first laugh off the set-up, but if I can't do it, it at least needs to serve a purpose, to keep people engaged. Stock-sounding set-ups don't serve a purpose."

I mean, the second one is mostly practical. If you open with "hey, you know what's weird about cars?" or "the President said he was worried about oil reserves", you're fighting from behind already. That's five or ten seconds where you didn't do anything to justify anyone's attention. And that may seem small, but in a weird way, I think it adds up. The audience gets to the point where they hear words they have to parse carefully, and words they don't have to parse carefully, and it's bad to have the audience thinking that way, even subconsciously.

The first one is... vaguely paranoid? If I do a joke that doesn't sound original, either it'll sound unoriginal to me, or else someone will come up to me and say "someone else is already doing a joke like that", and problem solved. I mean, i don't know -- I'd rather not go through that, but it's not THAT terrifying.

But it's also practical, in that a lot of joke premises are natural to me, and maybe not so much to other people, and those are of course likely to be fresher. So if I can do them in a natural way, there I am.

Neither one is any kind of criticism of people who start with set-ups that anyone has access to, and then manage to build the joke into something that is honest and original. If they can do that, and keep the audience's attention, more power to them.

If not... wait a minute. What was this thread about again? I'm confused.

[pg13]

wait a minute. What was this thread about again? I'm confused.

Oh, don't be confused...we've swum into far different waters than the stream we started in...but that's all right, I think...as the conversation we're having is certainly interesting.

if I start from premises accessible to everyone, a lot of people in the audience are going to zone out.

This is why I find this discussion so interesting...because I think we both have a deep respect for the craft, we have a similar amount of experience...we often give the same advice...but our process is so different.

See, I'd NEVER think that by being relate-able to other people that you'd be in any danger of them zoning out. Indeed, I worry that some of my thoughts or concepts are so esoteric that they risk the audience not being able to be engaged...to have no interest in the topic.

Comedy is about making a connection--about translating what you think in your head is funny to someone else in hopes they also find it funny. If you start with something only you care about, only you think about...I find you spend so much more time in exposition...you need to get the audience up to speed.

Meanwhile, if you have a personal and unique take on something they already know about...you can jump right to the funny parts and take the set-up as read.

Now, I should be clear...I don't seek to ONLY do jokes about popular topics. I'm not THAT cynical. I'll do jokes about whatever I think I can successfully make someone else think is also funny...I just know that some thoughts in my head take more explanation (and, therefore, have to be much funnier) than others.

If you open with "hey, you know what's weird about cars?" or "the President said he was worried about oil reserves", you're fighting from behind already. That's five or ten seconds where you didn't do anything to justify anyone's attention.

Well, "you know what's weird about cars" is just Judy Carter-ish scaffolding. You'd use a phrase like that to help define the parameters of your joke while you're writing it...and then you take that scaffolding away to leave the efficient joke.

Same with "the President said he was worried about oil reserves"--it's craftsmanship, not premise selection you're discussing...and a good comedian, topical or not, would know not to leave unnecessary scaffolding behind.

Every joke, regardless of the topic/premise/idea, has its own economy...it's own sense of balance. Finding the perfect balance between the information necessary to get the set-up across and the precise wording of the punchline is a never ending quest for every comedy writer, regardless of their approach or style.

pg--"You know what's funny about raping a unicorn? Nothing."--seattle