This will flag comments for moderators to take action.
Posted: 10/22/2009 7:59 AM PDT
Humour is the toughest kind of writing to do in my experience. I am in awe of writers who can write full-length comic novels, particularly anyone who can start me laughing out loud in public (and I ruthlessly pillage their style and jokes for my own work).
I think you can construct humour, it's just a case of bringing together two ideas or concepts that don't seem like a natural fit and making them work, or spinning a concept round to an angle the reader didn't expect. In every case I think you have to keep surprising the reader - nobody laughs at a joke when you guess what the punchline's going to be ahead of time.
When I'm writing humour I just write what I personally think is funny, and so far I've been lucky in that other people seem to agree with me on that score. I suspect it's the same for everyone else - I mean, the Scary Movie series is funny for a lot of people, but not me. I know that if I tried to imitate that style it would be a disaster.
I think with humour you have to write with the door even more tightly closed than usual and just take a leap of faith.
Posted: 8/25/2009 8:59 AM PDT
Frequently, it is not the content but the timing that is important when it is a performance, whereas when writing it has to be the content that carries the humour.
Posted: 8/10/2009 4:12 PM PDT
If funny cannot be constructed then how do you account for the number of humourists who produced large volumes of work that many people find generally funny?
Posted: 8/6/2009 7:38 AM PDT
Funny is the unexpected, and for that reason, it can not be constructed at will, it simple needs to come into existance or maybe that's what Siddhārtha would say. All I know is that if I want it to be funny and try to make it that way, it tends to exact the opposite effect. I tend to find the best approach is to just sit and write, you can always retreat and extract or insert something and then tidy up your writing when your finished.
Posted: 7/23/2009 8:53 PM PDT
Funny is the ability to take what is at hand and to render it rediculous. It is the ability to alter the perspective of others in a limited way. An object like a fish bat becomes a marital aid while dangling in the hands of the comic. Now try to write something funny and it ain't so funny no more. Ironny do herby slolemly eclair to write sumping phunny! I dunno that just ain't enough for funny to me although if the character ronny were more developed it might be hilarious. I prefer to go for real life stories that were funny or were so horrible that they were later funny. No contrivance there maybe some embelishments and thats it.
Posted: 7/16/2009 3:59 PM PDT
I don't know. I believe funny just happens.
I know what you're saying. "When people read this will they be thinking funny, or contrived?" I often wonder. If it makes you laugh, then it'll probably make other people laugh. If you're curious, then show it to a friend. If they think it's funny, other people will most likely think it's funny, too.
Just make sure that friend has a good sense of humor.
Posted: 7/14/2009 3:50 PM PDT
I can tell whether I am writing for humour or trying to be serious but it is very difficult to recognise funny while it is being constructed. If Robyn Williams practices his new stuff in a public toilet then how do us amateurs cope?
Is there a recipe for making funny?