David Salisbury – Writer

I’m not a teacher. But I am marking exams this month. A whole lot of professional exams with lots of maths in them. Fortunately I quite like that sort of thing (in moderation) – although I’m not so keen on the lost writing time.

I also rather like the romantic tale of how Tolkien scribbled the first line of The Hobbit onto the back of an exam paper during (school) exam marking season. I think I’d get into trouble if I did that…  I don’t even get to make lovely red crosses all over the paper – they have to be left clean so that I won’t influence any future markers. And these papers will be second and maybe even third marked.

Right I better get on with it.

Continue reading

exam marking, maths, the Hobbit, time to write, Tolkien, writing time

A little while ago I mentioned a project Lippy Alison was putting together off the back of writing for Newsjack, with a few dissolute British Comedy Guide forum members like myself.

The planned podcast now has a name and even a webdomain kirrinislandpodcast.com. All very organised. Looking forward to it already.

Continue reading

comedy, comedy writing, Kirrin Island, Kirrin Island Podcast, LippyAllison, Live from Kirrin Island, Newsjack, podcast, satire

I went to see Andy Zaltzman in his show Armchair Revolutionary at the Udderbelly last night (a birthday present from my lovely sister. Thank you!)

As fans of the Bugle podcast will know Andy’s comedy is full of extended metaphors, biting social comment, sparkling verbal dexterity and extreme punning.

The pun is a form of humour usually more endured than enjoyed. We call them  ”groaners” for a reason. At worse they are a form of verbal thuggery battering the listener into tired laughter with their dull double meanings.

But Andy Zaltzman is a master of the pun. He takes it far beyond the dad joke. He exaggerates the pun. (Another important comic tool, exaggeration . Thus he builds comedy on comedy forming um… metacomedy or er…  com-comedy… or something… Moving on.)  He makes puns where puns should not be allowed to exist. And somehow all of this works a miracle – Andy Zaltzman makes puns funny.

My favourite extreme pun in the show (I won’t spoil it for you) is an Edith Piaf reference. (You’ll know it when you hear it.)

Andy Zaltzman is much more than a cunning punster. But what I found most interesting, from a comedy writing point of view,  about the show was how he took that most despised comedy form, the pun, and made the crowd (of Zaltzman fans, admittedly) laugh out loud at it.

This doesn’t mean that I think that everyone should suddenly start more punning. But it shows that almost anything can work in comedy if done right. It’s doing it right that’s the hard part. I’m off to do some more work on that then.

Continue reading

Andy Zaltzman, armchair revolutionary, Bugle podcast, comedy, comedy writing, punning, puns, standup, standup comedy, Udderbelly

Comedy usually has a target. Satire points out the flaws of it’s subject. Sitcom also puts characters through the wringer, even in the mildest gentlest episode of As Time Goes By. With the possible exception of silly wordplay, there is a butt for most jokes out there.

Not all of this is “nasty” – much of it is friendly gentle mockery, almost a tribute. Other times it is a vicious demolition of a person or a stereotype. (Remember all comedy writers are drawing from a limitless pit of rage. That’s what makes the funny.)

Which brings us to Derek, Ricky Gervais’s latest creation. Who is the target? Is it OK?

To declare an interest I am a massive fan of Gervais’s work, particularly The Office and Extras. Never met him of course. Although I do live in his old hometown of Reading. So you’d think the least he could do was pop in for tea one day before catapulting me to megastardom… but I digress.

Broadly there are three possible targets for comedy:

1. Those above you – most satire aims here, punching upwards at the rich and powerful, the movers and shakers, celebs and politicians.

2. Yourself. Or people like you. A lot of observational humour is aimed at “me” or “us” pointing out our foibles and laughing at all the silly little things we do.

2a. The audience. A lot of knowing, ironic comedy, or comedy about comedy is really targeting the audience. I include this as part of point 2. because it is about “us”: the audience and the performer colluding: not the “them” above us – the elite; or the “them” below” us – the weak.

3. Those below you. The weak, minorities or vulnerable groups, either in general or in particular. Think Jim Davidson or Bernard Manning. You might guess I’m not a fan.

Don’t think surrealists don’t fit any of these. Generally the target of a surrealist is either themselves  (showing people the odd ways that they think) or the audience (shaking up their way of thinking and showing them the world in a different way).

So is it ever OK to “punch downwards” at the unfortunate or discriminated against? I don’t think it is. I can’t see how it can be. Especially when the joke is pointing out their supposed flaws or “our” supposed superiority.

Claiming anything goes so long as “it’s a laugh” is the weaseliest excuse. You wouldn’t accept that if somebody found punching you in the face or stealing your lunch money funny, that somehow made it all OK. And I can remember kids in school who used to find that sort of thing hilarious (when they and their mates were doing it at least).

But is that what Gervais and co are doing in Derek?

Having watched it I don’t think they are trying to “punch downwards”.  I don’t think that Gervais and co want to pick on Derek in the show. They go out of their way to make Derek “a nice guy”, if eccentric. Derek is meant to be a sympathetic character. But a lot of the laughs are meant to come from Derek being clumsy or failing to understand things. It may be that these laughs are supposed to be about us recognising that we could be like that too. But I’m not sure. I don’t think most of us would strip naked immediately because we fell in a pond. I don’t think the writers are being intentionally nasty. But it didn’t come across well.

And given the mockumentary style, I think Gervais is kidding himself and us if he thinks Derek is not learning disabled. Father Dougal from Father Ted is an exaggerated character in a stylised show, so we don’t think about the question. And yes Frank Spencer from Some Mothers Do ‘Ave Em also presents as learning disabled.

I don’t think making Derek was wrong. I don’t think Gervais and co aimed to mock disability. But I think the portrayal of Derek is very clearly of a man with a mild learning disability. There is nothing wrong with that as such but, given how people with learning disabilities are treated in our culture, most of us would be uncomfortable making such a character a lead in a comedy program.

There is a seperate question of whether this works comedically. (I think not – generally great comic characters have delusions of some kind, or flaws that exposed. Derek is unfortunate rather than comedically flawed.) I found it quite moving in places. Not very funny. I think it could have been an interesting drama with the odd comic moment and would have been better without some of the obvious comic business. Derek could have been an interesting drama about a man with learning disabilities. There would be nothing wrong with that. But we expect comedy from Ricky Gervais.

But there is danger that in labelling it a comedy, people may think the main character is being mocked. I’m sure that’s not the intention of the program makers – as the scene in the pub (and the headbutt) shows. And you can’t legislate for idiots (like the girls in the pub) watching your programs and willfully misunderstanding them. And maybe that’s the point Ricky is trying to make.

Continue reading

channel 4, comedy, comedy target, Derek, disability, joke target, Ricky Gervais, sitcom, writing comedy

For my birthday a week or so ago I was given  more to add  to my collection of classic British sitcoms including the box set of One Foot in the Grave.

I’ve just started rewatching the first series. I’ve found this fascinating as, although a lot of the elements are there – Victor’s character, the pathos of retirement – somehow it lacks the comic intensity of later series. It’s like a picture still coming into focus.

There are still funny moments, good performances and some neat comic touches but it lacks the pressure cooker comic tension building of later series where it feels like laughs can build over a whole episode as Victor digs himself deeper and deeper into whatever farcical situation he has got himself mixed up in.

It just shows that sitcoms (and sitcom writers) need space to grow. (Although that can be an excuse for not getting rid of poor sitcoms when necessary.) You can already see the potential in One Foot in Grave in the funny moments (like Victor finding a frozen cat in the freezer). But in series 1 they often feel more like extended character sketches rather than a unified whole episode.

I would point out that I would be very happy if I could write something as good as this first series. But it is encouraging – even writers like David Renwick are allowed to develop along the way (although he was well established by the time of the first series of One Foot in the Grave).  The success David Renwick had with One Foot in the Grave, of course, meant he could then give us Jonathan Creek.

Continue reading

BBC Comedy, comedy, comedy writing, David Renwick, One Foot in the Grave, sitcom, sitcom writing

This is where what is said is clearly in conflict with either the context or something else that is said. That gap between what is said and what the obvious truth is, is then (if we joke writers and tellers do our job right) filled with laughter.

For example: (told by a man) “I’m a feminist. I was there protesting outside the Miss World pageant… shouting ‘Get that swimsuit off now!’”.

This is a technique that can give brilliant results in the right hands. But if part of the joke is something which, if taken at face value would be seriously offensive, eg racist or sexist etc, then you do have to handle it carefully to make sure that the intent and irony is clear. Otherwise you just look racist/sexist. But if you make the irony too obvious we lose that gap that leads to laughter.

This is a technique that Ricky Gervais uses a lot, to great effect in the past. I haven’t seen Derek yet. I’m a bit frightened of being disappointed by one of my favourite comedy writer/performers. Has he crossed that line?

Of course comic irony does not have to involve potentially offensive material (although that danger can give it a greater comic charge) any contradiction between what is said and what is clearly true will do. The trick is to make that gap clear enough that the audience gets it. But not make it so obvious that it’s dull.

How do you do that? Well that’s the bit I’m still learning.

Continue reading

comedy, comedy writing, comic irony, irony, joke writing, writing craft

There are no simple rules for joke writing.  (The only hard and fast rule I’ve found is  ”be funny” – and that’s not simple). But there are useful patterns and techniques used by other people trying to write funny.  I’ve been keeping notes of the patterns I come across and thought I’d share some of them here on my blog.

One such pattern is the “rule of three”: The first two things set up the pattern, the third subverts or twists it.

For (a silly) example:  I found my perfect woman on the internet: She’s blonde, she’s  from Arizona, and her real name’s James.

John Kinde has more examples and shows a few typical patterns of the rule of three over at his website here.

A lot of joke writing is about surprise. You set up the audience to expect one thing, and deliver another. The rule of three uses our natural human tendency to see patterns and similarities. It delivers two examples and we already leap to make this into a rule.  We expect the third example to be same. But it isn’t. It’s cleverly different. There is gap between what we expected to happen and what did actually happen. And we fill that gap with laughter.

Continue reading

comedy writing, joke writing, jokes, rule of three, writing, writing craft

Some people (like me!) can’t get enough of trying to write funny things, but Lippy Alison has taken this one stage further by organising a one off writing day/performance at her place, which I picture as a mysterious island hidden somewhere in the Thames. More details on her blog.

I plan to get involved. But that may be undone by the early arrival of baby #2, but that would be more than adequate compensation in itself.

Continue reading

I managed to get my entry off to the Stratford Fringe short play competition at (literally) the 11th hour (and on my birthday too). The play I was trying to write grew somewhat in the process,  so the 15 minute limit started to creak a little at the seams. I will see what comes of it, but I am already making plans in my head to rewrite it longer. Perhaps 30-50 minutes.  Sometimes it’s harder to write something short!

Continue reading

playwriting, short play, short play competition, Stratford Fringe