A Word on The Rules of Humor

What ho!

I was talking to my good friend Mitchell the other day [Hi Mitchell!] and I was trying very badly to explain why Hot Fuzz is my favorite comedy/action movie thus far. But after some thought and coffee and alcohol and listening to an episode of "John Finnemore's Souvenir Programme," I think I know why.

Here's why:


Actually the "why" part will come after the following backstory which is necessary in order for the "why" to have its full intended impact.

So, here's the backstory on the "why:"

I was listening to "John Finnemore's Souvenir Programme" [season 2, episode 4, available on itunes and unofficially endorsed by yours truly] and this episode included one of my favorite sketches paraphrased below:

[preliminary bit of exposition dialogue]

John: ...The new boss? I'll tell you what I think of him. He's vain, he's witless, he's morbidly obese and he's standing right behind me, isn't he?
Woman: No.
Man: Of course he isn't. We would've said.
John: Oh. Well, then, I can go on to say, he's ignorant, pretentious, has appalling personal hygiene, and he really is standing right behind me, isn't he?
Woman: No, he's not.
John: Then why have you got weird, awkward, frozen looks on your faces?
Woman: Because you've just launched into a tirade of furious bile against a man we just met.
Man: Also, you seem to be suffering from quite a powerful delusion that he's following you.
John: Yeah, but...oh, God, has no-one told you? I'm a sitcom character.
Man and Woman: Ohhhh..
Woman: So sorry.
Man: We'll make allowances.
Woman: Yeah, and can I just say, I think it's great they're making jobs for you people.


[end clip of sketch]

The reason why I find this funny [and I think why JF thought it would be funny] is because of two reasons:
(1) it sets you up for one scenario and switches to a different scenario unexpectedly
and
(2) it challenges the traditional formula for funniness which, although classic, does get a little stale after a certain amount of time.

As much as tradition is king in many areas of study, a break from the traditional rules of humor is refreshing, and can make us laugh because it points out existing rules we never realized were there until they were broken.

One thing I found a refreshing break from tradition in Hot Fuzz was the way they handled Nicholas buying a birthday present for Danny. If you haven't seen Hot Fuzz, I'll give you a bit of its backstory. And if you have seen Hot Fuzz, I'll give you the backstory anyway because I'm the Queen of this blog and I want to. The part of the movie I have in mind is the bit when Nicholas finds out it's Danny's birthday, and he leaves the party to get Danny a present which puts him in a place where he witnesses a murder, and the present is impounded as evidence, leaving Nicholas and therefore Danny presentless.

The first time I saw the movie, I thought it would play out as follows:

Danny: Hey, where'd you go off to?
Nicholas: [too embarrassed to tell Danny he was getting him a present ] I--uh--nowhere.
Danny: You left my party and hurt my feelings!
Nicholas: I--uh--yeah!
Danny: Well, you can go find yourself a new adorable little friend! [storms off adorably]
Nicholas: Danny, wait! I--oh, dammit.

Followed by them having to work together even though they're angry at each other, saving each other's lives, Danny accidentally finding out about the birthday present, and the two of them sharing an apologetic handshake.

Here's how it actually played out:

Danny: Did you really get me that plant?
Nicholas: Yes, I did. But it's been impounded as evidence.
Danny: Well, maybe Dad'll still let me water it.
Nicholas: Yeah.
Danny: [pats Nicholas manlily on the shoulder].

which was funnier, sweeter, and in all other ways better, than the scenario I had expected. However, the imagined scenario is the one I've seen more often in movies/telly than an alternative to that scenario. When I made a mental note of that, I asked myself, "Self, if the alternate is better, why do people always use the traditional one?" "Why, self," I answered myself, "it's because the traditional one has worked in the past, and because we already know that it's funny, so there's no risk involved." This isn't an eye-opener, because a lot of people have already made this criticism of tradition. And while I strongly believe that tradition is an important component of family life, science, possibly government, religion, and all that crap, I believe that the world of aesthetics deserves a little bit more tradition-breaking than it typically gets.

Hot Fuzz also broke tradition in the way it dealt with relationships between the characters. If Danny and Nicholas were written into one of our typical comedy serials, I can guarantee you that some 50% of the comedy would come from everybody thinking they're gay. It's happened in Psych, Supernatural, The Office, The IT Crowd, and probably other shows that I'm not thinking of at the moment. I wish I had a nickel for every time I've wanted to shout at the TV, "IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A ROMANCE--REGULAR FRIENDSHIPS EXIST TOO, YA KNOW." I never shouted that at Hot Fuzz. To be fair, I never shouted it at anything else either, because I don't shout, but that's something I'm trying to work on.

There's an episode of The Dick van Dyke Show where Ritchie has a "take your father to school day" and Rob has to explain to a room full of six-year-olds how to be funny (season 1, episode 23. I think). I disremember the actual quote, and amazon prime won't let me watch the episode to find it out, but basically what Rob said was that people laugh at things that were unexpected. The opposite can be true, too. I think the best fun I had watching Supernatural (season 4, whichever episode is called "On the Head of a Pin") was when the demon of interest said "Go directly to hell," and I thought "do not pass 'Go,' do not collect $200,' and then just after I thought it, he said, "do not pass 'Go,' do not collect $200." I don't know if this was funny because of the coincidence or because I was just tickled that my thought was something considered funny by professional writers who were trying to be funny on purpose.

That's not to say there's a "right way" to be amused. You can have whatever sense of humor you happen to have. It's just that mine is a scrupulous, analytical, calculating brain which has to analyze everything that's not bolted to the floor, and when my gut likes something, my brain has to think up every conceivable argument for why I'm allowed to go with my gut. So, if I've shouted at you for not liking a thing as much as I do, it's because my brain has worked very, very hard to justify my gut and it is now overly sensitive on the subject, and I apologize.

That's all I've got to say about that.

A Word on The Strong Female Character

I have to take a break from studying because if I don't, I'll go insane and then I will die.

And because I'm taking a break anyway and I have writing on the brain and I have nothing else to do, allow me to say a few words on

The Strong Female Character

1. A true SFC does not have to adhere to any sort of rules about how to be a true SFC except those which you write into her DNA.

2. An SFC does not have to be eternally pissed-off.

3. Nor does she have to be vivacious and outgoing.

4. Nor does she have to be sultry and introverted, yet outspoken when she does speak to people.

5. An SFC is allowed to be saved by an SMC. This will not piss off the audience unless they have trouble distinguishing between 'human' and 'disgusting weakling.' Which, to be fair, they should, because humans are weak. And females are humans. Therefore females, like males, are--or at least are allowed to be--weak.

But wait! you say. What about Planet of the Apes and The Lord of the Rings where the SFC's aren't even human, but Elvish or apish? Then go back to CS Lewis's rule that even if it's not human, it's still 'hnau' [i.e. flawed being with a soul]. Treat it like it's human.

6. Don't force your SFC to indulge in mind-boggling mental/physical prowess or heroism just for the sake of making her an SFC. That's stupid.

Good night!

And don't complain when people's SFC's aren't good enough or are too good, because writers aren't God, and their characters aren't as realistic as His.

Actually, you can complain if you want to. I'm just tired of people hating on every FC out there for being the wrong level of S. Here's an idea: delete the S altogether and let it whatever kind of FC grows organically in your brain, be she S or BS or WTF or OMGSTFU. If you think Hermione is too OMGSTFU, then that's okay, because that's how Hermione happened in JKR's brain. Unless it wasn't, and JKR's just terrible at portraying her visions. But I don't think she is.

Good night!

Some Stuff I Would Like to Say on the Subject of Trying to Write Good

Hello!

I had caffeine tonight on my drive home from school today because I was bad. Now I am staying up late not doing homework because I am bad. However, I'm too tired to apologize for being bad, so I'm not going to.

If you by chance happen to be one of the unfortunate people who have been exposed to the contents of my brain, you might know that for the last nine months I have been laboring under the delusion that I'm writing a book. This will probably turn out to be a waste of time [which it won't, because it's made me happy]. However, I have learned in the course of this delusion a couple of things about writing which, for the purpose of organizing my own thoughts, I would like to inflict upon you this evening without further ado.

So, without further ado, here's

SOME STUFF I WOULD LIKE TO SAY ON THE SUBJECT OF TRYING TO WRITE GOOD

note: "herm" = "him" + "her." "Heesh" = "he" + "she." "Hirs" = "his" + "her."

I hate saying "him or her" and "he or she" all the time because it's cumbersome.

1. "Said" is enough. Don't use a lot of weird synonyms for "said." Jane Austen says "said." Agatha Christie says "said." JRR Tolkien says "said." C.S. Lewis says "said." A lot of strange syllables other than "said" is distracting. Less is more.

2. Also, if the speech of the character describes the way heesh's talking, you don't have to describe how heesh's talking.

For example, if your character is stammering, don't say

"But--but--" she stammered

or

"But," she said

say

"But--but--" she said

or

"But," she stammered.

3. Your character should not be the sum of the adverbs that describe herm. If heesh is anxious, patient, and motherly, heesh should not always be saying things "anxiously" or "patiently" or "motherlyly." And when I say "adverbs," I'm including adjectives.  "Atticus said that if you delete the adjectives, you have the facts." Write with adjectives and adverbs if you want to, then read over and exterminate 90% of them. Less is more.

4. You don't have to describe your characters in detail. To this day, we do not know the color of Elizabeth Bennet's eyes [only that they're "bright" and "fine"]. Nor do we know the shape of Vera Claythorne's nose. And it's only by the end of Part 1 of The Two Towers that we discover the color of Merry Brandybuck's hair. But we do know what they're thinking and feeling. You can describe the anatomy of their brains and souls, but you're not required to explain the exact contours of their kneecaps. Less is more.

5. You also don't have to describe every itty bitty action. When Lizzie and Mr. Darcy dance, the actual dance is never described in one syllable [or in more than one syllable]. Only the conversation during the dance matters, unless your purpose is to study dances in the Jane Austen era, in which case you should put down Pride and Prejudice and pick up Dances in the Jane Austen Era for Dummies. Less is more.

6. It's all right [I think] to repeat the same description of a character instead of looking for a lot of synonyms for "ugly" or "unpretentious." JK Rowling almost invariably describes Crookshanks as Hermione's "bandy-legged, ginger cat," and Filch as having his "jowls a-quiver." Georgette Heyer in These Old Shades describes Rupert as having "a look of comical dismay" twice. And in the last chapter of Lord of the Flies, W. Golding uses the word "ululation" approximately 538 times to describe what Ralph is hearing without explaining what the hell "ululation" means. Don't feel the need to fill your volume of forgotten lore with synonyms. Less is more.

7. As much as it bothers me in dialogue, direct characterization within your prose, I've gathered, is permissible. Here's something Jane Austen wrote, PARAPHRASED [emphasis on PARAPHRASED] by yours truly:

"Mr. Bennet was a nice man even though sometimes he was sarcastic. Mrs. Bennet was a nut with air for brains."

The following dialogue never happened:

"You're nice," Mrs. Bennet said, "only sometimes you're sarcastic."

"Oh, yeah?" Mr. Bennet said. "Well, you're a nut with air for brains."

8. "Show, don't tell," my butt. Agatha Christie "tells." Jane-Bloody-Austen "tells." PG-f***********ing Wodehouse "tells." They "show" too, but they don't dodge "telling" like one of those guys in movies who has to get over and under all the red light-beams in museums. They don't overcomplicate the prose. A challenge I like is trying to "tell" in an amusing way like Douglas Adams when he says, "The ships hung in the sky the same way bricks don't." Or maybe that's showing. Is that showing? I don't know. But I've managed to cultivate an inner Dwight Schrute who tells me, "Keep It Simple, Stupid," when I think I'm getting too cute. Less is more.

9. This I've seen happen more on TV than in books, but I'm going to say it anyway because I want to. If your character is a funny character, don't make herm funny by having herm constantly talking and thinking about food and sex.

That's all I have to say about that, Beth out.

A Bit of Writing Part 8

Another bit I'm pleased with. Don't ask.

St. Stephen, the poets tell us, was the first of the great martyrs, the people who underwent all forms of violence and physical trauma in defense of the Truth. This was all very well and noble of them; however, according to History, once the people voted for executions to be made public in lieu of reality programs, the number of martyrs decreased by 47.3% almost overnight. A person can withstand physical torment if he must simply because there is nothing else to be done, but if he is made to do it in front of a gathering crowd, his ears turn red, his knees shake, and he stutters horribly over his Last Requests. There is nothing more embarrassing than public humiliation. Private humiliation, on the other hand, is bearable, especially if one is not constantly being watched by the Eye of Sauron which tends to sprout in the more scrupulous of minds like an obsessive Jiminy Cricket who hovers over the bed with a chainsaw and whispers, “Be good.”

A Word of Encouragement to Second-Class Nerds

If I have noticed correctly, this world (i.e. The Internet) is an unofficially established hierarchy of nerds. The more "nerdy" you are, the "cooler" you are, and the "higher" you are on the aforementioned "hierarchy." Only a True Nerd knows these nineteen facts about Star Wars, only a Real Harry Potter Fan will recognize who said This Quote, and only a Confirmed Tolkien Addict can list the seven sons of Feanor in alphabetical order.


In other words, if you are not well-versed enough in your preferred literature, you are a second-class nerd. You are not a True Nerd. You're not Enough.


But hark, nerd police, I say unto you, go fudge yourselves.




 Here's why:


If you're Catholic like yours truly, you've probably heard of a person named Saint Bernadette who, as you have probably gathered, was a Saint named Bernadette. If my sources are correct (which they are), St. Bernadette was not well-versed in theology. She didn't know, for example, Who the Three Persons of the Trinity were. When she died and went to heaven, the above nerd police will tell you that St. Peter stopped her and said, "St. Bernadette, when you took the online quiz about whether or not you're a true God Fan, you failed. You are, therefore, not allowed in our inner circle of saints and have been demoted to janitor duties." However, I am pleased to inform you that the nerd police are morons. The amount you know about your world, fictional or not, does not dictate your love for it.


Actually, if you pay attention to pop shows and the media, unless I'm wrong, the general consensus seems to be that a nerd is just a person whose top-priority/interest does not involve sex. At least, that's what I've gathered.


With that said, go read The Lord of the Rings, don't remember every single name or province, and enjoy it regardless. Don't let the muggles get you down. Live long and prosper, and may the Force be with you.

A Bit of Writing Part 7

If I am successful with book #1, this will be at the begining-ish of book #2 which I realize is pushing my luck, but I don't care.

The word "thixophobia" is an unusual one which refers to the fear of touching a fellow human being. The first person in history to suffer from thixophobia was a woman we know today as Typhoid Mary who, in order to avoid physical contact with other people, invented the disease typhoid and appointed herself as its primary vessel, successfully discouraging her friends and acquaintances from touching her ever again. She did not, in fact, carry the disease as many have been led to believe, and thus, we understand, any subsequent outbreak of typhoid was purely psychological.
However, to return to the point at hand, Typhoid Mary's thixophobia was not brought on, as one may guess, by a fear of germs, but rather from an uncomfortable stirring in her soul whenever she happened to brush a hand or foot past the body--living or dead--of a fellow human person. Each time this happened, her soul seemed to flinch and say to itself, "Self, that Thing you just touched is a Person. Tread carefully. If it is in any way damaged, we shall reserve this week's ration of bread and water for the rats."

A Bit of Writing Part 6

You will not be surprised to learn that the first man to experience Deja Vu was Adam. When Adam encountered his first moment of Deja Vu, he did not recognize it for what it was, having never experienced it before, and when he asked Eve what it was, she shrugged her shoulders and said in the primordial language Our Lord had concocted for them, “If you don’t know, then I’m certainly not going to tell you.” The reason for Eve’s chagrin was that she had just offered him a piece of fruit, and he took it without question, thereby implying that he had forgotten what had occurred the first time she had offered him a piece of fruit. As it happened, Adam had not forgotten, but had assumed that Eve had learned not to accept comestibles from super-intelligent reptiles. He told her so, and she apologized for snapping with a kiss on his nose before instructing him to bring in the dog and take out the garbage. However, this was several thousands of years even before the birth of Christ. In the present day….