JaneEspenson.com

Some jokes work better when said out loud than in print. I think I’ve mentioned this before, but I’ve just remembered a really good example of this. I remember seeing an episode of The John Larroquette Show with the following joke (approximate, from memory):

JOHN
Your mother is Connie Rogers?

RACHEL
She was. She changed it to Connie Selleca.

JOHN
Oh. After the…

RACHEL
After the car.

A very strange little joke. Whatever you may think of it, you have to admit that it works far better when heard and not read. If you end up with a joke like this in your spec you may be debating how to properly get it down on paper so that it works — add some stage directions to clarify it, maybe?

Nope. Cut it, change it. There is always another joke. This is probably the biggest lesson of comedy writing. No matter how much you love a joke, even if a particular joke was why you decided to write a certain episode, there is always another one. I’ve seen scripts where a given spot in a given scene is (temporary) home to more than a half-dozen jokes over the course of a week. And those are just the pitches that made it onto the page at some stage. Many more will have been pitched in the room.

Give it a try. Pick a random joke in your script. It can even be one you like, and imagine you’ve just been told that the only change you need to make is to improve that joke. I bet you can do it. Now do it with every single joke in your script. It’s just like being on a show!

Lunch: Vietnamese rice noodles with pork and shrimp

Interesting. I have now received two letters from young straight white male writers who have expressed (joking) frustration at a perceived interest from agents or managers in representing “diversity writers.” Both letters hinted around at the possibility of trying to present oneself as gay in hopes of appearing more desirable (as a client, presumably).

Clearly, this is a terrible idea and I will assume you guys were joking. But let’s look, for a second, at the assumptions behind the joke. One has to assume:

1. Gay writers are in demand. Is it true? I checked with writer and friend-of-the-blog Drew Greenberg for an informed opinion. Drew?

I have yet to be on a writing staff where the show runner said, “You know what this show needs? More gay men. Hire me some of those!” Never heard it. Not once. Even on shows run by gay men. We still live in an era where being gay is considered being an outsider. Even in television.

Plus, I will point out that sexual orientation is not currently one of the criteria that is even credited with making a writer “diverse”. So there’s that.

Then there is a second assumption:

2. White male writers have a hard time getting hired. Is this true?

One of the reasons that agents or managers may be looking for writers with different backgrounds is because there are so many white male writers. That must mean someone is hiring them. Drew?

Here’s the bottom line: I did some math. On the five staffs on which I’ve worked since Buffy, 77% of the writers were white men. 77%. That’s three out of every four people, with an extra, what, arm or something. So if your agents tell you that you’re less desirable as a client because you’re a white man, tell your agents to come hang out on my staffs. I have something to show them.

I can support Drew’s math here. In fact, I’m surprised he gets a number as low as 77%.

This is a hard business to break into. But it’s hard for absolutely everyone. And you can do yourself the biggest possible favor by just worrying about your spec scripts since that’s the part of this you can control. Be great and you will get noticed where it counts — on the page!

Lunch: the chicken Caesar salad at California Chicken Café. It’s got little toasty pieces of pita in it instead of croutons. Delightful!

Well, as long as I’ve got my snout in the mailbag, let’s root around and see what else is in there, shall we, gentle readers? Ah… a very good letter from Zach in L.A. who is finding himself frustrated with looking for comedy writing work.

The interesting thing here is that Zach has done everything right — he’s moved to L.A., worked as a gofer in writing rooms; he has several polished specs and other material, has met and impressed established comedy writers… those are all great ingredients. But, as most established comedy writers are themselves out of work right now, he’s finding it hard to get a foothold.

He asks, Should I take four months to write a feature-length? Should I do more “alternative media” stuff? […] Do I bite my cheek and do stand-up?

Well, Zach in L.A., those are all good things to do — the feature in particular would be good to have anyway — but I also have another idea. You mention in your letter that your two specs for existing shows are “The Office” and “American Dad.” Why not supplement those with a “Desperate Housewives,” or, even better, an “Ugly Betty”?

Half-hour comedy is a bit of a hiring wasteland right now. There simply aren’t enough shows to support all the experienced writers, so it’s very difficult for new writers to get in. And while television drama writing isn’t an easy gig to get, it’s substantially easier than comedy. And, in writing a spec for a show like “Betty,” you still get to use your comedy skills. In fact, you get to use them every bit as much. A comically-inclined hour-long spec pilot is also something you could try.

Hang in there, Zach. Luck is opportunity plus preparation plus luck. (I made that up and I think it’s fantastic. Feel free to borrow it.) Keep writing, keep polishing the specs you already have, keep adding new ones, keep making those connections… just keep on doing more of what you’ve been doing. I can’t guarantee that you will get hired, but you’ve got a better shot than all the people who haven’t done what you’ve done.

Lunch: My favorite “Johnny Rockets” burger place is now called “Beverly Hills Diner.” Quite a shock. But they served me a fine Jalapeno Burger and a chocolate coke, so it’s all good.

Eddie in San Mateo writes in with two really good questions. First, he’s wondering why I referred to him as “Erik from San Mateo” when I addressed a previous question of his. Oops. Sorry, Eddie.

His second question has to do with politically incorrect humor:

Does this brand of humor satirize stereotypes and prejudices or promote them? If a joke is funny, does it matter whether it’s offensive or not? Should aspiring writers attempt to replicate this humor in their spec scripts at the risk of stepping into a minefield?

This is a really interesting area. I myself am not a huge fan of comedy that sets out to amuse us by shocking us. The humor, generally, is supposed to come from a jolt of recognition, a sort of “Hey, we’re not supposed to say that, but ain’t it the truth” kind of thing. Personally, I think this is pretty dangerous stuff, since it’s clearly promoting stereotypes or at the very least reinforcing cultural barriers. You might get a laugh, but it’s got a mean edge to it.

Of course, there are other types of politically incorrect humor. On The Office, Michael can say something absolutely appalling, and the purpose of the line is to reflect badly on him. I’ve got no problem with that.

And, of course, there’s the strange forcefield that surrounds offensive jokes made by members of traditionally oppressed groups. This might seem like a simple rule, but it becomes really complex when the character is a member of such a group, but the writer giving voice to that character is not.

I guess the key is in Eddie’s middle question, “If a joke is funny, does it matter whether it’s offensive or not?” It seems to me that if a joke offends me, I’m never going to find it funny. This is the risk you take with material like this — if you misstep, you don’t just have an unamused reader, but a pissed-off one.

If you’re writing a spec for an established show, you can, as always, use the produced episodes as examples. They should give you a good idea where the line is for that particular show. Veronica Mars, for example, draws the line in a very different place than, say, Family Guy, which has no line at all. You generally can’t go wrong doing what the show already does.

But if you’re writing a spec pilot or are otherwise in uncharted territory, I would tread very lightly. And not only for moral reasons, either. I believe that a lot of writers of specs try to use shock value to make their spec stand out. This backfires when others have the same idea. Your ultraspicy (and potentially offensive) chicken wings don’t stand out at the potluck when the neighbors brought the same thing.

Lunch: Indian food with tortillas. See? Cultures can collide in a delicious way.

Remember when Ricky Martin’s “Livin’ La Vida Loca” was the big inescapable hit song that you heard everywhere? My friends and I got into an idle discussion of what the Weird Al Yankovic parody of it was going to be called. We went through lots of options — you know the sorts of things — everything from “Livin’ with Melanoma” to “Swimmin’ in Aqua Velva” and “Lovin’ the Almond Roca.” We felt we’d pretty much exhausted the possibilities. It was hours later, in the middle of another conversation, that one of us unexpectedly yelled, “Livin’ La Vida Polka”!

Just because you’ve found a joke you’re happy with, doesn’t mean you should stop looking. I’ve been amazed at how often, in a comedy writing room, a joke has been sitting in a script for days before someone hits on a better version of it. Keep working, keep thinking, be open to the better line.

By the way, I don’t think Weird Al ever did release a parody of “Vida Loca,” although another parodist did one called “Livin’ La Vida Yoda.” Hmm. Didn’t even think of that one. We should’ve kept going.

Lunch: Minestrone and salad

« Older Entries

Newer Entries »