Technically, folks, today is a holiday. At least, back when I attended secondary primary school I was told that President’s Day is special because today you vote for the President!
Until next time.
-MS
Citizen journalism has become a watchdog for professional journalists, who in turn report on the very phenomenon that watches them. But who's watching them both?
Technically, folks, today is a holiday. At least, back when I attended secondary primary school I was told that President’s Day is special because today you vote for the President!
Until next time.
-MS
Editor's Note: The following column is part of an anonymous weekly humor column chronicling the struggle of a new, young journalist out in the working world. You may find the author's previous posts in the archives. --The Ed.
I have a question for you: you have some awesome humor pieces on McSweeney's. Why is it that you write funny pieces and not "serious" pieces?
I was always trying to be the funny guy in the group and writing humorous pieces is just an extension of that. Why I try to be funny is a different question all together. I have yet to attempt a serious piece, although I have contemplated it and even have a project in mind called People: The Movie. I'd also like to do something on hubris. It may be that if I attempted a serious piece that it would still have elements of humor in it because of my sensibility.
What happens in "People: The movie?"
I would like it to encapsulate a part of the human condition, but outside of that I am unsure. I often like to start my pieces with the title first and work from there. It's even better if the title and the premise are the same thing, like my current screenplay project Undercover Mummy. It's 21 Jump Street meets The Mummy meets Revenge of the Nerds.
How do you think it is that a piece becomes "funny"?
Usually when I write I try to think more along the lines of "good" as opposed to funny. For example, if a boy in an English class was asked what an analogy was, I think a good answer would be "albatross". It's not necessarily funny, but I think that's good. Some people believe that incongruity is at the heart of all humor, others think it's halibut.
Define metaphor: a metaphor is an albatross! I like it. It makes perfect sense. But can you distinguish a bit more between "good" humor and "bad" humor?
What's funny is very subjective and varied in nature, but the one thing that all of my favorite humorists and comedians have in common is that their humor reflects their unique perspective. It doesn't matter if they're political, absurd, observational, or even innovative, as long as what they have to say could only be said by them. After all, if anyone can say what you've got to say, we don't need you to say it.
What are the qualities of a great humorist?
I read a primatologist's essay about the role laughter plays in the lives of chimpanzees. It's used as a means to establish an air of well being in social situations and to show that there is no aggression. Basically it's used for rendering something as harmless. For example, if chimps are play wrestling, they'll laugh before it escalates into a real conflict to show that there is no aggression. For people, humor is an ex-adaptation, meaning that it serves a different purpose from what it once did, thanks to our ability to think abstractly and the advent of humor. Humor, at its core, stems from incongruity, such as surprise, juxtaposition, or irony. When people laugh, they're categorizing that incongruity as harmless. Of course, it all depends on the context. 9/11 was incongruous, but I doubt anyone found that funny. So, humor is all about taking that incongruity and putting it in the right context. The more interesting the context/incongruity, the better the humor. Sometimes it's possible to use a context that's unfunny but the incongruity is so effective that one can't resist laughter. That's always fun.
What do you think are the qualities of a great writer?
I imagine they'd be similar to that of a great humorist. I think a mistake people make when judging art is that they make criticisms about what the piece didn't do as opposed to looking at the artist's goal and how close it came to achieve. I think art should be judged for what it is and not what it isn't.
Who are the writers, do you think, that are most consistently and compellingly saying what they want to say in a way that only they would say it?
I don't read enough to be able to give an answer to this question, but there are many comedians that do this well. Paul F. Tompkins, Maria Bamford, Jen Kirkman, Neil Hamburger, Andy Kindler, Todd Glass, and Louis CK, for example.
To be honest, I think that literary fiction has to absurd, and/or funny, in some way (even an understated or very subtle way) to be good. For example, Chekhov's stories have an underlying absurdity, and a subtle humor, even though we think of him as a very realist and straight writer. To me, a lot of the "good" contemporary fiction takes itself too seriously to be funny in any capacity. Are there any writers whose work you think *isn't* funny in any capacity? Who are the fiction writers whose work you do find funny?
I think Woody Allen, John Swartzwelder, Neil Pollack, and Douglas Adams are consistently funny. I just read a book called A Woman Trapped in a Woman's Body by Lauren Weedman that I thought was terrifically entertaining. I once read Melmoth the Wanderer by Charles Maturin and didn't think that was funny at all.
How come you do all these interviews? Is this a PR move on your part, and/or do you get tired of hearing self-absorbed writers babble on about their formative moments?
I wanted to be a comedian for a long time, so my first interviews were all with comedians and about their formative years. I thought I'd benefit a lot from learning about them and the art of comedy. Since then, I've expanded to other types of subjects. I never get tired of hearing about formative moments, but my sometimes editors do! Personally, I'm much more interested in bits like that than promoting someone's movie or asking, "Mets or Yankees?" Also, it's great for networking and getting free stuff. I don't think there's any other way that I could have met Todd Glass and Andrew WK if it wasn't for interviews.
So your editors do get tired of hearing about writers' formative moments--what do they really want to hear about?
They want the interview to answer the question, "Why should I read this interview?" Although I think that's the job of the intro.
Do you get sick of doing interviews?
I only get sick of transcribing interviews.
Andrew Nusca has been writing about media issues as The Editorialiste since 2006. Most recently, he has been associate editor of business and tech Web site ZDNet and science and tech Web site SmartPlanet.
"The most relevant commentary I've yet to see on journalism and those who will inhabit its future." -- Doug Mitchell, NPR
"A self-styled watchdog of both professional and amateur journalists" -- David Lazarus, San Francisco Chronicle
"Extreme interpretation of how to reform journalism" -- Jean Yves Chainon, The Editors Weblog
"Advice doesn't come any better than this" -- Adrian Monck, City University London Graduate School of Journalism