What Makes Comedy Work?
Posted by annastan on April 26th, 2010. Filed under: A Closer Look, Craft.I’ve been thinking a lot about comedy recently and what makes it work. There are so many different kinds of comedy it’s difficult to point to one technique and say: “Aha! Here is the secret to making people laugh!” But I came across something in James Scott Bell’s The Art of War for Writers I thought got at the heart of a lot of comedy:
A good comedy works when the characters in the comedy think they’re in a tragedy, but the audience knows they are not.
It’s really only trivial tragedy because the characters have blown something so out of proportion it becomes a matter of “life and death” for them.
The best examples of this are sitcoms; characters will do the most ridiculous things to keep from having to admit the truth or give up control. It’s funny to us because they take it so seriously. If the actors in sitcoms acted as though they were trying to be ridiculous and funny, the humor would quickly evaporate.
This is a good rule of thumb in any kind of comedy writing. If you’re writing a funny scene and it’s obvious you’re trying to make people laugh, chances are it won’t work very well. The trick is to bring together characters whose goals are so at odds with each other and whose reactions are so unexpected that we can’t help but laugh.
Something else I’ve been thinking about is the use of animal characters in comedy. Often it seems people think putting animals in people’s clothing and having them act like us is funny. This might work in certain instances (Babar is a good example), but there’s a lot more potential for humor when the animals retain their “animalness.” Think of Brian on on “The Family Guy” – the funniest moments for me are when he wags his tail or chases a ball; it’s a hilarious contrast to his usual human-like activities.
There are a million more things I could say about comedy writing, but I think that’s it for now. What techniques have you found work for you in comedy? What have you found doesn’t work?
April 26th, 2010 at 5:43 am
That’s a tough questions with way too many answers. I love hyperbole. And often, dialogue or something in the scene that surprises me I consider humor, even if it’s not laugh out loud humor. There are so many different kinds of humor. I’m still learning for sure.
April 26th, 2010 at 7:10 am
Larua’s right, there are so many different kinds of humor. And people’s idea of what’s funny is so varied as well that I’m not sure how you would write something to make people laugh. Person A might be rolling on the floor and person B may put the book down.
April 26th, 2010 at 7:25 am
I don’t write comedy, but I’m fascinated by reading good humor. I’m looking forward to what other people post!
April 26th, 2010 at 8:03 am
Laura, I guess I did open up a HUGE topic here. I’m also a huge fan of hyperbole. And you’re right that there are different levels of humor – some might make you guffaw while others might make you think.
Andrea, you’re absolutely right that personal taste also plays into it. I know I’ve opened up a vast topic here – I’ll have to do more posts on comedy in the future to try to sort it out a bit more.
Lydia, humor writing can be so difficult, but I think a lot of the principles of it apply to non-comedy writing too. Hm, I may have to do a post on that at some point!
April 26th, 2010 at 9:31 am
I can’t remember which comedy writer said which, but I think one of these comes from Woody Allen “Comedy is tragedy speeded up” and/or “Comedy is tragedy plus time.” Both say the same thing–it’s all about perspective. To be funny, you need to detach. Often a punch line comes from the moment of detachment (when we’re reminded this is a dog, not a person, which detaches us from the story.)
But if you’re in the moment and feeling everything with your characters, it’s hard to be funny. American writers tend to prefer the emotional immediacy of realism rather than the detachment required for comedy (which is why the Brits are better at being funny, I think.)
April 26th, 2010 at 10:33 am
I admire authors who can write funny, and agree it mostly comes out of character.
One thing I think that often gets overlooked in writing comedy–especially comedy for kids–are the different developmental stages kids are in and how each of those stages “gets” or relates to different types of humor.
Slapstick is a great example–many adults do not find it humorous at all, but many kids of a certain age do. They are just beginning to understand WHY it’s funny, so to them it’s hilarious.
It’s really easy to underestimate kid’s developmental stages and how they relate to humor, so it’s something I try to keep in mind…
April 26th, 2010 at 11:34 am
Oo. I also adore Stephen King’s take on comedy” Comedy is anger with its makeup on.
April 26th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Anne, that’s a fascinating point. There is something about detaching, that moment of realization, that makes comedy work. And you might be right about the American preference for full-immersion realism, though I tend to enjoy comedy or fantasy myself (maybe this is why when I lived in England for a year, I didn’t want to leave!)
Robin, excellent point. When it comes to comedy for children, there’s a huge spectrum depending on the age group. It’s also common to mix different types of comedy so that there’s something for a range of ages (and sensibilities). I LOVE that Stephen King quote – I think there might be some truth to his theory.
April 26th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
I think it’s the surprise that does it. It’s the double entendre. So you expect something to work one way and it goes in a completely different direction. Don’t know if I explained that right. Ha, good thing I’m not a writer. Oops. Wait. Uh-oh.
April 26th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
I think writing comedy is easier for me when I write middle-grade. I use physical comedy and that seems to works best for me. And yes, the “oh, it’s the end of the world!” can be funny too in middle grade.
In YA, I find it slightly harder. One way that works for me is more like a delicate balance between self-depreciating humor and when a character observes other characters. Snarky funny is harder to do because when done too much, the character starts to sound bitter.
But I still think it’s easier to do in middle-grade.
I love writers who can pull it off. There’s nothing more fun than laughing out loud when reading.
April 26th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
This is a beautiful post, Anna. I am a funny person. I am told this all the time. My writing, on the other hand, is not so haha. It falls flat and seems disingenuous. Thanks for these tips!
April 26th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Lisa, I think you’re right that surprise has a lot to do with it. When characters do/say things we don’t expect, it can be hilarious. (And your comment made me laugh, btw.)
Karen, you might be right about the MG vs. YA kind of humor. YA does tend to be more self-deprecating and snarkier, but it has to be the right balance in order to keep the characters likable. I definitely have a harder time writing YA comedy than MG.
Jon, considering that I only know you through your blog and your comments, I can safely tell you that you ARE funny in writing. I’m sure there’s a way to translate that into fiction as well.
April 26th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Distance seems to be an important aspect of comedy. Another classic observation on the subject: comedy is when you have a heart attack; tragedy is when I have a hangnail. (I often tell my friends: “If you saw this on television, you would be laughing your ass off.” Oddly enough, they rarely see things that way…)
I had a high school teacher who said that the basis of most comedy is “juxtaposition of the absurd,” that is, putting two things together that we don’t usually see together. A pie in the face is funnier if it happens to somebody who is clearly wealthy. Extreme behaviour is funnier when it occurs in an otherwise unremarkable setting (consider Moliere’s extreme characters, who play off all of the normal characters around them). And, so on.
Having both studied and written humour since then, I think we can generalize even further and, as a previous poster put it, say that to most comedy there is an element of surprise. The appreciation of humour is, I think, a more complex two-step process that involves shock and recognition. In the first stage, we are shocked by something that doesn’t seem right. In the second stage, we recognize the logic behind what we were shocked by. (Obviously, these stages happen very quickly – within a fraction of a second.) Without both of these steps, things that are surprising, that we wouldn’t expect to go together, wouldn’t be recognizable as comedy (although they may be appreciated as surrealism or some other form of expression).
April 27th, 2010 at 10:06 pm
comedy is such a tricky beast. Great post!
Christy (via Verla Kay)
April 28th, 2010 at 7:16 am
Surprise connections make me laugh. I think both good and bad puns are funny. This is a timely post, because my WIP is going to need some humor for levity, and not being a funny writer I’m sure I’ll have to build it in in later drafts.
April 28th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Ira, all fantastic points! The more I think about this topic, the more I realize that it would take me many, many blog posts to cover all the elements of comedy! Thanks for your insights.
Christy, it certainly is a tricky beast! I love reading and writing comedy, but I’d love to know more about its mechanics.
Marcia, I LOVE puns. In fact, when a friend of mine introduced me to my (now) husband, he said, “You two will get along. You both likes puns.” And my friend was right.
Good luck injecting humor into your WIP!
April 30th, 2010 at 5:46 am
I take an eclectic approach to producing comedy and humor. Sometimes one technique works and sometimes another. And sometimes you can combine a bunch of techniques in the same piece.
Generally though, I like to write a story first, and then develop the character(s) and find the humor along the way.