From the Blog

I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but:

When idiots like Adam Carolla or Christopher Hitchens say “women aren’t funny,” they say it as if they’re ending an argument. They’re speaking from the mountaintop. In reality, they’re starting an argument, not ending one, because nobody thought women weren’t funny until idiots started saying it. People laughed at women for thousands of years – probably the entirety of human history – and thought nothing of it.

And the problem with the argument that these idiots are trying to start is that it fails to meet the basic criteria for an argument. It avoids, with the blithe ignorance of Wile E. Coyote running off a cliff, the glaring empirical evidence against it. If women aren’t funny, then why is it I find female stand-ups hilarious? What, am I laughing at their tits?

Unspoken in the assertion of these idiots is the idea that Kristen Wiig and Roseanne Barr and the like owe their jobs not to their merits but to, y’know, feminism. That some exec gave them a job, and some writer invited them to a brainstorming session, and tens of thousands of people watch them every week, because of a quota. And that argument has just enough merit to be engaged in any other venue. People assert, for instance, that liberal males are only into feminism because it helps them score with women. If you live in Brooklyn, San Francisco or Boston, that certainly seems plausible.

But nobody laughs as a posture. Not a gut-busting, eye-watering, copy it, paste it, put it in a GIF, repeat it to your friends at work the next day, helpless laugh. Nobody fakes that. I’m sure that, if you’re an embittered male who feels threatened by women, you believe that there’s a conspiracy working to promote women beyond what they deserve (as opposed to the meritocracy that held true for the last ten thousand years). But to believe that this conspiracy filters down to the biological level – that fellow-traveler males are not just saying women are funny, but actually laughing at their jokes, as a front – is deranged.

If it were so obvious that women weren’t funny, no one would have to assert it. It’s never a mystery whether someone is funny or not. But there’s a breed of idiot who thinks asserting ideas that fifteen minutes in a comedy club could contradict is bold. Or edgy. They stand athwart history, yelling “Tits.” We can comfort ourselves that, if the decline from Vanity Fair to the New York Post is any indication, they’re getting crappier platforms.

(P.S. Sorry this post isn’t very funny; I’m leaving that for the ladies)

Apr
19

Sometimes I have to remind myself how awesome Meghan O’Keefe is. If you haven’t met her, Meghan is breaking into the comedy scene in NYC, the modern equivalent to a fourth tour of ‘Nam. She did this by moving to New York, getting a day job, and then doing something like five open mics a week forever (I don’t have exact figures handy). Now she’s got gigs at Peoples’ Improv Theater and UCB, as well as regular columns for The Huffington Post, Hello Giggles, The Hairpin, etc. She is Living The Dream.

I was reminded of the awesomeness of Meghan’s path when rereading Jon Acuff’s Quitter (which deserves its own post). Acuff talks about Jerry Seinfeld’s famous hour-long interview on comedy, in which he talks about his own apprenticeship in the NYC comedy scene. His method: to do two shows a night, every night, without a single night off, for eighteen months. That’s over a thousand stand-up sets.

I thought of these inspiring people because I’ve been struggling with the balance between a dream job and a day job. All of us have creative passions that inspire us. All of us also recognize the need to earn a wage and pay for health insurance. How do you balance those? When do you take the leap to pursue your dream? And is the dream that you’re about to pursue worth that leap?

I don’t have the experience to answer the first question or the financial sense to answer the second. But based on my experience, and based on what my friends (and Jerry Seinfeld) have gone through, I think I can field the third.

If you’re wondering whether or not a particular dream of yours is your true calling in life, ask yourself: how long would I be willing to labor in fruitless obscurity just for the joy of pursuing this dream?

If the answer is “weeks” or “months,” forget it. If the answer is “years,” you’re on the right track. If it’s “decades,” you have a winner.

That’s not to say that you couldn’t find overnight success. And I don’t want to perpetuate the myth of the starving artist shivering in a garret apartment. A person’s got to eat! You don’t have to suffer. You just have to be willing to suffer.

(Or, more importantly, you don’t count obscurity as “suffering”)

It’s process, not feedback, that will make your dream succeed. You have to pursue your dream with the discipline of a 40hr/week day job, only with fewer than 40 hours a week to do it in. If you’re chasing after an immediate fix, you’ll get discouraged early on. Even worse, if you find early success and don’t immediately start work on your next project, you can get distracted from your dream before it fully takes off.

Too Close to Miss has succeeded to the point that it’s paid for itself (editing, cover design, Createspace account costs). It continues to sell at a slow clip. I’m incredibly lucky in that regard. But getting to this point took a decade of experimenting with fiction, and five years of writing novels. I tell people Too Close to Miss is my first novel, meaning the first one I’ve published. In terms of manuscripts I’ve completed, it’s probably my sixth or seventh. But none of those others will ever see the light of day. They’re not marketable. I needed to write them in order to learn the novel.

Ask yourself how long you’d be willing to pursue your dream without getting paid. Not for fame, not for money, just for the joy and curiosity of practicing the craft. If the answer isn’t “a sizable portion of your life,” then it’s not your true calling. Don’t worry: you do have one. Just keep searching.

If you want to see whether my years of toiling in obscurity paid off, check out Too Close to Miss, the crime thriller that readers “stayed up way too late finishing,” available on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and iTunes.

If you read it and liked it, please let your friends know via Facebook, Twitter, Goodreads, or old-fashioned word of mouth.

In The Loop: when talking about dark comedy in the past, my benchmark has always been Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove.

On the spectrum of absurdity, there’s a line somewhere. For each of us this line is personal. Before that line, our reaction to the absurd is a laugh. Past that line, our reaction is a gasp.

Dark comedy works because it pushes that line, inch by inch.

In The Loop not only matches Dr. Strangelove for both the shade of its darkness and the hilarity of its comedy. It may rival Kubrick as well.

In The Loop begins with the Prime Minister’s Director of Communications, the savage Malcolm Tucker, overhearing a radio interview in which Minister for International Development Simon Foster states that war in the Middle East is “unforeseeable.” No, no, no, says Tucker – in unprintable language – this simply will not do. However, Foster’s comment is seized on by the visiting U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Karen Clarke, who wants to keep the U.S. (and the U.K.) out of a Middle Eastern war. She tries to prod Foster into taking a stronger stand. Waffling, he mumbles something to reporters about how sometimes, on the road to peace, one has to “climb the mountain of conflict.”

And we’re off and running.

Add to this mix Liza Weld, a young assistant to Secretary Clarke, whose paper laying out the pros and cons of an invasion (abbreviated to “PWIP-PIP”) becomes a smoking gun on the coffee table. Add to this Toby Wright, Simon Foster’s adviser, whose craven ambition and crush on Liza lead him to several boorish choices. Add to this the Assistant Secretary of State Linton Barwick, whose bland confidence steamrolls over Clarke’s objections. Add to this James Gandolfini and Steve Coogan in hilarious cameos. Add to this a live hand grenade, a douchebag staffer with a squash racket, a Scottish press officer with a penchant for Trainspotting-level brutality, and the world’s most awkward UN conference. And a teetering stone wall.

In The Loop blends half a dozen plotlines, over a dozen major speaking roles and several key MacGuffins into a 110-minute runtime. It bounces between London, Northampshire, Washington and New York City. Characters are openly savage to each other, whether in the bland sarcasm of the States or the frothing profanity of the Kingdom, despite being nominal coworkers. And yet you never lose track of what’s at stake. You never get confused as to who means what to whom. And you never stop laughing.

Dr. Strangelove is the perfect dark comedy because it suggests that the world could be brought to an end because of two poor decisions – Attack Plan R and the Doomsday Device – and the institutional miscues that protect them. And because it was hilarious. Where In The Loop matches it, and just maybe exceeds it, is in suggesting that the world can be brought to war because of a series of poor decisions. With In The Loop, there is no inept Captain Mandrake, nor any stern President Muffley, trying to save the world from chaos. Everyone is equally mercenary. There is no President Bartlett waiting to save us.

In The Loop is not a story of heroes defeated by their own flaws. There are no heroes. In the grim darkness of our not-too-distant past, there is only war.

Bob Adriano: In the meeting with the Foreign Office, the committee was accidentally and briefly alluded to.
Linton Barwick: Which committee?
Bob Adriano: The … the war committee, sir.
Linton Barwick: All right, Karen is not to know about this, huh? She is an excitable, yapping she-dog. Get a hold of those minutes. I have to correct the record.
Bob Adriano: We can do that?
Linton Barwick: Yes, we can. Those minutes are an aide-memoire for us. They should not be a reductive record of what happened to have been said, but they should be more a full record of what was intended to have been said. I think that’s the more accurate version, don’t you?

Dec
16
Posted by Professor Coldheart at 9:56 am

On Monday night, I stayed out way too late at the ImprovBoston Fun(d)raiser at the Estate in downtown Boston. Rather than narrate a party you didn’t attend in droning detail, I’ll call out some of the local and rising comics who performed. Keep an eye out for these names.

MC Mr Napkins, a/k/a Zach Sherwin: hilarious, Jew-froed indie-rap backpacker / comedian / anagrammatist from the Boston area. I’ve heard that he’s moving to the West Coast soon to try and Break In, which would be awesome.

“Street Cred” was one of the two songs he performed last night.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js1QS-MmEZo]

Tony V: legendary local on the Boston scene. A foul-mouthed but friendly old man.

The following video’s old material, but it’s indicative.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH1R04dhtEU]

Myq Kaplan: really clever local comedian with a quick delivery. He’s going to be on the Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien tonight (Wednesday the 16th). But I already saw his material. Except for the swearing.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gPOhnYI1YY]

Shane Mauss: if memory serves, he did a bit for The Waste Land Comedy Hour Starring T.S. Elliot that went over like a Stratus off a cliff. But the material in this show was all fresh and he delivered it pretty well. Shane has already been on Conan; he is supposedly coming out with a comedy album soon.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFkV__01ijw]