I recently wrote a short story for a writer’s workshop I’m in that was meant to be funny, and that I’m told was, in fact, funny. The thing is, it didn’t make me laugh. I don’t think I smiled while writing it. What was in my head while writing it was a series of calculations along the lines of “HUMANS WILL LAUGH AT THIS WITH PROBABILITY 0.57.”
Partly I felt the story didn’t have enough funny lines–look at a page from Pratchett or Douglas Adams, and you’ll see nearly every paragraph is funny. Partly I didn’t like the flow / pacing / transitions between topics / lack of story structure.
There are some lines I think I would have laughed at if someone else had written them, but plenty that I don’t know if I would have ever found funny. I was definitely not consciously writing for myself.
It was a rushed job. I still find myself not knowing whether it’s not funny, funny but not my thing, funny and my thing but I can’t laugh at it because I wrote it, or funny and my thing but I’m suppressing that knowledge.
But that’s usually how I feel when writing comedy. Even if something is funny at first, it stops being funny after I’ve read it 10 times. A stand-up comedian isn’t laughing at his own material; he’s laughing at the game he’s playing with the audience. Writing comedy is like taping a stand-up comedy routine with no audience.
I felt a little better about this when one of the speakers at the 3 Rivers Screenwriting Conference said that writing comedy was so hard because, unlike all other kinds of writing, you can’t tell from your feelings whether your comedy is any good. Comedy shows are written in a “writer’s room,” a big room with a round table and several comedy writers throwing lines and ideas at each other. This speaker said he had never been in a writer’s room for a comedy show where the writers were laughing.
If you write something sad, you know it’s sad if it makes you cry . If you write something uplifting, it makes you feel good. But comedy relies on surprise, and you’re not surprised after the first moment a joke occurs to you, and the joke isn’t quite right the first moment it occurs to you. The wording is wrong, the context is wrong, and you have to fiddle with it until it can sound funny, and by then it doesn’t surprise you anymore.
Maybe dividing our feelings into neat categories–comedy, tragedy, romance–is a modern thing. The separation of reason into the rational and the emotional is a thing that happened at least twice in history, first in Plato, then again in the 18th century. The Elizabethans, like Shakespeare and the “metaphysical poets” like John Donne, united rationality and feeling in their writing. The phrase “metaphysical poet” almost means “a poet who uses a precise, scientific metaphor to convey passionate feelings”, as in Donne’s Valediction.
This includes comedy. Shakespeare wrote a bunch of “problem plays” which people don’t know how to deal with now, because they aren’t strictly comedy or drama. A few years ago I wrote on this blog that Shakespeare used cheap alternations between the comic and tragic, but that’s not always right. The gravedigger/Yorick scene in Hamlet, or maybe some scenes with Shylock in Merchant of Venice, are funny, but in an almost cruel or ironic way that we don’t write humor anymore, a way that you might need to be less “Enlightened” to appreciate.
 Not me, of course. Super villains never cry. That’s just eye-venom leaking out.