What are you doing, Google?

 



Google, what are you doing? My math teacher is Romanian, not Czech! It's OK google, easy mistake to make.

Suck it, novelists

Humor is not a strange medium of writing/art. Outside of the artist's circle (inside of the consumer's, receiver's, enjoyer's, layperson's circle) it is a very enjoyed medium. Everybody loves picking up a book and having a good laugh. But humor doesn't get very much respect. Possibly because browsing the 'humor' section of Barnes and Noble is filled with titles such as The Ultimate Toilet Reader of Stupid Facts books - some books even shaped like toilets. How is a genre of writing that published their works as toilet-worthy ever going to get respect. "Stand up comedians can't write! Put that Steve Martin book down" is an actual (I swear to god, it's why I am writing this post) quote I heard at the bookstore. David Sedaris is stuck in the bottom, and usually only gets an appearance on 'the table', where, under a "New & Noteworthy" sign, high quality but unpurchased works are on display to attract more attention. Humor is not a respected medium, but it is an enjoyed one. Why don't people respect humor? Everybody who has ever flubbed a punchline knows it isn't easy being funny, and being funny in writing is even harder. It's so hard, i am resorting to writing about humor, than writing humor itself.

Consumers do not take humor seriously.

Inside of the artist circle, ask a poet is he could try to be funny for a piece. You will get scoffs. Shel Shilverstein, Odgen Nash - even Alexander Pope. These guys are good. Really good. Pope is considered one of the best poets of all time. But they get scoffed off for being funny. Pope's satirical piece on how to write poetry is considered one of his worst poems. Shel silverstein is for kids and kids only, and - lemme guess - you had to Google who Ogden Nash even is, right? Hell, if you are reading this blog you probably had to look up Alexander Pope too. (sorry). Poets do not think humor poetry is serious. It never has those obtuse and convoluted layers and extended metaphors that poets call 'meaning' and 'emotion'. 1) that is a generalization and a wrong one. 2) Humor writers use a lot of poetic techniques to write. If something sounds funny, it is funny. I use Zeugma, Alliteration, Metaphors and Similies all the time. One of the greatest metaphors of all time, by Douglas Adams: "The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't". My point is that to say that humor writing is shallow or inartistic is a hasty generalization.

Novelists poop on Humor writing too. Often humorists are forced to write pre-teen fiction, or (god forbid) children's books. As a kid, I wanted to pick up a book and laugh. I remember Captain Underpants fondly. But how about for adults, David Sedaris, Steve Martin, and Tucker Max are the only adult-oriented humorists I can think of. (Tucker Max is very adult oriented).  Adults arn't going to go pick up 'Emails from an Asshole' or 'Ant Farm'. (By the way, I highly recommend reading Simon Rich's Ant Farm and Free Range Chickens. OK, I can think of a few more adult-themed humorists (Are You There, Vodka? It's Me, Chelsea, The Bedwetter: Stories of Courage, Redemption, and Pee, The New, New Rules). I am missing a lot, arn't I. I am, but that's not the point, the point is that humor is not respected by creators, consumers, or publishers. My point is that this is bad, and this conception needs to change. Harry Potter has moments of humor in it! Shakespeare? That man liked a good pun. (According to John Cleese the lowest form of comedy) Do not tell me humor cannot be art. I will hit you into the Thames with a large fish, then ride away on chariots made out of bacon and driven by strippers. Because fuck you, is why.

Vegetarian

I started a personal challenge to go one month without meat. Today is day 5.

A friend of mine is going to give me $20 if I succeed. Challenge accepted!