A Question of Taste

Im currently writing my first sitcom and halfway through it ive had the idea that i should change it to make it more appealing to the masses.Should i do this?will this help it sell? or Will it just water down my work?

I know what i like,but i dont know if i know what other people like.
Do people agree with my likes and dislikes list? or am i fishing up the wrong tree?

Likes: The Office,Worst week of my life,Extras,Phoenix nights,Black books.

Dislikes: Last of summer wine,Oh Dr Beeching,Green Wing,My family,Most ITV sitcoms.

cheers,Webbo

Funny is funny is funny, if you try and imitate populist stuff with out understanding it, it will always come over as derivative.

The only real issues are is your writing put you in a niche, e.g. watershed rude, or obscure reference.

A good rule of thumb, is every one's been in love, embarassed had an arse of a boss, the more universal the theme the wider the appeal.

Father Ted, and Red dwarf for all their outlandishness are quite striaght at heart.

For me wild expressive flights of fancy, are amplified by taking them from the conventional setings of humor.

Write what *you* like. Chances are, if you write it well other people will like it too. If you write for some imaginary other person, not only do you not know them but they might not even exist.

Bottom line, if it makes you laugh at least you are enjoying it!

Alright Badge, Sooty.

I think the advice you've been given is pretty good. I would add that anyone who uses terms like 'the masses', shouldn't and probably won't be able to write anything suitable for any kind of audience.

Try to think of your audience as been mostly like you, but just with less interest in the fine detail of your script and wanting to relax and laugh.

It's better to write naturally than trying to please others.

How can you not like Green Wing though?

Thanks for the comments they've been taken on board.
I dont see how by saying "should i write stuff for the masses" or more mainstream would indicate that I probably wont be able to write anything suitable for any audience though!
I think the best advice is to do something that makes me laugh.
cheers

Remember what's true for you is true for most other people. Rimmer, Brent, are all the same monstrous person in authority just different settings.

With in you lies the universal truth that makes us all part of the human family.

Unless your Jeffrey Dahmer in which case I'd keep shtum

Quote: Matt Webb @ February 21, 2008, 11:06 PM

Do people agree with my likes and dislikes list? or am i fishing up the wrong tree?

Likes: The Office,Worst week of my life,Extras,Phoenix nights,Black books.

Dislikes: Last of summer wine,Oh Dr Beeching,Green Wing,My family,Most ITV sitcoms.

View original

I agree with your likes and dislikes - apart from Green Wing, which you are just wrong about.

There are two types of creative artistes - those who create their own art regardless of what anyone else thinks about it and those who create art with a view to selling it.

If you're in both groups and you're making money, you're very lucky indeed.

Most writers are in the second group and they have to write what the buyers want. You don't need to write 'for the masses' but you do have to write for the person holding the cheque book.

It's a bit like being a prostitute and, believe me, as a pro writer you're going to get f**ked. Over and over and over again.

There are very few writers who say 'Jump!' and the BBC asks 'How high?'

I've only ever known one.

Quote: FoxyBox @ February 22, 2008, 11:39 AM

There are very few writers who say 'Jump!' and the BBC asks 'How high?'

I've only ever known one.

View original

Osama Bin Laden? Oh wait, he's a presenter.

They say that what makes you laugh (not you personally) will make 10% of an audience laugh. That may not sound very much but it's enough.
I had two comedy plays on, on London fringe and where I had written a comedy line, which had me doubled up as I wrote it, it had the same effect on the audience, the whole audience. But as a bonus, the lines that I thought would just raise a chuckle, got a tremendous laugh too

Write what makes you laugh. Do not concern yourself with who the audience will be. You are the audience in the here & now.

The masses are composed of reflections of you.

Write a novel. It is more fun than writing a sitcom by yourself. You stand in control and do not have to compromise. What's more, you can actually finish it in this lifetime.

Quote: Griff @ February 22, 2008, 12:00 PM

You stand in control and do not have to compromise.

Publishers and editors may disagree with you on this.

View original

They can disagree until they are back in diapers. Did Bukowski compromise? Henry Miller? Robert Crumb? No they did not. The precedent has been set.

Quote: Griff @ February 22, 2008, 12:14 PM

Bukowski and Miller both famously worked alongside editors for their entire lives. (John Martin and Barney Rosset respectively).

View original

Further research conducted by your good self will reveal the fact that Bukowski never worked alongside John Martin. Martin was Bukowski's main publisher and was also the editor but only in the capacity of choosing which poems to publish. Martin was never given permission to change a single word and on the few occasions when he did remove or replace a word, Bukowski climbed all over him for it.

Name one book where Rosset changed a single word in a Miller manuscript. You won't find one. Henry Miller was adamant about having his work published exactly the way it was in manuscript form.

Hacks compromise; artists do not.

Hacks write to please editors; artist write to please themselves.

Hacks concern themselves with "making it" via their writing; artists already know they have "made it".

Quote: Griff @ February 22, 2008, 12:40 PM

I guess most of my favourite writers are hacks then. Sigh.

View original

Why sigh?
Hacks can't help it and neither can artists.
Both have their pluses and minuses.

Death knocks on all doors.