Trouble buying book

WOMAN (AND SHE IS OLD OKAY) IS SITTING IN A LARGE COMFY ROOM ON A BIG CHAIR, WITH A ROARING FIRE ABLAZE IN FRONT OF HER. SHE PICKS UP THE TELEPHONE ON A SMALL DESK BESIDE HER AND DIALS. A PIANO PLAYS QUIETLY A SOOTHING TUNE IN THE BACKGROUND.

WOMAN: (INTO PHONE)
Hello I wonder if you can help me, I'm looking for a book. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (pause) No. It is rather old.

CUT TO IMAGE OF WOMAN HOLDING IN A BOOKSHOP SHAKING HEAD

WOMAN:
Harry Potter and the Goblet of fire.

CUT TO VARIOUS INTERCUT IMAGES OF BOOKSALES PEOPLE SHAKING THEIR HEADS, AND WOMAN ON THE PHONE. A MAN ENTERS THE ROOM TO FIND THE WOMAN SLOUCHING

MAN:
No luck dear?

WOMAN SHAKES HER HEAD DEJECTEDLY

CUT TO LATER ON. WOMAN IS ON THE PHONE AGAIN

WOMAN:
You do! Could you keep a copy for me? (Pause) Oh my name. Yes of course, my name is J. K. Rowling!

COUPLES PHONE AND LOOKS LONGINGLY INTO THE DISTANCE

END

Obviously a take-off of the non-book Fly Fishing by the fictional JR Hartley... but why? Is this book difficult to find or something at the moment? That must have passed me by. And if it's not attached to shortages of The Goblet of Fire or some similar news story, I don't really see the point...?

Could see that coming from a mile away! Not sure of it's releavance either. Thou if it makes you happy.

Yeah top sketch Rob. I reckon I've been round the comedy block and can hear the old telegraph clackin a mile off and it was certainly quiet as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not entirely sure how relevant a sketch has to be. Relevant to what? I don't think that Python's Dead Parrott had any relevance to anything except humour. Similarly Ted and Ralph in the fast show was in no way relevant to anything either.

I was unaware that a sketch had to exist for any specific reason other than to amuse and entertain. It doesn't matter that the book is common or indeed still in print. It's a funny tag-line.

Some comments on this critique forum leave me baffled. But perhaps for verisimilitude then the simple device of setting it in 2039 may give it an acceptable context.

If sketches exist purely to make a profound point then I fear that about 99% of contributors to this forum are, by these terms of reference, redundant and miles off the track in their efforts.

rob, that was pretty good dude

Quote: Blenkinsop @ February 8, 2008, 7:13 PM

Yeah top sketch Rob. I reckon I've been round the comedy block and can hear the old telegraph clackin a mile off and it was certainly quiet as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not entirely sure how relevant a sketch has to be. Relevant to what? I don't think that Python's Dead Parrott had any relevance to anything except humour. Similarly Ted and Ralph in the fast show was in no way relevant to anything either.

I was unaware that a sketch had to exist for any specific reason other than to amuse and entertain. It doesn't matter that the book is common or indeed still in print. It's a funny tag-line.

Some comments on this critique forum leave me baffled. But perhaps for verisimilitude then the simple device of setting it in 2039 may give it an acceptable context.

If sketches exist purely to make a profound point then I fear that about 99% of contributors to this forum are, by these terms of reference, redundant and miles off the track in their efforts.

View original

Rubbish.
"Profound point" - no. Any point or relevance at all - yes.
It doesn't make any sense at all if there's no "hook" (NPI). The fact is that Rowling is at the moment probably the world's most popular author, and to set her in the context of someone whose book is obscure and not readily available of course has comic value... but not set out in the context of this sketch.

If it was Geoffrey Archer, for instance, the sketch would work.

It's not even as if a JR Hartley "Fly Fishing" sketch hasn't been done before, numerous times.

As it is it makes no sense!!

Because of this it is at best mildly amusing.

bull f**king shit williams

it was ok

Quote: Nigel Kelly @ February 8, 2008, 7:31 PM

bull f**king shit williams

View original

I'll take you on, Magoo

Magoo, my arse

love ur stuff by the way

As we say in Ireland. Ah sure!

I think that if there is a fault in this then it's the fact that it wasn't obviously set in the future. It's relevance then may be a comment on the somewhat ephemeral nature of fame and celebrity and may well have been the writer's intention.

Ok probably JK will still be une grande fromage and all that but come on James, maybe a bit of slack with the suspension of diebelief.

You see I didn't make it clear that Ms Rowling was pleasuring herself with a Voodoo dildo all though the sketch, which obviously makes it the best gag ever. It was just so obvious I assumed everybody knew that!

Let's calm it down on this one, peeps.

Calm it down, calm it down you say!

I'm a force 12 hurricane... actually i cant be bothered

nice fri nite moderation Slag, and its early ffs!

Quote: Rob B @ February 8, 2008, 8:09 PM

You see I didn't make it clear that Ms Rowling was pleasuring herself with a Voodoo dildo all though the sketch, which obviously makes it the best gag ever. It was just so obvious I assumed everybody knew that!

View original

Aahhh! I see. Of course now you've told us Rob - and as Lloyd Grossman might say, the clues were there all along.

PS Voodoo dildo eh? *Whistles nonchalantly* Are they available in Anne Summers or off the net? I have a friend who has a birthday coming up and it's that old problem of what do you buy the friend who has everything?

I can't believe this isn't considered a work of sheer top notch brilliance by all. In fact nobody has used the word genius, and to be honest I'm shocked. Shocked to my very core