Is writing comedy for a living a bad thing?

It seems to me that when people try to force something out (which is what we've been getting in recent times) the comedy isn't very good. But when someone comes along out of nowhere with a strong idea because they've worked on it for a while or worked with similar people (The Office, OFAH) the results are excellent.

Paying somebody to continually churn out ideas year after year seems the wrong way to go about getting quality comedy. A lot of these writers struggle for inspiration and we just tend to get the best of what they came up with that year.

I think if you get two quality comedies from the same writer in ten years you've done well.

Very good point David, which is why production companies and such like should put more effort into giving new writers a chance. Ok, some may be not stay the course. But at least give us a bloody go!!!

The problem is that TV is about money not art.

Occasionally you'll get someone who creates great art AND is seen as commercially viable too... but not often...

If you just want to make money then maybe you should just look at what they put on and copy it...

Anybody got that as a game plan???

The converse of the argument is that writing is a craft that you learn, in the same way a master carpenter gets better by continually working with wood (now I've typed that it sounds more like a pornstar we're talking about in retrospect).

People do seem to think that the 'arts' are incomparable to other vocations or acquired skills but this imo is false logic. Great producers of art are generally prodigous in quality and quantity. They don't seem to be sitting around, twiddling thumbs waiting for the muses to drop ideas into the head, because they've trained themselves to know what funny is and how to put it down. But I think the discussion is clouded by the fact that there are some not-very-good pros who have risen up through luck / contacts / and being able to produce the 'flavour' of in-comedy, rather than being great writers.

For example, the best way to learn standup is by doing more standup, not doing less of it ... shock. Because the immediate and constant feedback tells you what works and what doesn't. This continual honing will start to tell you the best way to present an idea to get the best laugh.

The argument that high output = formulaic and boring? Humans laugh at the same things time and again. A bucket of water on a door has made (and will continue to make) every generation of human laugh. So to with setup - punchline. They are formulae that exist BECAUSE they WORK in getting a laugh, they weren't invented simply to conceal paucity of ideas. The way to elicit a laugh relies on formula, it always has done, but disguising the mechanics is also an art in itself. Some writers are better at disguising the 'tricks' than others.

Is writing comedy professionally a bad thing? I don't think a single pro would say 'Yes'. And I'd rather find the answer to that question out by personal experience rather than second-hand.

I would definitely agree that writing is a craft (can be an art too..) and I think there is nothing inherently wrong with a game plan of following the trend, if being a professional comedy writer is your primary goal.

If Catherine Tate is indeed the Nations favourite, then maybe that kind of heavily crafted (and acted..) character/catch phrase comedy is what the majority of the TV audience like best?

TV is a business before all else and my reading of TV in 2007 is that it is driven by the Marketing Department rather than the Production Department and whilst marketing folk will always look at new ideas, they generally prefer something tried and trusted when they have to sign a cheque.

Most businesses are lean and and mean now, budgets are smaller not bigger, businesses are riding the 'one trick pony' (cost cutting) most of the time. Ideas that don't have a high production cost and appear to be 'new' whilst relying on a tried and trusted writer/formula/star clearly are going to be very attractive right now.

Occasionally of course it's going to be hard work forcing something out - creative constipation.

But if it's like that all the time then you're probably not suited for it.

Obviously you can always tweak and improve.

Thats one reason I'm doing this Nanowrimo thing to try and discipline myself. Churning it out incessantly you'll hopefully find some good stuff amongst it all. It's really a question of realising what's good and what's bad.

Who makes a living writing comedy? I imagine there are more lotto jackpot winners across the world than writers who actually sustain their selves and their families by writing comedy.

Many may write comedy but few are making enough bread each year to sustain a mortgage and a family.

I see two types of comedy writer:

The guy whose comedy voice is always ON inside his head. You can tell him anytime day or night to write a joke and he will do it. He makes an excellent staff writer. Some would call him a 'hack'.

Then there's the guy who writes only when he feels like it. He is at the ready for inspiration and when it arrives he seizes it enthusiastically and produces something unique & polished. It is a work of art.

The hack can stay employed; the artist can create a winner.

Would you rather write for the Seinfeld Show, or create it?

I think the best writers, and actually the best comedians, just do comedy because they love it, and they're bloody good. Writers such as Ben Elton and Richard Curtis only go on their best ideas and it's just a happy coincidence that they happened to get paid. Think of Graham Linehan for instance. Did Father Ted, buggered off. Buggered back for Black Books, then went off. Then he came back for The IT Crowd. Three massive hits. What did he do in the intervining time? Wrote a few things for other series but, on the whole, nothing incredibly flopped or hit. That's the example of what a perfect writer should do. Do the work, then get drunk, and come back when they're out of beer money.

This is what I mean. I know he co-wrote them but Richard Curtis wrote Blackadder then later comes back and writes Vicar Of Dibley. Of course he wrote films but he didn't keep coming back and do naff comedies in the meantime.

There are numerous writers I see writing an episode of a bad comedy, then another episode of another bad comedy, then another one of another bad un. Then they create a bad radio show. And I just think it'd be better if they got a different job and then come up with something great.