Society for the Rare Named

PRESENTER: I'm here at the S-O-S...D-W-H-I-T-R-A-T-A-O-P-W-R-O-N , or Society of Specialised Doctors Who Help In The Rehabilitation And The Advancement Of People With Rarity Of Name, or (phonetically) Sossed whit rat aop ron.

VOICE OFF CAMERA: We've only 5 minutes left now get on with it!

PRE: Ok! Doctor Patrick Swift tells..am exp..says am...it.

DOC: Well here at 'sossed whit rat aop ron' the rare-named are given a chance to shine. Names of people who have never made a difference, who are obscure.

We take people with both 1st name or last name rarity such as Birry Wilson, Kevin Underson and sometimes both, Jannifure O' Sallivan. These people are on the lower echilon of society. We find that they are given less of a chance than their more popular named counterparts. Here at 'sossed....' we give them the opportunity to progress and attempt to build their confidence before releasing them back into society, hoping that they can live much more fulfilling lives and not feel hindered by their debilitating names.

We have several wings here, such as the animal wing with patients such as Alan Dolphin, Harold Sheepdog and Bat Nelligan or Flipper, Lassie and Vampire as we affectionately call them (laughs).

PRE: Do you think its fair to make fun of their disability like that?

DOC: Here at 'sossed..' we dont see their names as a disability. We see them more as something that impedes them from being able to do things that people without the problem can do easily.

PRE: But isnt that what a disability is?

DOC: Yes... Moving along. Here we are now on the celebrity wing. Don't get excited we dont actually have any celebrities of any sort here but we do have names pretty damn close. Heres our political area.. Bordon Grown there, Distillary Clinton, Benjamin Netanyahoo. Very close there for Benjamin only for the emphasis on the 'ooo' at the end he had it nailed.

They often live in the shadow of their more famous name-alikes. We hope that our rehabilitating will improve their outlook.

Ah we're coming into the entertainment area now. We've got an Amy Beershed, Jools Netherlands and someone I've been working closely with, Binglebert Dumperdink. They're all making good progress here.

One of our techniques is that we use the real name as an anchor and by latching onto that we try to bring them on a par with their name-alike. If its a celebrity name-alike, the celebrity is a very strong anchor so we nearly have a 100% success rate with those.

We once actually used a celebrity horse as a successful anchor. Yes we had a man come in here with the unfortunate name of 'Redbum'. Now he should have been a hopeless case but thanks to that legendary horse Redrum we were able to rehabilitate him.

It was a joy to watch him over the weeks making steady progress. Oh I'll never forget the day he was released. He cantered out onto the green, ate some grass and jumped out over the railing with Frinkie Thetory falling off his back in the process.

You see strictly speaking 'Redbum' should have been a hopeless case like these poor souls here. With no anchor comes no hope of rehabilitation. Here we are in the hopeless wing. Theres a Forsip Bangpappapquepetal, Nananana Morpeepgum, Harmagan Pabick Milupa, Duplicate Mossooop, Undernaught Haaa and we're admitting more and more celebrity children each year. Only for sharing their parents last name there would be little hope which actually sounds a bit like 1 of their names.

DRIFTS OFF THINKING.

DOC: Mmm...... And thats about it. Any Questions?

PRE: Yes. You know the way you said you didnt have an end to this sketch and you didnt feel the last end was good enough. Why did you ask me to ask this question and the cut?

CUT.

END.

I was thinking if it was part of a half hour sketch show at the very end you could have:

...(LAST PART OF HALF HOUR SHOW CUT TO DOCTOR SITTING AT HIS DESK. DOC: 'Because I couldnt think of anything else'.)

This is way to long, and the names aren't very funny. Also it doesn't really end, and you are at pains to over explain yourself.

So all in all didn't work for me. If you made it sharper, and snappier it could work. Also funny names is a very old joke.

Hmmm. I think I can see how you intend using it as part of a sketch show. It's almost an anti-sketch in that it's a stream of conciousness and so, with the ending makes it look like it's an idea that they might have just let run to fill out the show. So it could get awkward laughter which then transforms into a giggling fit.

But, as a stand alone, I'm with sooty. It does seem too long, especially as a lot of it is roughly the same joke just tweaked.

The best bit, IMO, is:

DOC: Here at 'sossed..' we dont see their names as a disability. We see them more as something that impedes them from being able to do things that people without the problem can do easily.

PRE: But isnt that what a disability is?

DOC: Yes... Moving along.

... I'd maybe look to take that idea and use it elsewhere if I was you. If I was me, I might look to pinch it in the dim and distant future.

Ronnie Barker turns in his grave.

Thanks for the feedback Sooty and Barbs. I said I'd lay it out there and see what people thought. I feel it does need to be tweaked a bit but I feel there is a good idea in there somewhere.

A thing I find with jokes, the point where you don't explain yourself, and leave the listener to make the leap of understanding. Taht's where the joke is.

e.g. In Parrot skit, they assume the viewer understnads, about pet shops, returning goods etc.

for example with the redbum gag.
"We thought he was a hopeless case. But when he one me 250 wuid at the Cheltenham festival, proudest day of my life,"

it's not about length it's about pace.

Sorry, but I found this dense and mirthless. And the ending was a real cop out.

Quote: sootyj @ April 1 2008, 8:22 AM BST

A thing I find with jokes, the point where you don't explain yourself, and leave the listener to make the leap of understanding. Taht's where the joke is.

e.g. In Parrot skit, they assume the viewer understnads, about pet shops, returning goods etc.

for example with the redbum gag.
"We thought he was a hopeless case. But when he one me 250 wuid at the Cheltenham festival, proudest day of my life,"

it's not about length it's about pace.

View original

I see your point. I think I may have over elaborated with certain parts of it. I might have another crack at it.

Good stuff, it's certainly got potential.

You asked me, nay TOLD me, to stay away from your sketches.

Perhaps you should accept that I only offer a genuine critique just like anyone else: Perhaps I'm more direct but in this case you really must be kidding mate.

It's HACK !

That doesn't mean that I don't think you genuinely thought it up yourself - ideas are in the public domain.

The issue I have is that the sketch and several variations of it were performed on TV by a comedy MASTER many, many years before you were born. For me, it's almost an insult to his memory because his versions were actually funny and well written. Have the decency to accept that you need to research things better even if you genuinely thought this up yourself.

Just a thought and, honestly some friendly advice, if you sent that to a production Company, etc. they would be falling about with laughter - but not at the sketch. I imagine you would get yourself labelled as a plagiarist and they'd never read another of your submissions.

You haven't been helped by others here failing to tell you the same.

Just an opinion.

I'm off before I get in trouble with the 'Society for pispronunciation'.

Hey thing. From your 1st message I assume you are suggesting that I plagerised Ronnie Barker. I have seen some of his stuff and I think he was a very talented and funny person but I'm afraid I dont know what sketch you are talking about and I can assure you if I was copying other peoples ideas I wouldnt see the point in sending out a rehashed and as you so clearly identified, a much worse version of something that had already been done.

I do apologise if I caused you offence by submitting here. It was my intention to submit a sketch and receive constructive feedback on it which in general is what I have received. You just replied with a snide comment which is a lot different to negative feedback.

I don't think u copied anything and I did make that clear: i accept that good comedy ideas and subjects are in the public domain and could, feasibly, be thought of by anyone. Neither do i think my comments were ''snide'' - you just take them as so because you don't listen or accept what I'm saying.

It isn't relevant that u don't know of any similar sketch or sketches by that master: Your problem. I put it more politely earlier but now more direct > you will just make a tit of yourself if you try to market that!

You weren't even born so I wasn't blaming you and accepted that u thought of it yourself: Take that as the complimennt that it is because you clearly think along the same lines as a master - but improve the writing/length/ delivery of punchline, etc. ( as other, less ''snide'' contributors said )

regards