Stewart Lee on Gervais

[Satchmo Distel]

New piece:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/03/we-must-honour-those-brave-souls-working-with-ricky-gervais

[jsgibble]

The first two paragraphs in particular are spot on

[scarecrow]

I just saw Richard Herring on Twitter, taking Lee to task for not choosing his targets with greater care (until now) and comparing him to Clarkson - which is strange as I thought Andrew Collins stopped working with RH due to his relentless on air bullying.

[Thomas]

Herring tweet thread:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Herring1967/status/1257186420978061312

Yes, it is a refreshing change after punching down at all those small-time open-mic acts like James Corden, Jimmy Carr, Russell Brand, and Michael McIntyre, poor bebbies.

And - somehow still sticking in craws to this day - the Russell Howard bit was a brilliant, absurd routine, far more about the idea of Stew's own obsessive jealousy than criticism of Howard (same with the recent Graham Norton bit). As far as I recall, the crux of it is that Russell Howard ought to cycle for charity twenty-four hours a day. Did the comedian Stewart Lee seriously mean it? Apparently it's still up for debate.

[chveik]

Herring is a moron and it's time he stops being obsessed with Stew

[hummingofevil]

That Herring tweet is the funniest thing he has written in years.

[Noodle Lizard]

Eh. Of course I broadly agree with the sentiments, but there is something off-putting about someone in Stewart Lee's position writing an actual opinion piece about another comedian's work (After Life, for all its shiteness, is hardly a threat to anything). I don't know exactly why it rubs me the wrong way, since I like Stewart Lee and agree that After Life and Gervais entire is shite. It does, though.

The rest of the article wasn't very good.

[jsgibble]

Herring being bitter again is it

[phantom_power]

I don't know how he can claim having a go at Howard and McIntyre is punching down. Both are far more successful than Lee. He has to go for the "among comedians" thing just to backtrack on that one

[alan nagsworth]

I thought this piece was pointless, poorly written shite. And I say that as someone who loves SL and thinks Gervais' work is deserving of endless dismantling.

[Urinal Cake]

I don't know how he can claim having a go at Howard and McIntyre is punching down. Both are far more successful than Lee. He has to go for the "among comedians" thing just to backtrack on that one

Financially but not critically.

[Thursday]

It's a bit weird if Herring actually is sincerely angry at Lee for his mostly ridiculous attacks on Russell Howard or Mcintyre that he did as part of his stage persona.

They're not going to shag you, Richard.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

I thought this piece was pointless, poorly written shite. And I say that as someone who loves SL and thinks Gervais' work is deserving of endless dismantling.

Totally agree. I love Stew, but his newspaper articles are always poorly written, unreadable garbage. That one in particular was such a wasted opportunity.

[Wet Blanket]

Although I'm fully on board with the sentiment, I found that pretty much unreadable. For someone who speaks so well his articles are dogshit. I got March of the Lemmings, the latest collection of his Guardian columns, for Christmas, and while the actual columns are rubbish, the extensive footnotes are smart, scathing, funny and insightful. So he does know how to write well, he just chooses not to.

[mr. logic]

Yeah, I have no idea why Lee's articles are as bad as they are. Is it artistic choice, or does he not read them over?

You know those 'event' posters on forums and Reddit and the like? When they start on their whimsical shit, and you sigh and move straight to the next post, right over their ten verbose paragraphs of lolz? That's his articles. I haven't finished one yet.

[ajsmith2]

I had no idea RH harboured any genuine serious resentment towards SL and his work. Has this been going on long? Always thought their relationship would be anchored from wandering into such prescriptive hoity toity straits by the pull of the pomposity -diffusing mutual comedic disrespect and absurdism they practised during their partnership.

It seems all wrong and off to see RH genuinely taking SL to task on (what he views as ) an 'actual important thing the gloves are off yes I'm being serious now.' Esp when it's definitely not that important an issue at all.

[thr0b]

Didn't they initially fall out to some extent when Someone blocked the TMWRNJ DVD release?

And then Stewart insulted Herring on RHLSTP for having an agent or something.

[dissolute ocelot]

It's bizarre. Does Herring want Lee to criticise people who're good, not people who are bad? Lee's thing has been for years to moan about being unsuccessful and attack more successful acts. If he went on stage and did 30 minutes about Daniel Kitson almost nobody would know who the fuck he was talking about, and he'd be attacked for bullying a less (commercially) successful act. Doing a show aimed entirely at comedy dweebs should not be encouraged, he needs to at least pretend to do some popular targets.

Anyway Lee already does a big bit about Dave Chappelle, who seems to ideally fit the category of critically acclaimed comic.

[Cuellar]

I mean the article is barely even 'having a go' at Gervais. It's not even really the main point of the article.

[Captain Z]

Is RH really being that serious or is he, you know, joking?

Quite happy for SL to continue punching in all directions as he always has. There was a good 10 minutes of material targeting Ricky Gervais in his latest show, and a couple of swipes at him in Content Provider that didn't make it to the TV version. Keep up the good work.

One of my favourite jokes from Content Provider:

I don't even know why people think I've got something against Russell Howard, I only made one joke about him.

Admittedly it was 58 minutes long.

Had to split it up over two episodes of my show.

[dissolute ocelot]

Although I'm fully on board with the sentiment, I found that pretty much unreadable. For someone who speaks so well his articles are dogshit. I got March of the Lemmings, the latest collection of his Guardian columns, for Christmas, and while the actual columns are rubbish, the extensive footnotes are smart, scathing, funny and insightful. So he does know how to write well, he just chooses not to.

He originally claimed his newspaper columns were parodic and intentionally bad, but I get the feeling that he may not be sticking to that intention 100%.

[alan nagsworth]

I mean the article is barely even 'having a go' at Gervais. It's not even really the main point of the article.

Yeah I get that but it's still crap. The way it's written makes it difficult to even care about what the actual point is, it's a mess.

[Noodle Lizard]

I mean the article is barely even 'having a go' at Gervais. It's not even really the main point of the article.

The main point of the article seems to be meaninglessly regurgitating some vaguely topical talking points and hoping people will infer a more clever through-line than he was able to come up with.

Again, not that it needs to be restated, I like Stewart Lee. This isn't very good, though.

[olliebean]

Is RH really being that serious or is he, you know, joking?

I don't think even he knows any more.

[Mister Six]

Ah the outrageous opinions Stewart Lee has. Every week, to a deadline, in The Guardian.

I had no idea RH harboured any genuine serious resentment towards SL and his work. Has this been going on long? Always thought their relationship would be anchored from wandering into such prescriptive hoity toity straits by the pull of the pomposity -diffusing mutual comedic disrespect and absurdism they practised during their partnership.

Herring has admitted on his Leicester Square Theatre podcast, and on the Adam Buxton podcast, that he was initially quite jealous of Lee's critical success. But he says that he feels more secure now, as he's accepted that they both have successful careers, just in different spheres. So yeah, this seems a bit odd.

Is RH really being that serious or is he, you know, joking?

I wondered that, but it doesn't read like a joke, and Herring isn't usually one for wry understatement.

[up_the_hampipe]

Herring has always seemed to disagree with Stew's attacks on other comics. He views it as punching down from a status position, as he's the most critically respected comedian in Britain taking potshots at mainstream comics to an audience that worship him. I don't entirely agree, but Stew's shit-flinging sometimes seems misguided. He uses the 'persona' argument a lot as well, which is a little disingenuous.

Also, it's not just the popular mainstream comics who are totally asking for it, he will pick on anyone when it comes to his pointlessly antagonistic 'Plagiarists' Corner' https://twitter.com/jordbrookes/status/1257624446266998785?s=20

[lankyguy95]

It is funny how close "It's just a joke" and "It's just the character of Stewart Lee" often seem.

[Cuellar]

I've always thought Plagiarist's Corner was never 100% serious. He includes himself on there, doesn't he? When there are bits in his shows that you could argue he 'nicked' off someone doing it years earlier.

I know that's a bit of a cop out when it seems to have genuinely upset that guy who clearly isn't in the same league and doesn't need it.

[Blinder Data]

Couldn't even finish that article.

It is funny how close "It's just a joke" and "It's just the character of Stewart Lee" often seem.

Yep. I still believe Lee is one of the best stand-ups I've seen but over time his bitterness has put me right off. He's now Clarskonned himself by making jokes about being a supremely tight and resentful susperstar comedian, and also acting like one at the same time. Calling out Jordan Brookes on his website is just weird.

[Barry Admin]

That Gervais article was a little slight, but generally I adore Stewart Lee's articles, and am always amazed at the kicking they get on here. I regularly have to read them two or three times just to wring out all the gags and references.

Don't understand the fuss over Herring's comments to be honest; a very mild criticism which doesn't necessarily indicate any kind of interpersonal problems between them at all. Why shouldn't be criticise a comedian who does many, many bits about other comedians?