a comedy thesis drop me some feedback

[Purple Tentacle]

I learned at the weekend that the plural of penis is penes.

That's not me calling you a penis by the way!

[sick as a pike]

Does satire necessarily have to have an ideological motive behind it? Or do you mean that that ideology is, "a lot of public figures are silly and wrong and hypocritical, not just the ones we hate the most"?
I'm thinking of The Simpsons as a current example; it's hard to see any consitent ideological stance there, and that's (partially) satire, isn't it?
And it's theses by the way.

I think generally it does need an ideological motive behind it, even if as you say it's "people in public life are stupid."  Of course that's where the line between humour and stance blurs though.  You could argue that Milligan was a satirist, because his humour often held up normal, mundane behaviour as ridiculous, and maybe helped people change the way they thought and behaved.  But I don't think that's what drove him (I may be wrong- I should re-read the biographies), I think his intention most of the time was 'simply' to be funny.  Satire, as I've understood it needs a purpose 'beyond' humour.  As for the Simpsons I wouldn't have called it a satire, even though sometimes it does have satirical moments.  Maybe I'm just taking too narrow a view, but when I hear 'satire' I still think of The Estabishment Club and Private Eye.

[steevbishop]

I learned at the weekend that the plural of penis is penes.

That's not me calling you a penis by the way!

How do we say that?
Peenies? Penness? Peens? Pennis?

[Bogey]

peenees.
Try it out on your friends!

[steevbishop]

peenees.
Try it out on your friends!

I've only got one, and I don't think they'd all appreciate me trying it out on them...

[Partridge's Love Child]

I'd prefer my friends to remain as such.

Is it terribly mean of me to suggest that maybe this chap/lass should do their thesis on something they actually have a certain level of knowledge on, rather than asking us for it all.  The end result will probably involve less busking as well.

[neveragain]

What a coincidence! I'm currently writing an AS Level essay on ahem 'Will There Be A Future To The Traditional British Sitcom?' - taking account of the fact that are most recent sitcoms we've had have been 'Green Wing' and 'The Smoking Room' which aren't that traditional.. or that good. And doesn't the word 'future' look grand when you put a capital letter at the beginning?

I'm taking in what an 'old-fashioned' sitcom stereotypically was and how even those played with the form, early innovations in the genre, this supposed 'Death of Sitcom' that there's always a lot of press hype about, how these new styles of comedy ('dark', naturalistic, weird and mockumentary - although that one isn't really new I know, and weird just means Spaced... perhaps I should just say 'homage-enous') were formed, what recent sitcoms have done with themselves, American influences to British sitcoms (FRV, stings, phrases, ep length and number in a series), what audiences think, what programme-makers have to say, how developments in comedy production possibly reflect the social situation of today, mention how traditional sitcoms are still being made so they must still be popular, analyse and then will come to some sort of conclusion. Yes... well... I'd say to you... erm...

[Bogey]

May I suggest a change of wording for the title?
"Is There A Future For The Traditional British Sitcom?"
"Does The Traditional British Sitcom Have A Future?"
or,
"Where Now For Trad. Brit. Sit.?11"

You don't really say that there's a future to something, I don't think. Do you?

Ahem, anyway, that sounds like a very good idea indeed. Sounds to me like you've almost formulated a conclusion, ie. that any supposed "golden age" was probably mostly a mythical amalgam of the very best of things from a reasonable distance into the past, which may themselves have been highly innovative at the time, and were probably seperated from each other by a good few years too.

[neveragain]

Oh, right, yes, actually, those are better titles. Cheers. My grammar's all over the bloody place of, late and. Also. I couldn't really say with any authority that whether there would be a future to it or not, without that time machine that I must get round to inventing one day. And, yes, that is close to what I was thinking to have as a conclusion. But anyway, this isn't my thread...

...do you think there's a future to the 'Tradbritsit!!', incidentally?

[Dark Sky]

I learned at the weekend that the plural of penis is penes.

Really?

I always assumed that it was "penii"...  I'll have to go back and change half my novel, now.

They rubbed their penii together, but like fencer's foils they rebounded on each parry; two one eyed-snakes fighting amid a tangled jungle of dark, matted, forbidden despair...

...do you think there's a future to the 'Tradbritsit!!', incidentally?

Urm...well...I suppose it depends what you class as "traditional"...  "My Family" was the BBC's result of trying to create a new traditional British family sitcom, wasn't it?  I like it, but I know many people here despise it with a passion heated directly from Ricky Gervais' buttocks.  I

I dunno, how are you defining "traditional"?  Open stage set, studio audience, multi-camera laugh tracked thingy?  Does "Two Pints" count?  Urgh.

What about "Black Books"?  I think of Black Books as being quite "traditional"?

What about comparing something like "People Like Us" and "Kiss Me Kate"?  Both written by John Morton and have extremely similar styles of humour, though one is a modern style mockumentary minus laughter track (or indeed, any indication that it is a comedy programme at all, even down to the BBC 2 announcements), and one is a "traditional" comedy with laugh track and everything.  And as I said, the humour is the same.  But they still emit slightly different styles.

That's quite interesting, actually.

[neveragain]

I dunno, how are you defining "traditional"?  Open stage set, studio audience, multi-camera laugh tracked thingy?  Does "Two Pints" count?  Urgh.

I'm afraid it would have to count, that's the way I'm defining it. Something like 'People Like Us' I wouldn't call traditional, though, and would offer it as an example of going against the grain.

[Dark Sky]

Something like 'People Like Us' I wouldn't call traditional, though, and would offer it as an example of going against the grain.

Well, my point was that you could compare People Like Us with Kiss Me Kate...  Same writer and actor, same humour, different formats.

I wish they released more than the first series of Kiss Me Kate on video or DVD.  Wish the same for People Like Us, too, actually.

[Ciarán2]

If you do get around to writing on satire, you should - no, MUST read Jonathan Swift's satirical works. They are extraordinary.

[rjd2]

I am going to start with what  a history of satire

e.g. john swift

im going to focus on a satirist a decade

from the 60s to a decade any suggestions?

[butnut]

My instinct says that's a still a huge area to really cover. I think it's best with this type of thing to concentrate on a smaller area and to go into detail. My brother wrote 20,000 words about 400 words that Kant wrote, for example. If it was me doing it, I'd pick one satarist and stick with him/(her???).

[Jemble Fred]

Honestly without wishing to sound horrid, I do suggest that you start to write so people can understand you. What does the above mean? 'I am going to start with what a history of satire e.g. john swift' Who's 'John Swift'? If you mean Jonathan Swift, why start with the 60s? And why end without bringing it up to date? It makes no sense.

[rjd2]

sorry obviously I would bring it up to date. The reason why I would pick the 60s-now is due to the fact that I am interested in the 60s and yes I am typing in a hurry thus the mistakes

[stevedr]

Concentrating on modern satirists is no bad thing since most academic work has concerned itself only with literature, ignoring the (manifold) examples of satire to be found in mass media; however, as has been suggested above, you've got to contextualize the satirist(s) you look at otherwise your thesis probably won't say anything new. 10K words is too short for a decent 'history of satire' but you should at least acknowledge that, traditionally, satiric works are designated either Juvenalian or Horatian, the former indignantly attacking wickedness, the second suavely attacking folly; Juvenalian satire uses rougher, more improvisational techniques (e.g. invective, diatribe) while Horatian satire is more considered and 'intellectual' (e.g. using formal verse, irony).

George A. Test conceived of a framework to define the nature of satire: basically, he said that if a work is to be considered satire it must consist of four elements (not necessarily in equal measure): aggression, play, laughter and judgement. (Think about Orwell: Animal Farm is a comic satire; 1984 is a horrific one.)

You might want to look at how different elements dominate different satirists' work; or whether the medium affects which element dominates the work, e.g. does TV satire have to temper its aggression and judgement (more than, say, newspaper columns, or cartoon strips) by promoting the laughter element (because it has to be popular - ratings are all-important) and/or the play element (to fend off censors and watchdogs)? Or you may want to investigate Chris Morris the Accidental Satirist: I seem to remember reading that he doesn't think of himself as a satirist, or his work as satire - his foremost concern is to be funny - and that he feels that consciously endeavouring to write satire results in shite; yet, to my mind, Brass Eye represents the ultimate satire by conforming precisely to Test's framework.

Blimey, that's got a bit long. Anyway, hope it's been of some use.

[rjd2]

cheers man thanks for the feedback.