h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hey there

I do agree with what you're are saying, it suppose it just annoys me that people like yourself can't seem to get anywhere, without having to (cliche alert) sell your soul to 'The Man'.
Perhaps I'm reminiscent of a time that never happened, perhaps I'm a starry eyed idealist - but there must be other ways for people in the entertainment industry to promote themselves than through adverts and corporate-sponsored awards?

Btw, let me know if you're ever at the Stand up here

The competitions are a "fast track" for comedians who can put together a good 5-7 minute set. My stuff isn't really competition-friendly:- I spent a recent comp talking about the US/Afghan situation. Half the audience loved it, half hated it, and I didn't get through to the next round. I suppose I could do lots of knob gags, but I don't want to.

Some comps aren't corporate.... the BBC awards (although they insist a comedian uses broadcastable material ).Channel 4 have a comp, and they have few rules for content.

The most "honest" way to get ahead in comedy is apparently to do lots of gigs in lots of places (mostly unpaid), get a rep, get bookings, get PAID, get spotted, get a lucrative contract, ride into sunset.

Besides, I have a job that pays quite well. I gig for the fun of it. Maybe I'll get better and get paid.

So...where's the Stand?

Good on you for not doing the knob gags - there's nothing worse. The Stand is a comedy club here in Edinburgh, and it recently opened in Glasgow. I've never been, but I know people that have, and they've said it's good. There's apparently 'Red Raw' nights where they have new comedians.

I'd never make it as a comedian - I think I'm funny (btw, like the new title?)

BTW - Only my mother called me Geoffrey, and she's been dead for a couple of years. Geoff, Geoffers, Git :- any of these will do nicely. Geoffrey.... reserve that for rebukes.

Hey there

Just a quick note that may be of interest - Mark Thomas was at the Queen's Hall here in Edinburgh on Wednesday. I'm don't know if you're aware of his material at the moment, but it's mostly to do with the Ilisu dam (if you don't, there's a link on my page) and the plight of the Kurdish people. Anyway, the vast majority of his material was political, and it was both shocking and very funny. He was given a standing ovation at the end. I'd like to see the comic that gets that for knob gags.

I think Mark Thomas is brilliant.

I'm not aware of his current targets, and I don't always agree with him in any event. (eg I support the idea of the regulated free market, while he's never seemed to. Have you noticed how he tends to target big business more than corrupt politicians?). But he is honest, intelligent, principled and funny. Fabulous stuff, and mega-respect due.

Hello again

(btw, I'm a No Logo- and Captive State-reading cliche, so I'm all for going after big business. After all, that's where most of the power is, or at least, that's where most of the power is heading, so *someone* has got to keep an eye on them)

Anyway - I seem to remember that you changed your user name here because of Brass Eye, something to do with 'taking responsibility', maybe? I can't remember the reason you gave, and I'm not sure I know what you meant. Care to elaborate?

I felt that Brass Eye highlighted abuses in the right to Freedom of Speech. Celebrities spouted claptrap as if it were authoritative, newspapers distorted facts and MPs spoke from ignorance.

I suddenly felt as though I needed to take responsibility for my Free Speech. Part of that was to identify with my contributions. Dropping the pseudonym seemed a logical step.

However, it's more visceral than that; it's difficult to articulate, but it now seems WRONG for me to use an avatar in any meaningful discussion. Just...wrong. The whole Brass Eye thing really struck a chord deep in my psyche, and I don't really know why. (It's worth pointing out it was the media hysteria part that got to me so much, not the paedo part. Let's kill that dog before its starts to hunt )

Don't get me wrong, on fun places like a "Star Wars" site I'll be "Yoda's armpit" with the best of them, but for serious discussions, my name's Geoff.

Does that answer the question?

It does, yes - when i first saw that you had changed your name, and the reason you gave, I thought that you had been offended by Brass Eye. This confused me, as I knew which way your taste ran.

As soon as I heard what Brass Eye was going to be about, I *knew* what was going to happen. The funniest newspaper story I saw was The Sun, a couple of days after, reporting that there was a thriving 'black market' for copies of the tape in prisons that held paedophiles. But of course, what would you think if you hadn't seen the show?

Anyway, have a good Christmas Oh, and if you get in touch (email, IM - details on my user space) I'll send you a URL that may amuse. Chris Morris is 'suspected' to be behind it, and it's far too controversial to post here

Nice URL. It's very similar to "The Onion", but in fairness not as good.

I've put a link to the Onion on my home page. It's a wonderful satirical mag. You'd love it:- check out the article on the new Russian game show "Who wants to eat a meal?"

The Onion, eh? Been there, got the book. No T-shirt yet though

Right. I'll see your T-shirt, and raise to a URL for the

[URL removed by moderator]

She's nasty, so any kiddies reading should really go away at this point.

Geoff

(Mail me if that don't work)

The Chris Morris thing is like "The Onion light". I know someone who does a sort of UK version of "The Onion" called "The Woven Web", it's early days yet, though.

The weird thing with the CM thing is it's very *him* but it seems a lot less funny as text. It's still funny, just not side-splitting. But then CM understands TV and the Media, that's why his satire works so well.

Regarding the Brass Eye thing, I dissent a little. It was funny (although it did push past the taste barrier needlessly sometimes, I thought. We should try and remember that there's nothing big or clever about upsetting people) but I think, ultimately, quite pointless as satire. People who watched it and understood what it was satirising were already cynical and sceptical about "the media" and the so-called Tabloid culture. Anyone who it needed to get through to would just regard it as aloof-intellectuals thinking child-molesting was funny and just not watch it or watch it to be offended and then lap up the "sick tv show" stuff the next day. So, in the end, yes it was funny (especially the spoof-trailer for that american TV show), but it really achieved nothing except helping the thoroughly amoral tabloids claim the "moral high ground". Is that any sort of progress?

I think CM is a great comedian and certainly one of the few great satirists left, but that doesn't make him infallible.

"We should try and remember that there's nothing big or clever about upsetting people"

Well, that depends on who you are upsetting...

...and why.

Well I'm thinking of the part where Sidney Cooke was left in a space capsule with a boy. It was the fact they used the name of an actual child-murderer. I wouldn't have liked to have explained to the parents of one of his victims why it was necessary to do that sketch the way it was. It could have been done using "a paedophile" to the same effect without specifically upsetting anyone.

I don't fully recall the sketch you mentioned, so I'm reluctant to comment directly on that incident. However, I said in my article that Channel 4 were ordered to apologise for causing "gratuitous offence" during the Brass Eye special.

BTW, does the existence of gratuitous offence imply the existence of non-gratuitous offence, ie "good" offence? Surely it's big and clever sometimes?

Geoff

A bit like "that was a decent sandwich". Have you ever had an indecent sandwich? (or maybe we shouldn't go there).

The sketch in question was right at the start of the show. Like I said before, there's nothing good about satire that *deliberately* upsets ordinary people. It is possible to argue that parts of the Brass Eye Special had that intent. As far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out.

And before someone posts "ah, but sometimes it's necessary to upset people" ask yourself what the point of satire is. It's to show something up by making people laugh. If you just upset them, you have failed as a satirist.

All humour, including satire, has a victim. When someone gets a custard pie in the face, they're the victim. Sometimes victims get upset. That's why certain topics (crude racism & sexism) are frowned upon in modern comedy. But there will always be a victim, who has the potential to be offended.

What's worse are the people who get offended on the victim's behalf; I've had people coming up after my act saying how upset they were that someone else might get offended by my material (BTW I was taking the p*** out of anti-paedophile protesters on stage long before Brass Eye came out). However, I have not encountered anyone at a show who said "I was offended because I thought the protesters were right, and I support what they did."

Besides, satire doesn't show something up by making people laugh; it makes people laugh *AT* the subject. It holds the subject up to ridicule. It seems obvious that those with a vested interest in the subject could easily get upset, but that's the nature of satire.

Consider recent satirists (I'm UK based)...Rory Bremner, Mark Thomas, Spitting Image. All 3 have reputations for upsetting people. At the last election, the Labour party was said to be more scared of Bremner than of the Conservative party.

Satire upsets people by its very nature, especially satire which ridicules a good proportion of the population, which is what Brass Eye did. The Commissions' opinion was that the offence became gratuitous at times, not that the programme and subject matter were gratuitously offensive in themselves. In that respect, the Jury has returned its verdict.

And as for an indecent sandwich, when was the last time you bought a burger at a roadside cafe?

I'm amazed that the Labour party were scared by Rory Bremner. He's funny, no doubt, but his satire plays to a predictable liberal audience - you see him you know what your going to get. He's not particularly challenging.

Spitting Image is a great loss - in it's early days it was brilliantly vicious. Towards the end it went a bit "Rory Bremner" only not as funny.

Mark Thomas I like, although he's more political than funny these days. He's at his best when attacking powerful people. Sometimes he bases his show around minor government abuses of some little law and comes across more as a nit-picking bureaucrat than an anarchic truth-seeker.

Zagreb