Hi, my name is D and this is my writings on subjects. I'm no rapscallion or anything at all. If you want to you can read my writings on subjects if you have free time. If you want to argue with me or call me names then please comment. Negative feedback is very welcome...I love dat shit. Me? I'm not even a noun, I'm a fucking verb, dude.

Saturday, June 28, 2014

Over Descriptivism: Will it Lead to the Death of Fiction?

I read fiction rarely if ever. I mostly read words for the purpose of acquiring/disseminating datum, to learn about someone's life (auto-biographies) or comedic materials that are wicked funny. I can't wrap my head around fiction these days. Fiction, by the way, just means material that is make-believe for the intent purpose of entertaining readers (like adventure novels, mystery novels, romance novels, novels, les romans, etc.).

Is it just me? Am I weird? Probably, yeah.

Maybe I dislike fiction because I suck at it and can't write that way, it could be that. The only attempt I have ever made at fiction writing was an amateur computer game I made called "The Legend of Liberace 3," which even though I made it (with map editing help from my friend who edited my template maps into more better looking maps), I will admit it is possibly the shittiest thing ever. I dunno, me sucking at writing fiction can't be the reason I don't like readin' the stuff though. 

Maybe I gotta take a step back and figure out why I can't get down with fiction, I really should. I mean I used to read that shit back in the day. When I was a kid I used to read those Sesame Street books like where Grover is the monster at the end of the book, or where Ernie and Bert meet at the wrong lamp post at the park, and this and that. Those books used to rule but even they weren't really fiction, they were stories to teach kids lessons about life.

I used to read fiction books for school if they assigned us some or during "15 minute free readin' period" but that wasn't by choice. Like I read that Rebecca for school and wrote my mandatory 500 word essays on what a horrible woman Mrs. Danvers was but that wasn't by choice.

I've read really old fictional stories, like Gilgamesh or Outlaws of the Marsh,...but I'd classify that as historic research as much I'd classify it as fiction. It's so old that they really are a window into a past society's views and writing techniques.

I don't think I've really ever read pure fiction by choice, though I think I know what turns me off and it is the use of Over Descriptivism which is plaguing ALL writers in ALL languages on earth at this current moment.

Over Descriptivism

This is not in reference to "linguistic descriptivism" or "philosophic descriptivism" in any way, I'm really just talking about over description but am calling it by the term "Over Descriptivism" because it sounds chicer and cuter.

Describing things is the essence of writing...yet, at what frequency are writers (in this case ALL writers of fiction) over describing things? It seems like all the time and always.

Some writers take 2 pages just to introduce a character to you. How they look, how they look at a distance, how they smell, how they are currently feeling, how they know other characters in the book, how tall they are, how fat they are, how ugly/not-ugly they are, if they have tattoos...blah, blah, blah, blah, etc, etc,.

You build characters in fiction by making them do cool/respectful things (for good guys) and making them do horrible/bad/annoying things if they are villains. Let the imagination of the reader decide what they look like. If you leave your lead character ambiguous to the reader they can more easily give the characters the features (physical, etc.) they want him/her to have.

There's a very very fine line separating being descriptive of a scene or a character and just jotting down autistic nonsense. I almost couldn't read Jack Kerouac's "On The Road" (which is a highly acclaimed book) to the end because I didn't care what the fucking gas station you stopped at looked like, or what the truck you hitched a ride on looked like, or what Neil whats-his-name's hair smelled like, or how you felt when you walked into someone's house. blah blah blah, blah...

Sarcastically Emulating Standard Fiction Writing whilst Employing the Over-Use "Technique" of Describing Shit

In the following grouping of words and sentences, I will attempt to write a few paragraphs of standard fiction. Our lead character will walk into a room and scratch his head, then he will scratch his nutsack. Ahem...

Reggie was standing in the archway which led to the room he wished to walk into. He was a quaint man of regular to minute stature, many of his colleagues respected him yet he suspected they only respected him due to this modest stature he projected unto the world. He knew if he walked into this room he would have to do it in a manner which made the people already in that room feel that the man walking into the room was a man of average to great importance. He began to feel nervous, "what if they think I walk into rooms funny?" he thought to himself. The last thing Reggie wanted was to walk into the room in a manner which attracted ridicule. 

The archway over the doorway was quite beautiful, in more ways than one. The wooden curved facade was oaken yet had a golden plating which made the room he was standing before appear daunting to the person attempting to enter it. Doorways have a way of sneaking up on you both physically and mentally Reggie thought to himself. Life is full of so many archways leading to unknown rooms...will you enter a nice room full of nice experiences, or a horrible room full of horrid experiences? Reggie was making himself more nervous as each minute passed, he began to break out in a cold sweat, he grabbed his hair with his right hand and wiped up some of the sweat from his hair and his temple. In the process of wiping his sweat Reggie disheveled his hair which made him even more nervous. He wondered if the people in the room he was about to enter had seen him wipe his sweat and mess up his hair. 

"Oh no," thought Reggie, "did they see me? I better just walk in right now before they think I'm a big weirdo!"

Reggie, like ripping off a band-aid, walked briskly into the room before him. In the case that anyone saw him mess up his hair he pretended that his head was itchy and coolly and collectedly scratched the right side of his head. Reggie dislodged some white flakey dandruff from his scalp and it cascaded onto his shoulder and lapel. The feigned itchiness was now more real than ever and like a contagious disease his itchiness spread to his legs and crotch.

"My balls," Reggie pondered inwardly..."My balls are itchy now..."

Reggie had no choice now but to scratch his balls....


Okie dokie, a couple of paragraphs describing a man walking into a room and scratchin' his nuts. Wasn't that interesting? No it wasn't, it was boring, stupid and utterly pointless.

Over Descriptivism is Spreading like a Virus

Forget just in fiction novels, OD is spreading like a freakin' swine flu to every form of writing. I read an article today on the net which was at the point of being unbearably OD. It was an article about my boy Nathan Fielder (the dude behind funny jokes like "Dumb Starbucks" and other funny ass shit), and the author claims to have interviewed him but only has about eight or nine quotes of what Nathan says to him...the rest of the article is asinine autistic description of what was around him as he interviewed him.

"Article" in question: (http://grantland.com/features/nathan-fielder-nathan-for-you-comedy-central-season-2)

This is over description to the point of it being un-fucking-readable. I know the internet is full of hyperbole and calling shit the worst thing ever is overdone...but this is the WORST article I've ever read in my whole entire life. The "journalist" probably talked to his guest for 8 seconds but managed to produce a full length short story of asperger-infested fluff.

Another example of OD seeping its way into other media is from that dumb yet insanely popular podcast This American Life  by ass pie icon extraordinaire Ira Glass. This is the worst interviewer I've ever heard EVER. I listened to him interviewing people a long time ago and Glass in post tends to edit over the audio with his own opinions over-layered over the interview. So, in the final product that hits airwaves, the guest is talking about his/her experiences...and then the sound fades out and you can barely hear him/her talk...and Glass starts saying shit like "When he/she started talking about that...I felt like I was beginning to understand how he/she felt." Okay good for fucking you for thinking that, thanks for fading out the volume in post and inserting your BORING autistic opinions over your guest while they talk...you fantastic bozo.

Tools are better than Over Describing Fluff

I think it was Vladimir Nabakov or Alexander Pushkin (or one of the Russian guys) who said that you shouldn't introduce a piece of information to the reader if that piece of information is not pertinent to the story and/or is a writing tool to set-up some sort of event in the story. I tend to agree with this idea...if you're gonna take ten pages to describe what a wolf or a doorknob looks like...that fucking thing better have an important role to play in your god damn story. The interesting thing is that any item/person/thing at all can become an important story tool.

A Maltese MacGuffin
Alfred Hitchcock referred to these story tools as "MacGuffins," and they are just placemarker objects which drive the story. Anything can be a MacGuffin and they don't need endless lines of description AT ALL.

Examples of MacGuffins many are familiar with are The Maltese Falcon, which is just some silly object that many parties seem infatuated with and desperately want (including Peter "Ren Ho√ęk" Lorre). Another good one which worked well was Tarantino's "shiny briefcase" MacGuffin from Pulp Fiction. How much did Tarantino describe the briefcase? Not much, we never even knew what was in it. Why didn't he need to describe the briefcase (the major plot point of the story)? Because he's not a moron, that's why.

MacGuffins can be used for minor plot points too not just major ones. You can use a MacGuffin as a "leitmotif" too. Leitmotifs are more common in music but they are applicable to writing tools just as much. A good leitmotif in writing will sort of string-together your shit and make it look sharp, chic, and fucking organized.

A writer who employs leitmotifs very well is that Shigesato Itoi, the writer of literature pieces such as Mother 2 and Mother 3. His works are rife and abundant with leitmotif macguffins that really give the story a real nice flow to it. An example of one of his leitmotif macguffins is the doorknob from Mother 3.

Writing a musical symphony is more scientific than most people think, and writing a book is way more scientific than people think. There's tools you need to employ to do this successfully and the way you string your writing tool events together is kind of like laying foundations and bricks down to build a house or a shack or something.


Fiction is kind of dumb...and it's not because it's a bad art form but because the current popular styles of articulating this art form are annoying and dumb.

Bottom line is...if you take 400 words to describe something then that something and the features you give that something better be important and crucial to the final product.

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Fuck Star Wars, man.

I think something is seriously wrong with Star Wars, dude.

The original 1970s Star Wars were really cool. It had a very simple story of romantic good versus evil. The studio de-retarded a lot of Lucas's bullcrap ideas (for instance Han Solo was a FROG in Lucas's original version) and it was loved by millions.

Star Warz!!!!
The second generation trilogy was awful. From pointless political plots no one cared about to an overtly racistly depicted character that no one liked (jar-jar). The second trilogy was hated by millions and for good reasons...it really sucked and was terrible.

Now they are going back to the basic formula and trying to make Star Wars cool and not retarded again. Lucas is 100% out of the equation and they have a blank non-retarded sheet of paper to work with.

It looks like it's gonna suck though. Apparently Harrison Ford broke his legs and his screen time is being replaced by Tom Cruise. That is the worst entertainment news in decades, hands down. Tom Cruise? He's like the worst person ever.

I know it's rude to say, "I told you so" but awhile ago I warned Disney about making Harrison Ford do unnecessary stunts in the new Star Warses. 

-Me, April 15 of 2013

Man, it looks like the new ones might even be WORSE than the garbage Phantom Menaces sequels they made.

The plot is gonna be so convoluted and stupid, I bet. There's gonna be so many political factions to mix everyone up. The old actors are gonna be all old. Tom Cruise is gonna be eating bugs or scientologing around like an idiot, or shoving twigs n' needles in his winky-hole or whatever the fuck that retard does.

Fuck man, I wish I could write the new Star Warz movie. That would be coooool. I'd make it rule. I'd give the old actors dignified non-action roles that make them look respectable and cool. My version would work, man, it really would.

Hypothetical Version of the New Star Wars that WOULDN'T BE DUMB

Okay so, last time we left our heroes from the seventies Star Wars...they had killed James Earl Jones and the Emperor guy and were getting drunk, looking at ghosts, and being very happy. So for the reboot they have to de-happy the "happily ever after ending" to continue the adventure.

De-Happyfying Event: After overthrowing the evil Empire and attempting to govern a new era of prosperity....sadly, a type of "meet the new boss - same as the old boss" situation starts to form. The new government becomes as corrupt and power-hungry as the old government. Carrie Fischer and Mark Hamil have gotten so used to being regarded as heroes that they can't even see the corrupt ways of the new regime. They felt that once the Empire was defeated that all would be rosy and they mainly now just spend their days drinking tea and being proud of themselves.

Sitting on your laurels sucks and is vain.

Where's Harrison Ford during all this? After knocking up Leia with like 1 or 2 kids he gets bored of married life and says..."Okay fuck this shit...I'm going on some adventure...BYE" and he ditches his family and calls Chewbacca on the phone and is all like "Yo Chewie, let's dust off the Falcon and go smuggle some space drugs into the stripper planet of the Z-Sector-Star-Way-Galaxy and drink space-beer and get fucked up" and Chewey is all down for it and ditches his own wookie family to go back on more space adventures.

Great Schism 1: The first main conflict should involve Billy Dee Williams. He should be at his cloud planet chilling when someone tells him that a tax collector from the New Liberation Regime has increased his space-energy tax rate by 35% and he owes the new government like a shit ton of space-bucks.

Billy Dee Williams then gets all pissed and is like..."Oh ya? Haha. Meet the new boss!? Same as the old boss! Fuck the New Liberation Regime! I'm not giving them shit!"

The silver-tongued poisonous and slanderous tax collectin' official returns and informs Leia and all the other bigwigs in the new government that Billy Dee has turned traitor. They believe this horrible cretin's outright lies and Leia declares war on the Cloud Planet and Billy Dee.

Mark Hammill is now like a Yoda type and he dispatches his rookie Jedis to fuck with Billy Dee's planet but he is always shown to be wary of this and constantly wonders why Bill Dee Williams turned traitor (yet Hamill never comes to the realization that the new Regime they ushered in has turned evil and Billy Dee is actually the good guy in this movie at this juncture...Why can't he come to this obvious realization? Because Hamill has lived too many years resting on his laurels).

Great Schism 2: Harrison Ford and his fleet/armada of space smuggling crafts join the war...but on Billy Dee's side! Mark Hamill and Carrie Fischer are all like...."what the fuck? we're your wife and your friend, bro! Why are you fighting against us!? What's your problem? Are you some kind of an asshole or what?"

Friend Versus Friend breaks out all kinds...as Hamill and Ford duel. Hamill does a light saber dance which is exaggerated and silly and Indiana I mean Harrison Ford just shoots him with a lazor and Mark Hamill is all like "Whoa Bro! I was in the middle of doing my ritual jedi-warrior pre-friend-versus-friend light saber tribal war dance! It's indeed on now!!" and he takes a wild light saber slash at Harrison Ford but Billy Dee Williams jumps in front of Harrison and takes the death blow.


Yeah, Billy Dee Williams is DEAD...what the fuck!? At that moment both Hamill and Ford cry real manly tears and hug. Ford is like..."Bro, can't you see what the New Regime has become? It's so fucked up and evil....are you blind or what?" and Hamil is all like...."I have to see for myself..."

Act 3: Mark Hamill and Carrie Fischer disguise themselves in tattered robes and go to an impoverished planet and live first hand the conditions the common space dweller lives under. They realize that the world still sucks and that they have to Re-Revolt and Re-Re-Throw out the government who has now become as bad as the old Darth Vader one.

Hamill agrees to join Ford and lend the Jedi's army of hundreds of Jedis to Ford's gang of space smugglers to overthrow the government...but Carries Fischer won't work with Ford because she's so mad he ditched her and the kids to go on adventures.

Reconciliation in Act 4: Harrison Ford TOTALLY saves Carrie Fischer and his kids lifes in the ultimate display of self sacrifice that even makes Billy Dee's self sacrifice pale in comparison...like he takes a huge freeze ray or a big fire cannon or some space bullshit that was aimed at them. Carrie forgives Harrison and totally starts making out with him...but then he dies in her arms.

All the audience gets really sad now...in the theater women AND even men will be crying.

Conclusion: Hamill and Fischer make it to the planet where old cool Jedis live in exile and they get them on their side. This includes Yoda's daughter (A FEMALE MUPPET VERSION OF YODA! COOL!), Mace Window's long lost son (who is also played by Samuel L. Jackson), and a cool looking wookie with an eye-patch and a meanstreak. Oh and C3P0 and R2D2 are on this planet as well...just retired and chilling and doing a cameo, you know?

Hamill, Fischer, Mace's son, Yoda's Daughter (who fights with light saber sais), and the eye-patch wookie (who fights with light-saber nunchucks!) kill all the bad guys and then return home to celebrate and drink...

....and they look at ghosts...but this time, you know who's ghosts are there at the end celebration to nod approvingly at them? Harrison Ford's and Billy Dee Williams's ghosts.

Detente: To ensure the government is better this time....Yoda's daughter sets up a cosmic constitution which guarantees civil rights for all people, aliens, wookies, and jawas, and gay aliens, and religious aliens, and atheists aliens, and gay people, and jews, and handicapped aliens, and tranvestite wookies, robots, and gay robots, etc, etc, etc.



The new Star Wars seems pretty cool. I like the part where Billy Dee Williams takes a light saber for Han Solo and I like the part where the eye-patch mean-streak wookie nunhucks an entire battalion.

It needs some hot chicks too though because Carrie Fischer is old now. Maybe they can do a slave scene with like Nathalie Portman where like she plays the daughter of the lady she played in the crappy Star Wars movies and some big fat smelly alien has Nathalie Portman like in chains and a collar and is slobbering on her and her bikini. That'd work.

This movie is going to be good.

Friday, June 20, 2014

Rating the Pants(s)

I tell you, one thing we all have in common is pants. Pantses. Pantseses. Everybody wears pants (and if you don't you'll get arrested).


The term pants isn't an all encompassing globally ubiquitous term. What someone calls a "pants" isn't necessarily a "pants" to someone else.

For instance,

In North America, "Pants" refers to the visible article of clothing on your legs. This can come in the form of jeans, dress pants, shorts, khakis, and all sorts of other styles of leg-clothes.

Yet, In The United Kingdom..."Pants" refers to what North Americans would know as "underwear." They call "Pants" as we know them "Trousers" and the term "Pants" is used to refer to the non-visible under article of leg-clothes (i.e. boxers, thongs, granny-panties, briefs, tightie-fuckin'-whities, etc.).

In this assessment of pants we will be using the term which regards pants as being the VISIBLE leg-clothes article. Though for good measure a portion of the assessment will cover underwears just to be sure this assessment is as detailed as humanly possible.

Okay, On to the Pants

1. Shorts

Rockin' those bad boys (Shorts)
Shorts refers to a variety of leg-clothes which come to slightly over to slightly under the knees of your legs. The effectiveness  of shorts is wholly dependent on climate and seasonal variations.

If you live in a hot climate then you can blast shorts all year round and not even give a care about your legs getting cold. That's really good, but if you live in a cold climate then chances are you'll only be rocking your shorts from May to August (give or take depending on your region and what type of summer you are having).

Shorts give easy access for air currents (i.e. the coldest of summer breezes) to get to your crotch region. Your sweaty balls/wiener or your sweaty gina might really appreciate a cool summer breeze now and then...and let me tell you...your crotch will not get any cool summer or even spring breezes if you are not wearing a short style of pants. There's no way around it, you should try to wear shorts in summer time.

I never wear shorts to bars though, not even on the hottest night of the year, no way. You look stupid when you wear shorts into bars...unless it's at like a resort town or something of that nature where people are expected to be in shorts like in Mexico or somewhere like that.

Overall, I have a positive view of shorts, I really do. It's just that I live in a wintery climate and the window of opportunity to wear these bad-boys is limited at best.

Final Tally: B+

2. Underwears

I have a love-hate relationship with underwears. They really are a double-edged sword, I find. Normally underwears do the job of not being one-layer of clothing away from other people's dicks and pussy-ginas...but there are two polarized positive and negative scenarios associated with underwears that can make or break your opinion on them.

Fred, one of Underwears many happy users
Best Case Scenario) Say for example you're Fred The Elephant Boy and you're taking a bus down to make a paid appearance and you happen to accidentally shit yourself on the bus ride. A quick thinker might get to the nearest bathroom, undress, throw the shitty underwear into the trash receptacle, go commando the rest of the day...and no one would ever even be the wiser. No one would smell shit on you or anything. In this case underwears are your main and best friend...and I'm sure guys like Fred the Elephant Boy and other people who are prone to "accidents" must love underwears to the fullest.

Worst Case Scenario) The worstest case scenario regarding underwears is the "hot-day wedgie" case-scenario. Wedgies are fucking annoying to begin with but on a humid day...forget about it. The ride-up and entanglement of the underwears with your genitals and/or bum-crack will be a whole other ballgame on a hot-ass day. The humidity will cause excess sweat in the region and the ride-up entanglement of the wedgie will cause irritation in the form of chafing. People call this sweaty wedgie "butt-rot" or "crotch rot"...either way it's the fucking worst and I hate it. If you work labor intensive jobs or are an avid jogger or professional athlete and have experienced numerous cases of this...then your opinion of underwears may be biased to the max. You might be thinking to yourself at times things like, "underwears? Fuck underwears...I hate them" and no one would blame you for feeling that way about underwears.

Final Tally: C+ (not too shabby there underwears)

3. Dress Pants

This refers to business-suit pants and are often cited as "funeral pants." I'm not a fan, it's flimsy material and you can't run around in them. You know what shoes you have to wear with dress pants? Yes, you know it...dress shoes. The most uncomfortable shoes on earth.

I will admit some men can pull off a look using dress pants that does come off as being pretty fucking cool. Like for example, 4/6 of the James Bonds(s) looked pretty well in their tuxedo dress pants, 66.6% of Bonds is a pretty good stat...that's a straight-up pro for dress pants, no doubt. Another example is that kick-guy, that french savate fucker on One Piece...he always dresses in nice dress pants and he tends to look pretty cool when he kicks the shit out of bad guys on that show.

All in all, despite that 4/6 James Bonds and 1/1 Sanji look cool in dress pants...I still feel that dress pants can go fuck themselves. Not my kind of pants to be honest.

Final Tally: D+

4. Jeans

Jeans are sturdy old friends, that's a fact jack. You can have a pair a jeans for like 5 years and rough the hell out of them doing all kinds of rugged activities and those jeans will still be kicking.

I have a life cycle for jeans, it goes: 1. Dress Jeans, 2. Work Jeans, 3. Heavy/Dirty Work Jeans, 4. Garbage Rag n' Bone Jeans.

Basically, I use a new pair of jeans for going to bars then when they start ripping I demote that pair to being jeans I work in. Once they start ripping and tearing even further I further demote those jeans to being "Heavy/Dirty" work pants that I do like filthy ass shit in like painting and staining furniture with Danish Oils, Lemon Oils, and shit. The final stage (5) is the death stage where they are cut up into rags and used to wipe surfaces or other areas. You know?

If I buy a new pair once the dress jeans get demoted to level 2 "Work Jeans" then I always have a steady flow of jeans in the jeans-cycle and don't have to worry about not having jeans for any and all occasions.

That's how I go about wearing this version of pants, basically.

Final Tally: A- (that's what I'm talkin' 'bout)

5. Skirts

Since skirt-related leg-clothes lie in the domain of females and trannies...I have no experience pool to work with or judge from on the wearing of said leg-clothes. Yet, I still have an opinion on skirts though.

Why do men dig women who wear skirts? Because mentally they know they are at all times just one pull-up and one pull-aside from accessing the skirt-wearer's vaginer-hole. A simple two-step procedure will give a male or a lesbian access to a skirt-wearing female's genitals.

Other leg-clothes don't always operate like that, for instance jeans on a chick is still hot but they tend to wear jeans that are SO TIGHT that unzipping them and wiggling them off is a ten-step process which requires patience...and patience is something many boners don't have.

Skirts? They make women look way hot so they are A-O-Kay. I have a feeling that they are just for show though like dress pants and don't have any real practical value in say keeping your legs warm or protecting your legs from cuts and bruises.

Final Tally: B

6. Pajama Pants

There are two main areas of "Pajama" style pants which are "Kid's Pajamas" and "Big Boy/Big Girl Pajamas."

Now these be some PJs
Pajamas for adults are more for comfort and less gimmicky than children's Pee-Jays, this includes pants like joggin' pants, yoga pants, those checkered wool pants that seem popular these days, and other comfortable pants you sleep in.*

Kids Pee-Jays are more gimmicky and cutey-wutey than adult pajama pants. Like, when I was a kid I had these Major League Baseball licensed pjs which had all the logos of each team strewn about the garment mosaically which I found were really really cool.

You can make small humans (children though not midgets) look really really super cute n' adorable with the right PeeJay pants.

Also, adult comfort sleeping pants are pretty good too. Pajama pants are decent leg-clothes all around, if I do say so myself.

*Important Note: This DOES NOT include "Long Johns" which are an "underwear" variety of pants and by no means a pajama version of pants. Got it?  

Final Tally: B+


Seems like Shorts, Jeans, Skirts, and Pajama Pants got some decent to high ratings. Congratulations to these pants.

The double-edged sword known as underwear gets the job done too.

As for dress pants? Unless you can look like Bond or Sanji by using them then good for you dude... but otherwise? No way, Jose.

Thank you.

Monday, June 9, 2014

One Less Comedian's Comedian on Earth....

Everyone has interests and passions in this life we are all simultaneously living over here. My interests pretty much go in this order, I'd say:

1. Eating Food / Drinking Liquids
2. Comedy
3. Hot Womens
4. Baseball
5. Design Science Optimal Global Revolution Matters

I take laughing (i.e. the function of being made to myself and also the making of other people to execute this function) pretty seriously. I do tend to believe that Comedy is an Art and a Science. It's not just fun n' games...it's a craft, it's a trade, it's an art...it really is an art...it's 'snart.

What is a Comedian's Comedian? It is the upper-most human echelon of comedic behavior. It's the creme de la creme. It's excelling at the art of bein' funny. It's actually hard to explain what this term means.

First off, you must reach a level of ZERO PRETENSION, where you are constantly presenting yourself as a "sad-sack" or a "boob" or a "fool" or a "bozo" at all times. It's easier to laugh at people who don't take themselves seriously. You have to achieve this state in order to even think about being a Comedian's Comedian. You must be able to handle being the "butt" of the joke.

Devito in a lighter moment
I find it hard to laugh at people who just make fun of other people instead of themselves, or people who care too much about their physical appearance. Looking well is NEVER conducive to comedy, UGLY is always better. For example, a guy like a James Franco can not and will not ever be funnier than a Danny Devito...it is simply an impossibility. It's not possible for a pretty boy faggo to be funnier than a 4 foot 11, bald, fat man.

Knowing the history of comedy is another preset of being a Comedian's Comedian. You have to know where the art form originated from in order to truly know what you are doing. You have to know about Vaudeville, you have to know who the Three Stooges were (that's a big-time pre-requisite), you gotta know the old shit. You have to be able to tell a standard paced joke...Setup, Punch, Topper, Double-Whammy. You need to be able to tell an enjoyable "Shaggy Dog Story" style joke which is VERY hard but 100% possible.

Here for reference is Comedian's Comedian Norm MacDonald issuing a "moth joke" shaggy-dog style story that seems to always work: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8c4_1306857615

Or here he is doing a shaggy-dog joke in the form of a uhhhh...um..an "Andy Richter Swedish/German Prospector Joke" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaduY_sKce4&t=16m10s

Guys like my boy Norm can handle a shaggy dog no problem. Guys like Gilbert Gottfried, Jackie Martling or Legends like Rodney Dangerfield...those fucking guys can handle it too. Those guys are CCs for sure.

Rest in the Sweetest of Peace Mr. Richard Richard

Rik Mayall died today, and in my mind this was one of the funniest comedians I ever observed. Whether in a four-man unit like in the Young Ones or in a dual 2-man back-to-back praying-mantis style comedy troupe like on Bottom...this guy had it going on.

The combination of Rik Mayall and Ade Edmondson is one of the best 1-2 punches in comedy history (some argue).

Rik's portrayal of "Richard Richard" on Bottom is one of the funniest fucking things I ever saw. No joke. He was the ultimate sad sack...the ultimate fucking loser. Richard was a 30+ year old virgin, unemployed, greasy moron with the smallest penis on earth. His only friend was a "friend by default" named Edward Hitler (no relation) who were only really friends because they couldn't possibly be welcomed or accepted by anyone else in the entire world. They pretty much hated each other but had to hang out by default and constantly beat each other up in the most elaborate of ways. These guys were the bum-iest, most obnoxious ne'er-do-well scumbags in the United Kingdom.

It's weird to see up tight British people acting like this...it actually makes it like double funny to see the "high class" British being as stupid as fuck. You can say like "shit" and words like that on the air too in that country even back in the 90s. Damn, Rik Mayall was a funny dude, seriously.

American audiences probably remember him when he played the imaginary friend of that naked chick who was in one of those high school movies from the 80s. It was called Drop Dead Fred and it was okay. His work on Young Ones and especially on Bottom is his main shit though.

Rest in Peace bro, you were a fucking funny dude, man.


I sincerely hope that Tracy Morgan, who was recently in an car accident, recovers from his critical injuries soon because I don't think Universe can handle the deaths of two Comedian's Comedians in such a short time span.