1) Are we funny? - Kind of, maybe not, not really, well, kind of
2) Will we ever be as funny as the people we admire? - No
3) Is somebody who isn't as funny as the people we admire worth seeing? - No
Our ultimate conclusion was that we should quit now, because we can and will never achieve what we're trying to do. A seasoned comedian that I admire overheard us and interrupted, and basically rebutted that notion. His reasoning (I'm big-time paraphrasing) was that you will never be good enough, but that's precisely why you should keep doing this.
That's what stuck in my craw. If you're not good enough, how can you feel comfortable going out on stage and doing this in front of an audience? But that phrase -good enough- is relative. Good enough for whom?
For an audience? I'd say that our sights were too lofty. The people that we were comparing ourselves to, they're no slouches, they're headliners, people who've been doing this for a long time. A couple of posts ago I talked about how I saw only the people that were getting shows, not the many more who weren't. In a similar vein, we were primarily looking at the cream of our local crop, but not at the next levels down. Go check out some of the openers at shows. Am I as funny as them? Probably not. Do I have the capability of being as funny as them? Probably.
But getting back to -good enough-. I've noticed something. For the most part, I haven't seen anybody that never got at least one laugh. Sure, on a given night there might be nothing, and there are extreme cases in any subject. But, in general, over the course of several performances, whether at open mics or shows, I haven't seen anybody never ever never never get a laugh. Assuming one's willing to put forth the effort to continue to develop, write more, get out there more, it's absolutely possible to put together at least 6-8 decent minutes. Point being, if you really keep at it, there will come a time where you'll be at least good enough to perform for an audience. Now, it's true that you won't be as good as the best, won't be able to go too long without boring people, etc. But you will be able to squeeze out some laughs from people for a few minutes. And that's a starting point.
Which leads to the next meaning of good enough. I've done a few shows now, and that's not much, not anything, really, but again, it's a start. And the thing I've noticed is that I've gotten better at self critiquing and writing for "me". I'll talk about that more in another thing. The problem is that I'm throwing away about 90% of everything I've written so far, for multiple reasons, but ultimately, I'm throwing it out because it's not good enough for me. And I'm not taking the attitude of "if it's not good enough then forget it", but that I can do better. That's the difference I didn't fully "get" at the time.
Even in hindsight, though, I don't feel too naive for taking that original stance. I had to cross, or at least get close to, that threshold before I could truly constructively critique myself. Otherwise, I'm just throwing everything against the wall and making a mess. Which is fine, but don't delude yourself into thinking that's art. So, I'd say it's a good thing to not be too in love with yourself all the time. Love yourself, but not unconditionally, because you'll never be good enough, and that's exactly where you want to be.
But getting back to -good enough-. I've noticed something. For the most part, I haven't seen anybody that never got at least one laugh. Sure, on a given night there might be nothing, and there are extreme cases in any subject. But, in general, over the course of several performances, whether at open mics or shows, I haven't seen anybody never ever never never get a laugh. Assuming one's willing to put forth the effort to continue to develop, write more, get out there more, it's absolutely possible to put together at least 6-8 decent minutes. Point being, if you really keep at it, there will come a time where you'll be at least good enough to perform for an audience. Now, it's true that you won't be as good as the best, won't be able to go too long without boring people, etc. But you will be able to squeeze out some laughs from people for a few minutes. And that's a starting point.
Which leads to the next meaning of good enough. I've done a few shows now, and that's not much, not anything, really, but again, it's a start. And the thing I've noticed is that I've gotten better at self critiquing and writing for "me". I'll talk about that more in another thing. The problem is that I'm throwing away about 90% of everything I've written so far, for multiple reasons, but ultimately, I'm throwing it out because it's not good enough for me. And I'm not taking the attitude of "if it's not good enough then forget it", but that I can do better. That's the difference I didn't fully "get" at the time.
Even in hindsight, though, I don't feel too naive for taking that original stance. I had to cross, or at least get close to, that threshold before I could truly constructively critique myself. Otherwise, I'm just throwing everything against the wall and making a mess. Which is fine, but don't delude yourself into thinking that's art. So, I'd say it's a good thing to not be too in love with yourself all the time. Love yourself, but not unconditionally, because you'll never be good enough, and that's exactly where you want to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment