Saturday night's comedy gig was reviewed on the Londonist website. I'm becoming Mr Review on here lately - sharing kind things that people have said as soon as they appear. I suppose I find it edifying to share these with you, as you've always known how amazing I am, and will be pleased to see it confirmed in ink. Cyber-ink.
I also find it edifying to use the word 'edifying'.
In this most recent review, I get what is a generally positive one-sentence review. I'd now like to spend several thousand words analysing it in detail.
The sentence starts off promisingly:
"Paul Fung had a beard and was gruffly brilliant..."
That's very nice. I'm not sure why the beard is relevant, but it's nice to know they have the right man. I'm always happy to be called 'brilliant', though I've never thought of myself as particularly gruff. Maybe it's because I had a sore throat.
If that was the whole review, I wouldn't have thought much more about it. But the sentence finished with this thought:
"...like if Rufus Hound had swallowed Jack Dee."
Now...
This comparison isn't something I have a problem with. The phrasing on the other hand, is a real curate's egg. I've been thinking about it since I first read it, and have given it a lot of thought. So much thought, that I've forgotten to bathe, sleep, or be annoyed by the government.
The first thing to say is that I don't take issue with either of the two comedians mentioned. I don't have strong opinions on either. I've never really seen any Rufus Hound stand-up. I've mostly seen him on panel shows and the like, and he seems pretty funny. I don't know how similar our styles are, or if the commonality is just one of facial hair. Jack Dee is obviously a well-established name in comedy. Perhaps some of my deadpan deliveries are similar to his.
I don't know. It's difficult to judge my own style of comedy. The combination of these two might accurately sum me up.
If the sentence had been "...like a combination of Rufus Hound and Jack Dee", I would have found it interesting, but unremarkable.
But the whole 'swallowed' thing: that's the sticking point.
Journalists need to think of creative ways of making comparisons. That's the main part of their job. No-one wants to read an non-literary analogy. It would be a waste of time.
So the journalist will use clever tropes and phrases to create a vivid picture. When they want to say that someone is a cross between two other people, there are different avenues they can take.
The bare-bones, basic version is "[BLANK1] is like [BLANK2] meets [BLANK3]". For example, "Tim Minchin is like Russell Brand meets Bill Bailey". This gets the point across, but is a bit clumsy, and lacks flair.
There is of course the famous "[BLANK1] is like [BLANK2] on drugs" comparison, which is always insightful.
When I was growing up, the most common variant was "[BLANK1] is like the lovechild of [BLANK2] and [BLANK3]".
I don't know if that is out of fashion now. The word "lovechild" seems very 1990s. I don't even know what it means. Does it imply something illicit? Surely you could just use "child" and it would mean the same thing. But at least it conjures up the idea that one person has characteristics that combine those of two other people. It's genetics - writers love to sneak in a bonus science lesson.
But the writer of my review has gone for the much more creative, and much less orthodox variant: "...like if [BLANK1] had swallowed [BLANK2]".
This conjures up an undeniably strong visual image. And it's not the most flattering one.
As I said, it's not Hound and Dee that's the issue. That comparison is an undesirable one, regardless of the people involved. A person who has consumed another person is not something you want to look like.
Even if the people involved were really flattering. Even if I'd been described as "...like if Usain Bolt had swallowed Mozart", I'd still be a bit nonplussed.
I'd rather not be compared to a cumulative two people. Maybe if the people were really thin, it wouldn't be so bad. If I was described as being "...like if Karen Carpenter had swallowed Gandhi", that would have been better. That combination might make for a tolerable double-person. It also would have piqued the curiosity of any reader, and might have drawn a crowd to my next gig. I would have tailored my act to fit the description, walking the fine line between tragic and racist, inciting a riot and then refusing to fight back.
The thing is, neither Rufus Hound or Jack Dee are particularly thin. I'd say they're both reasonably large. For one to swallow the other, would result in quite the monstrosity. I mean, I would have appreciated it if the reviewer had stipulated that it was Jack Dee circa 1991. That would have been something.
(I'd like make it clear that I'm not debating the accuracy of the comparison. It is accurate. But just because something's accurate, it doesn't mean you can't complain about it.)
Maybe I'm viewing it the wrong way. Maybe the comparison is even more literary than I'd given it credit for. It might be a creative analogy of my comedy style. Perhaps I have a Jack Dee-like cynicism that has been "swallowed" by the more cheerful approach of Rufus Hound. On aspect of my comedy style has been subsumed within another. Maybe that's what they meant! It was very clever, very apposite, and very flattering.
Maybe that's it.
Maybe that's it.
"...like if Rufus Hound had swallowed Jack Dee."
Maybe that's it.
Or maybe I just looked ill. I'd probably be ill if I tried to swallow Jack Dee. He wouldn't be too happy either.
Despite the many paragraphs I've spent complaining about this, I'm very pleased with the review. I just want people to think I'm funny, that's all. It's not a beauty contest.
(Incidentally, my appearance in a recent beauty contest was also reviewed. I was described as "...like the lovechild of Gloria Gaynor and a snowman, that's swallowed some magic mushrooms". It was me who described me like that, and I was only partially correct. Still, third place is nothing to sneeze at.)
I'm very grateful for the review. In fact, my tempering something complimentary with something self-deprecating may make this one of those #humblebrag situations. That's when you disguise self-congratulation behind a thin, unconvincing layer of modesty.
But my ratio of self-loathing to arrogance must be, like, 30-1 in this blog post. That's like the homoeopathic version of a humblebrag. The particles of smug are so diluted that they have no bearing on the final product.
For my next gig, I'm going to shave off my beard and change my style completely.
Then we'll see who eats whom.
***
Maybe I am gruff...
No comments:
Post a Comment