So I had a conversation with a gentleman on Friday in which my authority as a comedy critic was contested. The argument boiled down to whether I, as someone who has not watched Cheers or The Honeymooners extensively, had the right to be a critic regarding sitcoms. Obviously I argued that I did, but I may have also lost the argument.
My friend, who I'll call Tim, argued that since I was not well versed in the history of the sitcom, or at least the successes and thus formative influences, I would not be fully aware of what new sitcoms were doing inside the sitcom genre. This was likened to literature. Could a writer respectively analyse a work of literature without studying the works which were of direct influence, or even further could a writer respectively analyse a work without reading the major works in literature? Those studying literature are specifically taught surveys of canon so that they can (at least to some degree) better analyse/understand/contextualize any piece of literature. Tim did not deny me the right to have and support an opinion, but merely that I do not necessarily have the authority to offer an educated critique of sitcoms. This is a very strong point.
I, however, would still like to argue my case. This is of course unfair to Tim as he will not be able to offer a response or even clarify my potentially unintentional strawman-ed rendition of his argument. But I will anyways.
The problem with his argument to me is the requirement of a historical background of a genre to evaluate new instances of it. I don't disagree that a knowledge of the past can greatly help your analytical abilities, but I don't think this is absolutely imperative. I think you can construct an analyses divorced of a great deal of context (of course not all context, as would humour even work in a vacuum?). That said, Tim is very right in the quality variances in evaluations with and without context. In academic articles it is very important to discuss the context of one's arguments (why they're such a chore to read). The context provides authority. The author has read and engaged the historical and critical backing of the issue s/he is now writing about, thus his/her argument is proven to be (hopefully) well informed. There is no reason this concept shouldn't be applied to comedy.
But the issue comes down to this for me. I don't find Cheers all that funny. Neither do I find The Honeymooners too enjoyable. And I've seen enough episodes to make these judgement calls. More so, I am not writing my critiques in vacuums. I haven't ignored these foundational shows. And the pluralization is the key. This isn't a few writings, movies, or albums, this is multiple seasons of a television show. Cheers had almost 250 episodes. That's a lot of hours to spend watching a show I don't like so I can know a little more about the sitcom genre. And here's the thing--I don't think it'd matter. I've watched many other sitcoms, ones that weren't on when I was 7, that were heavily influenced by Cheers. And that goes even more so for The Honeymooners. Yes, Seinfeld is greatly influenced by The Honeymooners, but what aspect of the show have I not picked up on from other shows (in content and form) and from watching the freakin Flintstones?
Ultimately though, I think we need to consider critiques and analyses in terms of a conversation. When I engage a sitcom, a comedian, or a movie I offer my analysis, which is by no means definitive. And I would not expect any worthwhile critic to say otherwise. When we write about any topic we are engaging in a conversation (one that perhaps takes place over some length of time). When someone writes a book on Milton, s/he engages in a conversation about Milton. Other writers will then engage those ideas. This may not happen as much in comedy analysis, merely because there is yet to be vast academic work in the area, but this does not mean that the project is not the same. So Tim with his greater knowledge of Cheers could offer an argument about The Big Bang, and reveal elements of the show I, with my "ignorance" of Cheers, would miss. This would not at all be unlike the conversation that occurs about Milton. (Okay it's way different, but not in terms of project.) Anyone can be a critic here, it's merely how good of a critic. Tim might be a better critic about comedy, but he doesn't maintain a blog on the topic. I wish he would, then we could blargue until our fingers were raw. And the comedy community would be the better for it. If even slightly.
I don't intend this post to be about me winning an argument, it is supposed to be about me trying to figure out how I (or anyone) can discuss comedy on a critical level. Do the same issues of literature or music apply to comedy? This is a difficult question, even more so with this broad definition of comedy. Perhaps you can construct necessary canon pieces with comedy films, but in television, with shows involving more than an hour total watch-time, can you still construct that same idea about canon? And then certainly with the cultural pervasiveness of some of the television comedies you have to consider how viewers acquire a comedy education. Everyone, whether a comedy scholar or not, gets a great deal of I Love Lucy references. Further, so much of how sitcoms are made is built upon previous success--so by watching Home Improvement, I've watched Family Ties. And all this hasn't even begun to address how these issues relate to stand-up.
I don't necessarily have any concrete answers to the issues I've raised despite the lengths I've gone to above. Unfortunately these issues seem to be argued about at 1am in apartment buildings rather than in any written text, denying me that conversation I believe leads to better answers than the above. Bummer.
Here's a link to something actually funny.
No comments:
Post a Comment