FAQ
HOLD ON, I THOUGHT WE WEREN'T GOING TO BOTHER WITH ALL THIS 'FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS' STUFF. YOU SAID WE SHOULD JUST LET PEOPLE WORK IT OUT FOR THEMSELVES.
Yeah, but we've just had a phone call from Mr Internet. He reckons that unless you do a FAQ page you don't get the free sherry glasses or something.
'MR INTERNET' - WHAT, YOU MEAN ROB SEDGEBEER?
No, you fool. The 'Mr Internet'. The man who invented the web. He says that we need something which explains what we're doing to the casual observer.
BIT OF A PLEBBY OBSERVATION. HASN'T HE READ THE SITE?
Of course he's read it. He's Mr Internet. He reads everything that happens on his webs. Including all the filthy bits. It's his job.
HANG ON - HE PHONED US? WHY DIDN'T HE JUST SEND US AN E-MAIL IF HE INVENTED IT? SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THIS FUCKER DOESN'T PRACTISE WHAT HE PREACHES,
Shush, for heaven's sakes. You'll get us shut down again.
LUMME, ETC.
Anyway, he knows what's what. And he reckons that all sites have a FAQ page.
THING IS, WE DON'T GET 'FREQUENT QUESTIONS', MIKE. WE GET PEOPLE SAYING 'BLIMEY - WHAT A GREAT SITE', THEN APOLOGISING TO US FOR BEING SYCOPHANTIC AND GUSHING.
Well they don't need to be frequent as such. Just... pertinent.
HERE'S ONE: 'WHY ARE THE PETER COOK APPRECIATION SOCIETY SUCH A BUNCH OF BASTARDS?'
Don't be stupid.
NO NO, I REALLY WANT TO KNOW..
Some questions simply cannot be answered. Does their site have a FAQ page, incidentally?
I DOUBT IT - THAT LOT RAISE MORE QUESTIONS THAN THEY COULD EVER ANSWER.
Shall we stop trying to write fucking comedy and just do the FAQ page now?
YEAH YEAH. I'D BETTER DO ANOTHER LOGO ACTUALLY, SINCE WE RATHER SWAMPED THE LAST ONE WITH ALL THIS DIALOGUE SHIT.
Cool. Oh yeah, can we call it FAQ OFF?
NO WE CAN'T.
DO YOU LIKE THE LOGO?
No, it's bloody horrible. Anyway, shush. We've started...
What is SOTCAA?
It's a website devoted to comedy.
What, you mean, like Funny Talk or Comedy Lounge?
No, it's a website devoted to comedy.
I read about you guys on the TV Forum. Don't you just write loads of stuff about how things were good on the radio and then ruined for TV? That's not very clever is it?
No. The situation you're decribing is a cliché attributed to anoraked comedy fans, usually by comedians who - perhaps irritated that their hard TV work is being criticised - accuse them of 'just trying to be clever'.
People have accused us of similar stuff, seemingly without actually having read the articles. Yes, where applicable, we mention things which haven't transferred well from wireless to tube. But - and this is the clincher - we pontificate WHY it was better on the radio. We give examples, suggest possible production anomalies, discuss general attitudes towards both mediums and explain all of the above in terms of simple reasoning. Set against a backdrop of the comedy scene in general, this can be taken as an holistic look at today's comedy.
If you disagree with our reasoning, fair enough, but only an idiot would accuse us of cliched views while attacking us with cliches themselves.
Are you failed, bitter comedy writers / performers?
No. The 'bitter' tag is yet another cliché. It would appear that whenever somebody comes out with any kind of new opinion (or at the very least an opinion which differs from the common consensus) then a certain breed of person will immediately leap on alternate reasons why this opinion has been wrought (even if the opinion is backed up with lots of nice examples).
Victor Lewis-Smith gets the 'bitter comedy writer' tag thrown at him as a matter of course. Charlie Brooker used to get similar accusations simply for using swearwords in a Radio Times pastiche.
The only bitterness we feel is over the comedy industry and its foibles.
But you do write comedy though - there are examples all over the site.
We've written little bits of comedy about comedy. We make no claims for it. It just makes us giggle. An extension of our character, etc.
But surely, the only way to improve the comedy world is to get involved and write some yourself.
If the world were really full of nice altruistic comedy writers who cared more about comedy as an artform than hopping on the first (big) train that comes along and cultivating their careers then we'd agree with the above. But the whole of the media is being eroded, its edges are being slowly blurred and what we're left with is a bland set of rules, written in beige, which tell you not to do anything original or you won't get work. There are only a few people left prepared to step outside the norm and create something original and fantastic (usually before their career ends abruptly). There are others who, not realising what was possible in the past (due to being too bastard lazy to take a gander in the first place) genuinely think that what they do is 'innovative' and great. The worst of the bunch are the people who know the form precisely and tailor their work to meet the osmotically agreed standard - no better, no worse.
What's the point of sneering at things you don't like? If you can't think of something nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all. You can't change anything. I know this for a fact. I once wrote a letter to the BBC asking them to bring Lee & Herring back and they didn't! That proves it.
Nobody at SOTCAA is claiming we can change anything directly, but we can certainly change attitudes among those individuals who read it. We've had plenty of positive feedback from comedy fans suggesting we're doing something smashing here, plenty of readers bemoaning the safety-in-numbers attitude that even the internet has managed to acquire over the past few years, and plenty of insiders either agreeing with or confirming the points raised by the site.
Charlie Brooker (of webspace's famous TV Goes Homes) would have us believe that people are attracted to our vitriol in the same way one is attracted to Garry Bushell or Richard Littlejohn. 'Proud of that are you?', he sneered.
The truth is a bit more interesting. From the mails we receive we know full well that us having a bit of a go isn't what attracts people to the site. Although there were one or two messages of congratulations for 'putting the boot into The Boosh' a while back (only from other comedians we noted with silly grins) and a few people saying 'Hooray for dissing Pegg / Murray / etc', the generally affirmative response is due to the wealth of material on the site and the fact that it's attempting something a bit different.
But you do hate Avalon don't you?
Not at all. But we prefered his stuff with Roxy Music.
Why don't you invite more comedians onto your forum. That would be great - then you could discuss comedy with the very people who create it. They know more about the comedy industry than.
Because a) they'd just use the forum to promote whatever project they happened to be working on at the time, b) they'd talk in a very guarded, self-serving way, protective of the niche they've carved; c) they're so used to fan-sites they react in an implausibly hurt tone whenever the punter-scum (who normally have little or no say in the matter) even dared to question their genius.
As we've stated before, comedians are subject to blindness over the medium they work in as much as anybody else. Promoting their viewpoint as 'fact' simply because it's their job would be mere critical tomfoolery.
There are exceptions to this rule, obviously.
When are we going to see some of this 'direct action' you're always banging on about?
1. We're not always banging on about direct action - we've mentioned it perhaps three times at the most, and one of those was probably a joke. 2. The only people who mention 'direct action' are certain forum critics who blether on about how we keep wanting things to change but are too lazy to achieve anything ourselves.
SOTCAA is direct action, at least as an alternative to us scowling about the apalling state of the media in the relative comfort of our bedsits. Whether it really has any influence remains to be seen, but in the meantime it's there to inform, entertain or piss you off. Choose your favourite.
Another thing you might want to bear in mind is that certain forms of positive or direct action in relation to media could never be mentioned on the site or forum anyway for fear of undermining discussions / meetings / leg-breaking plans.
Okay, comedians are fair game, but why do you always have a go at the fans. Surely they don't deserve it?
A lot of comedy fans we know adamantly dislike the idea of criticism. They work on a policy of 'If you can't think of anything nice to say, don't say anything'. This makes that person seem nice and lovely and cute, but usually betrays a hidden agenda.
As we say, the critique is holistic. The entire food-chain is covered, from the besuited execs in the fourth floor offices of the BBC to the idle punter stood frowning in HMV wondering whether or not to buy a copy of Blackadder Back & Forth for Gary at work. It's all part of the soup.
Your articles are too long!
No, it's just these trousers.
Alright, alright. Another Brooker-accusation here: 'Learn to edit yourself - it's just scan-read fodder'. It's only scan-read fodder to the can't-be-arsed brigade. For those passionate about the subject matter, it's an absolute Godsend. The can't-be-arsed brigade are currently getting the comedy they deserve. The passionate are feeling cheated. Bingo...
Morover, this is the sort of site we've always wanted to read ourselves. So we've created it thusly. No doubt Brooker assumes that in order to become popular, the site would have to pleb down and pander to the can't-be-arsed. We've proven otherwise.
All this stuff you've written - that's just your opinion!
Yes it is. Great isn't it.
Okay, where can I buy SOTCAA T-shirts / badges / mugs / etc?
You can't.
So why did SOTCAA get shut down?
Well, that's all we've got time for tonight on FAQ... Etc...
* * *
OH HANG ON - I SEE WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO DO NOW. 'MR INTERNET' - THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE SOME SORT OF KENNY EVERETT / LORD THAMES SET-UP, YEAH?
No, that's not what I was trying to do.
OH...
