Deep wit vs. Quick wit

Post Reply New Topic

So, let's preface by saying the two don't have to be mutually exclusive, sometimes one quickly creates a deeply witty remark, but generally one can't hope for the ideal outcome every time.

So, as an observer, do you prefer to witness quick wit more, or does a delay not matter so much if it just gets used as the comedic beat (pause, if you prefer - the 'comedic timing') before landing.

As the one involved in the exchange, do you prefer the same as in the previous (would you rather be quick but possibly shallow, or be deeper but possibly slow)?

Come now, join me in staring at our navels and contemplating nonsense.

I'm not keen on standup comedy very much because it's not nearly as funny as someone who has freshly made up a joke on the spot. So quick wit for me because the outcome is usually a lot funnier if done correctly. I don't think something that funny comes from something scripted nor when someone takes time over it, unless they've taken time to write it down and make it funny.

You also need to be feeling the right emotion when telling a joke IRL.

I feel like NTs are more likely to accept being defeated if they miss their timing, whereas we might be more likely to still blurt it out and hope for the best. To whatever extent we can be described collectively.

Personally, I do appreciate a lot of stand-up comedians and emcees who can spar with hecklers or battle. That sort of mental probably appealed to me before I was familiar with either stand-up comedy or battle rapping. My brothers and I would sort of come up with stories that relied on that and I remember being in the grocery store with my mom as Damon and I are bantering about the increasingly outlandish horrible things we were deadpan snarking about doing the cashier (she was between our ages, he would been 14-15, I would have been 17-18) finally turns to me (and then to him) YOU GUYS ARE LIKE THE MOST ROTTEN BROTHERS EVER HOW CAN YOU BE THAT MEAN AND NOT EVEN CARE at which point both of us lost all composure because well...

I don't remember the point of the story.

Dunno.

I work hard on becoming a wit.

And I know I am about halfway there. I know it because everyone calls me "a half-wit"!

Last edited by naturalplastic on 20 Apr 2020, 5:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

That made me smile.

Halfwits like bowling too much.

I do improv comedy. Most of the jokes are quick and spontaneous playing upon the situation as it unfolds. However, during performances I do sometimes build up to a deeper joke that is often meant to bring the scene to a satisfying end. I'm building a narrative in my mind and making quick remarks (plus some terrible puns) along the way. Usually the small jokes work on their own, however, if the overarching joke lands then it usually complements the smaller jokes and sometimes even makes the audience interpret them in a different way.

Typically I do unscripted performances, however I have done partly scripted comedies before. I wrote the script but didn't have much time to rehearse my lines, so I did go a bit off-script. However, I got some laughs despite things not going quite to plan. I prefer to use quick wit since I am more confident with small jokes that may perhaps lack substance. Although, I do gain a sense of satisfaction when a deeper albeit slower built-up joke gets a positive reaction. With my style of joke-telling the two tend to compliment each other.

I admire comedians who are either good at thinking on the spot, or script their routine to seem spontaneous. Personally, I find Bo Burnham interesting because his performances seem both well thought out yet at the same time they maintain an energy that you'd expect of an improvised piece of work. His style of comedy is rather theatrical. Stage lighting and sound effects play an important part. Yet he'll also make things intentionally go wrong. Such as making it look like a stage hand has messed up on the lighting so he can make a remark such as "it's hard to be threatening in fuchsia!" during a song where he'd be pretending to be a tough character. Or so I've heard. You never quite know with him if a humorous mistake was intentional or if it just happened to be good timing. His performances often went from shallow jokes to much darker themes that were uncomfortably genuine. Somehow the transition from shallow to deeper darker material never felt forced despite being jarring.

Whilst I highly enjoyed his work as a comedian, I am happy that he changed direction with his work. He's now working as a film director. Comedy shows seemed to be wearing him down mentally.

Another comedian I like is Thomas Sanders. There was an event where a bunch of YouTubers were competing in a game. In this event two YouTubers would tell dad jokes to each other from a bowl of jokes. The person who was told the joke had to try not to laugh or react. At first Thomas told jokes from the bowl, but then he had a moment where he asked himself out loud "Wait, what am I doing?" and he put on a pair of glasses.

To give you some context, he is known for playing different comedic characters. One of his characters is known for wearing glasses and making puns (among other things). He's a rather talented actor. The way he adjusted his mannerisms, and changed his voice after putting on the glasses made it clear exactly which character he was playing. In fact, I knew from the moment he got out his glasses what was going to happen. He proceeded to use his own jokes instead of using the bowl when it was his turn, and he stayed in character throughout the event. I was surprised that the event runners allowed this, but I think they were probably secretly planning it. The audience exclaimed "It's Patton!" (the name of the character) when the voice change happened and glasses were put on.

I often think that good comedy is like effective design; if you do it well then it'll seem effortless and flow so naturally that the average viewer won't think about all of the calculations that went into making it work.

I'm going to have to look a few of those folks up later on tonight.