How to Write Funny: Your Serious, Step-By-Step Blueprint For Creating Incredibly, Irresistibly, Successfully Hilarious Writing

by Scott Dikkers

  Alien Microbe Meets With President in Historic Intergalactic Summit

  This one came out in the form of a headline, which is fine. There’s a good amount of Madcap there, which I always enjoy. But Let’s not forget to put the funny part last.

  In Historic Intergalactic Summit, President Meets With Alien Microbe

  Let’s try Misplaced Focus and see what happens. Instead of focusing on the alien, let’s focus on the wrong thing, something smaller and less important that discovering alien life.

  Now that science has discovered alien microbes, many Earth microbes are concerned about their job security

  This also involved a little Wordplay with the double meaning of “aliens.”

  So, I’m feeling pretty lukewarm on this track. The main issue I’m running into is that I don’t know if the wider public realizes alien microbes might have been discovered, and that’s kind of important, because the whole joke could hinge on their awareness of that. Also, these microbes were discovered a few years ago, so it’s totally irrelevant.

  That’s not to say jokes have to be timely and relevant. I, for one, usually favor evergreen jokes that will be funny for years to come. But it’s difficult to make one of those when your subject matter involves a specific news event.

  I’ll set these aside and look at them in a few days and see if I think they’re any good. I can’t possibly have any objectivity about them now, after having just written them.

  A couple of these attempts are under 140 characters, so I could tweet them if I wanted. A lot of comedy writers do that as soon as they write jokes, and I think that’s great. As for me, I like to let them sit first. At this point, for all I know, the jokes might be awful—I don’t trust my Clown brain, or even my Editor brain at this stage, because I’m too close to this joke. Worse yet, I might discover later that my joke is identical to a joke someone else came up with earlier, in which case I’ll have to scrap mine. So, before I tweet anything I always Google keywords and see if there’s been something similar.

  Another example:

  Let’s say you had in your notes the observation, “It’s funny how bus drivers wave at each other like comrades when they pass each other on the street while driving their busses.”

  This idea isn’t inherently funny as is, but could be Subtext for a joke. If we create a bus-driver Character who has one or two simple traits, it’s on its way to becoming funny.

  Let’s say our bus driver is mean, hates everyone on the bus, and hates his life.

  But we have to be careful with—that’s a cliché, the same bus-driver character we’ve seen in countless movies and TV shows.

  There’s that Editor brain again! But in this case, spotting a cliché might be helpful. It makes me realize that if we go with Irony, the cliché will be inverted, and therefore potentially a fresh take on this type of character.

  (As you write more, you eventually want your brain to be able to switch between Clown and Editor fluidly. If you’re just learning how to write humor, it’s probably best to stay focused in Clown mode so that you don’t derail any progress by coming down too hard on your ideas.)

  Anyway, let’s go the other way with the bus driver and make him nice. This simple bus-driver character could be a one-liner on his own.

  There was something seriously wrong with my bus driver today. He was nice.

  We lost our original Subtext there, but that’s okay. It happens all the time—Subtext can get you started on an idea, but it doesn’t mean you have to finish with the same Subtext. All that really matters is that you explore ideas and try to generate new ones that amuse you. When that happens, you might tap into a different Subtext, which can be just as worthy as the original, since you thought of it. In this case, our new Subtext is, “I’m always suspicious when a bus driver is very nice.” It could be argued that this Subtext is not irreducible. It uses Irony. So, it’s really more of a joke. The Subtext is still “bus drivers are mean.”

  Is there an Analogy to be made here? Bus drivers are often sort of camped out in their driver’s seats, since they’re sitting there all day. What is that like? A homeless person camped out on a slab of cardboard on the street? Homeless people ask for change and so do bus drivers, so maybe there’s something there.

  Bus driver making smooth transition to homeless street dweller.

  I go by this guy every day who’s camped out and asking for change. Then I pay my fare and take my seat.

  Yikes. That’s awful.

  There’s a big attack from the Editor brain!

  This is the kind of Editor-brain attack that can destroy the confidence of a beginning writer. “Yikes, that’s awful!” can quickly turn to, “I’m no good!” and then, “I’ll never be a comedy writer!” And that’s not the kind of internal dialog you want to be having. Remember that all comedy writers write bad jokes, and forge on.

  Maybe that joke is awful, but there might still be something to work with there. For now, though, let’s take that helpful hint from the Editor brain for what it’s worth, and move onto another Funny Filter. How about Shock? As soon as I thought of Shock, an idea popped into my mind:

  When two porn-bus drivers pass each other on their routes, they customarily give each other a handjob.

  This might work, but it could involve two impossible things. The inherent Reference in the Subtext, which might not be very well known, and the zany idea of a porn-bus are the two impossible things. But it’s making some small part of my brain giggle, so I’ll put it on my short list. It has Reference (inherent in the Subtext), Shock, Character, and Hyperbole (since I’ve exaggerated my Subtext to an impossible extreme—they can’t give handjobs when driving by each other). So, it seems worthy at least of holding onto.

  The final step of Method 1 is to let ideas sit for a while, then come back and assess them later. At that point, you’ll then be using Method 2.

  METHOD 2: FINESSING

  Getting hit with inspiration and having a funny joke pop into your mind is great when it happens (which is why you must capture it in your notebook when it does), but it can’t be relied on as a production method. You may not get such a lightening bolt for weeks at a stretch, so you need to be able to generate material using the other two methods as well.

  If your notebook or Morning Pages does in fact contain some gems that are striking you as pretty funny jokes all by themselves, then count yourself lucky. Now you can use Method 2: Finessing to polish or punch-up the joke if necessary.

  The other occasion when you’d use Method 2 is if you worked on some jokes using Method 1 a few days ago, and now you’re pulling out your shortlist from a few days ago to finesse them. With this method, you need only assess your funny idea, and perhaps improve it by making sure it’s clean, the contrast is heightened as much as it can be, and it doesn’t have any logistics, spelling or grammatical errors. You also want to make sure you’re clear what the Subtext is so you don’t fundamentally alter what made this joke work for you in the first place. With this method, it’s perilously easy to rework your joke into oblivion.

  The first goal of this method is to simply make sure your joke makes sense, and is given the best chance to succeed. Make sure you know what joke you’re telling, and your reader knows what joke you’re telling (Humor-Writing Tip #8). The second goal is to make sure it’s structured to be as funny as it can be.

  You’re going to be in Editor brain this time.

  I looked through my notebook and found a couple of these. Let’s go through the process of Finessing those.

  A killer ads a touch of class to his basement torture chamber with simulated wood grain.

  First, let’s get square on what joke we’re telling—this will better help us finesse it. What is this joke saying? In other words, what is the Subtext? Is it about a killer or his dungeon? No, it’s a savage take down of simulated wood grain, which looks awful and is the opposite of classy. The killer and his use of it is just a tool to communicate that Subtext. I’m going as far away as
I can from the idea of classy or pleasant or attractive home decor in order to say what I need to say about simulated wood grain.

  I find it fun to deconstruct a joke after having written it, to get a peek at what was going on in my mind, which I was probably not aware of at the time.

  So, I want to make sure the wood grain is clearly mocked. It might need more description, like “tiles,” just to make sure the image is planted. I could cut some words if this is a headline.

  Basement torture chamber classed up with simulated wood-grain tile.

  It’s even tighter with “tile” over “tiles.” Yes, that kind of attention to detail matters. We want jokes to be as tightly worded as possible.

  If it’s a one-liner, we could ascribe it to me or the killer character, but we might be better off concealing him more, and rearrange it so the funny part comes last, which is almost always a good idea:

  Bachelor Tip: simulated wood-grain tile can class up your basement torture chamber.

  So now I’ve hidden some of the details a bit more, to let the reader better add two and two. Changing the voice from a headline to a direct call to action breaks it up and makes it a little more distinct from a lot of one-liners you here, too.

  This one-liner has Shock, with the moderate serial-killer reference. It has Parody, in that it’s a spoof of a helpful household tip you might see on a website like askmen.com or its ilk. It has Irony, in that having classy decor is pretty much the opposite of having a torture chamber.

  This one is sitting pretty well with me, and I’ll definitely add it to the short list.

  Humor-Writing Tip #16: Keep It Simple

  Don’t try to overload a joke with too much exposition, information or too confusing a rubric for your audience to get through. Just use a Funny Filter to give a twist to your one subtextual message, and state it in the clearest, simplest way possible. Anything more and you’re probably only going to confuse readers.

  Another example:

  Let’s say we look at a shortlist from a few days ago and find the joke “Dying Pen’s Last Words Unintelligible.”

  This sounds like an Onion headline to me, and seems amusing enough. Let’s figure out why.

  Sense of Humor

  Every writer has comedy preferences and proclivities. You may prefer the humor from the Reference Funny Filter most of all, and have an easy time writing jokes using Reference. You may find Metahumor difficult, because you just don’t think that way, or don’t find that kind of humor very inspiring.

  Some Funny Filters will come more naturally to you, and others will be a struggle. Feel free to play to your strengths as much as you like. That’s what gives you your unique voice and sense of humor. But I urge you to practice using all of the Funny Filters, especially the ones you find most challenging.

  When you condition your comedy-writing muscle to be able to write any kind of joke using any kind of Funny Filter, you increase your potential readership. Readers are no different from you. Each one of them has preferences for certain Funny Filters, too. So, when you use as many of the Funny Filters as possible in your writing, you’ll blanket your potential audience, entertaining the greatest number of readers.

  It’s using Analogy, comparing a dying pen to a dying person. Even at its very tight five words, it’s making at least one connection point in that Analogy (people have last words, pen’s don’t). It’s also using Character, personifying the pen and giving it one trait: it’s dying. It’s using Madcap, too, since a sentient pen is an inherently zany idea. Another Funny Filter I’m seeing is Reference. Actually, two instances of Reference: a dying pen, which we’ve all experienced, and a dying person, more specifically the cliché of a dying person in a movie or on a TV show when dramatic stakes hang on their last words. Finally, I’m seeing Irony. Unlike those movie and TV characters, a pen’s last words usually end with far less drama. The pen’s last words can’t be seen, and the owner gets mildly frustrated and chucks the pen in the garbage.

  So, there’s a lot going on there. But what is the joke saying? Is there any Subtext? On its face, it doesn’t seem like it. It’s just a silly joke about a dying pen.

  But when there’s a Reference involved, there’s usually some Subtext. The Reference here is the experience of having a pen die. What opinion is this joke expressing about that? Or is it simply referring to it? I think it’s saying that even though the death of a pen is an anticlimactic event, it’s still frustrating. The inability of the pen, and by extension the pen owner, to express their “dying words” is, on some personal level—at least to the pen owner—just as frustrating as it is on a TV show when the detective can’t wrench a vital clue from a dying suspect. This comparison has heightened contrast because the two are at extreme ends of the drama spectrum.

  That’s what I’m getting from this joke. It’s not Earth-shaking Subtext, but it’s enough!

  So, the joke is obviously already very concise. My one concern is that the contrast isn’t heightened quite as much as it could be. A pen dying and a character dying on a TV detective drama have contrast, but they’re not polar opposites. Let’s try to get there with a few different attempts.

  Pen’s fateful last words unintelligible

  The word “fateful” is turning up the contrast a bit. But it’s still not a polar opposite.

  Alas, I couldn’t understand the fateful last words of my dying pen

  We’ve put the funny part last now, which introduced some nice misdirection. But the biggest problem I’m having with this road we’re on is that we’re making the joke longer, which may not be the best thing for it.

  What I might do is put all of these on another short list and look at them again later, or maybe tweet one of them and see what happens.

  Ideally, before showing my work to an audience, I get feedback from some trusted peers. There’s an involved process I use for vetting peers and ensuring that their advice is useful, but that, too, is a subject for another book.

  METHOD 3: DIVINING

  When you have no notes, or nothing in your notes that appeals to you, use the Divining method by starting with the Funny Filters and then forcing some jokes out. We’re going to make a list of at least 10 one-liners (one for each Funny Filter) using this method.

  We’re in Clown mode again.

  First, pick a Funny Filter. You can pick any one you want, but I’ll just go through each one as listed in this book.

  Irony:

  Think of things that are opposites:

  • Night and day

  • Dark and light

  • Big and small

  • Old and young

  Now let’s see if we can drum up any opinions about those things. I like night. It’s exciting and filled with energy. By the same token, it’s very relaxing to sleep then. There’s some Irony. There might be a joke there:

  I love the nighttime. I go out to clubs and get a good night’s sleep there.

  Onto Character.

  Think of some characters you know, or who are popular in the culture at large, and reduce them to 1-3 simple traits:

  • The Queen mother. Her single trait: She waves.

  • Jared Leto. He has two traits: 1. He’s an extremely dedicated actor who alters his body in extreme ways for roles, and 2. He looks young.

  • An astronaut. One or two traits: Astronauts always seem very flat and scientific when they speak—they’re never excited or passionate.

  • Your Dad. One or two traits: He does whatever your mom says (or whatever your case may be).

  Now we need to make these characters act on their traits, which is how jokes are made with this Funny Filter. So, maybe Jared Leto can act on both traits at the same time:

  Jared Leto is aging in reverse to prepare for a role as a zygote in his next film.

  Zygote is a funny word (Madcap), so Character, Madcap and Hyperbole are in evidence there.

  Next is Shock. Shock is easy. We just have to be shocking. But let’s try to be careful to observe the guideli
nes and keep the shocking aspects of our ideas mild, and let’s also try to have some kind of Subtext.

  What’s shocking? Let’s make a list.

  • Murder

  • Racism

  • People being burned alive

  • Rape

  • Genocide

  • The guillotine

  • Tearing out someone’s heart and eating it raw, like a savage

  Structuring One-Liners And Jokes

  The way you arrange a bunch of words can determine whether it gets a laugh or a yawn. It’s wise to avoid clichéd structures like “shave and a haircut,” or “da-da da, da-da DA!,” the ol’ one-two punch, or any number of other standard joke-structure patterns that are equally difficult to describe in print.

  The best jokes have an even tempo that sounds natural, without too much emphasis on any one part. If you overplay the part you think is funniest, you risk over-emphasized it and coming off as desperate or old-fashioned (or Borscht Belt).

  For example, one of the tips in this book is “Put the Funny Part Last.” But in the Jared Leto joke I wrote earlier, I avoided putting the funny word dead least, because it would have reorganized the sentence structure too much and given the word too much emphasis: Jared Leto is aging in reverse for a roll in his next film: a Zygote!” You almost don’t need the exclamation point there, because you can feel it. And the colon serves as a kind of silent drum roll. Both of these things smack of old-school night-club comedy, which is all a big cliché now. Avoiding clichés is a rule that supersedes most others.