Comedy At The Edge

I'm currently reading Comedy At The Edge.

I'm sort of enjoying it, although the Introduction is a bit condescending towards new comedians. The author basically attends one club show (what club? where? what night?) and decides that all of modern comedy is inferior to the comedy scene he had spent tens of thousands of hours in and studying during the '70s and '80s. That's it. He sees a crappy showcase

In that, he sort of ignores the counter-movement that followed the era he covers. Throughout the book, the author bemoans the fact that punchlines exist. Especially punchlines that don't involve real life. Absurdest comedy is "okay," in his book, but only when it's making fun of those smelly, old hackey comics who used punchlines.

But now-a-days look at popular comedians such as Eugene Mirman, Zach Galifianakis, Todd Barry, Jimmy Carr, even Doug Stanhope use punchlines ("I thought small crosses on the side of the road were for traffic fatalities, but..."). When used right, they can be just as "subversive."

Then again, throughout the book, the author will write how big a comedian was, and then say their influence reaches comedians Jon Stewart. He does it all the fucking time. George Carlin influenced Jon Stewart. Albert Brooks influenced Jon Stewart. Richard Pryor influenced Jon Stewart. There's even a part, I swear to God, where he writes that Steve Martin had influence "From Craig Kilbourn to Jon Stewart." Those are the only two people to host the Daily Show!

It becomes clear that the author doesn't know any other comics besides Jon Stewart. Yes, they've all influenced Jon Stewart, and Jon Stewart is a leader, if not the leader in television comedy.

But to create a comedy family tree that doesn't branch feels odd and sort of lazy. As if he knows of one or two really popular comedians, and they're the only good results of the comedy era he covers. Other comedians aren't worth investigating because they don't have New York Times profiles. Which then invalidates his point that these comics were revolutionary because they didn't always follow a set path created by the media.

The book is incredibly thorough for the time period it covers, which I respect. However, its ignorance of the preceding and succeeding history make it seem like the late '60s through early '80s were the only eras in which comedy wasn't hacky. Every other era was Take-My-Wife-Please and post-Seinfeld warmed-over observational bits.

I'm not asking that these eras get covered, but that they don't get treated as if they were comedic dark ages.

Comedy At The Edge is a good story book, and very well written, but a poor lesson in comedy history. It's more or less takes comedians you already know and respect and says, "How awesome were these guys? So awesome. Richard Pryor hit women. But who cares? So awesome."