I came across a post on another blog, which quoted Scott Adams' observation about comics being funny.
Since it involves both my favourites - Bill Waterson ( C n H) and Scott Adams (Dilbert),
am posting it here as - is, with due credit to Kunal - from whose post I came across this piece by Scott Adams' :
Kunal wrote:
"......And while we are on Calvin & Hobbes, take a look at this post by Dilbert creator Scott Adams in which he disects the humour in C & H. "
And then he put Scott Adams' Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The core of humor is what I call the 2-of-6 rule. In order for something to be funny, you need at least two of the following elements:
Cute (as in kids and animals)
Naughty
Bizarre
Clever
Recognizable (You’ve been there)
Cruel
I invented this rule, but you can check for yourself that whenever something is funny it follows the rule. And when something isn’t, it doesn’t. One of the reasons comics are such a popular form of humor is that they often get the cute part automatically. Calvin and Hobbes is widely considered the best comic ever, but the few times it featured the parents doing the main action, it fell flat. Whenever it combined Calvin and Hobbes (both exceedingly cute), with some witty dialog (clever), a dangerous wagon ride (cruel), Calvin acting like a typical kid (recognizable), and thinking about adult philosophy (bizarre) it fired on 5-of-6 humor elements, which is virtually unheard of.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thinking of it, this is sooooo very true!
4 comments:
Scott Adams might be doing well by coming up with his own 'management theories' from time to time, but this one was stretching things a bit too far. This seems to have been concocted with the same 'ideas' as some of his other management theories. It works most of the times when he is ridiculing the management theories doing the rounds, but falls flat when it comes to analyzing some of the cult comic strips of our time.
Just an illustration of how Mr. Adams proves his theories...he says that ' the few times CnH featured the parents doing the main action, it fell flat.' Duh!! Now, when did that happen?
Not that I am trying to be too critical of him, but if comic strips could have been made so easily using formulae, well, I'd have been Chacha Chaudhari. :P:P
To best sum it up with a pinch of salt, here's an extract from an 'interesting' comment by one of Mr. Adams' regular readers to the same post -
"...other categorizations add some insight, but "2 of 6" looks really solid. Reminds me of my own 6-point list for rating (pictures of) girls:
1. Beautiful
2. Intelligent
3. Sexy
4. Fun
5. Innocent
6. Sweet
2 of 6 is minimally acceptable, more than 3 is rare, , I only know of one model who regularly hit 6..."
LOOOOOOOOOL....some ppl...:):)
Speaking abt Mr. Adams' blog, have a look at this...makes me too wonder whether oil barons do that...come to think of it, even I haven't met anyone who is evil...hmmm...food for thought??
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/10/top_the_cynic.html
At times, Mr. Adams does come up with terrific nonsense...guess he's good at it...
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/10/how_to_rule_the.html
yes Sats - some posts are really cynical - to say the least. Also, about C n H strips - I personally love every bit of it, parents or no parents! But the idea of fitting a 'comic - strip - success - formula' in the 2 of 6 rule - I liked it, it can work out to be true at some probability.
Post a Comment