Humor as a Seasoning

The other day I was flipping through the channels on TV and came across an old Marx Brothers movie, A Night at the Opera. It’s a 4-star classic comedy. I watched for a bit and was astonished at how unfunny it is by today’s standards. What qualifies as humor has changed a lot.

If you were to watch an old vaudeville routine now, and you are under 60, it wouldn’t amuse you in the least. Those comedy bits relied mostly on cleverness and surprise. Cleverness and surprise are no longer enough to qualify as funny. They were sufficient through the Mel Brooks era of Young Frankenstein, but worked best when mixed with some sexual innuendo or slap stick to take it up a notch.

When I was a kid, the groundbreaking humor was a TV show called Laugh In. It featured adults being silly, and not much else. Cleverness wasn’t even a goal. I recall it being hilarious at the time, apparently because being silly on TV seemed like getting away with something. It violated the viewer’s sense of normal. If you watched it today, it would just hurt. Being silly, and mildly violating some norms, no longer qualifies as humor.

When Saturday Night Live first hit the air, it redefined humor for a generation. It was a little bit silly, but it was more naughty and dangerous. It didn’t violate norms so much as shit on them. (See what I did there?) Humor became, and remained for decades, a test of how much you could get away with.

George Carlin mixed the cleverness of vaudeville with the danger of the new generation and he was huge. I saw him live recently and I still laugh at the first lines he spoke when he walked on stage. I’m paraphrasing, but this is close: “Fuck Lance Armstrong. Fuck his yellow shirt. Fuck his cancer. Fuck his balls.” It gets harder each generation to violate norms, but George Carlin still nails it.

Seinfeld defined the observational school of humor that was huge in the nineties. Topics were funny if you could relate to them. You didn’t need to be silly or dangerous or naughty. Coincidentally, that’s the same time Dilbert started hitting it big on the comic pages. Dilbert started out being clever and not much else. It got very little attention. A few years into it, when I changed the focus to the office, it joined the ranks of observational humor, and it took off. People enjoy Dilbert to the degree that they recognize the situations. I season it with cleverness and cruelty and mild violations of norms, but mostly it’s about the recognition factor.

When reality TV shows hit it big, humor began another huge shift. Sitcoms started to decline as the main source of TV humor. Now the public wants to watch real people doing real (or allegedly real) things, so they can laugh at them at home. If you think about most reality shows, you wouldn’t classify them as humor, but what you are doing at home is often laughing. And when you discuss the shows with friends, you often laugh again. It is comedy in disguise.

Now it seems that humor is moving from center stage of our entertainment world to become more of a seasoning. Only one of the top 10 TV shows in the United States is an outright comedy, and it ranks tenth. But several of the top shows, such as House, Desperate Housewives, Dancing with the Stars, and Grey’s Anatomy, all include humor as an essential ingredient. Humor is a seasoning, not an entrée.

http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Public/menuitem.43afce2fac27e890311ba0a347a062a0/?show=%2FFilters%2FPublic%2Ftop_tv_ratings%2Fbroadcast_tv&vgnextoid=9e4df9669fa14010VgnVCM100000880a260aRCRD

Take a look at the top 100 books on Amazon. The only humor books in this category revolve around a particular topic, with humor as more of the seasoning. Nothing in the top 100 books could be characterized as pure humor, in the sense that the topic is secondary. It is all humor in the service of making a point, about politics, the world, the bible, something. And I only found four humorous books in the top 100.

#5 I Am American (And So Can You Be)

#32 Our Dumb World

#60 The Year of Living Biblically

#88 If Democrats Had Any Brains They’d Be Republicans

The most popular book I authored was The Dilbert Principle. It was humor, but it was about the workplace, and management in particular. Humor was seasoning for a message. My later books had themes, but they were really just excuses for collections of humorous essays. They weren’t so much “about” anything. And they were far less popular.

I had a conversation yesterday with a brilliant business associate about why The Dilbert Blog is so popular, while my book that has the best of its material is curiously not a huge best seller. If my writing is enjoyed by people who read blogs (a tiny percentage of the planet), I thought, the writing should be just as popular with people who prefer their humor in books. My brilliant business associate pointed out that the blog is about interaction. And while only a fraction of my blog readers bother to look at the comments, or make comments, the fact that they can if they want, changes their experience. The blog is seen as a conversation between lots of people, with me as the moderator and shit stirrer. That conversation – or the reality if you prefer – is the show, and my humor is just the seasoning.

I confess to looking at the blog-to-book conversion in the same way an engineer would. If 95% of the people reading the blog don’t care about the comments, I figured it wouldn’t hurt to leave them behind and put my writing by itself in a book for the majority of the world that doesn’t read blogs, who enjoy humor, and prefer books. It seemed like a no-brainer.

In my first proposal to a publisher, for turning the blog into a book, I picked the theme of my wedding. The blog posts in the book track the time from my engagement to just after I got married. Only a small portion of the chapters are directly about the wedding, but it all tracks my state of mind, as the tension ratcheted up. In fact, my original proposed title for the book was The Year I Got Married.

Do you think that title and approach would have worked better?

Comments

[Sam Milby]

Just dropping by to say and good luck to you buddy!

Sam Milby
-----------------------------------------
Office Supplies are pretty boring, but what about organization, productivity, office humor and annoying your coworkers? http://blog.officenmore.com

[penis enlargement]

love u all for this post. thanks for allowing comments here - good luck buddy

[Penisa]

Nice site for penis enlargement Hope you will like it
Its not like we always say
best of luck http://penisenlargement.pk

[RJP]

Hi Scott,

I've read a couple of your books and enjoyed them both! I think the fundamental difference here can be distilled to this: people read blogs only because they're at work, and since just about anything is better than working, the threshold is set artificially low.

When it comes to a book, the threshold is much greater because: A) I have to pay for it, and (more importantly) B) I have to view reading the book as something so worthwhile that I would substitute that activity (i.e. reading a book) for every other potential activity I could be doing with my time. (Being an eco major, I'm sure you get the reasoning here and could likely devise a formula to measure it. :-)

If nobody had to work for a living, blog readership would be reduced to the set of people who write blogs themselves, as they seem to be the group of people most interested in what is on other people's blogs.

Hope that helps!
Bob

[RJP]

Hi Scott,

I've read a couple of your books and enjoyed them both! I think the fundamental difference here can be distilled to this: people read blogs only because they're at work, and since just about anything is better than working, the threshold is set artificially low.

When it comes to a book, the threshold is much greater because: A) I have to pay for it, and (more importantly) B) I have to view reading the book as something so worthwhile that I would substitute that activity (i.e. reading a book) for every other potential activity I could be doing with my time. (Being an eco major, I'm sure you get the reasoning here and could likely devise a formula to measure it. :-)

If nobody had to work for a living, blog readership would be reduced to the set of people who write blogs themselves, as they seem to be the group of people most interested in what is on other people's blogs.

Hope that helps!
Bob

[Dan]

Absolutly.

[st512]

The people who know about blogs probably read it on the web and won't pay for the old stories. All the other people might not understand what the book is about.

The marriage theme would have worked better because many people can relate to the topic. I can imagine someone looking for 'a funny book about getting married' as a present. If you put in some more work, write a few more chapters of episodes you did not yet post in the blog and maybe use some of the many suggestions you got from mails or comments, I'm sure you can make a nice book that will sell pretty well.
Than you can write a sequel about how it is to be married. And if one day luck lets you down (I hope it won't) you can make the best out of it and write part III about getting divorced.

A blog book is much more difficult because you can't sell people what they already got.
As an added value for your blog readers you could include some of the best comments on some of your post. Because most of us don't take the time to dig through >100 crap comments to find that one pearl.
Maybe you could write some funny comments on the comments too.

If you know that already I appologize for wasting your time ;-)

[UTAWAPOS]

For some reason your use of the term "shit stirrer" had me in stitches. Nice one :-)

[Maryanne]

NO!!

There is another factor to who reads blogs and that is: "where do they do their reading and why".

Books I read at home in free time.
Blogs (especially this one) are my coffee break reading. It's more work-place acceptable to take 5 minutes to read something online than it is to take 5 minutes and open a novel.

So, the reason I read the blog (and almost never look at the comments) is the ease of doing it mid-day as a 5 minute escape. A book would TOTALLY not provide me the same satisfaction (I'd just read comics instead).

[Yet another Dilbert fan]

I don't think the explanation is complicated -different title, seasoning, etc etc etc...-, but has to do with added value.

When you announced that old posts were taken out because they'd be in your new book, I immediately went to The Way Back Machine [ http://www.archive.org/index.php ] and thought: why would I buy something that is already available for free?

I have bought blog-books, e.g. the PostSecret.com ones. The added value is seeing some postcards not posted before, and also having a nice print of them :)

[Lymonhead]

SCOTT - NO!

(I sell books as a side business and just finished packing some I need to mail this morning on my way to the other work). If you write a book about weddings, the ONLY people interested are women. And they only (maybe 99%) want to see it from the woman's point of view because to a woman, the man's point of view is irrelevant and they would rather pretend that it is wonderful in his opinion than hear the actual thoughts and phrases that are going on in his mind in picture form (since we think in pictures). Most men do not think white frilly table settings are a nice image to keep in their brains so they decide to think about something else, which probably comes AFTER the wedding. If, by some abnormality, your precursors to the wedding were something women would actually be interested in, then you could POSSIBLY write about that. Men do not like to think about weddings. They would rather think about a pig roast. Making that book would be a mistake unless your book appealed to women.

As for blogs, there are a few reasons people read your blog:
1) to argue with you
2) to see what crazy idea you have today
3) NOT to read the news - we are sick of that
4) for philosotainment - why your (main) book on that matter is popular
5) for a short thing to do that doesn't take much time and is thought-provoking, even when they disagree with it

People read books for ENTIRELY different reasons: For examples:
1) To take them away for a long time so they can forget the mundaneness of their lives.
2) To take them to a very distant, completely different "world". I don't mean just fantasy here, sci-fi and other stuff applies.
3) For philosotainment, philosophy, history, culture, religious purposes, etc.
4) For quick laughs. To pick up a Garfield book and read a few strips in the 80's or a Sniglet.
5) Other reasons that are not pertinent. Like for information.

So, I suggest NEVER to write a book about weddings. Unless you really are crazy and women would be interested in your point of view OR if you are so crazy that men would actually be interested (like if you blew up the reception room because Nazis were coming to take her away). Since you wrote about the wedding in your blog, I don't think it was about how beautiful the doilies will look so the women wouldn't be interested.

As for other books, I suggest sticking with one of the 5 reasons above people read books. You could sell philosotainment. If it is well thought-out, you can write it almost in the same type of language as you use in your blogs and WE will buy it (if we have the money).

Peace.

[Joe]

Yes.

[Sondra]

With the marriage theme, I'd have called it 'The Ramblings of an Almost Married Man'

I think people would have bought it to find out what 'almost married' means.

[Rev. Mitcz]

I risk repeating what might've already been said in the comments, but without sifting through the ~270 comments posted already, there's no way to be sure.

I have an informed theory on the popularity of your blog vs. a book of similar writing. I only say "informed" because I almost never comment on blog entries (and this is I think the first time I've commented on one of yours, though I've read nearly every entry).

A few things come to mind :
1. I don't have time for books, cause I'm in front of the computer (usually working - either for myself, or one of my clients). I bought Carl Sagan's book "Billions and Billions" about 2 months ago and I haven't even read in the inside cover.

2. This writing is short-form. With a spare 5-10 mins in a day, I can complete reading at least one, sometimes several, blog entries. I can't really determine the length of time I would spend finishing a chapter in a book, and leaving off mid-chapter feels wrong and incomplete.

3. I can see what others might think of a given post. I don't care to wade through 100s of comments at a time, but a cursory glance through select comments gives me some amusing insight.

4. It doesn't cost anything - so if I didn't like a given entry, I didn't technically "lose" anything.

5. It's easier to figure out whether or not I'm going to like a given blog entry within the first few sentences. There's no way I'd get an idea for whether or not I'll probably like a book unless I've read through several hundred pages.

6. From a slacker standpoint - no one knows I'm reading a blog as opposed to actually working. Sitting here with a book in my hand says to people "I'm not working. I'm leisurely reading something".

Anywho - just my $0.02.

[Rev. Mitcz]

I risk repeating what might've already been said in the comments, but without sifting through the ~270 comments posted already, there's no way to be sure.

I have an informed theory on the popularity of your blog vs. a book of similar writing. I only say "informed" because I almost never comment on blog entries (and this is I think the first time I've commented on one of yours, though I've read nearly every entry).

A few things come to mind :
1. I don't have time for books, cause I'm in front of the computer (usually working - either for myself, or one of my clients). I bought Carl Sagan's book "Billions and Billions" about 2 months ago and I haven't even read in the inside cover.

2. This writing is short-form. With a spare 5-10 mins in a day, I can complete reading at least one, sometimes several, blog entries. I can't really determine the length of time I would spend finishing a chapter in a book, and leaving off mid-chapter feels wrong and incomplete.

3. I can see what others might think of a given post. I don't care to wade through 100s of comments at a time, but a cursory glance through select comments gives me some amusing insight.

4. It doesn't cost anything - so if I didn't like a given entry, I didn't technically "lose" anything.

5. It's easier to figure out whether or not I'm going to like a given blog entry within the first few sentences. There's no way I'd get an idea for whether or not I'll probably like a book unless I've read through several hundred pages.

6. From a slacker standpoint - no one knows I'm reading a blog as opposed to actually working. Sitting here with a book in my hand says to people "I'm not working. I'm leisurely reading something".

Anywho - just my $0.02.

[Hep]

Don't feel bad I plan on buying 3 copies of your book to give out as gifts for people I don't like,,, er I mean people I think would enjoy it! Maybe 4, I dislike more people every moment!

[HowManycomicsdoes i t take to change a lightbulb]

I think some of the reason towards humor as a season is that it deflects the humor from the targets who can't take a joke. A lot of people don't seem to have a sense of humor, everyone is complaining about being "dissed", damage to their "rep", etc. Personally I think much of the "credit" goes to the PC mentality as well as kids growing up in school where there are no losers or winners, competition is bad and we must stroke everyone's self-image. A lot of what went on in schools back when us old farts graduated HS certainly sucked, but recognizing a job well done, or some healthy competition and even handling defeat are skills needed in the real world.

[Cathy]

It's all in the format.

A blog is not like a book - it's like an article in a newspaper or magazine. Garrison Keilor writes columns for newspapers, and they do quite well and get his writing out to non-readers of blogs. I check blogs I like daily like reading a newspaper column.

It may also be in "image". You've been typecast. To many, you are the creator of Dilbert - period. If they don't identify with Dilbert, perhaps they won't read your book even if it isn't about Dilbert.

Are you really trying to reach the 95% or were you trying to make more money on the blog material? Your blog is not very developed in terms of ads and links. You could do more with this format.

As for commentors, who'd want to be in your book since you obviously consider us "monkeys" and have a disdain for us? Well, I would, if you link to my blog :-)
www.lifetimelearning.blogspot.com

[Nico Voskamp]

I seriously would like to know why you did the log-into-a-book-project. It
a. gives a general feeling of an old dinner being reheated,
b. looses its wittyness without the Internet-context
c. makes you (Scott) look greedy.
So seriously: why did you do it?

[Michel de Becdelièvre]

So your conclusion is that humor being all about transgression is going to travel more and more into bizarland ?
I believe our time is cursed with overlong memories. People get jaded because everything is available.
Before photo / audio / video recording it was possible to be "original" for each generation, most art was forgotten / destroyed fairly soon after it was issued, making it easier to be "original".
Now artists have to compete against 200 years of perfectly recorded art history (and a lot more of imperfect record thanks to archaeologist), and it is getting harder and harder to surprise and shock.
Feels a little like porno movies, they are more and more deconnected from reality, because everything has already been shown somewhere.

[Andreas Toscano]

Much better.

[l.a. guy]

Wow... there are some astonishingly well reasoned comments on this topic. I guess the lesson is you should have posted this topic BEFORE you put the book together.

For what it's worth I bought the book for no other reason than I read your blog nearly everyday and it was a modest way to pay you back for your effort. Then I promptly xeroxed a hundred copies and gave it to everyone I know. They all seemed to enjoy it.

But seriously, thank you for writing the blog. It's the only one I would actually pay to read. And I really did buy the book. :-)

[ahbee]

It would have been funnier if it had been entitled "The Year I got Married to a Dog." But I'm pretty sure your wife would have taken exception.

[Chad]

"People enjoy Dilbert to the degree that they recognize the situations. I season it with cleverness and cruelty and mild violations of norms, but mostly it’s about the recognition factor."

I rummaged up some of the old Dilbert paperbacks a few days ago, and I think I enjoyed Dilbert a lot more when he was being an engineer (inventing anti-gravity machines, etc.) rather than him being an office worker.

I also noticed he was a lot taller then.

I miss Bob.

[Chad]

"Only a small portion of the chapters are directly about the wedding, but it all tracks my state of mind, as the tension ratcheted up. In fact, my original proposed title for the book was The Year I Got Married.

Do you think that title and approach would have worked better?"

Yes.

[Johnski]

I should make my comic have a central theme as well...Are alot of people into stilts?

http://awritersblock.com

[Daren Dahl]

I found your blog just a few months ago. So I suspect most of the book will be new material to me. I plan on asking for it for Christmas.

I do not think the wedding theme would have worked either.

[Darryl Wright]

I bought your book. I keep it in the bathroom next to the toilet. I can read about 4 to 6 of your stories while I drop a load. Personally, it is much more convenient than trying to lug a laptop in there to keep me entertained while I do my business.

[636]

Why is thinking like an engineer a bad thing?
The people who read your blog have already seen it, why would they buy a book of stuff they've already seen?

[karl]

i do think that would've worked better, yes

[Benner]

The Answer

Like plenty of your readers I'm old enough to find Dilbert funny, yet young enough to realize that this fact makes me a tool. Use this information to increase your book sales, re: the ridiculous cover and title. Would you want to be seen in public with that thing in your hand? On your bookshelf?

[victor]

yes.

[Bean Counter]

After reading the NYT article, I think you would qualify to debate yourself.
BTW - Why don't you just paint your restaurant windows? Perhaps a nice faux marble.

[Oz]

Blog: Free and effortless to get to (one click). Fresh material every day. Dumb comments which are also humorous.

Dilbert: Free and effortless to get to (one click). Fresh material every day.

Book: Costs money. Content palls after one reading. Takes a (small) effort to get it. Already have a couple of Adams books at home.

Conclusion: Get enough of my Adams' fix through blog and strip so no need to bother with book. Inertia rules.

[Sam Thornton]

An alternative reason for why the Dilbert Blog is more successful than a book is that, because the blog provides for reader feedback, it appeals to the large number of people roaming the internet looking for opportunities to prove they are clever.

There is no way to prove you are clever just by buying or stealing a book.

There is a potential for proving you are clever by leaving a witty comment on a blog. There is also the potential of proving the opposite, as I have done here.

[rockandroller]

I don't wish to be mean, but I think in publishing your blog posts, you've over-estimated your ability and appeal as a writer. You are a great cartoonist, and deservedly well-known for that, but I've never followed you because of your writing, like, for instance, Nelson DeMille or even in the 80s Stephen King. If Stephen King or Nelson D had a blog, I would definitely be interested in reading it and hearing their "real" and daily thoughts. But as fans of theirs, I would already be reading the blog, I wouldn't have any desire to buy a compilation of the posts in book form. If it was NOT public, and was like a journal they kept, whether themed or not (though themed might be slightly more interesting, though that frame could be anything), I would be interested in buying the book, because you are buying insight into a public and/or famous person in whom you are interested. Your pushing us to give it as a gift is just completely and totally wrong. My Mom has read a few Stephen King books, but she likes him as an author and isn't quite as interested in his celebrity or personality or "behind the scenes" thoughts, or she would have ALREADY BEEN READING HIS BLOG (pretending still that he had a blog).

Everyone that is your audience for the book is here. Whether they're here every day or they read every post isn't relevant, WE are the audience for the book, and WE don't have any desire to buy it! It's like those people who try to sell conference materials after the conference to those who attended. Sorry, you're just not that important. I liked what you had/have to say, I took whatever notes I wanted, I don't need your words memorialized so I can go back and pore over them. Honestly, it's egotistical as hell to think that your writing is SO good that someone would want to read it in book format.

Now, that being said, I'll give you an example of a different, smaller scale, but successful blog. Waiter Rant. He is anonymous, always has been, which adds huge interest and curiosity. Anyone who has been in any service industry relates to nearly every post he makes. People who simply EAT at restaurants began to be drawn to his posts by those in the industry who read his blog and loved it. He branched out now and again and posted about non-waiter things and the writing was equally good, if not actually better. His wrting has gotten better and better over the years, and often, his posts are like short stories, drawing your interest, peaking your creative eye so you can "see" what was happening to him in the post, and leaving you laughing, satisfied, crying, equally outraged, whatever. HE just got a book deal, and that is a book I would DEFINITELY buy for friends and give them. Again, as a regular reader, I would NOT buy the book for myself, I have no need, but I do think that others who ENJOY GOOD WRITING would really like his blog posts and would also become fans.

Your posts are sometimes funny and entertaining, but often get into stuff that makes my eyes glaze over, like all the endless engineering/science talk and religious/philosophy discussion. Not a book I would give to people, sorry.

I love Dilbert and enjoy reading your blog, but if you want to publish a successful book that's nothing but words, you need a ghost writer to punch up your writing and you need to stop posting it for free on your blog.

[Wendel]

I totally disagree with the idea that young people don't like vaudville type humor, or that the Marx Brothers don't translate to the modern viewer. I'm 26, and my brother is 25, and we have always loved the Marx Brothers, particulary A Night at the Opera and Animal Crackers. They made some bad movies too, but who doesn't? Seinfeld is super funny too, of course, and sometimes ripped off Marx Brothers gags. Oh, I suppose it's "homage". Saying Groucho isn't funny is like saying Sargent paintings aren't any good because they aren't 3D digital rendered.

[Bill Tkach]

Probably the only way I would purchase your book, is if someone bought it for me as, say, a gift. I have so many fraking books lying around my house, that are all looking at me in that sad, sorrowful way, saying "Why haven't you read me, Bill?" that I'm liable to light myself on fire to avoid them... sneaky buggers.

Plus, I can read your blog online. Don't get me wrong. If there was a dime slot on your blog, I'd definitely give you a dime whenever there was one in my pocket. But for some reason, purchasing a book is a big thing for me. It means I have to fork out way more than it's worth (especially in Canada, where there is the US price - say 20US - then the Canadian price, which will be like 45CDN, which is ludicrous in an even dollar market). Then it also means I have to devote time out of MY time to read the book. I'm not a retard or anything, but reading takes time.

Also, I generally only read your blog when I'm at work. I can get away with that on a computer screen, but if my boss walks by and I have my nose buried in your book, it's not as easy to pretend to be researching new log parsing software.

Plus, who wants to read blogs from last year or later?

[Borjan]

No, I don't think so. Reading your blog each day is sometime hilarious, but sometimes only slightly amusing.

Now, trying to pretend what it would be like to read the same stuff in a book, I don't see myself bothering for several reasons but the main one would be the relevance of it - reading about your preparations for the wedding and nerves cracking under pressure was fun because it was actual.

Maybe you should have chosen the best comments after each entry with the author's name so maybe more people would buy a book just to see if they've "made it".

[Memo G.]

I don't think the name change would make much difference since the structure of the book remains a blog without comments.

People who read blogs tend to have a shorter period of attention and even memory ("I don't have to know it all, just know where to find it" and that's the web). People who read books tend to like stories that don't have interaction.

That's what I think

[Just me]

You should've included some of the more choice comments. Then we would all be buying the book to look for our names or handles, and raising a big debate about why our comment wasn't chosen while some other A-hole's was.

And no, you shouldn't have titled it 'The year I got married' or whatever. No one associates you with marriage humor, they associate you with workplace humor. It would have been a non-sequitur, and wouldn't have helped sales. Other than your family and us here at your blog, no one cares you got married. Now if Dilbert were to get married, that's a whole 'nother thing.

[Tina]

I don't think a different fake theme would work. I read the blog everyday, yet I wouldn't give the book to a friend for Christmas. Why? How would I describe it?

"Joe, Merry Christmas, here's a book for you."

"What's it about?"

"It's just a compilation of random crap this guy writes everyday."

That's the three step method on how to transform hundreds of trees into a giant coffee table coaster.

I think the real problem has to do with scale and perception. Let's equate time in one's life with calories. A person only has so much time to spend on all available activities. Similarly, a person who wants to maintain weight only has a certain about of calories to consume in a day.

We have a Halloween candy dish out at work right now. Everyone grabs one small piece of candy when they walk by. Because it is ONLY one small piece, people seem to think those calories will get lost in the rounding. Of course, a whole month of these small pieces add up to a large bag of candy. Most people would recognize the large bag of candy to be too many calories, but they fail to realize the total size when fed in small enough pieces.

Going back to your blog, the daily blog is like a small candy bar. The time spent on it seems negligible. What else can I do first thing in the morning for 5 minutes? When you add all those five minutes up, you get a whole afternoon. Most people aren't going to trade a whole afternoon for a collection of random thoughts.

I think you need to break your book back down into small seemingly negligible chunks. Maybe a one a day calendar, or a book that is set up as funny thought for a day. (Similar to those one a day devotional books). Basically if you break the book into smaller pieces it will pass through people's bullsh$$ filters again.

Speaking of a one of day calendar, I have the Dilbert one on my desk right now. While I would never buy a book of Dilbert cartoons, I purchase a one a day calendar every year. I have been reading Dilbert for years, so none of the comics are going to be new. I also don't need the calendar part. I know what day it is. The calendar is money from my pocket to your pocket for something you have already given me. Genius!

[rita mae]

BRUCE JENSEN writes: [Rita Mae said "I know I said I have a lot of work to do, but I check between letters I type. I'm fast."
Don't know who made the post but it was a bit confusing. Do they check between striking the t and the y or between ending a missive and starting another.]

WTF? Oh, wait. He said he is in his eighth decade and was just now starting to check this blog.

Let me explain, BRUCE. This is Rita Mae. I access Scott's blog at work. I am a secretary (NOT an Administrative Assistant, thank you) and I type letters and other documents, in between answering the phone and assisting clients. When I said I check between letters I type -- I meant, I CHECK THE BLOG IN BETWEEN DOING MY WORK. Sorry, I didn't mean to shout. I'm sick and almost as old as you. Are you sick, BRUCE? Do you have to work? Oh, probably not. You're not married to an ex-Marine who makes you work and then takes your money, huh? My bosses call the ex-Marine "the PIMP," because that's what pimps do. They make their girls work and then take their money.

Let's be friends, BRUCE. Forget about Scott. He has a really high IQ and just uses us for his amusement. Do you know your IQ, BRUCE? I don't know mine. How do you find that out? Do you think "Hey, I feel pretty smart. I'm going to have someone check that out."

If you have any more questions, just ask. I'm here for you.

Rita Mae

[Bret Wunderli]

I'm no expert on these matters, but the blog-to-book idea never sounded good to me. It has to do with context. One of the important reasons why late-night talk shows are amusing is because we're so tired that we'll laugh at anything. Try recording Letterman or Leno and watching the show in the clear light of day. It's an altogether different experience. It's the same thing with the blog/book issue. When I read a blog posing, I know I'm reading something that you've knocked off earlier that day for quick consumption. It costs me the time it takes to read it and gives me, usually, a few laughs. A trade-off with which I can live. But if I buy a book, I expect more. If you used your blog postings like a journal to help you remember stuff and wrote a book about the year that you got married--or better--the epic struggle that you have had to regain your voice, I might consider buying that. I think that Homer Simpson's words at the beginning of The Simpson Movie apply well here. Why pay to read something that we have already read for free?

[TWA]

I definitely disagree with the assertion that the old humor, like Marx Brothers, is no longer funny. Not only do my wife and I and our friends still find it very funny, but our kids (now in their early 20s) also find it extremely funny. Last night, I watched a show on TV about classic comedians who had started in vaudeville, moved to radio, and then on to TV with success in each - people like Bob Hope, Jack Benny, Red Skelton, George Burns/Gracie Allen, etc. I certainly think all of them are still funny, and the people who did the show obviously thought so, too.

[Nicholas]

Yes.. I think that your original approach would've been more successful. I'm sure that your publisher doesn't want to hear about it though, so don't be gloating.

[Guso]

Ok, stop it!...we're not going to buy your damn book!

[jerry w.]

If you were to change the title and add a few illustrations when you do the second printing, with

Altzheimer's on the rise, there's a potential huge audience that will buy "The Year I Got Married" and

put it on their Scott Adams shelf next to their copy of "Stick to Drawing Comics Monkey Brain".

Remember, "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read".
- Julius "Groucho" Marx

http://boskolives.wordpress.com/

[Mike C]

"I had a conversation yesterday with a brilliant business associate about why The Dilbert Blog is so popular, while my book that has the best of its material is curiously not a huge best seller."

But we can read your blog for free

[naz]

The blog works because people like the opportunity to express their opinions. In horrendously bad English, I might add.

[Enough Wealth]

Humour TV will come again - it just goes thru cycles which peak as copycat programmes proliferate, and then crashed as everyone gets bored by the formula. The cycle is

Police/Murder - Medical - SciFi - (Western) - Sitcom

The order gets shuffled around, and the last western phase was very short-lived so it may have died off.

I'd still classify House as comedy - just as much as M*A*S*H was. In Australia we're currently in a new cycle of News Parody programs. I doubt it will last much beyond the current federal election as everyone will get bored with it fairly quickly.

I think you're book would have had better sales if you had included less of your writing and more of the readers comments - it would have conveyed the atmosphere of the blog to all those offline reader types, plus you probably would have sold at least one copy to each commenter who had his/her comment in print - a sort of micro vanity publishing.

Regards
http://enoughwealth.com

[Debbie]

I completely agree with you, but unfortunately for your point I think the Marx Brothers are still funny...maybe not laugh-out-loud funny, but there's some witty humor in there that's rarely seen anywhere else. I grew up watching them, and I guess having that experience of "old" movies mixed with "new" gave me a better idea of quality overall and what really does make a good movie.

And by the way, I'm 20. And I watched Night at the Opera too. :)

The title needs work...something that immediately tells the reader that this isn't going to be one of those gushy how-to books. "The Year I Got Married" could go either way.

[Bulbboy]

Lack of a new buzzword is the cause, ie "blook," a blog that has turned into a book.

"The Wedding Blook" might work, but "The Year I Got Married" is just a bit girly, imho.

John Elliot,
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/11/humor-as-a-seas.html#comment-89765112
thinks that "not attempting to rehash free material for money would have worked better," I disagree. Freely available does not equal free. Only you are free to use your collected thoughts in a book/blook.

John Elliot also wrote "...God's Debris to wipe their asses..." , which got me thinking: make a book which is interactive.

People like to read on the toilet, use your most commented blog entries minus the comments, provide a free pen, and leave space for them to write their own comments.

Print it on bogroll, so if they don't like a particular page, it can still be useful.

bb

[A Wart]

I'm with a number of people on this post that true humour is basic slapstick, toilet and downright silly this will always be there, I like the sophistication and cleverness of Bemner Bird and Fortune (UK TV saterists).
I remember watching Blazing saddles with my father 28 years ago we both could'nt breath at the end of it. And the other day I watched with my son and there is 33 years difference between us, both of laughed until tears ran, also Monty Python, Spike Milligan.
There are modern shows that I just don't get yet my son will (he's 10). All of us watch the Simpsons thats an age range of 8 - 80 and we laugh. I remember the first use of the Fuck on UK TV by Billy Connelly it was funny then 28 years ago now it's there but should only be used in context, saying it does not work any more. And one of the best funny shows in the UK is a supposed factual show "Top Gear" whcih is boys being boys stupid humour at the expense of others again my son, my dad and me watch and wet ourselves. The episode in deep south of US where they painted "Gay Love is fun" and "Hillary Clinton for president" on thier cars and got stoned by the locals is one of the best.

Also good subtle plug for your book. You should mention them all, christmas is comming and good ideas are needed.
Andy Watt is a geek and I know it.

Rita should have the award for best use of the word Penis in a blog. Perhaps along with your Blog book we could have he Blog Oscars.

To some people my spelling is humorous.

[Charles]

Yes.

[And the difference is?]

Funny, people buy collections of previously published cartoons with glee...

[Jeanne]

It may have worked better...

Except for the fact that those who read your blog are generally doing it for free and crave the immediacy of your content.

What's past is past.

Timing - it's what humor is all about...

[Pablopatito]

I think the two biggest difference between books and blogs are that (a) you can get away with reading a blog at work and (b) most blogs are rubbish. So when a really good writer starts a blog its going to be a huge success, but writing a successful book is much trickier.

[comments reader]

maybe something that captures the relationship you have with the readers of your blog - your shit-stirring and your readers' reactions - would be successful?

[Al]

"Being silly, and mildly violating some norms, no longer qualifies as humor."

It does qualify as a youtube video though.

[carl]

I think the internet is slowly killing the written word. At a time, in very recent history, there were a good bit of Amish refugees who would love your humor and the information on this blog, but I think that time has passed.

Most people who are interested in your brand of humor, like myself, have jobs, most likely in an office, and therefore have internet access.

Did you release an e-version or an audio MP3 version of the book? I actually listened to you read the dilbert pricipal on MP3 (I bought the cassette and ripped it to my PC and then copied it to my MP3 player, so you got paid :) It was great.

[yes]

I have a question- when it says you respond to something do you actually do it or do you have people working for you do it?
How do you find the time?
Why do you invest the time into it? It mustn't have too big a payoff for you?

[Chris Jagger]

Being American you make the usual inverted mistake of assuming humour starts and ends in the US of A. (Even though a lot of your best comedians and comediennes are Canadian)

When I lived in America, the most popular comedies were British and they were lapped up by the population. The networks immediately bought the rights and remade them into un-funny shows.

Ab Fab became Cybill
Ballykissangel became Hope Island
Man about the house became Three's Company
Steptoe and Son became Stanford and Son (To name just a few of many)

The anomaly to this is the office, which was never funny to begin with!

MASH will always be the funniest program you ever made because it is bittersweet. It is the Marx Brothers, George Carlin and Laugh in all stirred into a porridge of pain and regret.

Chris

[Dom]

Buying a 'blog-book' just seems like entering the party after everyone has left and eaten all the food. It loses its special magic.

[Greg Tallent]

That's a .. no-brainer.. in retrospect. I think you should re-publish with the new title.

Greg @ ww.HelpWorldClimate.com

[Tim]

Scott. I found this post very interesting as I keep a blog myself. I was diagnosed with Hodgkins Lymphoma in March and have been using my Myspace Blog ever since to keep my friends and family informed about my progress.

Several of my "readers" have said that they find my writing funny and informative and that perhapse, when the Cancer is cured (hopefully early nect year) I should look into the idea of publishing the blog as a guide to other people in the same situation.

I have considered how I would do this, I don't think simply reproduceing the blog from start to finish would work. I plan (if I do this) to write of my experiences with hindsight using the blog as source material, possibly reproducing buts of it saying: At the time I thought such and such, but I later found out etc.

I doubt if anyone who does not take a personal interest in my health would care to read the blog (www.myspace.com/timlane1978), however If I can turn my own experiences in to a guide for others in this frankly diffecult situation, that is also personal and readable the concept might work.

Would love to get your oppinion Scott but you are a very busy man (aledgedly) and will probably never read this. However I will take a close look at the reader comments as they could almost apply to my (currently non existant) book.

[gordon_goosemonster]

Scotts not famous enough to get people to part with cash to read his opinions. especially if they've already read it before.

No brainer.

Also the ugly small penis thing wouldn't help his image.

[Jeo]

To answer your question: Yes.

And by the way - people reading this blog still would not buy it a lot, since they already read the blog-entries. So you do have to adress a different audience with the book/title - what you didn't do.

[Barry Manilow]

I wouldn't buy the book because while a daily blog is fascinating, a whole book of them is dead dull. The title is irrelevant.

[Rohit]

The blog works because its funny, unconventional and gives an alternate thought process on things away from the norm. And, it's free.
The book of blogs don't work because these aren't enough to make people run and buy books. I say this despite the megatonnes of trash sitting on almost every bookshelf of every bookshop in every section.

[Håkon]

For a book like that I would suggest a title that would work with self help books. A title that's a slightly cryptic key to the understanding of the topic at hand.

The Dilbert principle is such a title. That principle is the key to understanding organisational behaviour. People bought the book to understand what it all meant.

Your new book doesn't have a topic, but perception of reality, moist robots and free will are big hitters in the blog. Why didn't you try that? Choosing one of those and making a title with a point or a cryptic key, could have worked pretty good, I think.

[Chris]

"I watched an old Marx Brothers movie and was astonished by how unfunny it is"... says the guy who draws Dilbert.

In other news: "I listened to the Beatles and was surprised by how tuneless they are"... says Britney.

[Joey]

Hey, I love the Marx brothers. But I am one of those people who greatly appreciates clever, in addition to the staples of modern comedy. Seinfeld, Arrested Development, George Carlin, all great. Even Larry the Cable guy is funny. What's on the surface is there, but people rarely realize that he's actually quite clever.

But Marx Brothers, it's classic. The humor more than the movies, though, I will admit. They're just a little slow for a modern comedy. It's absurd people in a realistic world, a great combination, but one that people aren't really used to today.

[fatherjack]

No

[T.G.]

There is the mind trick that Past Was Ever Better, I would love there would be a time machine that send back each person that think so (applying the parallel universe thing or whatever crap as to avoid paradoxes), a much better and sparsely populated world would remain.

I don't care much about the year you got married, I am sorry to say that, but I am not that confident about you having a succesful married life despite public humor notes, but still I am greatly tempted to buy your expensive book (in my location) if I find someone suitable for the gift.
(Yes, I am in bad mood, hehe).

[Steve]

Dear Scott,

I wish you a happy life, but who cares about your marriage?
Stick to drawing comics, monkey brain.

PS: maybe your book would sell better if you included a stamped mail envelope, addressed to you, so that readers can send you insulting letters. The chance to verbally abuse you is what makes this blog entertaining, mostly.

[matt]

Why not have a corresponding forum to your latest book?

[Madmarleyboro29]

Humor is subjective.

So is tragedy (it's not funny, if it's your tragedy).

But lamenting over book sales, over something that was simply a copy & paste, by bloggers interacting with your thoughts.

Why worry. They're not getting paid.

If you receive dime one from your latest creation, it's a dime in your pocket.

Rack up enough dimes to cover publishing costs, and you've lost nothing for the effort.

You've added....another edition to your library of imagination, and career.

They (the bloggers) did the hard part. Coming up with witty thoughts, replies, and sometimes totally off-the-subject remarks. You compiled it all, like some appetizer sampler platter at your restaurant.

The Blog World.......it's like cheese sticks, nachos, and weird bean dip for the mind.

It doesn't have to be the main dish. It doesn't have to be what pays the bills.

It's simply......something to tide them over, till the main dish (main occupation) or main anything, arrives.

To the ones who say "Why buy your book, when I have a blog to entertain me?".

OK. Those people are loading up on free bread & salads.....probably won't tip anyways. Drive-by diners :-P

I'd buy the book. I'd read the comic strip. And to the bread / blog. The whole point of checking the whole Kit & Kaboodle out, is to see......something different.

Who cares if the Bread Collection didn't make the Top 100, of books so far.

If the bills get paid, your cat's happy.

Everything else.....icing on the cake.

[Will]

Scott, I bought "Stick to Drawing Comics, Monkey Brain!", even though I've read all or most of the material online. Call me a sucker.

I agree that the blog posts just aren't the same without the comments.

There's one thing I'm confused about. In your blog, you're pretty clear that the blog came first, THEN you decided to make it into a book.

In the introduction to your book, you barely mention the blog. You wrote: "I started writing the material in this book at about the same time I proposed to my wife...I tested a page or so of my writing each day on The Dilbert Blog, and used the comments from readers to weed out the worst of it." While that may be literally true, it really sounds like you wanted to downplay or gloss over the fact that the book is simply a collection of your "best" blog entries in a different medium, rather than "original" material. Those 2 sentences in your intro really make it sound like you had the idea for the book first, and used the blog as a "testing" ground.

I know it doesn't make a difference either way, and it's probably good marketing, but it still seems kind of weaselly to me. I guess that's why I'm not in marketing. (Obviously the book would not sell as well if you presented it as "Best of Scott Adams' Previously Published Blog Entries", rather than "Completely New Material That Was Always Intended To Be Published In The Form Of A Book".)

[tecky]

Being your age, I used to watch Laugh In and when I did have a job, I used to leave the office and say "Good night Dick" and at first, some of the 20 something guys looked shocked. My contemporaries would laugh and repeat. I had to explain where it came from to the younger boys. After the shock and being offended, they laughed and would reply "Good night Dick" back to me. They finally got it.
Which is really funny, because I'm female.
I so miss those reruns.

[Eli]

I think your book is hard to market, Scott- the intelligent people who could understand your blog posts are off inventing black holes or studying quantum mechanics, and it is therefore hard to use tv to sell your book. Online adsd are annoying and are largely ignored. Your best chance is throwing leaflets out of planes over colleges, or buying radio ad time on the classical station.

[Chuck Eames]

Hey Scott, here's the answer to your restaurant success:

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2595330.html

[Sharon]

I found it interesting that when my children were little they found the Marx Brothers hilarious and then when they got to be around 8 or 9 the lighter SNL type movies (Meatballs, Caddyshack) had them rolling in the aisles. My kids don't watch a lot of media so I'm assuming that media is impacting humour in interesting, and possibly unhealthy ways (didn't some cartoon guy just kill his mother for laughs?).

On the book front - the blogs with some background behind what was going on at the time you wrote them would be fun - your wedding wasn't overly interesting - we didn't get invites.

Your blog is interesting - as I'm always curious about "What's on Scott's mind today" - it's a quick read, sometimes thought provoking, and I have fun reading some of the weird replies (um... like this one I guess).

Take out the immediacy, the fantasy that you are reading our responses and the sense of community built by a few hundred other people reading exactly the same thing on the same day and you have the first Scott Adams bird cage liner.

So - how's business - did the article help?

[Keith]

The simple truth is people can read your blog instead of working, while they should be working. That's harder to pull off with a book, AND the book costs money (not just productivity). So...it's pretty simple.

[bob]

Why should I buy your book when I get the real stuff for free right here? I feel like I am really close to the source.

If you really wanted to sell the book, you would include all the comments so that commentators would be published, too.

Hmmm... I might buy that one.

bb

[bob]

Why should I buy your book when I get the real stuff for free right here? I feel like I am really close to the source.

If you really wanted to sell the book, you would include all the comments so that commentators would be published, too.

Hmmm... I might buy that one.

bb

[R J Woodward]

Dear Mr Addams,
It would appear that you have had a minor 'sense of humour failure' (sorry I'm using real English spelling rather than US). How can you not find the Marx Brothers funny? Good Lord, the Beeb (BBC) even re-made Flywheel, Shyster & Flywheel for the radio, and it had a large audience (for radio). The Marx Brothers are probably the funniest ensemble comedy act of all time!!!
Anyway, you blook (book made from a blog) is probably not doing too well for the reasons that 95% of blooks do not do well, vis: blogs are great if you read a little bit every day (especially with the reader comments in most cases), bit they do not work in large chunks! However, you may still get onto the Blooker Prize shortlist!
Your ob't servant,
A Marxist

[Kevin Kunreuther]

I knew you would eventually turn the blog into a book. I had no idea whether it would be successful or an merely overpriced firelighter. Your business associate nailed the reason it's not a bestseller, especially among fanboiz. It's not a Dilbert comic collection that you can re-sell to the masses, especially if they already read the comic the previous year online or from their daily newspaper.
In hindsight, The Year I got Married is a better title, by far, for it speaks to a wider audience, potentially. It would have helped the booksellers tremendously - done half the work of pushing the book. Here's a bold move - if there is a second printing (sorry) change the title to The Year I Got Married, write a new forward, rearrange and re-edit some sections, add a few illustrations of Dilbert, Dogbert and Wally as cherubs sprinkled throughout the book. Before internet downloads changed the face of the music biz, record companies would repackage and retitle albums a helluva lot - mainly to confuse the accountants of the recording artists - but if it is done right, gives old failed projects (sorry) a new lease on life.
Discuss with publisher.

[Bradley Gardner]

The Marx Brothers are hilarious! I prefer reading books by Groucho Marx to books by Scott Adams anydays!

Brad

[D. Mented]

No.
The type of people who would pick up and skim through a book with the word "married" in the title (and not an obvious piece of sarcasm) would not like your style.
D. Mented)

On the subject of getting married, Andy Rooney says "This is the first generation where the percent of women who don't want to get married is higher than the men...That's because they're learning you don't need to buy the whole pig just to get a bit of sausage"
I think that's funny, because it's a reversal of the old line about the cow and getting the milk for free, and I enjoy reversal humor, no matter what generation it's from.
One thing never changes about which humorists have "got it" and which ones never will;
it's the way you tell them.
Think of Kathy Griffith's outrageous comment - in context, it has a little humorous value, but she's so unfunny I can only hear it as the last resort of the boring would-be-comic - shock value. Still 'draws no closer to a snicker than a snore'.
D. Mented

[Chris Marshall]

I think you made the RIAA mistake, assuming that if people like reading your observations on their computer screen for free, they'd just as happily buy them as a book. Actually, these are two _distinct_ audiences.

The Internet is a great place for wasting time, and books are great resources for in-depth information on a relatively narrow topic. Neither is a substitute for the other.

[hanleyh1]

I don't know what classifies as selling well - I'm sure you have the data on all your books. I'd be curious if you have realized any drop off over the years simply due to what I'll characterize as 'reader fatigue', meaning that if you've read a few Scott Adams books, you may feel you have the gist of his writing style/content. Or perhaps the audience that buys your books looking for Dilbert comics might not want to read blog ponderings that while 'humorous' might represent a different type of humor than they were looking for.

[Chris Honkala]

Your friend was 100% right in his assessment.

Of course I realize by posting this response I've lessened the impact of that agreement.

Oh well - guess I'll live with that.

[wa]

That is a very long winded way to end up waffling on about your shitty book. Again.

:D

[Desmond]

I am currently reading your book, and it just inspired me to go check out the website. The book is "Stick to Drawing Comics, Monkey Brain!" and I just love it. Although, while I'm skimming through your blog (I admit it!), I'm watching Carpoolers. Your type of comedy (as shown in this post) really differs from that of Carpoolers. I like yours much better, and it make Carpoolers pale in comparison.

[BTTFVGO]

First of all, no, I don't think that title would have a greater appeal. I have yet to acquire a copy, but will..

Secondly, I agree with what you mean about humor on TV changing. I'm 25 but I actually like the old skits and shows you mentioned. Maybe it's because I'm a traditionalist at heart.

As for The Dilbert Principal, I get got to page 126, but I've been reading it avidly since I got it. It's a great book, but I like the Way of the Weasel.

And the blog? I assume the book only contains the funnier posts, which really messes up the archive collectors. I have all the blog posts since the first, saved, and will eventually print them out as a companion to the book. (Same as I plan on doing to the Dilbert website - I got all the old Lists of the Day, etc, etc...)

But I like the blog, and appreciate it. It definitely is interactive, and it's cool that you can choose to be a part or not. I try, when I have something to say that goes along with what your saying.

And finally, about the evolution of Dilbert, I believe that I kind of like the older, "clever" strips better, even though I will forever love all of them.

I kind of got to hate myself, kicking myself in the ass for not buying a copy of the first 3 Dilbert books when they were new and in the store. I was a little to young to fully appreciate Dilbert - that came a couple years later, and I've been trying my hardest to acquire all of the old books. I have 18 out of 52 Dilbert books. Not bad, but far from a complete collection. By next Christmas, I WILL have them all, though...

[Stiennon]

Next book INCLUDE the comments! Everyone of your blog readers will buy a copy. :-)

[Ron Hardin]

Look up Sid Caesar on YouTube, say the Beethoven Argument www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEhF-7suDsM
and see if it isn't funny.

[Mokkery]

You’re right about the title being wrong, but “The Year I Got Married” is not the answer.

My title is more like "How to succeed by failing a lot."

Here’s what I got from the book:

Scott Adams is just like me…except he’s a minor celebrity…and he’s rich.

This makes me ask “why?”

You’re enormously successful and yet you bumble through many parts of your life. You can afford to buy a luxury car, sight-unseen over the phone, but you’re completely impotent when you need to get it serviced.

You’re ‘desirable’ enough to marry a woman who is clearly a keeper; but at the end of the day you’re just like every other married guy: clueless, and happy that she’s willing to put up with your man-ness.

But you’re persistent.

-- You write a blog entry every single day. (In contrast, I *try* to read it most of those days and I manage to make a stupid comment once in a while.)

You have a strong drive to succeed.

-- You wrote 23 books, managed a restaurant, launched merchandise lines, conducted numerous speaking engagements, and on and on and on. And you did this while continuing to draw a daily syndicated cartoon. (I went to work most of those days and did a couple of little projects on the side.)

You have a high tolerance for failure.

-- In monkey-brain you only managed to type 16 words before confessing that you fail at 90% of everything you do. You’re willing to share those failures with strangers – and more importantly – you’re willing to analyze your failures and try to get something positive out of it. Isn’t that what today’s blog is about?! (Meanwhile, I’m sitting here debating with myself whether this response is too stupid to post.)

So when I see your book…I see a complex look into what it takes to be successful. I see character traits that you’ve honed, and character flaws that you’ve exploited. I see a behind the scenes look at the man who created Dilbert! And if this book goes on to sell only a few thousand copies then I’ll probably love it even more!

Failing in the eyes of the book-buying public does not have any correlation whatsoever with the artistic merit of your book. This book is a successful work of art because you took the time to write it and because you wrote it in a way that is uniquely Scott Adams.

(Hey that was pretty good. Is it too late to get in on that book blurb thingy?)

----------

Also…

I find it amusing that so many people say: ‘I don’t want to buy this book; I read it for free on the Internet.’

I think: Of course I want to buy this! I read most of the first draft on the Internet. I watched as this product got created.

I’m glad I own a first edition copy even if it isn’t your best seller.

----------

[Dan See]

I honestly would not have bought your book if it was called 'The Year I got Married.' I bought it for the blogs, not to read about how your life changed before and after you got married. Now if Stephen Pastis had written a book called 'The Year I got Married' I might have bought that, but only because he writes in his comic about how much marriage sucks.

[Brian]

You're really twisting what the focus of these books/shows are for the purpose of your formula. I read Dilbert; i am 14. Most high kids LOVE colbert, and don't give a damn (a damn, I say!) about politics. Colbert, unlike Jon Stewart, is making people laugh more than he is getting people angry about politics and that is why he is more popular.

You were right at the beginning of this article, though. I'm reading a book on Saturday Night Live right now, and we recently watched teh first season. It was mostly awful. There was some funny stuff, but it was mostly not funny. Seriously, it wasn't even "bad." It was hard to believe Belushi did coke when he is acting all weird.

It seems to be that because of the "I'm so bad" humor, comedy has sucked for about 20 years now. Chappelle and all his sex comedy followers, and then all teh crappy movies about black and white guys, just really aren't funny.
And neither are the idiots like Larry the Cable Guy. He just isn't funny. ANd the same with teh fact that %60 of comedians do George Bush impressions at som point in their routine.

But, lo, there are wonderful programs like The Office, the Simpsons. They started off as "relative" shows, but really it's just teh hilarious situaitions and lines that make them funny now. And people like Demetri Martin and Paul F. Tompkins. They start off their things with an observation, but Tompkins takes it into a 3 minute overblown spiel that's funny because it's so ridiculous, not beacuse we relate to it in any way. Demetri sometimes does this but condenses it into one or two lines. ANd somethimes he goes and finds flaws in logic or stuff like that, but that's beyond the scope of this...blog response.

[Joel Gray]

Scott,

It may have been a bigger seller, it's hard to say. I will say that this post started my wheels spinning. I think that I felt a lot of what you brought up about changing humor. It also made me think about what really works, long term when it comes to "funny."

I'll just say that I enjoy reading your blog. It's always at least mildly thought provoking, usually more, and at times it's even inspiring enough to get my writers juices flowing.
http://blog.palehorse.net/2007/11/13/the-changing-face-of-humor/

[Stiennon]

Next book INCLUDE the comments! Everyone of your blog readers will buy a copy. :-)

[Robby]

I'm not going to buy your book, because I already read that stuff on the blog. Still, it's a good idea to publish it. There are a lot of idiots out there, not to mention a lot of people who didn't read it on the blog. You'll probably make a lot of money off it.

[sally]

"Do you think that title and approach would have worked better?"

Yes. Memoirs are still (as annoying as they can be) big sellers. Obviously, you wouldn't be writing a memoir - but the point remains that at this cultural moment, people like reading about what other people do, how they live. Especially interesting people who either make big mistakes or have big success (preferably both). And you are interesting, if nothing else because you got out of the cube farm and you're Living The Dream. People want to know what you do right. Not just in the "career path" sense (which I believe you've already written about) but in the personal sense, too.

Plus, blogs are free. I'm not going to pay for something I can get for free. Even if the book content is no longer available on the internet, in my head it's still "free content" and not worth paying for. I read this blog every day (though usually not the comments) in part because I can skip a post that doesn't interest me with no loss at all. The time it takes to skim the post to see if I want to bother with it is brief and irrelevant. The cash I shell out for a hardcover book has to be well-spent, though.

And blogs, even very good ones, tend to be first draft material. And my brain knows that. I've bought, for instance, books of Dave Barry columns that I could have previously read for just the cost of the newspaper. Which is a sunk cost because I subscribed anyway, regardless of Dave Barry. But I knew his column collections were going to be of consistent quality. Publishable material, not just blog material. Maybe it isn't fair, but I can't be the only one with that wired distinction.

In short: I don't regret having missed the posts that comprise the book. So why would I buy it?

[Rick]

Basically the rule is to degrade some group which is unlike to be able to respond as a group.

(notice the titles of the Books you mention)

So the wedding idea is a no-go.

making fun of this community that has formed around you is better. (as in your current title)

Each member of your community will think you are making fun of the other guy. (and feel safe joining in with you)

Seems like its true. Everything we need to know about life we learned in kindergarten.

[Adam]

If you wanted the book to match the success of the blog, you needed to make it free and available online.

Oh no, that's silly. You must be right about that "humor as seasoning" analysis. Free and available with a mouse-click couldn't POSSIBLY be the reason the blog is more popular than the blog-book.

[Matt]

One show that will always remain funny to me (no matter how old I become) is the Stooges. Every Thanksgiving I would watch The "Stoogethon" until my parents and relatives couldn't handle it anymore. But, I think you're right that many people can't laugh at a joke unless it's (a) sexual, (b) putting a celebrity down, or (c) littered with some cussin'.

And, I definitely think a book about your wedding would do well (although it's quite a change from the office culture theme).

[amenot]

Old old shows (Andy Griffith, Ilove Lucy, Three- Company,..) have plain dumb jokes based on a person's silliness or stupidity.
People evolve, become more sophisticated so they dont want dumb jokes any longer. The humor in new shows is implied, none of them is outright funny.
The book would sell about the same with any other title. The less personal the title is, the better.
You can't compare it's sale to a book like "I'm America..." because SColbert got a TV show, he's more popular.

[tom]

On your theory of the progression of humor, it seems to be going full circle. In Canada (where I live), the biggest domestic hit TV show in years is a comedy called "Corner Gas." It is about the people who live in a tiny rural Saskatchewan (our Kansas) town. Most of the humor is based on wordplay and wit, with no real observationalism and certainly no edge. I'm told it has hit the states, where it is a hit again just because being un-edgy and mildly sophisticated is "fresh" in the way Dave Chappelle was 5-8 years ago.
Another show, "Little Mosque on the Prairie", has done the same Canada-US crossover, and been a hit in both places. it pulls you in with an edgy premise (muslims post 9/11 in an all white rural town) and then just uses inoffensive, clever jokes.

While the Simpsons-based edginess era was cool while it lasted, its good to see that comedy doesn't have to shock people to work.

[Shawn]

your boo sales would improve remarkably if you stopped doing the blog for a month without formaly stating that you were going to return. People wont pay money for something they know will be available for free in the future.

[DM]

Oh yeah, definitely. In fact, I want to buy the book even more now that I know of it's "better" title, but I don't think I could stand the disappointment of it being on my shelf with it's current hookless title.

I just realised I hate shows that use comedy as a secondary device. I enjoy House, but I see that as a serious show that has a funny person in it.

[CDriK]

No, what did you think ?

IMHO no matter how you mix it, blog posts and comments don't make books.

Except maybe if they were about unpublished programming tutorial by an expert.

[Cheyne]

I personally found it more interesting that, on cable TV shows, Spongebob held four of the top places

[Kelvin Kao]

When Producers the movie came out (the recent one, not the old one), some movie critics were saying that "Springtime for Hitler" might have enough shock value in the past but no longer so. Go figure. We used to say that South Park, Sex and the City, and the Chepalle Show were the ones pushing envelope... but now you can see them syndicated (late night with some editing, but still...)

[Keivn]

I love the Marx Brothers films, and I have seen almost all of them. Just because they're older humour, it does not change them to being "unfunny". I regularly confuse my friends with references to random lines from the Marx Brothers, and I'm only 18.

[HCG]

"The Year I Got Married". This title would have sparked interest amongst chicks, but possibly driven away guys. Chicks love all things marriage. Guys see a book about marriage and assume it is the epitome of BORING. Guys would only buy a Scott Adams book about marriage if they were huge fans of Dilbert or Dilbertblog.

Writing of boring, this may be my most boring post ever. Unless of course I managed to tick of a few feminist by calling women "chicks" and highlighting the stereotype that all women are obsessed with marriage. That would be fun.