: Re: What to remember when switching from audiovisual comedy to written ones? "Oh for God's sake, get on with it!", the half-elf's scream boomed through the fort. The uneasines was palpable,

@Courtney562

Vote Up Vote Down

I used to be a visual thinker like you. Then I took an adjective to
the knee.

The big difference - which applies to other genres as well as comedy - is that you're using the reader's imagination instead of a screen. With a screen, there's little room for ambiguity. With the reader's imagination, what they've seen may not be exactly what the writer has seen. There are opportunities for surprise and comedy in this.

Some writers slap the reader in the face with perspective. I always scowl at the scrolling titles in "Star Wars" - the Empire are inherently "evil" and "sinister", while the rebels want to "restore freedom" by [winning] "victory". There's no room for nuance, which translates better into a visual medium than written text.

It also works well for a reading audience that want to be led, so for some genres a direct description will be the way to go. Others may want to exercise their imaginations more, in which case metaphor and simile will be stronger than a direct description (which is a variation on the classic "show, don't tell" - and you've shown us some examples of doing that in the excerpt). If you can figure out how to accommodate both groups of readers you'll have found the Holy Grail of writing, and an ability to switch between the two approaches is possibly the Holy Grail of comedy.

And watch out for those adjectives. They're sharp and pointy.

(0)

Login to post a comment!