Had a breakdown, nearly quit, didn't, but why?

Hello

Just to point out, this is NOT one of my science letters. They'll probably resume shortly. This is a personal blog. You can still read it, but it's not the same thing is all.

If you've been glancing at my facebook/twitter updates recently, you may have noticed a sudden crash in my confidence and aspirations following my first attempt at a solo show. I genuinely thought about quitting comedy for good. While I've received much support/chiding/blackmail in an attempt to convince me to change my mind (which is appreciated), the reasons behind my questioning my comedy commitments weren't made clear, so most of the responses I got were irrelevant or misjudged (understandable, as I didn't give any useful info to anyone).

So, in order to wrap up the whole sorry affair in neat self-contained package, here's the chain of events and the rationale behind my behaviour.

I decided to do my first solo show. It's normal for acts, when they get to a certain point (or in some cases, well before) in their careers, when they feel ready, to do a solo hour. It's useful for many reasons; it shows that you can entertain an audience for that length of time, it shows you have that much material, it reveals that you can construct a longer set effectively, it indicates you have the sufficient writing ability.

Normally, acts do a solo show to take to the Edinburgh festival, hoping to be seen by the higher ups and picked up by TV/Agencies/crack dealers/all three.

I don't plan to go to Edinburgh any time soon, financial, career and familial commitments don't permit it for the foreseeable future. But I've been meaning to do a solo show for a few years now. I know I have the material, but did I have the stage presence, ability, delivery etc. to keep a set going that long? I felt I'd sat around with my thumb up my comedic arse for too long, so I should find out. As I've suddenly become more known in the science communications field, and also because of the interest in my Science Letters, I felt it would be worthwhile having the piece of mind that yes, I can do a solo show. In case it picks up for me even more, you know?

However, I am not one for self-promotion. I have never headlined a gig, I have never been the main focus of attention, I have organised several popular events but approval of my efforts was based on my organisational and planning capacity. That's fair enough. But I've never been able to tell what will happen if faced with a crowd that are there to see me specifically. And I wanted to know! Arrogant? Maybe, but welcome to the comedy world.

However, my self-criticism is quite powerful, and my self-belief is quite under-developed. I only opted to take the plunge and do a solo hour because so many people said they'd want to see it. I figured it would be worth doing. I coordinated the timing so it didn't clash with anyone else's gigs (apart from Ronan Keating's, but that was out of my hands). I gave several weeks notice. I invited all my friends, all of the Cardiff Comedy group, all of my Humourology group (over 1000 people all told), I got plenty of confirmations. As a result, I spent almost an entire week of my life preparing and planning this evening.

Ended up with 9 paying customers. 5 complete strangers, plus a couple for whom English wasn't their first language (an issue when it comes to me, admittedly). Add the acts and their friends, family and close friends who just come to my gigs because I grovel, 16 people there. I put a brave face on it, but the embarrassment was crushing. It was this and the thought processes that transpired that made me think about quitting

This might seem melodramatic. Let me elaborate. And bare in mind, I'm a qualified scientist, so I have properly thought about this in a thorough and analytical manner.

I had at least 35 people promising to attend, several more unofficially telling me they'd be there (which is plenty for a gig), all of whom were really enthusiastic about doing so, which in turn made me work as hard as possible on the show to justify their support. Around 6pm, I started receiving cancellations. Some felt I was worthy of an explanation or excuse. Almost everyone else just never turned up.

I am incredibly grateful to those who did attend (at least 3 of whom are registered disabled), but you did serve to emphasise the number of people who didn't show.

This hurt, it really did, I can't lie about that. There was no other comedy on that night. Sunday night (contrary to what some people have suggested in a generous attempt to make me feel better) is a very good night for Cardiff comedy. Any new event announced by the Cardiff comedy facebook group gets about a dozen people in as a matter of course. My show didn't.

Perhaps I'd pitched it in too 'scientific' a manner? Yet my Humourology gigs get ample people in via the same approach. The only difference is that this gig was focussed on me. And suddenly, the numbers evaporate.

I've been chastised for overreacting to the fickle nature of people. I agree, perhaps in many cases I've just been thwarted by unreliable 'friends'. But the fact that people were so enthusiastic when I suggested doing a show, but then opted not to attend? I can't help but feel that requires more effort than mere unreliability can account for.

I know full well that I could speak to each person who promised to come and they'd all have a genuine reason for not being there. I don't believe this was a conspiracy to make me feel like shit. I'm sure everyone thought 'it's just me, it won;t make a difference'. That's the logic that's causing the environment to go to shit.

Look at it my way; Several dozen people said they'd come, and all of them, ALL OF THEM, suddenly had something else to do that outranked seeing my début solo show. My comedy colleagues would know what a big deal this is to me, my non-comedy friends would too as I told them.

Assuming that they weren't acting together, that's a very large group of people who rank showing support for my (considerable) efforts below things like fatigue, or 'early start in the morning', or visiting a mate, or travelling some distance, or any number of things that I've seen be put aside countless times in order to attend other gigs/events.

It's possible that Several dozen people suddenly had something vitally important to deal with on a Sunday evening. A few is likely, but all of them? As a scientist, I can't delude myself that that's the case. Which suggests that almost everyone, when it came down to it, ranked seeing my show below something else that required less effort.

I know most of the people who promised to come, they aren't bastards (in general). I don't think this was malice against me, but it does logically lead to the conclusion that, despite 5 years on the circuit, people just aren't that fussed about watching me perform. Either they've seen me many times and are of the opinion that to see me again would not be something they'd enjoy, or they've seen me a few times and decided I'm not what they'd enjoy.

Either way, this is a damning indictment of my standing as a comedian.

And yes, it's possible that people wanted to come, but opted to attend to less desirable matters because "it's Dean. Dean won't mind". I know I have a reputation as a soft touch, I'll always help out where needed, I'll let things go rather than cause a fuss. But I'm still a human, so fuck you if you think I'm just a door matt.

The main thing was, I planned my show to account for all the variables people have been telling me are to blame. It was on a day which is arguably the most popular for the Cardiff comedy scene. It didn't clash with any other gigs. It was publicised and promoted in a manner that has been shown to work several times. Even failing that, I was for the first time taking advantage of the bare minimum of goodwill that would obviously result from 5 years of getting involved, helping out, and generally contributing beyond the call of duty to the local scene (to the detriment of my Scientific career, which is not something I ever feel the need to tell my comedy cohorts, but screw it).

I failed.

This of course led me to question my standing in the comedy scene. And it wasn't good. I've tried to stay out of the 'politics' such as it is, but this has probably led to my being more of an outcast than anything. I'm not asked to be involved with any new projects or big gigs, unless someone has to stand in. I've stormed gigs ahead of several other acts on the bill, but when the audience come to talk to the acts after gigs it's never to me. I average about 1 audience member a year telling me they enjoyed.

I don't make an impression, not a lasting one anyway. Either that, or I put people off

I can make a claim to 5 years of doing comedy (simultaneously with a PhD), a serious effort to top writing top flight material (I'm an excellent writer, I will say that much and have witnesses to back me up), countless contributions to the local scene, an eagerness to help out whenever I can and an unwillingness to screw people over to get ahead.

All that. Yet I couldn't scrape together an keen audience in the double digits.

I'm currently unemployed (a big part of which is due to my commitment to the comedy), I have no offers, no work lined up, corrections to complete. I was able to deal with this situation because I felt at least I was appreciated in the comedy world. That is no longer the case. Hence, I didn't think it worth throwing away another 5 years in order get maybe 20 people to my next show.

Now, all of these things are my issues, not anyone else. And I've decided not to quit, but to try and turn this around. But you may notice a few changes in me over the next few weeks.

(Whingeing little prick, aren't I? No worries, I'm better now)

Also, before I finish, some responses to the things people said to make me feel better.

YOU CAN'T GIVE UP AFTER ONE BAD GIG
I'm not. If I was the sort that was, I wouldn't have lasted 3 weeks. Ironically, the show itself went surprisingly well for a first effort. It needs a lot of work of course, but people seemed to enjoy. There's plenty I can work with. It's the massively disappointing lack of support I got for my efforts that utterly humiliated me.

MY FESTIVAL SHOW HAD LESS PEOPLE
Yes, I'm aware that 16 people or so is a very good number for a solo show by a relatively unknown act taking place in a busy festival. But it's a fucking shocking turnout for a debut solo show by a regularly gigging act who has been encouraged to do it by his presumed supporters in a context where other shows could easily expect an audience. Let's not forget I had support too, 3 good acts who also tent to bring along several friends. This time, it seems like my being the main act actually sapped their usual followers. That hurts.

YOU CAN'T THROW IT IN BECAUSE YOUR FRIENDS ARE UNRELIABLE
I'm not. But see the massive rant that precluded this.

BUT YOU'RE A GOOD COMIC!
I could be a poet, good singer, good bloody philosophiser, if nobody wants to see me do it it's still just me talking aloud to an empty room. And that's mad

YOU'LL MISS IT IF YOU QUIT
Reformed junkies miss heroin, it doesn't mean quitting isn't good for them

LOOK HOW MANY PEOPLE LIKE YOUR STUFF!
Yes, it's nice to know that at least 25 people, one of whom I married, find me amusing (thanks Ted). But it was the massive disparity between my apparent on-line support and my actual, physical, real world support that led me to this. Thanks for the nice messages, but you were just highlighting the issue for me.

There, that's off my chest now. I'm not quitting, but I am adapting to this. Let's move on.

"Dear Women, from Science" (No. 11)

I sincerely hope people actually read the following before deciding that I need castrating for being a sexist pig or what have you.

"Dear Women,

This is the anthropomorphic personification of Science, with an open letter to all women everywhere.

Hello

Please forgive my using the bare minimum of polite small talk, even in a letter, but I'm afraid time is of the essence and I can't afford delays. The fact of the matter is that, despite my best efforts, recent budget problems (thanks to economy, that git) coupled with my attention being taken up by homeopaths, chiropractors, antivaxxers and the rest (it's like having fleas, being constantly besieged by armies of mindless parasites who want my blood but have no understanding as to why), it appears I've been caught off guard, and a serious problem may be imminent.

I'll be blunt. There is another potential pandemic in the making. I just managed to spot swine-flu in time to give everyone the heads up, although it still may end up being devastating (thanks again to the antivaxxers, why don't they just pour cyanide in the reservoirs and speed up the process? As long as it doesn't cause autism, right?). However, there is another virus which appears to have completely passed me by, and from what little evidence I have been able to gather, if it does get any more virulent it could wipe out mankind. I am writing to all women because, by some quirk of biology or serendipity, you appear to be able to accurately identify and diagnose this virus without training or expertise.

I have classed it as influenza masculinus, but it is more commonly known as 'man flu'. I have no idea how a species-specific gender-specific virus of such potency could become so widespread in the population while completely escaping my notice. But sadly, that appears to be the case. And in case you doubt my credentials in this area, bear in mind it was me who discovered the atom. It was down the back of the sofa (amongst other places). So my observational skills are unsurpassed. I even devised to observer effect!

The worrying aspect is that the majority of woman claiming to have witnessed a victim of influenza masculinus appear to treat the sufferer with a degree of contempt, amusement and ridicule, which is behaviour uncommon in women (or so my expert behavioural analysts tell me, although they're largely unattractive bloated men, so are probably working from theories alone). This is without doubt the worst possible course of action/behaviour. Until my people are able to isolate the virus and develop a treatment, please treat all likely cases with extreme caution.

Although there have been no confirmed cases as yet of influenza masculinus transferring between genders, I cannot stress enough how potentially dangerous such an occurrence would be. All of my available data suggests that it would be extremely virulent, and the more vindictive females would have to find new targets for ridicule, as mocking a disease sufferer while suffering from the same illness would be illogical, and I can't imagine an illogical woman! (admittedly, I'm not known for my powers of imagination).

If this does not convince you, consider logic. The male victim is often mocked for his inability to function normally while suffering from the infection, and is ridiculed for his perceived lack of stamina in comparison to the typical female. However, male bravado in the face of physical discomfort is a far more prevalent behaviour, however unnecessary it may be. Males are often seen to be engaging in activities which are highly likely to cause significant physical distress (e.g. contact sports, heavy drinking, drug abuse, sexual intercourse with Paris Hilton etc.). The fact that they succumb to this virus should be deeply troubling.

Biologically, there is also cause for alarm. It is undeniable that males have evolved to be more resilient to damage and physical harm, so a virus that could so effectively undermine the male system must be potent indeed. By my calculations, should a woman be infected with influenza masculinus, she will be instantly killed. The manner of death depends on the effect on the metabolism the virus has, but I've narrowed it down to instantly liquefying (i.e. Ebola, only much, much worse) or spontaneous combustion. Either way, it'll be messy.

The fact that no woman has ever been reported to be infected with 'man flu' is something I have to attribute to an evolved trait of the virus; it would be detrimental to the virus to thoroughly obliterate its host before it has a chance to spread, so it has evolved to avoid the more fragile hosts (and then, as previously stated, no women who was infected with the standard virus would last long enough to report it or be diagnosed). But it could only be a matter of time before a mutated (weaker) form of the virus starts killing females, so I must ask for your assistance, for your sake as well as mine. There is also the possibility of the virus becoming more potent among men, which could eventually wipe out most of the men on Earth. And before you open the champagne to celebrate your feminist utopia, are you so sure a world of women would be a positive thing? Two words; Heat Magazine.

Please, avoid contact with all sufferers of man flu. Seeing as you're only going to ridicule them anyway, you've not really lost anything (I believe the refusal of males to seek medical help coupled with the dismissive attitude of women is what caused this lack of awareness on my part). And pass on a message to any men you believe to be suffering with the illness, tell them to report to me (or more accurately, my doctors) as I need all the data I can get if I'm going to fight this thing.

I have also investigated the possibility of influenza femininus (woman flu). There is some evidence to suggest that it exists and that men can catch it, but they don't show any serious symptoms. According to anecdotal evidence, men suffering woman flu can display a range of symptoms, such as 'mild hangover', 'nothing at all' to 'bellowing laughter while ripping a phone-book in half'. Still, I'll look into it.

Be alert ladies, I'm counting on you to save the world (possibly)

love and kisses

Science (BA hons)"

Now you can kick me in the nuts (should our paths cross)

Email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

Poor Susan!

Clinic tends to Boyle

Unless you've been living under an especially big rock for the past few months (or working in a Vodaphone call centre, apparently), you probably know about Susan Boyle. A Britain's got Talent contestant who was launched into World Wide Superstardom because she's not as attractive as most crap singers. Not that she is a crap singer, but apparently, she should be crap. Because she's ugly, and only pretty people can sing. There's some mythical equation in the music and entertainment industry, where attractiveness is directly proportional to performing talent. Also, as with most British Reality talent contests these days, there's a category of contestants which doesn't exist officially but blatantly does. Not sure what they're called, but to understand what I'm talking about, remember that in the 18/19th centuries, wealthy folks used to visit mental asylums, where the patients were prodded and stared at, purely as entertainment.
Britain's Got Talent, X-factor and other shite like that, they offer do the same thing, only you don't have to leave your home and the inmates haven't been diagnosed yet. Susan Boyle looks like she should have been one of these, but she wasn't you see, she could actually do a bit of singing. Thing is, she could still have been mad and recent evidence suggests she still is, but she doesn't look nice in the traditional sense.
The first wave of publicity was about how inspirational she was. She was an ugly woman who showed that you didn't have to be attractive to be talented. Nobody actually ever thought that, I've never heard anyone ever say that, but it's nice to be told what we are thinking by the media groups who decide what we are thinking on our behalf when they make things we watch or buy.
I always found it ironic that they kept mentioning how she defied our appearance obsessed culture by being so ugly. That this ugly, hideous, shambling, hairy, grotesque woman, and God she's rancid, should be able to sing, despite looking like the Rancor's mother, well that shows how appearance obsessed everyone except the media is. Hmm...
But yeah. She didn't win, apparently. She came second. But the pressures she's experienced, which must admittedly been insane, has driven her to the Priory. People seemed surprised that a 50+ spinster who seems mentally unsound and has never left her village in Scotland would be badly affected by the most intense media scrutiny anyone's ever experienced. Nobody saw it coming, apparently. Except anyone with any know how.
That's why the BBC did the article linked above. What the experts say about the way she was treated. There's some suspicion that reality TV may be exploiting people. In other news, Earth goes round the Sun. But the article itself seems to be very media-biased to me, even the Government funded BBC. Note how all the TV pundits and pop psychologists get big sections with photos, and the true experts get seven or eight lines and no pics at all. Interestingly, the pop psychologists seem far more supportive of Britain's Got Talent producers etc., (you don't bite the hand that feeds you I suppose), whereas the real experts are more scathing, or as much as you can be with seven short lines to get your point across.
It could be argued that the pop psychologists have TV experience and a media profile, whereas the others do not, so they are less able to make a punchy, concise argument for mass consumption. Why, then, does Charlie Brooker, by far the most famous person in the article, get a seriously reduced section? And no pic? He's also the most critical of the media involvement in her breakdown too, weird that.

On a finishing note, I find it very appropriate that Britain's Got Talent, a show supposedly displaying the best of all that is British, is sponsored by Domino's Pizza; An American Business selling Italian Cuisine staffed largely by middle-eastern or East European immigrants. If that doesn't symbolise the multi-cultural Britain I know, nothing does.