JB, do you think that writing with humour is something you either can do or you can't, or can you learn how?

I think it can most assuredly be learnt, as can anything in this profession. Of course, native imagination can't be, so whether what you learn to write will be funny or not is the real question here, surely? To that, only time and practice will tell.

I have an odd sense of humour. People tell me I'm a pretty funny guy, in a surreal kind of way, but it didn't translate well to my writing. To illustrate my point, the agent I'm dealing with asked me several questions over my Antichrist novel.

'Do you think that Jesus being crucified is funny?'
'Um...no...but the devil probably thought so...'
'OK, do you think that Jesus being crucified by the Sanhedrin on account of his choice of footwear is funny.'
'Hmmm. Not really. But it is kind of funny, isn't it?'
A short pause.
'No, James, it isn't funny.'

JB

It got me laughing JB!
I think it's just that your agent has no sense of humour - and unfortunately that's not something you can teach.

No, he really does. The problem lies in the fact that he thought that to interest a bookseller, I'd have to go one way or the other with the story - all out comedy or dark fantasy. He informed me that the twain do not sell when they meet.

Considering he broke Iain Banks and China Mieville (and two other agents at other agencies said exactly the same thing) I was inclined to believe him. Mainly, I write dark fantasy, so I made that choice. The agent was absolutely right - the novel wouldn't be half as good without his advice.

So, maybe saying I can't write funny isn't the truth. It was the context that was all wrong. That, and the fact that writing humour about religion in these troubled times - especially being anti-religious - isn't going to amuse a whole lot of people, especially not a comissioning editor. I guess at this early stage one has to be as flexible as one can be without losing sight of the tale one wants to tell.

JB

<Added>

I mean, I'm no Bill Hicks or George Carlin.

Ah, I see. Well, Spam-alot seems to be riding the crest of the wave, despite the anti-religious humour.
But as you say, it's context that counts.

I'm not sure you can learn how to be funny. You can probably learn how to use your humour in a more effective manner, but if you can't do funny at all it probably just isn't somewhere your imagination goes.

Deb

The question of learning to be funny is a strange one. I think there is a lot of structure in jokes and humour that can be learned. And I think people drawn to humour learn this, even unconsciously. And if you look at people like Eddie Izzard, he is an absolute humour geek - he obviously spent a lot of time analysing and breaking down other people's work and thinking about it. But I'm not sure you can learn to have a sense of humour. Things tickle you or not. You see the other sides of things, or you don't. It is interesting that great actors are not necessarily able to do comedy. Yet great comedy actors can usually do straight acting and are often fantastic at it too. I think comedy is a way of looking at things, learning how to construct it/put it down is the learning part. A lot of comedians are depressives in real life.

Yet great comedy actors can usually do straight acting and are often fantastic at it too

Very true, and this is often put down to their knowlege of pace/timing, and being able to 'nail' a line as though it was a punchline.
I suspect that poets also make good actors because of this talent - although, off hand can't think of any poetic actors...

I'm not sure you can learn to have a sense of humour

No, I don't think you can but I think you can appreciate other people's humour and even be funny yourself in person without being able to be humourous in your own writing. It seems to me to be a very particular talent that few people have.

Perhaps it also depends on being able to laugh at yourself. Maybe that is why so many comedians are depressives, because they see the realities of life and of themselves.

Do you remember how Margaret Thatcher always fell on her arse when she tried to tell a joke? She just didn't get them, did she? I think humour is essential in my writing. One thing I can get pretty sick of, pretty soon, however, is snappy one-liners from feisty one-dimensional (usually) female characters in stories. The characterisation has to be really solid or else it just irritates, for me.

I think Mrs Thatcher's problem was she had such a clear sight of what she was, and what she wanted, which is anathema for comedy because you're aiming to blindside someone in the punchline.

<Added>

sorry with the punchline.

I don't think it is possible to teach someone to have a sense of humour, but I do think that one can be taught about senses of humour and how best one can write to achieve a reaction in others.

'Why' people laugh or find something amusing is a very interesting and complex question. A good writer in the most 'serious' of books may deliberately introduce something funny or humourous in order to provide contrast but above all to reflect what happens in our everyday lives where pleasant and unpleasant things exist side by side and where humour is never far away from tragedy.

I do not think that a writer should try to introduce something funny or humourous if his/her natural style normally precludes this but a true reflection of the emotions of people will include humour and the most tragic of events can be more dramatically written if the slightest touch of humour is included; just a word, a phrase or the description of a reaction by one of the characters can add much to the total effect.

Len

Comedy writing is a very particular skill, which like most artistic things, can be learned. Not everyone is going to become P.G.Wodehouse but most people can improve through practice.

There are structures and techniques you can learn, standard formulas and patterns, and so on.

As has been mentioned earlier, it's mostly about seeing another side to something, an unexpected viewpoint. It's about surprise: a bizarre form of word association, thinking around a subject over and over, until you find a satisfying twist, whether that's conceptual, character-based, a play on words or whatever.

I like to do the New Yorker caption contest with another comedy writer friend of mine, just to get some practice at coming up with ideas. What always amazes me is the range of different joke concepts and punchlines you can come up with for the same picture.

For example, this week's competition is a two guys and a tree.

We've come up with:
"Am I still in Mexico ?"
"But is it art ?"
and "You're right, it is chewy on the inside."

All jokes based around totally different concepts and implying completely separate scenarios.

I'm sure the winning caption will be much funnier than any of those, and on another topic altogether.

(Go on, see if you guys can come up with something, it's fun.)

And then of course, you have to assemble the words of your joke in exactly the right order, ie as brief as you can get away with, usually with the "punch word" as close to the end as you can manage.
It's amazing how a really good joke can be completely screwed by even slightly rewording it. I don't think any other form of writing is quite so sensitive to word order, except possibly dialogue, where recasting a sentence can make the difference between convincing replication of speech and the famous "tin ear".

Two Guys and a Tree
Doh, it's only open to US residents.

Ok, here's my pathetic effort:

"You took your time!"

Hey NMott that's really funny! I like that.

Yes it is only open to US residents, fortunately my friend is one, so we enter everything under his name.
There is a similar comp in the Telegraph though, but the cartoons are not so good in my view.