An Interview with Jerry Seinfeld (2017) | Hacker News Reader

An Interview with Jerry Seinfeld (2017)

hbr.org

110 pointsuptown172 comments

There are extremely few comedy shows I really enjoy: Arrested Development, Curb you Enthusiasm, Fawlty Towers, Only Fools and Horses, Malcolm in the Middle - and Seinfeld. I think they all have something in common: while they all offer plenty of easy-to-digest but clever short-term jokes, they regularly feature completely unexpected long-term jokes, to great effect.

Seinfeld stands out because they typically achieve this across storylines. A great example (spoiler alert) is Kramer's golfing vs. George's lying in "The Marine Biologist", where the literal act of revealing that the joke was actually a storyline collision got the biggest laugh in the show's history. They sometimes even did it across episodes, for example George's job as a hand model. I think this is one of the main reasons Seinfeld nearly topped the 2013 WGA ranking of the best written TV shows [0].

Larry David became the master of this technique during the 3rd year of Seinfeld, and he further perfected it in "Curb".

[0] https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-best-wri...

Seinfeld is lowest common denominator humor just above duck and fart jokes, and it sells because it’s clean humor. A step up from knock knock jokes. Seinfeld uses a well worn template well.

What I dislike about what you like is the cringe comedy element. I can’t stand it. I far prefer surreal or absurdist comedy, like Aqua Teen Hunger Force or Futurama. Pound for pound 30 Rock is way better written and funnier than Seinfeld. Seinfeld makes Friends seem edgy by comparison imho.

30 Rock is lowest common denominator humor just above duck and fart jokes, and it sells because it’s clean humor. A step up from knock knock jokes. 30 Rock uses a well worn template well. What I dislike about what you like is the cringe comedy element. I can’t stand it. Pound for pound Seinfeld is way better written and funnier than 30 Rock. 30 Rock makes Friends seem edgy by comparison imho.

Seinfeld isn’t lowest common denominator, it’s situational comedy. The genius is almost every human can relate to the jokes but they’re executed at a high level of talent so it’s all elevated. Jokes don’t need to be dark or complex to be “good”. If anything people overly complicate jokes to obfuscate how bad the joke actually is.

I think what you’re describing is anything done my Seth McFarlane, who probably perfected crude “lowest denominator” humor tbh.

> he genius is almost every human can relate to the jokes but they’re executed at a high level of talent so it’s all elevated.

I argue that people who don't think Seinfeld is funny remember it as a show that their parents' watched, and they didn't get the jokes, because they were kids. But if they were to give it a serious shot as an adult, they would enjoy it.

Once you grow up and start interacting with adults, the humor of the show lands. So much of the humor revolves around the petty conflicts we have all the time in adult life.

Jerry's lack of talent compared to everyone else is pretty funny too. I love scenes where you can tell he's holding back laughter while everyone else is nailing it.

I disagree with every single point of this comment. And I'm not even a big Seinfeld fan.

Lol, the real comedy is this comment - I'd think it was a joke itself if I didn't know better.

...And I really like Aqua Teen Hunger Force and Futurama! But they aren't particularly highbrow humor compared to Seinfeld.

De gustibus non est disputandum

Seinfeld, clean? Futurama, surreal or absurdist????

As another commenter pointed out, I bet this is from people being a bit young when Seinfeld came out and not getting the humor. I always thought Seinfeld (the show) and Seinfeld (the comedian) were both square and not edgy at all… then I watched both as an adult (40) and they are anything but square. The humor is just smart and subtle.

> just above duck and fart jokes

This comment quacked me up.

The weird thing is, depending on who's being interviewed, people who worked with Larry David say he either cared about continuity or didn't care about it at all. I've heard both statements, which I was puzzled by. My guess is that he initially didn't care about continuity but by season 3 had come to fully realize that continuity allows you to recycle laughs (in a good way) in other storylines. It also makes the characters seem more real.

I'd guess is that comes from how genuine it all is? The "continuity" doesnt come from "I care about continuity" but just from "This is how these people would act."

The choreography of the story arcs is something I've realised is almost unique to Seinfeld having revisited it 20-odd years later now that it's on Netflix.

So many episodes are ridiculously dense with memorable moments. "Oh, this is the episode with X, oh, and Y... and Z". They way the storylines intersect and / or peak together is meticulously crafted as well.

And the character Newman, a uniquely beautiful Seinfeldian / Larry Davidian version of evil.

It's always kind of amazing to me how much of an asshole Jerry Seinfeld comes off as. It's sort of his stock in trade at this point. He's very funny and smart, and an egomaniacal asshole. And he doesn't care, because he has a gazillion dollars and all he cares about is what's funny.

I just realized that Jerry Seinfeld is the Elon Musk of comedy.

Get where you're coming from, but IMO here he just lacks false humility. All I heard about how the show Seinfeld was made, I think he's probably pretty accurate there. They were able to keep it up for a little while even after Larry David left.

He's quite full of himself (the show was called "Seinfeld" after all, before hardly anyone recognized that name), but I think that's part of the comedic persona, that's his routine, a snob successful man.

A thing I really find off-putting is the overt misogyny of the Seinfeld character in the series - he's a ladies man and has very little regard or respect for his romantic conquests, over 70 throughout the series, iirc. Jerry's love interests are a source of gags, but the fact that he's essentially a sexual addict if never addressed or mocked.

I realize the character is not the same as the comedian, but it's hard to disentangle the two, especially if he owns up to such a large influence on the final text. It's as if a woman was never involved in the writing so she could object to the disposable nature of Jerry's female companions. Is it a personal fantasy that's being projected, is it a comedic version of his real life? I don't know.

Carol Leifer was a writer on the show for many years and the inspiration for Elaine, as she was an ex-girlfriend of Jerry’s and they remained friends after the breakup.

>it's hard to disentangle the two

It's not hard at all. It's a TV show.

Well the show motto was "no hugging, no learning".

But don't you think Elaine was a "strong independent woman"?

Shadduppp! [pushes <some guy> in the chest with two hands, <some guy> falls over backward, looking alarmed]

I think she said "Get out"

Do you feel that Elaine was misandrist for basically treating men the same way?

Elaine literally says that she hates men on the show lol.

I don't know why it's off-putting that Jerry was always failing at relationships. There's never an insinuation that he's a sexual addict. He just has a ton of first dates because he's a weirdo and so are his friends. It was fairly common for characters in that era of sitcoms to date a stream of new people. The only difference between Jerry and other characters was that the dating was usually a method of creating tension for characters who fans thought SHOULD have been dating. But that type of storytelling requires a sort of earnest humility in the character, and the Jerry Seinfeld character had none to give. Elaine did the exact same sort of thing with men in her relationships.

To me it just seems like they're exploring the funny side of relationships. That they started with funny observations about relationships and then picked a combination of main character and side(?) character that made sense to play out each joke. None of the main characters have any regard or respect for their romantic conquests - once the joke is done, they move on to the next thing. Just like they don't have respect for each other or anything else in the universe - except parents.

People who look to polish their hobby horse always seem to find a way. The Elaine character is exactly the same and you didn’t pull out your misandrist violin for some reason. Care to reflect on that?

Forced gender and identity based virtue signalling gets so tiring.

Yet, it's not nearly as tiring as as people accusing other people of "force[ing] gender and identity based virtue signalling."

Especially since accusing others of virtue signalling is, itself, a form of [virtue] signalling - https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=42280

This doesn't make any sense as one of these is logically less in volume than the other one, since it's just a reaction to the first virtue signaling. It's probably more tiring to you because you post stuff like that a lot.

It makes sense because the latter is by definition a form of virtue signaling while the former is just presumed to be.

Virtue signaling involves intent, so a person pointing out something is, say, misogynistic might do it because they are really concerned about the topic and it's the way they feel, even taking the risk of an unpopular opinion. Whereas someone denouncing them for virtue signaling is overtly engaging in virtue signaling, i.e. publicly proclaiming their distaste or disinterest to the topic.

Unlike the first case, there is no larger public interest the denouncer claims to protect.

>It's probably more tiring to you because you post stuff like that a lot.

Nope, I absolutely do not, nobody in my life has ever accused me of virtue signalling or even implied it. Try again.

>one of these is logically less in volume than the other one

You're absolutely right, accusing someone of "virtue signalling" is certainly more voluminous! The absolute only reason to accuse someone of virtue signalling is because the accuser themselves want to publicly signal their values to others and show their group affinity.

Many successful comedic shows are named after their creators.

Bob Newhart had _two_ shows to his name. Carol Burnett had a show named after herself too. Of course, I'm dating myself by readily recalling those. :-)

Lucille Ball may have been the prototype!

Three, if you count the short-lived "Bob" where he's a cartoonist.

Making the characters somewhat amoral jerks was very much intentional - the mantra of the show was "No hugging, no learning."

>I realize the character is not the same as the comedian, but it's hard to disentangle the two

No, it's really not.

I think it’s actually a schtick.

The clip where he refuses to hug Kesha is kind of awkward, although totally more her fault for just bombarding him and randomly demanding a hug: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX3_L8z2uw4

I hate that I'm doing this, but if a man went up to a famous woman and demanded a hug, would that have been awkward?

I don't like hugs, and I feel perfectly entitled to tell someone I don't want a hug.

Men do that to non-famous women more than you might expect. If it would have happened the other way around, Seinfeld might have just gotten that hug and it wouldn't have been all that surprising.

(FWIW, I'm fully in the camp of 'don't assault folks with hugs' and I personally don't like them under most circumstances).

Seems like a perfectly normal reaction to me. It's reasonable for not wanting to hug a stranger.

Especially since he's known as somewhat of a germaphobe.

> It's always kind of amazing to me how much of an asshole Jerry Seinfeld comes off as.

Came here to say this, only to see it’s the top comment. Bravo. Love me some Seinfeld, but goddamn it man, show some kindness and humility.

I would not expect humility from a guy that unabashedly dated a 17 year old when he was 38 years old.

That one's choice of partner is indicative of humility is an interesting sentiment. I guess if you see it as "the younger the better" and consider another person picking a better partner as reducing your pool of acceptable partners then it sort of makes sense.

Where do you see that in this interview though? I might be culturally biased but I don't get this vibe in this interview at all.

"The show was successful because I micromanaged it—every word, every line, every take, every edit, every casting. That’s my way of life."

I think you are reading too much into this sentence. I took it as a sarcastic comment on the (tongue-in-cheek) suggestion that he could've asked McKinsey for advice to streamline the production. Also note that he did not say that his micromanaging was the only reason for the show's success - only that it couldn't have been a success without it.

In interviews he has repeatedly stated that 1) they were extremely lucky that they got this talented cast, 2) they were extremely lucky because NBC basically gave them carte blanche, 3) they were extremely lucky because they had such talented writers, and 4) without Larry David, he simply couldn't have done the show.

That being said - he chose Larry David as a partner, he and Larry had the last word on every casting decision, he and Larry only hired writers they thought were funny, re-worked every single script, and wrote most of the early episodes, and he was able to smoothly handle NBC. So yes, he did micromanage the entire show (together with Larry David). I have heard cast members say in interviews that Seinfeld basically worked nonstop for 9 years. He had no weekends and no family, the show was everything. When other other cast members came in fresh in the morning for filming, he often had an all-nighter of rewriting behind him.

Is that a healthy way to produce such a show? Certainly not, and Seinfeld has sometimes remarked that he was close to suicide at some points (Larry David quit because he physically couldn't do it anymore). But I tend to agree with him that this micromanaging kept the show together, and without it, it wouldn't have been a success.

Also consider this: most of the great laughs on the show were not his lines - but lines he and Larry gave other characters (mostly George, Kramer and Elaine). In the show, his character is really just a kind of distant observer. Other actors get the laughs and the screen time. Is this the behavior of an egomaniac?

> In the show, his character is really just a kind of distant observer. Other actors get the laughs and the screen time.

Yes, the gag goes to the appropriate character who most often is not Jerry.

Everyone has favourites, but to my opinion, part of the show's success is the different comedy styles used at the same time.

Kramer does physical comedy - the way he moves and holds his body is funny - if there's a gag about e.g. a high-pressure shower it's with him. George does emotional comedy - there's embarrassment, spite, stubbornness, vanity, deception, etc. Elaine speaks to people who have office jobs, and Jerry has an observational, intellectual turn of phrase. Often he's commenting on the antics, which heightens it.

Almost everyone who has achieved something great has micromanaged like this. It’s just some decide to be coy about it.

I can't help but think you are right. There is so much negativity around micromanaging and yet... it seems to work sometimes. Many complaints about Musk, Bezos, Jobs micromanaging.

Worked out stellar for The Bee Movie!

End sarcasm…don’t watch it unless you like creepy bee human sexual tension

I remember when Jerry Seinfeld shit on an interviewer for being boring and lacking skill — for basically the entire painful interview. The interviewer wasn't offensive in any way but they did genuinely lack skill. I think Jerry was offended that they would send such a minor league interviewer over.

Jerry also publicly embraces and admits to being an asshole, arguing that people always come with weaknesses and strengths, and that as far as his life has gone so far he's rather comfortable with his hand.

Nor me, he sounds fine.

People are so used to the same standard, cheap brand of self deprecating humor that anything else comes off as “egomania”

> The show was successful because I micromanaged it—every word, every line, every take, every edit, every casting. That’s my way of life.

In which he takes sole credit for the success of something a fair few people had a hand in. Not to mention luck, etc. I'm fairly sure this qualifies as egomania.

Claiming that you are crucial to a project is not the same as taking sole credit for it.

This is one of the biggest things I see software engineers struggle with in both hiring and annual reviews. They are so afraid to point out why they were critical for a project that they end up marketing themselves as a ride-along, which does not look good.

Note that no one would expect Seinfeld to not be a crucial part in a series that is named after him.

He could have said things like, "I always think my micromanaging was what made it successful, but lots of folks worked really hard on the show"

He didn't, though.

In that particular sentence, no.

does being part of a project because of lack of resources count as being critical?

> In which he takes sole credit for the success of something

I don't think he has ever taken sole credit for the show, neither in this interview or in the plenty of others I have read or watched.

Are there lots of people disputing him? Or are you just reading into something with no foreknowledge?

It literally has his name on it.

In the supplementary behind the scenes footage, the other cast members specifically mention that their job was easy in comparison because they showed up, said their lines, then left for the summer, while Jerry (and Larry, when he was working on the show) were putting in grueling, obsessive 18 hour days, all year long, for the duration of the series.

What if he's just right?

As an example - there are a lot of smart people at Tesla, and there have been for years. If you'd have put me in charge of it 10 years ago it would be dead. Dead dead dead. Elon makes a big difference. He's done it several times. Some people actually are the differentiator.

… which works well when he's having a conversation with Mark Zuckerberg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mkR3BkuKCI

In these times when nobody says what they think just to be liked, people confuse assertiveness with being an egomaniacal jerk

Most people think acting like an egomaniacal jerk is what being assertive means.

In kindergarten, 35 years ago, I was taught "if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all." That saying comes from a movie that came out 45 years before that.

So people not saying what they think just to be liked is certainly not "in these times" thing. It's something children have been taught for at least the last century.

I don't know the man, but what I see is that he is, ultimately, dissatisfied with his work. There is an effortfulness to what he does that belies an underlying cynicism about comedy. He is a tragic figure in that sense, all that success and yet not quite content. I can believe that he micromanages everything. Maybe part of it is that he really wants to do standup, but the show was much better than any of his standup. The standup pieces he does for the show are undoubtedly the weakest part of Seinfeld. It is notable that in the Seinfeld reunion episodes in Curb Your Enthusiasm, all the old cast gets skewered but not Jerry [1]. I suspect Larry knows that deep down, Jerry can't take that kind of joke. Still can't.

[1] I just want to say that the scene where Larry impersonates George is one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

Total non-sequitur but that - "standup pieces he does for the show are undoubtedly the weakest part" is just what I thought about The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel. Not that I'm saying the rest of it was that good - it had an oddness that the supporting cast was always better or at least written better then the principals. Honestly the wardrobe was better then the principals...

At first, then it felt like every character - lead or supporting - got Flanderized into pap.

> I suspect Larry knows that deep down, Jerry can't take that kind of joke. Still can't.

What's the meanest thing you can say to someone really dedicated to their work?

Your work is worthless.

I guess many, if not most, great artists would immediately agree.

When Bee Movie came out it got slammed pretty hard, and he seemed to disappear for awhile after that.

I liked Bee Movie, it wasn't for Seinfeld's established audience though, it was for kids, and I enjoyed watching it a few times with my kids, and they enjoyed it too.

Funny thing with people's expectations for consistency across totally different forms of media and target demographic.

> Funny thing with people's expectations for consistency across totally different forms of media and target demographic.

I am Jack's consistent disappointment that my coworkers don't live up to the discourse standard that HN accustomed me to.

I think you are right.

Have you watched "Comedian"? It's a documentary which follows Jerry around as he struggles to re-enter the world of standup comedy. It was released in 2002, so this is just a couple of years after his show ended.

He clearly is not happy and is extremely hard on himself.

One quote I remember: after a show in a small club in New York with which he is very unsatisfied the club owner says something like "You looked like you were having fun", and Seinfeld replies: "That's my job."

> Maybe part of it is that he really wants to do standup, but the show was much better than any of his standup.

I thought he was considered royalty among stand-up comedians even before the show? As judged by fellow comedians I mean

I feel like standups respect each other much more than the audience respects them. Presumably because only other standups know how hard it is to even survive up there, let alone succeed.

Are you referring to the character of Jerry Seinfeld on Seinfeld, or are you referring to this interview?

I’m pretty sure most people are egomaniacal assholes, they just can’t afford to publicly be so.

I’m reminded of a quote from Art School Confidential:

> Bardo: Why are you such an asshole?

> Marvin Bushmiller: Now that's a great question. No, really. It really is. I am an asshole because... that is my true nature. Maybe it's everybody's true nature. Every single one of you looks like a fuckin' asshole to me, but... who knows? The difference between you and me is that I have gained the freedom to express my true nature. And what could be more beautiful than truth and freedom?

…

> Marvin Bushmiller: Shut up. Look. There's really only one question any of you want to ask: you want to know what it would take to turn you into me. Well, listen closely, 'cause I'm gonna give you the answer. In order to be a great artist, you simply have to *be* a great artist. There's nothing to learn. So... you're all wasting your time. Go home.

—-

Seinfeld is different from Musk because Musk is a lying, envious person, quite publicly. Not a good look. I’d be interested to see anything Seinfeld had said that is comparable to Musk’s pedophile fiasco or constant scammy claims. One is a self-actualized asshole, the other is a groveling asshole.

—-

Served on a platter of fakes

It's inevitable:

We're proud to be pricks, yeah

We're proud to be assholes

–At the Drive-in, Porfirio Diaz, 1997

What about people that are only marginally more successful than you?

Are they stil assholes too?

A good way to gain insight into Jerry these days is to listen to the Spike's Car Radio podcast (mainly the episodes where Jerry appears, but some others are useful too).

he's a bit, he likes to say how different he is from people and that he needs people like him, aka comedians

he also likes to remind people he had the biggest show

but he's pretty soft for a potential egomaniac

I don't remember him claiming to be good at anything but comedy. And he is good at it. It's not like he thinks just just awesome in general.

There's a great scene in Always Sunny where the gang is doing a clip episode, and begins to incorrectly remember a Seinfeld scene as their own past, with two of them being Jerry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NflfnsU11CQ

That's really funny with context. I didn't get it the first time around though. I feel like now that there's some more cultural awareness of laugh tracks anything that employs them seems bad.

I think Seinfeld's writing and plot arcs, that is, the sitcom elements, were pretty good. But the dialogue and jokes and banter feel very forced and have not aged well.

To me, he is one of the greatest writers in standup there ever was. Like Eudora Welty, his finished product is devoid of fat and gristle. You can’t really remove a word without losing the meaning of the text.

Virtually no one understands these days that he was quite wealthy before he had the TV show. He called himself “the most popular unknown comedian in America“ because he was absolutely killing it with corporate gigs and selling out his shows while absolutely not being a household name.

I've seen his act. It's just so much fluff

Try writing one that bad and report back with a YouTube link to your performance.

EDIT: answers below prove I am an ignorant doofus

It's a Seinfeld reference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3kTYCLSgsg

I hate myself

Are you sure you are a fan and not a fanboy ?

I suspect you aren't as much of a Seinfeld fan as you think you are when you didn't recognize that line from the show.

Damn me! And I’m a huge Seinfeld fan but definitely didn’t see all of “Seinfeld”

You have to watch it all and then move on to Curb Your Enthusiasm by Seinfeld co-creator Larry David. I prefer his harder edge comedy.

Ahem. Getting on it right away.

I also prefer the humor of Curb. I have watched Curb before I've watched Seinfeld, and I could definitely recognize Larry David's writing in Seinfeld. So great.

At what stage? An act isn't a single performance and developing a routine means a different set each night nevermind the different routine has used throughout his career.

It's like someone saying to a programmer. I know your work I saw one commit.

(Not OP) It's a line from Seinfeld (the TV show). Yes, this is not Reddit, but it's funny!

I think Sally Weaver's new show could be for you. Finally a show about something!

Are you a cashier?

He called his show the “show about nothing”, and Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee would pretty much also qualify for that title. It’s all 100% fluff. (I love his stuff for exactly that quality)

I'm pretty sure this is a misconception. He never called Seinfeld a show about nothing. That was the show that his character and George pitched to the TV execs in Seinfeld.

Yeah but the entire episode was meta and breaking the 4th wall.

He even references scenes that they do in Seinfeld when pitching it.

And I wouldn't call it fluff, its observational humor and his style is to do 95% detailed setup and a quick punchline connecting it altogether.

> He called his show the “show about nothing”

He most certainly did not, he specifically called it the opposite (see point 4): https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/10-facts-a...

Calling it “about nothing” is a meme with no basis in reality. That misconception even came from an episode which is about pitching a show. Seinfeld episodes are so clearly about something; they hit you on the head with the theme right at the start of each episode.

I admit I meant this slightly tongue in cheek. I think „nothing“ works well as a description in terms of „no agenda“ and maybe „no philosophy“ (not sure about the latter, maybe it just escaped me; cynicism?).

Johnny Carson knew it the first time he walked up on the stage of the Tonight Show in 1983. Seinfeld got the O.K. sign [0]:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_4ds9BtQEI

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/arts/television/carsons-c...

> You can’t really remove a word without losing the meaning of the text.

Hmmm... Once you see his jokes in text form this seems a little hyperbolic. Removing words would definitely change the rhythm, but Seinfeld is not a name that springs to mind when talking about taut writing.

https://bouncemojo.com/jerry-seinfeld-jokes/

Interesting. I believe the link proves my thesis.

I would encourage you to experiment a little. You can remove entire sentences while keeping the meaning, like this (the first joke on that page):

Original: According to most studies, people’s number one fear is public speaking. Number two is death. Death is number two. Does that sound right? This means to the average person, if you go to a funeral, you’re better off in the casket than doing the eulogy.

Could be: According to most studies, people’s number one fear is public speaking. Number two is death. This means to the average person, if you go to a funeral, you’re better off in the casket than doing the eulogy.

I just removed 20% of the words and the meaning is intact. The rhythm and emphasis for spoken delivery maybe not, but one of the things that bored me about Seinfeld eventually was the way he spoon fed everything to you, like he didn't quite trust you to be smart enough to get it the first time around.

Compare that to Steven Wright's work - there really isn't a word out of place there. You either get it or you miss it, he just keeps moving

I love your experiment, I concede instantly, and provisionally agree about Steven Wright[1]. Thank you for calling me out.

[1] Provisionally b/c maybe someone will bust in like you did and disprove you… I’m gunshy now

The part where he says comedy is genetic and not taught seems so… ironic? I don’t get how he can’t see that because his father was funny he was able to learn from him just like his daughter learns from him.

So weird. I guess admitting that you can learn how to be funny would take away some of the mystique and cheapen his abilities.

Learning to be funny is definitely learnable. I’ve seen folks - especially autists/aspies - learn how to be funny over the course of a relatively short period of time. They learn various formulas and start applying them - boom… they went from bland and boring to they’re suddenly pretty funny.

So ain't the ability to "learn how to be funny" encoded genetically in them? And some people, no matter how they tried, would never be able to become funny, since they simply do not have "the genes" that would allow it? Do you think everyone comes from the womb as a tabula rasa? Everyone has the same inherent ability to "learn to be funny"? And on a related note, an autistic guy "being funny" around his family or friends is a lot different than a professional comedian being funny on national television. Just as a national champion track and field competitor must have a baseline genetic ability to achieve this level of success, it's pretty much obvious that a highly successful comedian must be "born" with something special. By definition, he at least must "not be born" with something that impedes him to achieve it.

>autistic guy "being funny" around his family or friends is a lot different than a professional comedian being funny on national television

Hannah Gadsby would agree (as an autistic comedian) https://youtu.be/XxETTrbh-WM

She's super funny! Thanks.

Everything is a Remix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJPERZDfyWc&ab_channel=Kirby...

"A child never writes his own alphabet. A seed does not grow, it needs soil, water, and radiant energy. A sailboat does not sail, it's shoved by the wind. Nothing in nature is self-activating." - Jacque Fresco

We claim to be self-made, to be "born that way", yet we all have accents.

But not just accents of speech, accents of action (the surfer learning to skate will skate with a 'surfing accent': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-Boys), accents of thought (many of us are familiar with the archetypal poor person in a difficult environment which imprints a 'roof could fall in at any moment' mentality, who then becomes rich yet remains in that frugal mindset), accents permeating every atom of behavior we exhibit.

Why are we drawing a line around speech and saying "accents only develop here... everywhere else, we can be totally original or totally genetically talented!"

The mind is fashioned by what it feeds on.

Isn't his father being funny evidence of his claim that it's genetic?

Not unless they were estranged (but even then, a sample of one is not evidence).

If someone spends a lot of time with their father—who is a chef—and they themselves become a great cook, does that mean cooking skills are genetic? No, it means that having frequent access to a professional is an effective way to learn.

Or a combination of both.

This stuck out to me as well. It’s a pretty usual thing to hear comedians say that humor is tragedy with time. I wonder if Jerry would say that you need the genetics too.

https://youtu.be/ZiAjERMwMWw?t=606

This is very to my question. Also, his egomaniacle attitude is killing me.

Do you happen to have children? I don't know that it's "genetic" but I think Jerry is trying to say that it is innate. I have three children and one of them is extremely funny and has almost always been that way. I think it is both a talent he was born with but also developed once he saw the reactions he could get from it.

I tried watching Seinfeld with my partner like a year ago; we couldn't make it past the first few episodes. We never laughed, maybe a slight smile a few times but that's about it.

The standup bits were my least favourite part. What I found to be remarkable was that Jerry couldn't act, especially after learning he is the richest comedian in the world.

Maybe it's a generational thing, though there's stuff I find funny from the 90s. They say Seinfeld's quality went downhill after Larry David left, and that I understand. Curb Your Enthusiasm is a much better show IMO.

I tried watching Seinfeld in the 90s and did not care for it. Some think it's because my English or cultural awareness weren't there yet and it's possible - as observational humour it does live within the gestalt of its time and culture.

However, other possibility for Seinfeld show specifically is the characters - there's not a single likeable, redeemable person that I remember. In principle there's humour that can be made based on trials and tribulations of unlikeable folks but it's not for me. There was never progress, awareness, nicety. I'm not saying I need to watch Brady Bunch, but I personally found 22 minutes of concentrated selfish pettiness tiring.

(I do "emotionally empathize" with tv characters more than perhaps average viewer regardless of genre so that may be to blame)

Huh, I always figured the flawed or sometimes even detestable nature of the characters was part of the shtick. Like It’s Always Sunny…

I'm with the other commenter, I understand it's part of setting up the jokes and sort of an excuse for why they never grow as a character but it still makes it really unenjoyable to watch for me. I couldn't do Arrested Development or Archer for the same reason, after watching one or two episodes I just feel mad.

Yeah, I couldn't do Arrested Development either! I just wanted to shout at characters to stop being idiots over and over and over again :)

(Archer for some reason I enjoyed in small portions; I think the clearly surreal fictional overly-exaggerated animated nature turned off some "suspension of disbelief / empathy" switch that most people can turn off with Seinfeld)

It absolutely is; it's the main schtick and premise of the show; it clearly resonated with wide audience, I'm just an outlier for whom it really didn't work.

(FWIW, I'm also the kind of person that didn't love "Everybody Loves Raymond"; it just seemed that characters never learned or tried to get better or showed real empathy / awareness of each other. The schtick seemed that he would "Cluelessly try to get away with stuff" and she would get upset and he would do something sweet and she'd forgive him. Episode after episode season after season. Something like first few seasons of "Mad About You" always seemed more enjoyable, funnier, and more relatable :)

Part of the problem is that the medium changed. We used to get one episode a week with frequent commercial breaks. Watching episodes of Seinfeld now, back to back, I agree with you.

in other words: he's only good in small doses

Seinfeld's first season was not particularly good or popular at the time, it gradually improved. The US Office was similar. Even at it's best I don't like Seinfeld as much as modern sitcoms, but it was audaciously different and innovative when it was made.

What’s a modern sitcom you like? I feel like I either lost my humor or tv did

Not the person you're replying to, but Modern Family is pretty, pretty, pretty good, as far as I'm concerned.

Seinfeld has 3 phases. The phase where they don't know what they're doing and Jason Alexander is doing a Woody Allen impression. The phase where they figure it out. And the phase where Larry David has left the show.

The second two phases are funny.

Watch from 4th season you might like it. I did not like the first few too. Glad I did not stop after that as Seinfeld and Curb gave me the most laughs ever for a TV show

I don't go to comedy shows. I hate them.

Seinfeld is so.much better for 3 reasons.

1) I didnt expect.to laugh at every episode, but when I did, whoa. Mostly the big funny arcs delivered.. I have never achieved the same with another show.

2) it was not only about the destination (laughs) the journey waa entertaining.

3) for non NY city folk, and particularly suburban folk, you would learn very quickly about the culture of NYC (or maybe any large metro?) I would go as far as deeming it mandatory viewing for anyone thinking of moving there. I think this is true even 30 years later..

So yea, for us it was not onlt about the laughs. It was a well-worth journey where you actually learned a thing or two.

That was very hard to find in most sitcoms of the 90s. Maybe even today.

Can't agree more about 3). I watched Seinfeld in Des Moines in the '90s having never been to NYC. Started going there regularly in 2013 and was like, "Where I have I seen all this before?" Realizing that some of the idiosyncratic characters on Seinfeld were actually pretty accurate depictions of New Yorkers blew my mind.

The first season didn't age well.

"Every line, every casting decision" restated by Jerry back in early 90s, literally from the get-go - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0TE_xXjp-0

As someone else said here, he did also give credit to rest of team - "every single one of the [main] cast could hold down their own show"

Jerry: "Who’s McKinsey?"

It’s a consulting firm.

"Are they funny?"

No.

"Then I don’t need them"

I like this.

That’s the whole interview? seems kinda short. It does remind me how much I miss “comedians getting coffee”. Seinfeld has such quick wit. Really admire him.

> People were picking up words we had made up, like “regifting” and “shrinkage.”

They really believe made up the word "shrinkage"? Or is this some in-joke?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85MZ4c1EWkM

It's a specific meaning relating to the size of male genitalia after immersion in low temperature water.

"There's significant shrinkage, my friend".

Exactly. Pretty certain he doesn't mean that he invented the word per se, but the usage of the word for a certain situation.

I was about to defend Jerry and say "Well, maybe someone added the suffix to shrink before him, but he made it a thing", but after looking at Google Ngram Viewer, then yes, he is way off.

Usage of the word shrinkage topped in the 1930's and has been in steady decline during the Seinfeld years.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=shrinkage&year...

Screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/6Esimrk

I guarantee you the shrinkage talked about in books from 1930-1993 is not the same shrinkage.

This is obvious if you click through to any of the results from the link you provided above.

It's not the word itself, which is grammatically correct word for, well, shrinkage, but the context in which it applies. Words do evolve together with their newly-acquired context, and Seinfeld can be attributed to have helped with some.

Your comment likely means that you actually don't really understand what is the shrinkage we talk about here ;)

The already existing definition of shrinkage applies to anything that shrinks - including a penis. i.e. its not a new context.

How about "regifting" what context does he use there instead of the preexisting definition of gifting a gift you have received? The existing definition would apply for ALL gifts - including penises (or whetever context thats about).

I'm not sure anyone is claiming Seinfeld invented the words but he presented them in newly humorous contexts that become widely used.

Shrinkage became a word used in a comical attempt to quash rumours of small penis size as well as to describe what happens when men swim in cold water. In the time when Seinfeld was popular then the word shrinkage used in a certain way would have been understood in these contexts and wouldn't have resulted in a HN-style overly literal interpretation and the question "what shrunk?". (speaking of overly-literal interpretations I feel the need to clarify that i'm referring to people who were vaguely up to date with popular culture).

Regifting isn't a literal description of giving a gift you received to another person. After Seinfeld's use it became a humorous euphemism for cheapness and tactlessness.

Seinfeld himself said he made up the words - I copied from the actual article.

From all I have seen in this thread, these words are being used in the literal context for which they were already defined - and they are already humorous without the need to imply it.

EDIT: you can downvote all you like, doesnt change the fact that he didnt actually make up the words or even their usage...

I don't believe that the verb 'regift' was extant before Seinfeld - it seems the show may well have introduced the word.

The Macmillan Dictionary dates it to 1995: https://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/regift

Perhaps someone with the full Oxford would like to check what cites they have for it.

Ill concede on "regift". It seems I was wrong about the prior meaning.

The OED traces the word back to 1837, but it was used primarily to mean giving a gift multiple times. In fact, it states that the definition of gifting of an unwanted gift is a predominately north american (although I have used it myself - no doubt through coming into contact with it through popular culture).

There ARE example uses in that form that predate the Seinfeld show (you can find them by searching google books) - but they seem exclusively Indian English.

anti-dentite

"double-dipping" too

I think "serenity now!" has had a much longer life than “regifting” and “shrinkage", I know I use it quite often. And, of course, the Festivus.

They invented a new definition of "shrinkage", in reference, specifically, to a penis retracting into the body when exposed to cold water thus making it appear smaller than it normally is. They obviously didn't invent the verb, and I don't think they believe they did, it's a common word in finance.

Before Seinfeld nobody would know what you're talking about if you said you were experiencing shrinkage. It's a way to talk about genitalia without being explicit.

He mentions folks who were regulars on talk-shows, naming Charles Nelson Reilly. That's not a name familiar to most folks today I think. I would name Betty White and Zoey Deschanel. As he once said about them, "One is a perky funny beautiful woman who all the frat boys want to get into bed. And the other one is Zoey Deschanel."

Related tweet about the interview that went semiviral a couple days ago: https://twitter.com/david_perell/status/1581096950631256064

I love that anyone would think McKinsey would have made it funnier or more efficient.

Did you know that Jerry Seinfeld trained for 17 years to prepare for his role in the omonimous sitcom? Google "Jerry Seinfeld 17 years" to learn more

Someone once said: "Jerry Seinfeld isn't funny" (I forget who it was). It was an eppifany for me. I realized that his show was extremely backward and annoying after that. The overall popularity of it amazes me now.

How strange that it took someone saying that for you to realise you didn't like the show! It might warrant further introspection.

It's hard to believe that people once paid money to see comedy acts, that a comedian could make bank, because people paid.

I think I've gone too far down the path to even think about paying to see standup now. I did, and I enjoyed it, but I would seriously question the value proposition compared to staying in and grazing the archive.

It may be age. Probably is.

That said, I am very unsure I would have paid to see Seinfeld at any stage in his career, but I can acknowledge he has gifts to delivery and tone, assuming he writes the material we hear/see. The central premise being he does, but my understand is that comedy is more nuanced: A number of people may be behind a gag.

I’m going to go with a hard disagree with you on this one. Live comedy is awesome and amazing and you pay willingly to support the comedians and the hosting establishment. Used to go to Punch Line comedy club many years ago and support my friends. The best times we had were never when they were doing their act or practicing their lines. It was when they would riff and go total improv on the audience. Shit would happen and it was wild. TikTok and Instagram videos of small time comedians in packed clubs doing brief bits are a thing, and if you’re not watching them you’re missing out. Paying for comedy is very much still a real event, but sure, it’s probably a niche audience of fans and supporters, always has been, just like the opera or the symphony.

I used to feel this excited about live, and now I just don't. I'm pretty sure it's me. And, I'm really glad people can still make a living at it.

The comedians I follow on social media aren’t all making a living from it. They are using it to market themselves for more gigs and appearances and engagements and roles as actors in theatre, movies, and television. It’s not just about comedy, but it’s a way for them to hone their skills overall, because comedy is about much more than just comedy—it’s writing, acting, and being able to improv with the audience in real time, which is a tremendous skill that can come in handy for almost any job. The best comedians are also actors, since they are playing a role on stage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com