Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway892238 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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?

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.

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.

> 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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com