Galavant-ing

Between 8 and 9 million Americans watched the first episode of the new multipart extravaganca "Galavant" but only about half of them returned to watch episode two.   Set in medieval Englnd, knights and royalty have a royal skit and song romp over all the cliches that might be seen in more somber movies.   So we have a show that has British eccentricity AND corny musical numbers that is failing to hold its own?   How can that be?

Well, there are two main styles of TV comedy: the humor that can be harvested when one or more silly people are placed in serious settings, and when one or more serious people are placed in silly settings.   Dad's Army had a squad of eccentrics facing up to Hitler's war machine - and Black Adder had Rowan Atkinson as a deadly realistic aristocrat in attendance at an insane version of Elizabeth I's court.   Both were full of British eccentricity, and each were received by wild acclaim.

So why the big difference?   In a word - gravitas.   It is almost an unwritten law in British comedy that the comedians do not indicate in any way that they know that they are in a comedy.   Basil Fawlty - certifiably insane in real life - was played by a grim faced John Cleese who acted as if he was being perfectly natural in all the crazy things he did.   And he pulled it off.   (In a Harry Potter cameo, as a ghost, he smirked knowingly at his own presence on the set, and thus came over as a self parody.)

The cast of Galavant smirk, wink and giving knowing nods to the camera to make it quite clear that nothing is to be taken seriously, particularly their presence in the episode.   And I am willing to bet that that lack of gravitas will be the unwinding of what could easily have been a great production.

So - dear would-be spanking author - what has this got to do with you in your career to become the richest spanking author of all time?

Well, I would advise that your stories - even those wild over-the-top laugh-aloud frolics - should be written with dead-pan seriousness when dealing with character action and dialogue.  

For instance, if you watch spanking videos, you will have learned that those studios who present spankings as realistically as possible tend to thrive, while those whose scripts are full of unrealistic touches tend to fall by the wayside.  

The reason for the spanking can be quite ludricous - Flight Officer Fennington got a right royal caning in video where the beating was part of her training to be a British spy.   The silliness of the set up was forgiven though the acting - and the realism of the actual spanking.

Those studios that work with well crafted scripts have a huge advantage over those where the performers are expected to ad-lib though their performances.   It is easy to act to a script in an earnest manner, but almost impossible to wing it.   Which means, I would opine, even a poorly written script is better than no script at all.

So - back to the chase - if you want to write spanking fiction that is more likely to resonate with your readers than turn them off - the more serious your characters are, the more likely your tale will be received with acclaim.

You might get away in Chapter One of your spanking epic with a recipient of a hearty spank reacting with a knowing smirk:  but be aware that the numbers arriving to read Chapter Two might have significantly dwindled.   Even Megan - in one of my charming comedy series (advt.) - always acts as if she is being perfectly rational:  which tends to add to the humor, not weaken it.

The producers and directors of Galavant knew precisely what they were doing by having such a large amount of "look at me - aren't I being silly" reaction shots in their comedy.   The mistake they made was that they thought that such devices would enhance the experience, not be such a turn off to the average viewer.