I think I'll have to go with drama. I do love comedies but dramas are my forte. I like the strong emotions of dramas.
Depends on what you mean by 'comedy' and 'drama'. I assume this is in the more modern sense, and not the classical sense of Comedy or Tragedy?
In the classical sense comedy IS drama Lemex. Anyway, comedy is much harder to write as liz said, since what is funny to one person can be hurtful or boring to another. Also to write comedy you have to be an inherently funny person. One can't be taught how to be funny. He either is or isn't.
I can't write comedy to save my life, so I stick with drama. If there's one thing I wish I could improve, it is to inject some much-needed humour into my often very dark and depressing stories.
I'm definitely a drama fan. I always put one or two characters in there for comic relief, but I'm a big fan of grit, strong emotions, and conspiracies. Now that doesn't mean they're depressing - not at all - but they have their dark points, and, yes, I'd expect they can cause the reader discomfort or soul-searching on occasion.
I disagree. Anyone can learn to excel at anything given enough deliberate practice. If you really want to write comedy but no one laughs, keep trying, on average, you'll get it after ~1000 attempts.
The best comedies have elements of drama, and vice-versa. My favourite novel, Lucky Jim, is a comedy, but it has deeper elements in it. I think it is the exception that proves the general rule that comedies date more than dramas, although melodramas date quickest of all. I'd love to write a brilliant comedy, but I don't think there's much chance of that, sadly.
That's why I put the word drama in quotation marks and used the word Tragedy instead, at the end of that post.
In all honesty I'd say drama (by which of course I mean tragedy, as to not cause debate); however, I do not concur with many people that comedy is hard to write. I mean sure, some elements that you find funny might not be funny to others; yet, if the key to writing stories is imagining you're telling them to a friend, wouldn't the purpose of comedy be to imagine that you're trying to make a friend laugh? Once that is understood, and you act in that way with devotion, then comedy might as well become the simplest form to write, because now you've gotten the fact that you must consider the emotions of the imagined friend as well. It's all very difficult to explain, and drama is most certainly more intriguing (or for me it is, at least), but comedy is not bad to write either.
I disagree as well. If one is not funny he can't become funny. He can only imitate other funny people. That does not make one funny. It is like me trying to paint like Picasso. I can learn to copy his techniques and his creations, but i can't create something the way he would.
I prefer drama since nobody gets my sense of humor It's very difficult for me to make people laugh with my writing.
In general, I prefer drama, although I don't like my stories to be too heavy with it. I usually don't set out to write comedy, because I'm nowhere near funny enough to carry on a story that way, but sometimes it kind of happens on accident, because I like my stories to be a bit strange and light-hearted. Honestly, one of my proudest moments was when I turned in a story for a class that made everybody laugh. It's a really nice feeling.
That's true, but learning how to paint well isn't synonymous with painting exactly like Picasso, and you may not ever be able to create something just as he would, but it doesn't mean you can't learn to paint extraordinarily well. In the same way, you can learn how humor works first by watching successful comedians, then copying them, then when you've figured out what elements of humor work and don't work, you can create something humorous on your own. That's how anybody learns to paint, or write, or do anything really. It would certainly take someone who lacks innate "funniness" much more time and effort, but I don't think it's impossible to learn how to be funny. See reference: http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracticePR93.pdf I don't think anything is impossible, and actually, if you spent 10,000 hours practicing to paint EXACTLY as Picasso did, who knows, maybe you would end up creating art in a very similar style.
You missed my point. If you spend 10.000 hours trying to imitate other comedians, then the end result won't be you creating comedy but rather regurgitating and copying what others have created.
What is funny? How do you gauge it? If someone imitates a comedian and I laugh, would that person be UNfunny? Larry David is a failed stand-up comic but I think he's a genius when it comes to writing comedy. You don't have to be funny to be funny. And you don't think Picasso learnt the basic techniques of classical painting before he could create something abstract? Did you learn to write by reading other peoples' writing or were you just inherently a writer? Anyway, writing comedy isn't the same as writing a series of jokes or a stand-up routine, as most people would presume. Comedy can arise from conflict, hyperbole, absurd situations, ridiculously high stakes, characterisation and juxtaposition; among other things.
