If sub-tweeting is a thing, is sub-blogging? If it is, then this is it. I’ll try to keep whingeing to a minimum in these parts, but do want to share a thoughts about the radio. BBC Radio. BBC Radio 4.
That’s not sub-blogging, is it? Well I’m not going to name any particular show, but rather dress this up as a more general point in case there are other examples. I’m not aware of any, but let’s pretend there are.
Here’s the thing: I think it’s detrimental to a radio programme to shoehorn comedians in for the sake of making supposedly dry subjects more funny or accessible.
Because the thing is, people, including smart people you get on supposedly dry radio programmes, and indeed people in general, tend to be perfectly interesting and funny if you let them be.
I’m sure radio producers would disagree: not everyone’s cut out for radio. Fine, but you’ve already made your mind up that your other guests are radio-worthy before putting them on the air.
Thing is, comedians are almost universally massive egotists; while academics, or whoever else might naturally about on dry Radio 4 programmes, may not be.
So you might end up with a (totally hypothetical) scenario in which a comedian (who, hypothetically, I happen to otherwise like) might, say, interrupt someone who HAS BEEN IN SPACE to fire off a long rambling only-semi-funny monologue they can’t help but unburden from themselves.
And because Tim Pe… the someone who HAS BEEN IN SPACE is a mild-mannered, though perfectly funny, interesting and articulate someone who HAS BEEN IN SPACE, it’s quite likely that they won’t get round, or be allowed, to finish what it was they were saying.
Given that your common or garden Radio 4 progamme is likely to have someone with a comic bent presenting or co-presenting it anyway, perhaps trust them, and your other presenters, and even your non-professional comedian guests, to provide the required amount of levity.
Because even a small amount of funny is plenty. And interesting trumps funny almost every time.