A different, sprawling kind of blog today. My eyes are tired. What's new with me apart from watching TV? Well, not a whole lot. Except that I ate way too much Nando's the other day. What am I saying? Too much? There's no such thing as too much Nando's. Oh, actually Saturday night was rad. Went out for dinner for TQ and Mish's birthday. Followed that up by going to Murmur and drinking. Good fun.

So I was watching 'Glee' yesterday and there was this bit in it where Jane Lynch's character is writing in her journal and there's this voiceover monologue as she ponders her life. At one point she says:
"I'll lose my endorsements. And without those endorsements, I won't be able to buy my hovercraft."
I love stuff like that. Why? Because it isn't explained. At no point in the series as far as I can remember has she mentioned wanting a hovercraft. There's no reason for it. And that's why it's funny. Yet so often in writing, editors will often ask "Why? What's the character's motivation here? How does this serve the plot? You need to explain this."
Yes, in writing straight narratives, those are all valid points. But if the sole reason that the line is there is cos it's funny, not because it serves plot, character or whatever, then leave it in. Cos funny rules. There's a lot to be said for things that make you go "Huh?".
A similar example happened when I was watching the latest ep of 'Peep Show'. A bunch of characters are sitting around talking about one of them becoming a father. Mark says something about being the first one of them to have a child before Super Hans mentions that he has twins. Never in six seasons has there been any mention that Super Hans has twins. That's awesome.
I also wanted to mention that the latest episode of 'The Office' was truly great. It wasn't particularly funny (not that funny at all really) but it was great, just really dark, edgy stuff. One of the finest shows going around.