Benkharakh.com

By Ben Kharakh

Inspired by her own interview with writer Tao Lin , author Rebecca Curtis decided to interview me after my own Q and A with her. This is the result. Here's my interview with Rebecca

I have a question for you: you have some awesome humor pieces on McSweeney's. Why is it that you write funny pieces and not "serious" pieces?
I was always trying to be the funny guy in the group and writing humorous pieces is just an extension of that. Why I try to be funny is a different question all together. I have yet to attempt a serious piece, although I have contemplated it and even have a project in mind called People: The Movie. I'd also like to do something on hubris. It may be that if I attempted a serious piece that it would still have elements of humor in it because of my sensibility.

What happens in "People: The movie?"
I would like it to encapsulate a part of the human condition, but outside of that I am unsure. I often like to start my pieces with the title first and work from there. It's even better if the title and the premise are the same thing, like my current screenplay project Undercover Mummy. It's 21 Jump Street meets The Mummy meets Revenge of the Nerds.

How do you think it is that a piece becomes "funny"?
Usually when I write I try to think more along the lines of "good" as opposed to funny. For example, if a boy in an English class was asked what an analogy was, I think a good answer would be "albatross". It's not necessarily funny, but I think that's good. Some people believe that incongruity is at the heart of all humor, others think it's halibut.

Define metaphor: a metaphor is an albatross! I like it. It makes perfect sense. But can you distinguish a bit more between "good" humor and "bad" humor?
What's funny is very subjective and varied in nature, but the one thing that all of my favorite humorists and comedians have in common is that their humor reflects their unique perspective. It doesn't matter if they're political, absurd, observational, or even innovative, as long as what they have to say could only be said by them. After all, if anyone can say what you've got to say, we don't need you to say it.

What are the qualities of a great humorist?
I read a primatologist's essay about the role laughter plays in the lives of chimpanzees. It's used as a means to establish an air of well being in social situations and to show that there is no aggression. Basically it's used for rendering something as harmless. For example, if chimps are play wrestling, they'll laugh before it escalates into a real conflict to show that there is no aggression. For people, humor is an ex-adaptation, meaning that it serves a different purpose from what it once did, thanks to our ability to think abstractly and the advent of humor. Humor, at its core, stems from incongruity, such as surprise, juxtaposition, or irony. When people laugh, they're categorizing that incongruity as harmless. Of course, it all depends on the context. 9/11 was incongruous, but I doubt anyone found that funny. So, humor is all about taking that incongruity and putting it in the right context. The more interesting the context/incongruity, the better the humor. Sometimes it's possible to use a context that's unfunny but the incongruity is so effective that one can't resist laughter. That's always fun.

What do you think are the qualities of a great writer?
I imagine they'd be similar to that of a great humorist. I think a mistake people make when judging art is that they make criticisms about what the piece didn't do as opposed to looking at the artist's goal and how close it came to achieve. I think art should be judged for what it is and not what it isn't.

Who are the writers, do you think, that are most consistently and compellingly saying what they want to say in a way that only they would say it?
I don't read enough to be able to give an answer to this question, but there are many comedians that do this well. Paul F. Tompkins, Maria Bamford, Jen Kirkman, Neil Hamburger, Andy Kindler, Todd Glass, and Louis CK, for example.

To be honest, I think that literary fiction has to absurd, and/or funny, in some way (even an understated or very subtle way) to be good. For example, Chekhov's stories have an underlying absurdity, and a subtle humor, even though we think of him as a very realist and straight writer. To me, a lot of the "good" contemporary fiction takes itself too seriously to be funny in any capacity. Are there any writers whose work you think *isn't* funny in any capacity? Who are the fiction writers whose work you do find funny?
I think Woody Allen, John Swartzwelder, Neal Pollack, and Douglas Adams are consistently funny. I just read a book called A Woman Trapped in a Woman's Body by Lauren Weedman that I thought was terrifically entertaining. I once read Melmoth the Wanderer by Charles Maturin and didn't think that was funny at all.

Back to that rape story, that was pretty (hilarious and) perverse. Don't you think there's something wrong with you, that you would write such a story? Or: How dare you make a rape story funny?
I had read about an incident where 11 men raped one 14-year-old girl but didn't kill her and I was confused. It was such a heinous act, and yet they spared her life. This raised a lot of whys for me. Did they do it because they had a moment of clarity? Certainly that couldn't have been why. I wanted to discuss it more with others, but no one seemed to be interested. So, I contemplated it on my own. Later I wrote that piece for my How to Read a Play class at The Eugene Lang College for Liberal Arts of the New School University. The teacher asked the class, "How did you feel laughing at that?" and they said, "Uncomfortable," and she said, " Sometimes it's good to be pushed out of your comfort zone." She asked me if the reason I used the word rape so often was because I wanted to strip it of it's power and when I answered, "No, it's because it was a play about rape," she seemed very disappointed. It's actually only the first draft. I never revised it because I left Lang. Surprisingly, every piece I ever wrote or had published is a first draft, including the Sexual Euphemisms List, which wasn't even shortened by the editor. I think the lack of revisions is quite evident in my pieces and they certainly would have benefited from multiple drafts, but I didn't have anyone to look them over. But I am now, after many years, discovering the usefulness of multiple revisions.

You're pretty young, to be writing & publishing fiction. A lot of guys your age (or what I guess your age is, from what I can gather) are focusing on getting MBAs and making tons of money. How come you're not? Do you realize what you're passing up?
Until recently, I was constantly myself down for not having accomplished more and felt even worse when I compare myself to someone like Wittgenstein or Simon Rich . I know that people like that are one in a million, but so am I! I am the rare combination of someone who can't wink, snap their fingers, or do a tumble.

I think the only thing I'm missing out on are all the books I read when I was younger and all the things I studied in school that I no longer remember. Where did you go reasons for World War I, plot of East of Eden, and whatever multiple alleles are and how they work?!

In my own experience, I've had success only when I did something for no other reason than to do it. If my reason for doing something is replaced by something like money, I find myself enjoying it less and not doing it as well. So, I wrote because I wanted to write, and when I was told that I need to write to make money I found myself enjoying it less, doing it less, and being less good at it. I've decided to return to my old goal, to write for the sake of writing, and will hopefully be back in that earlier state of mind.

What is the difference between you and Simon Rich, anyway? Or, why would you be compared in the first place?
It's not who Rich is, as much as what he is: young, successful, and wealthy. There is a great deal of emphasis in American culture on success, youth, and wealth, and I often found myself feeling negative because I have not had enough "success" in my youth or accrued enough wealth, but when I spent too much time worrying about wealth and success I ended up not enjoying my youth as much. As for Wittgenstein, well, who wouldn't want to be as smart as him?!

Why/when/and how did you decide you didn't want to be a comedian after all, and how/why did you decide you wanted to be a writer?
When I was a young boy, whatever age one learns to speak at, and I was learning how to speak Russian, I'd often mispronounce words and make my parents laugh. I tried mispronouncing words on purpose, but it didn't have the same effect. So, that is the root of my desire and I had once even said that what I wanted to do when I grew up was a comedian, probably figuring that certainly then I'd be able to make my parents laugh. Then, when I was eight, I was watching Animaniacs and I noticed that one of the character's names, Dr. Scratchensniff, was a joke- scratch and sniff. I realized that the show was full of jokes and all I had to do to get them was pay more attention. I figured that I could make jokes of my own if I just paid attention to my surroundings, think, "It would be funny if I said this now," and then say the funny thing that I came up with.

I enjoyed creative writing assignments in school and had a teacher tell me I had a "unique point of view" in the 8th grade. Also in the 8th grade, I got punched in the mouth by an older boy and when none of my friends had come to my aid, I decided that I shouldn't be their friend anymore. With my newfound free time, I decided to pursue writing, although I think it would have led in that direction anyway because by that point I had started collecting bits that I'd repeat to friends.

Any regrets?
None.

How come you do all these interviews? Is this a PR move on your part, and/or do you get tired of hearing self-absorbed writers babble on about their formative moments?
I wanted to be a comedian for a long time, so my first interviews were all with comedians and about their formative years. I thought I'd benefit a lot from learning about them and the art of comedy. Since then, I've expanded to other types of subjects. I never get tired of hearing about formative moments, but my sometimes editors do! Personally, I'm much more interested in bits like that than promoting someone's movie or asking, "Mets or Yankees?" Also, it's great for networking and getting free stuff. I don't think there's any other way that I could have met Todd Glass and Andrew WK if it wasn't for interviews.

So your editors do get tired of hearing about writers' formative moments--what do they really want to hear about?
They want the interview to answer the question, "Why should I read this interview?" Although I think that's the job of the intro.

Do you get sick of doing interviews?
I only get sick of transcribing interviews.

What's the most obnoxious answer you've gotten to an interview question?
If I ever get an obnoxious answer, I think it's because I asked a bad question or was unable to ask a decent follow up. On the phone, I'm able to adjust my questions to conform with the subjects answer style. For example, if they provide short and vague answers, I would ask questions that flesh them out.

I told you my poisoning story. Make me feel better. Tell me something "Bad" you did. Ever kill anyone? Ever come close?
I hadn't killed anyone or come close, but I was recently introduced to the delicious world of peppers on sandwiches and in a single day had 4 sandwiches with banana peppers on them. After my ethics class, I was walking down the hall and down the stairs and the professor was commenting on the smell in the corridor. I was very embarrassed because I had just farted in the hallway! He's very smart, so he probably figured out it was me and was shaming me, which doesn't seem very ethical. But neither does farting in the hallway if I were to use the principal of utility or the categorical imperative.

What did you reply to the ethics professor?
I increased my gait so that he wouldn't know it was me.

BTW, farting in a corridor, even after having eaten a pepper sandwich, doesn't qualify as "doing something bad." Can you not come up with some better example of a "heinous" act? (and I'm using quotes to allow for varying interpretations--perhaps it was something the world might view as heinous that you might not view as such). If you can, what is it?
I recently found out that my friend's sister was pregnant and heard that there was an air of discontent about the whole situation. I said, "Sorry to hear about your sister," and he was aghast. I apologized profusely. It was a mistake on my part and there was no malice behind my comment, which, in retrospect, was entirely ignorant, unacceptable, and insensitive. I think talking about it makes it worse. And my acknowledging that I know it's wrong to share might make it even slightly more bad. A

You can have any one of these four options. Rank them, 1-4, in that order, with one the least desired, and four the most. For each one, explain a bit as to why or why not.

1. Trees talk to you. They tell you what they know.
Trees know a lot that I don't, and if there's something one of them doesn't know I could plant one near someone who does. Plant? What am I typing about?! I could just move the pot they came in. Combine this with private investigation and you've got a great premise for comedy, maybe even a TV show. It could be called Funny Tree Pun. If you read some of my works in progress, you'll notice that that's how I write a lot of my jokes. I'll write, for example, "The room has a painting in it and it's of something funny," or, "Someone left something in the apartment before they moved in and it was something funny."

2. For a day, you can be Simon Rich. You will be you, but in Simon Rich's body, with his abilities, and you can do whatever you want. Simon Rich has no idea this is going on.
I'd send a writing packet to The Simpsons because I think Rich would be a great addition to their staff and has the potential to revitalize the entire show. Being a fan of The Simpsons, I'd want that to happen. I wouldn't, however, want Rich's success because if I were to have any success, I'd want to have it because I earned it and not because I was able to take control of the body of whoever I choose.

3. You and six other writers hang out, over dinner and drinks, at a table at one of the writers' houses, and at the end of dinner you float up into the air and commune, which means, you become one mentally--thoughts are shared back and forth without effort, you understand each other entirely, and are temporarily, mentally and physically, one amoeba-like being. The writers must be alive, but we can use the term 'writer' loosely here--anyone who writes anything. For this one, who would you pick?
I would pick the writing staff of Talk Show with Spike Feresten because I think I might fit in well with the particular sensibility of that show and if I'm already having dinner at one of their houses then I can think of no better way to seal the deal than to float into the air and become one mentally and physically with them in the form a giant Flubber-like creature.

4. All the eligible, attractive Indian girls (I'm picking "Indian" randomly--they can be Native America or India-Indian, your choice) in NYC line themselves up in front of you, and want to go on a date with you. You get to ask questions, pick one, go on the date. It's paid for by... the Gothamist.
I'd want this one least because I already have a girlfriend and if I were to give any answer other than this one I might no longer have a girlfriend.

One of your pretty funny pieces is "Sexual Euphemisms that won't catch on" in McSWeeney's. Some of the euphemisms are so weird, offbeat & hilarious as to be almost absurd, "Buying pants at Marshall's;" "Separating your colors and whites before doing the laundry;" "Trying on the sweater that Nana sent you;" "compounding 4% interest annually." Again, what's wrong with you, and how do you think of these things?
I don't actually remember how I came up with them because I wrote that when I was 15, but I believe I tried to go for activities that sounded like they were in no way sexual, although, in retrospect, some of them might act as a Rorschach test for an overly-sexualized mind. I went through a period where I was writing one list a day with the goal of not stopping until I had one published. It took 6 tries, I think. Unfortunately, at this point, having that list in the paperback edition of The Best of Humor Category is the peak of my career.

Can you think of any sexual euphemisms that *might* catch on?
That takes hours! When I made my original list, it took me an entire afternoon. For that tree scenario you mentioned, I thought about a possible sitcom name and the best I could come up with was Arbor Man (like Aqua Man) and that only came to me a few days after I wrote my original response, and it's not even good. However, I think it's a great way to spend an afternoon.