Comedy is the hardest literary form to write.  Humor is extremely subjective and can very subtle and nuanced to the point where the joke is missed.  Humor can also be offensive to some while enjoyed by others.  There are many times of comedy from puns (the lowest form of humor, in my opinion) to dark humor (the kind that's so shocking and offensive, you don't know if the person is laughing because they genuinely find it funny, or they're just extremely uncomfortable and don't know what else to do.)

When I started writing Bryan and the rest of the Padilla family, I wanted to have their dynamic be authentic.  In a lot of writing, especially by amateur writers, dialogue is stilted, stiff and unrealistic.  They avoid contractions, use "big words" when simple words would work instead, refuse to use slang or profanity, use outdated terms and phrases for younger characters, lack proper emotion of the scene, and the flow is not natural or conversational.  This can create a disconnect in the audience and remove the escapism and emersion that reading provides.

Comedy requires timing and proper phrasing.  For example, if your loved one has just passed away, the last thing you want is for the doctor who delivered the news to tell you a "knock knock" joke.  However, as a counterpoint, an accidently made joke at someone's funeral can have comedic value, so long as everyone gets the joke.  It's this thin line and balancing act that makes for good and bad comedy.

Humor can also be used as a defensive mechanism, especially sarcasm.  A lot sarcastic people use humor to deflect things that may actually hurt them.  Alex Borstein, who plays Lois Griffin on Family Guy, said in an interview that, while in school, she used to make fun of her own weight as a means to survive bullying (I'm clearly paraphrasing, but you can find the Actor's Studio interview on YouTube).  She would make sarcastic remarks about her weight to deflect the hate she otherwise would've been given.  Remember that political correctness and other such social movements were not around when Alex was in school and such bullying would've been allowed or ignored, with the rare encouragement by teachers.

Bryan in this chapter uses humor to deflect.  It's a shield he uses to keep things from really hurting him and to justify his actions.  He had just attacked Dan Thomas and was making jokes about it.  Diego seems to be playing along, but I think, if you pay close attention to what Diego is saying, he knows what Bryan is really doing and why.  I won't go into detail about that, as it may be a plot point later on in the story.

With that said, I wanted Bryan's humor to also add in the relationship he has with Diego.  To touch back in the opening of this post, realistic dialogue includes banter.  The Padilla family likes to playfully tease each other, which is very normal in most families, so it's expected that Diego and his sons do the same with each other.  Given the seriousness of the previous chapter, I needed to create a break from that, so having Bryan's defense mechanism be the catalyst for the banter with his father seemed natural, which is what you want in dialogue.

Bryan's particular brand of humor comes from two sources:  The American TV series Boston Legal and writer/director Kevin Smith.  Kevin Smith, who created such cult comedy films as Clerks, Mallrats and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, uses self-deprecating humor as defense mechanism.  Sarcasm is usually directed outward, while self-deprecation is directed inward, but has the same affect.  Alex Borstein's comments about her weight are very self-deprecating.  Kevin is also rather hard on himself in interviews, his stage shows and podcasts as part of his humor.

Boston Legal, which stars James Spader and William Shatner, is a legal dramody (drama/comedy).  It is loaded with sarcasm, inappropriate behavior, and things that wouldn't work today in the current woke climate; however, the fact it's so outrageous allows the comedy to work.  My favorite aspect of humor from that show is the meta humor.  Meta is an acknowledgment of the real word in fiction.  Deadpool is a good example, with Wade Wilson talking to the audience (also called a fourth wall break). 

In Boston Legal, fourth wall breaking was extremely rare.  Instead, they made self-referential jokes cleverly disguised in the dialogue.  One of their more common jokes involved making fun of their time slot changes.  In one scene, a former lawyer of the firm runs into James Spader's character and mentions that he's been very hard to get a hold of, and he quips that they (the show) had moved from this time slot to another then to another, which makes communicating difficult.  In another, a meeting was supposed to be held but was rescheduled to another day and time, so they went over all the time slot changes for the show proving how complicated it was, while blaming and naming the real show runner as the reason for the mix up.

I have loved that type of humor so much, that I wanted to try it hear.  Bryan begins to make references to me as the writer and the story itself but from a semi-aware state of being.  It can be seen as a world view not too far from religion.  Instead of a deity, Bryan sees that his life is just some crappy fictional story someone else is writing.  It allows me to add self-deprecating humor about my own writing insecurities, while having that marginally disconnected meta humor I love and miss about Boston Legal.  Everyone plays along with Bryan's meta humor, and quickly moves on.

I admit that I haven't kept it up in recent chapters, because with all jokes, there's a point of overkill.  You can beat a joke into the ground where it isn't funny anymore.  Another thing I loved about Boston Legal (and I promise to stop talking about it at some point soon), is how sparsely they used meta humor.  The joke came in, it was said, and they moved on.  You might only get one or two references a season and that was it, which made them even better.

Back to Chapter 3.  As much as Diego and Bryan flick each other shit on the way home, Diego still asserts himself as the parental figure.  He's not screaming or furious, unlike what most parents would be, but he remains level headed and firm in his position.  Diego is the voice of reason in all of this acting as a counter to Bryan's sarcasm and unreasonable view point.  It's through the dialogue that we get this.  There was little need for narration, since the flow of the dialogue was carrying the scene.

I think their are two major ways to improve your dialogue skills:  Reading your dialogue out load, and people watching.  A writer should always read their dialogue out load.  If it doesn't sound right to your ear, change it till it does.  If you can, have someone else read it out loud to you.  Again, if it doesn't sound right, change it till it does. 

The other method is to go to a semi-crowded place and eaves drops.  Listen to how other people talk, taking in not just what they say but how they say it.  When to they emphasize certain words?  How do they use sarcasm if at all?  How often do they use contractions?  When don't they use contractions?  What slang is being used by which age group?  How casually do they use profanity and in what context?  Bring a piece of paper and write some phrases down, log words you don't know to be looked up later, make notes on how you can expand the conversation realistically.

Moving on in the chapter, we also get to see the relationship between Bryan and Caleb.  Having brothers, I get their relationship isn't realistic, but I didn't want it to be.  It's very idealistic, very much like the boys' relationship with Diego.  It seemed out of place for Bryan and Caleb to have a healthy, grounded relationship with Diego, while being at each other's throats.  Chaos begets chaos, and Diego mitigates chaos as much as he can without being overbearing or controlling.  He provides structure without micromanaging.  This has allowed Bryan and Caleb to develop the relationship they have, I think.

And now the kiss.  I didn't intend for Bryan to be pansexual.  In fact, I spent a while debating if I should make him asexual and aromantic; however, as with most of my writing, the story told itself.  It seemed right as the scene progressed that Bryan might consider himself pan.  I think most queer parents would have to teach their children early on that not every family as one mommy and one daddy.  Diego isn't in the closet nor did I want him to be, even after adopting the boys.  It only made sense that he would've explained sexuality to his sons at an appropriate age, providing more information as they got older.  Thus, there is no reason in my mind why Bryan wouldn't know what pansexuality is by 14-years-old.  Kenny and Terra were already slated to be in another story I want to write after this, so this seemed to be a good place to start their stories and experiences.

We also get a glimpse into Bryan's insecurities, especially surrounding his abandonment issues.  Gone is the humor from the beginning and middle of the story.  He is being intimate and honest with his best friend, and humor would've been very misplaced here.  Comedy is a vehicle for deeper plot points and not the driving force of the story itself.  At some point, the laughs and chuckles need to stop, so we can get to healing the pain behind it.

See you in the next one,

John.