Originality
When asked to be orginal poeple will general force themself to look for a more bizarre and idea which is completely from outside the circle.
"if someone says 'What's for supper?' a bad [performer] will desperately try to think up some idea like 'fried mermaid'. If he'd just said 'fish' the audience would have been delighted."
"No Two people are exactly alike, and the more obvious a [performer] is, the more himself he appears."
(Impro, pp 88)
Contridictions:
At first glance this may appear in direct contridiction to some other theories I have raised. This is true in some points and flase in others.
Bizarre:
This is scott adams description on bizarre:
"Bizarreness refers to any two things that don't belong together. A rhinoceros on a bicycle is bizarre."
Strangely enought he follow it up with these two example:
"Managers who cares about your personal life are bizarre. Employees who complain of being overpaid are bizarre."
(joy of work, pp 205)
Now these are two very straight forward sarcastic reversals, Managers don't care about you and Employee are underpaid. These are reconigisesable, When Scott Adams uses bizarreness these are not two ramdom things he picked out of the air, these have been specifically choosen to exaggerate certain qualities. When he made dogbert evil and sarcastic it works because it is the opposite of what a dog is.
When does contrivered orgniality works.
Contrived orginality is not a good idea when improvising, however it does often seem to appear in heavely written material. If you improvising their is a always a chance you won't make it make sense (which actuly isn't a problem really) This is because you know the end you can get to it from a very odd angle. When you throw up a lot of random rubbish the audience is always going to wonder how all of this will eventually make sense, if it does great if not you better be damm charming. Even the most surreal comedy tend to have some kind of thread going through it.