‘[YTP] Michael Rosen Embarrasses Himself on Pointless’ and Rob King’s ‘Comedy’ vs. ‘Comic’.


Rob King’s thesis on the “terminological distinction separating ‘comedy’ from that which is ‘comic’,” is a theme prevalent in the video [YTP] Michael Rosen Embarrasses Himself on Pointless.[1] King states that something which is comic immediately “generates our amusement,” in any way. This could be something that is funny universally. [2] On the other hand, King argues that comedy is “limited to spheres of representation.” [3] This suggests that comedy is more limited than something just comical that not all people find funny. Moreover, King states that it is easy to think of ‘bad comedy’ as due to different tastes, not everyone finds the same material humorous. [4]


[YTP] Michael Rosen Embarrasses Himself on Pointless is a solid example of a video that both has elements of comic value and overall comedy. The video is a ‘YouTube Poop’ which is a trend of online videos which manipulate and rearrange dialogue on pre-existing videos to create humour. The common type of YTP are made about Michael Rosen, one of the UK’s most famous child authors.


In this specific video, there are examples of humour which support King’s thesis on the distinction of the the comic and comedy. The niche nature of some of the jokes in the video align with King’s thesis of comedy being “limited to spheres of representation.” [5] For example, Michael’s answer of “plums” is an example of comedy, as it is sound taken from one of Rosen’s actual videos. Due to it being a reference, some may not understand the humour. Whereas, Alexander Armstrong’s dialogue manipulation to reveal the game show’s jackpot of £2 is an example of comic value due to its slapstick feel.


Overall, [YTP] Michael Rosen Embarrasses Himself on Pointless provides evidence supporting King’s thesis on the distinction between the ‘comic’ and ‘comedy’.





[1] Rob King “Laughter in an Ungoverned Sphere: Actuality Humour in Early Cinema and Web 2.0” in New Silent Cinema, ed. Flaig & Groo (New York: Routledge, 2015), p. 296.

[2] Ibid., p. 296.

[3] Ibid., p. 296.

[4] Ibid., p. 296.

[5] Ibid., p. 296.

Leave a Reply