What do you think?
Rate this book
Comedy at the Edge: How Stand-up in the 1970s Changed America
What Peter Biskind did for filmmaking, Time magazine critic Richard Zoglin does for comedy in this meticulously researched and hilariously readable account of stand-up comedy in the 1970s.
In the rock-and-roll 1970s, a new breed of comic, inspired by the fearless Lenny Bruce, made telling jokes an art form. Innovative comedians like George Carlin, Richard Pryor, and Robert Klein, and, later, Steve Martin, Albert Brooks, Robin Williams, and Andy Kaufman, tore through the country and became as big as rock stars in an era when Saturday Night Live was the apotheosis of cool and the Improv, Catch a Rising Star, and the Comedy Store were the hottest clubs around. In Comedy at the Edge , Richard Zoglin gives a backstage view of the time, when a group of brilliant, iconoclastic comedians ruled the world―and quite possibly changed it, too. Based on extensive interviews with club owners, agents, producers―and with unprecedented and unlimited access to the players themselves― Comedy at the Edge is a no-holdsbarred, behind-the-scenes look at one of the most influential and tumultuous decades in American popular culture.
In the rock-and-roll 1970s, a new breed of comic, inspired by the fearless Lenny Bruce, made telling jokes an art form. Innovative comedians like George Carlin, Richard Pryor, and Robert Klein, and, later, Steve Martin, Albert Brooks, Robin Williams, and Andy Kaufman, tore through the country and became as big as rock stars in an era when Saturday Night Live was the apotheosis of cool and the Improv, Catch a Rising Star, and the Comedy Store were the hottest clubs around. In Comedy at the Edge , Richard Zoglin gives a backstage view of the time, when a group of brilliant, iconoclastic comedians ruled the world―and quite possibly changed it, too. Based on extensive interviews with club owners, agents, producers―and with unprecedented and unlimited access to the players themselves― Comedy at the Edge is a no-holdsbarred, behind-the-scenes look at one of the most influential and tumultuous decades in American popular culture.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published January 22, 2008
30 people are currently reading
1380 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 91 reviews
August 15, 2020
This has to be one of the best history of comedy books out there. And to think, I read it because it’s in Larry’s office in curb your enthusiasm.
May 20, 2008
My husband was a stand-up comic during the 80's heyday, and he thought this book would be a good addition to what he likes to call my "comedy education."
The book traces the major shifts in stand-up from the sixties through Seinfeld by detailing the lives of the important players involved. Though I grew up listening to Carlin records and trying to follow Steve Martin's instructions how to fold soup, I had little awareness of how the changes in comedy reflected the upheavals in the political and social landscape of the times. Zoglin's book provides an interesting overview of the interrelationship between what was happening on stage and the greater world beyond it.
All of the major names in 70's comedy make an appearance here. As clichés would suggest, the life of a comic off-stage is not all fun and games, and the chapter on Richord Pryor's drug abuse and violence was particularly hard to read. But the author does a good job of highlighting the very fierce battles Pryor and other comics fought to bring stand-up out of the safe, predictable niceties of the mid-century and into a form that had such social and political relevance that at least one comic found himself shadowed by Nixon's FBI.
Though Zoglin liberally quotes the trademark bits of his subjects, the book bears much more of the tone of the reporter who wrote it than the comics he’s writing about. Since stand-up is a live art form, it makes sense it doesn't really translate onto the page; one can only imagine how funny Albert Brooks’ bad mime impression must have been to those fortunate enough to actually see it. Those looking for laughs will therefore likely find the tone a little dry. But anyone interested in a broad social history of stand-up comedy should find plenty of interest here.
The book traces the major shifts in stand-up from the sixties through Seinfeld by detailing the lives of the important players involved. Though I grew up listening to Carlin records and trying to follow Steve Martin's instructions how to fold soup, I had little awareness of how the changes in comedy reflected the upheavals in the political and social landscape of the times. Zoglin's book provides an interesting overview of the interrelationship between what was happening on stage and the greater world beyond it.
All of the major names in 70's comedy make an appearance here. As clichés would suggest, the life of a comic off-stage is not all fun and games, and the chapter on Richord Pryor's drug abuse and violence was particularly hard to read. But the author does a good job of highlighting the very fierce battles Pryor and other comics fought to bring stand-up out of the safe, predictable niceties of the mid-century and into a form that had such social and political relevance that at least one comic found himself shadowed by Nixon's FBI.
Though Zoglin liberally quotes the trademark bits of his subjects, the book bears much more of the tone of the reporter who wrote it than the comics he’s writing about. Since stand-up is a live art form, it makes sense it doesn't really translate onto the page; one can only imagine how funny Albert Brooks’ bad mime impression must have been to those fortunate enough to actually see it. Those looking for laughs will therefore likely find the tone a little dry. But anyone interested in a broad social history of stand-up comedy should find plenty of interest here.
Read
August 7, 2023I think someone left this in a box at the UCB, and I was going to add it to the library there after I read it. But that library doesn’t exist anymore, so I’ll leave it in the laundry room in my building.
April 2, 2019
Quick, entertaining chronicle of the moment stand-up comedy became modern. This is a fact-based primer on a moment in history, a hagiography illustrated with nonstop anecdotes and name drops, that ably preserves and explains this cultural watershed for posterity.
The same way London in the Swinging Sixties defined an entire culture’s mode of music, New York City’s comedy scene in the 1970s germinated a way of speaking about and viewing life that became the grammar of the modern experience. This worldview—which preferred humanity and interiority over sneeringly disassembled social veneers—established comedy as a site of truth-telling, a sacred art form, and a glamorous showcase of intellect. It might have been the first art form to anticipate the present-day need for authenticity and relatability.
Zoglin tells the story of this movement as a series of profiles, roughly in chronological order, of the comedians who influenced it most. Every one of these main characters, with the exception of Richard Klein, became famous. The book is a lives of the saints; a history that helps you catch up on just who each of these famous people were, and where they came from, and how they changed the game they played.
His tone is even, quick, and casually academic. You trust him and his research, which nicely complements the delicate touches of first-person subjectivity sprinkled throughout. Zoglin was clearly there himself, and he had his favorites, and he tells the stories in a sort of oral history mode that doesn’t mind blending a little bit of myth with the facts.
The comedians’ experiences are never really explored in-depth. This is not a novelistic study of what it feels like to get a laugh, or write a killer line, or to be possessed by the mania these guys clearly had. This is a surface-level reporting of the facts, many of them biographical, along with some historical context and a few jokes here and there. Each guy gets between five and fifteen pages, so the whole thing has to move quick. Luckily, the comedy Zoglin sprinkles in generally comes across and keeps the reportage always close to the mastery of qualia that drove these comedians’ success. It’s really entertaining and easy to read. (I noted how much better comedy comes across in writing than music, which is obvious, but I literally laughed out loud at the Sam Kinison bit on 208.)
Where Zoglin does editorialize, he does it well. Usually it’s to fill you in on an opinion you probably would have had—Vegas lounge comics tended to be schticky hacks, for example. He also has a very light, elegant, accurate touch with description. A really good example is on 220, when he offers a subtle, perfect dissection of Jerry Seinfeld’s comedy:
(Seinfeld also comes off as the most quotable of all these comedians. This was really cool from ~p. 219: "Any art works best when it's the only pinhole of expression that a human being has. Everything they want to express gets forced through that little hole.")
Another example of Zoglin’s perfect touch comes from his description on 204 of the spread of comedy clubs around the country in the 80s: “An evening at the comedy club was perfect entertainment for a baby-boom generation that was just hitting its peak dating years… You might get your mind expanded or your assumptions challenged, but you walked out feeling smart, up-to-date, and maybe a little better able to cope.” That’s exactly what a comedy club offers. His effortless command of description—earned, no doubt, from having lived this himself—yields flashes of bowl-you-over eloquence that stand out from his otherwise tight, enjoyable text.
Zoglin’s actual history of stand-up comedy, for what it’s worth, is basically this: In the beginning, there was Lenny Bruce, the first person to really open his mind up in front of an audience and call it comedy. Following him was George Carlin, the generation-bridging comic who started his career straight and pivoted to lead the freak vanguard. Then Richard Pryor, who invented the blend of radical, human candor and prepared storytelling that is the DNA of essentially all modern stand-up. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. After that came a bunch of talented guys (he addresses the gender inequality of this cultural moment most pointedly in the chapter in which he discusses not having any female comics to talk about) who each added something of their own to the formula, and in their wake, created decades-spanning blueprints. Quick notes on some of those characters:
Richard Klein: A influential figure who contributed more to posterity in the form of his intelligent, accessible, improv-based style than in his quickly dated material.
The Improv: The ur-comedy club, the original bare brick wall. The first place where this new mode of stand-up coalesced and matured. It’s more glamorous rival, Catch A Rising Star, followed (with better management) in its footsteps.
Albert Brooks: Comedy prodigy, son of Hollywood privilege, who had a genius improvisational ability I did not know about. Unfortunately, he was terrified of performing and eventually focused on studio-produced material.
Steve Martin: The first mainstream rockstar comedian was an intense professional whose smart-stupid act was either a knowing commentary on stand-up or a guy literally just putting an arrow through his head, depending on your intelligence level.
Robin Williams: Basically what we already know him as. A kinetic genius whose frenzied improvisations on the floors of the club, amongst the tables, did more to disrupt the format of stand-up comedy than anyone else.
Andy Kaufman: The anti-comic who forced the audience to really think about like what even is a comedy show, man. I’ll say this: I have never really seen anything of his that I liked (he would lead people in a full rendition of “99 Bottles of Beer On The Wall” until the room cleared out) but I’m glad there was at least someone in comedy history who did this. (We do not need any more.)
Letterman: Hard-working neurotic who was lucky TV happened for him, because he had a laconic style that never really played well in live clubs.
Leno: The supernova star from Boston who did have that energy. I have a lot more respect for Jay Leno after hearing how much a real-ass dude he was. Really hard worker, comedian’s comedian. Don’t love his style, but he walked the walk.
One last thing. At the end of the book, in the Acknowledgements, you see the sources Zoglin used to report this book. Aside from the many interviews he conducted personally and the occasional large-scale treatment of a Pryor or a Seinfeld, all of the sources available to him were articles. Playboy interviews from the mid-70s, magazine profiles of Richard Lewis, stuff like that. I realized looking at those that Zoglin was right about the need to be the historian of record for this cultural moment. No one else had previously established stand-up comedy in the 70s as a historic period and scene. This cohesive, authoritative book is now the primary source for that story. This is the chronicle.
The same way London in the Swinging Sixties defined an entire culture’s mode of music, New York City’s comedy scene in the 1970s germinated a way of speaking about and viewing life that became the grammar of the modern experience. This worldview—which preferred humanity and interiority over sneeringly disassembled social veneers—established comedy as a site of truth-telling, a sacred art form, and a glamorous showcase of intellect. It might have been the first art form to anticipate the present-day need for authenticity and relatability.
Zoglin tells the story of this movement as a series of profiles, roughly in chronological order, of the comedians who influenced it most. Every one of these main characters, with the exception of Richard Klein, became famous. The book is a lives of the saints; a history that helps you catch up on just who each of these famous people were, and where they came from, and how they changed the game they played.
His tone is even, quick, and casually academic. You trust him and his research, which nicely complements the delicate touches of first-person subjectivity sprinkled throughout. Zoglin was clearly there himself, and he had his favorites, and he tells the stories in a sort of oral history mode that doesn’t mind blending a little bit of myth with the facts.
The comedians’ experiences are never really explored in-depth. This is not a novelistic study of what it feels like to get a laugh, or write a killer line, or to be possessed by the mania these guys clearly had. This is a surface-level reporting of the facts, many of them biographical, along with some historical context and a few jokes here and there. Each guy gets between five and fifteen pages, so the whole thing has to move quick. Luckily, the comedy Zoglin sprinkles in generally comes across and keeps the reportage always close to the mastery of qualia that drove these comedians’ success. It’s really entertaining and easy to read. (I noted how much better comedy comes across in writing than music, which is obvious, but I literally laughed out loud at the Sam Kinison bit on 208.)
Where Zoglin does editorialize, he does it well. Usually it’s to fill you in on an opinion you probably would have had—Vegas lounge comics tended to be schticky hacks, for example. He also has a very light, elegant, accurate touch with description. A really good example is on 220, when he offers a subtle, perfect dissection of Jerry Seinfeld’s comedy:
In language that was colorful, concise, and colloquially spot-on, Seinfeld chronicled the unending battle between the poor schlub and the People Who Make the Rules. He could get up in arms about greeting cards, for example… and obsessed over how to gauge the right amount of milk to put in your cereal: “Milk-estimation skills—so important. What do you do when you get to the bottom of the bowl and you still have milk left? Well, I say, put in more cereal!” A dozen comics could have thought that up. It took Seinfeld to add the priceless “I say”—the hint of self-mockery that gives it the comedic oomph.
(Seinfeld also comes off as the most quotable of all these comedians. This was really cool from ~p. 219: "Any art works best when it's the only pinhole of expression that a human being has. Everything they want to express gets forced through that little hole.")
Another example of Zoglin’s perfect touch comes from his description on 204 of the spread of comedy clubs around the country in the 80s: “An evening at the comedy club was perfect entertainment for a baby-boom generation that was just hitting its peak dating years… You might get your mind expanded or your assumptions challenged, but you walked out feeling smart, up-to-date, and maybe a little better able to cope.” That’s exactly what a comedy club offers. His effortless command of description—earned, no doubt, from having lived this himself—yields flashes of bowl-you-over eloquence that stand out from his otherwise tight, enjoyable text.
Zoglin’s actual history of stand-up comedy, for what it’s worth, is basically this: In the beginning, there was Lenny Bruce, the first person to really open his mind up in front of an audience and call it comedy. Following him was George Carlin, the generation-bridging comic who started his career straight and pivoted to lead the freak vanguard. Then Richard Pryor, who invented the blend of radical, human candor and prepared storytelling that is the DNA of essentially all modern stand-up. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. After that came a bunch of talented guys (he addresses the gender inequality of this cultural moment most pointedly in the chapter in which he discusses not having any female comics to talk about) who each added something of their own to the formula, and in their wake, created decades-spanning blueprints. Quick notes on some of those characters:
Richard Klein: A influential figure who contributed more to posterity in the form of his intelligent, accessible, improv-based style than in his quickly dated material.
The Improv: The ur-comedy club, the original bare brick wall. The first place where this new mode of stand-up coalesced and matured. It’s more glamorous rival, Catch A Rising Star, followed (with better management) in its footsteps.
Albert Brooks: Comedy prodigy, son of Hollywood privilege, who had a genius improvisational ability I did not know about. Unfortunately, he was terrified of performing and eventually focused on studio-produced material.
Steve Martin: The first mainstream rockstar comedian was an intense professional whose smart-stupid act was either a knowing commentary on stand-up or a guy literally just putting an arrow through his head, depending on your intelligence level.
Robin Williams: Basically what we already know him as. A kinetic genius whose frenzied improvisations on the floors of the club, amongst the tables, did more to disrupt the format of stand-up comedy than anyone else.
Andy Kaufman: The anti-comic who forced the audience to really think about like what even is a comedy show, man. I’ll say this: I have never really seen anything of his that I liked (he would lead people in a full rendition of “99 Bottles of Beer On The Wall” until the room cleared out) but I’m glad there was at least someone in comedy history who did this. (We do not need any more.)
Letterman: Hard-working neurotic who was lucky TV happened for him, because he had a laconic style that never really played well in live clubs.
Leno: The supernova star from Boston who did have that energy. I have a lot more respect for Jay Leno after hearing how much a real-ass dude he was. Really hard worker, comedian’s comedian. Don’t love his style, but he walked the walk.
One last thing. At the end of the book, in the Acknowledgements, you see the sources Zoglin used to report this book. Aside from the many interviews he conducted personally and the occasional large-scale treatment of a Pryor or a Seinfeld, all of the sources available to him were articles. Playboy interviews from the mid-70s, magazine profiles of Richard Lewis, stuff like that. I realized looking at those that Zoglin was right about the need to be the historian of record for this cultural moment. No one else had previously established stand-up comedy in the 70s as a historic period and scene. This cohesive, authoritative book is now the primary source for that story. This is the chronicle.
April 21, 2025
An interesting and well-researched read into the origins of modern stand-up comedy in the USA. The book could have been shorter, as there was a lot of repetitive text applied to the different comedians and in general, but even so, if you are a fan of comedy, worth reading for sure.
June 13, 2008
The author of this book, Richard Zoglin, is from Time Magazine, which forces its writers to use a cutesy, insta-cliche prose style which usually makes me feel very irritated or very tired. This book is written in the same style. The rhythm is a mile a minute, which pretty much means there is no rhythm. Nevertheless, it's all very readable, and I finished this 238 page book in three days. It's obvious progenitor is "Seriously Funny" by Gerald Nachman, a book which uses the same format -- one profile per chapter -- to limn the comedians of the 60s. "Comedy At The Edge" isn't as good as "Seriously Funny," but it's not bad either. Anyone who enjoyed "Seriously Funny" will also enjoy Zoglin's work. What "Seriously Funny" gives you, but "Comedy At The Edge" doesn't, are character studies. With "Seriously Funny," you get a better sense of who its subjects were, what made them tick. "Comedy At The Edge" doesn't do nearly as good a job of portraying the comedians' inner lives, but it does tell you what they did. That, by itself, is a pretty entertaining story.
September 12, 2009
this book got a lot of good reviews. mine is lukewarm. given that half the title is "how stand-up in the 70s changed america" you might take this to be an academic account of the impact of 70s comics. not so much. it is largely a series of biographical chapters on the primary players in 70s comedy. if, like me, you have already perused biographies of richard pryor, andy kaufman, steve martin, etc, there's not a lot to be gleaned here, especially if you've also read bios of carlin, robert klein and albert brooks. it's very readable, but zoglin doesn't contribute much insight. if you want his thoughts, you can pretty much read the last 3 pages or so and get about 70% of his contribution. so it goes.
February 10, 2009
Very readable account of the transition of stand-up comedy from the Borscht Belt/Vegas big room style to the "observational" comedy of Jerry Seinfeld. I'm just the right age to remember a lot of these guys, even if I never saw them live. (I still have strong memories of hearing Steve Martin & Robin Williams on albums - at a party! Shows you how big an impact these guys had if a bunch of teenagers will sit around in a group listening to their records.)
Anyway, this seems solidly researched and without any kind of major ax to grind, which makes for an enjoyable read.
Anyway, this seems solidly researched and without any kind of major ax to grind, which makes for an enjoyable read.
February 4, 2016
An entertaining and relatively informative collection of sketches, basically, covering that period of comedy that I grew up with. I am familiar with most of what I read here, but it was still a good refresher. He focuses mostly on the better-known artists of the generation, with occasional mentions of lesser lights, but it does effectively portray the stand-up world and challenges. I'm not sure why I have been on a comedy bio kick, but I do find it interesting. It is a wonder so many survived the excesses of the time. If you enjoy comedy, or remember the acts, this is a good summation.
February 10, 2008
This was a very basic overview of the big names of stand-up in the 70s. It could have been much more in-depth I think; instead, it read like a fleshed-out book proposal rather than an encyclopedic work. This book made me want to stop reading and just watch an episode of Seinfeld instead! I recommend it only if you know absolutely nothing about comedy; otherwise, this is all ground that's been covered before.
November 18, 2011
A fairly good overview of American stand-up comedy starting with Lenny Bruce and ending with the comedy club boom of the 1980s. A good starting point if you're curious about the history of stand-up and its key players like George Carlin, Richard Prior, etc.
Also, as many other reviewers mention, the subtitle is kind of misleading in that it doesn't really go into how it changed America.
Also, as many other reviewers mention, the subtitle is kind of misleading in that it doesn't really go into how it changed America.
April 13, 2012
Why this book is Terrible:
The author is a TV critic for a pop magazine....
The subtitle is nonsencical hyperbole
Jerry Seinfeld is on the cover
Why I read it:
George Carlin and Richard Pryor.
The author is a TV critic for a pop magazine....
The subtitle is nonsencical hyperbole
Jerry Seinfeld is on the cover
Why I read it:
George Carlin and Richard Pryor.
April 2, 2014
First off, this was, in general, a great source for exactly the subject matter it advertises: Stand-Up in the 1970s. It's incredibly tight in terms of its set-up. Zoglin organizes the first bunch of chapters extremely well. Beginning with Lenny Bruce as a foreword, he continues on with subsequent chapters focusing not only on a comic's biography, but their comedic style and his own "This is Why This Matters" analyzation. He's quite good at a sort of academic/historical angle when writing about these comics, and - not to sound cheesy - I really felt like I learned a lot about comedy styles and comedic "language." Some of the comics he profiles for the first half or so of the book felt a smidge obvious: George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Steve Martin, David Letterman, Jay Leno, Andy Kaufmann. The ones I'd heard of, I already knew a lot about, as I'm sure most people who would pick up a book about stand-up. The ones I hadn't heard of (Klein, Lewis, Brooks had some vague ticklings of my brain but nothing concrete) had some interesting moments, but it seemed incredibly clear that while Zoglin certainly admired the less-known/less-lasting, I can honestly say in reading their story that it seems relatively obvious why they aren't really well-known any more. Each chapter, regardless of who was the main focus, featured a smattering of other famous and/or influential individuals.
However, I stuck with it. While I thought upon picking it up that it would be more of a description of a "scene" as opposed to specific comics and their history/style, I was totally enjoying it. But then the whole concept and formula seemed to fall apart. Just when I got used to expecting the set-up (bio/style/bit of contextual analyzation), the book started to become fuzzier. I didn't really get what the author was trying to do any more; it was as if he had all of this phenomenal interview material (and that's another plus: he personally interviewed dozens of incredibly awesome people who first-hand witnessed the rise of stand-up) and he didn't want to waste any of it, yet he ran out of enough specific topics to support the formula he started with. The main place this fuzziness becomes obvious is . . .
Where were the laaaaaddddiiiieeeesss???
Of at least a hundred names Zoglin dropped throughout the text, I would say less than five were women; of those, maybe two were ones who did stand-up, but were the subject of the phrase, ". . . who he was dating at the time." To say I was disappointed was an understatement. When I got to the photos, I saw there was a photo of Mitzi Shore with a HUGE group of female stand-up comics, and the caption read that she had started a room just for women upstairs from The Comedy Store. "Ooh!," I thought. "The ladddiiieessss are coming."
And, at 74%, there they were. According to my Kindle, 74% - 82% was all about the ladies. And if 8% of an entire book about stand-up comedy in the 70s surprises you, I can say that it surprised me to. But Zoglin has an explanation: There just weren't a lot of women doing stand-up in the 70s.
Huh. Well. That sounds strange. Especially considering Sandra Bernhard is in that photo with Mitzi Shore. And, you know, like, a bunch of other women. But maybe aside from Mitzi Shore and Sandra Bernhard, the rest really didn't get anywhere, so you know. Whatevs.
Like the former chapters, he dips back into his bio formula for the one for women, and focuses on Elayne Boosler, who, I'll be honest, I hadn't heard of. No worries, there were at least two chapters filled with info about white male comics in the beginning I hadn't heard of, fame is no issue in terms of influence, blah blah blah. And I just felt that even within his own created formula, it completely fell short. I really, really want to give credit for trying, however my own limited knowledge of female stand-up coupled with my great knowledge of feminist studies makes me hesitate.
Zoglin's analysis of Boosler's comedy sticks with the 70s context, and he wields that to cut down the likes of Joan Rivers and Phyllis Diller. Never mind that for the first 74% of the book, I was wondering where the hell Rivers and Diller WERE, as no mention at all seemed really strange, but he comes off much harsher on their comedic road-paving than any other comics profiled. He begins by bluntly stating that Rivers, Diller, and Totie Fields achieved stardom "comparable to top male comedians in the 50s and 60s and continued to work through the 70s." Again, where WERE they in the rest of the book? They basically were working at a level the rest of the comics he profiled were striving for - they were BEATING them - and they didn't even warrant a mention? Maybe because none of the successful male comics Zoglin interviewed mentioned those women as influential, which to me is actually way, way more depressing.
Zoglin writes that "Most of the few role models for women comedians . . . were made obsolete by the feminist consciousness-raising. The women who succeeded as stand-up comics in the prefeminist era had to do it by telling jokes and adopting attitudes that weren't threatening to men." He then gives a few examples of or refers to Diller and Fields' self-deprecating lines about housework and looks - in Diller's case, completely contrived, aka, part of the joke.
Has it crossed Zoglin's mind that rather than Diller's outrageous appearance being self-mockery, it was rather a "fuck you" to the feminine ideals people expected from female performers? Or that maybe, just maybe, these women were popular because despite an entire culture being built upon women being GOOD at housework, or looking a certain way, they were saying, "Ha! Yeah, I suck at it too"? Just because something doesn't fit a certain "idea" of comedy doesn't necessarily mean it isn't important, and after reading droning after droning about comics I'd never heard of, to say, "Ah, yes, but this is BEFORE the 70s, they were already famous!" and use it to dismiss work that, frankly, some of is more influential than Pryor or Carlin's. It was important to half of the population, because NO ONE HAD SAID IT.
And also: "Weren't threatening to men"? I give you Joan Rivers on the Ed Sullivan show in 1967.
But I get it. I get it. The book is about the 70s, and women weren't doing much in the 70s, because the feminists were ruining everyone's fun. Forget about Sandra Bernhard, who started touring when she was all of 19. I got a snippet of her stories of that time with Paul Mooney at a BAM showing of her indie film, and frankly, her quotes just kind of skimming around in this book is shocking, considering how early she started and who she was hanging around with. And, of course, as I've mentioned before, she's had more of a career long-term than a few of the male comedians Zoglin chose to focus on.
So Joan Rivers wasn't featured, because technically she got famous in the 60s (despite feminist observation being a central part of her act); Sandra Bernhard wasn't featured because . . . Um, something? Phyllis Diller also, too old. And Elayne Boosler, in case you were wondering, didn't make it probably because her volatile personality. Yeah, that's really what it's reduced down to - not that it's the author's fault, he can't rewrite sexism. Never mind Richard Pryor beating women up, Freddie Prinze shooting guns into walls and constantly waving them around before he killed himself, or Robin Williams snorting five pounds of coke after each set. Boosler was volatile. So she didn't make it.
The last strange thing about how women are portrayed is . . . the ones that WERE making it were DOING STAND-UP. So much is made of the men who got famous, got a sitcom or comedic TV appearances, and felt like shit because they weren't doing things that were really about them and their comedy. They were four-letter comics on family TV shows. And again, these women were STILL DOING STAND UP.
Overall . . . his criteria for who he profiled got stranger and more specific by the chapter, and is highlighted mostly by how he discusses female comics. Bill Cosby is mentioned throughout, intermittently, but the big thing about passing over more extensive analysis of him is that he had the first show that WAS based on his comedy - basically the Holy Grail for comedians in the 70s, aside from Letterman and Leno and their late shows that I've always thought sucked anyway. He's not really discussed much despite this unique experience.
And one last thing. Any book about comedy wouldn't be complete without practically masturbating to Jerry Seinfeld. I fucking hate Seinfeld. I have seen every episode of his show at least once, most of them twice, a few three or more times as I grew up in a family of Seinfeld fanatics, and I don't get why people laugh.
Poor Zoglin. Even after the whole Weird Women theme of his book, his otherwise-thoughtful analyses could not bring me over to understand Seinfeld as at least a consolation prize.
However, I stuck with it. While I thought upon picking it up that it would be more of a description of a "scene" as opposed to specific comics and their history/style, I was totally enjoying it. But then the whole concept and formula seemed to fall apart. Just when I got used to expecting the set-up (bio/style/bit of contextual analyzation), the book started to become fuzzier. I didn't really get what the author was trying to do any more; it was as if he had all of this phenomenal interview material (and that's another plus: he personally interviewed dozens of incredibly awesome people who first-hand witnessed the rise of stand-up) and he didn't want to waste any of it, yet he ran out of enough specific topics to support the formula he started with. The main place this fuzziness becomes obvious is . . .
Where were the laaaaaddddiiiieeeesss???
Of at least a hundred names Zoglin dropped throughout the text, I would say less than five were women; of those, maybe two were ones who did stand-up, but were the subject of the phrase, ". . . who he was dating at the time." To say I was disappointed was an understatement. When I got to the photos, I saw there was a photo of Mitzi Shore with a HUGE group of female stand-up comics, and the caption read that she had started a room just for women upstairs from The Comedy Store. "Ooh!," I thought. "The ladddiiieessss are coming."
And, at 74%, there they were. According to my Kindle, 74% - 82% was all about the ladies. And if 8% of an entire book about stand-up comedy in the 70s surprises you, I can say that it surprised me to. But Zoglin has an explanation: There just weren't a lot of women doing stand-up in the 70s.
Huh. Well. That sounds strange. Especially considering Sandra Bernhard is in that photo with Mitzi Shore. And, you know, like, a bunch of other women. But maybe aside from Mitzi Shore and Sandra Bernhard, the rest really didn't get anywhere, so you know. Whatevs.
Like the former chapters, he dips back into his bio formula for the one for women, and focuses on Elayne Boosler, who, I'll be honest, I hadn't heard of. No worries, there were at least two chapters filled with info about white male comics in the beginning I hadn't heard of, fame is no issue in terms of influence, blah blah blah. And I just felt that even within his own created formula, it completely fell short. I really, really want to give credit for trying, however my own limited knowledge of female stand-up coupled with my great knowledge of feminist studies makes me hesitate.
Zoglin's analysis of Boosler's comedy sticks with the 70s context, and he wields that to cut down the likes of Joan Rivers and Phyllis Diller. Never mind that for the first 74% of the book, I was wondering where the hell Rivers and Diller WERE, as no mention at all seemed really strange, but he comes off much harsher on their comedic road-paving than any other comics profiled. He begins by bluntly stating that Rivers, Diller, and Totie Fields achieved stardom "comparable to top male comedians in the 50s and 60s and continued to work through the 70s." Again, where WERE they in the rest of the book? They basically were working at a level the rest of the comics he profiled were striving for - they were BEATING them - and they didn't even warrant a mention? Maybe because none of the successful male comics Zoglin interviewed mentioned those women as influential, which to me is actually way, way more depressing.
Zoglin writes that "Most of the few role models for women comedians . . . were made obsolete by the feminist consciousness-raising. The women who succeeded as stand-up comics in the prefeminist era had to do it by telling jokes and adopting attitudes that weren't threatening to men." He then gives a few examples of or refers to Diller and Fields' self-deprecating lines about housework and looks - in Diller's case, completely contrived, aka, part of the joke.
Has it crossed Zoglin's mind that rather than Diller's outrageous appearance being self-mockery, it was rather a "fuck you" to the feminine ideals people expected from female performers? Or that maybe, just maybe, these women were popular because despite an entire culture being built upon women being GOOD at housework, or looking a certain way, they were saying, "Ha! Yeah, I suck at it too"? Just because something doesn't fit a certain "idea" of comedy doesn't necessarily mean it isn't important, and after reading droning after droning about comics I'd never heard of, to say, "Ah, yes, but this is BEFORE the 70s, they were already famous!" and use it to dismiss work that, frankly, some of is more influential than Pryor or Carlin's. It was important to half of the population, because NO ONE HAD SAID IT.
And also: "Weren't threatening to men"? I give you Joan Rivers on the Ed Sullivan show in 1967.
But I get it. I get it. The book is about the 70s, and women weren't doing much in the 70s, because the feminists were ruining everyone's fun. Forget about Sandra Bernhard, who started touring when she was all of 19. I got a snippet of her stories of that time with Paul Mooney at a BAM showing of her indie film, and frankly, her quotes just kind of skimming around in this book is shocking, considering how early she started and who she was hanging around with. And, of course, as I've mentioned before, she's had more of a career long-term than a few of the male comedians Zoglin chose to focus on.
So Joan Rivers wasn't featured, because technically she got famous in the 60s (despite feminist observation being a central part of her act); Sandra Bernhard wasn't featured because . . . Um, something? Phyllis Diller also, too old. And Elayne Boosler, in case you were wondering, didn't make it probably because her volatile personality. Yeah, that's really what it's reduced down to - not that it's the author's fault, he can't rewrite sexism. Never mind Richard Pryor beating women up, Freddie Prinze shooting guns into walls and constantly waving them around before he killed himself, or Robin Williams snorting five pounds of coke after each set. Boosler was volatile. So she didn't make it.
The last strange thing about how women are portrayed is . . . the ones that WERE making it were DOING STAND-UP. So much is made of the men who got famous, got a sitcom or comedic TV appearances, and felt like shit because they weren't doing things that were really about them and their comedy. They were four-letter comics on family TV shows. And again, these women were STILL DOING STAND UP.
Overall . . . his criteria for who he profiled got stranger and more specific by the chapter, and is highlighted mostly by how he discusses female comics. Bill Cosby is mentioned throughout, intermittently, but the big thing about passing over more extensive analysis of him is that he had the first show that WAS based on his comedy - basically the Holy Grail for comedians in the 70s, aside from Letterman and Leno and their late shows that I've always thought sucked anyway. He's not really discussed much despite this unique experience.
And one last thing. Any book about comedy wouldn't be complete without practically masturbating to Jerry Seinfeld. I fucking hate Seinfeld. I have seen every episode of his show at least once, most of them twice, a few three or more times as I grew up in a family of Seinfeld fanatics, and I don't get why people laugh.
Poor Zoglin. Even after the whole Weird Women theme of his book, his otherwise-thoughtful analyses could not bring me over to understand Seinfeld as at least a consolation prize.
June 3, 2025
I'm giving this 3 stars for it's impeccably sourced materials and summarized notes relating to who was interviewed for each chapter. That said, this does not deliver on the set-up of stand-up changing America. It is a wonderfully detailed journey through the careers of key comedians of the era, but the only thing that it shows changes in is the industry. Stand-ups of the era were changing hearts and minds as much as any other artist, but this shows how comics were dialing into the zeitgeist.
Additionally, I don't think the organization--comic-focused chapters-works towards the goal either. Organizing by the changes he was hoping to highlight and then pulling in supporting arguments from the specific comics would have made more sense. His abysmal attempt to talk about women in comedy in the 1970s had one thing right: it was a tough road for women in a misogyny-filled industry. But rather than leaving it as "Elayne Boosler" was the exception was a cop out. Detail the hurdles a bit more than "it was difficult" and explain the actual logistics of why it was difficult. Expand on a few of the sentences, delve into why bookers weren't putting women on The Tonight Show with more than "well, Johnny Carson was kind of sexist."
My personal favorite term out of the book is "post-comedy" to describe Albert Brooks and Andy Kaufman. Like Steve Martin, they were satirizing the situation of Hollywood, or the give and take with an audience. However, while Brooks is brilliant and Kaufman is ... I'll go with dedicated to the bit, they aren't funny. Brooks is insightful and has funny lines and moments, but he's exploring topics in a non-serious way. Kaufman always seemed like he was using characters as an excuse to be an unbearable jerk (with admittedly, some moments of genius thrown in). The most extreme version of "I was being facetious, can't you take a joke" that scumbags like to use to justify their actions when they are called out on it.
Lastly, this book barely drew a chuckle from me. I expected it to be a more of an academic/reporter look at comedy but to have zero zingers in a book about comics seems like an odd way to go. Even if it was limited to each chapter's opening paragraph or to some footnotes, I find it shocking that the author chose to be so exceedingly dry.
Maybe he's more of a post-comedy guy.
Additionally, I don't think the organization--comic-focused chapters-works towards the goal either. Organizing by the changes he was hoping to highlight and then pulling in supporting arguments from the specific comics would have made more sense. His abysmal attempt to talk about women in comedy in the 1970s had one thing right: it was a tough road for women in a misogyny-filled industry. But rather than leaving it as "Elayne Boosler" was the exception was a cop out. Detail the hurdles a bit more than "it was difficult" and explain the actual logistics of why it was difficult. Expand on a few of the sentences, delve into why bookers weren't putting women on The Tonight Show with more than "well, Johnny Carson was kind of sexist."
My personal favorite term out of the book is "post-comedy" to describe Albert Brooks and Andy Kaufman. Like Steve Martin, they were satirizing the situation of Hollywood, or the give and take with an audience. However, while Brooks is brilliant and Kaufman is ... I'll go with dedicated to the bit, they aren't funny. Brooks is insightful and has funny lines and moments, but he's exploring topics in a non-serious way. Kaufman always seemed like he was using characters as an excuse to be an unbearable jerk (with admittedly, some moments of genius thrown in). The most extreme version of "I was being facetious, can't you take a joke" that scumbags like to use to justify their actions when they are called out on it.
Lastly, this book barely drew a chuckle from me. I expected it to be a more of an academic/reporter look at comedy but to have zero zingers in a book about comics seems like an odd way to go. Even if it was limited to each chapter's opening paragraph or to some footnotes, I find it shocking that the author chose to be so exceedingly dry.
Maybe he's more of a post-comedy guy.
June 25, 2017
Reads like a series of articles rather than one cohesive piece so it lacks any unifying themes or through-line. The title of the book is a bit deceiving. A more apt title would be something about how the changes in the comedy scene mirrored the changes in America. (and vice-versa). For the 70s being in the title, there's a lot of stuff on Lenny Bruce and the 1960s as being where most of the "changes" were taking place. Zoglin then blows through the 80s and starts talking about the 90s, seemingly to pad out a book that is increasingly *not* about the 1970s.
He glosses over a lot of important comedians, such as Gilbert Gottfied, whose act was completely singular when he started getting on stage in the 70s. He is not mentioned once, even though his act, in some ways was as unique and deconstructive as Steve Martin's or Albert Brooks'.
This book, in the end, becomes more about the people who wouldn't sit down for interviews than it was about the people he got. I don't know what I was expecting, but I am now not totally sure I want to continue on with Zoglin's work and read the Bob Hope volume.
September 5, 2019
This book does a great job chronicling the transition from "showbiz" comics (Bob Hope, Don Rickles, Jack Benny) to "club" comics (George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Robert Klein, etc.) and stylistic changes they ushered in.
In the late '60s and '70s, stand-up changed from one liners loosely stringed together (setup, punchline, setup, punchline) to an autobiographical, stream of consciousness style. Comedy started being less entertainment & more social commentary.
Then in the '80s, comedy clubs started to become saturated and people started seeing standup as a platform to get discovered and hopefully start an acting career. Kind of a pre-America's Got Talent, lots of hacks and few pure comedians.
One theme I noticed is that in order to be a successful comedian, you have to be a pretty big asshole. Pryor, Carlin, Jerry Seinfeld, Steve Martin, Andy Kaufman all seem like they would be difficult to get along with offstage. But maybe they developed their asshole-ness so they wouldn't be emotional about the process.
Maybe that's the secret to success in stand-up.
In the late '60s and '70s, stand-up changed from one liners loosely stringed together (setup, punchline, setup, punchline) to an autobiographical, stream of consciousness style. Comedy started being less entertainment & more social commentary.
Then in the '80s, comedy clubs started to become saturated and people started seeing standup as a platform to get discovered and hopefully start an acting career. Kind of a pre-America's Got Talent, lots of hacks and few pure comedians.
One theme I noticed is that in order to be a successful comedian, you have to be a pretty big asshole. Pryor, Carlin, Jerry Seinfeld, Steve Martin, Andy Kaufman all seem like they would be difficult to get along with offstage. But maybe they developed their asshole-ness so they wouldn't be emotional about the process.
Maybe that's the secret to success in stand-up.
August 18, 2021
When I'm reading a book at my house, my TV and my phone are off. I'll do my best to concentrate only on the book that I'm reading. However, keeping both the TV and phone off while reading this book was difficult for me. I kept reading about incidents that I wanted to see. There were a few times when I would put the book down for a minute to search for something on YouTube that I just read about. I feel doing that actually enhanced my enjoyment of the stories told in this book.
This was a good read. I'm glad that I took the time to read it. The chapters are laid out in ways that make sense and show the progress of the comedy of the era.
If you're a fan of stand-up and the art of it, I recommend this book.
This was a good read. I'm glad that I took the time to read it. The chapters are laid out in ways that make sense and show the progress of the comedy of the era.
If you're a fan of stand-up and the art of it, I recommend this book.
April 29, 2020
Read Zoglin's lengthy book about Bob Hope right before this and enjoyed every page. I had high hopes for this one but found my interest fading about halfway through. I just didn't quite buy that there was a unifying purpose behind this book other than, these are comics the author liked, or at least, respected in the 1970s. But the big social change concept just felt a little forced, like anyone would have been offered up as example had the author enough to put a chapter together about them. Steve Martin, Albert Brooks as agents of change? I don't know. This book is worth reading though if you are interested in any of the comics examined.
March 22, 2025
Really well researched book about stand ups in the 1970's that includes Steve Martin, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Andy Kaufman, Albert Brooks, Jay Leno, Dave Letterman, Elaine Boosler, Larry David, Jerry Seinfeld , Richard Klein and basically anybody who came out of the 1970's comedy scene.
The book is written in a very easy to read, breezy style and never overstays its welcome on any one comic, moving along to the next at a good pace.
A MUST read for anyone interested in stand up comedy and how it developed during this time.
The book is written in a very easy to read, breezy style and never overstays its welcome on any one comic, moving along to the next at a good pace.
A MUST read for anyone interested in stand up comedy and how it developed during this time.
July 9, 2018
Some chapters overlap - even using the same quotes or observations - but otherwise this is a fairly captivating recounting of the 70s stand up scene. The focus zooms in and out - full chapters on Carlin, Pryor and Klein, but then Steve Martin and Albert Brooks are combined, as are Robin Williams and Andy Kaufman. It ends with the mainstream-ization of comedy in the 80s and 90s, perfectly
symbolized in Jerry Seinfeld.
symbolized in Jerry Seinfeld.
October 13, 2020
Well, I enjoyed this, as I suspected, from following the author when he was TV critic for Atlanta Journal-Constitution (http://www.ajc.com) in 1980s, and, since, for Time Magazine and www.time.com. Zoglin's perspective is wide, so he follows figures I did not, like Boozler or Kinison, and reminds me of ones I always loved, like Robert Klein.
I began to read thinking of a comedian friend. It amazes me how much has changed in our lives. Here are examples from stand-up comedy.
Recommended.
I began to read thinking of a comedian friend. It amazes me how much has changed in our lives. Here are examples from stand-up comedy.
Recommended.
October 28, 2017
I'm not sure how he did it but this author managed to write a book about comedy and comedians and made it boring. Like most books about comedy, the author takes us through Lenny Bruce and the trifecta of Carlin/Klein/Pryor but he also includes two of my favorites in Steve Martin and Albert Brooks. Expected a lot more.
July 22, 2018
I am sure that a lot of my enjoyment of this book has to do with my having lived through this period and seen much of this comedy at the time. I saw Albert Brooks's mime routine just once, many years ago, and the thought of it can still make me happy. And, oh, the amazing, brilliant Robert Klein!
November 1, 2024
A look at the rise of stand-up comedy in the 1970s. The influence of Lenny Bruce on those making a name for themselves. Some of the comedians highlighted are Richard Pryor, George Carlin, Robin Williams, Andy Kaufman, and Jerry Seinfeld. There are many other comics included. A good entertaining read.
August 24, 2017
An entertaining, educational and annoying book all in one. Some of the points about the comedians are laboured to fit the narrative but there are more than enough good stories to make this a very entertaining read
September 15, 2017
It wasn't funny. It was more history than humor. That's not bad, you just have to realize that going into it. I'm not sure I would have read it for the history aspect; I lived through most of this era so I remember most of what happened.
September 20, 2022
A useful history, if a bit dull. Really very little focus on what women were doing at the time—there's some but not much. I'd rather hear most of these stories from the comedians themselves on a podcast.
January 27, 2019
Excellent book on comedy in the 70s (and just before and after). Covered a lot of my favorites growing up and went deep to explain how each developed
July 1, 2019
Sometimes I wish I could chuck it all and work on being a stand-up.
March 30, 2022
It shows all the different sides that comedy was turning into in the 1970s. It starts with a little of Lenny Bruce and then tapers off into the first few years of the 1980s.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 91 reviews