The guru and the statistician
The word guru is loaded in the English parlance. In my language guru simply means a teacher. But in improv it’s often associated with a reverential figure (“the one who gives light in darkness”). I don’t fancy it— and some feel very strongly against any resemblance of a cult of personality — though, mine is not rebellion against authority. More times than not, I believe the guru’s word. For me it’s about statistics. My point here is more on a practical note than it is philosophical.
In my improv travails, I find two kinds of “guru” (more often, wannabe gurus).
The Rules Guru
The Rules Guru is the Tough Guru. They say there is only one way to do improv. Off-improv they are the gentlest of souls, but in improv they adhere to a particular ruleset on how to do an improv scene. This is not always very helpful for me as a student, because I get in my head about all the rules to get it right. Improv becomes a checkbox of rules rather than playing the scene.
The Rules Guru can be outdated. They exist in little pockets where there was no existing improv. By being the first teacher, their words are often elevated to be true, intentionally or unintentionally. Let’s say The Tough Guru didn’t like one scene about durian. Their disciples shall teach on that improv shall never be about durians.
The No-Rules Guru
The No-Rules Guru is the exact opposite. This is the Vague Guru. They say that anything in improv goes. The Vague Guru answers every question with “Depends..” and throws the question back at me. It’s hard to make any statements with The Vague Guru; they would say the opposite and sound wise. Everything matters and nothing matters. Sure enough, any scene can work, but without something solid it’s hard to take home anything from a workshop. A session with the Vague Guru always feels very wise, I’m nodding in agreement, but when I walk away I go, “Eh? So what should I do?”. I got nothing to hold on to.
The Statistician
I like statistics. I find teachers who give me the most helpful advice are statisticians, ones who see scenes like a random dice roll. Sometimes scenes work, sometimes not. BUT there’s an optimal dose of rule-taking to better the odds. That’s science isn’t it? —in science, you always try to make a “general rule” on what works and what not, something that you can carry on, but you always take them with a grain of salt. And that’s what a good practical teacher is for me—the ones who nudges my beliefs ever so slightly towards the maxima of the curve.
Here’s Bayes Theorem, just to sneak it in.
