Clown School Break Day 12: Poker vs Clown

In which Our Hero manages his emotions (and plays poker because, with a broken foot, what else are you going to do?)

If clowning is about managing your emotions in service of giving pleasure, then poker might actually train part of that muscle. The emotional management is enormous.

Earlier today I lost three spots in a row.
One I misplayed slightly.
Two were just unlucky.

I assumed my strategy wasn’t working.

But it was.

I do this in clowning, too: I try a thing, it doesn’t land, and I immediately abandon it. But that’s rarely the answer. Sometimes you need to push the thing farther. Sometimes you pivot to a different game. But the one thing you don’t need to do is collapse inward and quit. You don’t just give up and take your ball and go home.

Instead, check your fundamentals.

In poker: Is this still a good game? Am I playing well?
In clowning: Have I found the game? Am I playing it?

Yet the two arts couldn’t be more opposite.

Poker is about hiding.
Showing nothing.
No emotion, no tells, no generosity.

Clowning is the opposite: openness, earnestness, authenticity, giving.

Poker is selfishness.
Clowning is generosity.

At one point today I was down $650. I kept playing because I was playing well—and because, in theory, I’d been winning the whole time.

That’s another key difference: poker has theory.
Clowning has only practice.

Poker’s truth reveals itself over hundreds of thousands of hands.
Clowning’s truth reveals itself instantly.

If everyone’s laughing at you at the poker table, you’re the fish.
If everyone’s laughing with you on stage, you’re the clown.

I was also especially open with my family today. That was nice 🙂
Time and place, boys. Time and place 😎

Clown School Break Day 10: The Arbiter of Fun

In which Our Hero demonstrates he visited a casino today.

“The person on your left determines how much fun you have.”

A friend said this about playing poker at a casino.

In poker, the player on your left acts after you. So in marginal spots—hands that could go either way—they get to decide how much intensity to apply. They can re-raise you (the aggressive choice) or fold (the friendly one). Since the spot is marginal, it doesn’t meaningfully affect their win rate; it just affects your experience.

Improv works the same way. Your job is to give gifts to your partner. “Pimping them out” (putting them in a tough or absurd situation) is the aggressive choice. Establishing clear relationships, objects, or stakes is the friendly one.

Does clowning have a similar dynamic?

Maybe the parallel is playing at versus playing with. Playing at your partner is fun for you, but it’s not oriented toward maximizing their pleasure.

And in clowning, the audience is a partner, too. That’s one of the big surprises of clown school: realizing that you play with the audience just as much as you play with the other performers.

In clown, maybe the major determines how much fun everyone gets to have. Can the major establish a clear, joyful game? That’s their job. The minor can always destroy the game, of course, but it’s hard for a minor to create a bigger game than the major has already laid down, at least not without stepping on the major’s toes.

So in clowning, just like in poker, the person on your left might still determine how much fun you have. The difference is that in clown school, you might actually enjoy being the sucker getting hosed for everyone else’s amusement.

Clown School Weekend 6.2: The Rules of Clowning

In which Our Hero attempts to eff the ineffable.

For weeks I’ve been trying to reverse-engineer what we’re actually doing in clown school.

There are moments in class when something works—a laugh, a tiny eruption of joy—and the teacher says, “Yes, that.” And then there are moments when the entire room goes still and we all collectively realize the joy has petered out.

Our teachers keep highlighting the importance of the game. I kept wishing there were actual rules. Not to restrict play—but to name what’s already happening.

So I wrote them.

This document is the clearest articulation I’ve managed so far of how the “game” of clowning works in the Gaulier school of thought: the goal, the metrics, the tactics, the traps, the physics of pleasure, the difference between Major and Minor, how to avoid killing your own play, why dignity matters, why heaviness kills the audience, and the one rule that seems to underlie everything: maximize total pleasure without harming yourself.

If you’re in clown training, or theatre, or comedy, or anything requiring presence and sensitivity, you may find this helpful. Or validating. Or confusing in a way that becomes helpful later. That’s typically how this school works.

Here is the full writeup. Comments are enabled in case you’re curious or want to poke at any element:

The Rules of Clowning

It covers:

  • What the “goal” of clowning actually is
  • What makes someone an attractive player
  • Why the audience’s pleasure outweighs your own
  • How to find a “good game”
  • How to play it without destroying it
  • Tactics for impulse, aura, dignity, lightness
  • The mechanics of Major/Minor
  • How to play beautifully with partners
  • How to avoid hurting yourself—physically, emotionally, professionally

If you’re not a clown and don’t plan to be one, it still might interest you. Clown logic rhymes with life logic more than we admit: be sensitive, be generous, be open, don’t force things, play the game that’s actually happening instead of the one in your head.

And share your pleasure. People open to you when you do.

Clown School Weekend 5.1: Toddler Logic

In which Our Hero discovers a new kind of intelligence.

Yesterday I saw a clown show. The second-year students performed scenes they had been rehearsing, and one moment in particular brought the house down.

Two clowns were locked in a strange duel of one-upmanship using nothing but bananas. The first clown sat down for dinner. The second pulled out a banana. The first summoned a waiter to bring him two bananas on a silver platter. The second peeled his banana with quiet superiority. The first snapped his fingers again and had the waiter grind fresh pepper over his bananas like they were a Michelin dessert.

And then came the pièce de résistance.

The second clown peeled a banana, attached a vacuum hose, and sucked the fruit straight into the machine. He then opened the vacuum’s little plastic compartment—the one where attachments live—and inside was a perfect, ready-to-eat banana. The crowd exploded. It was ridiculous. It was ingenious.

And I sat there thinking:

How can something be this dumb and this smart at the same time?

A friend of mine likes to say, “Clowning logic is toddler logic.”

I’ve mused on this for weeks. Yesterday, it finally clicked. It’s a theory. A remarkably precise one.

It explains why the banana gag was both silly and clever. It wasn’t adult intelligence at work. It was toddler intelligence.

1. Logic That Doesn’t Work (But Feels True)

In clown logic—just like toddler logic—objects don’t always behave according to physics or reason. But they do always have a logic.

A banana is shaped like a gun → so it can be a gun.

A banana is shaped like a phone → so it can ring.

An unpeeled banana enters a vacuum hose → the vacuum outputs peeled bananas.

The logic doesn’t hold, and yet it feels inevitable.

The clown isn’t being stupid. He’s using a different rule set.

2. Infinite Positivity and Grit

Toddlers fail to do the same task twenty times with unwavering optimism. They pick the block up wrong, drop it, pick it up again, grin, try again. They don’t even know someone might be embarrassed or self-conscious.

Clowns do this too. Failure is not a setback; it’s an ingredient. The clown delights in trying again and again. It’s part of the charm. The audience roots for them because they never sour, never collapse, never scold themselves.

A clown can fail joyfully, a kind of emotional intelligence most adults have misplaced. (Is this why we love to watch someone embrace the flop? Perhaps it’s just failing joyfully.)

3. Lack of Control; all is Fate and Luck

A clown sits at home. Someone rings his doorbell. The clown opens the door. He gets pied in the face. The door closes. The clown returns to his chair.

Three seconds later: ding-dong!

The clown opens the doorbell again, just as excited as before.

Clowns operate in this same looping causality. No matter their behavior, they’re going to get pied in the face.

A friend’s baby hates bath time. He will wail and scream, sometimes strategize and connive. But whatever happens, he always ends up in the bath.

4. Repetition With Heightening

Toddlers adore repetition. Say “boo” ten times, and the tenth might get the biggest laugh. Their neurons seem to knit new connections in real time.

Clowns use this too. A repeated joke—with slight heightening each time—lets the audience see the clown’s mind working. Each repetition says: “Look, I’ve learned something!” At some point it might stop being funny. Why knows why? But bring it back up later in an unexpected way? Hilarious.

The game grows because the player grows.

5. Invented Rules That Aren’t True

Toddlers create miniature physics for their world:

“Only mommy can open drawers” (perhaps because mommy said this one time)

“If I hop, you must clap.”

“Dogs are male, and cats are female.”

Clowns do the same. Everything cone-shaped is an ice cream cone. A microphone, a traffic cone, a wizard’s wand: all delicious. Entire scenes arise from treating objects according to invented, toddler-esque rules.

These rules create friction, miscommunication, and comedy because the audience watches the clown operate inside a world only the clown understands.

The Banana Returns

So why did the vacuumed banana land so hard?

Because the clown applied toddler logic with adult-level precision.

He located an absurd rule—”in the vacuum” means “in the vacuum”—and committed to it fully. The magic wasn’t the trick; it was the conviction. The childlike law was obeyed so faithfully that the result felt surprisingly “smart.”

And then, later, the same clown tried to feed cake ingredients into the vacuum and produce a cake from offstage.

This time, the audience didn’t bite.

Why?

Two reasons:

  1. We’re doing bananas, not cakes.

    The world of the scene had already established a rule: we’re playing with bananas. Switching to cake is like arriving to the toddler’s wizarding world as a sci-fi character. You tried, but it’s the wrong game.
  2. The cake came from offstage, not from the vacuum.

    The previous joke worked because in the vacuum means in the vacuum. Pulling a cake from offstage wasn’t “the logic continuing”—it was creating new logic that doesn’t even make sense. (If they had put bananas and a strawberry into a blender, then pulled out a strawberry-banana yogurt from that same blender, that would have worked.)

The banana moment worked because it honored the rules.

The cake moment didn’t because it ignored them.

The Closing Thought

Maybe clowning can appear stupid because adults forget how to use toddler intelligence.

Toddlers aren’t dumb. They’re just operating a different operating system—one built on delight, mischief, repetition, and possibility. And one where the rules of the world aren’t yet solidified.

A clown steps onstage and reactivates that OS.

And for a few minutes, the audience gets a fresh start too.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, my banana is ringing.

Clown School Day 14: Some Days Ya Don’t Got It

In which Our Hero fails honestly.

That’s three days in a row I’ve wanted to skip clown school.

And three days I’ve gone anyway.

Three days of long, heavy sleep:

11 hours, 9 hours, nearly 10 last night.

Three mornings waking early, wishing I could stay in bed forever.

What’s up with that?

I’m tired in a way that’s not physical.

It’s the exhaustion that comes from being seen — again and again — and still not finding what works.

The ache of caring too much about doing well, and not quite getting there.

Maybe it’s just the part of me that resists growth.

The part that wants to avoid the flop.

The part that whispers: stay safe, stay small.

But the show goes on.

So I go too.


In which two pairs of clowns succeed

I have a hypothesis about clowning: there are only two good moves.

The first is doing something good.

The second is doing something bad, and admitting it.

The second is just a version of the first: both are open, honest sharings of self.

Maybe that’s what makes someone funny: the willingness to be seen, and to be laughed at.

Open, but not grasping. Honest, but not pleading.

Just human: the funny little wriggly worm that we are.


Today, I failed.

I got exactly one reasonable-sized laugh, when I shrugged and said, “Some days ya don’t got it”.

It was the opposite of calculated, and therefore perfect.

My scene partner, though, was charming. I’m not good at charming a crowd.

One person, sure: I find what they care about and give them that.

But a crowd? That feels like crafting myself into someone they’ll love…

and that’s never been my thing.

Maybe that’s why I’m drawn to bouffon: the grotesque outcast who refuses charm, making you laugh by breaking the mold.

I don’t know how to play “charming” without feeling false.

Tall, handsome, strong, masculine — all that bland, moral ideal.

Heroes just seem so… plain.

My favorite sex-work writer once said something like, “When I do the girlfriend experience, I just give guys all the parts of a date they want, and none of the parts they don’t.”

It’s the same trick as charm: shave off the edges until only the pleasant remains.


The two American clowns who are alumni from this school that I’ve seen succeed are masters of the flop (one linked here).

They do things that don’t work, then admit it, again and again.

It’s delightful. Comic. But not powerful.

The most successful recent student, though — a Norwegian — is the opposite:

he does good things, and they work.

Maybe that’s cultural.

Maybe Americans prefer the flop because it’s relatable.

Maybe our comedy is just collective self-recognition in failure.

That’s probably why I’d rather play the fool, or the villain, than the flawless hero.


Today, two pairs performed brilliantly.

One was a seasoned clown with a German partner.

The clown failed, over and over, and acknowledged it.

The German played strong, stalwart, beautiful.

We laughed at one, cheered for the other.

Together they danced between laughter and awe:

Comic and Beauty, alternating in rhythm.

After five minutes, our teacher smiled and said, “Thank you for sharing your joy.”

I wondered how long the German had been performing — possibly decades.

And the seasoned clown has ten years under his belt, with awards to show for it.

I was glad to see them.

It helped to see the two paths clearly:

the clown who fails and admits it,

and the one who succeeds by doing good things.

Maybe both are forms of giving.

Maybe both are beautiful.

Maybe the German’s beauty wasn’t in his poise,

but in his openness — his unpushed caring,

his gentle invitation:

“I’m here. This is me. Go ahead: laugh at me.”