Author here. Noticed a lot of traffic from this post - so thanks. Thanks especially for all these thoughtful comments. Just dropping in to say I appreciate the attention - and am grateful that most posters here don't seem to mind that I'm unable to draw hard conclusions in my original article. I also like the posts here that point towards the fact that atomisation maybe has had something to do with things (as well as the hardening of inequalities and etc.) Interesting! Perhaps it was more possible to share jokes in 2003 than it is now? (The concept that jokes either punch up or punch down seems an indication of that... Feels quite recent to me. And What if the intention isn't to hit anyone, really, just to make each other laugh?)
Anyway, to respond to a couple of other things on here. I'm not really a comedian. Sorry! I do work in the publishing industry, so while I can't prove my ideas about publishers being nervous, I would hope I have a reasonable insight and instinct.
Thanks for writing the piece in the first place – I thought it was a wonderfully self-reflective and mature look back at the book, why you created it, and how times have changed.
As a mid 40something in the UK, formerly a creative writer, I have experienced exactly the same shifting attitudes as yourself. The primary reasons, as many have said, are probably the fact that people are more polarised in their thinking and less versed in nuance, but also that the whole of the UK has become a bit crap really, so the joke’s a bit too on the nail.
For what it’s worth, I thought the original idea for the book was pretty funny, and I still do even now! Keep doing what you do – create things from the heart, you can’t predict the future and you can’t cover for everyone’s reactions.
I remember Crap Towns, I loved it! And the Idler! Which had an entire section on jokes for which punchlines had been half-forgotten.
Great and thoughtful reflection piece too.
I’d like to add a few other ideas into the mix as for some reason I’m uncomfortable with the idea “you can’t say that anymore” that I wonder if it’s become a thought-terminating cliche.
Firstly, I suspect there’s always been two forms of puritanism: one with power and one without power. We didn’t historically hear much from puritans without power (famously some shipped off elsewhere and founded an empire). And the ones in power? Well a fish doesn’t know it’s wet…and all the other sods now have X accounts and podcasts!
The second point is to reflect on the fact that British humour is a curious thing. You noticed yourself that satire may have curiously little real world bite.
Maybe there’s been a category error: humour isn’t a mechanism for social change, it’s a coping strategy (I live in Luton, not Hull, TFFT). Or worse mechanism for social control. In my brief time in the Uk I noticed that “banter” often chipped at eccentricities or quirks, and served to bring people into line with group orthodoxy.
In short, and to mirror your uncertainties, I’m just not so sure it’s as clear cut that free speech has been curtailed somehow. Or that humour was ever about just having a laugh.
Taking offense when none was tendered is a special kind of social malfeasance that has gained popularity among the idle and boorish class of recent years. I appreciate it as a facile outward indication of low character and questionable intellect.
Well that may be. But I'm talking more about differences between 2003 and now. Regardless of cancel culture etc, there is a physical possibility of reply/response now, that did not exist in 2003. Perhaps the two things are related?
Went through the entire article expecting imminently to get to the paragraph where you perceive that Crap Towns was a mistake because it makes fun of the poor, and that the reason it couldn't be published now is that poverty in the UK is far worse than it was 20 years ago.
Anyway, to respond to a couple of other things on here. I'm not really a comedian. Sorry! I do work in the publishing industry, so while I can't prove my ideas about publishers being nervous, I would hope I have a reasonable insight and instinct.