The Clue Bible

While sauntering past one of my favourite I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue websites (http://www.isihac.co.uk/), I came across a link to a series of webcasts from an Australian Goodies fan site (I had forgotten how big The Goodies are down under!). These particular podcasts were of interest to Clue fans because they contained a long interview with Gem Roberts, author of The Clue Bible.

A couple of things struck me about the comments he made. One of them was that people (Clue fans presumably), had complained about the about of space allocated to pre-Clue history and the fact that Clue itself only appears half way through the book.
Now I am a big Clue fan and have been since I first heard one of their Christmas specials way back in 1986. I am also a Goodies fan because I grew up with it* (indeed this is why I made a point of listening to Clue that Christmas day, because The Radio Times listed Graeme Garden and Tim Brooke-Taylor as panelists).

But I just don't understand the mentality of people who complain about a book that clearly sets itself out to be an authoritative guide to Clue, including both I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again and I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue.
Indeed the byline of the book is "From Footlights to Mornington Crescent". As much as I am interested in history, what interests me is why things happened. What were the reasons behind the various events and how did the participants get there. The history of Clue is no different - you have to understand the progression of the main players and how they came together in that dizzy period, riding the wave that had started with Beyond The Fringe and how the various players interacted, to understand not only how we arrived at ISIRTA and ISIHAC, but also Monty Python's Flying Circus and The Goodies.

I have nothing but respect for the author of The Clue Bible, who has managed to weave together all of this information spanning fifty years of comedy, while at the same time ensuring that the people involved behind the scenes (notably Humphrey Barclay, David Hatch and Geoffrey Perkins), get the respect they deserve for their contribution to British comedy.

The second thing that struck me was his comments about the successor to Humphrey Littleton. I can kind of agree that it would have been nice to try out a few more guest hosts before deciding on a permanent choice (Alison Steadman would have been a really interesting one - I'm not so sure about Jarvis Cocker), but I can't fault the choice of Jack Dee out of the people they did try in the chair. Yes, he is a comedian, but his deadpan style follows on nicely from Humph's and is far more suited to the show than anything brasher.
I also agree with Gem that the show is at its strongest when the panelists are ad-libbing and often at its weakest when it is clearly scripted.
And while I enjoy the prospect of the Clue tours, I wish they would include new material - or at least not include material that does not logically work when performed more than once - such as sound charades, where the show they are "guessing" is one they have previously done.

However, even at its weakest, it is still innovative, funny and endearing - more so than most other shows, so long may it continue.

* being somewhat older than Gem, I grew up with watching The Goodies in the mid to late seventies and fondly remember the classic shows and what (at the time) was the strange disappearance from the BBC and the all too brief reappearance of them on ITV.
Repeats of The Goodies (and Doctor Who) were one of the reasons I signed up to British Satellite Broadcasting (BSB), the superior but less powerful competitor to SKY in the days before it was consumed by Murdoch's media monster. In those days The Goodies was shown on the Galaxy Channel in their slot aimed at younger viewers (called Galaxy Club), notable because some of the idents that preceded the show were funnier than a typical sitcom.
When BSB "merged" to form BSkyB, The Goodies moved over to UK Gold, as Gem mentioned.