Satire is distinguished by the attempt to appear serious. A clown makes no attempt to be serious, and therefore is not satire (nor trusted). The less sincere the attempt, the more satire skews into lampoon. This sexual harassment short exploits sensitivity training hilariously. But it only superficially requires us to examine our attitudes towards sensitivity training because the docile responses from employees belie its seriousness. If they reacted more realistically the short would probably function better as a critique of overwrought sensitivity training videos. And it probably would be less funny.
Contrast this with Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. Swift's attempt to appear serious is more genuine. His proposition to alleviate the burden of poverty by eating children is as severely inappropriate as suggesting to rub huge cocks together at the water cooler, but instead of letting the shock diminish he continues to press, developing his argument and leaving few traces that he is anything but sincere. Understanding on face value that Swift cannot be right, readers are forced to read closely in order to counter that, no, babies should not be eaten to alleviate poverty, at which point Swift has achieved his desired effect. Every reader will have a better conception of the dire poverty the Irish face and how greatly that desperation contrasts their own lives. A Modest Proposal is not that funny.
My amateur analysis* so far is suggesting that the satire spectrum is anchored by lampoon like the sexual harassment short on one end, and criticism like A Modest Proposal on the other, with the former being funnier and less persuasive than the later. But the The Onion News Network shows this dichotomy to be false since it is consistently funnier than sexual harassment and lays it's subjects even more bare than did Swift the privileged classes.
In any case, we are not interested in identifying deliberate satire because unbridled self-awareness, running roughshod over the last vestiges of innocence and authenticity, rend almost every portrayal a satire these days. I mean, can you even say freedom without a smirk or scare quotes anymore? Thanks media.
On this blog satire takes on a different dimension of meaning. When we ask “is it satire?” we seek not to classify yes or no, but just to genuinely wonder aloud. What the fuck is this? Is it satire? It sure looks like satire. In message board terminology, this would be the situation where you're unsure whether someone is sincere or trolling. Not sure if serious.... It's the disbelief when you detect a fart shortly after someone has left the room. At Satire?blog we will thrive in those moments.
Ask yourself, “if this is not satire of [some thing], then what would a satire of [that thing] look like?” If the answer is [still that thing] then you have an clear case of ambiguity. For example:
What the fuck is this? Is it real? Did they really write a song about Taco Bell and Pizza Hut? Is it supposed to be a satire of hip hop? If someone did satirize the mindless, weed-addled stupidity sloth of contemporary hip hop acts and/or their fans, wouldn't this be the song he produced?
In a cynical, meta, post-modern world, speculating on intent is the last means with which we can enjoy artistic creation. It's a head cocked-sideways. It's the ineffable feeling of “...quoi?” Won't you celebrate the ineffable with me?
P.S. I had to write that entire post without using the word irony. Its reclamation by hipsters caused a recession in the meaning market worse than the 1995 crash/release of Jagged Little Pill.
*reverse psychology
No comments:
Post a Comment