10 sept. 2005

Isn't satire supposed to be funny and intelligent? Otherwise it's just crap.

8 comentarios:

Gary dijo...

Pretty much, yeah.

Behrle, Prince of Trolls dijo...

I disagree: I think the highest role of satire it to effect change. If it happens to be funny, happens to amuse, great. But if the satire effects no change, then it's merely clever.

Luv
Jimmy

Jonathan dijo...

Good point. Humor is the mechanism by which satire effects change. Without intelligence, it has no bite, and becomes ineffectual.

Ken Rumble dijo...

Yeah, how funny is Gulliver's Travels? A Modest Proposal? Off the top of my head and to refer to the obvious.

Not so funny (okay, some of MP gets me rolling on the floor, but only after I vomit up some cheesedog.)

Ken

Jonathan dijo...

You can shed bitter tears of laughter when reading certain satirical works. Swift, Larra...

Tony dijo...

Um, yeah, but how much change did Swift effect?

Satire may intend to effect change, but it rarely does...

Behrle, Prince of Trolls dijo...

Well change is really hard without like *tanks*. UNCLE TOM'S CABIN started that war. THE JUNGLE grossed a bunch of people out and made them vegetarians or whatever. It's the small victories. I'm just arguing that the point isn't necessarily to make some readers feel smarter and superior and make them laugh. The point is to ridicule and reform. If I could build a tank out of one of my poems, I'd effect some fucking change, you betcha.

Luv
Jimmy

Behrle, Prince of Trolls dijo...

And intelligence--like what the hell is that. Archie Bunker is some of my favorite satire--so good that nobody got it. It was the #1 show in America because a great number of people AGREED with Archie. Whoa, right? So much for the smartypants writers.