The context of satire

[veronica_rich]

(Apparently I need more than one "writer" avatar. Maybe I can track down some more pictures of Matt ...)

I have a question to put to my writer friends who frequent this LJ. It's about the success of satire.

The dictionary definition of "satire" is: a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule. Satire is offensive; it's meant to be. In practical usage, satire isn't hard to find - "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" are obvious contemporary examples. So are most political cartoons, some celebrity blogs, and websites that skewer popular culture and mores.

But what the dictionary can't give you is context - that comes from experience. Satire needs a target, but more importantly, it needs a powerful target. For a successful satire, you can't ridicule just any old thing. A political cartoon or story that makes fun of the U.S. president for starting an unnecessary war or for driving the final nails in the nation's economy can be quite funny (and sad); it gives the common person some sort of outlet for impotent frustration and anger. This is because the president has vastly more power than you or me, or even the artist, and while we may live in a democracy, the fact is that there's precious little we can do to quickly change the course of whatever fool notion (s)he's taken into their head. Satire also works for a frustrated minority fighting a powerful majority. Something aimed at the Pope and millions of blind adherents to poorly-thought-out edicts, from a population suffering very real effects of that - such as anti-abortion laws based on Biblical belief - is, again, one of the last resorts of a nonviolent population.

Now disagree if you must; but where satire fails for me is when making fun of those with fewer numbers and equal or less "voice." It'd be like the priest of a Catholic parish delivering a sermon cutting down the Anglican church across the street (just an example; no offense to Catholics), or men airing a television show for the purpose of making fun of the average woman, while including none to few potshots aimed at their own masculine folly. It might be a little offensive ... but not particularly funny or enlightening. (Although, the reason these very things do work for Stephen Colbert is because the character he assumes to deliver them "seriously" is, in itself, a satire on conservatives. When he's making fun of gay people for being gay, you realize what he's doing is skewering those who do it seriously.)

I see this every so often, and it makes me wonder if those who produce it understand only the mechanics of satire - the dictionary definition - and not the context. It also makes me wonder if those on the receiving end always know enough to be flattered that they are viewed to have such "power" - even as they may lament that they really don't.

Comments

[ainsoph15.livejournal.com]

What do you mean by ‘successful’? (Ack, I just like having a term defined before I ramble about it, lol). Do you mean it in the sense that the satire works because it is funny, or that it works because it has a powerful and relevant point and makes it well, or, is it necessary to have both criteria fulfilled in order for it to be considered a success? I’ve seen plenty of satire that is funny, like you said, but it’s making a fairly simplistic or crude point. Similarly, I’ve seen incredibly sharp, astute lampooning that has barely made me raise a smile, but it makes its point with deadly elegance. The marriage of the two is a wondrous thing to behold, and I’ve seen it most often in political satire – it's particularly well done by Bremner, Bird and Fortune. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremner,_Bird_and_Fortune). I’ll assume you mean successful in the sense of being both comedic and insightful. (Forgive me if all this sounds terribly wanky. Apparently my academic head cannot be worn without vast amounts of pomposity, bleh.)

What you said about satire being context-based is absolutely crucial, I think. Something satirised in one time period and culture will not be relevant to another time period and culture, and if anyone ‘outside’ that context reads/sees it without having a background understanding of the context, it will be less successful. For instance, I’m less likely to laugh at the wit used in the satirical sections of ‘Dr Faustus’ (heck, it’s my fave play and it’s there at the edge of my memory for the plundering) if I know nothing about the political and/or religious situation at the time, but I might laugh at the slapstick element. In that case, however, the satire overall does not have the impact it would have had on a contemporary audience. It is vital that the audience understands what precisely is being ridiculed in order for the satire to be successful.

This goes back to your point about how satire needs a large, powerful group to lampoon. If, for instance, someone chooses to satirise a relatively small, unknown group, it would not be understood by a particularly large audience. It would need to have the exclusive attention of that small, elite audience in order to be considered successful. If it was introduced to a wider audience, it would then not be seen as successful, because it would be viewed as neither funny nor relevant by a larger group. This is why, as you said, the usual targets for satire are religion and politics, because everyone has a vested interest, and at the very least a rudimentary understanding of their own cultural situation. Really, though, the common trope of satire in any context and time period, is that it’s all about socking it to ‘the man’ - represented by whoever is the authority figure at the time. What is important is how the details change, whether this is because of a shift of what is perceived as 'funny', or by targeting a particular contemporary personality/authority figure along with all their quirks, and that’s what makes the difference between a successful and unsuccessful satire.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

You raise a good point. By "successful" (which is a relative term), I refer to the ability of something to land - for lack of a better description - on the target audience. Now this doesn't mean everyone in the world; an audience can be relatively small. The example I mention above about a TV show produced entirely by men to make fun of women under the flag of satire is intended for anyone who can tune into that channel. If it were aimed only at the male population, while there would be detractors, I believe it's fair to speculate that it would be more "successful" in its humor than if it had a mixed-gender audience.

As for distinctions about humor: You mention some things are quite funny, but not particularly enlightening, while some things are enlightening and accurate, without containing much or any humor (if I understand you). Sadly, I'm looking for a combination of both. You can't call something satire and have it be so lacking in humor that the point of the exercise is lost - otherwise, why not just say "This sucks" and have done? Nor can it be entirely funny without a point - again, you could just make with the slapstick and get the same result. There are some things that can be given a pass for being sharp or witty without much humor, because of the wider good they are trying to do - rebellion against powerful religious or political/social forces, since the intended audience would presumably understand that grabbing attention about life, death, and economy means more than just going for yuk-yuks. But that TV show I mentioned wouldn't fall into that category - unless, perhaps, we were an Amazonian society. So its most redeeming feature had better be that it's damn funny, as well as making points that a more-than-fair portion of the entire audience can relate to, appreciate, laugh at, and recognize as a need for change in themselves.

[ainsoph15.livejournal.com]

I'm looking for a combination of both

Ah, that's what I assumed was what you meant by successful, but now I understand.

Success = reaching highest number of target audience.
Satire (good satire) = both funny and clever

Gotcha.

We have a few satirical shows/comedians who do a similar thing to the show you're referring to (I haven't seen this show myself, but I know the kind of thing you mean). They also assume an 'offensive' persona, and say things that would be offensive if said in all seriousness by the kind of person they are lambasting. However, there is a fine line between sensationalism and wit, and this kind of satire balances on it, and can occasionally wobble off into the wrong territory.

(Gotta leave work now, but will be back online shortly *g*. Interesting topic, Ver!)

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

The closest thing I can think of off the top of my head was probably Comedy Central's "The Man Show." It did come across as offensive to women at times, but if you understood that the men behind it were goobers - and caught that they were also making fun of male conventions - it was humorous enough.* Then again, I can appreciate intent as well as the end product - if I know someone is intending to poke fun at themselves as well as others with the "equal" satire I mention above, I can appreciate it much more than if I suspect their purpose is to demean others without taking an equal amount of the load on their own shoulders.

(*Though I should probably disclose that I still didn't like the show very much simply for the fact I had limited TV viewing time and could find plenty else that was simply better-written to take up my time. *G*)

[philosophercat.livejournal.com]

I wish I could remember what we learned about satire's success. *facepalm*

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

It sort of speaks for itself, actually. ;-)

[finding-neo.livejournal.com]

My problem with today's brand of satire is that it's everywhere. What good is political satire if all it makes people do is nod and laugh? It certainly isn't causing anyone to pick up a picket sign and march on Washington.

People have been humored in to submission.

"Oh, well, America is going to hell in a hand basket. Hey, let's see what Stephen Colbert has to say about it."

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

I'll tell you, I've thought of that before, too. The problem isn't that we're being made aware that "shit is happening" so much as we're becoming very "shit happens" and the people who need to be tossed out of office are providing so much comedy that they get put BACK in. (Hmm ... I wonder if people have been watching reality TV for so long that when elections roll around, they think they're voting for who is the most entertaining to watch, rather than who is the best for the actual job?)

Yes, I see your point that this isn't Jon Stewart's fault or Stephen Colbert's fault (or Bill Maher's - who my MOTHER now likes to watch, believe it or not); they're doing their jobs. How one reacts is something entirely else.

[yoiebear.livejournal.com]

In all honesty, satire is being overused and because of that, the meaning of it to the people it is directed to as well as those in the audience (i.e. the "normal" or "little" people) are also forgetting what it means.

When used properly, satire is an amazingly effective tool. Since it has become commonplace, that tool has worn blades in the outside world.

It kind of hurts because satire can be fun. Too bad people don't remember what it is or that it is meant for special occasions and not everyday use.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

Good point - I didn't think about that, that the proliferation of satire might be contributing to misunderstanding of it as an art form.

[yoiebear.livejournal.com]

That thought just came to me, but I think it could be true. I mean, the average person probably doesn't understand the true definition of it and thereby does not understand satire itself.