Skip to main content

Satire elitism

Satire elitism - 2008-07-17 09:02



Is satire elitism if it's just annoying?

I struggled with political correctness for years until I decided that being polite was probably a good goal for a developed civilization, and all the craziness that came with it was just the cost of doing business. Today, I'm OK with the concept and have worked it in, except sometimes I don't because, fuck-em.

I'm not so sure that making satire a bad thing will be as easy to get used to.

When I write policies and procedures at work I always try to write them so that they can be read two ways -- the straight and the not so straight. I try to add words or phrases that change meanings or, even better, load meanings with either exaggeration or importance that they don't really have. I do this because I think it's funny, it makes the procedures more interesting, and it makes my employees read it more carefully -- but mostly because I think it's funny.

 It's also a variation of satire.

If we lived in a world when cause and effect were more straightforward, reason led to legislation and self-interest were more enlightened, satire might find itself an dying art in a land of puppies and bee's without stingers. We don't -- look around -- most of the news and half of the commentary is pure Swiftian in its bite.

The Jessie Helm's aides bill? Homeland security?

Good satire is priceless. When Swift proposed eating Irish babies it worked on two levels. Because the English were doing the equivalent damage to the Irish that eating babies would have anyway, and to some, it actually seemed a sensible solution to the Irish problem.

It also made people think, argue, question, debate and have real emotions over a real-life event.

It probably changed some stuff too.

But, back to the question, if people are offended by, or uncomfortable with satire, Maye it's because they confuse it with sarcasm.

I have a rule to never make fun of things people can't change -- big nose, eyes too far apart -- that sort of thing. Anything else evolves to a meanness that can be seen as aggressive sarcasm.

I think that satire should work with that philosophy as well -- make no fun of global warming, the war in Iraq, or Presidential immunity -- all things that really aren't going to change -- so attacking them under the table is just a recipe for pissing off good people.

People see satire as another way of smart people, like Hollywood celebrities, to make fun of them -- that it's mean goes against a belief they don't really feel a need to argue, question, debate about.

Like God, or Bush-- if you know your belief is true and absolute and based on faith instead of reason-- why would you want to listen to someone fuck with the thing in your head that's not going to change anyway? I mean -- what's so funny about that?

If you are only buying one thing in the marketplace anyway -- why think about it?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Wedding and Funeral

Went to a wedding and a funeral this weekend with Mary. Sacramento, Santa Rosa, then home– a whirlwind trip through weekend bay area traffic. The traffic was horrible – life changing horrible, but not unusual.
As with most things, it’s a balance of an the unnamed terror and an easy chair in a padded room that rocks. 
The wedding was delightful, part of an interconnected strong woman’s club that marries off their daughters to provably weaker men. And so, the cycle continues, but the company was nice and I’m too old to wonder at the process anymore.
The funeral was for another interconnected strong woman, who, by hinkey or dinky, was a scary woman that I used to work with as a nurse. She would have been surprised that I outlived her, much as Charles the cat was. Please pay attention out there – this is how life works.
(To be fair, she didn’t put up with shit and I liked to throw handfuls of it around as if I were Christ standing on the back of a broken piƱata heaving candy cigarettes to the…

Only once

For clarity, I think I will write this only once.I do not write confessional poetry, and I do not write things down as a form of therapy. I write because I have something unique to say in a unique sort of way, a way that I think is universal in an analogous manner, not as any sort of literal telling of the truth.  I trowel spackle onto pages with a straight edged blade, I don’t paint aging widows with a brush. (My soul has been psychedelicized, but this shit’s not about me.)It comes in this form – that this relates to that, in this way – A form that I think illustrates things that are too true to be looked at straight on – personal truths that are usually discovered through interactions with other people – truths that are often relational, unreliable and subject to the weavings and debris of human beings. Truths that sneak out and become a miraculous surprise of insight – like a Zen master hitting you on the head with a baseball bat at just the right time.I don’t think I’m the only on…

How do I know when I'm done?

I left a message on Facebook for someone I care about that ended with the words, “one won”. I did it just because I thought was funny. That led to a whimsical discovery that I no longer had to place a period at the end of my sentences – in fact to do so would be rude and identify myself as an old person. 
It seems that, for online use anyway, a period has become a loud shout -- a purposeful exclamation point useful only in drawing unnecessary attention, or as a way of making an angry burp of anti-social angst. Sentences no longer end, they gently back out a side door when no one is looking -- they’ve become bars without a jail, or that angry driver just ahead of you who hesitates before moving through an intersection just to make a point of how stupid you are.
Since a period is no longer an end to a thought, its new function has evidentially become nothing but a stuffy ritual of formality that writers can now use to mark up or down generalized feeling of huffiness, or perhaps a way to s…