Post by Daniel on Oct 28, 2009 10:11:17 GMT -5
Okay guys, I've had a few questions asking me to explain Satire and the different kinds a little more. The lecture notes will go up over the weekend, and what I thought I would do here would just be to explain it again in different words and use different examples to the ones I've already used.
So, firstly, Satire: Satire is a type of literature, performance or art that seeks to convince the reader of a viewpoint through certain devices or techniques. Some satire can be very funny whilst trying to convince you(Horatian Satire) and some satire can be a little more serious when trying to convince you (Juvenalian Satire).
Now, three techniques or features of satire are Burlesque, Invective and Irony.
Invective is a clear attack or denunciation.
Burlesque is an exaggerated comparison.
Irony is saying/doing something when the opposite is true.
For instance, let's say I am writing a diary of my lessons, and I say:
I teach Monday-Friday at the moment. We're currently studying Swift, we'll be studying Gothic literature next week which is very exciting, and last week we studied Paradise Lost, which is not a text I'm very fond of, but is a very important text nonetheless. But ah, Class 07401 is truly a terrible class, full of misbehaving trouble makers.
Now this is very simple invective. The topic is my classes, but I've included a sentence that is meant to establish a viewpoint in the reader: that class 07401 are terrible students(I love you guys really!).
This does count as satire, but it's not very good satire. Invective is normally very direct, and satire works best when it is not so direct as this. Even for invective, what I have written is very obvious. I mean, a slightly more subtle form of invective satire could be to say 'Class 07402 makes me want to kill someone!' which has the meaning (Class X is terrible) but doesn't say so clearly!
So, Burlesque. Burlesque is based on an exaggerated comparison: high-burlesque is when you make something that is normally low or considered to be unimportant and make it high, or exalt it. Low-burlesque is when you drag something down from a high position and make it unimportant.
Let's say, I want to convince the reader that the Prime Minister of the U.K (Gordon Brown) is a bad leader.
Gordon Brown started reading from his notes like a schoolboy reciting a poem in front of a class assembly and, having mixed up the lines and rushed to the end, stood trembling waiting for the applause to usher him off the stage.
So this is low-burlesque. It takes an important or high subject (here, the Prime Minister giving a speech) and reduces it to something low (a nervous child reciting a poem to his school assembly). Now, in doing this I've used a similie to compare Gordon Brown to a school-boy, which is obviously a bad thing, but there are also a number of associations with a nervous school boy that convince you that someone like this would be a bad leader: you can't expect someone to make important decisions if they are nervous about saying a poem to a group of children.
How about this for high-burlesque, again on Gordon Brown, the UK leader:
Gordon Brown, as if descending from the utopian realm of government to deal with the demons of the labour conference entered the room and immediately set about issuing his holy proclamations on immigration, taxation and government reform. A few of his supporters tried to speak to the Prime Minister but were quickly overcome by a sort of fervour and ushered out of the hall by the Prime Minister's body-guards.
This piece of writing has compared Gordon to a symbol of the divine or a holy messenger issuing proclamations. Now, as writing that is seeking to convince you that Gordon Brown is an unfit leader, it's effective because making Gordon Brown this divine figure is so exaggerated that you know the writer is being sarcastic or satirical. So the impression you should get is of a man that feels he is too important to talk to common people, and that his position makes him feel like he is a God. And leaders that believe themselves to be a God are mostly not very good leaders.
Finally we come to Irony. Irony is tricky because it is very indirect: it works by saying something and meaning something different. So let's try to stick with Gordon Brown for my example.
Gordon is such a good leader. If there are any problems in the world, he will fix them. World-hunger, the war on drugs, diplomatic tensions in the Middle-East and with North Korea, Gordon Brown can deal with all of these things blindfolded! It's lucky that we live in a perfect world and we have no need for leaders as magnificent as this man.
This is irony. This is obviously not true, and because we now it is not true and we know the writer knows it's not true, it is clear he is saying this because he means the opposite.
What is interesting about this piece of writing is that the irony is scaled upwards: it starts by establishing something that could be true:
'Gordon Brown is a good leader.'
Well, maybe. Then,
'If there are any problems in the world, he will fix them'
this is ambitious, but okay, maybe you are just setting very high goals.
'World-hunger, the war on drugs, diplomatic tensions in the Middle-East and with North Korea, Gordon Brown can deal with all of these things blindfolded!'
Well, this is a little bit crazy.
'It's lucky that we live in a perfect world and we have no need for leaders as magnificent as this man. '
We know this is untrue, we do not live in a perfect world and thus we do need great leaders.
Because we know this conclusion is untrue, we can surmise that the previous calculations were also untrue: Gordon Brown is not a good leader, he cannot cure these things,we do not live in a perfect world.
This is irony: saying something we know is false and meaning the opposite.
There are also different types of irony. That one above was verbal/written irony, but there are others like:
Dramatic Irony (Irony where the audience in a play knows something the characters do not: think about Iago telling the audience his plans, and Othello not knowing anything about them whilst we do)
Irony of Manner (Irony where an action means something different to what it appears to mean: think of Iago helping Cassio to get Desdemona's help or making sure Cassio was with Desdemona when he and Othello returned: his actions mean something different to what they appear to mean)
Socratic Irony (Pretending to be ignorant or stupid, but being the opposite)
So, firstly, Satire: Satire is a type of literature, performance or art that seeks to convince the reader of a viewpoint through certain devices or techniques. Some satire can be very funny whilst trying to convince you(Horatian Satire) and some satire can be a little more serious when trying to convince you (Juvenalian Satire).
Now, three techniques or features of satire are Burlesque, Invective and Irony.
Invective is a clear attack or denunciation.
Burlesque is an exaggerated comparison.
Irony is saying/doing something when the opposite is true.
For instance, let's say I am writing a diary of my lessons, and I say:
I teach Monday-Friday at the moment. We're currently studying Swift, we'll be studying Gothic literature next week which is very exciting, and last week we studied Paradise Lost, which is not a text I'm very fond of, but is a very important text nonetheless. But ah, Class 07401 is truly a terrible class, full of misbehaving trouble makers.
Now this is very simple invective. The topic is my classes, but I've included a sentence that is meant to establish a viewpoint in the reader: that class 07401 are terrible students(I love you guys really!).
This does count as satire, but it's not very good satire. Invective is normally very direct, and satire works best when it is not so direct as this. Even for invective, what I have written is very obvious. I mean, a slightly more subtle form of invective satire could be to say 'Class 07402 makes me want to kill someone!' which has the meaning (Class X is terrible) but doesn't say so clearly!
So, Burlesque. Burlesque is based on an exaggerated comparison: high-burlesque is when you make something that is normally low or considered to be unimportant and make it high, or exalt it. Low-burlesque is when you drag something down from a high position and make it unimportant.
Let's say, I want to convince the reader that the Prime Minister of the U.K (Gordon Brown) is a bad leader.
Gordon Brown started reading from his notes like a schoolboy reciting a poem in front of a class assembly and, having mixed up the lines and rushed to the end, stood trembling waiting for the applause to usher him off the stage.
So this is low-burlesque. It takes an important or high subject (here, the Prime Minister giving a speech) and reduces it to something low (a nervous child reciting a poem to his school assembly). Now, in doing this I've used a similie to compare Gordon Brown to a school-boy, which is obviously a bad thing, but there are also a number of associations with a nervous school boy that convince you that someone like this would be a bad leader: you can't expect someone to make important decisions if they are nervous about saying a poem to a group of children.
How about this for high-burlesque, again on Gordon Brown, the UK leader:
Gordon Brown, as if descending from the utopian realm of government to deal with the demons of the labour conference entered the room and immediately set about issuing his holy proclamations on immigration, taxation and government reform. A few of his supporters tried to speak to the Prime Minister but were quickly overcome by a sort of fervour and ushered out of the hall by the Prime Minister's body-guards.
This piece of writing has compared Gordon to a symbol of the divine or a holy messenger issuing proclamations. Now, as writing that is seeking to convince you that Gordon Brown is an unfit leader, it's effective because making Gordon Brown this divine figure is so exaggerated that you know the writer is being sarcastic or satirical. So the impression you should get is of a man that feels he is too important to talk to common people, and that his position makes him feel like he is a God. And leaders that believe themselves to be a God are mostly not very good leaders.
Finally we come to Irony. Irony is tricky because it is very indirect: it works by saying something and meaning something different. So let's try to stick with Gordon Brown for my example.
Gordon is such a good leader. If there are any problems in the world, he will fix them. World-hunger, the war on drugs, diplomatic tensions in the Middle-East and with North Korea, Gordon Brown can deal with all of these things blindfolded! It's lucky that we live in a perfect world and we have no need for leaders as magnificent as this man.
This is irony. This is obviously not true, and because we now it is not true and we know the writer knows it's not true, it is clear he is saying this because he means the opposite.
What is interesting about this piece of writing is that the irony is scaled upwards: it starts by establishing something that could be true:
'Gordon Brown is a good leader.'
Well, maybe. Then,
'If there are any problems in the world, he will fix them'
this is ambitious, but okay, maybe you are just setting very high goals.
'World-hunger, the war on drugs, diplomatic tensions in the Middle-East and with North Korea, Gordon Brown can deal with all of these things blindfolded!'
Well, this is a little bit crazy.
'It's lucky that we live in a perfect world and we have no need for leaders as magnificent as this man. '
We know this is untrue, we do not live in a perfect world and thus we do need great leaders.
Because we know this conclusion is untrue, we can surmise that the previous calculations were also untrue: Gordon Brown is not a good leader, he cannot cure these things,we do not live in a perfect world.
This is irony: saying something we know is false and meaning the opposite.
There are also different types of irony. That one above was verbal/written irony, but there are others like:
Dramatic Irony (Irony where the audience in a play knows something the characters do not: think about Iago telling the audience his plans, and Othello not knowing anything about them whilst we do)
Irony of Manner (Irony where an action means something different to what it appears to mean: think of Iago helping Cassio to get Desdemona's help or making sure Cassio was with Desdemona when he and Othello returned: his actions mean something different to what they appear to mean)
Socratic Irony (Pretending to be ignorant or stupid, but being the opposite)
