Last Monday, New Inquiry blogger Aaron Bady audited the word satire and made it clear
. He wrote, "If something is not taken to be satire, it fails as satire. [It's] an effect, and everything depends on how the joke is received, what the author intended, what the circumstances were in which it was made, and so on."
It's an interesting definition, both for the way it's made and the assumptions on which it relies. He establishes criteria for the existence of satire based on its audience, citing people who mistake The Onion and The Daily Currant for real news as evidence for the genre's fragility, tying satire's ontology to whether it achieves food for thought for the permanently slackjawed. Leaving aside the fact that a satire's being mistaken for reality is often a satirist's dream, basing the existence of something on the perception of idiots is a powerful argument. [more inside]
posted by Alterity
on Apr 10, 2013 -
Just what you've been waiting for...
or maybe not
"Due to overwhelming public demand, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey have decided to use the site of the World Trade Center for America's number one theme park, Twin Towers over Ground Zeroâ?¢!"
Since long before Jonathan Swift
, writers (and others
) have used absurdity to spur discussion and spark protest. Sick of all the 9/11 glurge
and tacky commercialism (1
a local resident continues the tradition.
posted by Modgoddess
on Sep 9, 2002 -