Campus Press

Issue date: 2/27/08 Section: News

The recent publication of Max Karson's opinion piece "If it's war the Asians want..." has issued a need to address the concept and style of satire and whether or not Karson's controversial piece can be classified as satirical.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the word "satire" can be defined in two ways. Satire is first termed as "a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn." Second, satire is described as "trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly."

Catherine Kunce, an instructor in the writing and rhetoric department who has taught courses such as American Satire, said that, in any sense of the word, satire is intended to ridicule a social aspect that the author finds to be a problem.

"Satire makes fun of some cultural flaw in order to correct it," Kunce said.

Allen Voivod, editor of the satirical online publication "DeadBrain," said satire is intended to cause rage as a response to an exaggeration about cultural fallacy.

"The funny thing about satire is that at its sharpest, it's supposed to stir up outrage," Voivod said.

While the intention of a satirical piece may seem motivated by purposeful means, Kunce said the content of satire is not always clear, and therefore can deceive the audience.

"Satire, on one level, tells the opposite of what it is trying to convey," Kunce said. "It can be very misleading."

Kunce also said part of the misconception of satire relies on the fact that society is not taught to think that the contrary of what is being said is actually true.

"What satire shows is that we can't accept that something said can actually be the opposite of what it proposes," Kunce said.

John Gibert, a classics associate professor and expert on Greek comedy, said satire can be misinterpreted because it combines truth with exaggeration.

"Satire, like fiction, is going to have elements of truth in combination with falsities," Gibert said.

Gibert also said while the audience can generally pick out the implication of good satire, satire is not always obvious with its intent.

"[Satire] is not going to wear a sign that says 'this part is truth, this part is satirical'," Gibert said.

Kunce said an important element of satire is that the author must incorporate some sense of self into the piece. She said that unless the author willingly identifies a relation to the satirized problem, the content can be seen as malicious.

"The satirist has a connectedness to the problem at hand and understands their connection to it," Kunce said. "Unless the satire is large enough to include such self-criticism, it is mean-spirited."

While the inclusion of self is said to be important, Voivod and Kunce both pointed out that satire does not prove its point effectively by how the author feels, but rather by how readers respond.

"What makes satire interesting is the audience reaction to the satirical piece," Kunce said. "It's not the motivation that's important, but the reaction."

Voivod said in order for a satirical piece to be successful, readers must understand the overall point of the satire.

"The audience is the ultimate arbiter," Voivod said. "If the audience doesn't get it, then it may still be satire - just not very good satire."

In response to Karson's piece, Kunce said while she can depict satirical elements in the piece, she does not know and will not assume Karson's intention. However, she said the important thing about the opinion was that it created a discussion.

"[Karson's piece] calls our attention to something we don't want to be reminded of - and that's the suffering of a marginalized group," Kunce said.

Gibert said he thinks Karson's piece can easily be distinguished as satire, yet said he feels it was not well executed.

"[Karson's piece] lacked in the fact that it was not funny, was not witty and was not coherent," Gibert said.

Yet, Gibert said the piece seemed satirical because Karson exhibited a shifting persona. He said Karson constructed a fictional character of someone he probably would not have respected and then adapted that persona.

"It looked to me as if he was trying to be satirical," Gibert said. "He just wasn't doing a good job."

Voivod said Karson seemed to be "lampooning his own cultural prejudices by taking them to the ridiculous extreme" and therefore could not be taken seriously.

"I can't think of any police officer who would issue a restraining order against the writer because of [his] statement," Voivod said. "It's clearly not meant to be taken seriously."

Voivod said it is the societal issues about diversity that makes satire hard to write.

"These days, people of all ages, races, genders and beliefs are so sensitive about so many things that satire practically needs a disclaimer up front," Voivod said.

Contact Campus Press Staff Writer Sara Fossum at sara.fossum@colorado.edu.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools