The Nature Of Serious Satire

[softwareNerd]

I can appreciate comedy with an ideological bent, even if I don't agree with the slant. Like a good novel espousing wrong ideology, it's not ideal, but I might like it.

However, I do not like ideology (even good ideology) masquerading as comedy (nor as a novel). That's why I do not care for Jon Stewart's show on the "Comedy channel". I sometimes flip by briefly and some of it is funny; however, I never stay long -- there's something dishonest about the style. I prefer the comedic introductions of Leno, Letterman and SNL. Stewart's show is more seriously satirical than those. Compare Stewart's "news" to SNL's fake "news"; his is much more serious.

I'm not sure, but I think I am objecting to satire, for the same reason I'd object to irony: it is okay only in small doses. With serious satire, as with irony, the reader or viewer must constantly remember to "split" the input into serious and non-serious content. I find little value in this, either as comedy or as news. Another comedian who tried this from a more Republican slant was Dennis Miller. He had the same problem -- he seemed funny only if you agreed with his satire.

I guess satire works best when one agrees with the serious part. No surprises there.

So, what is the relationship between satire and comedy. Is satire merely a sub-class of comedy, or is it something more? Something to ponder on...

[Felix]

So, what is the relationship between satire and comedy. Is satire merely a sub-class of comedy, or is it something more?

To get an answer to this, you'll have to define comedy first, I guess.

This is a pattern I have recognized in many threads now. Someone has a rather innocent question and very soon people start having heated arguments simply because they start from different definitions as their premises.

Another thing: Why does this interest you?

Edited February 20, 2006 by Felix

[Hal]

It depends on how talented the comedian is. I think youre always going to find things funnier if you agree with whats being said, but if the jokes are actually good, this doesnt have to be the case. I find Bill Hicks funny for instance, although he can be left-wing at times (and bordering on nihilist).

Having said that, I havent seen many American shows/comedians who do great satire - American humour tends to be too obvious, and lacking in subtelty, which doesnt make for clever parody. Something like Brass Eye for example is quintessentially British, and a perfect example of how poltical satire should be done. Most American attempts, on the other hand, tend to be far too in-your-face which makes their ideological bent both predictable and tedious ("lol liberals/conservatives are dum!!!").

Edited February 20, 2006 by Hal

[ScottyBogs]

Leno does a great job of staying neutral, better than most. He rips on both sides pretty equally.

[JordanLand]

Stewart had an economic conservative on last night, I forget the guy's name, he was slamming Bush for basically being a big government Republican.

I was waiting for someone to take Bush to task on that one! Like he said, you can sort of understand big gov't under Reagan (a Dem congress), or even smaller gov't under Clinton (a GOP congress), but who can explain the ballooning of govt under Bush with a GOP congress?

I hate it when people use the phrase "conservative" and *only* mean cultural conservative and totally discount the fiscal aspect.