User talk:Lee Ann
From RhetorClick
Welcome to RhetorClick! We hope you will contribute much and well. You will probably want to read the help pages. Again, welcome and have fun! QuinnWarnick 10:06, 28 June 2012 (PDT)
What is the difference between satire and irony/mockery/sarcasm/spoof/wit/humor?
Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon.
A common feature of satire is strong irony or sarcasm—"in satire, irony is militant" (Frye)- but parody, and burlesque are frequently used in satirical speech and writing. This "militant" irony or sarcasm often professes to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack.
Satire and humour
Satirical works often contain "straight" humour. Laughter is not an essential component of satire,(Corum, 2002) as in spectrum of satire there are types that are not meant to arise laughter and be "funny".
Conversely, not all humour is necessarily "satirical", even on such topics as politics, religion or art, or even when it uses the satirical tools of irony, parody, and burlesque.
Satire vs Teasing
Satirical playwright Dario Fo pointed out the difference between satire and teasing. Teasing is the reactionary side of the comic, it limits itself to a shallow parody of physical appearance (Dario Fo & Lorch Dario Fo). Satire instead uses the comic to go against power and its oppressions, has a subversive character, and a moral dimension which draws judgement against its targets (Fo,Arroyo,Casanova,& Morson).
Teasing is an ancient form of simple buffoonery, a form of comedy without satire's subversive edge. Teasing includes light and affectionate parody, good-humoured mockery, simple one-dimensional poking fun, benign spoofs. Teasing typically consists in a impersonation of someone monkeying around with his exterior attributes, tics, physical blemishes, voice and mannerisms, quirks, way of dressing and walking, the phrases he typically repeats. By contrast, teasing never touches on the core issue, never makes a serious criticism judging the target with irony; it never harms the target's conduct, ideology and position of power; it never undermines the perception of his morality and cultural dimension (Fo,Arroyo,& Casanova, 1990).
Critics tend to see irony, parody, and satire as diminishing meaning (by belittling the subject), but as Harold Bloom reminds us, the great ironists such as Shakespeare tended to expand meaning (Bloom, 2004). Satire is provocative, not dismissive - a crucial point that critics typically ignore when assessing its role in public discourse.
Test argues that play and laughter constitute and define all satiric undertakings and distinguish it from other forms of aesthetic expression with which it is sometimes confused with "humor, comedy, social criticism, parody, burlesque, farce and travesty."
Laughter is not a necessary component or distinguishing feature of satire (Test). Laughter is ultimately something satire may or may not produce within the audience.
Colbert (abstract)
Here is a link to the Colbert (abstract)[3]
In what ways is satire impotent? As Hutcheon puts it (Day, 12) a more idealistic view holds that satire and irony have "the potential to offer a challenge to the hierarchy of the very 'sites' of discourse." Additionally, Lillian and Edward Bloom go on to explain, that satire ultimately has little political effect because it does not in itself initiate change and, in fact, rarely encourages it (Day, 12).
In what ways is satire effective? Satire is looked to, for its ability to unmask (reveal) and to deconstruct, pointing us toward the flaws and the posturings of official policy (Day, 12).
What is the role of satire in public debate? The image of physically unveiling something or someone is one that recurs again and again in discussions of satire (Day, 12).
