May 01, 2006
On Satire
Someone or another at one of the News Groups will occassionally suggest that I ought to add warning labels to my posts, indicating when I intend a post to be a spoof, sarcasm, etc. Some people do take them too seriously and get offended. A few have even left the list in a huff. But when I respond, it is generally to say no. Personally, I enjoy satire the most when I am deceived into thinking it is a straight piece, and the ironic intent suddenly dawns on me. I have no idea why this generally occurs when one has a mouthful of beverage. 
Keyboards do generally recover when they dry, though, and are cheap these days. Besides, grin or smile prompts remind me of laugh tracks. Though I do agree that using them sparingly or judisciously, as sort of phrase softeners, for the humor impaired, can be effective.
I also wish to comment on different grades of satire. I rate satirical hit pieces as mediocre. These generally belittle, villify, or otherwise disparage the target. As such, they tend to elicit feelings of shaudenfreud, hatred, bitterness, disgust, or desire for revenge. 
At best, the writer and her/his allies get to enjoy a brief illusion of smug superiority. But the target is not apt to be persuaded, and may feel even more alienated or defensive.
Next there is middling satire, like slap stick. This sort is mainly pointless silliness, and I love it. I guess the best of it, like Monty Python, or the Marx brothers, illustrates the poignant meaninglessness of it all; life as a kind of cosmic sight gag. It does, after all, make sense that g-d is Jewish and likes to prank on pompous Brits.
Finally, I think the finest satire is rooted in good will and inspires compassion for the intended target. Ideally, it also helps both the writer and readers see themselves more clearly.
Pointless silliness rules!
VW