New Yorker Funny? Someone Want To Explain What's So Funny About Satire

Okay, it's a cartoon. Cartoons are supposed to be funny. I get that. But usually you at least get a caption underneath that tells you why it's funny. The New Yorker cartoon didn't even give us a "Git 'er done" or a "Wha-a-at?" or in this case, "Black People In The White House And They're Not The Help."

How in the world is anybody supposed to get that this thing is a joke?

I know funny, and I can tell you right now, having a Negro Muslim and his angry terrorist-militant wife in the Oval Office isn't what anyone would ever think is funny. At least no one I know. It isn't even a decent "Family Circus." Now there's something that's funny. Why? Because so much of what that guy draws could happen. A black president who burns the American flag or thinks the Koran is our bible? That could never happen. Not in my country. Not where people have died in another country fighting for the right to have the red, white and blue to fly in that country so they won't be able to fly it over here, or something like that.

A lot of people in New York - not just Jews - Americans too, think this satire thing goes over the head of people like me. But even if I was taller... READ THE REST OF THE STORY HERE.

Steve Young blogs at SteveYoungOnPolitics.com

Comments

[Thorn]

If you think there's such a thing as "a decent 'Family Circus,'" you don't know funny.

[uglicoyote]

Good satire isn't necessarily humorous. It is ironic, usually but not always outrageous, and only sometimes funny. The prime example of satire would be Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" in which Swift suggests that Irish children would make excellent table fare for the British. Get a copy and read it and make sure you understand the historical context Not exactly humor but certainly wryly amusing and quite effective. IF YOU GET IT, and therein lies the problem.

The New Yorker thing (not, imho "good" satire) is a bit overblown, if only because the people who believe this stuff about Obama don't read the New Yorker anyway. They are more The National Enquirer/New York Post crowd.

[RoloTomassi]

I think in the end the only real problem [other than one of perception] is with the artist; the likeness of Obama is in profile, which is harder to work with in creating an effective caricature that imparts humor. the expression depicted is also part of this, as Obama's expression is fairly benign and lacking specific emotion [which, IMO, imparts a sense of acceptance]. A depiction of his face in a stronger emotional context [laughing, smiling, frowning, or even a fearful expression] would have been much more effective, yet is far more difficult to accomplish given the position of Obama in the compostion.

Had the artist been someone like Sam Viviano or another more talented caricaturist [more talented in the sense of understanding the requirements of presenting humor in caricature], I suspect this incident would have been taken as intended by a larger percentage of people viewing the image cold. Of course there will always be those who don't get it and take offense even if the image effectively imparts humor--and that percentage is simply part of the norm in presenting work that falls into the categories of caricature and/or satire.