OK...number one, I plead guilty to being one of those who somewhat simplistically stated "satire does not work unless it portrays its intended target." Having admitted that, let me say that the contributor's illustration is no less simplistic than my declarative statement. The spirit of my point still stands. To clarify...the target should be portrayed unless it is reasonable to assume that it is understood. In the case of the New Yorker cover, this test was not met. In fact it was not met in a spectacular manner.
Now, number two, I also allowed in another post, that there were some positive aspects to the overall impact. One being that people like Rush cannot say that Obama can't take a joke without admitting that the slurs are in fact false. In other words its either true or its a joke, it cant be both. So thats perhaps a positive, and more in line with the intent of the artist. Another, larger point is that the cover has stimulated a lot of comment, and has allowed Obama and others to talk about the smear campaign.
I'm thinking its a wash, still on balance, not really the best outcome for the editor's intent. It could have been better. It could have been effective. It could have better reflected the truth.
Satire by the Book
The internets are full of declarative statements about satire these days, the most common of which being that "satire does not work unless it portrays its intended target."
So let's consider this image:
Clearly this cartoon doesn't work at all, because there is no way for the reader to understand that its intended target was not Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden themselves. So let's see what we can do to clarify things:
That makes the intention of the cartoon clearer -- but there's still room for improvement.
There! That's much better! But maybe, just to be safe, we should take it one step further:
Okay then! With no room for misinterpretation whatsoever -- that's comedy gold!
Remember: satire does not work unless it literally portrays the intended target!
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I've got to try this again. You folks going on about things not needing to be explained...I agree, but I think even Mr. Tomorrow is missing the point.
You see a drawing of Saddam and Osama - no accompanying text. What does it mean? I submit it could mean several things, depending on your POV.
Now, you add the picture of Bushie. Taa Daa! It comes into focus now, right? You don't even need the sarcastic commentary.
Some people saw the NYer cover as satire, some saw it as an insult to the Obamas, some saw it as racist, and some as an accurate illustration. And you know what? Those are all completely valid interpretations, whether you agree with them or not, because Britt did not include a point of reference.
"Those are all completely valid interpretations."
They're only valid to the extend the interpreter certainly has every right to his or her interpretation. That does not, however, make the interpretation right.
If a satirist had to announce in advance, ATTENTION, SATIRE AHEAD, Andy Kaufman wouldn't have been half as funny.
When you complain about a lack of a reference point, you are saying that YOU need a reference point.
As far I'm concerned, the New Yorker cover had several points of reference: A/ It's the New Yorker, B/ the elements in the illustration (the burning flag, the bin Laden picture on the wall, etc) were all obvious talking point bullets being spewed at Obama from the rightwing, C/ the contents page shows that the illustration is titled "The Politics of Fear."
Again: satire doesn't announce in advance ATTENTION, SATIRE AHEAD. Bill Maher is right: If you can't do satire and irony on the cover of the New Yorker, where can you? I now know what he feels like when he's working a club date and the crowd doesn't get his edgier material and turns hostile.
The New Yorker wasn't aimed at everybody, only those who want to read it. It's a free country. Don't like it? Change the channel, but don't demand that the writer or the illustrator do it in a way that will be perfectly understood by everybody. That's the kind of mass appeal that only lovers of McDonalds hamburgers can appreciate.
I'll give you the New Yorker reference. Problem is, this image is being disseminated to a far wider audience than their readership without the logo.
In an ideal world, yes, every piece of work would be judged on it's own merits. But as we know, this is not an ideal world. In such a volatile climate, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that people creating political commentary look at their creations with a more critical eye, and take care that thier work can't be grossly misinterpreted.
So what is the frame of reference for "A Modest Proposal"?
A 300-year-old essay written when less than half the population could even read is in no way analagous to a drawing in the communication age
I get it!
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
"A friend is one who has the same enemies as you have"
Abraham Lincoln
cunuck realized:
"I get it!
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
"A friend is one who has the same enemies as you have"
- Abraham Lincoln "
On the other hand . . .
Dick Tracy: Is the enemy of my enemy my friend, or is the enemy of my friend my enemy?
Pat Patton: Tracy, what'd you say?
Dick Tracy: Or enemy of my enemy my enemy?
Pat Patton: What'd he say?
Dick Tracy: The enemy of my enemy... is my enemy.
And if that weren't enough, as I recall, Saddam and Osama were both our friends when we were selling Saddam weapons, and training & bankrolling Osama. . . My brain hurts.
Your explanation of satire is absolutely incorrect. For something to be satire, the author needs to portray the object of the satire is obviously extreme or absurd way as to make the object of the satire look bad. Also, both the intended reader and hopefully the intended target should "get it" and a satire does not have to be humorous. In the NYer satire, the target offense being potrayed is the ethnic, social and religious myths of the Obamas. In order to shine light on these myths, they have been shown in such an absurd way that people should see and consider the absurdity of the myths. It is sad to see that many, if not most, Americans no longer appreciate nor understand satire. We truely have become a "laugh-track" society.
Ironic....isn't it!
I get it!!! Thanks Tom Tomorrow!!!
Actually, if you have to explain it, it's failed to be satire.
If you need it explained to you, it means you've failed, not the satire.
Umm, I think that was the whole point of the article, which you obviously missed, in the process making Tom's point stronger. Brilliant
Yes, but then you went and explained the point to mlai, thus destroying the irony, and then I went and hit this point, which increased the meta-irony, decreased the meta-satire, and did nothing to the underlying parodical structure, until I went and wrote the second clause of my sentence. This last sentence is not at all satirical, which is and is not ironic.
The New Yorker says...."you need special wisdom" to see what they mean. I say.....kill the paper before it turns into a disgusting "know-it-all" and thinks everyone else is stupid.
So you're saying that the New Yorker had the temerity to assert that, in order to get a political joke, you have to know something about politics?
Those elitist bastards!!
Trouble is...they might be right!
"Barack Obama was speaking to a Jewish group, and he told them that his name Barack is the same as the Jewish word 'baruch,' which means one who's blessed. That's what he said, yeah. Obama had a harder time explaining his middle name, Hussein. Things got quiet there." "Conan O'Brien
Spin it any way you like....that so called Obama Satire is not Satire...it is all politics......meant to discredit the Democratic party.
Correction: Should have said "fundamentalist muslims" in my last post, not "muslims" I've met plenty of Muslims with a great sense of humor and satire. Sorry if I offended anyone.
I voted for Obama in the primaries and will work and vote for him in November but I disagree. What makes democrats different from muslims and republicans is we can laugh at ourselves. The scandal in the New Yorker thing was all the attention paid to it by the lackeys of the MSM. It was their latest distraction du jour. "Quick look over here!" So people don't focus on facts such as that McCain has been wrong on virtually EVERYTHING and has flip flopped virtually all his major positions such as campaign financing, immigration, abortion, etc.
"What makes Democrats different from Muslims."
Oh no, what about all of those Muslim Democrats!? PARADOX!!!!!!
Satire doesn't work on dummies. It only serves to infuriate them. Love you, love Sparky. Keep up
your subversivly wonderful work.
That's the most intelligent (and funniest) comment about the New Yorker cover I've read so far. Keep up the good work, Tom. Your a national treasure. We need to see more of you in the Hufpost.
God bless Tom Tomorrow.
It amazes me how many don't get what satire is. It isn't just something funny. If it isn't subverting the message of its audience, then it isn't satire. So to understand satire, first you have to figure out who is the intended audience, and then figure out what the message is that's being subverted.
So who is the intended audience? Who read the New Yorker? THAT is the intended audience. So what is the "message" of the New Yorker audience that the piece is subverting? Try this on for size and see if it fits: Liberal NY snobs who would never ever think of saying that Obama is a muslim or his wife is a militant, etc. But they aren't adverse to twittering about the stories, now are they? It's the salacious quality that appeals to the chattering class.
This piece is intended to bite New Yorkers and their role in perpetuating these despicable stories. The only reason this piece fails as satire is that it didn't appear to agree with its audience and the sophisticated New Yorkers didn't find it funny, so it didn't subvert their message . If the artist had put this in a speech bubble over the heads of a couple of engenues on cell-phones with qualifiers like "Do you believe that *those people* actually believe that...," it might have worked.
You're being too clever by half. The New Yorker caters to a segment of the population quite likely to understand satire -- the cover art is often satirical, and part of the (yes, not a little self-satisfying) pleasure is to suss out what's being satirized.
But there's nothing in it for the New Yorker to so specifically target its own audience (your "liberal NY snobs") as the target of its satire. That would be counterproductive, as well as completely out of character for the publication of Eustace Tilley. The New Yorker gives its audience more credit and respect than that -- always has.
In this case, it's clear to this "sophisticated" New Yorker subscriber that the targets of the piece are the fearmongers and the ignorant, spoon-fed, fearful masses.
If I'm being "too clever," then the artist wasn't clever enough in this instance. Satire is satire is satire. It isn't "Laugh in" or "Hee Haw." And the "ignorant, spoon-fed, fearful masses" (i.e., "those people") don't read the New Yorker.
The targets of the satire should have been perfectly clear to anyone who has followed the election and the inevitable fear-mongering. Which means it should have been clear to the MSM. It seems to me that when posters complain about those who "don't get it" they are in actuality criticizing the media for wilfull obtuseness. A free media was supposed to be a guarantor of a free society but the profusion of 24 hour cable news shows has resulted in the trivial ascending to prominence and our critical faculties, numbed by media fatigue, are waning.
As an afterthought, try reading Stephen Leacock. His satire is so gentle and understated it is a rare treat.
I don't know who wrote that book, but the most effective pieces of satire that stick in my mind either talk to the intended victims, or only portray them as a sideline. Take for instance, Jib-Jab's parody of Arlo Guthrie's "This Land" in 2004, the piece that made them famous. It was entirely effective, and it's intended recipients were the American voters who too easily succumb to the narratives of political campaigns creatively packaged as entertaining one-two punch sound bites that take the place of any substantive discussion of issues we might otherwise have. The subtext was democracy itself being stolen and replaced with "cheap crap" -- brilliantly portrayed by the American Indian saying "This was my land," right before that land was obscured by Wal-Marts and J-Marts and happy consumers singing "But now it's our land!"
Satire isn't satire unless it bites the people that are laughing at it in the behind . There has to be a critical message in there, some hard factual truth that no one wants to face. And it isn't satire unless it's entertaining, funny, because satire uses humor to disarm the intended recipient of the message in such a way that the message can get through. And that is exactly why John Stewart's Daily Show is so popular and why so many people turn to a comedy show to get to the truth.
That would be Woody Guthrie. Arlo sang songs about coming into Los Angeleeze to go to Alice's Restaurant on his motor-sickle to sing Ring-Around-The-Rosie rags.
I stand corrected. The points about satire are all still the same.
Posted July 16, 2008 | 10:38 AM (EST)