Forum:The everlasting argument: satire and funniness

Forums: Index > Village Dump > The everlasting argument: satire and funniness

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6276 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

In the interest of Raisin Consciousness I quote a couple of comments from the Limitations of Superpowers as Applies to God discussion page:

---

Great article, but it almost seems too real to be funny. Naughtyned

'tisn't very funny. 'twas trying to be funny but 'tisn't Nerd42 14:04, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

---

OK, it seems to me that this illustrates a real common misconception on Uncyc: that satire is the same thing as comedy. (And as we all know, misconception can result in virgin birth. Be careful, girls!)

Comedy pretty much has to be funny, even if it's black comedy. It seems many Uncycs think that satire has to be funny too. But look at this:

Merriam-Webster's definition of satire:

1: a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn

2: trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

The Free Dictionary definition of satire:

1.

a. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.

b. The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.

2. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

Notice that the word funny is conspicuously absent from both definitions. So is the word comedy, and the adjective sidesplitting.

Huxley's Brave New World is often held up as an example of satire. Brave New World is not, however, sidesplitting comedy. It just ain't very funny at all.

Note that satire can be sarcastic. It can use ridicule, scorn, derision, and caustic wit.

How does this connect with raisins and virgin birth? Well, if you've seen one pregnant raisin you've seen...Moby Grape? Aw, I don't know. But my point in posting this on the Town Bike Village Dump is to ask whether the smartasses who post on the Dump think Uncyclopedians can do two things:

1. When writing, elevate the all-too-common rant to the level of satire by using irony, trenchant wit, sarcasm, and ridicule as well as the more common scorn; and

2. When criticizing, consider that non-funny but opinionated articles might be aiming at satire instead of comedy -- and evaluate them not on their jokes but on their use of irony, trenchant wit, sarcasm, and ridicule.

Or not. Goodness, I don't care. Or not very much, anyway. Christ knows (as do Buddha and Mohammed) that there's plenty of crappy comic writing already posted as well as crappy rants. As Albert Camus said, "You can swat a few flies, mes amis, but it does not reduce the size of the manure pile." ----OEJ 04:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that other great humour device: Outright lying. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 05:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this would be the place for a Brave New World, no matter how great a novel it is. Uncyclopedia, to me, doesn't seem like a site for satire without at least a smattering of humour. That said, I think this article is frickin' hysterical and not trying to be anything — it just is. And it's funny. Everyone has got their own little hole that they view the world through and it's up to them how broad or narrow they want to see things. I think the fact that this article takes on the taboo subject of religion (must... not... blaspheme) unfortunately will automatically invite certain types to attempt a discrediting based solely on their biases. Don't let it get to you — there is an audience for this brand of humour and from the looks of things recently, I'd say that audience is growing. In the words of my spiritual leader, Joshua ben Joseph, "Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke." Wait... sorry, that was J.R. "Bob" Dobbs. The other guy said that, "the kingdom of humour is contained inside my bastard seed." Oops... that's not it either. You know what I think?... drunk people shouldn't enter internet forums. End drunky spouting rant. -- Imrealized ...hmm? 06:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC) (that might cost me, huh?)

I've tried viewing the world through my own little hole, but I just ended up in hospital. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 11:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm for Moby Grape, but against the refusal to spell out the word "it" in favor of archaic and grammatically questionable contractions.
Having said that, satire is usually only worthwhile if it contains humor, regardless of how sociopolitically resonant it is. Otherwise it risks being ineffective to the point of achieving the opposite result from its intent. In this case, the article does tread close to the line, but as is often the case, well-chosen imagery keeps it from collapsing on itself — though obviously, this is just my opinion... And yes, this is also where I would normally insert a gratuitous pie reference, but I'll refrain this time in favor of a Ciceronian litotes-like rhetorical device.  c • > • cunwapquc? 08:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If we had a glut of sidesplittingly funny articles of great and erudite humour then I would agree, but given that we have many thousands of pages about how Oscar Wilde invented such and such in 1285, any articles that attempt to go for something a bit cleverer should only be encouraged. So what if you don't piss yourself at some article that is satirical rather than laden with punchlines? As Uncyclopedia grows older, we shouldn't be afraid to expand its remit into other areas. FreeMorpheme 11:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This is, without a doubt, one of the most well-spoken and ultimately salient posts I've seen on the Village Dump. I'm now officially watching all who have made their opinions known on this page, as I like the cut of your collective jib.

Stalking aside, I happen to agree with what S.U. expressed, that all effective satire must contain at least a kernel of humor for it to come across as anything more than a bitter diatribe against its topic. It's easy to point to classic examples; Aristophanes, Johnny Swift, Bernie Shaw, Dennis Miller (sorry, not anymore), but would they be considered masters of the art if only a few people had thrown back their greasy, unwashed heads and 'howled at the implicit absurdities in the subject matter/writing style? Perhaps, but only if the value of the wry smirk was not often sadly underappreciated when compared to gales of outright laughter. (Rest assured, I smirked my ass off at the above-mentioned article!) I concur with FreeMorpheme that any attempt at true wit should be embraced wholeheartedly, but let's not forget that the satire without humor is little more than a Michael Moore-esqe rant. And that fat bastard's never funny. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 14:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely we want to avoid unfunny ranting, but my feeling is that most satire is by its nature humourous, despite the dictionary definition, even if it only raises a smile as the reader realises his or her own preconceptions about the subject. So rejecting things out of hand because they aren't laugh a minute romps seems a little like cutting off our own noses. Personally, I'd love to see Uncyclopedia become a natural home for essays like this, as well as a place for all the rest of the gags we've come to know and love hate tolerate. FreeMorpheme 15:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well said. I agree on all points, even though I can't check the link while I'm at work. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 16:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's that essay on the "Monkeysphere" - similar to some of my own (comparatively lame) ideas actually (such as the second main hypothesis of Sigmundheimer F. Rhoid). The idea being that people can't really identify and keep track of a more than 100-150 real people at a time, so that everyone else becomes part of the generalized mass and is therefore perceived as a statistic (or else has to be dealt with via contact-management software). One possible corollary to that might be a scenario in which someone in an authoritative position on an interweb site with hundreds of thousands of users might easily be unable to conceive of the possibility that a state consisting of three million people might actually produce three distinct individuals who participate in similar online activities, and have highly similar attitudes and abilities.  c • > • cunwapquc? 16:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, you'll never let 'em live that down, will you? --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 16:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure I will. But there are two articles that have to be deleted first, and there's the issue of a public retraction. I'm not holding my breath, man! But y'know, if we need VFD'ers, that would be one way to gain another one.  c • > • cunwapquc?

Politicization: Real?

(I inserted a break because my modem does not upload large files reliably so to participate in this discussion I gots to start a new section...sorry.) Golly, I really am flattered by the clever and wise comments. On the idea that satire should contain at least a kernal of comedy...well, maybe...but the basic requirement for any fiction is that it be entertaining, yes? And "entertaining" can include "dramatically gripping", "intellectually engaging", or...um..."sexually arousing to raisins". Not necessarily just "funny". So I might argue that satire which is intellectually engaging can be entertaining without being funny. Theoretically at least. So as Uncyc writers virtually always produce fiction and inasmuch as Uncyc's official goal is the infamous SPOV (Satirical Potato on Valium), then it might follow that an Uncyc satirical fiction could be entertaining without being funny. All that said, I still prefer satirical comedy both when reading and when writing. But other possibilities may exist. ----OEJ 17:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

But it's just a theory, right? I mean, we're not supposed to take your idea, that the Uncyc doesn't have to be funny, at face value, am I correct? It's just mere ideas, base groundwork for a more acceptable and, honestly, more believable theory, yes? ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 17:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Poor guy says thanks for the wise edits and you rip into his use of italics. For shame! FreeMorpheme 18:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you don't have to take anything at face value - all humor is subjective, and so is satire, though to a lesser extent. If you wanted to be cynical, you might read between the lines here and conclude that OEJ is concerned about a possible rightward political drift that he's perceived on the site. Since he's the guy behind the series known as George Bush: chronicle of greatness, it's a perfectly valid concern that at some point in the future, the site's conservatives are all going to get together and make a serious push to delete (or maybe just water down) some of that material. That would explain his choice of comment at the top of this page — the two users in question are probably the most right-wing we've got, at least as far as established users go. I'd say he's right to be concerned, and in my opinion, it's also no coincidence that most of the prominent liberal voices in the media nowadays are comedians. If a comedian disagrees with your pro-corporate, pro-war viewpoint, you can always say, "oh well, he's just a comedian, you can't take anything he says seriously."
But still, having said all that, some of those pages could use more jokes - not necessarily of the "Oscar Wilde invented kitten huffing in 1235" variety of course, but maybe just a few absurd non-sequiturs or wacky-ass pikshurs to throw off people who might be getting angry whilst reading them.  c • > • cunwapquc? 17:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

FOR starched pants. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 18:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

... ... Well?

SomeUser: You can certainly follow the discussion wherever it leads, but please don't read too much intent into what I wrote. I am simply not that organized. I didn't have my political articles much in mind, nor did I choose the lead-off comments because Nerd42 and Naughtyned are or aren't conservative, liberal, religious, purple, pregnant, or anything else. Their comments just happened to make a handy example.

Ghelae: No, it's not all theoretical. Personally I'm interested in the way Uncyc might move from articles about Chuck Norris being an Autobot to articles which poke the real world in effective ways. In other words, how to expand the range of Uncyc's satirical writing. A number of recent comments like "such-and-such was a featured article back in 2005 but it wouldn't make the cut now" are indications that Uncyc IS changing -- maturing, if you like. The comical misinformative "factual" article may always be the site's forte but what about "online interviews"? Or "letters" along the line of Swift's Modest Proposal to eat Irish babies? Or articles that are "talk show" episodes? To bring this back to the original topic, some of these might not be especially comical but they may be valid and entertaining satire. And I would hope that the usergroup would be receptive to such an expansion of the repertoire. It's not theoretical. It's about expansion of horizons. The grape that does not grow becomes a raisin: all shriveled and juiceless. ----OEJ 18:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record: I are purple but aren't pregnant. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 16:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Shit, that last line was really fucking pretentious. All right, I have to go out of town for a bit. Look for an article titled either SPOV:CPOV or SPOV: the debate soon. After all, the Uncyc way of making a point is to write an ardickle on it, no? ----OEJ 19:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• But please no "You're wrong I'm right" shit, just "you take yourself too seriously". 140.109.169.112 16:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

OK... "you make your point too anonymously". Wait, that didn't come out right. -- Imrealized ...hmm? 20:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

* blushes * that was my IP, I'm using it as a sock puppet. Kokot.kokotisko 05:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• For expansion of repertoire to include stinging satire of sadsacks Sartre and Schweitzer sating appetites for satyrs and saints. -- Imrealized 03:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Against alliteration. -- Adam's Apples 03:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Conservatism: A Trend?

Allow me to point out that UnNews is there, and is a terrific beacon of the satire you crave. And yes, Uncyclopedia is trending somewhat conservative, but I would like to think that conservatism has been TRUE conservatism (ie: moderation, even-handedness, and reliance on precedent). We are maturing and, I hope, expanding horizons, so that this conservatism will open doors instead of closing them. Wanna mock Jesus, George Dubya Bush, Mohammed, or conservative values? Go for it. Wanna mock gay pride, pacifism, or protestors? Again, knock yourself out. I like to think we're becoming more Clinton conservative instead of Bush "conservative." An maybe by God we'll become a bastion of rational political debate and, by calling EVERYONE names, escape the name-calling that's destroying American politics Today. That's just one moderate conservative's humble ol' opinion, though.--<<>> 03:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

* Closes his eyes in a prophetic gesture. * Uncyc dies at the moment it becomes a medium for rational political debate. Kokot.kokotisko 15:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes... let's call them all names. Especially Darth Nader. -- Imrealized ...hmm? 03:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound contrary and certainly not disrespectful, but Bradley, you're looking at the situation in an overly simplistic way, I suspect. The site in general isn't trending towards conservatism at all - rather it's simply growing, and it's starting to see the same problems Wikipedia has had for a few years now - the community is polarizing and fracturing under the weight of its own size, and factions are starting to form. To some extent, the presence of political and religious extremists speeds up that process, but it would almost certainly happen anyway, eventually. You can see a more formal explanation of this on MeatballWiki, in an article called CommunityMayNotScale: "When a group grows from dozens of individuals to thousands, it becomes impossible to feel any real acquaintance with more than a fraction of the population. When this happens, community standards and unwritten rules stop working. The group loses focus. Things fall apart."
What really happens is that people tend to form "affinity groups" and ignore the work (or activities) of users outside of their own group, mostly just because of the sheer volume of it all. This can happen to admins too - there's no rule that says an admin has to be, or even can be, aware of everything that goes on, especially as the site grows larger. The main advantage for Uncyclopedia is that the amount of content is still small enough that it remains within the scope of what might be considered "intellectually controllable," even while the user community is not.
Does all of this yammering have a point, you ask? Well, the answer to that is simple: No.  c • > • cunwapquc? 06:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, except that my point is the exact opposite of yours, I think we agree. :p I was saying that the site seems more unified, the ground rules seem pretty well understood, and everyone is more-or-less respecting everyone else's opinion, regardless of how backward and ignorant it may be. ;) I'm amazed at how LITTLE we've factionalized.--<<>> 15:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Uncyc today is so hard to find that those who wind up here are mostly those who really search, and that's the selection process. Once you get famous, you have to soft or hard ban people who don't conform, just like Famine banned me a while ago. Wikipedia e.g. soft bans all those who prefer wet facts over dry facts. Here, you'll have to soft or even hard ban those who are too predictable, including various fanatics. Kokot.kokotisko 16:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Both of you make good points, but Bradley, you may be mistaking effectively-enforced civility for ideological unity. I'm somewhat biased about this, but I still think Kokot here is closer to the mark - it's not that hard for an administration to obtain at least the appearance of unity, if it's willing to enforce standards and rules that prevent disagreements from developing into open conflicts. I'm not saying this is bad - in fact, it's almost always good. But it's probably inevitable that a few well-meaning individuals are going to get screwed over by this on occasion. (And Kokot, I'm sorry I accused you of trying to wind us up - I was just being paranoid, and the fact is I've never really had a taste for mythology-related humor - that's my problem, not yours.)
Anyway, this is all getting away from the original subject, so in hopes of getting things back on track, what kinds of pie do we generally prefer here? I'm into wild blackberry, myself.  c • > • cunwapquc? 16:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Blackberry? I prefer blackbird. 4 and 20 blackbirds baked right in, to be exact. Oh shit, did someone say 4:20? I'll be right back. -- Imrealized ...hmm? 17:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute ... Uncyclopedia is trending somewhat conservative? What PLANET are you from, man? --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 16:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Satire: Bad?

• I'm absolutely against satire, unless it is in service of comedy. Heroes, saviors, humanists, religous, righteous and whoever all want the world to be serious. No Brave New World here. No whining. No caustic wit. No tragic Messiahs. We're doing it all the day and we're coming here to take a rest from it. Even such as Bloodbath series is too bitterly sarcastic for me. It's not bad, but somalian children jokes make me laugh more. Kokot.kokotisko 15:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think that satire is OK, as long as it has redeeming value. Our NRV kinda stampy thing makes sense in understanding that there might evere be a page which is not extremely funny, but well and artfully crafted. This is not a blanket exception, but think about it. --Chronarion 16:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"I'm absolutely against satire, unless it is in service of comedy." OK, so is the official credo of Uncyclopedia now CPOV -- the Comedic Point of View -- and not SPOV?

Yes, UnNews is one place for political satire. It's not a particularly good place for heavily-rewritten, longterm articles though, is it.

~shrugs~ OK, I have a sense of the temper of The Uncyclopedians Who Matter. Really, I can't complain...and the point of this topic was NOT to complain but to pose some thoughts. ----OEJ 17:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

All right, with extremism of The Uncyclopedians Who Don't Matter, I had to say something emphatic, I could say "I absolutely think that satire is the only way to avoid cycling in cheesy jokes", but I had to make a decision, I can't say both at the same time. Kokot.kokotisko 16:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, find all satire funny as hell. But I am a sarcastic, sadistic, evil piece of crap. :] Biting satire is lovely; however, one must take care not to sound like one has a large limb up one's anus. I think ONLY FUNNY LOSLOALOSOLOL policy at Uncyclopedia is going to suck. We need to have some sort of purpose. Otherwise we're just like... albinoblacksheep or ebaumsworld. I liked Uncyc way back when because it was satire and it was funny. So we can't just ditch the satire.
WE WANT SMART PEOPLE HERE. Plsplsplsplspls. I don't want to get overrun by the peons who think grues, you have two cows, and kitten huffing is all the humour in the world.
[Insert meaningful closing here] --KATIE!! 20:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Wit, articulate insanity, and the ability to act completely serious in the face of absurdity should be the driving forces behind all users of merit and should form the "meat 'n' Sophia" of most articles... the rest is cream filling. Zesty, orange, psychedelic cream, but twinkie-stuffin' nonetheless. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 13:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to think we have a good mix here, we all have our own peculiar tastes and find something here that will reflect that. I even think that this is now reflected within VFH and VFP. Once we start defining what we are about we become limited. I always think that the best way for any group or structure to grow is organically, which is the way that Uncyclopedia seems to work anyway. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

• I like satire - good satire doesn't always have to be hillariously funny. If it's boring or just fanboy crap it should get BALEETED but it shouldn't have to be "Whose Line is it Anyway" all the time. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 16:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Satire: Good?

The hardest part of satire is not sounding bitter. The hardest part of comedy is making people laugh. Both have a place here, there's enough interweb for everyone (both satirists and comedophiles). Funny is funny, but if you're expecting everyone to get everything you'll face crushing disappointment. Given a choice, I'll take MASH (the movie, a satire) over MASH (the TV show, a parody) any day. How many times can you laugh at a man in a dress, anyway? Good satire, like cheese, ages better. If I had a point to make, I hope I succeeded. If not, can someone turn off the lights before you leave? Modusoperandi 04:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't say it's surprising that the dictionary definitions don't say 'oh and it's funny'. 'Funny', when it is applied, is a subjective term anyway. But even under the definitions provided I'd say it's false to call Brave New World a satire. 1984 sure as hell isn't (every piece of writing that tries to make a point is not satire - 1984 makes its point alright, but by scaring the hell out of you - Brave New World attempts the same but nowhere near as successfully IMO). Satire that actually works is funny as hell, but whether or not any particular attempt at satire is funny is kind of in the eye of the beholder, so it's hard to tack that in to an objective definition. --Some Fool 05:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

At least part of the hugely different skew of those two books is because they came from two different eras; Brave New World was first published in 1932 and Nineteen Eighty-Four in 1949. They are both more political than satirical. Unless a grossly disturbing story about dead, engineered societies (BNW) or a more grossly disturbing story about loss of freedom/Neitscheian Will-to-power story are considered to be satire. (I could be wrong about the Neitsche bit, I never made it more than a couple of chapters into any of his books. If I met him at a party I'd eventually end up slapping him and tell him to, "shut the f*ck up!"). But back to the topic at hand, what was it again? Oh, yes..."For", Polski Ogorki pickles are the best. Modusoperandi 06:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, M.O., I've always felt the exact same way about Aldous Huxley. Alright, maybe not the author, but gods know I wanted to slap the lupus-riddled shit out of every single character in Brave New World. Truth is, I've (masochistically) read it three times, and each time I hit the halfway mark I wound up hurling it against the wall with a sneer of utmost disgust and a few choice invectives on the sexual predilections of every pink-toothed bastard in the story. But at least I came back to it (unlike The Handmaid's Tale or anything by Ayn Rand with the notable exception of Anthem) which, to me at least, is a testament to the quality of the writing. After all, effective satire hooks the reader even as it outrages/unnerves them. Still, Orwell's grittier approach works for me a little better than Huxley's technicolor braggadocio. But in reference to your above comment, no, I wouldn't call either one of the mentioned books comedic in the least, despite the fact that they are effectively satiric. If you want to have your acerbic cake and eat it too, the best reference I can think of is Heller's Catch 22 (ironic in the context of my statement, I know.) And at the end of the day, it's that sort of pointed commentary masked with grinning inanity that I'd like to see more of around here. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 13:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Too bad. I both really like and really hate Huxley. I like BNW, even though it hasn't aged well, precisely because of its different take on dystopian fiction as compared to 1984. Reading BNW then 1984 shows just how much the world had changed in less than two decades. Also, I hate Huxley for the meandering crapfest of "The Doors of Perception", which is essentially having a stoned roommate in book form. Both have aged better than "We", which reads like Flash Gordon (in a bad way). Catch22 is cool, and it made the transition to movie form fairly well (honestly I don't remember the book at all, so I could be wrong), and it's aged quite well. Modusoperandi 13:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the movie's one of the rare varieties that almost (but not quite) does the book justice. I still get a kick out of it, laugh my ass off at Cathcart's bungled trial, and still cover my mouth with a fist when the prop chops up Sampson. Still, I think that the best dystopian writer I've had the pleasure of reading was Anthony Burgess. Somehow he manages to pull off everything that Huxley (for me, at least) botched. And I agree with your comment on Doors -- if I want chemical ramblings, I'll fuckin' pick up Crowley again. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 14:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This forum is crazy literary for something on Uncyc. I've had less civil/less coherant conversations on Wikipedia! One guy there accused me of following scientific dogma and of seeing the world through the blinders of science...fucking homeopathy. Man, the things people say when you point out that water is water. That being off-topic, I'll drift back near-topic by saying that both satire and comedy are good, but satire is better because it's funny on more than one level. Of the swill that I've writ on Uncyc some is satirical and some is comedical. Also, I like to make up words. Modusoperandi 14:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Stange you haven't mentioned Bradbury's F-451 yet. It kicks asses. Sure, it's not comedic either. And I agree that we should be more for comedy than for satire. Only comedic satire fits uncyc as I see it.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 15:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The book was ok, but it should be metric. Plus it got butchered for the movie. Which should also be metric. I've never been a fan of Bradbury. Sure, he's one of the fathers of sci-fi, but his wooden dialogue always pushed me out of the his stories. To each his own, I guess. Of course, my hidden shame is Mike Mcquay, a pulp novelist who grew into a pulp really-long-bookist...and he's no Bradbury (Lifekeeper is still one of my favourite novels, and it's awful.) Modusoperandi 15:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If I was to write a satirical article on the media's response to the killing of two little girls in the UK a few years ago, would that be surfing too close to the edge, you think? I've had one in the works for ages, but never got round to finishing it. How close to real life can satire get before it crosses from 'biting' to 'offensive'? FreeMorpheme 16:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think only you can answer that question for yourself. That or wait until people start puking all over your talk page. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I'm sure, as you say, that others will hasten to answer it for me afterwards. Well, if I do, just remember I asked here first! FreeMorpheme 17:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Once we start having to ask if we can write things, the terrorists will have won. —rc (t) 18:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The profundity of that is diminished a bit by the medium we write in. If I spend ages writing something that is deemed to be too close to the edge, or if it is deemed too 'satirical', then it will be insta-huffed, and all the work is for nothing. If I was writing for the New Yorker, I wouldn't worry what you lot think. FreeMorpheme 18:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

PS Actually I do write for the New Yorker. FreeMorpheme 18:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Spare a dime for a shameful pulp novelist? :D --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 18:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but:

1) You can't really know whether something will be reacted against negatively (especially here) until your audience actually reads it. If you don't write it, you'll never know whether your idea was brilliant or despicable, at least in the eyes of others.

2) This is just a personal thing, but I think the act of writing is rewarding even if nobody else ever reads what I scribble (which is the case for most of the things I've written in the past few years). If I submit it and it's a hit, it's all the more rewarding. And if nobody else likes it, I can lock myself in my room for weeks scorn their lack of comedic or intellectual appreciation.

3) If you are user:Apples, whatever I said above is null. Never write anything. —rc (t) 18:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, let me make you happy by telling you I chuckled more at your gag there than at the last dozen pages I looked at. FreeMorpheme 21:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Strange that nobody has mentioned Good Soldier Schweik, Stanislaw Lem and Texnolyze yet. Catch 22 was inspired by Schweik (Heller said he'd never write it hadn't he read Schweik). Lem is hard to get, but don't forget the name, read it if you have chance, he just happened to die this year. Texnolyze was up for download last time I tried. Offense = safest fun :) Satire with iron core = bad. Kokot.kokotisko 12:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hell, if I need a good sardonic chuckle at the expense of my fellow mutants humans, I can still pick up Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary, and after about three pages I can't stop grinning. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 12:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Bierce's devilry is good (especially his definition of faith), but my goto book for sardonic laughs is R.F. Laird's Boomer Bible. Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is ridiculed for their monkey-like tendencies. That's what this book is doing. Oh, and I agree with KiY about Rand and Anthem. As for Atlas Shrugged, I figured out the whole thing after the first sentence — John Galt is an ironic Scottish novelist, you cold Objectivist bitch! -- Imrealized ...hmm? 15:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Imrealized, I needed that chortle! Seriously Ayn, just go sleep with your father or something and leave the heavy lifting to us. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 15:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Satire is generally only used in the form of humor. In my opinion, Brave New World was definitly not satire; satire is a type of humor that exposes human folly through irony or sarcasm. A good example would be Slaughterhouse Five or any of the Kurt Vonnegut classics for that matter. Now, thats not exactly sidesplitting, but its definitely humor, and it definitely exposes human folly. In terms of Uncyclopedia, I would have to say that UnNews is the most satirically sidesplitting thing i've read. This is simply because anything on the news is either a)not important to any individual person, b)a repeat of something else explained with different words, or c)grossly exadgerated, modern news, especially news involving lawyers, is some of the greatest evidence that as a species, we are not the most intelligent in the universe, and that is why I think its fantastic.

So, I guess what Im trying to say is: If you think satire has no place here, UnNews has already got plenty. -- Kaizer the Bjorn takkun (nya nya) (1961 model!) Check out T61! 03:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 

Good points by all. The reference to Bierce's Devil's Dictionary is interesting -- I don't think Uncyc works for novelistic ventures like BNW, F-451, or even Catch-22 because of the sheer size and sustained reader-writer effort required, but the DD is a good example of stuff that might work. Some of Twain's shorter satire -- like the first section of "Little Bessie" -- might offer working templates too. (One of the areas for expansion of Uncyc writers' repertoire is the use of dialogue inside articles -- two Wiki authors arguing inside the article about how the piece should go, a Wiki author interviewing someone else, or interviewing two people who get into a spat -- any device that allows us article-bangers the fiction-writer's staple device of multiple characters and contrasting viewpoints.) In closing I would like to swallow this live frog...er, no, I mean revisit a point made by Chronarion: I think we agree that NRV is for things that are not satirical or comedic or experimentally bold or even butterscotch-flavored. However, I hope that VFD voters will consider not just whether they think a given piece is funny but whether it may be ironic or "point out the follies of man" instead. And maybe voters could give a thought to whether a piece is experimental -- that is, attempting an expansion of Uncyc's repertoire, perhaps not with complete success but in a way which may point other pieces in a new direction. But the main thing is, I just wanted to stir the old pot and you all have risen to the task with admirable wisdom and restraint. My best coagulations to you all. ----OEJ 16:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear. It don't needs to be side-splitting. I'll take wryly or even bitterly amusing satire over random nonsense and memes any day -- Sir Armando Perentie KUN FP 09:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)