satire: what the hell is it, & why does it matter?

SATIRE (n.): "the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices."
-Interweb definition

On record: I love satire. It's one of my favorite forms of humor. I do love the ridiculous, & satire is all about the ridiculous.

One of the things that makes good satire so spectacular is that it is so very hard to do well. If you go too far in one direction, you get not at all funny; and if you go too far in the other direction, you get ...not at all funny. But that thin line? That razor thin line? Sublime perfection. Hilarious & critical at the same time.

Recently, a major publisher (*cough* Abrams ...*cough*) entered a bit of a media firestorm when they issued a series of book covers that they classified as satire. You can head on over to their website if you'd like to see what they classified 'satire'. I have not provided a link to the book covers, but I have linked their response to the criticism here (scroll down to comments to see responses to the statement to get more points of view on the issue). I recommend people see what is being discussed if you are going to form an informed opinion; I don't necessarily recommend buying the book unless you want to support them. I would not recommend showing them to children even though they look like children's book covers --that part of this we ALL agree on.

I tried to figure out what line it was that was crossed, why was there such controversy over the pseudo-kid lit, for my own edification (fancy word --just meant I felt like it). 

To do this, I turned to my favorite piece of satire ever written: Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal". What made it so damned good? I don't think there's anyone alive who would contest how successful it was as satire. Are there any similarities with the pseudo-kid lit books? Are there any differences, as I suspect there are because of the reaction against them?

Certainly what is discussed is horrific in both cases: Swift talks about eating babies; and the pseudo-kid lit book covers talk about subjects like bringing a bomb as a gift to a birthday party and poor drivers injuring innocent bystanders.

Certainly both are dressed up in innocuous clothing: Swift is making a modest proposal --just a little idea he had to solve the problems of the poor in Ireland; and the pseudo-kid lit books are based on the graphics and writing style employed in children's books from a bygone era.

Certainly the topics being discussed are political in nature: Swift is discussing the human costs of poverty; and the pseudo-kid lit is discussing topics like terrorism and xenophobia. Neither really gets at the foibles of human nature, which is another subject of satire, so politics it is ...

Which brings us to the differences. And there is a major one.

In "A Modest Proposal", Jonathan Swift never comes out and says that he is supportive of the poor of Ireland, and that he represents the class that holds the power. He doesn't have to. Sentences like the following make it clear that he is the one who is the monster:

• "But I am not in the least pain upon that matter, because it is very well known, that they are every Day dying, and rotting, by cold, and famine, and filth, and vermin, as fast as can be reasonably expected."
• "Butchers we may be assured will not be wanting, although I rather recommend buying the Children alive, and dressing them hot from the Knife, as we do roasting Pigs."
• "A Child will make two Dishes at an Entertainment for Friends, and when the Family dines alone, the fore or hind Quarter will make a reasonable Dish, and seasoned with a little Pepper or Salt will be very good Boiled on the fourth Day, especially in Winter."

Really good satire requires the satirist to place him or herself IN THE SATIRE. 

Which brings us to the pseudo-kid lit book covers. The satire does not go far enough to be effective. It doesn't commit. This is why people who are offended by it are offended by it. Irony does not work in this circumstance. 

If Abrams and the author believe that xenophobia, Islamophobia, racism, etc. are wrong, then they needed something additional that is not there that makes it clear that these words and images on the covers cannot be interpreted at face value, because for better or for worse, there are people who will take these ideas at face value. They will find it funny, but for the wrong reasons. They will miss the irony. They will miss the criticism. They will see it as justification for acts of violence like we're seeing an increase of in the news now. 

Sad as it is, we live in a world now where people don't realize that the ideas in the artwork is wrong, and these people now have the bully pulpit of power. Satire works best when skewering the ideas of those who hold power, not confirming those ideas. 

  

I don't believe in censorship, unless it is in cases where people are being actively harmed (e.g., images depicting the sexualization of children, providing personal information about people's families). But I find these books to be irresponsible. I won't be buying them. I prefer to spend my money on satire that works.

____________________________________________________________________

Follow-up (as of 5 December 2016): Abrams has pulled the work upon the request of the creator. Here is their statement.