The Revealing Flame - in praise of satire

Satire is a fine art, and yet a violent practice. When done correctly, it strips back the protective shadows cloaking an absurd idea or absurd actions. Then, stripped of their shield, they are made to parade to the world in the brightest light the satirist can bring to bear.

With writers such as Voltaire being satirists, the brightest light that can be brought is best described as blinding in its intensity. In his classic piece “Plato's Dream”, he quite clearly lampoons the idea of a perfect creator God. Voltaire used little more than logic and a touch imagination to achieve this literary feat in less than two pages.

Go on. Read it. I'll be here when you get back, I promise.

Now, there are several important lessons in there regarding satire. The first is that satire is at its most powerful when serving as a tool against those in power. It is far less effective when utilized by the powerful to mock the powerless. It comes across as crass, tasteless, and arrogant. When used by the weak, satire is generally viewed as clever and witty. Obviously, this only applies when satire is utilized politically, and make no mistake about it, Voltaire was a political satirist.

The second is that satire is often unpopular with those in power. Here, Voltaire's goals required his writing be rather plain about making its point. A subtly written work would not do, as that carried the risk of many missing the point. While written in the form of a dream of a man long dead, his attack on the Church was obvious. As Voltaire was a prominent writer in his time, he doubtless drew fire from the Church for this quite clear and compelling attack. Unfortunately, I don't know any details how the Church might have responded, but I trust that there was at least one smear campaign aimed at out dear historical friend.

There are other, more sublte, kinds of satire. Again, I look to European history for an example.

In 1702, there was a bit of a question of religion in England. On the one hand was the official Church of England, headed by the newly crowned Queen Anne. On the other hand was the Presbyterian Dissenters, who did not agree with the Church of England. The details of the doctrinal disputes are both arcane to be as well as irrelevant. Anyway, one of the effects of the CoE being the state religion was that one had to be a member to hold public office. There were a number of other side effects to subscribing to a different religion, such as having somewhat limited civil liberties when compared to an Anglican.

When Queen Anne took the throne, it came as encouraging news to the High Flyers, who wished for the Anglican church to be the only church in England. The coronation was also followed by a number of very physical attacks on Dissenters and their properties and holdings. For obvious reasons, the Protestant and Presbyterian Dissenters didn't like this much. Daniel Defoe, later to write Robinson Crusoe, was one of them. He turned his sharp wit and mind to making a satirical point.

So, he authored a pamphlet entitled The Shortest Way with the Dissenters. Written in the form of a sermon, it advocated a rather unpleasant method of dealing with the titular subject. After thoroughly vilifying the Dissenters, it went on to propose and attempt to moralize the wholesale slaughter of the Dissenters. I mean that quite literally.

It caused quite a stir, as one might imagine. Some took the position that the actions advocated simply went too far, were immoral, or were otherwise unacceptable. More disturbingly, others agreed with the propositions put forth in Defoe's work. When it was revealed that the author was himself an Dissenter, this latter group was not pleased. They had been suckered in by a position with which they agreed, but had been unwilling to voice. Moreover, it was not one publicly acceptable. They'd been had, dragged out into the merciless light of the public eye, and held up for the world to mock.

This is an excellent illustration of a different sort of satire from Voltaire's. Voltaire's work is fairly self-contained, in that it both constructs and ridicules the concept at hand. This has the benefit of making it quite straightforward in its way, as well as not tying it to a particular historical reference frame. However, this can also weaken the overall impact by obscuring the purpose.

Defoe's work, on the other hand, only constructs the idea. Satirists like Defoe work by setting traps, into which their unwitting rhetorical opponents obligingly fall. Here, those so entrapped were those who agreed with The Shortest Way on how to deal with Dissenters. While only effective as satire within its proper historical context, Defoe's work was quite potent. If memory serves, it embarrassed no few High Flyers, and made Defoe's point quite well. It may even have swayed public opinion some, I do not know. Regardless, his point was made, and would not soon be forgotten.

So, what is satire? Satire is the the blaze brought to bear in the battle that is public opinion. It can be subtle and powerful, at the cost of greatly angering those made to dance naked before the jeering world. It can be blunt, at the cost of readership and influence, but have more lasting impact.

The two types are often commingled, creating a work that strongly resembles the views of the group being satirized, but being ever-so-slightly over the top. This allows both for those whom mostly agree to be fooled (maybe) and for those opposed to recognize and chuckle at the satirical wit therein.

Want a good example? Go look up blogs4brownback. I refuse to link to it, but that place is nuts. It's one of those things that I very much wish was satire, because it is very much over the top of what one might think.

Unfortunately, certain schools of thought have proven themselves almost impossible to satirize effectively. See, being over the top requires that there be a known top to be over. With the more radical arm of the modern Republican party, a would-be satirist has to keep readjusting to a new, higher, and just weirder top.

A puff of smoke

We're not dead here. Really. I've got a few ideas in the works. The first one is "Satire - The Revealing Flame". Basically, a post in praise of satire and emphasizing its social and political import. The second idea I'm toying with involves how religious and moral arguments are usually used not as arguments themselves, but rather to blow smoke and conceal something else.

Alp, as always, has his own ideas.

More whenever we can, although if anyone has a subject they'd like me to write on, I can try.