Mimsy Were the Borogoves

Book Reviews: From political histories to bad comics, to bad comics of political histories. And the occasional rant about fiction and writing.

Satire isn’t comedy

Jerry Stratton, January 31, 2007

Satire is easily misunderstood. Too often it is miscast as simple comedy, or, worse, children’s literature. I suppose that reasonable people can disagree about whether Alice in Wonderland or Peter and Wendy were written for children or adults. But no reasonable person can read Animal Farm and see it as a children’s story. Yet that’s the way that it’s made into movies.

Perhaps it’s too easy to equate animals with children. But even animal-free satires can be difficult to get. When Nabokov had Humbert Humbert describe twelve-year-old Lolita in terms of adult lust, Nabokov wasn’t saying that Lo was a hot babe. Yet that’s the way she’s been portrayed in two otherwise very good movies.

Satire isn’t funny. It’s about turning the normal world over to expose what’s underneath. It’s about taking bad ideas to their logical, over-the-top conclusion. It’s about provocation. You can’t recognize satire just by looking for the funny bits. As the creator of The Walkerville Weekly Reader satirical newspaper, I am sometimes amazed at the kinds of things people will believe. And the Reader’s satire is, by the end of the article, as plain as it could be without big red letters blinking “satire”. Could anyone possibly believe that John Ashcroft would end the drug war? And yet some people did.

Some satire is funny. Douglas Adams is hilarious. So are Bulworth, Team America, South Park, and Thank You For Smoking. But much of the best satire is not written primarily as comedy. Steinbeck is often funny in Cannery Row and Tortilla Flat, but comedy is not the purpose of those stories. Kurt Vonnegut’s works are often funny also, but they’re not comedies.

Hunter Thompson’s Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas is funny much less often. What he is, is over the top. Neither Animal Farm nor Siege of Harlem are written as comedies. They are tragedies, Siege of Harlem classically so. What they are, are provocative.

Nabokov’s Lolita is not about the funny side of pedophilia. Lolita is extraordinarily unfunny, but it also contains some of the most brilliant, subversive satire ever written, so powerful that it has fooled two generations of filmmakers.

Vladimir Nabokov lived through both the Bolshevist takeover of Russia (he first fled St. Petersburg and then the Crimea) and the Nazi takeover of Germany (he left Berlin in 1937 and Paris in 1940). Part of his message in Lolita was the ease with which even the most despicable person can rewrite history in their favor. Humbert is a clearly unreliable narrator, and yet we believe him. Nabokov made Humbert so successful at it that at least two generations of filmmakers have succumbed to the Humbert version of Lolita: that she was a forward little vixen beautiful even by Hollywood standards, not a twelve-year-old girl.

But that’s one of the things that satire does: it shows us a part of our culture we’d rather remain unturned.

  1. <- Writer’s Will
  2. The Funds ->