Red Light Racicot Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 That's not what I get from his posts. What I get is that if someone is offended by you words, you should shut up if you don't want to get beaten or killed. And if you do get killed, it's your fault for offending, not the other person's fault for, you know, murdering you. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASSJAW Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 NOBODY WILL READ THIS. But it's good anyway. http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-ca-satire-ulin-20150118-story.html#page=1 Has America turned into a spoof of itself? Did postmodernism kill literary satire? I've been wondering about this in the wake of the terror attacks on the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, known for its caricatures of the prophet Muhammad; one appears on the cover of the current issue, brandishing a placard that declares "Je suis Charlie" while shedding a tear. There's something direct and provocative in such an image, which is, of course, what comics do. Literature unfolds more slowly, over pages, over time. Among the tools it requires is an elaborate self-consciousness — which is also, it turns out, a key component of postmodernism. Is it coincidence, then, that the rise of postmodernism in the 1970s overlaps almost exactly the decline of satire? Is it coincidence that after the turmoil of the late 1950s and 1960s, a period during which Terry Southern, William S. Burroughs and Joseph Heller (among others) portrayed, with bilious exactitude, the excesses and hypocrisies of empire America, we turned inward, forgoing satire for irony? I think of Southern's 1958 novel "Flash and Filigree," with its vicious sendup of television culture: a taping of the popular quiz show "What's My Disease?" featuring a panel that includes "a prominent woman columnist, a professional football coach, an actress, and a Professor of Logic from the University of Chicago," questioning a contestant to determine his or her ailment." "'Is it elephantiasis?' demanded the Professor. … 'Yes, it IS elephantiasis!' and at that moment, as the shroud was dropped and the contestant revealed to them all, the audience took in its breath." It's a stunning moment, although it hardly seems satirical any longer, in a world where people obsess over the Kardashians and "Duck Dynasty." This, in turn, suggests a bigger problem — that, as the literary critic Harold Bloom once insisted, "In the United States, satire is no longer possible. America has turned into a satire of itself." Bloom was right: How does one satirize a culture in which the same politicians who a decade ago demanded French fries be renamed freedom fries in the congressional cafeteria now upbraid the president for not going to Paris? "Even Adolf Hitler thought it more important than Obama to get to Paris," Republican Rep. Randy Weber of Texas tweeted this week, conveniently overlooking the fact than when Hitler arrived in the French capital in 1940 it was as a conqueror. (Weber subsequently apologized.) Such doublespeak is straight out of Heller; "It was almost no trick at all," he wrote in "Catch-22," "… to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. It merely required no character." And yet, if this was revelatory — or, at least, new to public discourse — in 1961, when Heller's novel appeared, it seems like old news now, common knowledge, the kind of dislocation we all feel at the level of our bones. Satire, after all, is a public art. It is about revealing larger social truths by pillorying the pieties on which a hypocritical society relies. As for which society, it doesn't matter. All of them tell their own lies. It's also about pushing the extremes, the boundaries, as a way of reflecting what we sense is true but can't quite articulate. Part of the success of "Catch-22" is that it revealed the absurdity of military thinking, an absurdity that would, just a few years later, play out in the debacle of Vietnam. Paddy Chayefsky's 1976 film, "Network" (not a book, but the expression of a writer's vision), did something similar for television; can we listen to Howard Beale today without thinking of the prescience of his diatribes? This is not to imply that satire is predictive, any more than science fiction. Rather, it is a matter of paying attention, of peeling back the public narrative. In his 1945 novel "Memoirs of a Shy Pornographer," Kenneth Patchen skewers postwar literary pretensions by imagining a machine that writes books, and another that reviews them for the New York Times. Do we even need to say that, 70 years later, in a world of bots and tweets and news feeds, such an idea hardly seems outrageous? What Patchen shares with Heller and Chayefsky (or Southern, for that matter) is emotion; he satirizes the culture because the culture matters to him. "Let me tell you," he writes in one particularly heartfelt passage, "that it exceeds the wildest insanity to accept some of the things which the world takes for granted — … That men should starve each other. … That men should hate one another because their skins are of a different color. … That men should kill one another! … Wars and the plague-sores left by wars shall not be ended until mankind turns from the murder which is practiced everyday by everyone." This is the whole idea of satire, to fuse naïveté with righteous indignation, to stand up for idealism (that discredited notion) by exposing our collective idiocies. Irony stops well short of that, serving, David Foster Wallace argues in his 1993 essay "E Unibus Pluram," "an exclusively negative function … critical and destructive … singularly unuseful when it comes to constructing anything to replace the hypocrisies it debunks." Wallace, of course, understood these tensions; irony is the vernacular of his early books. And yet at some point, he acknowledged, it ceases to be enough. There's little irony in Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert or the writers of the Onion, who are, I want to tell you, the superior satirists of the moment: angry, incredulous, engaged. The same is true of George Saunders, Paul Beatty and Percival Everett — who still work a satiric landscape — but they are more the exception than the rule. On the one hand, this brings us back to Bloom and his belief in a self-satirizing culture, in which reality is its own lampoon. At the same time, it highlights the insularity of too much contemporary writing, in which we are asked to see the world, again and again, through an individual's eyes as opposed to a collective frame. Think of all the reactions to Charlie Hebdo and then identify the ones that really stick. I can come up with barely a handful: Laila Lalami in the Nation, Joe Sacco and Hari Kunzru in the Guardian, each arguing for nuance and complexity. "I don't want to read about how 'we're all' anything," Kunzru cautions, "because wishing away complexity is inadequate and juvenile." Whatever else it is, that's a comment on saturation, the demands of a culture in which everyone feels they should respond to everything. More to the point, it's a reminder of the challenges of writing satire in a world that functions at the speed of news. Or, as Heller observed, more than a little bitingly, in his 1988 novel "Picture This": "Mankind is resilient: the atrocities that horrified us a week ago become acceptable tomorrow." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Human being's are a very peverse and bloodthirsty species Speak for yourself, Buddha.... @GJ: I read it. Thanks for posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 When you know there are some extremists out there who will do horrible things when provoked, and you deliberately provoke them, you must expect horrible things. These people were not ignorant of the possible consequences. How many times has the west 'poked fun' at Muhammad or Islam and something like this has happened? Even the magazine itself was already fire bombed once! This is not an isolated, once in a life time, incident... and I absolutely 100% would expect something like this to happen (after the danish cartoonist incident, everyone should have seen this coming) - I don't think it SHOULD happen, but I would expect it because I'm not a blind fool who ignores the past. Get it through your head - NO ONE IN THIS THREAD IS JUSTIFYING what happened, there are just those of us who aren't entirely surprised because you know, we've seen the same type of provocation happen and the same type of results happen. And if you honestly think the solution is as simple as saying "well, Muslims are being too sensitive, we should just keep doing what we're doing and hope they eventually grow a sense of humor" then you're retarded and I'm not going to feel any sympathy for you when it happens to you. Again, is this right? Should it have happened? No one is saying Yes - they all deserved to die... but they definitely should have expected something like this. That's not what I get from his posts. What I get is that if someone is offended by you words, you should shut up if you don't want to get beaten or killed. And if you do get killed, it's your fault for offending, not the other person's fault for, you know, murdering you. Can you show me where he states that it is the journalists fault they were murdered , and where he states that the terrorists are not at fault for murdering them ? He starts of stating the obvious , if you piss of people who are prone to violence when pissed off you should expect a violent response from the when you piss them , the staff at charlie hebdo were not ignorant of this , at the very least the fact that 2 policemen were at their offices guarding them from attack tells us this. He then goes on to point out that when the west has poked fun at mohammed before there have been violent retaliations or at the very least the threat of violent retaliation , then he clearly states that a violent retaliation should not happen He then goes on to make it clear no one in this thread has justified what happened but some members are not surprised this did happen because history has taught us that when you piss these nut jobs off , crap happens. Where i think you get victim blaming is that he says he will not show sympathy for some one who deliberately pisses of these nut jobs and then gets their ass jihaded , Blaming someone for something and not showing sympathy for them are 2 very different things, and while i think he is being a bit harsh I can see the difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Can you show me where he states that it is the journalists fault they were murdered , and where he states that the terrorists are not at fault for murdering them ? He starts of stating the obvious , if you piss of people who are prone to violence when pissed off you should expect a violent response from the when you piss them , the staff at charlie hebdo were not ignorant of this , at the very least the fact that 2 policemen were at their offices guarding them from attack tells us this. He then goes on to point out that when the west has poked fun at mohammed before there have been violent retaliations or at the very least the threat of violent retaliation , then he clearly states that a violent retaliation should not happen He then goes on to make it clear no one in this thread has justified what happened but some members are not surprised this did happen because history has taught us that when you piss these nut jobs off , crap happens. Where i think you get victim blaming is that he says he will not show sympathy for some one who deliberately pisses of these nut jobs and then gets their ass jihaded , Blaming someone for something and not showing sympathy for them are 2 very different things, and while i think he is being a bit harsh I can see the difference I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand what victim blaming is. One doesn't have to state "the victim is to blame" to blame the victim, but in his case one doesn't even have to read between the lines to see what he's saying is victim blaming. Would you kindly explain to me the difference between telling a rape victim she shouldn't have been wearing what she was, and telling Charlie Hebdo they shouldn't have said what they did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Speak for yourself, Buddha.... @GJ: I read it. Thanks for posting. What can one say about a species that spends close to 2 trillion a year on weapons and the means to "defend" themselevs , from themselves I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand what victim blaming is. One doesn't have to state "the victim is to blame" to blame the victim, but in his case one doesn't even have to read between the lines to see what he's saying is victim blaming. Would you kindly explain to me the difference between telling a rape victim she shouldn't have been wearing what she was, and telling Charlie Hebdo they shouldn't have said what they did? Can you show me where he told the Charlie hebdo jounalists they should not have published their cartoon ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 What can one say about a species that spends close to 2 trillion a year on weapons and the means to "defend" themselevs , from themselves ...and half of that by one country.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dral Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 That's not why they are mocked. Nobody thinks mocking Mohammad will make terrorists give up. But you keep thinking that. Don't be so niave - people in the west are banding together to show that the "terrorists can't win" (ie - the terrorists can lose) by continuing to do the same thing over and over again. And who is surprised? You keep saying it like it's true. Maybe there is surprise, or more accurately shock at the scale of retribution, but nobody was oblivious enough to expect nothing at all. A few posts above you said "What I'm saying is that posting a cartoon should not be expected to be met with a shooting of 12 people." If you do not expect that kind of reaction, then you must be surprised at it... although I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as it's obvious you don't know the definition of the word surprised. And don't be overly offended when I call you an idiot for victim blaming. I've been called worse by better people Maybe the solution is to get out of the middle east? Maybe we should go back to our side of the world and focus on our problems instead of spreading democracy to countries who don't want it. Or maybe there is no solution. Maybe it's the final showdown between secularism and religion? Who knows. Again, so niave What I do know is that we shouldn't change our way of life because someone, somewhere may get offended and react violently to it. But... but that would mean getting out of the middle east! PS. Still waiting for a barrage of examples of justified violence. PS - again, something I've never said That's not what I get from his posts. What I get is that if someone is offended by you words, you should shut up if you don't want to get beaten or killed. And if you do get killed, it's your fault for offending, not the other person's fault for, you know, murdering you. I'm guessing you haven't finished high school yet by your reading comprehension skills. I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand what victim blaming is. One doesn't have to state "the victim is to blame" to blame the victim, but in his case one doesn't even have to read between the lines to see what he's saying is victim blaming. Would you kindly explain to me the difference between telling a rape victim she shouldn't have been wearing what she was, and telling Charlie Hebdo they shouldn't have said what they did? I never said that... but ok... It's more like telling a rape victim she shouldn't have self medicated those ruffies while going to a frat party that has a well known reputation for gang rape, wearing a skimpy out fit and yelling "I like penis" before passing out in a bed on the other side of the house. Even then, I'd say the same thing - the guys who did it are to blame, but anyone who didn't see it coming is blind, niave or stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 ...and half of that by one country.... Sometimes you gotta laugh to keep yourself from crying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 What can one say about a species that spends close to 2 trillion a year on weapons and the means to "defend" themselevs , from themselves Can you show me where he told the Charlie hebdo jounalists they should not have published their cartoon ? I give up. You're right, I'm wrong. I'm guessing you haven't finished high school yet by your reading comprehension skills. I never said that... but ok... It's more like telling a rape victim she shouldn't have self medicated those ruffies while going to a frat party that has a well known reputation for gang rape, wearing a skimpy out fit and yelling "I like penis" before passing out in a bed on the other side of the house. Even then, I'd say the same thing - the guys who did it are to blame, but anyone who didn't see it coming is blind, niave or stupid. More of the same victim blaming drivel. I wish GlassJaw disagreed with me, because he's probably one of the last posters on this forum with a brain larger than a peanut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dral Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I give up. You're right, I'm wrong. More of the same victim blaming drivel. I wish GlassJaw disagreed with me, because he's probably one of the last posters on this forum with a brain larger than a peanut. You give up? It should really be quite easy to find a quote from me that says what you're saying I said... List of words or phrases LC doesn't know 1) Expected 2) Surprised 3) Victim Blaming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 You give up? It should really be quite easy to find a quote from me that says what you're saying I said... List of words or phrases LC doesn't know 1) Expected 2) Surprised 3) Victim Blaming Don't forget I'm retarded according to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dral Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Don't forget I'm retarded according to you. your words, not mine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 your words, not mine Mhmm. For the record: What is Victim Blaming? Victim blaming is a devaluing act that occurs when the victim(s) of a crime or an accident is held responsible — in whole or in part — for the crimes that have been committed against them.1 This blame can appear in the form of negative social responses from legal, medical, and mental health professionals2 , as well as from the media and immediate family members and other acquaintances. Some victims of crime receive more sympathy from society than others. Often, the responses toward crime victims are based on the misunderstanding of others. This misunderstanding may lead them to believe that the victim deserved what happened to them, or that they are individuals with low self-esteem who seek out violence. As a result, it can be very difficult for victims to cope when they are blamed for what has happened to them. http://crcvc.ca/docs/victim_blaming.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dral Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Mhmm. For the record: http://crcvc.ca/docs/victim_blaming.pdf So we're back to your non-existent reading comprehension skills.... Where did I say the Cartoonists deserved to get shot? Where did I say they are responsible for the shooting? Where did I say they had low self esteem and were seeking to be shot? It must be easy for you to win arguments when you simply get to make up words, attribute them to other people, then call them out on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 So we're back to your non-existent reading comprehension skills.... Where did I say the Cartoonists deserved to get shot? Where did I say they are responsible for the shooting? Where did I say they had low self esteem and were seeking to be shot? It must be easy for you to win arguments when you simply get to make up words, attribute them to other people, then call them out on it. You win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dral Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 You win. Inevitably Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I give up. You're right, I'm wrong. More of the same victim blaming drivel. I wish GlassJaw disagreed with me, because he's probably one of the last posters on this forum with a brain larger than a peanut. I might not be very smart but I can lift heavy things .........very heavy things ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucklehead Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Ok I kind of lost track. Which one of you has the biggest schlong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.