Accidental satire
When you're looking at an article, or a movie, or a novel - or any number of things, actually - the question of interpretation is a tricky one. 'What does this mean?' Often, this question is equated with, 'What did the author want to say?' When someone brings up a possible interpretation, one response is, 'Well, I don't think he meant that.'
The answer is that it doesn't matter whether or not he meant to say it, he might have said it anyway. Authorial intention is invalidly equated with a text's meaning. The first problem for this kind of understanding is that most of the time the author's intentions are unavailable. Either he or she is unreachable or unwilling to comment, or he or she could even be dead. Also, an author's feelings toward a subject can change over time, and that makes his or her own comments on the work sometimes unreliable.
The other issue is that author's can accidentally say things that they don't intend. In this case, what the author intended to do is wholly immaterial to the interpretation of the work in question.
Take the historical example of "A Modest Proposal." Swift's seminal ironic text was met with some misinterpretation. People thought he was being serious in suggestion that Irish children should be eaten. Now in this case we know that this was not what Swift intended and that it is an abhorrent solution to the problem. But people still managed to misunderstand what Swift was trying to do.
That problem looms large to anyone who tries to make a point satirically. Subtlety is often lost on people, and your satire might be taken earnestly. I propose that it's about time this defect of satire be turned on its head. The next time you read an article in which the author defends a point that you consider too absurd to merit anyone holding it, you can describe it as 'accidental satire.' Without meaning to, the author has only furthered the cause he was arguing against by proposing an untenable position.
I would like for 'accidental satire' to find its way into the popular lexicon, or at least the blogosphere. Well, I'll keep my fingers crossed. It would be an interesting note to add to my curriculum vitae, when I move forward into the world of publishing.
The answer is that it doesn't matter whether or not he meant to say it, he might have said it anyway. Authorial intention is invalidly equated with a text's meaning. The first problem for this kind of understanding is that most of the time the author's intentions are unavailable. Either he or she is unreachable or unwilling to comment, or he or she could even be dead. Also, an author's feelings toward a subject can change over time, and that makes his or her own comments on the work sometimes unreliable.
The other issue is that author's can accidentally say things that they don't intend. In this case, what the author intended to do is wholly immaterial to the interpretation of the work in question.
Take the historical example of "A Modest Proposal." Swift's seminal ironic text was met with some misinterpretation. People thought he was being serious in suggestion that Irish children should be eaten. Now in this case we know that this was not what Swift intended and that it is an abhorrent solution to the problem. But people still managed to misunderstand what Swift was trying to do.
That problem looms large to anyone who tries to make a point satirically. Subtlety is often lost on people, and your satire might be taken earnestly. I propose that it's about time this defect of satire be turned on its head. The next time you read an article in which the author defends a point that you consider too absurd to merit anyone holding it, you can describe it as 'accidental satire.' Without meaning to, the author has only furthered the cause he was arguing against by proposing an untenable position.
I would like for 'accidental satire' to find its way into the popular lexicon, or at least the blogosphere. Well, I'll keep my fingers crossed. It would be an interesting note to add to my curriculum vitae, when I move forward into the world of publishing.
posted by Matthew at 10:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home