Samuel Mason Monthly Connection October

                Last month, as I did my blog on a fairly sensitive, serious subject, I decided this month’s blog could relate to a more open and creative topic.  What happens when those being ridiculed through satire realize that they are the focus of the satire?  Do those being criticized understand their apparent flaws, strive to change, are confused, in denial, or just outraged?  In The Importance of Being Earnest nobody bursts onto the scene at the end of the play and informs the characters they are the being used to portray the corrupt morals of upper class Victorian society.  In this specific case, surely Oscar Wilde could not have been the only one to criticize the upper class Victorian society.  But did any radical changes occur in Victorian virtues and values because of these?  With this in mind, I question the effectiveness of satire, and the real motives behind those who write satires.

                It is assumed that the object of satire is to possibly bring about an improvement to a behavior, but is this always the case?  I think it is safe to say that it is certainly not.  Satire in my opinion is the equivalent of making fun of someone behind their back, with the supposed intention that the information will eventually trickle down to them.  Sometimes the “offenders” in the eyes of the satire writers may live in oblivion and never realize for a moment that they are being criticized.  If this information were however to arrive to the consciousness of the “offenders”, I believe that they would respond with retaliation, or denial.  It’s embarrassing to have the importance or seriousness of your customs, beliefs, or actions analyzed to find fault for everyone to see. 

In real life, people well aware of being the “butt” of satire don’t tend to respond lovingly.  This month, after reading The Importance of Being Earnest, I realized how many times a day I hear someone use shortened versions of just what Oscar Wilde used in his play.  Just because somebody doesn’t write and publish their mockery of other people’s actions, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have satirical elements.  Simply making fun of people can incorporate reducing the seriousness of importance of a belief or subject through imitation.  Ridiculing ideas or people can either result as being considered “burn,” or a “flop.”  I believe sometimes teenagers like me subconsciously differentiate between the two depending on the quality of the satirical approach to the mockery.  A successful “satire” can cause a person to realize their flaws or illogical beliefs, and invoke feelings of saltiness in them.  But I for one have never heard of a success story.   

I personally believe that if one truly wants to improve behavior, than satire is not the best choice for going about this.  Unfortunately in many cases, teenagers don’t even have these ends in mind.  They make fun of each other with mini satires not for effectiveness in changing their world for the better, but for the fun and pleasure they get through doing it.  Ultimately I believe satire benefits the giver more than the receiver.