Satire is a dead art form. Though calling this astounding failure of writing an art form is laughable. Nonetheless, satire is dead, and it rightfully should be.
To give the audience more credence to this claim, we must explain this universally flawed type of writing. Satire is comedic writing in its simplest and ugliest form. To describe satire is to describe comedy as seen through the eyes of a dog. Dogs don’t understand comedy and they would inevitably turn it into the disreputable satire. Is satire funny? It’s funny if you like a person screaming jokes, then explaining it afterwards. There is not a single salvageable thing that can be gained from reading satire. To put it simply (since satirists couldn’t understand it any other way), satire is constant, grating sarcasm thrown at the viewer in hopes that the viewer is gullible enough to take it seriously. Satire is a writer trying to laugh at and make fun of his or her audience through writing.
The problems with satire can be easily distinguished. Though how to narrow those problems down to fit into anything less than a bible sized text is the real difficulty. First, we can easily state that one of the absolute major problems with satire is the author. The problem is not that the author is bad at English (though that is true), the problem is that the authors of satire are so absolutely in love with themselves that they cannot seem to write anything that does not immediately please themselves. They do not care about social justice or bettering people, they solely want to get a rise out of people. They want their sarcasm to be so heavily caked on that people start to believe them. Their only purpose is to laugh at these poor souls who think that what they are saying is true. Satirists are the slugs of the Earth and our only choice is to stamp them out.
The second problem with the “art” of satire is the subject and the writer’s incessant prattling on. That is one of the worst downfalls of any piece: over-explanation. These foolish writers don’t seem to understand that people only want simple, easy to digest works. The only people who could possibly want a long, detailed essay are the simpletons. Those are the only people who would need these bloated works to understand what the author is discussing. Most intelligent people prefer simpler works, because we already understand the nuances of whatever topic the satirist is trying to discuss. And the subjects themselves are nothing of interest either. Satire seems to attract writers that can only focus on the most heavily covered topics (Yes, I know about racism, but your nonstop blithering is not going to affect me, Mark Twain.). There is a plague of satire on any topic that gains moderate coverage in the news. It would be of great pleasure to everyone if these writers would cease their abhorrent attacks on the very act of writing itself. Heaps of sarcasm do not change opinions, but only work to shine a poor light on the author (though the title of “Satirist” is in itself bad lighting), and glorify whatever side they are trying to fight against.
It is best to move on to the third problem with satire, as the second problem only succeeds to leave a bad taste in one’s mouth. The third, and last, brobdingnagian problem with satire is the constricting limits of the genre. No other “art” in the world has such a tight box with which to work inside of. Satirists must, as a whole, be either entirely uncreative or entirely lazy, as no one ever dares to push a boundary. How could such a large group of “creative writers” be so absolutely uncreative? It is astounding as to how little there is to work with in satire. The criterion is sarcasm, and the only thing that can be done with that is to be sarcastic. This rule is such a dictator in its control that no one can seem to step out from under its boot to write satire of a new type. Has anyone tried to write a satire without the self-serving sarcasm? That would be a breath of fresh air and an actual piece of art, especially when compared to the works that currently find themselves under the category of satire.
Now knowing the three primary problems with satire, let’s look at a work of satire to see where it fails so utterly. The best choice of satire to rip apart is probably the mind-blowingly doldrum work of Jonathan Swift, “A Modest Proposal”. This hilariously inept article was written in 1729 and it is about the fascinating idea of the Irish selling their children as food for money. The topic sounds interesting enough, but once a person starts the essay, it’s easy to understand why most, if not all, fall asleep after the first sentence. But, in order to critique the genre, we must critique the work, so we must move forward. The problem with the author is an easy one to crack. Of course Swift is self-serving “comedy” writer, like all other Satirists. A Modest Proposal is an easy gateway to this view. The topic of cannibalizing Irish children is a harsh one, and he clearly meant for it to shock and disgust people. Unfortunately, some people were not able to see through his ruse and they fell to him, believing each and every word, as if he actually meant what he wrote. This can only be meant as a very strong indicator of Swift’s soulless “humor”. The problem with the subject is an evident one also. While subject is grotesque, if it were to fall into a much better writer’s hands, it would have become quite an interesting read. In Swift’s hands, this topic just stretches on and on until it becomes babbling rather than any real attempt to make a point. In addition to this, the topic, while interesting, is so laden with political commentary that it becomes a nuisance. But, finally, we shall make our way to the last issue, the confines of “A Modest Proposal”. This topic is so airtight, that one can clearly see Swift trying to stretch out his legs. It’s unfortunate that when Swift tried to stretch, the box only seemed to become smaller. Coarse sarcasm and a constricting topic only serve an unending rant about poverty. He seems to be intent on the eating of children, with no other comments, which is not only boring, but unnerving as well. A Modest Proposal is a failure of an article by a failure of a writer.
