rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/04/85)
Here's a simple test. The following two paragraphs are slightly rearranged examples of articles found in Usenet newsgroups. One of them is satirical. The other one is not. The object of the test is for YOU to determine which of the two is the satirical one, and which is the actual sincere article. You may begin: PARAGRAPH 1: "All you evolutionists have is scientific data. Those of us who know God and speak to God have the real absolute truth that you and your scientific method will never understand. The knowledge I have gotten directly from God tells me just how empty and wrong your ridiculous theories really are. If God didn't create us as it said in the Bible, then why are we here? What is our purpose if not to serve the God who created us? You have failed to show why your empty dead and dry ideas hold even a candle to the truth of God. All the evidence you could possibly offer wouldn't sway me one bit: I have found real truth." PARAGRAPH 2: "All you evolutionists have is scientific data. Those of us who know God and speak to God have the real absolute truth that you and your scientific method will never understand. The knowledge I have gotten directly from God tells me just how empty and wrong your ridiculous theories really are. If God didn't create us as it said in the Bible, then why are we here? What is our purpose if not to serve the God who created us? You have failed to show why your empty dead and dry ideas hold even a candle to the truth of God. All the evidence you could possibly offer wouldn't sway me one bit: I have found real truth." The answer? Paragraph 2 is the satirical one. Isn't it obvious? The author of the second paragraph took every word of the first paragraph and parroted it again, showing just how ridiculous it was. Couldn't you tell that the second author was being satirical? I mean, the notions in the first paragraph are so outrageous, that the second author could clearly show how much so by simply mimicking and reiterating the words of the first author. Confused? OK, let's take the test again, with two new paragraphs: PARAGRAPH 1: "All you evolutionists have is scientific data. Those of us who know God and speak to God have the real absolute truth that you and your scientific method will never understand. The knowledge I have gotten directly from God tells me just how empty and wrong your ridiculous theories really are. If God didn't create us as it said in the Bible, then why are we here? What is our purpose if not to serve the God who created us? You have failed to show why your empty dead and dry ideas hold even a candle to the truth of God. All the evidence you could possibly offer wouldn't sway me one bit: I have found real truth." PARAGRAPH 2: "You heinous irreligious filth! How dare you malign the name of God! You sinners who wouldn't know the word of God if it stepped on you! You're all going straight to hell, all you people who don't know the right way from the wrong way, who do things out of convenience instead of taking responsibility. When God places America in its rightful position in the world, civilization will finally flourish in a truly Christian world ruled by God. It seems that no matter how correct my information may be, there will always be some atheist anti-Christian there to question it and try to knock it down. Such people are limiting everyone's freedom of choice with their suppression of my ideas." The answer? Why, Paragraph #1, of course. Didn't you recognize it as being exactly the same paragraph as Paragraph #2 from the previous example? What's that? You thought Paragraph #2 (in this example) was the satirical one, because it so obviously represented an exaggeration of ideals. No, I'm sorry, this was an actual article. You mean, you thought that obviously the most exaggerated and ridiculous article must be the satirical one? On this net? You thought that satire can be made by just exaggerating and overemphasizing some ridiculous notions in parody format, in this world where the most seemingly exaggerated and ridiculous ideas are the ones genuinely held by actual people? Excuse me, I'm in hysterics. Sorry, you fail HUMOROLOGY 406: SATIRE (as taught by Doug Piranha). Time to go back and take HUMOROLOGY 101: ELEMENTARY THEORY OF HUMOROLOGY AND THE COMEDIC SCIENCES. The moral? In a world where the most seemingly exaggerated and ridiculous ideas ARE in fact the real ideas genuinely held by actual people, simple reiteration of the same "ridiculous" stuff, or even exaggeration of it beyond you're wildest dreams or nightmares, is quite likely not to be interpreted as satire. In fact, by the time you come up with your supposedly satirical exaggeration, someone else may have already come up with a sincere belief that far exceeds your exaggeration. (On the other hand, William Satire's (aka D. Hofstadter's) article on the English language seemed a much clearer and much more effective example of real satire (as posted in net.women, I think). Now, Mr. Deerwester, you may see why I had to put the satire warning label on my article on my religious experience: it wasn't clear that that's what it was from the text alone. And if that's the case, well, that's why God invented smileys... :-) (P.S. HUMOROLOGY 101 may be offered later this month in net.jokes . Stay tuned...) -- "Which three books would *you* have taken?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr