Your participation opportunity (due by 8pm Wednesday) is as follows: Chaucer uses satire in his attempt to effect social change. Huxley, on the other hand, prefers a more somber tone in Brave New World. Which method is the more effective way to communicate with an audience AND cause change: humor or seriousness? You can use literature you've studied either this year or in the past to support your claim.
Remember to go in depth and WRITE AS AN HONORS STUDENT SHOULD: no grammatical/spelling errors, varied and impressive sentence structure, and ideas explored exhaustively!
Here's another one of my favorite parodies of all time: ESPN's SportsCenter reimagined by Key & Peele. It'll be pretty obvious to you why I enjoy it so much:
Miya Kaiser
ReplyDeleteA more serious tone in a book provides a better and more efficient way to communicate with an audience and cause meaningful change. A serious tone should be used because of the way we perceive an atmosphere. In a tense and somber environment we are more likely to approach and read a story or other article of reading with a realistic mindset. For example, while reading Brave New World, I did not know what I was getting myself into. However, as I delved further I realized the cautious mindset I needed to have for this dystopian novel. I tried to look for hidden meanings and more explanations through small hints and my ability to read between the lines. If Huxley took a more humorous approach, I do not think I would be able to take some of the scenes serious enough to effectively analyze and understand his message about this close-to-home dystopian society. With a humorous tone, I find it hard to take seriously and usually take it of that sort with a grain of salt. For example, in Family Guy, there can often be a hidden message behind the silly and crude exterior. Although there is a message being portrayed, it goes mostly ignored since we focus much more on the funny dialogue and circumstances. Because of this, I believe that a more serious atmosphere conveys a message far better than that of a funny one, with the lesson being clearly stated.
To a larger scaled audience, I personally believe humor is a more effective way to cause change. Comedy is able to impact every person. Often times serious messages can get lost in translation to specific audiences, because not everyone seeks out a message of societal change, not everyone wants to hear and attentively listen to a lecture of humanity’s faults. What people enjoy and understand is comedy. Jokes communicate to viewers or readers and allow one to see the humor and the wrong in something. When we laugh at something, it’s never anything beneficial or positively impactful. The jokes our world laughs at, are the ones that belittle a subject, or negatively bring down a topic, which while we think it is funny, it is also instilling a subconsciously negative perspective on that said subject.
ReplyDeleteFor example, in Brave New World, we read specifically of the harsh consequences to a morally corrupt society, whereas in a piece of satire, a joke could be made about how our entire world’s perfectly amazing, with wars and poverty and everything. Both sides highlight why society is corrupt, however satire further relates itself to everyday people and is directly able to be understood, without persistent allusions and metaphors. (Such things being a necessity, however in terms of complete change, not everyone would process the entire message.) Both BNW and satire could allow one to recognize and understand society’s flaws, however satire allows for a broader audience to comprehend the message needing to be expressed, simply because everyone is looking for humor in their life. Sadly, not everyone is looking to read a 200 page novel on why we shouldn’t let society lose moral integrity.
I believe that using serious or deep language is more effective both to communicate with an audience and to cause social change. Although satire is both humorous and informative of the author’s view of society, I believe that the use of seriousness is more effective because it is more direct. For me personally, I feel that I am more likely to reflect on literature that is meant to be taken seriously, as opposed to literature that also serves comedic purposes. I do believe that satire is a very effective way to communicate issues to a specific audience, however I feel that some people might become offended at whatever is being mocked in the literary piece. This might actually cause the opposite of what the intended effect was in a society. While reading satire, you must have a specific mindset, which I feel limits the influence of satirical language to a certain audience, whereas serious language is more straightforward, which, in a sense, makes it almost easier to understand. I feel that audiences might be more defensive when reading satirical literature, where a society’s issues are being made fun of, as opposed to reading more serious literature. In my opinion, serious literature enables the author to clearly communicate their perspective and observations of society, while also leaving room for the interpretation and thoughts of the reader. Not only does it allow clear communication, but it also gives the author a platform from which to effect social change. I believe that seriousness is not only able to convey a deeper message more clearly, but also can create a base that can be built upon to enact actual changes in society. Satire, on the other hand, might cause readers to miss the message the author is trying to convey, therefore not allowing a basis for social change. The use of seriousness in literature is able to distinctly show that the author is talking about a specific issue, which would make it easier to cause social changes in the author’s intended direction. Although I do think that the use of satire can be extremely effective in some cases, as a whole, I believe that seriousness in literature is the more effective way to communicate with an audience and cause change.
ReplyDeleteMaddie Yeh
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I believe that a more serious, direct tone is an effective way to communicate to the audience and cause change. While satire cannot be undermined, a direct message will reach the audience easier, therefore causing more change. Satire is not as effective, as sometimes the audience cannot distinguish if it is actually satire. The jokes and points may go over one's head, making the message pointless. A serious tone on the other hand eliminates this possibility. This allows the message to reach more people. Brave New World is a great example of this, effectively using a serious tone to resonate in the reader. The book creates a somber mood that is effective in telling the reader what the book really is about.
ReplyDeleteI believe that seriousness is a more effective way to communicate and cause change. This is because if people read and understand the seriousness of what is really going on in their world, then they will notice that and start to pay more attention to it. Humor, on the other hand, can be a good way to get readers to laugh at what is going on, but it probably will not inspire as much change as seriousness. With humor, people are supposed to laugh at all the wrong things in their society. The problem with that is more often then not, people might just take all the silliness as a joke, and miss the whole point of the author. If an author writes in a serious tone, once the reader figures that out, then he/she will know that the author is trying to get a point across. Usually, the reader will pick up on more details about their society when reading a serious book versus a satirical book. For example, while reading BNW, once I got to the end and i figured out why John killed himself, it made me take a step back to try and figure out all the problems with the World State. As I looked back over the book, I was able to pick up on more details than I did when I read it the first time. Huxley uses some satire in BNW, but it is mostly written in a serious tone. If BNW was written as a satirical novel, I probably wouldn't have been as shocked when John killed himself to get away from all the problems. I would have just laughed at how wrong the World State was, and I might have just missed out on what Huxley was trying to say. Because of these reasons, I believe that seriousness would inspire more people to take a look at their own society or life and cause change.
ReplyDeleteToby Wakefield-Carl
I believe that the best way to communicate with an audience and cause change is Chaucer’s satire tone. I believe this because if a moral is delivered with funny jokes and positive reinforcement, then it will be much easier to remember and communicate with the audience. In contrast to Brave New World’s much edgier tone, which was harder to understand because the moral is hidden behind too many symbolisms, that you have to analyze to piece together the theme of the novel. In Brave New World, the theme was constantly drilled into your head that a loss of individuality would lead to a loss to humanity as a whole. But if the theme is subversively used in a much more entertaining manor, the concept will not be seen as trite and in Brave New World, each time it is presented, it would seem new and memorable. In this little way, it can cause change because unlike Huxley, which gives you a seeming unfamiliarity with the theme as a whole, the introduction of jokes will make the concept easier to digest, and thus will be shared more easily. Compared to Brave New World, a reader has to read the novel as a whole to get the meaning, unlike Chaucer who just has to tell and retell a simple joke to spread the meaning of his novel. This would ultimately lead to the familiarity and acceptance of the change that is needed for the society he is exclaims about.
ReplyDeleteTiffany Cha
In trying to spread change, I think a more serious tone as Huxley uses in BNW is more effective than Chaucer’s approach of using satire. When a tone with humor, and satire is used, then you must uncover the meaning of the satire, and the message behind it, but with a straightforward, and serious tone the message, and intention is clearly displayed. With Huxley’s approach of seriousness, the message, and the themes were easy to understand, but when using satire, it requires more effort, and deeper thinking.
ReplyDeleteWith humor, I think that when trying to spread change you will be taken as a joke, but when you are using seriousness to cause change you are taken seriously. With a humorous approach that Chaucer uses the audiences might be engaged more with the message, than with a serious tone.
In BNW overall the tone was serious, but if it has a humorous tone in my opinion the book would not have had the same impact. An example of a satire novel is Animal Farm, which uses the approach of humor, and satire to take a stand against Stalinism by having animals take over a farm. In animal farm the novel would not have had the same impact without talking animals, which represents. the use of satire. In animal farm the change in society trying to be made is to rebel against Stalinism shown using humor. The animals in Animal Farm each representing an actual character of the Russian revolution is also a use of humor, such as Old Major representing Karl Marx, and Snowball Joseph Stalin. In BNW Huxley uses metaphors and a very stale tone instead of humor to spread the message of societies view of true happiness. With Huxley’s tone, it is easier to understand the message, than with the tone of Animal Farm, as an example. With a more straightforward tone, then in my opinion the message is more straightforwardly seen.
The use of humor at the expense others is what is known as satire and an enjoyable T.V. show that I watch is the Daily Show. Most of the content that Trevor Noah talks about is satire because of how he pokes fun at other people's views or stupidity. However, from a news broadcaster point of view then, I could consider it a parody because of how they are pretending to be journalists when they are comedians. Overall, they mostly make fun of politics, world news, event, politicians, and more. The reason I enjoy the Daily Show is because they make the news more enjoyable and not as dull as it is on other news networks. It’s funny because of the amount of irony it uses against our own politicians to make them seem more relatable to everyday individuals. The show also makes it easier to understand and keep up to date on political events for someone like me who doesn’t understand politics. I think that the content the Daily Show televises is both satire and parody because they sometimes can make people laugh without hurting other people's feelings. However, most of their comedic routine is satire which I find enjoyable. One sketch that I found enjoyable was Covfefe: Based on a True Typo. The reason they did this sketch is because Trump tweeted #covfefe one time and the media was trying to figure what it meant. So, the Daily Show then proceeded to make fun of Trumps messes up tweets. The sketch begins with Trevor Noah playing the boy named covfefe who doesn’t know the meaning of his name and swims from Africa to New York then supposedly swims to D.C. .Then the ‘’little boy’’ finds the president and asks him what the meaning of his name is.. I find it funny because there finding a funny way of saying that Trump messed up a tweet and now started this whole mess. The Daily Show has a funny way of telling the population news about important people but make sure it doesn’t bore its viewers. Satire can be used in this way, but I feel that it’s not appropriate in other circumstances with the in tention to make another feel intentionally hurt. Trevor Noah knows how to communicate to others so that he has their attention and can tell those about daily life problems we need to know which is helpful and I feel many others should watch also.
ReplyDeleteSatire is an effective way to bring about social change. I have read many satirical books for and out of school, and they all have taught me important themes and morals. However, when looking back at these novels, the ones that stuck with me the most are included but not limited to; Animal Farm, The Martian Chronicles, Mort, The Princes Bride, and Good Omens. When observing them, they all seem to have one thing in common; humor. While these books portrayed thought provoking story lines and a deep criticism on mankind, they also left me grinning or even chuckling at their unconventional situations and witty dialogue.
ReplyDeleteWhile serious works may also effectively condemn society, comedy is more efficient because it keeps the reader engaged. The most astounding satire can mean nothing if the reader is bored and not paying close attention to what they are reading. Serious movies and plays often have comedy laced throughout to give the reader some relief from the constant somber plotline and make the issues seem more important by comparison. Even some preachers use comedy to keep their audience listening.
Life is not constantly somber. When writing relatable or comedic scenes in stories, the author can better connect with their reader and have them understand what they are trying to convey. The reader can think back to a moment in their life like that, and then better place themselves in the character’s position. A meaning is pointless if someone cannot understand it.
Depending on the audience as well as the themes and intent of the work, satire or seriousness can be the most effective avenue for an author. However, in an attempt to cause social change, satire is by all means the best way to communicate, for it shocks and appalls readers, leading them to think more about society's flaws and how to change them for the better. It is most effectively used when it is least expected (i.e. for subjects and themes it seen by readers as too serious for humor, such as war, violence, and politics). In Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughter-House Five", World War 2 experiences of prisoners of war were mixed with aliens to show the absolute horrors of war. The course of the novel is ridiculous, with Billy Pilgrim fighting in the American Army in World War 2, before witnessing the Dresden Bombing, after which he was able to return home, only to be abucted by aliens. The aliens are all-knowing, as well as cynical, their words on death simply amounting to "so it goes". Billy is put on display for these aliens, who see him simply as an entertaining specimen, after which he lives in a time loop. Pilgrim's story is starkly anti-war, attempting to show the world that is nothing but exploitative and degrading. The method by which Vonnegut tells the story transports readers out of their personal world and makes war laughable and provocative, and creates a sense of pointlessness. Satire is effective in such a case because society has been so conditioned to believe that war is just and cannot be ridiculed, that the most effective method of writing would need to shock readers. of course, serious writings greatly impact culture and can cause social and political change, but satire finds a way to help culture to realize that society can be so ridiculous and evil.
ReplyDeleteMost bibliophiles have read different examples of authors using humor and seriousness to communicate their ideas. These authors decided whether to use humor or seriousness based on the situation or the topic. It is important that authors know when and where to use such ways of communication, because if they are used in the wrong situations, chances are they won’t convey the message or have the intended effects. This can be very difficult, as all readers are different, and grasp the author’s messages in different ways. For example in the movie Fantastic Mr. Fox, the writer uses humor to portray the message of how animals will always be animals at heart no matter what. In this scenario humor is able to get the message across, as the message isn’t extremely serious or deep. However, if an author was trying to explain his/her opinions on gun control, they might not necessarily use humor to do so.
ReplyDeleteThe task of using satire is hard enough, but also making sure one uses the correct method is even more difficult. Because it is not easy to communicate social change to each different audience, authors will choose which way best-suits the book. Chaucer and Huxley successfully do this because they keep the tone of their book the same throughout, and make sure that it will cause their attempts at social change to reach their readers. In order to create social change in some instances, the writing has to be very powerful, and life-changing. However, this can also be achieved in other situations that can involve humor. So overall, I believe that both humor and seriousness are effective ways for authors to cause social change as long as they use either tone in the right situations.
To communicate his or her feelings, beliefs, and messages to an audience, the author has a wide array of styles and approaches. Speaking from my perspective, I believe the somber, serious approach has more of an impact compared to a satirical one. While humorous satire is funny to read and intends to cause change through ridiculing a subject, it is not as effective as a serious writing style. In order for satire to work as intended, the audience must understand the point of view of the author and background for the story. While Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales are widespread and famous, a smaller, newer book would not have as much exposure therefore rendering the satirical point of view useless. In addition, if the audience is naïve or inexperienced, they might miss the message of the novel as a whole. In contrast, a serious book can connect to the reader on a deeper level. It also brings the problem at hand in front of the audience without beating around the bush. Grave and somber speeches are told after catastrophes to reflect the magnitude of the event. In a case such like this, using satire would be incongruous and out of place. A piece of literature such as To Kill a Mockingbird exemplifies the importance and value of a serious aspect. Specifically, when Tom Robinson’s death was being announced, the ambiance and atmosphere was dark and tense, both within and outside of the novel. While satire could deliver the same message on “Segregation is bad”, seriousness does so in a way that creates empathy and care. Another example showing the importance of solemn attitude would be Of Mice and Men. As George picks which choice to follow through with, he represents a moral dilemma and the difficulties of right versus wrong. Satire could never build up such sorrow, pain, and anguish that George and the audience experienced. In conclusion, while satire is influential to readers, seriousness is more effective in fomenting change and communicating ideas.
ReplyDeleteI think that while both humor and seriousness have their merits, it is within seriousness that lies the most effective communication method. As much as I enjoy humor, I feel that at times the point is lost with it. While humor can make a situation more lighthearted and better relays a point, it’s true purpose can sometimes become convoluted and fails in conveying it’s purpose.
ReplyDeleteThe main reason I believe that seriousness is so effective in regards to communication is that at least for me, I pay close attention to books with such a tone. While BNW was dreadfully boring at times, I realized that the serious tone forced me to pay closer attention to the book. I knew that as sophomore year came along that books required critical analysis. A book like BNW was filled with symbolism and the tone had to play a large role. While I do believe that Aldous Huxley was slightly satirical in his writing, he did employ an overall somber tone. The way the book is narrated at first can be seen as boring but as you start getting to words like orgy porgies and scent organs, you take a step back. You reread the passage and try to figure out what just happened and why. Now, even with a boring tone, the book becomes interesting and keeps you on your feet as it forces you to think. I knew that the summer reading would come back so when I saw unfamiliar terms I perused the passages again and again. Books like BNW force you to think to truly comprehend the book and relay it’s message. While humor does this as well I feel as if some humor can be lost and with that it’s message. But with a serious tone, everybody always pays attention which makes it the better version of communication.
Literature is a great platform to communicate ideas and stir changes within societies. In reading and analyzing two examples of literature, both very different styles, I was able to observe the impact each style have on readers. Although both humor and seriousness can be effective, I think that humor is more effective. However, I do believe that one isn't better than another, but rather a matter of the readers' perspectives and opinions and differ from one reader to another.
ReplyDeleteOne of the greatest advantages of humor is that it can reach and relate to a wider audience. When the novel is very serious, come can perceive that to be unwelcoming and intimidating, which ruins the whole purpose of the work of literature for authors want more people to read it. In contrast, when reading a humorous book, it is more inviting to pick up and start reading. In this way, it reaches a wider audience.
Secondly, humor can settle into the minds of readers without them realizing it. When reading serious novels, many readers intentionally try to find the message and sometimes that can be damaging. However, with humor, the message or idea of the book can settle into readers' minds without them even noticing. The message is felt, rather than found. It has a way of not forcing readers into believing one thing, but rather easing them into it.
Lastly, humorous works of literature can help put things into perspective. When problems and flaws of the society are demonstrated in a serious book, it can seem very daunting and hopeless. But when written in a more carefree, easy method, it can make the problem seem more approachable and less intimidating. Thus, it invites people to solve the problem and make changes.
Various types of literature containing both satire and seriousness have sparked immense communication and change in the past. With that being said, I believe that both satire and seriousness have their own ways of conveying conversation and change in our world. To begin, satire implements comedic conversations, keeping the piece of literature more light hearted and entertaining. But, works like Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales show that satire can be easily missed if not closely studied. Chaucer masters the art of subtly “roasting” characters in his literature. These subtle remarks are not easily caught by the reader, and must be intricately studied, processed, and conversed upon. But when understood thoroughly, satire can prompt an audience to contemplate and interpret social issues that are present in today’s society.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, the author in Brave New World approaches the novel with a somber and serious mood. Huxley decides to use no comedic sentences or diction in order to communicate that he is not writing this for entertainment purposes. He implements a serious mood to display how this novel should be exemplified as a cautionary tale. Another cautionary tale that grabs the reader’s attention is Maus, a graphic novel written by Art Spiegelman. In this frame tale, Spielgelman uses no satire or comedy while retelling the story of his father’s survival during the Holocaust. It was a serious and heavy hearted novel. With no comedy being implemented, it leaves the reader with several heavy topics on their heart. This type of literature is straight to the point, with no verbal irony to puzzle and entertain the reader. I believe that this is why Maus and BNW had such a meaningful impact on all of the audience.
Personally, I believe that seriousness has done a more efficient job at sparking dialogue and creating change. With that being said, satire can surely do the same, but I believe that it is not as impactful as some works of seriousness have been. The frame tale Maus and the cautionary tale BNW both convey a somber tone. This is the only effective way to impact change because of the plot. One could not be cracking jokes while reminiscing about the Holocaust. Not only would it be extremely inappropriate, but in no way would it have a lasting effect on the reader. As all readers know, a lasting impression leads to social change.
To send a message and inspire change, the use of satire is more effective. The humor present in satire helps to inform an audience of criticism through irony. The satirical approach uses literary techniques that are much easier to pick up on when compared to the ones found in a more serious approach. In satire, irony or sarcasm is primarily used, which can be detected easily when approached with an ironic frame of mind and a simple understanding of the ideas being talked about. On the other hand, serious work uses a greater variety of more complicated literary devices like diction, allusions, syntax, comparisons, etc. These devices are much more difficult to recognize because they require a scholarly mind to understand. Understanding these techniques needs an understanding of many more complicated ideas like other works, definitions, and more. Satire also is more effective at causing change because it is more easily understood. So, more people can see and comprehend that something requires change when it is satirically criticized.
ReplyDeleteIn “Brave New World” many literary devices are used to show what society should not be like or become, but its complex nature makes it significantly more difficult to figure out what message is trying to be spread. Compared to satirical works like “Animal Farm” and “The Canterbury Tales”, “Brave New World” requires more knowledge to understand its message. In these satirical works, the writing is much simpler and most of the criticism about society are made through irony. “Animal Farm” uses comedic and ironic portrayals of aspects of the Soviet Union to spread its message of the Soviet Union’s corrupt society. Chaucer uses ironic descriptions in the prologue of “The Canterbury Tales” to criticize the medieval society of his time. Both of these have messages that are much easier to recognize once the commonly used irony is detected. Overall, satire communicates a message better through strong irony that can be noticed effortlessly, leading to more individuals understanding and causing change in a subject.
While seriousness is often more informative and straight forward,humor has the ability to grab the reader’s attention and keep them reading. However, humor is not always the answer. Seriousness can set the mood which is especially shown in Brave New World. The seriousness emphasizes the calm and emotionless mood in the novel.
ReplyDeleteDepending on the scenario, both can effectively communicate with an audience and can cause change shown with Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales and Huxley’s Brave New World. Overall, satire is more effective. The comedic effect of satire will allow the overall message to be better remembered whereas a boring serious novel may easily be forgotten. An example of this in teaching might be lectures and presentations. Lectures are straightforward and the information is clearly displayed but can get repetitive. In presentations humour and analogies are often used which help the student remember more information. The student also has the ability to interpret some information on their own, come to a conclusion and discuss. Using humour can also allow the student to further relate to the lesson.
A book like March: Book One has a more serious tone because it is a serious topic. The book is about civil rights movements in the 1900’s and is an important part of US history. The story is serious but still entertaining at the same time. This book was written for social change and was successful by using a serious tone. A book like Animal Farm uses satire and each character is portrayed as an animal. Each character and event relates to the Russian revolution. The book accurately relates the events from the book with real events that actually took place and informs the reader about the revolution with humor. The use of animals in the novel may help the reader get a better understanding in contrast to learning from a history textbook, which do not use humour.
While a dichotomy exists between satire and seriousness, both approaches to communication and social change can be effective. Which method is more effective, I believe, depends on the writer, the context, and the issue at hand. With grave issues of deep concern, particularly with today’s audience, I find a message is better communicated in a somber manner, as opposed to a mocking tone. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and Chaucer's Canterbury Tales use these opposing methods in order to urge society to assess and address the faults and hypocrisy of their own community.
ReplyDeleteIn Huxley's Brave New World, a cautionary tale is told in a serious manner, attempting to warn society about the power of increasing technology, and how that affects the citizens’ morality and life decisions. In using such a serious tone, Huxley shows that this issue is not one to be passed over, ignored, or glossed; it is not an issue for levity or laughter. For example, Huxley discusses the genetic engineering of babies with rigid, professional diction. This fits with the mood of the literature and conveys to the reader the danger inherent in this practice. The reader will not interpret this scene as a joke, or something silly or remote, as a result of Huxley’s austere tone. His techniques almost scare the reader into preventing the horrid possibilities from occurring and, as such, cause society to change.
In contrast, Chaucer uses a mocking, satirical tone in order to show the hypocrisies of the Middle Ages. This style accurately conveys his message, and allows his opinion to be shared without too much controversy. If not written in this manner, nobles and clergy of his time may have opposed him, challenged him, and possibly punished him. They certainly could have ridiculed and diminished his work. So, while his approach was appropriate for his time and audience, I believe Chaucer's mocking technique is less effective in stimulating social change. When describing a character with such ridicule, the message Chaucer attempts to convey is often interpreted as a "joke" by the inexperienced reader. His funny and humiliating descriptions of characters are difficult for some to take seriously, and so his message becomes lost. However, I believe that Chaucer's satirical writing allows the reader to recognize her or his own faults and shortcomings. This realization then urges the person and society to change and better themselves.
Both styles are effective to communicate and cause change, but I side with Huxley’s somber critique. A message can be lost or easily forgotten through the use of satire due to the comical nature in which such lessons are illustrated. A somber tone in writing can shock readers into thinking twice about society’s behavior and its ramifications, thus more effectively spurring social change.
JJ Abele
The most effective way to communicate with an audience and cause change is through satire and humor. Satire and humor able the reader to connect on a more relaxed and relatable level. The relaxed environment helps the reader feel more in control of how they can think and be able to formulate their opinions on a certain situation. The light-heartedness of satire allows the reader to feel less pressured into needing to be persuaded into thinking a certain way. An example of satire is Animal Farm. In Animal Farm, George Orwell uses satire to inform the reader of the Russian Revolution and as a way to show how terribly the government and leaders ran the country and treated their people. The lightheartedness of having animals portray the leaders of Russian helps keep the reader engaged on the topic of the Russian Revolution and make their own opinions on how they believe the leaders could have led better and how the people could have responded. Although more relaxed and less serious than other forms of writing, the idea is still able to be portrayed effectively through how serious the situation would be to the characters in the story. If the reader were to insert themselves into the book as one of the characters, they would understand how it would be serious to the animals on the farm. But from the reader’s point of view, Animal Farm, could be read as a story by itself without the aspect of the Russian Revolution about how animals could live on a day to day basis. The fun of the animals representing people or ideas allow an alternative for memorization for the reader to remember important events in history. For example, whenever the Russian Revolution will be mentioned, I will remember of how pigs are walking of their hind legs in the end of the book and how angry I was at the other animals for not realizing they had been cheated. In my head I could relate the pigs and other barnyard animals to other aspects of the Revolution, something a textbook could never have taught me. These ideas can effectively be communicated and cause change through satire.
ReplyDeleteHumor seems to have a more lasting effect than seriousness. Humor has the undeniable quality that can leave a lasting mark on someone. Most of my life lessons have been both from my parents, but mostly from The Office. The tangibility humor has on people’s characters and actions in real life are unique. Humor has the power to use hyperboles in numerous ways. Satirical exaggerations have been communicated to people for the longest time. Propoganda posters mocking enemies in a satirical way have inspired people and gained support many times throughout history. Humor also makes it easier for readers to memorize or understand the message being communicated. More people experience a humorous incident than serious dilemmas. Although seriousness might be easier to notice, it is a lot easier fully comprehend satirical points once a little bit of thought is put into a certain phrase. With that, more people will be able to understand the little queues and changes of tone in humorous and sarcastic comments made in literature. A short story called The Princess and The Tin Box, which was read in freshman year, is a story of a princess who is being courted by five princes from neighboring kingdoms. The first four give flamboyant, expensive, and extremely unnecessary gifts for the princess. However the last prince is explained to not be the richest, or the handsomest, however he gives a tinbox able to hold the jewelry given to the princess, and was said to be made with love. Many would assume that that last prince would be chosen by the princess for the effort put into his gift. However it bluntly ends her choosing one of the more objective gifts. Depending on the way someone takes it, as funny or sad, the ending is in one way or another very funny. Readers up until the last line think that the fifth prince will be selected, but the author teaches us in a very sad but humorous way that people care more about meaningless but expensive than cheap but meaningful. The author lets our hopes down in a very unexpected way, but the idea of that still resonates through me a year from the first time I read it, giving an example of how cohesive humorous lessons can be.
ReplyDeleteHumor, I believe is the most effective method to communicate with an audience and cause change. It's used through satire in the Canterbury Tales. Chaucer has characters that make a mockery of the Catholic Church and society during the Middle Ages. For example, the Nun is shown to care more about her appearance, animals, and love rather than putting God first before all of this. Nuns are supposed to pious and humble individuals, but Chaucer paints an image of her in our mind that she has none of this traits. The humor in this that Chaucer shows us the corruption of the Church at this time period. He is trying to send us a message that the Church has to change and make attempts at reform. Making a joke of anything, helps to point out the negatives in an effort to change something. Chaucer's description of the Nun, makes the reader analyze the character, in an effort to understand the deeper meaning of the text. We've understood the peculiarities of the character, and pointed out what the author wants us to tell us. From the prologue, the nun is shown in the text, to be very neat or clean, loves animals, wears nice clothing, and is interested in love. The biggest peculiarity of the nun is she's in love, but that's forbidden by Church decree. Nuns practice celibacy, or avoidance of love or getting into relationships. Chaucer wants us to understand hypocrisy in the doctrine of the Church. Everyone has to follow rules set by the Catholic Church, except it's own members who are exempt from it. Also, by this time period, many of the popes and monks married and had kids which is absolute hypocrisy. Through satirizing this characters, Chaucer has given the big picture of what that means to us overall.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Chaucer uses satire in his Canterbury Tales to inflict social change, I believe that rather than satire, being serious and brutally honest is more effective in forcing a society to look up and realize what they’ve been blindly following. Using humor is a way of grabbing the attention of people and making a possibly bland subject suddenly become tasteful. However, the amount of entertainment in a book or story isn’t what should be measured in certain topics about serious subjects. If someone is talking about a serious subject, such as a sickened family member, then why would they attempt to use humor as a way of telling it? Humor and real problems in the real world aren’t the proper way an author or person should try to inflict change. The only way to truly get a point across is to look it dead in the eye and say it, not skip around it hoping that it will be picked up on.
ReplyDeleteThere are several examples as to why the use of satire isn’t a wise choice when it comes to talking about serious subjects that have the purpose of change. Brave New World, for instance, isn’t a book that is intended to be taken lightly. It is, in all seriousness, a book flat-out-saying that our morals are what make up our humanity. It discusses the mistakes of people in the eyes of an author that was ahead of his own time. If Huxley,the author of Brave New World, had chosen to write his book as a satire, it would most definitely not have the same kind of impact on the readers. Serious matters require serious explanations, and simply poking fun at all that is wrong in a society isn’t the way that will truly change anyone’s set-in-stone mind about their personal lifestyle. Humor will reach out to some people, yes, but there is a difference between reaching out and meeting with.
In Chaucer’s time he might of originally wanted to write his book to not be a satire because he knew the truth of his society and wanted to display it. However, that decision was likely going to eventually lead to his deathbed, as ideas ideas in the 1400’s were set and reserved. Huxley, on the other hand, was in a completely different time frame that allowed him to socially challenge the beliefs of a society in which what he believed was losing its moral integrity. Both brilliantly talented authors, both ahead of their time, expect one decided to write a book that would somewhat inflict change but would also keep him alive. Both are brave decisions, but in Chaucer’s case, his idea of what would inflict and effect people in his written about society is likely right. And for Huxley, his choice was right as well. But what makes satire ineffective is that it can be perceived as (for the lack of better words), a joke. It may mean something but it is the matter of if the readers understand that certain something, and if they don’t then the satire has no purpose. Overall, being serious is how to get people to listen and to make changes for the better good in result of that choice.
Social change does not come immediately: changing a society takes decades. Chaucer uses satire throughout The Canterbury Tales to criticize injustices within his society. On the contrary, in Brave New World, Huxley has no need for comic relief to convey his cautionary message to the audience. I believe that a more somber tone in any format, e.g. movies, news reporting, or fiction, allows an audience to truly ponder the deeper themes within. A good laugh lasts a couple of seconds while a serious idea can last an eternity.
ReplyDeleteThe usage of satire within The Canterbury Tales provides readers with humorous entertainment. A laugh is a one time thing, as jokes are usually only laughable at once. Also when one laughs, they lose sight of everything except what is comical to them in the given moment. A more somber tone does not distract readers with emotions like laughter. Some novels, like To Kill a Mockingbird, allow readers to take in more than what is written on the page without using satire. Readers are allowed to think of themes without the distraction of bubbling laughter and comical thoughts. Within these somber works, readers must think deeper, putting their minds to work to obtain the overall underlying message. While both works with and without satirical elements try to expose wrongdoings within a society, I believe that a satirical elements simply distracts.
Perhaps the most effective way to communicate a message is to use a mixture of satire and serious tones. A satirical aspect to a work provides entertainment and grabs the attention of all. Then a sad ending, as in Brave New World, hits audiences with a punch reality to drive home the message. This could be especially effective since today’s population is accustomed to the happy endings portrayed in the media, by Hollywood and popular TV Shows. A combination of the two would be more like a person’s life as it provides the highs and lows like we experience normally. To have the advantages of the two would be the best way, communicating a message with much power to all.
In order for changes to be made, people need to come together, acknowledge the problem, and take action. Usually, when authors use humor to highlight a problem, such as in Geoffrey Chaucer’s collection of stories, The Canterbury Tales, people thoroughly enjoy the literature for its humor, but don’t always pick up on the underlying messages of the story. However, when a more serious, somber tone is used to speak out about an issue, for example in Aldous Huxley’s novel, Brave New World, the message is much more straightforward and easily understood.
ReplyDeleteAlthough satirical literature might reach out to a larger audience, as people are inclined to choose a humorous novel over a somber one, the messages of the story are not plainly stated. In order to fully understand the issues that the author presents while using satire, critical thinking and deep analysis is often required, which not everyone allocates time for after completing a book. Most people, when reading for pleasure, will finish a book and move on to the next novel they see. People usually do not spend the time to sit for awhile and actually consider the many ideas the author has slipped in between the lines of the novel. Also, satirical literature uses sarcasm, which can be confusing for many people. The greatest clue that sarcasm is being used is a person’s tone as they are speaking, but since tone cannot always be heard with the eyes, sarcasm can easily be misinterpreted when reading quickly.
In contrast to satirical literature, authors who use a more serious tone are able to communicate their message much more openly. Regardless of what tone is used, the reader must analyze the literature thoroughly in order to understand the messages conveyed, but if the story is written in a more serious tone, it is more apparent that the author is presenting his or her thoughts on an issue which requires analysis to be understood. People also are more likely to pay careful attention when the author uses a somber tone, because it emphasizes the importance of the topic at hand. When satirical literature uses humor, readers might simply have a good laugh and forget about the true meaning of the story, since a humorous tone does not carry the same weight as a somber tone.
Although it can be argued both ways, my opinion is that seriousness is a more effective way to communicate with an audience and cause change than humor. Although satire can bring readers to laugh, it does not always allow the reader to have time to deeply think about the message behind what they had just read in between each giggle. On the other hand, seriousness gives a sense of sadness which provokes certain emotions into contemplating what is really occurring in the piece of work they are reading.
ReplyDeleteIn Brave New World, Aldous Huxley gives a warning to the reader about how dangerous society can turn into and he does that in a serious tone of voice. This seriousness enforces the reader into thinking “wow, this is seriously important”, which can lead to a better understanding and communication to the novel. This is a similar case to if a parent speaks to his/her child in a serious tone of voice, the child is more likely to listen carefully. On the contrary, a parent who speaks to his or her child in a joking way will not be taken seriously and the child may dismiss I his/her head what the parent had just said.
For example, in Animal Farm, it is a huge and important example of satire, in fact the entire book contains satire. But, in my opinion, I think that having all the characters meant to be real people of Russia as animals was extremely distracting. I was distracted by the fact that I had to constantly remind myself of which animal is meant to be which person. Having that thought in the back of my mind while reading prevented me from fully grasping the idea of the Russian Revolution meant to be portrayed in the book. I believe if I were to have read a book with more seriousness, I would understand the point that the author is trying to make more efficiently. Although satire is funny and possibly more entertaining, a serious tone delivers true communication of the reader to the book and thoughts of change to society.
In Brave New World, Huxley took a more serious path in order to put across the points he believed were subject to change. Chaucer is taking a more contrasting path in using satire to display his ideas to improve society. In my opinion, the method that is the most effective to communicate with an audience and cause change is satire. The reason I believe satire is the best method for both of these factors is since it makes the novel more engaging. A novel I read last year that was very memorable to me was Animal Farm. In Animal Farm, the author, George Orwell, satirized the current issues in the Soviet Union with animals who live on a farm. One example of an animal that was supposed to represent a real-life group was the pigs. The pigs in this novel represented the leaders of the Soviet Union such as Stalin and Lenin. The reason Orwell used pigs in order to describe the Soviet Union leaders was since pigs are commonly known to be one of the most intelligent animals on a farm. However, pigs are also notoriously known for their uncleanliness and only caring for themselves which could relate to the leaders of the Soviet Union since they were well-known to put their needs higher than their country’s needs. This satire is a great way to show to the reader the faults of each social class and leader in a ridiculing yet engaging sort of way.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of using a more somber and serious tone such as in Brave New World, there would be an impact for social change and a solid way to communicate to the audience, but it would not be as effective as using satire. In Brave New World, Huxley uses brainwashed and government-controlled people to show to the reader the horrors of the impending future if technology and certain plagues on this current society keep advancing. Using a serious tone in order to create social change may strike fear into the audience that reads this type of novel, but it would not be as engaging and as much of an effect on people like satire would do. For example, when Linda, John’s mother, takes so much soma that she is given a life expectancy of a couple months, this gives the reader a warning to be aware of the effect drugs have on people. Even though Linda was separated from the civilized world for such a long time, the desire for soma was never lost and this eventually became her downfall. Although this is a very emotional scene, the seriousness of the moment does not paint an image as well as satire would do. Even though my opinion on the effectiveness of both satire and seriousness may be different than others, I still do believe both are valid tools in order to show the reader social changes that must take place in order to create a better society.
It's impossible to debate this topic without the recognition of Poe’s law. The core idea presented by this law is that “a parody of something extreme can be mistaken for the real thing, and if a real thing sounds extreme enough, it can be mistaken for a parody”, in which case all parodies are intrinsically extreme. Satire always comes with the dangers of evoking the opposite effect if presented unsuccessfully. However in terms of an unsuccessful work, humor isn’t dependent on the producer, but the consumer as humor is completely subjective. People hold a difference basis of what is considered funny, or what is “supposed” to be funny. We’ve often experienced times when sarcasm wasn’t understood. And we can’t blame them. That’s why comedians can’t possibly appeal to every audience member, but only with people who share the same background knowledge, vibe, and tolerance. A serious tone may not be as dynamically appealing as telling jokes, but it communicates with a wider range of audiences of different backgrounds, and with no mistake. It's straightforward and doesn’t undertone another take (unless the work is a satire presented in a serious tone). It’s easier for people to take in the literal picture than to question the bigger message in a satire. Additionally satire is a subtle form of bullying, and cowardly without presenting logical explanation to backup their message. Satire in its essence is hostility disguised as humor. Humor can of course bring social change, but it can also be seen as an unnecessary component to communicate a message.
ReplyDeleteAlyssa Matsuzaki
I believe Huxley's way of using seriousness is more effective in communicating with the audience and causing change. The first problem with using humor is that it can be outdated. Chaucer's humor is based on satire and physical characteristics that symbolize personalities. Even if we still use some today(green with envy) most are outdated and would not have the effect the author was going for. The next problem is that the reader might not be able to infer that the author is using humor. When an author is using verbal irony sometimes it can be hard to know what the author is implying. In serious writing, you know everything is taken literally. In writing that includes verbal irony or satire it hard to know which parts are written to serious and which parts have verbal irony. The part of the writing that includes needs to also analyzed to find out what the author is trying to say. The last problem with using humor in writing is that different people have different scenes of humor. One person might enjoy the humor that is in the literature but another person may be insulted by it.
ReplyDeleteSeriousness is a better form of causing change than humor. One example of this is Things Fall Apart. The novel portrays the conquering of Africa and the destruction of African culture by the Europeans. This book was written in a serious way and has changed the way people look at the negatives of conquering and colonization.
Another example of a serious book that has caused change was The Jungle. This book helped revolutionize food health codes and food inspection laws. It caused factories to change their ways so customers can get healthy, fresh and disease-free meat.
I believe that books with seriousness have caused a lot more change in history and will cause more change in the future than books with humor will.
Victoria Oginski
Satire and bluntness are both effective tools in writing in raising social awareness and stimulating social change. Truthfully, neither are “better” or “more effective” in communicating AND causing change; in the end, it really depends on the content in being conveyed, the time it’s written, and the audience reading the piece. In Chaucer’s time, the Catholic Church and the its educated clergy members were the main people intellectually able to read (most of the general population had little to no education). Furthermore, those that did speak up against the Church’s faults were declared as heretics and severely punished if not killed. Because much of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales was targeted against the Catholic Church and its corruption, Chaucer had to resort to satire in order to prevent accusations of heresy. By doing this, he was able to make fun of and criticize the Catholic Church without them being able to pin anything back on him. However, in Huxley’s time, the world was more open to new ideas. Furthermore, the Great War had just ended and the world was seeing rapid development in technology, particularly technology for war. Therefore, people were willing to accept Huxley’s direct method of writing and his circumspect view of future technologies in Brave New World. Even though Huxley and Chaucer both used different styles of writing in conveying their ideas, whether intentional or out of necessity, they were both able to clearly make make their points and get the desired effect out of their writing.
ReplyDeleteSeriousness may be a better way to communicate negative points of an idea, but humor is more effective when trying to let the audience be aware of a social problem. The author can criticize a certain problem and then ridicule it to appeal the problem and communicate a message to the audience. By doing so, the audience is interested in the humor and aware of the issue. For example with Animal Farm, Orwell uses humor to show the flaws of communism and why it fails. He uses irony to show how the pigs gained control of the whole farm and manipulated the animals. The satire teaches the reader about the Russian Revolution in a humorous way, making it a memorable message to the reader. Satire is effective because it interests the audience by portraying criticism using humor.
ReplyDeleteSatire and seriousness are both used to help support or prove that an idea in general needs to change or something is wrong in that general subject. Using satire in novels, the author includes humor in the text to ridicule the flaws of systems and show that the flaws are there and need to be changed. On the other hand, seriousness, used in a novel, gives the reader the problem right in the words portraying the devastation and problems that come out of the fault of the certain topic. Many of the books read in school have either satire or seriousness used to point out the fault of a society or system.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Brave New World uses seriousness to expose the flaws of human nature, and to show the horrendous devastating outcome if humanity chooses a certain way of life. This was very effective and comes out strong showing the reader the fault and what not to do. Many times, in BNW it is hard to see the clear point, this is when the author embeds the seriousness into the lines allowing the reader to ponder and analyze the text to figure out what the author is trying to say. In Canterbury Tales the author uses satire to expose the faults of the catholic church and many other ideas. This idea encourages the reader to investigate the humorous language used and find the deep meaning imbedded in the jokes.
Overall, I believe seriousness in more effective in satire because of how it leaves a hard-lasting impact. Seriousness gives the reader the basic idea of the flaw while leaving a lack of information that can be filled when the novel is deeply analyzed. Also, since the impact of seriousness is so strong it gives the reader the want or at least the understanding that something needs to change. This leads to more change being done which is seen with the BNW example. Because of BNW the readers are able to see point blank that there is a problem and what to do and the consequences of what not to do. Seriousness also helps the reader understand concepts better, by having a lot of information hidden and infused in between the lines the reader must truly analyze and understand the concepts and ideas the author is trying to get across. Inconclusion I believe seriousness is more effective than satire when trying to convey a point because of the effect and punch it gives the novel. It also helps the reader relate to the story by being real and giving the facts without anything else.
In my opinion satire and seriousness can both be effective in making social change. I do think though, that satire and comedy can be more effective. This is because, some people can feel anxious or distraught about social issues and might not want to talk about them. If you make those issues feel lighthearted and sometimes make jokes out of them, they lose their uneasy feeling.
ReplyDeleteSerious literature can also be effective, and can remedy some issues that satires can have. In some occasions, making fun of a subject can make it seem less of a problem, and can cause people to just make fun of it instead of fixing it. Serious literature can make people feel a sense of fear and distraught, that contrary to satires, can actually help in conveying a message. If people feel bad about a certain topic, they might want to solve it so it is not an issue to them anymore. A more modern example is when some organisations show people pictures of refugee children, to allow people to feel something directly from this issue, and will more likely do something about it. Obviously there would be outrage if someone were to make fun of those issues, which also brings up the point that not all issues can be both. Some social issues can just be too taboo for it to be socially acceptable to make comedies in certain topics, but then again they are made to cause social change.
-Sean Peters
Regardless of which tone is used whether it be a more serious and dramatic tone or a satirical tone the message can be conveyed to the audience, but the difference is how effective. In my opinion, the humorous satirical tone is more effective in effort to communicate a social change because often times people remember things that made them feel a certain way, and humor is a great feeling. With a more serious tone, the continuing problem of boredom may occur because being serious does not directly correlate to being dramatic. And often times it may lead to people disregarding it because it is “same old same old” or along the lines of being redundant in certain issues. With humor, the outlet of these news is able to connect with a person on a different level and be able to influence more of the public because often times when a person finds something entertaining they will be more likely to remember it. With this, the type of humor also depends. For example, if it is the type which is similar to self-deprecating humor then people have a higher chance of realizing “if this has gotten so out of hand that now they’re even mocking it must be a serious problem”. Also, when something is funny it is more likely that it will be shared all around rather than it being serious meaning more and more people see it and are affected by it increasing the chance in a change being done. With the example of Canterbury Tales, Chaucer is able to keep the reader interested and convey the messages he desires without saying it blatantly. In Brave New World, Huxley points across his ideas on society in a serious tone with the extensive usage of biblical ideas and Shakespeare. In all, with humor like with the example of Canterbury Tales criticizing of the social hierarchy the reader is able to keep interest for a long time and also have a message conveyed to them in just as of a meaningful but in a more light hearted way.
ReplyDeleteHumor and seriousness, two terms with completely different meanings. Both theses terms are used by writers as tones. The goal of most writers is to impact their readers or have an effect on society as a whole. People seem to listen best when they are comfortable and have an open mind. This is probably a reason why some authors believe humor is an appropriate tone to use when they write. On the other hand, when people are too relaxed or are laughing they may not take the information they read as seriously, which is why a serious tone could get the writer’s point across easier. Rather than speaking with either a humorous or serious tone, I think by speaking casually and honestly to a reader, they will understand how you feel and learn lessons from what you allow them to experience when reading.
ReplyDeleteChaucer’s Saucy Ways to Provoke Social Change
ReplyDeleteThere are numerous ways an author can effectively incorporate their ideas into literature and cause change. Chaucer uses satire in the Canterbury Tales to depict his views on the papacy and social hierarchy during the cusp of the Renaissance. Chaucer uses satire through the form of verbal irony and direct characterization to expose characters of their sins and virtues. Each character represents a different social class or group of people with their unique trade and quirks. On the other hand, Aldous Huxley adopts a more serious tone when portraying his morbid prediction of the future. Huxley uses this somber tone to emphasize the consequences of predestined futures and artificial happiness.
Chaucer’s approach to social change is more effective due to a variety of reasons. The use of satire provokes the reader to pay close attention to the novel since the reader is being engaged by the amusing aspect of the satire. When a reader focuses on the novel, the reader is more likely to decipher and absorb the ideas that the author is incorporating. Thus, the satire is effective in portraying the author’s views and possibly inspiring social change. In addition, using a satire to cause a social change ensures that people will not get offended. This allows people who would usually avoid reading about a given subject to indulge in the book. Hence, the reader may find the book inspiring and change their beliefs to align with the author’s beliefs. George Orwell’s Animal Farm effectively uses satire to display Orwell’s discontent with Communism. Orwell uses the amusing aspects of animals to display how ridicule Communism. By using animals, Orwell ensures that his ideas do not hit too close to home. The combination of these two methods allow Animal Farm to be effective in causing people to realize the danger and unfairness in Communism.
On the other hand, one may argue that the somber tone Huxley uses to depict the dystopian society he believes humans are moving towards is significantly is more effective than Chaucer’s amusing approach. However, there are numerous reasons that contradict this belief. First, the majority read for entertainment, rather than to absorb new ideas. Without occasional humor and entertainment, the reader’s attention is lost. Thus, the serious tone does not provoke the reader’s interest in the book nor does it encourage the reader to want to recommend the book to others. In addition, a satire will make the author’s visions of social change less visible, provoking discussion. The serious tone of Huxley’s Brave New World discourages this type of discussion since the author’s ideas promoting social change are obvious. Diffusion of ideas is less likely when there is little discussion about a novel. Therefore, literature utilizing satire is more likely to communicate with the reader and provoke social change since it promotes thorough reading and discussion.
Through out history, the social and philosophical perspectives of people are often reflected through art and literature. Written records such as books are commonly used by intellectuals and philosophers as a tool of criticizing current social problems and controversies. Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales is one of the most effective literary work during Medieval times, and it is also an accurate example of implicitly criticizing the problems of society and emphasizing the disparate need of change. By applying satire, which is a literary device that ridicules individuals or aspects of society through a humorous way to serve the purpose of improvement, Chaucer reflects aspects of medieval society such as different social status and roles of medieval periods, cultural and religious backgrounds of people, and problems resulted from hypocrisy of the catholic church. Through a more humorous and sarcastic way of discussing these sensitive controversies, Chaucer conveys his messages and ideas cleverly without risking his life. The humor sense of the piece also contributes to the building of strong connections with the readers through a more informal and casual tone.
ReplyDeleteIntegrating ironic and humorous elements in the writing is not only a strategy of Chaucer’s to save him from beheading as a heretic, but also an effective method of reflecting and transferring the main ideas to the audience. The amusing stories of Canterbury Tales make the book more captivating to the readers, thus attracting more people to read the piece. In addition, people often find less offensive and more acceptable to the points that the author is expressing. As a result, the main ideas of the book may be more impressive and thus pressing for more desperate changes.
Moreover, there are many other influential literary pieces that use satire to reflect social problems and humanity crisis. For instance, Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn conveys his opinions on slavery and other issues of American Society at that time. Twain infers to the controversial issue of slavey by portraying a story of how the young boy Huck Finn overcomes the racial prejudices toward his runaway-companion Jim, who’s a black slave, while voyaging down the Mississippi River after running away from his abusive father. Through a more realistic and relatable illustration, the novel builds strong relations with the reader, where they have an explicit image on the current problems of the society and realize the need of change.
On the contrary to Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales and Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, there’re many other literary piece that reflect social problems through a more serious and cautionary tone. Huxley’s Brave New World, for instance, conveys a warning message about the consequences when humanity is lost as a result of a brainwashed society. The odd and uncomfortable descriptions of the dystopian world create a more solemn mood in which the readers are less likely to connect with the characters in the plot. Consequently, the message that Huxley wants to convey to the readers are effective but not deep into their minds. He expresses his ideas on social issues and crisis through powerful images of dreadful consequences, which in comparison to the more jovial illustrations in Canterbury Tales, are less effective in terms of attaching emotionally to the readers. Thus, through satire or a more humorous tone, the author can impart his or her message to the audience more efficaciously.
Satire is a more effective way to both communicate with the audience and cause change. Generally, satirical works of literature are not advertised as such, but the audience can pick up on it all the same. Satire is a more appealing form of literature in the sense that it is more entertaining and less dry than serious works of literature. Works with more somber tones, such as Brave New World, may turn off readers because of the severity and lack of brevity in the writing. One of the main complaints of BNW among the students is that it is boring and difficult to understand. It takes certain people to thoroughly enjoy books like BNW, simply because most people prefer to be entertained over being bored. While BNW does effectively communicate its themes and commentaries about the dangers of limiting individuality, it does not connect to audiences as effectively. While literature is meant to be analyzed and taken seriously, most readers also would like to be entertained and interested in the novel they are reading. BNW is not a bad novel by any means, but there is undeniably a sense of disconnect between the audience, particularly students, and the content due to lack of interest. The same can certainly be said about many works of literature with more somber tones; While the message the novel expresses is certainly applicable and important, the connection with the audience is generally not very strong.
ReplyDeleteSatire, meanwhile, provides both an easy way to communicate with the audience as well as a thoughtful commentary on certain aspects of society. A great example of an effective satirical work of literature is the novel Animal Farm by George Orwell. Animal Farm satirizes Stalin’s dictatorial control of Russia and the effects of communism. By making significant Russian political figures farm animals, Orwell both effectively levels out any biases the audience might have and diffuses some of the political tension through humor. AF is an explicitly political statement, but the use of an allegory-and one so exaggerated as farm animals-adds depth and humor that the audience can pick up on and analyze. While BNW did not connect very well to students, Animal Farm on the other hand is generally well-received among them. The allegorical narrative that Animal Farm possesses adds humor and brevity to the politically-charged novel that the audience appreciates and enjoys. The mental image of pigs acting like humans is simultaneously humorous and horrifying, while still effectively communicating the criticism of the Stalin regime that is hidden in the metaphor. Overall, satire is a more effective way of both connecting to the audience and encouraging change because it entertains the reader while simultaneously communicating its themes in a relatable way.
In our world if your trying to get a point across about a problem and to cause change to fix that problem, seriousness is the way to go. This is because if a author where to use satire, which is supposed to be funny as well as eye opening, the point might be over looked because of the humor. Furthermore, if not carful an author creating satire my come to close to parody and at that point the important is being forgotten. This is because the audience isn't looking for something to think about, they are looking for something to laugh at. In other words, the author would be targeting the wrong audience. For example, the book Things Fall Apart would not work as satire because it would undermine the important themes trying to be presented to the reader. The book is about when Europeans invaded Africa and sent people in to change the culture to try to get the natives to be more accepting to the foreigners. Now how would that work as a comedy? Not well. For one it wouldn’t work as a story because of just the general topic. If people were invading your culture and destroying your way of life was played off to be funny. It just wouldn’t work. People coming for comedy will be looking for comedy and a person looking for perspective changing literature will find that. However, a author should stick to one or the other unless your topic can find a middle ground.
ReplyDeleteSeriousness is the more effective way to connect with an audience and cause social change because of its tone. Both methods are effective, however, I think that seriousness is a better choice because it shows the reader that the author is not messing around and that he/she has something important to talk about. When someone is talking in a serious tone it implies that they are discussing a topic that people need to pay attention to and take seriously. A humorous tone suggests that the speaker is joking and isn't talking about a subject that is not important. It gives the impression that the speaker is trying to make the audience laugh instead of attempting to connect with the audience and cause change. Hence, seriousness is the more effective method of interacting with an audience and causing social change due to its formal tone.
ReplyDeleteThe more effective method to communicate with an audience is through a serious meaning. The reasons why a serious argument would work better is because the audience would understand the importance of the message and it would be easier to comprehend because there are no hidden meanings. In a lot of satirical stories it is usually not flat-out stated what is satirical and you need to know background information. When a conflict is clearly stated, it is easier to comprehend and can be understood by more audiences. For example while reading Canterbury Tales the reader needs to know background information on what the hierarchy was in medieval society as well as what each occupation present in the story is supposed to act like. While in Brave New World you still needed think in order to comprehend the main message, it is a little more obvious.
ReplyDeleteThe other reason why seriousness is more effective than comedy is because when the author uses a more serious tone it can convey the importance to the reader. In Brave New World, the narrator has a more serious tone, which shows why it is important that society does not become that way. However in Animal Farm by George Orwell, which depicts a mockery of the communist government in Soviet Russia, he uses humor to convey his messages. In doing he conveys the society as one big joke, and which can make the reader think,” That place is so much fun, I want to live there” instead of warning them against the society.
Using humor can often be a more effective way of communicating an idea and causing change. Comparing The Canterbury Tales and Brave New World, both can be confusing at times but the seriousness of Brave New World continues through the novel whereas the humor presented in The Canterbury Tales can provide comic relief from the underlying meanings being communicated. The Canterbury Tales can be seen as a better way of communicating the desired ideas due of the use of comedy because if offers the reader a more relatable reading experience through the use of sarcasm and the witty descriptions of characters and their actions. Another example of satire being communicated through humor is shown very strongly in The Colbert Report, this show uses its large platform to discuss the faults in political and social aspects of today’s society. If the show used a more serious approach, watchers would likely decide not to tune in to the show. The personality of the host and the way information is portrayed about our society gives the audience a solid report on the faults of the current time while also providing a humorous twist. The humor that is carried through each episode also makes very serious topics more light-hearted and easy to learn about. Those that watch the show and already know about the events being discussed get to relate and agree to the ideas that are shown in the show while also enjoying the way everything is presented. All of this would not be provided through a serious report of current events and basic news reports offer the reader of listener exactly what is or has happened but it is not delivered in as enjoyable of a way as shows like The Colbert Report.
ReplyDeleteI believe that that using humor is a better way to communicate with an audience in my opinion for a couple reasons. When reading Brave New World, I didn’t personally enjoy Huxley’s grim and serious style of writing about a dystopian future. Huxley’s serious tone fit with Brave New World though, as he was writing the book as a warning for the future if we lose our individuality because we are so afraid of the world. Huxley’s somber tone of writing can get the point across better than Chaucer’s satire but can’t communicate with an audience as well as Chaucer.
ReplyDeleteChaucer’s more humorous style of writing in my opinion is a better writing style to communicate with audiences for a couple reasons. Just by reading the first couple pages of Canterbury Tales I understand the point that Chaucer is trying to get across because he is using satire to poke fun at the characters in Canterbury Tales to point out their flaws against society like envy and lust to try and change how his society operates. Using this method is better in my opinion because Chaucer immediately gives us the problems with his characters in the prologue to get the point across that his characters are flawed and that by pointing out those flaws in a humorous way, can maybe cause change in his society.
Every piece of literature has its importance. However, I feel that seriousness is often more effective. Though humor may seem more pleasant to read and usually easier to understand, the story generally doesn't depict the gravity of the situation. Furthermore, humor requires the readers to have the ability to understand what the author's point of view is. Without this ability, readers are often unable to comprehend the fact that the writer means to promote social change and is not just insulting a character or hence culture. Nonetheless, even if the readers can understand the author's perspective, the humor weakens the importance of the situation and hence our desire to change our ways.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, a serious piece of literature like Brave New World enforce the importance of the moment emphatically. Though the ideas in serious works may be more subtle and requiring deeper connections, they promote cognitive Thinking and force us to slow down and peruse the text. Thus though requiring more effort to comprehend, serious literature compels us to reason ourselves by providing merely a direction but not a solution to look at. Eventually, the impactful ideas are those that aren't enforced upon us but rather reasoned out by ourselves. Besides, serious literature doesn't weaken the gravity of the situation. The maintenance of a somber tone throughout the novel enhances our ability to spot actions that are inappropriate, as seen in Brave New World where John presence acts as a foil and highlights the flaws in the World state's society.
Nonetheless, I feel that the most influential way to express ideas and promote change is to employ a blend of humor and seriousness. By doing so, the author is able to maintain the readers interest in the novel, thus encouraging them to read not only willingly but also more closely. Besides, through the usage of both humor and seriousness, we find it easier to connect the characters to ourselves as we don't live a life full of constant humor or seriousness but rather one that is influenced by both. "Too much of anything is bad" as seen in Brave New World where even too much of happiness turned out to be bad, similarly too much of seriousness can cause the work to turn gloomy whereas too much humor can reduce the importance of the situation. (Mark Twain)
Even though there are many arguments backing the use of either somber or satirical methods of getting a point across, I think that the use of humor is a more effective way to cause change and communicate with the reader. For one, humor adds spice and excitement to a book and engages the reader more, whereas with somber writing, the reader may get bored or tired of reading something sad or depressing. A book that backs this claim is Animal Farm, written by George Orwell. In the book, Orwell(like Chaucer) is using descriptions of characters/animals to satirize the actions and characteristics of major groups in society. However, instead of taking a more somber approach like that of Brave New World, Orwell chooses to take the serious topic of the Russian Revolution and completely change it into that of a entertaining comedy. By being completely contradictory to the actual mood of the Russian Revolution, Orwell gets the point across more directly and clearly than what can be taken away from Brave New World. In Brave New World, the writer Aldous Huxley chooses a more somber and serious approach. Although this still gets the point across, it may be less obvious to the reader than a more comedic approach which directly outlines the flaws and mistakes of what is being made fun of. Because the approach that Huxley is taking is more unclear, the reader might be less compelled to think about how the book relates to the real world. In conclusion, using satire to highlight the social corruption and hypocrisy of medieval society is much more effective than taking somber tone because it engages the reader more and makes the story more entertaining to read. In this way, the reader can think in a new frame of mind and really see what is going on in the real world compared to what they didn’t see before. Overall this provokes a bigger change or result than what can be expected of a more somber toned piece of literature.
ReplyDeleteThe more somber way of writing is the most effective way. While satire can make one realize things through humor and irony, I do not think that the author can use it very effectively. Satire limits the author to only be able to make a joke out of something. If the author’s goal is to cause change, then they need to write in a more serious tone that will cause emotions to stir up in the reader. I believe that to prove a point, one must present to their audience reasoning behind their point. In Brave New World, Huxley paints us a picture of how life would be as a result of technology becoming too strong. We, the audience, gets to gasp and scream and cry as we realize how dangerous technology is. Huxley practically does everything he can to warn us of our futures without actually saying those words. In To Kill A Mockingbird , Harper Lee also uses a somber writing style. Even though the reader is rooting for Tom Robinson to win the court case, he ultimately does not. Tom Robinson in addition ends up dying. Lee knew that we would all be heartbroken by this, and that is exactly why she wrote it. She wanted to make sure that we knew what racism leads to.
ReplyDeleteIn both of these book examples, the author communicates well with the reader. Huxley presents us with all the things that we love- our families, our art, and our nature- and crushes them before our eyes. He provides relevant examples that many people can relate to. One such example is the relationship between Lenina and John. John is captivated by Lenina; he adores her. He cannot even bring himself to talk to her or touch her. We ,the audience, can understand the emotions that John is feeling, and may even relate to them. What shocks us, though, is Lenina’s reaction to John. She doesn’t even understand why true love means, and can’t even understand why John would want a real human relationship with her.
Harper Lee relates with the audience as well. She makes us all feel for Tom Robinson by making him a sweet and caring character, and then having him die, which crushed all of our hearts. Brave New World and To Kill a Mockingbird are both some of the best books I have ever read. I now know that is because they have communicated a unique message that really stuck with me. These books made me think more about life as a whole. Reading Brave New World has made me cringe every time I look at two friends sitting next to each other, on their phones. I now always try to live in the moment and try not to get too caught up in social media, for I know the dire consequences that lay ahead.
No reader is truly affected by something that does not engage them. Be it satirical or sincere, a reader needs to be invested in a story for it to change them. Satire is the most immediately engaging to the modern mind. It has been the tool of the rebel for centuries, breaking down the walls of tyranny and taboo to expose all beneath. Irony is a core precept of Postmodernism and convinced many that no, there is no concept that should not be discussed. However, irony can also foster tyrants. One can’t be criticized if one has no opinion, and the most abhorrent of people live behind Poe’s law as they denigrate rational thought. David Foster Wallace in his essay "E Unibus Pluram”, said it best, "The next real literary “rebels” in this country might well emerge as some weird bunch of anti-rebels, born oglers who dare somehow to back away from ironic watching, who have the childish gall actually to endorse and instantiate single-entendre principles.”
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand sincerity in fiction affects no one without suspension of disbelief. In reading Brave New World it was hard not to look at some of the assumptions in the story and laugh or dismiss the work entirely because we are so disconnected from the world in which it was written. This however was not the case with MAUS - a modern reader experiences a deeper connection with the people in the story for they are closer to oneself. When senscarity is done right it can change the reader deeply - moving them to action in the real world. Satire is an easier means of effecting change but sincerity which engages the reader will have a more impactful effect.
-Connor
While in my mind I want humor to always be most effective when talking specifically about major social change, my past experiences have led me to believe that impending issues we face in our society today should be discussed with a serious attitude to convey their significance.
ReplyDeleteHumor is a wonderful learning tool in many circumstances. For example, learning in an environment where the teacher uses humor alongside the material to create ardent learners always seems to be more enjoyable than the cranky, stern teacher. In many cases, it seems that using humor when talking about issues that could have major consequences is simply a way to ease uncomfortable silence or immaturity levels in the discussions. It is often used to dissolve the solemn mood of a topic, and add a more lighthearted feel to the problems at hand. In the case of literature, many times humor adds a relatable feeling to the characters or people in the writing. However, in order to convey the importance of the topic when social issues are need of change, a serious tone is appropriate. When thinking back to major issues the public has faced in the past, such as terrorist attacks, civil rights, and gun laws, the topics that have started the largest revolutions have always been approached with the serious mindset that they could have monumental effects if not changed significantly. In Brave New World, while irony and paradox were used to create a twisted, conformist world, the overall tone of the novel was mostly humorless. Yet, the novel did not need the humor-- it was a cautionary tale meant to spark thought in the reader of how to prevent the same loss of humanity in their own society. Brave New World is an example of effective, serious literature, but this same attitude is what is mostly prevalent in reality. We don’t joke about 9/11 terrorists or Sandy Hook, do we? The difficult question is, when are the issues at hand too serious to be laughed about? This is why serious mindsets are usually used when discussing subjects that will have grave impacts on our lives. While humor is used often to talk about societal changes, if some issues are joked about, it will simply be crossing the line of what is appropriate.
I believe that using satire is the most effective way to communicate with an audience and cause change. This method allows the author to humorously make fun of a part of society and cause societal change. Using a somber tone will not get the point across as well as satire and will not be as entertaining for the reader. Satirizing something really draws peoples attention and makes them laugh. After it gains a large enough audience, it can cause societal change. It is much easier to draw peoples attention and cause change through satire, because if you use a somber method, it will be more difficult to gain a good sized audience and therefore harder to make the intended change.
ReplyDeleteOne example of an effective satire is Animal Farm by George Orwell. In this novel, he uses animals to represent the different people of the Russian Revolution. The smart, main leaders were represented by the pigs, who controlled all of society. The working class was represented by boxer, who ironically died, showing how the leaders go this time overworked the working class. The bird represented the religious leaders who kept society intact by brainwashing them. Most of the other animals fell under the peasant class. By doing this, he is poking fun at these people and the overall society, trying to let them know something needs to change. By doing this, his book became very famous and popular, and he influenced their society. You could make a case saying Animal Farm is part of the reason Russia got through na past the revolution. Many people living in Russia at this time saw this and probably laughed at first. At second glance though, many probably realized that their society is not just and something needs to change.
Another example of a satire used for societal change is The Canterbury Tales. This novel makes fun of many immorally correct things in the medieval society. One example of this is the nun. In the book, she is very lustful and places many topics of life over religion. A good nun should put religion first and be very pious. This shows the humor of this book. This was an obvious sign to society saying something needs to change. We can't keep allowing these immoral things to occur. This book was intended to be humorous and make societal change and achieved both.
While Chaucer uses satire in The Canterbury Tales to state his opinion on societal change, Huxley uses a somber tone in Brave New World to address his concerns. Despite being written 500 years apart from each other and conveying disparate stories, Chaucer and Huxley both voice their stance on unpopular topics differing to the ideas of their time. Chaucer use of satire mocks the contradicting ideas of the Catholic Church, while avoiding opposing conflict. Satire uses humor, irony, and exaggeration to ridicule an individual or society, in doing so, it presents ideas in a metaphorical way that takes time and effort to analyze and understand. While satire is seen to be able to convey the message the author wishes to address, satire can be easily misunderstood and over looked. While great literature requires time and effort to analyze a deeper underlying message, satire can be less likely to deliver a message clearly compared to other styles. For example, Animal Farm, by George Orwell, cynical perspective of the society during the Russian Revolution represented in the story of the animals in the farm can be seen as a use of satire. Although Animal Farm, exaggerated story of “silly” animals introduced ideas of the absurd society in Russia, the humorous way of conveying the message can sometimes be less effective because it can be seen to be merely just humor. In contrast, somber stories present a clearer demonstration of unpopular opinions and make readers earnestly seek for a change.
ReplyDeleteAny piece of literature that would truly communicate with the intended audience and cause change effectively should have a balance of humor and seriousness. While both Huxley and Chaucer have written their novels in ways which readers were able to understand their message, it would be more effective for both of their writing techniques to be combined in one novel. A book written with humor as well as with a more serious tone when applicable will receive a wider audience and stay a topic of discussion for longer than any satirical piece would.
ReplyDeleteUsually, any book or movie that becomes popular is one that viewers and/or readers find have a message which is relevant to their own lives. This is why humor is necessary in any piece attempting to effect social change. Humor in the novel will allow a wider range of readers because any member of the general public could understand the vernacular used in and the plot of the story. Because there will be a larger audience, the book will be discussed among many different types of people, at least one of which who is bound to understand the literature on a deeper level of analysis. We can see this in Chaucer’s style of writing. Studying the daily activities, teachings, and beliefs in the time which Canterbury Tales was written helps us to understand how he used his knowledge of the local people to advertise his novel to them. He used physiognomy and clear descriptions of his characters in respect to what his audience would find interesting to draw in readers and then show them what he believed to be wrong with their society and how he wanted to change it.
The use of a serious tone without representing actual fears of society in silly ways which may be overlooked by readers is also a necessity in the piece of literature which can communicate well with an audience as well as cause change. Huxley showed a severe version of what he believed society is hurtling towards without bothering to attract his audience to his book. In simpler words, he went straight to the point. This is helpful to readers so that they will be able to see the message which the author is trying to convey at the surface level in order to inspire them into seeing the flaws of their society and change it. Overall, a piece of literature should include both satire and a tone of seriousness to most effectively convince society to understand what the author wants to fix in their beliefs or habits.
Satire used to bring about change through humor and change brought by displaying the problem at hand at its most over exaggerated form are two very different ways of conveying the same point. Satire I feel appeals to the youth more due to its depiction of real world problems in a humorous and playful way. In this sense it makes the topic seem less demonizing but still gets the point of change in society it is trying to show the viewer.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand displaying the problem as a serious issue and at its apex of destruction, it may appeal to more grown up and mature views who do not care for the more crude and childishness that satire contains. This serious way of demonstrating a problem is very effective because it may frighten the viewer into pushing change so that it never escalades to the point that they now invision.
The downside to using satire is that not everyone finds the way that the issues are conveyed to be humours. An writer or author must be very careful in his/her use of satire in order to make it appeal to everyone. A serious tone also has its problems. Many viewers especially in the younger audience my not fully understand what is happening or what issue is being portrayed. The shear fear itself of realizing that this is a very real possibility may cause them to pushing it out of mind therefore moving away from the whole point of the piece which is to evoke change. Both forms have their upsides and their downsides. in the end will be the people who are going to enforces these changes.
Personally I would rather view all my problems through satirical source and believe it to be the more effective of the two ways due to its ability to connect to the youth of our society who
Ewan Macfarlane