Theory On Satire

I'd tell you to not panic, but you probably should do so a little bit to prepare yourself. Have you finished panicking? Good. Anyhow, my theory of satire will be… well… we’ll just say “unorthodox.” You will encounter a style of writing fit perhaps for an emu and such is on purpose. That doesn’t make any sense, you say? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet… You may want to make sure you’re properly restrained before continuing. Once again, you will very quickly see what I’m doing some ways into it. That being said, let’s do this thing…

Theory:

According to Aristotle, satire shows comedy in “the actions of inferior men.” This is right. Funny people are often shown as inferior to make them funnier. Especially if they’re hilarious. My favorite satire is Family Guy because Peter is stupid, and that’s funny. Stewie is also funny because he’s a baby who talks. Isn’t that weird? Oh, and Brian is a talking dog. Isn’t that weird too? Family Guy is a satire because it shows comedy in the actions of inferior people, just like Aristotle said.

Satire also has an aim to fix something wrong. If somebody sees something wrong with the world, then sometimes they can write or make a satire of it and make fun of it with a point. They hope that when they make fun of it, people will think to themselves about it and maybe do more to change it and make it a lot better.

Some people used to say that satire is pointless and can’t have a plot. This is wrong. Like I said, sometimes satire can be funny with a point to change something that the person making it doesn’t like. Just because something is funny doesn’t mean it can’t have a story to it. There are lots of funny stories that are satires because they are funny. Sometimes the stories themselves can be pointless though or people can be funny on accident (making other people laugh at their satire.) But then things get weird, so it’s not important to the point.

Aristotle’s quote about satire making fun of inferior people is holds much truth and is thus perfect. Satires have points… points to change things for the better.
By: Dylan Sures

Analysis of Suresian Theory:

Sures’ views on Aristotelian satire are not only entirely valid, but also build upon the base ideas of Aristotle himself. His immediate discussion of Aristotle’s theory of satire sets forth his intensive analysis discussion concerning Aristotelian literary methodology as a whole, effectively bringing to light any and all of the reader’s preconceptions of the nature of comedy itself, catalyzing what will soon prove to be a radical paradigm shift in mindset. Sures’ simple assertion that Aristotle’s views are “right” acts brilliantly in his clear attempt to humble himself and thus allow his genius to become more accessible to society as a whole, while also successfully not making a blatant, condescending attempt to give the impression of talking down to the rest of humanity. This impeccably mirrors his next point concerning the depiction of individuals as “inferior to make them funnier” in that he has, in one fell swoop, differentiated himself from those who attempt to make others seem inferior through employment of ostentatious displays of thick, impenetrable prose and set forth a patent dichotomy between Suresian satire and Aristotelian satire, setting forth his own radical ideas in opposition to those of Aristotle.

Sures then moves on to systematically and subtly discredit scholars’ preconceived views of satire as previously dictated by Aristotle, while still brilliantly maintaining his accessible approach to his deconstruction. Sures then makes an elegant leap to the subject of hilarity, bringing his discussion to a higher, more philosophical, albeit continuously accessible plane. However, this discussion of all that is “hilarious” serves not merely to support his own discussion, but also to highlight the folly Aristotle in his attempted theory of satire. He then likens Aristotelian satire theory to a much more low-brow entity in the form of Family Guy. Once again, Sures not only states his far-flung ideas with the utmost of simplicity, but also discredits Aristotle, likening his ideas to words coming out of the mouth of a talking infant, or perhaps, as he adds snidely, those emanating from that of a canine, with this simple lambasting, incriminating statement of “just like Aristotle said.” He then continues subtly demolishing Aristotelian theory in a manner most certainly unbeknownst to Aristotle himself in his discussion of intent, which is itself an extension of a facet of satire, by stealthily confirming his intent to set forth a radical revolution of thought, using phrases such as “make fun of it with a point” not only as evidence on his discussion of intent, but also in mockery of Aristotle himself.

Sures, who by this point has proven himself to be obviously far superior as a thinker, then likens Aristotle’s views in their entirety to a “funny story”, completing his elegant minimization of Aristotle’s once blindly followed fallacies, easing the transition from Aristotelian to Suresian thought. He finalizes this transformation by neutralizing Aristotle’s decades of once celebrated thought with what will in all certainty be an immortal seven words: “things get weird, so it’s not important.” He has now reduced Aristotle to the oddity that he, until recently, had disguised with a veneer of false intelligence. He then closes his pivotal discussion with a sample of his own satire, calling Aristotle’s views “perfect” despite his obvious discrediting. Sures has indeed “change[d] things for the better”, as scholars can now step out from under the imposing shadow of Aristotelian thought and move toward the heavenly light of Suresian thought.