Satire Only Hurts if You Mean It

I've come back from the literary dead for several reasons. First, I'm on vacation, and taking a break from my regular writing job means I have time for this. Second, it's late at night, and I'd rather not sleep. Third, I'm so tired of the bullshit that passes for humor in college newspapers that I have to complain about it to the 0 people who read this blog. It'll make me feel better about myself, and that's all I care about.

I recently read an article that caused a furor at Central Connecticut State University (and to those of us far from Connecticut, remember the adage: if a butterfly flaps its wings in Alaska, a college newspaper columnist will one day write a jackass column about it that will offend neoNazis, foreign exchange students and feminists alike). I'm not usually amused by jokes about rape, but this article had real gems buried in the sludge. For example: the "quick reach-around?" Funny. The "sway you towards a darkened alley"? Cringe-worthy.

I've also been to every one of our school's annual "Take Back the Night" marches, and I've always known one of the speakers. I admire these girls' courage, and I would be upset on their behalf to see this article in the paper. Obviously, rape is not funny to people who have experienced it. Much like famine, dictatorship, deportation and cannibalism are not funny to their victims. The reason jokes about these last four subjects are 'appropriate' is because the vast majority of Americans feel pretty distant from them. And humor depends on a particular cultural moment.

Ever since Jon Swift suggested that poor Irish people eat their babies, newspaper columnists have been searching for the next big offensive joke. It if offends people, writers argue, it must be satire. Actually, there was a time (in the golden age of humor) when the reverse was true. Swift's satire was brutal, simple and true. Petroski's jokes are none of these things. They rely not on reality, but on hyperbolic history. The rape of the Sabine women? Not the reason Western civilization began. Excessively large families? Definitely part of the reason Irish people used to be poor.

Before defending a piece as satire, editors should understand what satire is. Petroski's column wasn't satire - it was a cheap shot. It was a frat-house joke dressed up in pretentious academic allusions, which pretty much sums up the yuppie college existence. Not that I have anything against the yuppies, or want to deny their right to higher education. I mean, I am not that far from a yuppie myself, although far enough that I can look down with a bit of detachment.

Point is: is this article funny? Only in places. Is it satire? No. Is it kind? Obviously not. Was it intended that way? No. But none of that means that Petroski is a bad person, or even a bad writer. Even the best humorist lays a turd now and again. The question is: can he recover with grace? Can he capture some original voice and unique subject? Or is he going to keep rehashing the same thesis purely for shock value?