1060 Model Paper 2

Booth's argument about the role of audience in satire does not exactly fit Stewart's interaction with the audience. One way they are different is [SPECIFIC PAIRING X] but they are still similar in terms of [SPECIFIC PAIRING Y].

Booth's argument about the role of audience can be linked to Stewart's interaction with the audience One surprising way they are similar is [SPECIFIC PAIRING X]. Another surprising way they are similar is [SPECIFIC PAIRING Y]

Yes AND Stewart's expecting audience not to know

Yes AND

Stewart expectations of audience knowledge

uses large variety of pop culture references

waits for laughs

quiet during clips--expects to draw own conclusions

expects them to have same views of Ferguson/police actions as he does

Rosen and Figuring out the Writer’s Intentions vs Audience Experience

A YES BUT COLLATION:

“there is never much doubt about what these performers want us to believe they are doing. Angry

or annoyed at someone or something, they fire up their sense of indignation, mobilize their verbal or gestural skills, and mock whoever or whatever it is that irritates them” (1) YES BUT “often far more elusive and unstable than it would ever let on” (1-2)

On the one hand, the satirist will typically claim to speak “from the heart,” from a sense of acute, unmediated anger; on the other, the satirical work, whatever its exact form,

clearly is mediated, whether by protocols of genre and style, the desire to please an audience, or other factors extrinsic to the actual content of the work. Satire is crafted” (2)

“satire, as a form of comedy, has its own dynamics that may or may

not coincide with what satirists claim they want to achieve. Indeed, it

is obvious and commonly pointed out that the comic elements within

satire frequently undermine what purports to be its serious import…. Such abrupt shifts make us suspicious of a satirist’s didactic seriousness

at moments such as these” (2)

“two polarities. At one extreme lies the temptation

to take what the satirist says at face value: satirists claim to have something

urgent to say and insist that what they have to say is actually true,

so why should we not believe them, at least on some level? (Kernan 1959;

Griffin 1993, 35–70) At the other extreme, however, there remains deep

suspicion about comedy, the effects of laughter, and the gamesmanship

of satire: Where is there a space for truth-telling and moral seriousness

when the satirist always has an eye on making the audience laugh?

(Griffin 1993, 79–94)” (3)

There are problems here, too, however, especially when one considers the actual content of the poet’s lesson in such cases and asks who exactly is supposed to learn from it. Once again, we find ourselves

circling around the question of meaning: can one ever be certain that satire has, or strives for, actual—as opposed to purported—meaning;and if so, can that meaning ever be of any real consequence for human

society? (4)

Or would we otherwise simply have to concede that, in the end, satire is in some real sense devoid of meaning, which is to say, incapable of living up to the didactic aims it announces to be a function

of its genre? (4)

And if satirical teaching amounts to little more than faux moralizing, where exactly does an audience’s enjoyment of satirical genres lie? If, as some have held, it is to be found purely in the realm

of the aesthetic, what does it mean that this aesthetic has been emptied of truly didactic content? (4)

Once again, we find the same confounding of audiences, targets,

and authorial posturings that we saw in Acharnians. Who, after all, is

supposed to benefit from Bruce’s rants? To be sure, not the people

who paid to see his act at a comedy club and walked in expecting to

be amused. Rather, the beneficiaries of his wit are people who, in their

capacity as satirical targets, would never dream of coming to see his act;

or if they did, would resist any “instruction” he claimed to be offering

them.19 Just how critical it is for satirists to keep straight the differences

between their audiences is revealed by Bruce’s act in his final

months, when he seemed to misplace the didactic pretense, treating

the audience he wanted to entertain as if they were the ones he felt

a need to instruct.” (21)

Data Collation from Booth:

Yes AND role of audience:

reader must make step of "recognizing either some incongruity among the words or between the words and something else that he knows" (10)

"reader is expected to catch what some would consider external clues" (10)

reader quickly entertains multiple possibilities that "come flooding in" (11)

reader makes decision about author's own beliefs (11) and constructs a meaning based on that (12)

this is "an astonishing communal achievement" that "reveals in both participants a kind of meeting with other minds that contradicts a great deal that gets said about who we are and whether we can know each other" (13)

rather than having victims, then, satire serves to create the "building of amiable communities" based on "finding and communing with kindred spirits" (28)

For this to work, the reader must feel that the author assumes a capacity for the reader's skill in understanding irony and "grants...a kind of wisdom; he assumes that he does not have to spell out the shared and secret truths on which my reconstruction is built"

acknowledges some jokes don;t work

more of a journalism crowd

becomes serious when he talks about what happens to protestors in hunger games/connects to Ferguson

quiet during clips--letting audience learn

Rosen's argument about paradoxes for the audience can be linked to Stewart's interaction with the audience One surprising way they are similar is [SPECIFIC PAIRING X]. Another surprising way they are similar is [SPECIFIC PAIRING Y]

RULES:

• You may have several shapes in one paragraph
• One shape may take up several paragraphs
• Each shape must have a clear arrow between it and its preceding/following shapes
• Generally applications bridge collations and so whats, though it is possible that two collations join together to one application, or a so what leads to another so what, which leads back to an encounter
• When in doubt, a "so what" is the glue between shapes
• A n arrow may connect by returning to the encounter or a central so what and then going back to a data collation
• The path will begin and end with the encounter

it is very likely that at least some parts of some theory (or theories) of irony will adequately explain your satirical text. In other words, up to a certain point, it is likely that there will be a yes AND relationship between your satirical text and the lens on irony and/or satire. This collation will help you get more specific (either about how/why your satire works/doesn’t work, as in encounter 1, or about how satires work more generally, as in encounter 2). Start here.

After that yes AND there will be a remainder—some part of your satirical text that the lens doesn’t adequately explain. This part of the paper will collate the yes, BUT between your satire and an element of the source(s) from the yes AND to create a so what about what particular element/definition/assumption does not apply (either about how/why your satire works/doesn’t work, as in encounter 1, or about how satires work more generally, as in encounter 2). Because I value following instructions, you will receive 10 extra credit points for including a correct MLA citation for your favorite song in the correctly formatted works cited page (so, yes, everything has to be properly cited).

This gap identified by the yes BUT will allow you to apply a NEW PERSPECTIVE—a way of looking at the work of satire that you had not thought about before. This is where a new source will come in if you are using only 2. In this third section, you will collate a way of reading some element of your satire with what didn’t fit in section 2—in other words you will resolve the difficulty you identified.

The mega so what, then, will be a claim about how looking at these two (or more) sources allows you to make very specific, surprising claims about how your satire or satire in general functions.

Yes AND Stewart mixes jokes with seriousness

Yes BUT Stewart expects audience to have some contexts, not others

jokes about domestic violence/homophobia--not part of main point

uses Hunger Games/Fiddler to get to serious point about Ferguson

Turns twitter discussion into series of pop culture memes

Rosen's argument about paradoxes for the audience in satire does not exactly fit Stewart's interaction with the audience. One way they are different is [SPECIFIC PAIRING X] but they are still similar in terms of [SPECIFIC PAIRING Y].

"more of a journalism crowd"

acknowledges jokes that don;t work

points out they are a community that has followed him/know about his life--his graduation speech, UCB

Encounter

o How does engaging with several critical sources develop new, surprising understanding of how and why your satire is effective or ineffective?

OR

o How does putting your satire into conversation with several critical sources allow you to develop a claim about how satire, generally, works?