Harry and Meghan to resign

jpaul said:
It's satire get used to it, yes americans don't understand it, older generations in UK do, but that that gene seems to be diminishing,
if you know the modicum of Clarkson's behaviour even before he took top gear into a lads mag, it is consistent with his character

e: from what I read about GOT that has no such claim, it was just Yank(yes that's racist) OTT violence - would have probably been a video nasty in the day, we don't want to import that.
Click to expand...

I recognise that the intended form of humour is by means ‘dumb exaggeration’ but you cannot aggressively target an individual and fall back on ‘satire’ as a defence. It doesn’t work as satire.

If it were actually satire, then the comments would be used with irony to criticise the level of hatred that Megan is receiving.

This article gives a quick overview on types of satire and how it is used:


Horatian. Horatian satire is comic and offers light social commentary. It is meant to poke fun at a person or situation in an entertaining way.

  • Gulliver’s Travels, written in the eighteenth century by Jonathan Swift, is an example of Horatian satire in literature. The work is a spoof of the kind of travelogues that were common at that time. Through his invented narrator, Gulliver, Swift takes aim at travel writers, the English government, and human nature itself.
  • Late-night television show The Colbert Report, in which Stephen Colbert inhabited the character of a conservative pundit for many years, offers a funny but deep satire of American politics.
  • The Onion is a popular satirical online news site that embodies Horatian satire.
Juvenalian. Juvenalian satire is dark, rather than comedic. It is meant to speak truth to power.

  • George Orwell’s famous 1945 novel Animal Farm is a good example of Juvenalian satire. The novel’s intended target is communism and Stalin-era Soviet Union. Animal Farm is also an allegorical satire: it can be read as a simple tale of farm animals, but it has a deeper political meaning.
  • A modern-day example is the television show South Park, which juxtaposes biting satire with juvenile humor. The show has tackled all sorts of hot-button targets, including abortion, the Pope, Hollywood, and criminal justice.
Menippean. Menippean satire casts moral judgment on a particular belief, such as homophobia or racism. It can be comic and light, much like Horatian satire—although it can also be as stinging as Juvenalian satire.

  • Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland is one of the best examples of Menippean satire in literature is. The novel pokes fun at upper-class intellectualism but does it with a distinct sense of humor. The ridicule is there, but it is good-natured in spirit.
  • A modern-day example is Saturday Night Live, which has carried a long tradition of poking fun at elected officials ever since Chevy Chase’s 1975 impersonation of Gerald Ford.
Click to expand...

Clarkson’s comments fail to fit within any of these categories. They are too personal and aggressive to be Horatian and lack any social observation putting it within Juvenalian.

There is no ‘satire shield’ for Clarkson.
 
Last edited:
satire , it's rife, alive and kicking, in the UK excerpt from spectator
But back to the build-up. We left the Gruesome Twosome at the end of episode one on the eve of their big reveal as a couple, having a last night of anonymous fun at a costume party which the pair attended dressed as combatants, in camouflage and gas-masks, which is very appropriate as they’re such brave little soldiers. Meghan, like the state trooper she is, throws herself wholeheartedly into a life of service, dispensing hugs to tots and bananas to sex-workers like her life – or at least her new livelihood – depends on it. And then it’s the Big Day – ‘All I wanted was a mimosa, a croissant and to play that song Going To The Chapel’ Meghan confides, with all the arch intimacy of an actress on daytime TV confiding that yes, she has bladder problems too. You can see why she never made it in Hollywood – if you can’t fake that sincerity, you’re finished.
Click to expand...
 
Nitefly said:
I recognise that the intended form of humour is by means ‘dumb exaggeration’ but you cannot aggressively target an individual and fall back on ‘satire’ as a defence. It doesn’t work as satire.

If it were actually satire, then the comments would be used with irony to criticise the level of hatred that Megan is receiving.

This article gives a quick overview on types of satire and how it is used:




Clarkson’s comments fail to fit within any of these categories. They are too personal and aggressive to be Horatian and lack any social observation putting it within Juvenalian.

There is no ‘satire shield’ for Clarkson.
Click to expand...


Oh no the satire police are here - put the clipboard away... seriously..
 
not really been following this but is there any chance that Meghan is going to parade naked somewhere and can the public have a gander, asking for a friend?
 
Wow nothing like a bit of Clarkson baiting to expose the illiberal tendencies of the elites. The list of things that must be stopped gets ever longer I'm so glad these free thinking heroes in the media are here to protect me from legal but offensive words.
 
n111ck said:
Oh no the satire police are here - put the clipboard away... seriously..
Click to expand...

People are free to find something amusing or not, but the point stands regardless of this context: you can’t purport false realities and use them as a shield for criticism.

If you think the comments were indeed principally satirical, then you can oppose my rationale with explanation. Alternatively, you could say some variant of “the comments were only a joke”, irrespective of any purported satire - which avoids the issue altogether.
 
Nitefly said:
People are free to find something amusing or not, but the point stands regardless of this context: you can’t purport false realities and use them as a shield for criticism.

If you think the comments were indeed principally satirical, then you can oppose my rationale with explanation. Alternatively, you could say some variant of “the comments were only a joke”, irrespective of any purported satire - which avoids the issue altogether.
Click to expand...


Well thats the case for the prosecution but the trial has collapsed due to lack of evidence from the police...

I can understand why a sensitive person like yourself would not watch GoT so wouldn't get the reference but it should surely just take a brief explanation as to what happens in the show to understand its all made up and not real.
 
n111ck said:
Well thats the case for the prosecution but the trial has collapsed due to lack of evidence from the police...

I can understand why a sensitive person like yourself would not watch GoT so wouldn't get the reference but it should surely just take a brief explanation as to what happens in the show to understand its all made up and not real.
Click to expand...

I have not said that Clarkson should face criminal charges. I said that I found his comments odious.

Things can be disapproved of without commanding an outcome.

I would also hope that the bar isn’t so low that behaviour must be deemed worthy of criminal investigation to warrant disapproval.

I like Game of Thrones - it’s a great show.

As I said in my first post of the thread, it’s his comments immediately before the Game of Thrones reference that gave the whole an unpleasant tone.
 
Nitefly said:
If it were actually satire, then the comments would be used with irony to criticise the level of hatred that Megan is receiving.
Click to expand...
I don't think this part is true. There is no rule that states he would have to be criticising the level of hate she is getting for it to count as being satire.
From what I gather, the supposed satirical nature of the work, is in the criticism of Meghan herself; therefore exaggeration of his hatred for her would count as part of the affect of satire.

Though the issue with literature (and why it annoyed me in school) is that the answers are subjective and rules are often bent at times.
 
n111ck said:
Well thats the case for the prosecution but the trial has collapsed due to lack of evidence from the police...

I can understand why a sensitive person like yourself would not watch GoT so wouldn't get the reference but it should surely just take a brief explanation as to what happens in the show to understand its all made up and not real.
Click to expand...

so your happy to dismiss his comments because of the Reference it made to a GOT scene. so if next week paper he calls for her to be raped, quoting scenes from GoT, you also be happy with that and defend him ?
 
satire - the more extreme the language by Clarkson (within legal limits) the higher, more evident, the satire level;
he is making a serious underlying point though

GOT looks like a great show, for adolescents/anyone https://www.vice.com/en/article/qvvx83/game-of-thrones-by-the-numbers
eg.
1504101165089-rape-3.png
 
StriderX said:
All I know is that The Sun of all papers had to remove the article, embarrassing really.
Click to expand...

They didn't have to remove it, they removed it at his request.

The Sun’s website on Monday night was updated to say: “In light of Jeremy Clarkson’s tweet he has asked us to take last week’s column down.”
 
Last edited:
I'm no big fan whatsoever of Meghan and Harry but the people reacting to this by effectively saying Clarkson is just messing around and not to take it seriously or literally are just so miles off the mark here.

It couldn't be any more obvious whatever your perspective that he doesn't literally want her marched through the streets, so saying "he's only joking around" completely misses the point.

He's ballsed up massively and has given legitimacy to her claim that she's irrationally and unfairly attacked.
 
dl8860 said:
I'm no big fan whatsoever of Meghan and Harry but the people reacting to this by effectively saying Clarkson is just messing around and not to take it seriously or literally are just so miles off the mark here.

It couldn't be any more obvious whatever your perspective that he doesn't literally want her marched through the streets, so saying "he's only joking around" completely misses the point.

He's ballsed up massively and has given legitimacy to her claim that she's irrationally and unfairly attacked.
Click to expand...
Am I miss-reading or does line 2 not follow line 1 logically.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
I don't think this part is true. There is no rule that states he would have to be criticising the level of hate she is getting for it to count as being satire.
From what I gather, the supposed satirical nature of the work, is in the criticism of Meghan herself; therefore exaggeration of his hatred for her would count as part of the affect of satire.

Though the issue with literature (and why it annoyed me in school) is that the answers are subjective and rules are often bent at times.
Click to expand...

I agree with the part in bold - I intended to add further context with the addition of the 3 categories in the same post; using that language to mock those that overly criticise Meghan is the most obvious form of satire that could be used in the context, but other forms of satire are possible.

However I do not think that ‘mere exaggeration’, which is often used to highlight satire and irony, makes something satirical by itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom