Comments on: Scrooge and Malthus: Satire versus Satirical Writing

By: Arabella Figg

Arabella Figg — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:43:36 +0000

I like this very helpful distinction, John. I agree that Montgomery was a satirical writer who plunged her sharp pen into human behavior, including the rigid religious in Mrs. Lynde and snobs like the Sloanes. (Yet, in The Blue Castle, she smartly jabbed snake-oil patent medicines throughout–a critical plot point–even if she fudged a bit at the end).

Like Beth, I’m more a fan of satirical writing than flat out satire.

By: Bets

Bets — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:00:41 +0000

I would simply distinguish between a satire, and satire-in-writing. I like the definition of satire in Northrop Frye's Theory of Archteypes, which well-known satires like Animal Farm and Brave New World fit. A satire ridicules individuals or social institutions that are familiar to us, and show how these absurdities lead to a downward spiral from which there is no escape - in other words, a satire begins with a bad situation and ends with a bad situation. Satires are cynical with regard to the outcome of things. Harry Potter is, overall, a comedy, very simply because it begins badly and ends well, although there are strands of satire in it: Lockhart, for instance, is shown to be ridiculous and shown no mercy. I find saying some writers satirize for a "light laugh" undermines the author's intentions. How specific does the target have to be? Jane Austen was deliberately mocking Ann Radcliffe's popular gothic novels in Northanger Abbey. One might be able to laugh off Mrs. Bennet's maternal fussiness, but William Collins is a seriously sad portrait of a man who is really inept despite his ridiculous arrogance, just like Gilderoy Lockhart. Rowling, Austen, Dickens, Mark Twain etc. use satire in similar ways, to criticize individuals (or types of individuals) we recognize in society, but they did not write a satire.

By: Robert Trexler

Robert Trexler — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:54:22 +0000

Dickens may have had Malthus in mind when writing that line for Scrooge, but his larger target was the current trend of political philosophy called Ultilitarianism championed by the political philospher Bentham. Early in Dicken’s career he was a court reporter and saw the indifference of many politicians to the plight of the poor and working class. Social injustice was a key theme for Dickens – but he didn’t advocate changing the structure of society by revolution or legislation. He distrusted systems to bring about reform. He wanted (as Jerry points out) for people themselves to be reformed. Dicken’s novel HARD TIMES is written a few years before A Christmas Carol and is the clearest example of Dickens condemnation of ultilitarianism.

By: Beth

Beth — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:02:19 +0000

Thank you, both to John and Jerry. The distinction you point out between satire and satirical writing is really helpful, John, and isn’t one I had thought through so clearly before. Reading your reflections, I realized almost immediately that I’m drawn to writers who are either satirical rather than satirists (a la Austen) or who have that ability to mingle the broad stroke satirical writing with the occasionally more specific satirical zinger (a la Rowling’s Aunt Marge). I confess I’ve never been much of a fan of Gulliver’s Travels, though perhaps Harry Potter’s Bookshelf will help me “get” Swift!

And Jerry’s article on Scrooge and Malthus is very illuminating. I thought his conclusion (the need not for evidence but for conversion) truthful and compassionate. And lest we think Malthusian thinking is no longer with us… well, just yesterday I read this blog post from Get Religion: http://www.getreligion.org/?p=6736 in which it seems fairly clear that we’ve got some Malthusian thinkers in Congress. I found it a sobering thought: the idea that one way we can reduce costs is to reduce people, though it wasn’t stated quite as baldly as that.