Is Satire based on Criticism or Ridicule?

[ZethaPonderer]

Let's get the definitions out of the way before we begin to discuss this puzzling topic (at least for me).

 

According to the website https://literarydevices.net/satire/, their definition of Satire states,

"Satire is a technique employed by writers to expose and criticize foolishness and corruption of an individual or a society by using humor, irony, exaggeration or ridicule. It intends to improve humanity by criticizing its follies and foibles. A writer in a satire uses fictional characters, which stand for real people, to expose and condemn their corruption.

A writer may point a satire toward a person, a country or even the entire world. Usually, a satire is a comical piece of writing which makes fun of an individual or a society to expose its stupidity and shortcomings. In addition, he hopes that those he criticizes will improve their characters by overcoming their weaknesses."

 

Here's also the definition of the term Critique when discussing this in relation to Satire from the same website,

"Critique is a literary technique that means to critically evaluate a piece of literary work, a political or philosophical theory in detail. A critique could be a critical essay, an article evaluating a literary piece, or a review. It may be just like a summary that identifies the central issue, raises questions, takes notice of theoretical and experimental approaches, and reviews the significance of the results. Apart from that, its purpose is to highlight both the shortcomings as well as strengths of a literary piece or an art work. Moreover, critically evaluation or assessment requires sufficient knowledge about the subject matter.

 

 

I have my fair share of problems when reading and dealing with satirical works. Especially when such works dabble on topics such as politics and religion. I must say, based on my experience, I have not found a shred of evidence where satire has worked to bring a positive change in people's lives (Prove me wrong on this one by citing evidence cause I'm having difficulties finding sources).

Because to me personally, if you're going to criticize then criticize away. Criticize as if this is your last day to live and you put so much thought, effort, and energy just to criticize and die by it (if it happens) because you cared at the very least to bring a positive change for Humanity. Tyrants vehemently despise a critic with a sense of spirit like this and I'm willing to go on that road. I can see that judging by the definition of "Critique", we criticize because we care about the subject matter based on acquiring sufficient knowledge. Otherwise if you criticize while not caring about the subject matter, then can that be considered criticism?

Still the major question rises, does satire criticize or ridicule most of the time? Maybe it depends based on how the satirical works are designed in the first place, but I always have found the focus on satire is more on ridiculing human faults and errors to get the criticism across. To me, it's not criticism if you exaggerate your evidence to get your point across. It's intellectual dishonesty and a glaring distortion of the actual evidence which I get it, THAT is what satire is designed to do.

I just don't understand the synergy between satire sharing both criticism and ridicule on its definition in the same sentence. You either make fun of something because you don't care or you criticize because you do care. But, putting the two together just doesn't work with me because I don't know if you care or not when addressing your criticisms through satire. It just makes you come across as either a confused individual or a hypocrite. Am I supposed to take the criticisms that a satirical work addresses seriously or am I suppose to take it all in as a big joke? How would I know that people distorts some of the facts in their satirical works to get their point across?

 

Where I come from, you either die-hard criticize and be blunt about it to address your point cause you care to bring a positive change for Humanity. OR you ridicule with no rationale on your end to back them up because you don't care.

Perhaps I take suspicion of any satirist author's intentions despite his satirical works' intention to address his criticisms in hopes that people improve. Even though some of the criticisms in satire are exaggerated for the LOLZ, entertainment, and $$$ which defeats the purpose of critique where you should let the evidence speak for itself and then address the shortcomings behind it out of sheer concern. Must be my cynical skepticism kicking in with a tint of conspiracy.

 

TL;DR, I find satire confusing and annoying to sit through. And I don't like it.

What do you all think and what are your votes? Mine is ridicule.

[Ashvazdanghe]

Hazel writes in the literature that he has a tangible and intangible expression of righteousness that is contrary to literacy and speaks of sexuality or sexual orientation without any discrimination and is in contrast to his ancestors, doctrines and wisdom. [1] Hazal is not a serious subject, and with The satire and satire are different, because in humor, laughter is a means to reach a higher goal, and to hedge in its attacks individual or political-social aspects. [1]

https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/هزل

Ubayd Zakani introduced satire in Persian literature during the 14th century. His work is noted for its satire and obscene verses, often political or bawdy, and often cited in debates involving homosexual practices. He wrote the Resaleh-ye Delgosha, as well as Akhlaq al-Ashraf ("Ethics of the Aristocracy") and the famous humorous fable Masnavi Mush-O-Gorbeh (Mouse and Cat), which was a political satire. His non-satirical serious classical verses have also been regarded as very well written, in league with the other great works of Persian literature. Between 1905 and 1911, Bibi Khatoon Astarabadi and other Iranian writers wrote notable satires.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

Humor in Persian literature.
In classical Persian literature, humor was in the works of the writers of various periods in various ways. At the top of these people, Obeid Zakani is the father of satire of arts in Persian literature. [10] But contemporary prose and satire began with the articles of Ali Akbar Khan Dehkhoda. The articles published in the Sorasrail newspaper published by Jangirirkhan Sorasafil named "Chernand and Prand". Girand and Pand were inspired by the method of prose writer Mirza Jalil Mohammad Ghalizadeh in the melanoz al-Din satire. At the same time as Dehkhoda in prose, Iraj Mirza and Seyyed Ashrafdodin Qazvini, they opened new ways in verse humor. From the later satirists, we can mention Kiumores Saberi Fomeni (Gol Agha), Abolfazl Zarroi Nasr Abad, Abolqasem Mousavi, Manouchehr Ehterami, Seyed Ebrahim Nabavi, Zahra Dari, Pouria Alami, Ismail Amini, Naser Feiz, Omid Mehdinezhad, Alireza Labash and Abdollah Moghadami.

https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/طنز

Invective

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Look up invective in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Invective (from Middle English invectif, or Old French and Late Latin invectus) is abusive, reproachful, or venomous language used to express blame or censure; or, a form of rude expression or discourse intended to offend or hurt;^[1][2][3] vituperation, or deeply seated ill will, vitriol.^{[clarification needed]} The Latin adjective invectivus means 'scolding.'^{[citation needed]}

In various literature [edit]
Persian Edit]
The Hajv in Persian literature is used in the form of a piece of poetry for personal or political-social purposes. Mohammad Ja'far Mahjob in the book of Khorasani style in Persian poetry has expressed a view about the origins of Persian feud.
Manjik Taremzi is one of the first poets whose poems are in parody. It was written in an archival council that "A man was a sharp man, an angry man, a tongue, a tongue, an angel, and a point that nobody could drink from his raven, and he would not have heard of the wicked lips; he made the hamster's chest tied up to the tongue of the wicked, Bazyat. "In the book of the historical perspective of Hajj in the chapter on motivations in Siri Syah, while describing a complete description of the Persian hijauats and Hajosaries, in each period of the history of literature, Azizullah Kāsaf considers the poetry that the people of Khorasan read in Hajj Asad bin Abdullah, the first of which is the poetry of Dari poetry. [1] Mekram Isfahani was a famous hijah who wrote his poems in Esfahani dialect in Isfahan Voice One "He was doing his own humor to wake up and go to war of superstition." His most famous poem is Aaron and Lot. [1]

https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/هجو