Letters to the Editor
dawdler
Published Letters: 109 Editor's Choice: 11
-
It's a Parlor Trick
[Read the article: The unbearable whiteness of being]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've been perusing the SWPL blog for a while.
While all of the stereotypes are totally accurate, it still just doesn't sit well with me.
I know that "getting offended" is one of his "rules" for "white people" so I'm totally playing into a stereotype.
Whatever - you can't be involved in this debate without falling into one of the "rules".
It's kind of how a fortune-teller will always find a way to make it seem like they know something about you. It's a parlor-trick.
But that's part of my problem with this blog. To me it feels mean-spirited.
I feel like if are going to engage in satire, you need to give something back to the reader. Either art or an alternative. SWPL gives neither art nor an alternative. It tears down artlessly.
To those people who say "it's just a joke". That's fine. I get it. I'm not saying that the blog should be taken down or something. I am just expressing an opinion like everyone else here -- and my opinion is that SWPL is artless, facile satire that doesn't sit well with me.
-
@Amity - Nail. Head. Hit.
[Read the article: The unbearable whiteness of being]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]a kind of stylistic tone deafness that makes him essentially a gimmick
Thank you.
In SWPL, Lander has created artless satire that totally misses. And satire that misses is tiresome.
Not even getting to whether it's offensive or not... it's just bad. It's painful to read.
a desire on the part of the targets of its satire to justify themselves through self-mockery — and their ability, given their class, technophilia, and cultural influence — to trumpet him
Well put.
-
@Clockwork Smurf
[Read the article: Rush Limbaugh was right]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You can't set up a joke lampooning someone else's point of view without you know, having them in the picture. Otherwise you give the impression that you hold the belief you are trying to give.
I completely disagree. And so do MANY other people. I think the satire in this image is immedietely clear. I think it's a very effective satire.
...and this cover is not humorus. There isn't a joke in it.
There is a HUGE joke in the cover.
This is what a certain subsection of the population actually think is the image of the Obama's.
Bingo! THAT is the joke. Get it?
Any way, New Yorker, you're not a professional humor magazine, leave the satire to the Onion, o.k. It's actually a skill to comunicate humor to people, you can't just waive your hand and say it's satire, and say if you don't get the joke that's your problem.
Um - OK, but what about all the cartoons, Shouts and Murmers, David Sedaris essays? Since the New Yorker is not a "professional" humor magazine, should those also be removed?
Again - The New Yorker has a very rich history of satire in the form of cartoons. So, whatever other arguments you may have against this particular cover -- perhaps in your opinion it doesn't work -- to claim that they shouldn't do a cover like this because they haven't done something like this in the past is just uninformed.
If you have to explain it, it's not funny.
Except for possibly the most simple knock-knock jokes, there will always be someone who doesn't get it. Does that then put all humor off the table? That is a ridiculous test of humor.
I know you think it's funny, but funny must communicate right away, that's what makes it funny. If there is a pause, then it's not funny.
I don't think it's that cut and dry. There is room for subtle humor in this world.
So here's a rather lame picture depicting a right wing nightmare fantasy. Where's the reveal that makes it a joke?
The fantasy IS the joke. Get it?
Where's the wink at the camera that makes it satire
You missed it. It happens. Not everyone gets everything.
See here's the thing, if someone who holds these fantasies to be true can use this cover for their magazine, then you didn't create satire.
Someone can ALWAYS use ANYTHING for "their magazine". If you think humorists should censor anything that could be used by any wingnut to make a point we won't have much left to work with.
It's not funny, because there is nothing to let us know it's a joke and not just more crap from the right
Not everything needs interpretation spoon-fed to them and not every humorist needs to cater to the lowest common denominator. Although some do and that's great!
The New Yorker deserves it's criticism and perhaps next time it will just skip trying to be funny.
I hope not.
-
On Self-Censorship and Living in Fear
[Read the article: Rush Limbaugh was right]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think that Obama supporters and others on the left who are having fits about this are well-intentioned but are speaking from a place of fear.
To claim that a publication should censor itself for fear of feeding the right-wing smear machine is simply misguided.
Actually - in a weird way the repressive response to this cartoon is similar to the way our nation has responded to the threat of terrorism. We live in fear and let the government run roughshod over our rights and our lives.
Now some want a liberal publication to censor itself for fear of the right-wing smear machine.
When liberal publications like the New Yorker stop publishing images like this for fear of feeding some loud-mouthed jerks then the loud-mouthed jerks have won.
The right-wing smear machine will do what it does regardless of what is published. If it's not this cover, it will be something else.
-
@xufapemu
[Read the article: Rush Limbaugh was right]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Can anyone tell me how this cover strikes out at the New Yorkers stated intended target, the right-wingers who spread these lies?
Yes. It shows exactly how ABSURD the lies are.
The cartoon pokes fun at the silly mis-information going around about the Obamas by depecting those lies in an exaggerated caricature. I think it's pretty unambiguous.