Tom Tomorrow tries to play by the new rules of satire

[BurtWorm]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-tomorrow/satire-by-the-book_b_113049.html

[underseasurveyor]

1. HaHaHa.. "get it?"

LOL I love Tom Tomorrow

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. I think it's nice that Tom is stepping up to defend a fellow cartoonist

But the problem with the NYer cover was not that it wasn't obviously satire. It's that it was poorly executed satire.

[eleny]

4. Agreed

Tom gave context in this cartoon - The New Yorker didn't.

[progdonkey]

10. The New Yorker WAS the context...

That the image would've looked just as at-home on the cover of the National Review or over in Freeperville does not mean there's a problem with the artist or the New Yorker, rather the problem is with the right wingers who are so crazy that even a satire could be mistaken for their true feelings.

The picture, though, was over-the-top enough that it should've been able to stand as clear satire on its own. Unfortunately, because of its particular target, it fell victim to a sort-of corollary to Poe's Law:

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. good one.

[tularetom]

5. I guess there's a first time for everything but I disagree with Mr Tomorrow

If the New Yorker cartoonist would have added a picture of Cleetus with thought bubbles rising up to a picture of the Obama's doing the terrist fist bump, well, that would have been analagous to the example he provided. But, no Cleetus, no thought bubbles and therefore, no satire.

I can't tell Tom Tomorrow how to do his job, he's the sharpest observer of the assholes who populate our political landscape. But I just can't agree with him here.

Perhaps I'm missing something.

[BurtWorm]

7. Do you think Barry Blitt believes the Obamas are Muslim terrorists?

Do you think it's a representation of how he feels about the Obamas?

[Hugabear]

8. Because all satire has to be that fucking obvious

You know, many times satire requires that the reader have some knowledge of the subject matter, and be familiar with the source in which it's portrayed - in this case, The New Yorker, which is known for its parody and satire.

I'm surprised that so many people here on DU think that satire has to actually identify itself as such. Which, of course, usually defeats the entire purpose of satire.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

14. You're missing the fact that The New Yorker will never beat you over the head with it like that

Hell, there was a Seinfeld episode about how no one understands their cartoons.

[BurtWorm]

6. Satire is supposed to provoke thought.

It's not supposed to do your thinking for you. I think that's Tom Tomorrow's point.

[Fire Walk With Me]

16. I looked at the NY cartoon and found it neither amusing nor thought-provoking.

It's a bit miffing, but it didn't raise my ire, either. It's just lame. TT's cartoon however, is amusing, even without the disclaimer. I'm not biased here because I dislike Bush, as I also dislike Obama (but of course =nowhere nearly= as much as Bush and yes I'll grudgingly vote for him, FISA or not).

[johnlal]

9. There is another difference

All three of the people depicted in Tom's cartoon are disliked by his audience. Mr. and Mrs. Obama were well liked and supported by many who saw the New Yorker's cover. Even though many people "get" the joke, it's still distressing to see this likeable couple depicted with terrorist garb, burning a flag, and possessing a portrait of Osama Bin Ladin.

[checks-n-balances]

15. I wonder what the Obama children would think of the cartoon

They're pretty much too young to understand irony/satire, but I'm sure it would be disturbing.

They're still young enough for lots of black-and-white thinking (i.e., not able to grasp grey-area abstractions yet).

The scary thing is, possibly as much as of our adult population also thinks that way. According to the late Swiss Philosopher Jean Piaget, as much as 60% of adults will never "get" the intended satire within the New Yorker cartoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development)

[gratuitous]

11. Wait; what is he saying?

Is that caption at the bottom supposed to be ironic? Because it sure doesn't read like rain on my wedding day. And would someone answer that Clue Phone? They keep saying it's for me, but there's never anyone there!

[Johonny]

12. So Bush dreams about men with facial hair?

What's funny about that?

[Obamarama]

13. And of patting them on the head....

like he does to all of his man crushes.

[Truth2Tell]

17. Don't forget that right-wing pig

Stephen Colbert! Where's his direct reference to his target?

I think some DUers need this:

http://www.drhumor.com/index.shtml">National Association for the Humor Impaired

Dr. Humor

President and CEO

Dr. Stuart Robertshaw, Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Education at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse and an attorney, currently serves as the President and CEO of the National Association for the Humor Impaired.

Dr. Robertshaw, a national speaker and humorist, is known throughout the nation as “Dr. Humor”®. His review of research led him to conclude that, “15 percent of people in America are humor impaired and another 15 percent are ‘at risk,’ and it’s no laughing matter.” As a result of his review, he founded the Association in 1990.

Dr. Robertshaw has presented to over 700 business, government, healthcare, and education organizations in 37 states.

More: http://www.drhumor.com/index.shtml

[ColbertWatcher]

18. tl;dr. n/t

[bluesmail]

19. I too love Tom Tommorrow. And after inspection of the

New Yorker cover, find it hilarious. Whomever thought to criticize it, really made the images sink in to the subconscious. Subtle and effective subliminal message. :evilgrin: 'nuff said.