English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

i mean what tha hell, is it supposed to be humorous, cause throughout it i didn't find one glimpse of humor

2007-03-12 17:06:59 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities Books & Authors

well yeah i understand to make a point, and i didn't really mean humorous as in joking funny, but i just meant not serious serious humor, like u guys said satire

2007-03-12 17:14:25 · update #1

7 answers

Everything in "A Modest Proposal" is ironic, though not necessarily funny. The subject is the relationship of starving Irish tenants to their indifferent English landlords. Swift is addressing English prejudice which considered the Irish to be less than human. The kinds of arguments he uses are all examples common rhetoric used in political and social writing and speeches of his time.

The essence of his satire is that the proposal is not "modest" at all, but completely outrageous. The very fact that he puts it out there for his audience says he considers the indifference of English landlords to be outrageous to the same extent.

The reason that "A Modest Proposal" is one of the great examples of satire is that Swift manages to sustain the argument through such a long and developed piece of writing. The longer it goes on, the more outrageous it becomes.

One of the things I have always said about satire is that more often than not it is not funny to read, but it is funny to talk about.

A more familiar example of satire, particularly dark satire, for you might be Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle. There is really nothing funny about "Ice Nine" at all, or about the fact that the world is doomed throughout the whole story. But putting the kinds of religious, sexual, scientific and political follies that are real and harmful into this extreme situation made a lot of people see the self-destructive nature of many of the attitudes of the late sixties. Unfortunately, I think the book reads as if it could have been written yesterday, demonstrating that satire can make the point, but it may not make people any wiser.

2007-03-12 19:46:20 · answer #1 · answered by ? 2 · 1 0

Satire - pure satire. Same as if you were watching The Daily Show or Stephen Colbert. Humorous to some - not to others. Mr. Swift was making a very serious and valid point and he chose to do it in a satirical form. Please remember that most early satire (and satire goes back to Juvenal in the late first and early second centuries CE) was done to protect the writer from prosecution. Saying "the king sucks" could get you put in jail, but writing a book like Gulliver's Travels and satirizing the King was a whole different thing. The concept of freedom of speech has changed drastically in the past couple hundred years. Think of it from that perspective and you should get what Mr. Swift was after == making a point and saving his own bacon at the same time. C.

2007-03-13 04:59:19 · answer #2 · answered by Persiphone_Hellecat 7 · 1 0

One of the BEST pieces of satire ever written. The word comes from a Latin word for "a dish of bright-coloured fruits." People think it is disgusting because Swift is suggesting eating babies to alleviate the Irish famine. Well, the the way the Irish famine was regarded by the British was disgusting, and Swift is pointing out, through satire, just how disgusting it was. Satire does not necessarily mean it is funny.

2007-03-13 07:24:52 · answer #3 · answered by jcboyle 5 · 0 0

It's satire. DARK Satire. To understand it, it would help to look at the cultural setting he was writing in - early industrial revolution in Britain. But it's not supposed to be funny. It's meant to make a point...

2007-03-13 00:12:32 · answer #4 · answered by dreamed1 4 · 2 0

No, it is supposed to be satire on a very serious topic - the care of people when famine has hit a country through no fault of their own. Grime humor to get the attention of people who would not pay attention if told "we need to help these people." It is like: "I have a headache, how do I get rid of it?" "You could cut off your head!"

2007-03-13 00:11:01 · answer #5 · answered by Mike1942f 7 · 2 0

He's British. It is supposed to be satirical. Since London had such a huge problem with homeless (hungry) and especially children. Why not "kill 2 birds" and eat the kids, thus you feed the homeless and eliminate the homeless kid epidemic. I think he was just trying to bring light to the idea that this problem was not going to go away on its own.

2007-03-13 00:13:11 · answer #6 · answered by O 2 · 1 0

i agree i also thought it was funny cause the mood is making u think something funny is gonna happen. but im disgusted in the book for the fact that he would even suggest that eating babies is to help the country. hes also trying to make fun of the americans and english pple.

2007-03-13 00:18:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers