Satire 2480 – 2008-2009
Close Reading (fun with words): Due in Tutorials the week of Oct. 21, 2008
Length: 1000 words (approximately 4 incisive pages)
General instructions: The use of critical sources is not encouraged for this assignment. If you do use secondary sources, cite your sources, where appropriate, and provide a “Works Cited” page at the end of the close reading. Use the MLA citation style (Tutorial leaders will be pleased to assist you in deciphering this acronym).
- Close Reading Exercise: Choose either A, B, or C
The satirist employs a combination of rhetorical strategies in order to make his or her argument more convincing or attack more biting. Provide a critical analysis of one of the following passages. In other words in your essay you should answer the following questions: What makes this particular passage satirical? What are the verbal and structural clues that reveal its satiric meaning? Who and what exactly are the targets of the satire? This close reading should explain HOW the specific section of the text works. Be sure to focus on the specific passages indicated. You may make reference (briefly) to each piece as a whole (if applicable), but if you focus your attention on a portion of the text not in the chosen passage, you will lose marks.
Focus on the following:
- Diction - The specific word choice a writer makes can communicate a lot. Pay attention to whether the language is formal, euphemistic, familiar, sophisticated, or judgmental. Diction can go a long way toward creating a particular tone. How does the choice of diction relate to the object of criticism? In other words, how does the choice of diction inform or enhance the criticism?
- Speaker/Projector - Who is doing the talking in a particular text? What is his or her attitude toward the subject discussed? How can you tell? What do we learn about the speaker as the piece progresses? Discuss the satirical distance between the authorial voice of the piece and the speaker within the piece. What is the effect?
- Structure - How do the ideas and themes of a text present themselves as the narrative unfolds? Is the text modeled on a well-known structure? If so, does the tension between form and content inform the passage?
- Irony - Where do you see tension between what is being said and what is meant? How do you know there is a discrepancy? Satirists often use some kind of underlying tension to let you know what their actual rhetorical aims are and what the object of their criticism is, and finding specific instances where that tension becomes apparent is essential.
- Figurative language and rhetorical devices - Pay attention to any similes, metaphors, symbols, allusions, or otherwise intriguing images. Do any recur, or do any share certain qualities? Do they express a common attitude? How do they work with other aspects of the text to make meaning? Does the piece utilize invective or hyperbole? If so, what is the effect?
Choice A: From The Onion
Evolutionists Flock To Darwin-Shaped Wall Stain
SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 | ISSUE 44•36
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin
DAYTON, TN—A steady stream of devoted evolutionists continued to gather in this small Tennessee town today to witness what many believe is an image of Charles Darwin—author of The Origin Of Species and founder of the modern evolutionary movement—made manifest on a concrete wall in downtown Dayton.
"I brought my baby to touch the wall, so that the power of Darwin can purify her genetic makeup of undesirable inherited traits," said Darlene Freiberg, one among a growing crowd assembled here to see the mysterious stain, which appeared last Monday on one side of the Rhea County Courthouse. The building was also the location of the famed "Scopes Monkey Trial" and is widely considered one of Darwinism's holiest sites. "Forgive me, O Charles, for ever doubting your Divine Evolution. After seeing this miracle of limestone pigmentation with my own eyes, my faith in empirical reasoning will never again be tested."
Added Freiberg, "Behold the power and glory of the scientific method!"
Since witnesses first reported the unexplained marking—which appears to resemble a 19th-century male figure with a high forehead and large beard—this normally quiet town has become a hotbed of biological zealotry. Thousands of pilgrims from as far away as Berkeley's paleoanthropology department have flocked to the site to lay wreaths of flowers, light devotional candles, read aloud from Darwin's works, and otherwise pay homage to the mysterious blue-green stain.
[…]
"I have never felt closer to Darwin's ideas," said zoologist Fred Granger, who waited in line for 16 hours to view the stain. "May his name be praised and his theories on natural selection echo in all the halls of naturalistic observation forever."
Despite the enthusiasm the so-called "Darwin Smudge" has generated among the evolutionary faithful, disagreement remains as to its origin. Some believe the image is actually closer to the visage of Stephen Jay Gould, longtime columnist for Natural History magazine and originator of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, and is therefore proof of rapid cladogenesis. A smaller minority contend it is the face of Carl Sagan, and should be viewed as a warning to those nonbelievers who have not yet seen his hit PBS series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage.
Still others have attempted to discredit the miracle entirely, claiming that there are several alternate explanations for the appearance of the unexplained discoloration.
"It's a stain on a wall, and nothing more," said the Rev. Clement McCoy, a professor at Oral Roberts University and prominent opponent of evolutionary theory. "Anything else is the delusional fantasy of a fanatical evolutionist mindset that sees only what it wishes to see in the hopes of validating a baseless, illogical belief system. I only hope these heretics see the error of their ways before our Most Powerful God smites them all in His vengeance."
Choice B:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/sermons/abortion.html
Just Because God Loves to Kill Babies, Doesn't Give You Permission!
During last week’s adult Sunday school class for platinum tithers, we planned next month’s protest at abortion clinics in Des Moines. After class, one of our newer members approached me and said, “Brother Harry, I have scoured the Bible and haven’t found any passages outlawing abortion. So how do we know it’s wrong?” I immediately called the class back to order and rebuked this novice Christian in front of his peers. Only a weak Christian or backslider would question a doctrine accepted by True Christians® for many years. If your preacher says something is a sin, it’s a sin – no questions asked. However, recognizing that Pastor Deacon Fred has a tendency to publish some of my sermons on the church website, and knowing that the unsaved are regularly drawn by God to our site, I decided to present the Biblical case against abortion for you this morning.
It is true that the Bible contains no verses prohibiting voluntary abortion. That, in and of itself, shows that it is a sin. The only references to abortion in the Bible are to coerced abortion as a punishment for nonbelievers, sinners and those who fail to recognize God’s chosen people. In Second Kings, we learn that Menahem, leader of the Israelites, smote all the people who refused to follow him “and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up” (2 Kings 15:16). Later, in Hosea, we learn that because the land of Samaria rejected God, “Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up” (Hosea 13:16). Hosea decided to carry out God’s vengeance on the people by killing the unborn babies carried by the heathen women. He promised to “slay even the beloved fruit of their womb” (Hosea 9:16).
Since killing their unborn children is one of the many punishments the followers of God have inflicted on nonbelievers, it is obviously not an act any True Christians® may undertake for themselves by choice. Furthermore, humans have no business performing abortions because that is God’s role. After all, it was God who killed all the unborn children on the planet (other than those of Noah’s immediate family) when He drowned everyone with the Great Flood (Genesis 7:23). And it was God who inflicted abortion on all the pregnant women when he rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, killing everyone who lived therein (Genesis 19:24-25). And it was God who killed the unborn babies during the countless plagues and pestilence he inflicted on the planet throughout history. Abortion is obviously an act God reserves for punishing those groups of people who rub him the wrong way. It is not an act to be performed at human whim.
Finally, friends, there is absolutely no reason to opt for abortion when God allows us, and in some instances, orders us, to rid ourselves of troublesome children after they’re born. Wasn’t it God who said, “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones” (Psalms 137:9)? Why insist on prenatal killing when the post-natal killing options are so widespread? The Bible authorizes us to kill just about any child who becomes burdensome. According to Deuteronomy, if a child is unruly and disobedient, we not only have the option of killing him, but it is mandatory that he be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). The same is true for a child who speaks to us with foul language (Exodus 21:17). Or a child who hits us (Exodus 21:15).
The bottom line is that only coerced abortion is allowed in the Bible, not abortion on demand. And God, in his infinite compassion, provided us with the means of eliminating troublesome children once they are born and we know for sure they are unwanted. So tell your skeptical acquaintances to put away the coat hangers, once and for all, and let the child be born, but have stones and the Proverbial rod handy, just in case.
Choice C:
The Wolf, the Sheep, the H.R. Person, Mayor Bloomberg, Al Sharpton, and Jesse the Intern
A wolf applies for a job with the Parks Department. To his chagrin, he doesn’t even get a second interview. He disguises himself in a sheepskin and reapplies, but the H.R. person is still unimpressed. Believing that he is the victim of discrimination, the wolf hires a lawyer, who notifies Al Sharpton, who puts in a call to Mayor Bloomberg. The Mayor holds a press conference at which he reaffirms the city’s commitment to diversity and offers the sheep, who is actually a wolf, a job. The wolf accepts, and the whole thing blows over. After a month of answering phones, the wolf suddenly throws off the sheepskin and announces to the office that he is a wolf. Inspired by the wolf’s example, Jesse the intern suddenly announces that he is gay. The office breaks into applause and everyone goes out for drinks to celebrate.
Moral: It’s best to come out of the closet on a Friday, so people can let it sink in over the weekend.
Source: The New Yorker, August 13, 2007 |
