Satire v. Dark Humor
As we’ve taken a look into Harry Shearer’s Le Show, and now have a good idea about when, where, and why he seems to use satire versus dark humor. There are some good points, or at the very least, some points that start some good conversations. Dark humor has and continues to be a controversial topic in the field of comedy as well as in our everyday lives. Knowing if something is “worth” joking about, or whether or not one should make a certain joke, is something that we should be conscious of, and it is healthy for the well-being of a community.
Harry Shearer, a self-described satirist, has become very comfortable and familiar with the workings of satire. For example, in your most traditional introduction to satire, let’s use the Cambridge Introduction, the very question of defining satire becomes problematic. Most scholars, according to scholar Johnathan Greenberg, agree that it makes more sense to treat satire like a form that has “family resemblances” (Greenberg 12). An early attempt at making a model that showcases some of the “family resemblances" is Northrop Frye in 1957. It is a two-part model that asserts that satire uses both a “token of fantasy” and a “moral standard” (Frye, 223).
The element of fantasy in satire can range from exaggeration, caricature, to distortion, all which take the scenario beyond realism. Greenberg expresses that satire and the use of this fantasy is what allows us to see the “hard truths about society’s corruption” or things like that which are normally “closed off to the higher genres” (Greenberg 19). A highlight of what Greenberg notes as to the importance of fantasy in satire is that “the indulgence of play can just as easily be seen as satire’s real “purpose” (Greenberg 20).
However, when it comes to dark humor, specifically, Greenberg makes it clear that there should be a distinction. He includes it in his book within the section “What Isn’t Satire?”, if that wasn’t clear enough. For definition’s sake and clarity, dark humor is the “joking of suffering, cruelty, and death,” and a majority of scholars like Greenberg refer to surrealist André Breton’s Anthology of Black Humor as an origin for scholarship on it. Breton shares that the key to the difference between satire and dark humor is that:
“Satiric and moralistic intentions exert a degrading influence on almost every work of the past that, in some way, has been inspired by that kind of humour.” - Breton pp. XIX
So the key difference Breton is trying to make is that satire pushes, like much of the “family resemblances” we have talked about, the audience or argument towards some moral answer, whereas dark humor merely emphasizes the truth of the violence or cruelty. However, large criticisms have been made about the appropriateness of dark humor. Many view it as indecent and harmful, especially to those that may have endured the very suffering it jokes about. For some, the idea of humor and play seem to downplay the severity of the suffering or cruelty.
Like briefly mentioned in the beginning, many believe joking about cruelty, suffering, or the death of other people can be seen as making a mockery or making a show out of the horrible nature of its reality.
However, I think there are a couple points that we see in Shearer’s work that make sense of an argument against that. Firstly, as we saw in his news sections covering the stories about the sexual abuse of children, he makes a very minimal amount of jokes while reporting the news itself, much less than we would see about any other subject. This showcases that his understanding of the severity of the events is there. Secondly, he made a song about it instead of a sketch. Like we saw in the episode containing the news segment "All in All," and for something that comes up in many episodes, why wouldn’t Shearer capitalize off of the fact that he could easily make a recurring sketch series out of it? It seems that the answer to this lies closely in Shearer’s recognition of the need for the relationship of truth to be intact. The complete exaggeration of satire and sketch was then off-limits, as that is definitely fitting the idea of “making a show” out of something horrible. However, if it was merely to show the truth, why not just do the news segment?
In the July 04 episode, the specific relationship that dark humor has with truth is something that keeps intact the horribleness of what happened to the people involved while also bringing together some aspect of creation. In the end, he was playing a character that he wrote, even if it were based on a real person. He then uses his writing of the character to pull together the true and evil nature of these events in a way that pulls back the layers, the complex language, or the blubber of the real world.
What he then creates is something that is both real and fiction; something that is real in its horribleness, yet fictional in its execution. It all comes together in a way that directly contradicts that all-too-common criticism of dark humor in that it “makes a show” out of real and true events. This conversation is one that does have value and truth to it, as the intention of true dark humor has to be the revelation of the horrible nature of reality, not the importance of making a joke. This means that there can be plenty of things labeled as "dark humor" that do not prioritize the recognition of the evil.
Harry Shearer even hits this point directly in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter:
”‘Deaf Boys’ is certainly as close to the line as you can possibly get. When I first wrote the line, ‘Deaf boys can’t hear me coming,’ I thought, come on now. You can’t really do that.’ Oh yes, I can. I think extremely transgressive behavior deserves extremely transgressive ridicule. How can you be nice and write about something so horrible?” Harry Shearer
As we can see here, Shearer, like Breton before him, sees this relationship that dark humor has with truth. It becomes more important than any moral action. What might be interesting to think about is how we might view this in comparison to things like apologies. In some instances, having reasoning, routes for success, or strategies for improvement aren’t the necessary or complete pathway to healing. Maybe it is impossible to heal if you only have healing in mind instead of accepting the reality of why you need to heal. What many dark humorists, like Breton or Shearer, might be alluding to with works of dark humor is that tragedy and human suffering isn’t measurable, and by using it in comparison with moral judgment or as a stepping stone to healing, is doing quite the opposite. It puts the nasty, the foul, the ugly, in the shadows.
There is also a page in the drop-down menu labeled "Index," and it contains a couple categories useful for grouping some of the annotations together. There is even a collection of "Music not by Shearer" if you want a break!
Works Cited
The anthology of Black Humour, by André Breton (colour litho). Bridgeman Images. (n.d.). https://www.bridgemanimages.com/de/french-school/the-anthology-of-black-humour-by-andre-breton-colour-litho/colour-lithograph/asset/955746
Frye, N. (2000). Anatomy of Criticism: Four essays. Princeton University Press.
Greenberg, J. (2018). The Cambridge Introduction to Satire. Cambridge University Press.
Kim, C. (n.d.). The Metamorphosis, Franz Kafka, Kafka Art, Print Kafka Art. Etsy. https://www.etsy.com/listing/957959322/the-metamorphosis-franz-kafka-kafka-art
Pritchett, J. S. (n.d.). The Nonprofit. Pritchett Cartoons. https://www.pritchettcartoons.com/nonprofit.htm
Schlosser, E. (2014, January 17). Almost Everything in “Dr. Strangelove” Was True. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/almost-everything-in-dr-strangelove-was-true
Shearer, H. (n.d.). Le Show. Harryshearer.com. https://harryshearer.com/