endless automata

Before yet another article is written by some Saturn driving madman intent upon running down me and my friends and then defended in the name of satire, I thought perhaps a simple guide to satire might be in order to clarify matters a bit.

Satire generally works like this:

• Start with a problem - generally social problems work best here. Great writers weave their problem into the fabric of their narrative.
• Take the side of the viewpoint you disagree with. Satire involves using irony, parody, and sarcasm to dismantle your opponents position by representing it in a different light.
• Using all the literary devices at your disposal (as a writer, things like irony, parody, and sarcasm should all be part of your arsenal) slowly and steadily push your opponent’s viewpoint into the realm of the absurd. This is perfectly demonstrated by Swift’s A Modest Proposal. Good satirists pull their readers into this realm so subtly that it’s not until the final lines of the piece that the reader becomes aware of the subterfuge.

If you find my short description a bit lacking, Wikipedia may be able to help.

Now that everyone understands satire a bit better, let’s take a look at Zack Colman’s infamous article. Was it satire? It all depends on the viewpoint of the author. If Zack was a well known bicycle advocate, or if this article was written by Lance Armstrong then I would say it was a poor attempt at satire. It’s all simply too reasonable. There’s perhaps a tinge of parody, but, unfortunately, it reads like an angry diatribe. Given the fact that we know nothing of Zack’s background we are forced to assume this is his honest opinion, and rather scary at that. An interview that occurred after the article was written seems to confirm that Colman was only exaggerating his own opinions rather than exploring an opposing viewpoint.

It’s interesting to see how external information can affect the perception of a piece. If Zack’s article has been posted on the Bike Snob NYC blog (and written a bit better) it could have passed as satire simply because it was posted on a cycle advocacy blog by a cycle advocate. Context is important. Unfortunately Colman provided none, forcing us to take his words at face value.

What about this second article? Is it satire? It’s certainly true that more people are identifying it as such. It’s also true that it does contain some of the classic hallmarks of satirical writing. Statements such as the following lead you to believe the author is not being entirely serious:

Bicycles should be banned and bicyclists should all be thrown in prison. Perhaps the key should be forgotten. Maybe they should be subject to public flogging when they try to sneak a pleasant Sunday afternoon ride through the park. They are monsters and they deserve to be punished…

Roads were made for cars and totally rockin’ motorcycles.

Some of us actually do have jobs and places to be, you smelly hippies!

…you beatniks!

All this talk of “saving the environment” is just globo-facist propaganda. Everyone knows that the fresh scent of car exhaust is like bottled America. A world where my children don’t come home at night coughing up black, viscous goo is not a world that I want to live in.

If you remove these few, clumsily exaggerated statements, this article reads surprisingly like Colman’s. It’s also not clear exactly what the author is attempting to suggest by peppering his mild arguments against cyclists with a few outrageous statements. The only redeeming quality of this article is that the author’s hyperbole clearly suggests the entire piece isn’t in any way earnest and can safely be ignored, unlike Colman’s disturbing article.

So, before you try your hand at writing a satirical send-up of cyclists for your college newspaper, please take some time to read Swift, Twain, or at least Wikipedia. Otherwise the only group you satirize are college journalists.