More Satire With Balls

I feel like I've spent a large part of the day underwater. The other part I've spent sat in the car vainly waiting for the downpour to ease off, whilst the moisture from my rain-sodden clothes fogs up the windows. Listening to the rain drumming on the roof of the car has given me plenty of time for thought, particularly about the nature of satirical humour, and online satire in particular. I mentioned in a recent editorial that I'd been lurking around the message boards of another satire site, in the hope of finding some kind of satire community to replace the one at the now defunct Humorfeed members forum. Sadly, I was to be disappointed, finding only a bunch of middle class smart arses instead. Anyway, I found myself back there the other day, only to left somewhat nonplussed by a recent thread in which one of the members, apparently in all seriousness, admitted to having no idea as to what the phone-hacking scandal was all about. Now, bearing in mind that this is one of the biggest news stories to break in years, with the potential to completely reshape the UK media landscape, not to mention its political impact, it really is quite worrying to find someone associated with a satire site claiming ignorance of it.

It raised the question, in my mind at least, as to whether it is possible to write satire if you have no interest in, or knowledge of, current affairs. Ultimately, I suppose, it all hinges on how one defines satire. For many, the only real satire is political satire. The lampooning of politicians, ideologies and political institutions is what distinguishes satire from mere 'humour', they would argue. If we accept this principle the, clearly, no satirist worth their salt could possibly dare to claim ignorance of major news stories. However, the reality is that satire, as defined by the dictionary, has always encompassed more than just the parodying of politics. It is about making fun of and challenging all established mores, whether they be political, social, cultural or economic. It's about being iconoclastic and undermining the status quo. By this reckoning, it is entirely possible to write satire without any interest in politics and current affairs. It just wouldn't be political satire. You could quite easily bang out stories satirising popular culture, celebrities, religion, even royalty, without ever reading a broadsheet or watching an edition of Newsnight. Which might explain why so much of the UK satire I encounter online is so bloody whimsical, never going for the jugular, instead dancing around its subject matter, ineffectually jabbing at it with the sort smart-arsed quips celebrities on panel shows have scripted for them. Their humour might, technically, be clever, but its shallowness betrays a lack of real passion about the subject matter. Whilst there's nothing wrong with a bit of whimsicality, when writing satire you not only need balls, (metaphorically speaking, in case anyone thinks I'm implying that women can't write satire), but every so often you have to be prepared to kick your subject in the balls.