Although it is more or less a policy of mine to not write directly about comments made regarding Samizdata.net articles, it is a policy occasionally worth ignoring.
Many commenters have reacted poorly to David Carr’s article AZNAR KNEW!!!. Whilst it is the readers prerogative to judge articles here as they see fit, I must disagree with some of the views put forward that it was an inappropriate article at a time of such truly hideous moment. I do not say so out of an urge to ‘circle the wagons’ but rather because many of the commenters are fine people whose opinions are of value to me. And because I think they are quite wrong, I feel I must say why, as Chief Editor of Samizdata.net, that I am delighted David wrote such a piece and published it now.
It is a ‘humorous’ article in so far as satire is an appeal to humour, but that does not mean David is laughing at what happened. Just as Jonathan Swift was not laughing at the Irish famine when he penned A modest proposal, so too is David drawing attention to something deadly serious.
It is at times like this when we most need to pour scorn on the people who are, by virtue of their world views, indirectly part of the problem. This hideous and evil act must be met with force and implacable resistance… and it is that sort of response that the people who are the targets of David’s satire will work tirelessly to prevent.
All David is doing is shining a light on them and now, not later, is the time to do that. The fact that what David wrote is close to the bone is what makes it effective. Why? Because it is only a few degrees off the non-satirical screeds we will actually be reading in a few days.
Now of all times, while the stench of death and horror are fresh in Madrid, it is right to point out that some well meaning people’s views, and some not so well meaning, are nothing less than an apologia for mass murderer. Ideas have consequences and that it what David was writing about.
Satire kicks ass, especially in times like this. The first time I really had a good chuckle after 911 was when I read the first issue of The Onion to come out after the attacks. Humor and satire keep us sane.
Fine, but I would have prefered something like Mr Carr’s Monumental “Let’s Start World War Three”.
I’m glad I didn’t place a comment to the article yesterday as this says what I would have tried to say infinitely better. The comment I had written would have been the third on the list (and the first supportive) had I chosen to post it and would have said as much as this one did, albeit in my own scattered approach. I didn’t feel that I came near the mark of what I was trying to say and scrapped it (as if not being perfectly clear had stopped me before).
I think the original article was well timed, and accurate. Satire cuts to the chase and doesn’t dilly dally around. It is a sharp weapon, and all the more keen the more timely it is used. The blame us first crowd has already emerged has can be seen in links in the comments as a part of Aznar New!. It wasn’t disrepectful to the victims it was more of an acknowledgement that others were soon to disrespect them, and it was those people that the scorn of satire was aimed at. Waiting a week or a month or a year would have changed the effect of the ridicule delivered.
Well said, Perry, as usual. As was David’s post.
Gentlemen,
Far be it from me to question what you write on your blog. For the most part this is a top-notch production. There is a quality of thought and of writing, and a consistency of approach and philosophy that must be very difficult to achieve in a groupblog, since no one else has done it.
I rarely applaud your efforts since you don’t seem the “bask in our reflected glory” sorts, and my continued readership and not infrequent commentary demonstrate my unquestioned loyalty. I used to spend quite a bit of time in the UK, had many close friends there and even considered moving there (but I married the other guy and stayed here). Now I am less mobile and must rely on online news and blogs to get my anglophile fix. I DO appreciate all you do, and hope my comments of yesterday did not cause undue distress (I suspect they did not, but I do seem to have struck a nerve).
That said, I maintain that a satire on the very day of a great tragedy is never appropriate. I believe in preemptive attacks, when necessary, but preemptive satire? Hmm… The fact is, as Andrew Sullivan posted on his blog today, Le Monde is actually changing tack from its usual blame the victim drivel. Is it so hard to believe that, faced with a horrific attack much closer to home, Europeans may reconsider their take on the war on terror?
So there you have it. Now, am I still welcome as a guest here, or shall I toddle off into the ether? I await your verdict.
Beat it, Kelli.
Kelli, we are not in the habit of chasing commenters away unless they are utter nutters or intolerably uncivil, clearly none of which applies to you. As I said in my article, you are entitled to your opinion, which I respect regardless of the fact I do not share it.
I just felt sufficiently strongly about this matter that I thought as I am the chief editor and proprietor, it behoved me to express my views with my proprietor’s hat on. In some ways this pertains to the issue of ‘what is Samizdata.net all about’… and I feel David encapsulated a fairly big chunk of that in the essence in his article.
It is not that David’s satire was wrong… but the timing could have been better.
Satire is “comical” in nature despite any serious intent – this automatically ensures that using it sends out mixed signals to your audience… which leaves them unsure how to react. This confusion takes away from the impact you may have intended the satire to make.
Also – To immediately pump out satire, before the subject of the satire have themselves reacted with regard to tragedy, pre-empts the scale and nature of any reaction we would make to what they do, because we have already been forced to react to what they might do as portrayed through the satire!
Perry, surely you don’t expect all people to think alike – so to say that people responded poorly can’t be correct- they responded well and appropriately according to how they thought at the time.
As individuals that is how it should be.
Yes?
-Joe
Having lived in Madrid for several years, right near Atocha, and knowing that my ‘hermanito’ Roberto lives about 200 meters from there, I had tears in my eyes yesterday, even whilst conversing with him and finding that he and all family and friends were unharmed. However, the satire was on target, a perfect analogy for what we see President Bush facing from the freaked-out hippie socialist scum that has permeated our society, especially the media and hollywood (lowercase for a sign of disrespect, thank you). For your next read, go see the dissidentfrogman…Well done, Team Samizdata.
Perry, surely you don’t expect all people to think alike
Not at all Joe, which is why I wrote:
So no, I do not expect all people to think alike and said as much. That does not mean I have to agree with them of course.
However as I think the timing of David’s article was correct, I thought I should say so and why. The object of a ‘serious’ satire is to make a serious point. It is precisely the bitterness of the moment that gives wings to such an article. I just want to make it clear that that was the main reason I am so strongly supportive of the article. I do not need you to agree with either myself or David as my article was intended to explain how I see this rather serious matter, more than to convince others we are correct as that is a matter of opinion and personal taste.
Although David can defend himself if he feels the need to (which he does not), I can say without much fear of contradiction that far from making light of this horror, it was his revulsion that moved him to write what he did.
“Every joke is a tiny revolution” – source unknown
Perry, when you say:
In that I agree wholeheartedly (Though of course you don’t need me to agree with you, absolutely no reason you should)… but the “serious” satire was posted under the “humour” label, which didn’t help its call to seriousness from the beginning.
I have no doubt that Davids intent was good… and I well understand why you posted, but definitely the timing and inclusion under the banner of “humour” worked against David… perhaps samizdata should have a “satire” heading for those sort of posts.
In a few days time it will read excellently. Maybe he should repost it then.
I completely agree Perry. But who said anything about reading this kind of stuff “in a few days time?”. I’ve already been speaking to people who are convinced that the “fire versus fire” approach of the war in Iraq “caused” this atrocity, and that’s without any large-scale media input thus far.
When will people realise that people who blow up trains are not reasonable people and thus should and cannot be reasoned with.
Mr. Carr’s article was, as ever, splendidly written and exceptionally acute.
Readers incapable of understanding the difference between an attack on ‘liberal’ commentators who effectively justify terrorism and their personal need to ‘share the pain’ are missing the point.
The very fact that his words appeared so soon after the outrage in Madrid only served to hold the mirror more directly to the hideous faces of those on the Left who mocked the USA within hours of the attack on the Twin Towers.
In that respect, it was the very speed of his commentary that gave it the requisite edge.
It’s just incredible to think that some people didn’t understand what David was doing here. Satire is a vector. It has both a magnitude and a direction. The magnitude component may have seemed indescrete to those who don’t get the gist, but the direction was right on. I’d kick my self day and night if I ever missed one of David’s wonder posts. I just hope some of the people out there who had a problem with this, understand now. If not, I hope they go somewhere else.
I think the only problem is the satire doesn’t go far enough; it’s too hard to distinguish from the Democratic Underground trash. (In fact, I’d love to see it posted on DU just to see if anyone got it.)
Oh, and Kelli — I say hang around. But think about that terminal ‘I’.
I agree with Perry and I think David’s article was appropriate and timely.
The useful idiots who are already beggining the campaign of blaming the West for this atrocity must be confronted, laughed at, scorned and ridiculed at every oppurtunity. They are as much part of the problem as are the terrorists.
I found Mr. Carr’s article a bit like a fine but young cabernet; it would have been even more enjoyable with some age.
I fear satire aimed at the left. All too often and with increasing speed and frequency the left use such satire as an instruction manual in their next wave of lunacy.
Aznar knew? Today it is satire, tomorrow it is the program for a new leftist tract, next week it is a roaring rumor around the internet, and next month it is conventional wisdom in certain, all too influential leftist circles the world over.
Azner knew? Be careful what you say for you may birth a monster.
First .. I LOVE satire. I think satire is the BEST way of helping people see the points you wish to make. You can get more mileage from a paragraph of satire than you can from multiple paragraphs of non-satire. Satire is swift and to the point.
However, I do think everyone has their time in which satire is acceptable after a great tragedy. Some people appreciate satire right away. Others won’t appreciate it until after the raw emotions have subsided a bit.
I would have found satire about the events in the US on 9/11 to be sickening had I read them on 9/12. I needed a little space of time to pass before I could appreciate any satire about that day.
TM Lutas is right–and dead wrong. Satire and less black humour inevitably will be misappropriated and misunderstood, both knowingly and unknowingly, by their objects. But the point of satire is not to persuade your enemies, it is to cast light on their ways for the benefit of bystanders, and stir up discussion of ideas that can be taken as read.
The world has lots of people in it who do not know the function of satire, nor have the ability to distinguish it from straight opinion. But it is worse than that.
Salman Rushdie wrote of a shock he experienced during the Satanic Verses affair. He had expected people to be angered by the satirical content, if not to the homicidal degree that political agitation achieved. He found a lot of the correspondance he received was from people who wrote and read English at a functional level, did not understand the idea of fiction. Their assumption was that anything written down must be either literal truth or an attempt to deceive.
Even if you’re not a novelist, that insight is pretty devastating. However, that there’s a lot of literalism in the world is not an argument for abandoning literature or any of its tropes. Otherwise we might as well give up any other attempt to communicate ideas subtler than those handled by tabloids and rural madrassas.
David’s satire would still have been funny a day later or even a week later, it would however, not have been nearly as effective. I was by virtue of appearing before the useful idiots could start screaming Aznar Knew!!! that it was so devastatingly effective.
TM Lucas – “… satire, tomorrow it is the program for a new leftist tract, next week it is a roaring rumor around the internet, and next month it is conventional wisdom in certain, all too influential leftist circles the world over.” Uh. That was the point …
Kelli, lucky you didn’t move to the UK because you may have been daunted and continually outraged by our ability to stiffen our spines and laugh in the face of horror. Laughter draws people together. Satire applies the sting of a whip to a body of thought or behaviour.
David’s post was not only appropriate, but it was written in a lash of fury and was bitingly true.
Anyone who’s familiar with my posts knows I love Americans dearly, but they have a depressing provincial, preachy, school ma’army tendency to lecture others. I am guessing that most of the people who have posted disapproval of David’s satire are Americans. You’re entitled to your opinion, but you’ll forgive us if we find your attitude, in this instance, rather prissy and shallow.
And what is it with the people who said it’s not funny now, but it would have been funny next week?
The immediacy was what gave this piece bite and edge. He spiked the guns of the tranzis. Within one week – with two days – the point will have been dissipated and diffused with a million other comments.
Anyway if they think Mr Carr satire was in anyway offensive, or of bad taste, i wonder what they’d think of this.
Erwan – Yup. David warned us to expect them, and here they are, right on cue, slithering in stage Left. And there is no actual point to their “wit”. Being a vicious one-worlder pinko is the point shrieking banalities – that’s the point.
BTW, is the Union Jack, if you can find one on public buildings in the age of St Tony, at half mast? I was touched, driving by the Gendarmerie in my town, to see the Tricoleur is at half mast to remember their Spanish neighbours. It is also at half mast in my local Mairie.
Verity, think comic timing… the same thing applies with satire… David’s post was good – its timing was off – he would have received a better response if he had given it a day.
It doesn’t make his post wrong nor the people who complained prissy… it just points up the different ways people deal with different situations.
I am definitely not american and where I come from satire and black humour are de rigueur -but I can still see the timing could have been better.
Joe – You have your point of view. I say that “giving it a day” would have diminished the impact. In fact, the commies and tranzis would have got there first and there would have been no point in writing it.
“Think comic timing” doesn’t apply. This wasn’t a comic turn. This was written savagely, in the moment of the rage. Humour was the weapon – not the point of the piece.
“He’d have received a better response if he’d given it a day”? Really?
TM Lucas – I owe you an apology. I misread your post above the first time I went through the posts above mine. I am so sorry for commenting on it under a misapprehension.
Verity, Exactly – it wasn’t a comic turn – despite being posted under the heading of “humour”… so there is more than good reason for people to react in different ways.
It is good for people to react differently- it shows they can think for themselves…and it is good for people to draw different lines at what they find acceptable, because when you get to the stage where ‘anything goes’ then satire becomes irrelevent.
I’m sorry, I want to make clear that when I said “the problem is”, I didn’t mean I disapproved. I actually thought it was funny.
I just think it’d be funnier to post it at DU to see how many people caught the satire.
Joe – My mind has become seriously boggled by your admission that you misunderstood the intent of David’s article because it was headed Humour, rather than Serious Satire.
This sort of black humour helps some of us get though tough times. I was affected by the attack in Madrid in a profound way…I felt feelings similar to those I felt on 9/11. I found David’s piece to right on the mark and in perfect timing. The ability to retain our sense of humour (however dark) at times like this will rankle, befuddle and infuriate those who perpetuated such an atrocity. Its all apart of the stiff-upper lip mentality that help the British through its darkest hour and help many Americans through the trauma of the attack on the world trade centre.
David’s style is not to everyone’s taste, but it is not exactly like this is not some sort of surprise turn. Some of us read David’s pieces for his brand of dry, caustic and sometimes brutal wit. I applaud Perry for sticking by his contributor despite some of the criticism David’s piece attracted.
Verity, I am American and I was the first commenter to express appreciation for David’s brilliant piece. (“Yay for me!”). Your American/British dichotomy is probably not as applicable as you think.
Verity, did I really seriously boggle you ….damn – and I didn’t feel a thing! 😉
I really didn’t misunderstand anything… I just pointed up the line between humour (funny) and serious satire that you yourself made use of. You did say the satire was “savage” – not a word usually connected with “fun”. Well not in polite conversation 🙂
Anyway its all in the eye of the beholder.
Humour, grief, sadness, anger etc are all very personal experiences, subject to the sensibilities and judgement of the individual who experiences them.
David wrote a satirical post for for public consumption….(all satire is a judgement call) some people thought it was ill timed (etc,)and told him so… That is good criticism – it doesn’t denigrate the writer – it gives him information to use to decide whether or not to change his approach the next time he intends to write something similar. Its David’s choice whether he will post just to suit himself or post to attract a larger audience. Satire by nature seeks a fairly large audience – yet some of Davids usual audience were offput by an aspect of his post. That is something anyone who seeks an audience should find worth noting.
Anyway – apologies for the boggling… I’m sure its nothing a good red wine won’t cure.
Have a good weekend.
The blaming of AZNAR has begun.
Maybe I shouldn’t have waited so long to post this, but my own opinion. I can understand what those in Spain are going through, those who read my earlier post about 9/11 would. I’ll leave it at that. It was the satire that was written that kept me sane and kept me from loosing myself in grief. It also kept those who were close to me from loosing themselfs in the dust and death of those days.
David’s satire was needed…some will argue that it will breed the hate in the left. You don’t need to give them ideas, you only have to look at what they write…they are self-fullfilling. I’ve found that if you *think it* someone else already has…it only takes time for someone else to come to the realization that they can exploit it for their own gain. Ben has posted the ‘blame’ already of Aznar, expect more….don’t expect less. Death for political gain such is this is about the worst you can get…and the fact that they are laying blame already disgusts me.
David, your work was good. Keep it up.
I’ll leave it at that.
The problem with David’s satire is that it has hijacked the attention of readers. Instead of discussing the bombings and what should be done about them we are debating David’s satire and whether or not it was appropriate. As a reader noted above, David should have started with a blistering call to arms. It is high time we admitted that the invasion of Iraq did little for the war on terrorism and that we need to stop treating countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia with kid gloves. Since 9-11, al-Qaeda has commited terrorist atrocites against many countries and organisations ranging from Australia to the United Nations. It now looks very likely they were behind the Madrid bombings also. This is war and war first of all needs a blood-curdling declaration. David should be howling for a swift, accurate, and devastating response to this. And he should be asking some tough questions about why al Qaeda are still virulent. Save the satire for after the declaration or war and for when you have your facts straight.
Aral Simbon – David’s piece should have been exactly as he wrote it. You cannot dictate how a writer expresses himself. I agree though, that a tiny phalanx of the politically correct did deflect attention from his thoughts to his timing and the rest of us started defending David instead of discussing the issue.
I don’t agree, though, that the war in Iraq has not been effective in what it set out to do. I think it has been very effective so far. Its execution has produced an acceptable constitution which all parties have managed to agree on with varying degrees of enthusiasm. This is the first time a Middle Eastern country has had a real, democratically agreed-upon constitution and this is the first tiny beacon of light in that region sunk in the Dark Ages. That is a huge step.
Seems like the Saudi royal family has had its own little epiphany and – wait for it – is going to give the vote to women. OK. It is most unlikely it will be a full vote as we know it, but they’ve given in to the demands of women who go out to work. They’re going to get a say in their government. We know this pissant royal family would have ordered these women stoned to death for their effrontery a year ago. I think they looked in the mirror and asked themselves who might be next for a lesson in democracy.
Once Iraq’s oil is up and running, Saudi Arabia’s use as a “friend” will be hugely diminished.
Like you, though, I think it’s time to curdle some blood and remove the fight from our territory and take it to theirs. This would include turning all the prisoners being held at Guantanamo into shark food.
BTW, those strippers at Guantanamo Bay deserve the Medal of Honor. If they put a tip jar on the internet, I’ll bet we’d all be willing to kick in with a few groats. (That’s g-R-oats.)
Given that the Spanish seem to agree with both the substance and tenor of Mr. Carr’s piece, how exactly is it satire?
verity wrote – “Like you, though, I think it’s time to curdle some blood and remove the fight from our territory and take it to theirs. This would include turning all the prisoners being held at Guantanamo into shark food.”
I’d be interested to hear the libertarian case for summary executions. Didn’t 3 of the prisoners just get released to the UK, after there having been no evidence brought forward to link them to terrorism? Do they get turned into shark food too?
As for Spain – Aznar made the country a bigger terrorist target in order to achieve a political end. That can be justified if the political end is viewed as sufficiently worthwhile. But clearly the Spanish do not view liberating Iraq as “worthwhile” – on the contrary, the vast majority opposed the war on principle. So for them, Aznar exposed them to more danger in order to pursue an unpopular and unwanted goal. If you are a Spaniard who holds that view, then it may be grounds to vote against him.
Finally, Aznar’s support of the Iraq war has been proven to be tactically disastrous. The Spanish troops made no different to the outcome of events in Iraq, yet sending them there has resulted in socialists coming to power in Spain. That is a disaster for Aznar, the Spanish right, and Spain as a whole. He has lost everything by an action which made almost no difference to anything.
Cobden Bright – “He has lost everything by an action which made almost no difference to anything.”
He elevated Spain in the eyes of Europe and the world, into a player. He had little to gain personally as he was leaving office anyway. Spain has now sidelined itself. That’s democracy for you. But they can’t expect the major players to take them seriously any more.
Cobden Bright, again – Yes, I think it was four Guantanamo Islamists were released to Britain. One of them had been to Afghanistan to take a computer course – an unusual choice of countries to in which to seek instruction in modern technology, you must agree. Another had gone to find a bride – another quixotic choice, given that under the Taleban the women were banged up in burquas so it would have been a bit like buying a pig in a poke, so to speak. Another had gone to Pakistan to learn Arabic – again, a quixotic choice of venue, given that in Pakistan, they speak Urdu. I believe a fourth, on a solitary hiking holiday in Afghanistan, was wandering lonely as a cloud and was confused to notice that he had wandered onto a battlefield that was crowded with British troops.
Sharkfood candidates? Yes, to clarify the gene pool if nothing else.