Seattlest: Dan Savage Finally Understands Satire

guest

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:18:20 -0800

"Wait Tom, at the risk of being someone under 62 who doesn't get satire may I say that I don't think your post is satire. I mean it's satire like Alanis Morrissette is ironic." You're right - this post isn't satire. And, unless I'm also misreading, Tom didn't intend it to be. He discusses Keillor's & Savage's satiric pieces.

guest

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:46:32 -0800

Or maybe he doesn't. Today there's a Rupert Everett slam.

guest

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:53:09 -0800

Wait Tom, at the risk of being someone under 62 who doesn't get satire may I say that I don't think your post is satire. I mean it's satire like Alanis Morrissette is ironic. "burlesque, caricature, parody, travesty. Satire, lampoon refer to literary forms in which vices or follies are ridiculed. Satire, the general term, often emphasizes the weakness more than the weak person, and usually implies moral judgment and corrective purpose." One of the reasons the post bothered me was because I don't think any of what you said about Dan was incorrect. Pretentious yes, but I didn't get the lampoon. The quintessential example of satire in my mind is bugs bunny singing italian opera with Wagner gear on. Eating babies if you're starving? Yeah that too. But saying Dan is jerk? Well......

Tom

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:57:22 -0800

Point taken, guest #1. Again, it underscores the risks of making flippant, satirical comments, especially if one is worked up about something.

Tom

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:52:51 -0800

I like and enjoy Dan Savage's writing well over 90% percent of the time --even if I don't agree with it here and there. Also, I'm fine with him flying off the handle at times; anybody who writes publicly does it. But his attack on Garrison Keillor, especially given his tremendous influence with individuals/demographics which may not intersect with GK's demographics, seemed misplaced and misinformed and, I thought, counter-productive to the greater good. GK's comments may have deserved rebuke, but certainly not the vitriol they got. That was better reserved for Coulter, Rove, et. al. I dredged it up because it's continued to leave a bad taste in my mouth precisely because who knows whom his next undeserving target du jour may be. Dan Savage has a great amount of influence and, thus, a great responsibility to use it carefully.

guest

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:26:00 -0800

he won't point out (defend) the differences, he'll make some arrogant "yeah yeah yeah i'm SUCH a hypocrite" post, and then start off other posts with "i'm SUCH a hypocrite, blah blah blah" just like he did with the war. he never really took responsibility for being wrong. instead he turned it into a snide riff about how everyone is so hung up on some column he wrote "YEARS ago" and how it's ALL HIS FAULT. he can play the martyr when it suits him. hence, he's a moron.

guest

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:03:24 -0800

totally true. I enjoy Dan Savage's writing most of the time, but he's got a lot of hypocrisy. Can't wait to see the Slog post where he points out how very very different these two circumstances are.

guest

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:41:16 -0800

dan savage is a moron.

guest

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:18:44 -0800

Gosh Tom, you make it difficult to like you. My knee-jerk reaction to: "Since nobody under 62 (except this Seattlest) gets Mr. Keillor's humor" "Unfortunately, subtlety is completely lost on the American audience." "we started losing the Brits' acute mastery of literary devices." "we're glad to see that he's starting to understand satire." is that you're a pretentious jerk. I doubt you are, but come on... You may want to re-read your post to see what I'm seeing. Never thought I'd be one to defend Dan.