James Joost

Samantha Gonzalez

ENC1102

29 February 2024

Annotated Bibliography

DIEHL, NICHOLAS. “Satire, Analogy, and Moral Philosophy.” The Journal of Aesthetics

and Art Criticism, vol. 71, no. 4, 2013, pp. 311–21. JSTOR,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/42635868. Accessed 23 Feb. 2024.

In “Satire, Analogy, and Moral Philosophy”, Diehl talks about how satire uses

analogies to make an implicit moral philosophical argument. He writes on the purpose

of satire and the broader context of expressing philosophy about complex issues

through art. Diehl discusses how satire can be difficult to pin down as a single genre,

but that it can be loosely defined by its common traits. He says that satire can often

make less clear moral arguments by putting too much emphasis on wit. He also says,

however, that satire can be a “robust philosophical work” worthy of deep analysis.

It’s a useful source to my paper because Diehl presents an expert perspective

on what satire is as a genre. He talks about its common purposes and traits, which is

helpful for me to give the reader a good explanation of what I mean by “satire” and its

impact when I write about it. It’s a trustworthy source because it’s a scholarly article

published in a peer reviewed journal. Diehl also discusses multiple sides to the issue of
how satire fits with other mediums of moral philosophy and how seriously it can be

taken.

Caron, James E. “The Quantum Paradox of Truthiness: Satire, Activism, and the

Postmodern Condition.” Studies in American Humor, vol. 2, no. 2, 2016, pp.

153–81. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/studamerhumor.2.2.0153. Accessed 28

Feb. 2024.

In “The Quantum Paradox of Truthiness: Satire, Activism, and the

Postmodern Condition”, Caron offers a meta-analysis of other entries on the topic in a

special edition of his journal. He talks about the ascendance of satire in modern media

and how it has more ubiquity now than ever before. He discusses “discursive

integration”, which is the idea that as platforms change in the modern era, our

perception of politics and entertainment have become intermingled with each other. He

calls satire a paradox, as it promotes serious ethics and social change, while using

very unserious ridicule in order to do so. He also says that satire critiques its own

context by working within the norms of its context.

Caron’s perspective on discursive integration is that it is an important part of

postmodern ideas involving rejection of concrete conceptual boundaries. This is useful

as a source because blurring of the lines between satire, entertainment, and serious

discourse can be used in my argument about desensitization to satire. It shows how

our perceptions are affected by overexposure to content with unclear intent. In such a
situation, it requires more intensive critical analysis, which can be exhausting. It’s a

good source because the author is an expert on the subject and the article is published

in a peer-reviewed journal.

Knight, Charles A. “Satire, Speech, and Genre.” Comparative Literature, vol. 44, no. 1,

1992, pp. 22–41. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1771166. Accessed 29 Feb.

2024.

In ”Satire, Speech, and Genre”, Charles Knight argues that satire can be

problematic because its criticism of historical and political figures takes a non-

historical perspective. He says that satire would not be necessary as a genre if it had

either legitimacy or originality, as it would instead be considered historical. He also

says that most readers know intuitively that a work is satire and that they should read it

with a more critical mindset. He asserts that authors of satire use the genre’s indirect

and non-literal rhetorical approach as a means of avoiding responsibility for the

underlying message presented.

This is a useful source for my argument because it provides the point of view of

an expert who has a less positive view of satire as a genre. Most of my other sources,

as well as myself, have an overall positive perception of satire, so Knight’s perspective

is helpful to present and analyze opposing opinions. A drawback of the source is the

age of the source. 1992 wasn’t too long ago to be useful, but it has a less modern
perspective on the issue, which should be acknowledged as a constraint on its utility

and reliability.

Other sources:

Gutshall, Andrew D. “Satirical news and the ‘real’ news: Viewing satire as serious

media”, YCP Department of History and Political Science, May 2019

https://ycphistpolisci.com/satirical-news-and-the-real-news-viewing-satire-as-

serious-media/

Swayne, Matt “Satire is shaping the next generation of American citizens”, Penn State

University, July 2017,

https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/satire-shaping-next-generation-

american-citizens/

VAN STEMPVOORT, STEPHEN J. “In the Supreme Court of the United States, Brief of

The Onion as Amicus Curiae.” supremecourt.gov, Oct. 2022,

www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-

293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03%20-%20Novak-

Parma%20-%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf
 Literature Review

In “Satire, Analogy, and Moral Philosophy”, Diehl talks about how satire uses

analogies to make an implicit moral philosophical argument. His exigence in doing this

research is that he believes the literature does not fully explore the close kinship

between satire and moral philosophy. He cites Northrop Frye’s research on satire and

Jonathan Swift’s “A modest proposal”. Diehl cites and analyzes satire from different

contexts and times to find common themes and relate them to moral philosophy.

He writes on the purpose of satire and the broader context of expressing

philosophy about complex issues through art. Diehl discusses how satire can be

difficult to pin down as a single genre, but that it can be loosely defined by its common

traits. He says that satire can often make less clear moral arguments by putting too

much emphasis on wit. He also says, however, that satire can be a “robust

philosophical work” worthy of deep analysis.

It’s a useful source to my paper because Diehl presents an expert perspective

on what satire is as a genre. He talks about its common purposes and traits, which is

helpful for me to give the reader a good explanation of what I mean by “satire” and its

impact when I write about it. It’s a trustworthy source because it’s a scholarly article

published in a peer reviewed journal. Diehl also discusses multiple sides to the issue of

how satire fits with other mediums of moral philosophy and how seriously it can be

taken.
 James E. Caron’s exigence in writing this paper was to analyze the contributions

to his special edition of “Studies in American Humor” in which contributors were asked

to analyze satire in the context of postmodernism and how it can promote and criticize

social change. He cites the entries in the journal and used meta-analysis as his method

of analyzing them.In “The Quantum Paradox of Truthiness: Satire, Activism, and the

Postmodern Condition”, Caron offers a meta-analysis of other entries on the topic in a

special edition of his journal. He talks about the ascendance of satire in modern media

and how it has more ubiquity now than ever before. He discusses “discursive

integration”, which is the idea that as platforms change in the modern era, our

perception of politics and entertainment have become intermingled with each other. He

calls satire a paradox, as it promotes serious ethics and social change, while using

very unserious ridicule in order to do so. He also says that satire critiques its own

context by working within the norms of that context.

Caron’s perspective on discursive integration is that it is an important part of

postmodern ideas involving rejection of concrete conceptual boundaries. This is useful

as a source because blurring of the lines between satire, entertainment, and serious

discourse can be used in my argument about desensitization to satire. It shows how

our perceptions are affected by overexposure to content with unclear intent. In such a

situation, it requires more intensive critical analysis, which can be exhausting. It’s a

good source because the author is an expert on the subject and the article is published

in a peer-reviewed journal.
 Charles Knight cites Frederick Stopp and James W. Nichols to give a definition

of satire and the context in which he would talk about it. His purpose is to examine the

genre from a linguistic and historical standpoint, making the argument that it can be

harmful by creating confusion. Knight is qualified on the subject and is published by a

credible publisher, Duke University.

In ”Satire, Speech, and Genre”, Charles Knight argues that satire can be

problematic because its criticism of historical and political figures takes a non-

historical perspective. He says that satire would not be necessary as a genre if it had

either legitimacy or originality, as it would instead be considered historical. He also

says that most readers know intuitively that a work is satire and that they should read it

with a more critical mindset. He asserts that authors of satire use the genre’s indirect

and non-literal rhetorical approach as a means of avoiding responsibility for the

underlying message presented.

This is a useful source for my argument because it provides the point of view of

an expert who has a less positive view of satire as a genre. Most of my other sources,

as well as myself, have an overall positive perception of satire, so Knight’s perspective

is helpful to present and analyze opposing opinions. A drawback of the source is the

age of the source. 1992 wasn’t too long ago to be useful, but it has a less modern

perspective on the issue, which should be acknowledged as a constraint on its utility

and reliability.
 My scholarly sources supply a good background of information for the genre

and mostly agree on what satire is, but offer diverse viewpoints on its role in society

and cultural consequences. For example, Charles Knight and Nicholas Diehl agree that

satire can be a difficult genre to pin down and vague at times. But they do not agree on

the consequences of that. Diehl would argue that satire is a very useful, if not

necessary, tool to critique society and that its ambiguity is what allows it to make

subtle points about moral philosophy, while Knight would say that its lack of clarity

creates confusion and can make history difficult to discern from satire when looking

back. I mostly agree with Diehl. However, I would argue that Knight’s point about

creating confusion in history can also be applied to a more modern circumstance.

Especially in comparison to sensationalized news, even less subtle satire can be hard

to discern from reality. I don’t think this is a fault of the genre, but rather a result of a

cultural shift in favor of 24-hour news networks, which are watched more similarly to

entertainment than news. [find another source for this]

 Works Cited

DIEHL, NICHOLAS. “Satire, Analogy, and Moral Philosophy.” The Journal of Aesthetics

and Art Criticism, vol. 71, no. 4, 2013, pp. 311–21. JSTOR,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/42635868. Accessed 23 Feb. 2024.

Caron, James E. “The Quantum Paradox of Truthiness: Satire, Activism, and the

Postmodern Condition.” Studies in American Humor, vol. 2, no. 2, 2016, pp.

153–81. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/studamerhumor.2.2.0153.

Accessed 28 Feb. 2024.

Knight, Charles A. “Satire, Speech, and Genre.” Comparative Literature, vol. 44, no. 1,

1992, pp. 22–41. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1771166. Accessed 29 Feb.

2024.

Gutshall, Andrew D. “Satirical news and the ‘real’ news: Viewing satire as serious

media”, YCP Department of History and Political Science, May 2019

https://ycphistpolisci.com/satirical-news-and-the-real-news-viewing-satire-as-

serious-media/

Swayne, Matt “Satire is shaping the next generation of American citizens”, Penn State

University, July 2017,

https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/satire-shaping-next-generation-

american-citizens/

VAN STEMPVOORT, STEPHEN J. “In the Supreme Court of the United States, Brief of
The Onion as Amicus Curiae.” supremecourt.gov, Oct. 2022,

www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-

293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03%20-%20Novak-

Parma%20-%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf