Satirical In Nature

 Think of the best writer you have ever read about. Think of a writer that never failed to share what they thought, not matter who it could potentially offend. 

This writer would always share their opinions on most topics. This writer would be so professionally esteemed, they would be able to define the terms of good writing.

 If you thought of a writer that held all of these qualities, you would be thinking about John Dryden.

John Dryden exemplified all those qualities above. In his time, he mastered the art of satire so precisely, he was able to define the terms of a good satire. As a whole, there are very few writers, in any age, that would be able to hold the authority to properly define a method of writing and be taken seriously. Dryden was one of those writers. 

Dryden said that one must be intelligent in order to appreciate satire, and that is true. If someone was scrolling through The Onion, they would have to havesome logical sense to them to know that the article titled Congress Sends Unemployed Americans 40Million Boxes of Saltwater Taffy From Vacation is not based on factual evidence. So yes, Dryden would be right to say that people must use their sense of logic in order to understand satire. 

It is also fair to say there are some similarities from Dryden’s satire andmodern satire, but I think that stems from the very fact that Dryden perfected the art of satire in a way. So, it is only natural for certain areas of modern-day satire to reflect Dryden’s previous works. However, there are some areas in modern-day satire that lack the artful nature Dryden’s satire tended to uphold.

Dryden’s Absalom and Achitophel is a verse satire that, “invit[es] the reader to draw parallels between the purely biblical story and contemporary politics.” Seeing as though this piece was political in nature, it makes sense to compare it to modern political satires. The Onion is known for its political satires, but here’s the difference between these forms of satirical writing: the writing itself.

Dryden writes satire as poetry, so it takes much more intelligence to understand and fully grasp the extent of its satirical nature. Dryden often critiqued other satire writers for being too obvious with the satire. If it was done right, Dryden believed that satire should encompass wit and subtlety to a perfect degree. The reader should be able to pick up on it without it hitting them in the head. Modern day satire often does not take subtlety into consideration. It lacks the finesse that Dryden’s satire possessed. 

Take the article from The Onion above as an example. Yes, it is satire. Yes, its aim to make comedy out of something not typically comedic. However, there is stark contrast between satire like this and Dryden’s satire. 

With that being said, I believe the purpose of modern satire is similar to the purpose of Dryden’s satire, especially in regard to political satire. They both aim to personify the ridiculousness of certain areas of politics.  To this day, satire is very often fueled by political means, and Dryden often used politics to fuel his satire as well.

At its root, satire often uses a sense of humor to call out other people or institutions in a topical way. The way John Dryden used this form of writing was rather different than how it is used today, but they are still similar in at their very root. 

Sources:

https://www.bl.uk/restoration-18th-century-literature/articles/john-drydens-satiric-poetry

https://archive.udmercy.edu/handle/10429/454

https://politics.theonion.com/congress-sends-unemployed-americans-40-million-boxes-of-1844729789