Humorist or

Satirist?

by D. J. Herda

I like to think that I'm a pretty funny guy.  You know, a humorist.  A satirist.

Except that recently I've been reading that a satirist writes humorously about things that aren't topical, while a humorist--a wisecracker or a pundit--writes about things that are.

Take, for example, this:

President Obama is going to change the way Washington does business.  Nancy Pelosi is going to drain the swamp of evil.  And Joe Biden is going to be sheriff to make sure both politicians succeed.  Sure.  And both politicians are going to succeed like Gerber is going to start pitching strained peas to octogenarians with false teeth!

See what I mean?  That's topical humor, drawing from the realities of the present day.  No good.  Those comments, while they may appear to be humorous to some readers (probably fewer than 1.3 percent) are not going to be humorous to readers ten or fifteen or fifty years down the road.  That's what being a funny guy, a humorist or a wisecracker, gets you.  Notoriety, but only for the moment.

A satirist, on the other hand, talks about things that are universally true and, thus, achieves universal acclaim.  Take, for example, this:

President Obama is going to change the way Washington does business.  Nancy Pelosi is going to drain the swamp of evil.  And Joe Biden is going to be sheriff to make sure both politicians succeed.  Sure.  And both politicians are going to succeed like Gerber is going to start pitching strained peas to octogenarians with false teeth!

Wait a minute.  That didn't go quite the way I had planned.

Okay, let's approach the difference between low-life humorist and exalted satirist a bit differently.  Let's look at them by example.

Mark Twain (whose real name was Samantha Clementine, in case you've been living under a rock) was a satirist.  His humor involved the human condition.  It didn't rely for a laugh upon the antics of Calvin Coolidge or John L. Sullivan.  Twain's humor was universally true, and not dependent upon the headlines of the day.  For example:

A banker is a fellow who lends you his umbrella when the sun is shining, but wants it back the minute it begins to rain.

Classic.

A humorist, on the other hand, sinks below the primordial ooze to personalize the message in order to make it more immediately identifiable to his audience:

Tax cheat Tim Geithner is a fellow who lends you his umbrella when the sun is shining, but wants it back the minute it begins to rain.

See the difference?

Me, too.  And from now on, I'm going to try harder to be a bona fide satirist--to take the high road when it comes to writing humor--rather than a humorist, which I see to be the lowest form of wisecracker.

So instead of saying something such as this:

Barack Obama is the finest example of Illinois politics at its best.  He quotes Abraham Lincoln while emulating Rob Blagojevich.

I'll say something such as this:

Some unnamed president is the finest example of some unnamed state's politics at its best.  He quotes a well known but unnamed former president while emulating some unnamed state's disgraced unnamed governor.

Wow.  Now that's funny!  I mean, making the switch from humorist to satirist is easier than I thought.

So, watch out, all you pathetic humorists, there's a new satirist in town.  And his name is Reggie Hammond. 

And I…am D. J. Herda.

#     #     #

D. J. Herda is President of the American Society of Authors and Writers (http://amsaw.org), an organization made up of authors, writers, editors, publishers, agents, directors, producers, and other media professionals who rely upon the printed word in the creation of quality literature and entertainment.  He is a member of the Author's Guild, a former member of the American Society of Journalists and Authors, and a former member of the National Press Club.  He has published more than 80 books and several hundred thousand articles, short stories, columns, interviews, plays, and scripts.
 

- BACK -