Column 24

I'd like to use this, my penultimate column of the year, to discuss some of the many things I've learned over the course of my tenure at The Bleakon. In other words, I'd like to engage in a genuinely serious discussion on humor and editorial "journalism" (believe me, I'm as disappointed as you are).

My goal, when starting out the year, was primarily to entertain followed somewhat distantly by a desire to socially criticize. Cohesive unity of narrative and message were scrapped in favor of madcap manipulation of language and a callously apathetic voice/tone that, in and of itself, was a critique of social priorities and individual preoccupation with self that also served as a channel to say essentially anything and get away with it. And, to varying extents, it worked (Case in point: "what better way to say 'the jokes on you, sucker' than ethnic cleansing").

But as time went on, I began to analyze the effectiveness of my messages and, in the process, humor in general. To use well-known examples, look at the difference between The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. The Daily Show is essentially a vehicle to convey news in a cynical, intelligent, and entertaining manner. In many ways it's a cushion, because for many (myself included), it's so difficult to watch the news without becoming enraged at the superficial, pandering, media circus modern discourse has become. Jon Stewart expresses that rage and disgust in a "we know how crazy this all is too" manner, and it's comforting because it’s as if someone finally gets it. Stewart's funny, sure, but he engages his guests with reason and respect (whether he agrees with them or not), and ultimately always conveys his desire to inform and evoke change.

The Colbert Report, although a spin-off, is fundamentally different. Colbert takes on a persona and from start to finish everything is game. Yes, he's satirizing the media, politicians, etc., etc., but there is no voice of reason with Colbert. There is no one who says "but, seriously, what about this whole 'war' thing." Even with his guests, Colbert, the actor, is indistinguishable from Colbert, the character. You have few ideas what he believes or what he wants you to believe. When I write in that style, I think of myself as a grizzly bear in a clown suit, flailing in the wind and striking everything within reach. Although it's often hilarious, at the end of the day, all you have is criticism and no proposed solutions, no dialogue, nothing tangible.

For instance, using my column last week about the RIAA, you can get notions of what I believe. But with nothing but sarcasm and sardonicism to go on, you'd have little idea of the logic behind my opposition to the RIAA like my radically different aesthetic disdaining commercialization as a motivation of art, my contempt for the "punish/intimidate instead of teach and engage" mentality, and my refutation of the assertion that "legality" connotes ethicality. I indirectly indicate, yes, but most of the work of filling in the blanks falls to you.

On the plus side, this makes my writing accessible. Unlike some other columnists, I believe simplistic polemic is detrimental not just to one’s argument but to the idea of meaningful discourse. I don’t want to “dumb down” my language/ideas or present them in a “red v. blue” variety because that’s disrespectful not only to the topic, but also to you. The world is more complex than right and left.

But I’ve found that humor, too, has its shortcomings and, in the future, (if I do continue to write) I hope to continue refining how I reconcile message and delivery.

And, with that said, I will elevate the level of intellectual stimulation to the state The Bleakon, already a paragon of wit, novelty, and thought provocation, truly deserves with the year’s exciting conclusion: “Ten Things That Totally Suck Other Than Finals (Working Title).” Your submissions would be much appreciated.