{"id":5807,"date":"2012-09-26T21:06:54","date_gmt":"2012-09-27T05:06:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/?p=5807"},"modified":"2017-05-01T17:02:43","modified_gmt":"2017-05-02T01:02:43","slug":"lying-liars","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/?p=5807","title":{"rendered":"Lying Liars"},"content":{"rendered":"

Without some basis in fact — without at least a basis in the recognized structure of reality on some general level — fiction would instead be gibberish. And most fiction involves considerable factual elements — it describes a familiar<\/em> world and may even involve passing reference to specific, familiar, real-life persons. Some fiction makes more than passing<\/em> reference.<\/p>

Satire<\/span> normally involves more literal<\/em> truth than does ordinary fiction. because some element of the real-world is a target<\/span>,[1]<\/span> perhaps for purposes of commentary or perhaps merely as an opportunity for absurdity.<\/p>

Harlan Ellison has sometimes asserted that he might be called a paid liar<\/q>. He does, after all, state things as if they were true that he knows to be false. But his fiction doesn't quite fit the ordinary notion of lying<\/span>. Under this notion, to lie<\/span> is to make a statement which one knows to be false<\/em>, and to make it with intent<\/em> to deceive<\/em>. Ellison makes false statements, but presumably expects his readers to identify<\/em> the fiction as such<\/em>, and hence not<\/em> to be deceived. Backing-up, the key is not merely that the false statement is presented in just any<\/em> way as if true, but in a manner that one might hope and expect to be presuasive. Even if we should insist that any statement that one knows to be false would constitute a lie<\/span>, clearly there is an important difference between willfully false statements which are hoped to mislead and those which are expected to be treated as falsehoods.<\/p>

Sometimes the author of fiction relies upon immediate context<\/em> to indicate the work as fiction — the work is wrapped<\/em> (as by the label novel<\/q>). In other cases, the content<\/em> is sufficiently at odds with expectations<\/em> that it would not be believed by anyone with at least an ordinary degree of rationality.<\/p>

Satire<\/span> — genuine<\/em> satire — reveals its fictional content, as distinct<\/em> from its factual content, in that the fictional component is presented to amuse by violating established expectations, while the non-fictional component does not itself seem an attempt to be funny.<\/p>

Unfortunately, this convention<\/span>, like many social institutions, is not consciously discerned by most of those who rely upon it, and that lack of awareness creätes an opportunity to use ostensible<\/em> satire as a vehicle for deception. If one insinuates false-yet-unamusing assertions within a work, these may be taken as part of the factual<\/em> component by a large share of the audience. If someone should protest that false statements are being presented as fact, that someone can be dismissed as ignoring that the work be satirical<\/em>. (This dismissal will be more effective if the work also<\/em> has falsehoods that few would take seriously.) Few people will be positioned to respond that genuine satire does not<\/em> present deliberate falsehood as<\/em> fact is presented. And so purported satire becomes a vehicle for deliberately false statements made with the intent to deceive<\/em>. Lying<\/span> is labelled satire<\/q>, and ordinary defenses fail against it.<\/p>

The use of ostensible satire to lie<\/em> has been very popular since the rise of the Baby Boom Generation. But it's not as if one can give a public lecture on how to lie in this manner without undermining the device. In consequence, a lot of people are using it to lie without quite understanding how and why it works; others, more oblivious, have concluded that all these falsehoods really have been amusing, and imagine that when they too string-together falsehoods, these must likewise be amusing.<\/p>

Yester-day and to-day, there was a fiasco on the American political left. First, Roger Simon made what seems an attempt to satirize<\/span> the circumstances of Paul Ryan<\/a>. The attempt was perhaps sincere<\/em>, but it's hard to find much funny<\/em> in it. And it was taken to be mostly factual by some of Simon's own tribe, including various prominent members<\/a>. Tobin Harshaw is blaming this confusion on the literalism<\/em> of Americans<\/a>, but the primary cause is not so much literalism<\/em> as it is the degeneration of the concept of satire<\/em>.<\/p>

(Of course, I expect those on the left who believed Simon's claims to attempt to excuse<\/em> themselves by claiming that the political right has become so absurd that it is practically impossible to tell fact from fiction.)<\/p>

[1]<\/span> The real<\/em> thing satirized may be a story or idea of something that is itself unreal; but, without some<\/em> real referent (such as a story or idea), one does not have satire.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Without some basis in fact — without at least a basis in the recognized structure of reality on some general level — fiction would instead be gibberish. And most fiction involves considerable factual elements — it describes a familiar world and may even involve passing reference to specific, familiar, real-life persons. Some fiction makes more […]","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,117,720,318,9,104,175,4],"tags":[1087,1141,450,1112,1139,1140,1138],"class_list":["post-5807","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary","category-communication","category-epistemology","category-ethics-philosophy","category-ideology-philosophy","category-news","category-philosophy","category-public","tag-alleged-humor","tag-cheating","tag-fiction","tag-humor","tag-lies","tag-lying","tag-satire"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5807","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5807"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5807\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5807"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5807"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5807"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}