The Tripod

Dear Editors,

You may be wondering why an 82-year-old man is writing to a college newspaper. Well, the reason is simple: I have a problem with it.

I have been reading the Tripod since last year. I was excited about the prospect of learning about the happenings 'neath the Elms, but I am sorry to report that I have been baffled by the content of these pages. I think much of my confusion has to do with a term that seems to have caused heated debate. That term is satire. The word satire is used willy-nilly on these pages with nary an explanation of its meaning. I have seen it employed variously as a cradle of humor, a shield against censure, and a catchphrase that allegedly suggests cleverness. My mind being of the empirical persuasion, I decided to research the true meaning of the word.

I consulted a more literary-minded friend who told me that I should do well to refer to two sources about the meaning of satire: Samuel Johnson and the Oxford English Dictionary. I went first to Johnson, that venerable fat-man-of-letters. He calls satire: "the half-witted art of purposeful deception that the half-savage Swift produces between whiskeys in Éire." A riot, for sure, but not of help. To the OED: "Satire - A poem, or a prose composition in which prevailing vices or follies are held up to ridicule." Well, that clears it up.

But I still cannot discern when satire is used - if it is used at all - in the Tripod. Oddly enough, its most obvious venue, namely the Humour section, seems to be the most absent of it. For, I gather that satire requires a certain degree of subtlety to be effective. But I say, let subtlety be reserved for those with something at stake! Some of the other sections, however, are not as blunt in their intentions as the Humour page. For instance, what of this discussion of white boards? I have a reasonable idea of what purpose white boards serve, but the article that appeared in a recent Tripod seemed to be challenging the idea that they are inanimate. I ask, is this satire? Another example: the article about the baseball team's display in Cooperstown. Could enshrinement in the most hallowed of all sporting museums be only as important as the 10th page of the paper - and fewer than 200 words of explanation? Is that satire? And what about the anecdotal, laymen's sociological studies of Mather Hall? Satire?

I shall conclude with an episode from my youth that brings to bear the issues I have raised heretofore. At Exeter, I once remarked in a debate on morality that "apples are the root of all evil." My side won, and by all accounts, it was my speech that swayed the judges. My schoolmates hailed me as the "wit of the '44s," my masters congratulated me on my satirical pithiness, and I even got a "Good Show" from the Headmaster, the distinguished M.H. Bater. But I was boggled. I had been serious in my remark. I had not any idea of what satire was. This leads me to a conclusion: I am inclined to believe that satire occurs quite by accident. In that case, to prevent any misunderstanding, let me assure the reader that this letter is to be taken with the utmost seriousness.

Regards,

Dr. M.D. Shadwell, M.D. '49

Article Tools