Dear Editor,
I write today in a state of profound distress, bordering on literary whiplash, after encountering what your publication had the audacity to label as “satire.” I demand that something be done about the reckless and insufficiently signposted irony that has clearly been unleashed upon an unsuspecting and vulnerable readership.
First and foremost, the piece in question employed quotation marks around fictional statements. Fictional! And yet, these quotations were presented with such grammatical integrity and proper punctuation, that one could be forgiven for assuming that someone, somewhere, had actually said them. This is an outrageous breach of readerly trust. If a quotation is not real, it should be accompanied by flashing lights, klaxons, or at the very least a footnote reading: “DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BELIEVE THIS.”
Furthermore, the exaggeration was dangerously restrained. At no point did the author have a character declare themselves “Supreme Emperor of All That Is Absurd,” nor did anyone ride a flaming unicycle throughout the article. Instead, we were given mildly inflated scenarios and plausibly ridiculous dialogue, which is precisely the sort of thing that can be mistaken for reality in these confusing times. Satire, if it is to be practiced responsibly, must be so exaggerated that it collapses under its own weight like a soufflé made entirely of sarcasm.
Irony, too, was deployed with a subtlety that I can only describe as negligent. Where were the bold disclaimers? The italicized warnings? The helpful narrator stepping in every third paragraph to whisper, “Dear reader, this is a joke”? Must we now read between the lines like scholars? Are we expected to interpret tone? I did not read your paper to engage in interpretations.
Let me be clear: I am not opposed to satire. I simply believe it should be conducted in a manner that is unmistakable, unavoidable, and ideally accompanied by a large banner reading “THIS IS SATIRE” in a friendly but firm font. Anything less invites confusion, introspection, and most dangerously of all, the possibility that readers might momentarily question whether the absurdities presented are, in fact, reflections of reality.
I trust you will take immediate action to ensure that future satirical works meet the necessary standards of obviousness. Perhaps a rating system could be introduced, one to five exploding whoopee cushions, indicating the level of exaggeration. Or a certification seal guaranteeing “100% unmistakable irony.” I leave these solutions in your capable hands.
Yours in unwavering literalism,
a Concerned and Thoroughly Confused Reader,
Cylon2036. We/Us
