[WEB4LIB] Re: "Satirist" responds

[Browne,Ginny]

I do think we've paid this person far too much attention already!

-----Original Message-----
From: Blake Carver [mailto:carver.50 at osu.edu]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 10:11 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [WEB4LIB] Re: "Satirist" responds


LISNews has buckled under the load this story has brought. I am trying to 
figure out how I can keep the site going, but I may be in big trouble with 
my hosting company. We are getting 3 or 4 times the average number of 
visitors, and it's way too much for the server to handle, so they shut me
down.
I was hoping to move it to a dedicated server sooner or later, but this may 
have accelerated that process, greatly.

Please pass this along, and not the link back to LISNews for now.

-Blake

So here is Sony's response:
He wrote:
      Sometimes negative attention forces you to stop and wonder: what 
exactly are we doing as comedians and satirists?  While the bulk of  satire 
may seem relatively superficial and too often topical to provide any real 
and lasting value from an intellectual standpoint, it does serve as a 
magnifying glass for that brief moment in which it is read, intensifying 
the reader's scrutiny upon the subject at hand.  Like any other mode of 
expression, however, it cannot function at all without attention.  In this 
way it may be like a gross New York Post tabloid, but the objectives cannot 
be systematically simplified and subsequently relegated to some recess of 
literary darkness.
      As an immutable fact, any piece of such satire, when written with 
edge and conviction and compounded with a large body of attention, must 
then cause agitation among its readers.  I will neither decry this as 
unfortunate, nor laud it as beneficial.  It is simply a fact, and by that 
virtue the piece must meet with resistance.  Is it merely that "good taste 
and humour are a contradiction in terms," as Malcolm Muggeridge stated, or 
is there a greater underlying propensity to infuriate when relating some 
agenda, be it political, ideological, or otherwise?  This is the paradox in 
which the satirist resides, and the consternation of some is an inevitable 
corollary.  Charles Dickens mused, "I believe no satirist could breathe 
this air.  If another Juvenal or Swift could rise up among us tomorrow, he 
would be hunted down.  If you have any knowledge of our literature, and can 
give me the name of any man, American born and bred, who has anatomised our 
follies as people, and not as this or that party, and who has escaped the 
foulest and most brutal slander, the most inveterate hatred and intolerant 
pursuit; it will be a strange name in my ears, believe me."
      Logically enough the primary group so roused is that which is the 
focus of the satirist's meditation.  Regardless of how much acclaim is 
received from other demographics, it is the negative feedback that must 
necessarily garner so much attention.  Perhaps this is poetic justice to 
the satirist, but the positive is the subsequent opening of dialogue, both 
beautiful and profane, and the creation of a forum for discussion on the 
salient topic.  Indeed, does not the projected illiteracy and ignorance of 
the author do nothing less than mediate the ensuing dialogue?  Ronald Knox, 
in describing the institution of American satire, contended that "the 
hall-mark of American humour is its pose of illiteracy."  From Shakespeare 
to The Onion, this is true not only of the American incarnation, but of 
humor in general.  To pretend illiteracy is certainly not to be uneducated, 
but to be tame is indeed to preclude progression.  If one can overcome 
initial offense and examine the satire's intent more closely, the impetus 
shifts from one of dismay to one of epistemology, and the inherent 
ambiguity of the author's objective serves as a powerful catalyst for 
reflection.  If some are disillusioned, it is not especially of import, as 
many more will proceed from that disillusionment to insight, to 
intelligence and understanding, and finally, to laughter.
       For those who still require further and more specific explanation, I 
assure you that I have the utmost respect for librarians and their 
profession. I can't imagine anything more vital and integral to academia 
than information dispersal and communication. Which is precisely the point 
of the article I wrote. I hoped that the juxtaposition of such a clearly 
noble profession with some of the gross stereotypes associated with it 
would help enlighten the reader as to the clear chasm that separates 
informed and misinformed formation of opinions. I chose library science as 
the catalyst for this concept because I felt the disparity between common 
sense and misconception was the greatest here.  The extreme sensitivity of 
the library community was foolishly omitted from these considerations.
      Now, I sent an apology/explanation to the Daily Bruin as soon as I 
realized what an uproar my article had created, in the hopes that they 
would print it. Being recently told by the editor that it is not the policy 
of that paper to print apologies or follow-ups, I am resorting to 
statements of this nature.  On a more personal note, let me tell you a 
little about myself that might help ground the article more clearly. Ever 
since I can remember, I have absolutely loved to read. In elementary and 
junior high school, I actually had my mom pick me up an hour after school 
got out so that I could hang out in the library and read. Inevitably, some 
shushing and dirty glances did occur, but for the most part I have 
maintained a great relationship with the librarians who I dealt with in the 
past, and respect them deeply. In fact, my best friend's mother is a 
librarian (the housewife "type"), and I think that she is a wonderful 
person, and that her job is infinitely important to the kids and adults in 
my small hometown. As for college, I can't even begin to describe the 
amount of time (aside from studying) that I've spent here at the UCLA 
libraries. From days spent in the book stacks, to lazy afternoons looking 
through archived Time magazines, I have utilized and enjoyed the libraries 
here as much as anyone else. I have cherished the opportunity to watch 
films from D.W. Griffith to old TV episodes in the media lab. I am not a 
moron, and I realize that it takes a lot of time, effort, and skill to 
orchestrate a library system as massive as the one here at UCLA, and others 
like it around the world. I am very sincere in this, and am now getting 
frustrated by the constant and numerous attacks directed at me.  It is my 
hope that these apologies and explanations are considered by the library 
community.  For fear that I may never again be welcome in a library, even 
as I move on to law school next year, I would like to take the opportunity 
to thank all of you now for the knowledge and experiences gained in your 
buildings.  Thanks for the memories.
-Sony Barari


At 06:22 AM 3/11/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>Sony Barari responds more fully to the uproar he created with his
>not-very-funny piece on librarians.
>
>http://lisnews.com/article.php3?sid=20020311082539
>
>Andrew Mutch
>Library Systems Technician
>Waterford Township Public Library
>Waterford, MI


------------------------------------------
Blake Carver
Web Librarian
The Ohio State University Libraries
The LINews.com guy