I’m still talking about Bill Maher’s 2007 HBO stand-up showcase, Bill Maher: The Decider, where, after greeting the Boston crowd, Maher begins with a critique of President George W. Bush. Only 50 seconds later, he comes to this nugget:
The country has fuck-up fatigue. [Laughter] Which is what happens when the guy [George W. Bush] fucks up so much that when he fucks up again, people go [Resignedly] “Well, what do you expect. [Laughter] He’s a fuck-up.” And that’s fucked up! [Laughter]
He has now convinced himself that history will be kind to him. [Sarcastically] It’s just US, in the PRESENT who don’t get it. [Laughing to himself]. He’s the Van Gogh of Presidents, you know, not appreciated in THIS lifetime but…
I swear to god a couple of weeks ago he was defending his legacy and he said [in imitation of George W. Bush], “They’re still debating our first President.” No they’re not. Who’s debating whether George Washington was a good President? He’s on the one. [Laughter] He’s on Mount Rushmore. [Laughing himself] They named the capitol after him – I think the jury is in on this guy. I do. [Laughter and applause]
This is clearly satire. We’re encouraged to read Maher’s statements unironically – that he means to call the President a “fuck up.” But does he?
Possibility of verbal irony
Inherent in a theory of verbal irony that the intended meaning is they opposite of and therefore negates the stated meaning is the problem of deciding when someone is being ironical, and then about what; to which part of the stated should we apply the negation, and with what effect on our evaluation?
Here, while Maher clearly is ridiculing the President, we might be unclear why exactly he is doing so and to what purpose. We know it’s supposed to get us to laugh, so in the version of absolute stand-up, he might not mean any of it. Maher is laughing to himself, good-naturedly while he says the jokes, so he doesn’t appear to be in earnest. In essence, we can read the attempt at satire itself as ironic, as non bona fide, as a friendly jibe because Bill Maher is also and unreliable narrator.
Unreliable narrator
While satirical ironic texts may be polyvalent (Gring-Pemble & Watson), because of unreliable narrators and ironic or parodic personas, stand-up comedy routines are more frequently polysemic. These texts are designed to possess multiple layers of overlapping verbal and nonverbal codes, intersection with multiple contexts, and are colored with multiple perceptions (Ceccarelli). In other words, to expand their appeal, comics introduce gaps, alternatives in meanings, into both their personas and their text. This, however, may cloud the intended meaning.
When Maher uses kettle logic in his routine, since the arguments refute themselves, Maher doesn’t have to. When he chooses to argue against them, Maher opens himself up to criticism, both as a figure who would reduce the President to an illogical caricature, and as one who believes these kinds of arguments need refutation. Because of this, we can question his judgement, and we are not sure that Maher didn’t mean for this to happen.
Further, in the whole routine, Maher delivers critique after critique aimed at Republicans, yet as he does so, he chuckles to himself. This is somewhat discordant as, if we take him at his word (e.g. if we accept that George W. Bush is a fuck-up), there would seem to be an obligation to do something about it. When confronted with our own apathy, we should correct our behavior. However, Maher is laughing to himself as he tells us what a fuck-up the President is, as if his act is just a bit of good-natured ribbing aimed at a friend. He frequently states, “I kid the President, because I love. I hope that comes through.” Some may miss (or choose to ignore) the irony in this statement.
In any case, Maher doesn’t seem to be worried about the state of the nation, so why should we? While his laughter and unconcern may be read as ironic performances to help him sell the satire – after all, to avoid being taken as earnest, hurtful ridicule, the satirist must maintain goodwill (Gilbert) – there is also the possibility that he is using his satire ironically; that he doesn’t mean any of it.
This is possible, because [as I’ve argued before and will put up here soon] jokes aren’t enthymemes to be solved or “gotten,” but porous, open texts that require supplementation. Ultimately, the audience makes a joke ironical (or not) by supplying information that isn’t there; by inferring the meaning.
Summary
In his performance, Maher’s persona becomes another way comic can create as sense of (or we can find) irony. Maher maintains goodwill through an entertaining wit as well as a likable stance. However, this good-natured act may evoke in us a feeling that Maher thinks that those at fault (e.g. Republicans and G. W. Bush) are not bad people, but frail, foolish and ultimately, human. Thus these humans can be corrected to their – and society’s – benefit. Maher’s act may actually make Bush more likeable.
It seems that when satire is used in conjunction with irony and/or parody, it often increases the humorous potential, but the humor loses its critical edge. For this reason, humorous satire seems to be at odds with any bona fide political goal, yet we will soon reexamine this assumption.
Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?
References:
Ceccarelli, Leah. “Polysemy: Multiple Meanings in Rhetorical Criticism.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 84 (1998): 395-415.
Gilbert, Joanne. Performing Marginality: Humor, Gender and Cultural Critique. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University, 2004.
Gring-Pemble, Lisa and Martha Solomon Watson. “The Rhetorical Limits of Satire: An Analysis of James Finn Garner’s Politically Correct Bedtime Stories.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 89.2 (2003): 132-53.
Wilson, Nathan. Was That Supposed to be Funny? A Rhetorical Analysis of Politics, Problems and Contradictions in Contemporary Stand-Up Comedy. Dissertation in partial completion of the Ph.D. August, 2008.
