The story of The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County was entertaining to me. Wheeler’s response to the narrator was obviously just a ramble, and even if he was inquiring about Jim Smiley, it wouldn’t have helped him in the slightest. I thought the overall satire of the story was very amusing. As for my anticipatory thoughts on reading “Huckleberry Finn”, I know absolutely nothing about it. I have heard of it but have not so much as heard a sentence from the story. My perception of this when I read it will obviously change, but I feel it will be a darker humor sort of book. As for “IMom”, this film was incredibly creepy. It was obviously satirizing the flaws in technology and parenting in modern society, yet it didn’t seem very funny. I was more scared than anything during that film, as it was very dark. The message it conveyed though was quite clear. Technology will never be perfect, because we are imperfect beings, and we cannot remove every flaw from anything. I would keep going, but it is 12:30am, and we have to get up at 6am tomorrow. Well… today. Regardless, I will be ending this blog here, as in the instructions it seems to permit such an action, so long as I have adequately answered the questions with at least some elaboration.
The experience I have had with satire is fairly mundane. I enjoy the short clips and skits that mock politicians and the like, but they don’t greatly affect me. The only concern I have with satire is it’s increasing political presence. Various ends of the spectrum spout different views on satire and use it in different ways. This can sometimes make satire seem more political than joking. There is of course satire meant to be political, but those are not the kinds I am referencing. This is why I maintain a fairly large presence in the political satire portion, which is my favorite. One example, which is the one I originally considered for class but later changed, is an animation on YouTube called Debates with Strawmen. These videos have a legitimate conservative bias, though not incredibly noticeable considering the point is to have both versions of the extreme biases. The unpopularity of some of the things said in these videos is what kept me from using them as my example, though I would encourage someone to watch them if they want a good laugh. Regardless of all of that, I find these animations amusing. But they are merely one of the many different videos of political satire that I enjoy. Moving on to part two, I do not know a lot about Mark Twain. I am aware, due to our class discussions, that he is someone that created works with some degree of satire in them. Investigating further, there are a few things I found that got my attention. The first thing was the amount of violence experienced by him. The way this shapes his work is something I have yet to see, but I can assume it is likely to have his satire saturated with dark humor. The next thing that builds on to this is his failure in several careers and businesses. This makes me very certain that the satire used in Twain’s works is going to be dark. If not dark, then riddled with his life experiences. Regardless of the degree of darkness, I do look forward to reading Twain’s works, and likely digging around in them for the satire placed within.
The book I will be critiquing is Sabotage: The Mission to Destroy Hitler’s Atomic Bomb. It is going to be fairly difficult for me to critique the book, as it was a real event that is portrayed fairly well by the work, but there are definitely minor nitpicks I have with it. The first nitpick I have with the book is the title. It just seems to me that the title is trying to make the book sound much cooler than it is. Don’t get me wrong, I think the book is good, but the title is making it out to be more exciting than it is. A good portion of the book is discussing training, infiltration, or survival. While I may find these moments interesting, to the average reader, the real excitement would be the attacks and raids on the facility and heavy water containers. These would be far more interesting, but far less common. I am not saying that the real story should have been modified, but a title that painted the picture a bit more realistically would’ve suited the book significantly better. The next thing I realize is that I cannot criticize the accuracy of the book, as I did not experience this event, so I do not know where corrections can be made. As a result, my second critique will be that there was the presence of information that seemed a bit unnecessary. One example of this would be the book mentioning one of the characters almost couldn’t participate in the operation because of a surgery they had to get because of an injury they suffered while training. Another example could be the description near the beginning of how Norway was invaded, and the description of the bravery of the Norwegians who still fought regardless of the fact that the Nazis were clearly winning. While this is relatively minor, and I am in no way undermining the efforts of Norway to resist its occupiers, it is a little nitpick I have about the flow of the story. Another critique I have with the book is regarding its Norwegian occupation portion of the story. It did have a lot more room to play with this side of the story, yet it didn’t really use this to its advantage. Yes, the occupation was important in the story, but you just kind of forgot about it every now and then until something came up to remind you. The only large contribution to the story that stemmed from the Norwegian occupation part of the story would be members of the operation team and support from the locals once they were infiltrated into Norway. Overall, like I said, there really weren’t an incredible number of things I could find that I didn’t like about the book. The lack of major use of the occupation section of the story along with the addition of rather unuseful information and the minor nitpick I had with the title are all the largest problems I could come up with.