Absalom & Achitophel

Hello, I am Emisha Ravani writing this blog for the chapter of Absalom & Achitophel, given by Dr. Dilipsir Barad as a part of our studies. 

What sort of general impression of this sort of literature (I.e.political satire) do you get when you read it. 

In the literature we have so many genres.

from that we have political satire as a genre. 

Satire is so prevalent in pop culture that most of us are already very familiar with it, even if we don’t always realize it. Satire can be part of any work of culture, art or entertainment. It is an often-humorous way of poking fun at the powers that be. Sometimes, it is created with the goal to drive social change. Satire has a long history and it is as relevant today as it was in ancient Rome.

What Is Satire?

Satire is both a genre and a literary device that holds human nature up to criticism and scorn. It is often political in focus but does not have to be. In literature, writers use irony, humor, and exaggeration to create successful satire.

What Are the Origins of Satire?

The word satire traces back to the Latin word “satur,” meaning “well-fed,” and was used in the phrase “lanx satura,” meaning “a dish full of many kinds of fruit.” Though these words seem far removed from the definition of satire, they were used by ancient Roman critics and writers to refer to what we know as satire today, including what is commonly considered the literary origin of satire: Aristophanes’s Old Comedy. The word “satire” made its way into the English language in the sixteenth century.

In 411 BC, the ancient Greek poet Aristophanes wrote Lysistrata. In this satirical comedy, the protagonist Lysistrata convinces women to withhold sex from men in an effort to convince them to end the Peloponnesian War. In writing this wildly popular comedy, which is still read and studied in schools, Aristophanes was satirizing the Peloponnesian War and also poking fun at the differences between men and women. The story of Lysistrata has been retold and reinterpreted countless times over the years, recently in the 2015 spike Lee movie Chi-Raq, set in contemporary Chicago.

What Is Satire in Literature?

Satire in literature is a type of social commentary. Writers use exaggeration, irony, and other devices to poke fun of a particular leader, a social custom or tradition, or any other prevalent social figure or practice that they want to comment on and call into question.

Contemporary writers have used satire to comment on everything from capitalism (like Brett Easton Ellis’s American Psycho, which uses extreme exaggerations of consumption, concern with social status, and masculine anger and violence to skewer American capitalism) to race (Paul Beatty’s The Sellout, for example, features a young black male protagonist in Southern California who ends up before the Supreme Court for trying to reinstate slavery).

What Are the 3 Different Types of Satire?

Satire remains a powerful tool in contemporary culture. Film and television, in particular, have been important vehicles for satire over the past several decades. There are three main types of satire, each serving a different role.

https://youtu.be/mKF8_8eDtyI

Horatian. Horatian satire is comic and offers light social commentary. It is meant to poke fun at a person or situation in an entertaining way.

Gulliver’s Travels, written in the eighteenth century by Jonathan Swift, is an example of Horatian satire in literature. The work is a spoof of the kind of travelogues that were common at that time. Through his invented narrator, Gulliver, Swift takes aim at travel writers, the English government, and human nature itself.

Late-night television show The Colbert Report, in which Stephen Colbert inhabited the character of a conservative pundit for many years, offers a funny but deep satire of American politics.

The Onion is a popular satirical online news site that embodies Horatian satire.

Juvenalian. Juvenalian satire is dark, rather than comedic. It is meant to speak truth to power.

George Orwell’s famous 1945 novel Animal Farm is a good example of Juvenalian satire. The novel’s intended target is communism and Stalin-era Soviet Union. Animal Farm is also an allegorical satire: it can be read as a simple tale of farm animals, but it has a deeper political meaning.

A modern-day example is the television show South Park, which juxtaposes biting satire with juvenile humor. The show has tackled all sorts of hot-button targets, including abortion, the Pope, Hollywood, and criminal justice.

Menippean. Menippean satire casts moral judgment on a particular belief, such as homophobia or racism. It can be comic and light, much like Horatian satire—although it can also be as stinging as Juvenalian satire.

Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland is one of the best examples of Menippean satire in literature is. The novel pokes fun at upper-class intellectualism but does it with a distinct sense of humor. The ridicule is there, but it is good-natured in spirit.

A modern-day example is Saturday Night Live, which has carried a long tradition of poking fun at elected officials ever since Chevy Chase’s 1975 impersonation of Gerald Ford.

Examples of Satire in Politics

Political cartoons have been a major vehicle for satire ever since they originated in eighteenth-century England. Today, political satire continues to be relevant in different forms.

• Political cartoons. These can appear both in print and online. A common structure for a political cartoon is to have one large panel, with a drawing that over-exaggerates the physical features of an elected official, or any newsworthy figure and depicts a situation that makes a cutting comment about the political players of the day.
• Political stunts. Some comedians have gone above and beyond satirical jokes on TV to enact more elaborate stunts as acts of political satire. In his 2018 television show Who Is America? comedian Sacha Baron Cohen disguised himself while interviewing several political figures with the aim of catching politicians off-guard in moments of silliness and hypocrisy.

Absalom and Achitophel as a Political Satire 

Dryden was a famous English poet, best known for his satirical poetry. His Absalom and Achitophel characters is considered as one of his best political satire. The poem is allegoric in nature. Dryden uses the device of allegory in order to criticize the political situation of his time.

The restoration of England Monarchy began in 1660. Before Restoration, Oliver Cromwell was ruling over England and subsequently his son Richard Cromwell. During these several years, there was no monarchy in England. In 1610, English, Scottish, and Irish monarchies were all restored under Charles II.

In 1681 in England, Charles II was in his advanced years and had no legitimate heirs. His brother, James II was not liked by people because of his intense incline towards Roman Catholics. On the other hand, James Scott, the illegitimate son of King Charles and the Duke of Monmouth, was very popular for both his personal charisma and his favor for the Protestants. Moreover, there was also a prevailing tussle among the Wighs and Tories.

When Charles’ health suffers, there was a panic in the House of Common over the chances of the nation being ruled by a Roman Catholic King. People were eager to see Duke of Monmouth as their future king, but according to the law of succession, he could not rule the nation. Wighs ignited the fire of rebellion against King Charles. The James Scott was manipulated by Earl of Shaftesbury to rebel against his father. The James Scott was caught preparing to rebel and this lead to his execution by the orders of James II in 1685.

Dryden wrote this poem on King’s demand. Through this poem, Dryden lampooned the Wighs and Earl of Shaftesbury. However, he did not use harsh criticism for James Scott. Absalom and Achitophel veils its political satire under the transparent disguise of a Biblical Story. This poem perfectly depicts the existing crisis and political issues of the contemporary society.

Absalom was persuaded by Achitophel to rebel against King David. Absalom symbolizes James Scott and Achitophel symbolizes Earl of Shaftesbury. Dryden, using the Biblical Allegory, satirizes Achitophel and those who were following him. The satire proceeds from leader to the followers: the Whigs. Through his poem, Dryden wants to tell King Charles that James Scott was not guilty because the person who inflamed the will of rebellion in James Scott was Earl of Shaftesbury. The poem also satirized King Charles but not in harsh words. He criticized the King by mentioning his “many wives and slaves”.

Absalom and Achitophel remains the greatest political satire in English Literature, partly because of its judicious and moderate satire and partly because of its true depiction of the follies and vices that prevails in a particular section of the nation.

We have professional writers to help you out with your academic summary. You can hire an expert at an economical price to write your "Absalom and Achitophel Summary".

Any political satire can be difficult when we read at first it as I also got difficult to understand.for that understanding I would like to share a link: absalom and achitophel

concept of post -truth

Hello, I am Emisha Ravani. I am writing this blog for the concept of ' post-truth'.. Which is given by Dr. Dilipsir Barad as a Sunday reading activity. 

Firstly so many people are unaware to this word that what it means!

This is the word, in 2016 Oxford Dictionary chose as word of the year. 

 relating to a situation in which people are more likely to accept an argument based on their emotions and beliefs, rather than one based on facts. 

The extensive discussion on post-truth politics in the past two years is suffering from a lack of shared conceptual understanding. Different authors use the term differently without acknowledging the existence of competing definitions. Some talk about the ‘death of expertise’ and the lack of impact of scientific facts on policy. Others cite the Oxford Dictionaries definition as conclusive: ‘circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief’.

For anyone familiar with the field of International Relations (or political theory, philosophy, or sociology), the OD definition of post-truth is bound to be unsatisfying. Is public opinion normally shaped by ‘objective facts’? What are ‘objective facts’ anyway? Are they necessarily in conflict with appeals to emotion or personal belief? And if the kind of circumstances described have indeed emerged, why did they come about? What are their implications for democratic politics or international relations?

If the term ‘post-truth’ is to do any scholarly work whatsoever, I argue, a more direct and thorough conceptual engagement is needed. Concepts, after all, are devised to make phenomena more clearly visible and open to analysis. Engaging in the task of conceptualizing post-truth politics, furthermore, has the potential of productively broadening the ways in which truth is approached in International Relations and beyond.

Structurally, post-truth relates to an erosion of the common world due to the increasing irrelevance of factual truth in public discourse. This process can be traced to changes in the media-economy-politics complex. The emergence of the ‘Lies, Inc.’ and the general rise of public relations-led politics have substantially contributed to the cynicism over facts. The increasing overlap of media, politics, and entertainment, together with drastic changes in the media ecosystem itself and the declining trust in mass media, are also to be taken into account. They create the conditions for the subjectivization of shared facts and open the doors for actors like Donald Trump, capable of capitalizing reality TV experience for the purposes of manipulating the media and public discourse.

What is Post-truth Politics?

Post-truth politics, I contend, ought to be understood as a predicament in which political speech is increasingly detached from the factual infrastructure. Consequently, our ability to react to political events and to engage in a democratic process of opinion-formation is compromised. This definition differs in particular from those that equate post-truth with the death of expertise. I also think we must be much more precise regarding the role of emotions in the production of post-truth. Defending truth might involve as much emotion as violating it.Most potent examples of post-truth politics as a style available to individual politicians are instances in which outright lies about things that technically anyone could verify are used – albeit perhaps not always consciously – for various political purposes towards both adversaries and one’s own supporters. This can mean, for instance, denying something obvious, trivial, or seemingly uncontroversial or making up an event that never happened. Both tendencies are frequent among the Trump administration, as exemplified by the dispute over the inauguration audience, and Kellyanne Conway’s invocation of ‘Bowling Green massacre’.

Such claims, I argue, are not primarily attempts to convince or persuade. On the contrary, their main impact is the creation of confusion, anger, and disorientation. Hijacking attention is the key here, and has little to do with letting the best argument win. Outrageously false claims seek to make ‘normal’ political debate and critical scrutiny of policies impossible. They easily direct attention away from the details of policies, and can shape public discourse even when being refuted. Counteracting such play-dirty-to-win strategies has proven challenging.

Even the more conventional array of lies produced by Trump are characterized by carelessness, shamelessness and numerousness. Many of his lies are misrepresentations of long-term processes in his own favor, false statements about media coverage, or lies about numbers – most recently about the number of victims of hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. When lies become prevalent enough, the media and democratic audience easily become disoriented, lose the basic coordinates that usually support critical scrutiny.

The type of mendacity linked to post-truth is closely related to what Harry Frankfurt famously described as ‘bullshit’. Yet, I argue, the two are not exactly synonymous. Both forms of speech are indifferent towards the truth-value of statements, which distinguishes them from traditional lies. Frankfurt, however, also describes bullshit as being ‘carefully wrought’ and requiring ‘thoughtful attention to detail’. It cannot be based on whim, but is produced by ‘exquisitely sophisticated craftsmen who – with the help of advanced and demanding techniques of market research, of public opinion polling, of psychological testing, and so forth – dedicate themselves tirelessly to getting every word and image they produce exactly right.’