Deconstructing the Onion

With the unprecedented spread of digital media today, it's pretty unsurprising that a large focus is placed on satirical news. And why not? Most can appreciate some sarcasm, some irony, dare I say some satire to liven up their daily dose of the latest happenings. But it does beg the question: what is it exactly about this particular use of media, about the Steven Colberts, the Onions of this day and age, that is so appealing? By reading a few Onion articles and examining my own reactions, I've tried to figure that out.

Take, for instance, this article: http://www.theonion.com/articles/powerball-winners-already-divorced-bankrupt,30553/. Even the title itself nicely represents several of the qualities that make for great satire. For one, it's fresh and relevant: the Powerball drawing is something that has been discussed frequently in the past week, so individuals see this reference and immediately recognize its source. Continuing through the article, it quickly becomes clear that a common fear or saying is being exaggerated for effect: that lottery winners tend to be unhappy after receiving large sums of money. The much greater extent this is taken to, with quotes like “Sources confirmed he is now barely making ends meet by working as a cashier at the same 4 Sons Food Store at which he purchased the winning ticket,” takes this idea to the point of absurdity, and thus makes it amusing to the reader.

Verisimilitude

A while back, I read the question posed: "What are your favorite words?" It seemed a strange concept to me at the time - after all, words are just tools, so why would I prefer any word over any other? After a period of thought, though, I realized that I did indeed have a favorite word. This stems not only from the structure of the word itself, but from its unique meaning, connotation, and applications that could not easily be replaced by any other phrase, much less another single word:

Verisimilitude. Ve-ri-si-mil-i-tude. A fun word to say, no doubt, but what does it mean? Well, etymologically, it stems from two Latin roots: verus meaning truth and similitudo meaning resemblance or likeness. Putting these together, the most basic definition is the resemblance or proximity to truth. That is itself still fairly vague, though, so let's look in context.

Originally, the word verisimilitude had a more philosophical or even scientific meaning: it dealt with the correctness of theories or statements, and how some "false" ideas may be closer to the truth than others. For example, Newton's theory of motion, while imperfect in some cases, is much closer to the truth than, say, those of Aristotle. It would, then, say to have a higher sense of verisimilitude. Over time, however, a much more interesting use of the word has come into existence.

Often, when people feel that their suspension of disbelief in literature or another artistic work is broken, they claim it is because the work is "unrealistic". However, this simply is not true: in literature, the best and most engaging stories are not ones that seem to follow reality perfectly. Think about dialogue: real life conversations would make for terrible reading, so authors have characters speak more interestingly, but less realistically. The idea that throws off peoples' comfort, that leads them to question the "realism" of works, is actually its verisimilitude, or resemblance to truth. If I were to narrow this meaning down to a few words, it would be "logical internal consistency" - but even that only partially describes verisimilitude in this context.

The idea is, while literature should not be realistic, it should retain a semblance of truth and believably. Characters shouldn't instantly change their minds, fantastic or science-fiction elements should at least appear to have a concrete definition of their inner workings, and chance should not play too much of a role without good reason. It is these things that give a novel verisimilitude, and should be striven for by authors.

The Mechanical Brain

Picture this with me: a huge supercomputer, chock-full of complex circuitry, flashing lights. sporadic beeps, pulsating screens. Minuscule next to its gigantic frame, a human approaches and, through voice or keyboard, inputs a question. The machine churns and calculates, eventually returning a response, which the human wordlessly accepts before skulking away.

Sounds like a terrifying future in some apocalyptic sci-fi story, doesn't it? Free thought abandoned in response to the development of a decision-making supercomputer, with humanity absent of any new creativity or innovation. This future, however, may be closer than we think.

Informative sites like Wikipedia, news and opinion aggregates like Reddit, or yes, even educational aids like SparkNotes may all be taking the place of some previous human thought, argue some critics. They seem to lead, in my experience, to the absorption of "factoids" - small, insignificant details rather than true understanding of topics. That's not to say they don't have their uses. At times, these small details are exactly what's needed, particularly in supplement to deeper forms of information.

But why do people tend to so strongly rely on these mentally depressing forms of information? In a word, convenience. With so much information and so many activities available, people tend to pick in choose on what they wish to focus their attention. That in mind, I find that this weakens peoples' abilities to form their own deeper analyses - and while I know I'm guilty of this as well, I'm trying my best to avoid this trap into the future.