Today’s Times editorial invites readers “to get serious about laughter” and is an appeal to learn how to laugh about ourselves once more. I read a good article by David Quantick in the UK Independent yesterday in which he welcomed the return of political satire on prime time TV. ‘Twas the post-Thatcher 90’s that killed it you know – and the inability of satirists to let go of the facile spoofing of personalities and return to the dark minefield of satirising issues.
Seriously Funny
We’ve seen it all. The long arm of the law applied to carnival (priests, Jesus and his disciples), to what classifies as “comedy” on TV (Bla Kondixin‘ VIP Xow’s (thanks PG) shoe throwing stunt) and more. If the Maltese are relentless in their beliefs then there is little room for humour quoth the Times editor. M.A. Falzon, writing in the Times two years ago today had attempted to translate the local version of satire to “nejk” – a realm of “banter, jokes and jestful blasphemy” that “rarely makes it into the public sphere”.
Falzon suggested that the reason we find it hard to write (or understand) “nejk” in English is that English generally means serious business with little room for humour. Maltese – with all its “nejk” – is limited to the vernacular – always according to Falzon (and he does worry that “Linguistic nationalists will eat me alive for this”).
I’m not too sure about Falzon’s theory though there is some truth in the fact that the Maltese concept of “comedy” (and not necessarily satire) might differ radically from that of the Anglo-Saxons or French to mention but two others. Incidentally the other field that has been at the receiving end of the grossly overblown and outdated baton of the law is the field of literature. The point of overlap in the venn diagram seems to be a shady area of “taste” that somehow is qualified in terms of either “obscenity/vulgarity” or “immoral/unholy”.
In both cases what is now being waved around as a case of “Censorship in Malta” is really an outdated reaction to provoking events that could (and have been) be seen as being immoral – obscene – vulgar – unholy/blasphemous if taken from a conservative point of view. Whether that means that we are witnessing a real censorship of the “political” kind with the Maltese equivalent(s) of Solzenhitsyn rushing to exile is questionable. True there is an archaic law and perception that needs to be challenged – one that exalts a fictitious mentality of close-mindedness, religiosity and prudeness and does not take in the alternate reality of “nejk” within which we really live.
Does this seem funny to you?
Are we capable of being satirical? Is there space to caricaturise our politicians and their decisions. Can we even caricaturise ourselves in our everyday life to the point of subtle satire? We think that it is more than possible and that it is already being done in spurts. We mostly do not know how to react to it. The impression of a communist style politburo censoring every vague thought is a false one. As I said elsewhere J’accuse has never been censored no matter how critical it has been of the PLPN establishment.
Ignored? Yes. Attempts at character assassination? Of course it’s how business is done. But censored? Nope. Nyet. Sorry. And neither has any of the other variety of columnists/non-columnists been told not to speak their mind. I’m quite sure of that. We do not have censorship in Malta. We have the retarded (sic) application of archaic provisions that is distracting us from a possible development of our literature (maybe).
It’s literature that might not even intend to be funny. Take Vella Gera’s “Li Tkisser Sewwi”. I’m sure Alex never intended to be in the limelight (he says so himself) and never expected this kind of reaction (he said so too). He just woke up one day to find that his particular mode of expression is -according to the police, still to be seen by the court – considered as either obscene or vulgar in the eyes of the law that regulates our society.
Is it censorship? No. I don’t think so. I think it is the result of a society that is uncomfortable with itself when it looks in the mirror. What does that say about the future of satire in Malta.
It says it is possible. But that we have a long, long way to go. It goes beyond politicians or expected saviours (Oliver? Why Oliver?). It goes straight to the heart of what literature can be all about. Provocative, illuminating, and often a satirical exposé of the state of a nation. Warts, cunts, penises and all.
Funny that. He said “exposé”.
Related articles
- Satire and Obscenity (slog.thestranger.com)
- Pakistan’s first TV satire show (guardian.co.uk)
- Satire and Irony in Huckleberry Finn (brighthub.com)
3 replies on “I.M. Jack – the one about satire”
It is censorship. The shamelessly named Censorship Board had Stitched banned from the theaters and got the Curia’s rep off the board for saying it should not have been censored. So yes, we are censored in many ways.
I feel that the maturity of a nation is key to knowing how to handle satire. As a nation we are still in our infancy and we know children are not yet equiped to handle satire because they get offended. This is also the only point where I did not agree with O.Friggieri on B+ last Monday when he said that Malta “hi anzjana” (Malta is elderly). Malta is not even in its teen years yet and it will have to go through a lot of growing pains. Stones are important for our history but it is not what maketh a nation.
Have to agree with Sil here, we are not mature enough to handle satire, Maltese, English or any other style/tongue we get it.