Madam, – Satire has many uses but its noblest is when it reveals the wrongs of the powerful and seeks to alert us to injustice. Humour is best when informed by a sense of morality. That morality is partly derived from the idea that the rich and powerful should know better. Humour is at its most effective when it shows the mainstream of society its own idiocy. Humour aimed at the poor and vulnerable is rather pointless. What are the weakest among us supposed to do about their failings? Comedy directed at those who claim to speak for the weak is also morally vacuous. What are they meant to do in response to the implicit criticism? Should they campaign for bigger cars for the rich?
I make these points in light of Newton Emerson’s column (Opinion, October 6th). Its satirical effect is derived almost entirely from taking a moral standpoint of striking indifference. Mr Emerson is a clever writer with an ear for style. However, it seems to me he misuses his talent in seeking to find comedy in the good intentions of others (however boring or earnest they may seem) rather than the hypocrisy and deceit of those who hold power. – Yours, etc,