The controversial satirical news site The Onion is constantly pushing the boundary between humor and revulsion, and sometimes the journalists of the so-called funny paper decide to throw away that boundary and write a very forceful article with humor so dark the reader really doesn’t want to see it. One such article is “54 Iraqis Die In Not Our Problem Anymore”, which describes a recent and devastating suicide bombing in Iraq, but makes clear to the reader that this “not our problem” anymore, because we’re out of there come January. Using gory details, ridiculous syntax, and innapropriate language, the author of the article conveys his opinion that withdrawing from Iraq is inhumane and ridiculous. The effect is to convince the reader that America needs to be there regardless of their political views or position on the war that first placed U.S. troops in Iraq in 2003.
The grisly details used to describe the bombing, and other grisly events occurring in Iraq, are the first thing which grab the reader’s attention, sympathy, and anger towards those who endanger the lives of innocent civilians in Iraq. In case the actual act of the bombing does not sicken the reader enough, the author supplies more details to tug at the reader’s heartstrings, such as describing how “four trucks loaded with explosives detonated…wounding more than 200”, and how the bombing coincided “with the height of Friday prayers”. The act was also described, using very negative diction, as “senseless” and “cowardly”. To disgust the reader further, the sheer horror of the human injury and death sustained by this bombing, the author describes the situations as a “grisly, chaotic scene of scattered body parts, [and] shattered storefronts.” Finally, the author repeats these horrors, demonstrating that this bombing is more than an isolated incident, occurring alongside the “kill[ing of] six police officers and 19 children”, and “four [people] gunned down outside a nearby army recruiting station.”
However, the reader does not read these details uninterrupted: powerful and obviously pointed syntax is used to convey to the reader how America is inhumane and crazy to be withdrawing their help from such a suffering nation. At the end of each sentence, to stress this point, the author emphasizes how “none of this matters” because it’s “not our problem anymore”, and how “they’re just going to have to deal with it on their own from now on”. Furthermore, this grabs the reader’s attention by interrupting the actual news and the details of the explosion, creating an effect of denial and a refusal to hear or care about the suffering of the people in Iraq. For example, a typical “interrupted” sentence reads this way: “according to city officials, local morgues have been overwhelmed with we're seriously not going to give this a second thought”. Other examples are “President Obama offers his deepest condolences to the it's completely outside our mandate at this point, and his thoughts are with those Iraqis and their families who frankly none of this matters much one way or the other.” These quotes both alert the reader to the ridiculousness the author sees in the prospect of US withdrawal, and juxtaposes the seriousness of the topic with a casual tone that unsettles readers.
That being said, the casual dismissal exhibited in that instance is nothing compared to the obscene or just plain inappropriate language used predominantly in the second half of the essay, to both create a mood of desperate denial. This gives the reader the impression that the US is struggling to stop caring about Iraq, alerting to the reader that there is hope for our empathy. As the tone of denial grows more frustrated, the article becomes more obscene: “somebody else's problem now, goddamn”, the article states, and “look, we did the best we could here, okay? We tried. We fucking tried.” This both minimizes the professional credibility of those supporting withdrawal and emphasizes how hard we must be trying to not care about the tragedies in Iraq. Other language which is innapropriate in a different way achieves the same affect. Due to the seriousness of the situation, the reader recognizes that whoever is saying “it was a lousy situation to begin with. That really shouldn't come as a shock to anyone. And now it's time to cut our losses and go. It's over. Done-zo. So best of luck to all of you” is not someone who can have any empathy at all. Diction such as “Adios” and “look, buddy” jar the reader because they’re totally at-odds with any feelings of empathy or maturity. The reader can’t help but to associate denying the suffering in Iraq as ridiculous, and as what the US is doing when they withdraw. The reader does not want to feel like America is saying “everything can go to shit for all we care, because we're leaving and never looking back.” Therefore, there are inclined to say “let’s stay in Iraq, so we aren’t, and don’t seem, insensitive and inhumane.”
Through this casual and dismissive language, the author puts his audience at odds with those supporting withdrawal from Iraq, because those supporting and enacting the withdrawal are acting so inappropriately and inhumanely toward the suffering described in the article. First, the author introduces this suffering, gaining his reader’s sympathy, and then interrupts their horror by commenting that this doesn’t matter. This statement shakes up the reader; they want to protest that no, they do care about this suffering. The author’s “final blow” is that dismissive language, which puts withdrawal in a ridiculous light, making it both absurd and inhumane. This article’s use of diction, details, and language is so effective that whether the reader actually agrees with withdrawal from Iraq or not, they definitely reconsider their opinion and can see the author’s point of view.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/54-iraqis-die-in-not-our-problem-anymore,26766/
No comments:
Post a Comment