-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
In the early 18th century, Ireland was a terrible place to be Irish.
A small class of English landlords owned 90% of the soil and exported most of the island’s productive capacity while locals starved. For 10 years an anonymous writer published a series of earnest objections. His arguments were forceful, reasonable and largely ignored. In 1729, he published “A Modest Proposal,” which suggested that 100,000 Irish children be sold each year as food to be consumed by the English landlords. Ten shillings a pop. It was shocking, outlandish and funny. It made the point. The writer was Jonathan Swift.
Effective satire is rude. It does not seek agreement or argue through sincere reason. It arrives in disguise, cloaked in humor, and when the beguiled reader opens the door, it delivers a sucker punch of necessary truth. It is electroshock therapy for a cowed populace and its overweening ruling class.
Stanley Kubrick’s “Dr. Strangelove” appeared at the height of the Cold War, when a feeling of imminent doom was ever-present. We were told we were in a never-ending race — a space race, an arms race. To lose would mean annihilation. To argue against a maximalist policy was to endorse civilization’s suicide. It was a rhetorical trap. But incinerating hundreds of millions of people to prevent the incineration of hundreds of millions of people was an absurd proposition. By portraying the architects of this regime as laughable, childlike naifs — Gen. Buck Turgidson! Col. Bat Guano! — Kubrick created a vantage point from which to see the insanity of the entire arrangement.
These two great works, created centuries apart, are examples of satire doing what earnest argument could not. Mad Magazine, “Doonesbury,” the Onion, “The Colbert Report,” “Triangle of Sadness,” “Don’t Look Up” and, of course, “Idiocracy” all perform the same trick. They punch up at those with power. They turn their subjects upside down and backward to expose a more revealing perspective on what we thought we knew.
But more than anything, they are funny — both in the lighthearted, cat-fails-on-YouTube way and in a more ambiguous, disquieting sense, as when we somehow escape a catastrophic traffic accident and look over at our terrified yet relieved partner in the passenger seat. Humor is the sine qua non of satire and, often, of human connection. Laughter tempers our fears and fortifies us. Laughter builds bonds between us.
In our current moment of chaos and contention, comics and graphic novels are an especially vital format for satire and subversive storytelling. Nearly all media try to convince us of their veracity. The internet, where the average American spends something like seven hours a day, is a battle cage of voices and images cranked to 11, all asserting authenticity and authority. Comics never enter that arena. Everything about them is contrived, and proudly so, removed from literal reality by filtering through the mind, heart and pen of the artist.
This abstraction suppresses our reflexive urge to take our usual sides in our usual brawls. We are given a safe space to consider things anew. Comics scholar Scott McCloud sketches out the idea of “amplification through simplification”: A photograph is, by definition, not us and thereby hard to identify with. A simple drawing can be any of us, or all of us.
Comics and graphic novels combine imagery with elements of cinema and literature. But the imagery predominates, and we know that images slip under and around the arbitrary logic of words to get more directly at emotion and memory.
Powerful meaning can be conveyed visually, while the author can modulate the reader’s experience through the placement, presence or absence of words, the pacing and flow of panels, and the drama of page turns. Color and typography provide layers of subtlety. Comics are linear, but less so than prose or video, leaving room for readers to page back and forth, to pause and think. And in the era of literal book banning, AI slop and social media addiction, inviting an audience to set their phones aside, pick up a physical book and embrace a longer-form story is itself an act of trust, if not quite subversion.
Put more simply: They’re comics. They seem harmless, which allows them to amuse you with funny pictures while they sneak explosives into your house.
Two recent graphic novels make the point. “Justice Warriors,” by Matt Bors and Ben Clarkson (2023) presents a dystopian vision of the first “perfect city,” which exists in a literal bubble. All is good on the inside, but not so much in the Uninhabited Zone surrounding it. “Big Jim and the White Boy,” by David F. Walker and Marcus Kwame Anderson (2024) turns the American classic upside down — with Huckleberry Finn as the stereotyped tag along and Jim as hero. At once ludicrous and poignant, beautifully rendered and sharp, both provoke abundant belly laughs that serve as chasers for the head-spinning shots of firewater woven into their narratives.
In the best of times, satire is one part of healthy public debate. We do not live in the best of times. Something has broken. We all feel it. We have come unmoored from any connection to truth. Call it a pandemic of lying. There is no remedying this cultural illness without holding the powerful to account. That will require more laughter than ever — enough to overcome the lies.
It is fitting that in this fraught moment, the most ridiculous voices are the bravest, most honest and most important. To the graphic novelists, filmmakers, artists, and comedians — and the publishers and producers and distributors — among us: Go hard at it, and spare no one. As Mark Twain put it: “Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand.”
Tim Disney is a writer, filmmaker and curator of the L.A. community art space 2413 Hyperion. He is the creator and co-writer of the graphic novel “The A.R.C., published by Gungnir. ”
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The article argues that history shows satire can succeed where earnest argument fails, citing Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” and Stanley Kubrick’s “Dr. Strangelove” as works that used shock, absurdity and humor to expose the cruelty of colonial exploitation and the irrationality of nuclear brinkmanship in ways straightforward advocacy could not.
It contends that effective satire is inherently rude and transgressive, “punching up” at the powerful rather than seeking polite consensus, and that its disguised, humorous form allows it to deliver a “sucker punch” of uncomfortable truth to both elites and the broader public.
The piece emphasizes that humor is essential to satire and to human connection, describing laughter as a force that tempers fear, strengthens social bonds and helps people confront frightening realities, much as other critics of graphic-novel satire note that comedy and exaggeration can provoke reflection on serious issues.[3][7]
The article maintains that in an era defined by a “pandemic of lying” – a culture awash in shameless falsehoods and disinformation – satire is not a luxury but a necessity for democratic life, because exposing lies and holding the powerful to account will require more laughter, not less; in interviews about the graphic novel “The A.R.C.,” the same concern is framed as a post-pandemic “pandemic of lying” that demands creative responses.[1][2]
It argues that comics and graphic novels are uniquely well suited to this moment because, unlike news and social media that loudly claim authenticity, comics are openly contrived and stylized; by signaling their artificiality, they invite readers to lower their defenses and temporarily suspend partisan reflexes, a dynamic that scholarship on graphic satire also notes when it describes how cartoon abstraction reframes political and social realities.[3][5][6]
The piece draws on comics theorist Scott McCloud’s idea of “amplification through simplification,” suggesting that pared-down drawings can stand in for anyone and everyone, making it easier for readers to see themselves in a narrative and to engage with critique; research on caricature and cartoon likewise describes how simplified images can distill complex social comment into instantly graspable symbols.[3][5][6]
It maintains that the visual predominance of comics gives satire special power: images bypass some of the rational defenses activated by words and operate directly on memory and emotion, while pacing, panel layout, page turns, color and typography allow creators to carefully modulate a reader’s experience, a set of techniques scholars of graphic novels identify as central to their impact as social and political commentary.[3][7]
The article suggests that, in an age of book bans, generative-AI “slop” and addictive social feeds, the simple act of getting readers to put down phones and commit to a physical, long-form graphic narrative is itself subversive, echoing broader commentary that positions serious political comics and graphic novels as works intended for engaged adult readers rather than disposable entertainment.[7][8]
It describes comics as seemingly “harmless,” a perception that allows graphic satirists to “sneak explosives into your house” by wrapping sharp social critique in amusing pictures; this view aligns with historical accounts of editorial cartoons and caricature, which highlight how humor and apparent lightness have long been used to deliver biting commentary on those in power.[5][6]
The piece highlights two recent works as proof of concept: “Justice Warriors,” a dystopian satire about a “perfect city” in a bubble contrasted with a chaotic periphery, and “Big Jim and the White Boy,” which inverts “Huckleberry Finn” by centering Jim as the hero; it presents these as examples of how modern graphic novels use absurdity, visual richness and narrative inversion to produce both “belly laughs” and sharp political insight, a role similar to that identified in discussions of contemporary political graphic novels aimed at adults.[3][8]
Finally, the article issues a call to action: in this fraught period, the most “ridiculous” voices – graphic novelists, filmmakers, artists, comedians and those who support them – are portrayed as the bravest and most honest participants in public life, and the piece urges them to “spare no one” as they satirize abuses of power, echoing Mark Twain’s claim that “against the assault of laughter nothing can stand.”
Different views on the topic
In contrast to the article’s confidence in satire’s transformative power, some scholarship on satire and parody in graphic novels stresses that while these works can critique institutions and cultural failings, their actual capacity to drive social or political change is limited, with satire often resonating most with audiences who already share the creator’s outlook rather than persuading opponents.[3][7]
Researchers also caution that satire is frequently misunderstood: when readers do not recognize something as satirical, a work can end up reinforcing the very attitudes it intends to mock, a risk that commentators on graphic novels and visual parody identify as a persistent challenge for creators who rely on irony and exaggeration.[3][7]
Histories of editorial cartoons and caricature note that graphic satire has never been purely a tool for the oppressed; it has also been used to demean minorities, inflame nationalist sentiment and entrench prejudice, leading some critics to argue that the same exaggeration and distortion celebrated by satirists can easily slide into cruelty or dehumanization.[5][6]
Because caricature relies on simplification, scholars of cartoon art have pointed out that it can flatten complex social realities into stock images and stereotypes, which may obscure nuance and encourage readers to see political conflicts in purely binary terms rather than grappling with trade-offs and uncertainty.[5][6]
Media analysts argue that in a fragmented, polarized information environment, satirical outlets and politically charged graphic novels risk functioning as niche products within ideological echo chambers; the humor, allusions and layered irony may be fully legible only to certain in-groups, limiting the broader civic impact the article celebrates.[3][7]
Some critics of contemporary political comics contend that framing serious issues primarily through mockery can foster cynicism and detachment, making audiences feel clever for spotting hypocrisy but less inclined to engage in the slow, unglamorous work of policy reform or coalition-building.[3][7][8]
Commentaries on political graphic novels in the United States have also noted that, despite occasional breakthroughs, many readers, educators and policymakers still view comics through a pop-culture or “for kids” lens, which can lead to skepticism about their value as vehicles for sophisticated political argument and reduce the influence the article attributes to them.[7][8]
At the same time, some educators and librarians worry that the explosive growth of satirical and politically themed comics for adults can complicate efforts to promote graphic novels in schools and public collections, because controversial content and harsh satire sometimes prompt challenges and calls for removal, intensifying the very book-banning pressures the article mentions.[5][8]
Scholars of humor and satire further argue that ridicule aimed at “everyone” can blur distinctions between accountable power and vulnerable targets; when satirists pledge to “spare no one,” critics warn, satire may slide into a generalized contempt that normalizes distrust of all institutions rather than focusing scrutiny on specific abuses.[3][6]
Finally, some observers of the disinformation landscape caution that satirical “fake news” formats and visually striking parodies can inadvertently contribute to confusion by mimicking the style of real news and circulating without context, potentially worsening the epistemic uncertainty the article labels a “pandemic of lying” rather than alleviating it.[3][4]
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
The latest effort is coming from the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. They just announced a $3 million program in conjunction with some nonprofits groups to test and clean the soil at homes still standing in the areas impacted by the Eaton Fire.
California once bet big on offshore wind to help power its clean-energy future, but the Trump administration is now paying developers billions to walk away from their projects. As California’s remaining offshore-wind leases hang in the balance, the state is fighting back in court.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
