<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://viz.dwrl.utexas.edu/old"  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>viz. - sarcasm</title>
 <link>http://viz.dwrl.utexas.edu/old/taxonomy/term/304/0</link>
 <description></description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>The Serious Side of Sarcasm</title>
 <link>http://viz.dwrl.utexas.edu/old/content/serious-side-sarcasm</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Is sarcastic, rather than bitch, the new black?  To build on our discussions of the image of women in politics (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://viz.dwrl.utexas.edu/node/229&quot; alt=&quot;link to John&#039;s post&quot;&gt;John&#039;s post about Michelle Obama&#039;s halo&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://viz.dwrl.utexas.edu/node/242&quot; alt=&quot;link to Tim&#039;s post&quot;&gt; Tim&#039;s recent post about Hillary and/as the Devil&lt;/a&gt;), I find the discussion of the two women&#039;s &quot;edgy&quot; humor to be quite interesting and I think it affects the way that their images are produced and read.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Katie Couric, &lt;em&gt;The New York Times&lt;/em&gt;, the &lt;em&gt;Wall Street Journal&lt;/em&gt;, and now &lt;em&gt;Newsweek&lt;/em&gt; have all noted how Obama&#039;s rhetoric contrasts with the optimism and hopefulness of her husband&#039;s campaign.  But while most of these sources will present the trait as positive (albeit dangerous), the &lt;em&gt;Times&lt;/em&gt; for instance called Obama &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/us/politics/14michelle.html?_r=1&amp;amp;oref=slogin&quot; alt=&quot;link to New York Times&quot;&gt;&quot;Outspoken, strong-willed, funny, gutsy&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, Clinton is considered dour or angry.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;funny&lt;/em&gt; thing is, the visual argument seems to be presented  in the opposite manner.  Newsweek&#039;s profile of Michelle Obama featured a good deal of &quot;stern&quot; pictures, despite the frequent mention of her humor in the text (she pokes fun of her husband, makes frequent jokes that not everybody gets).  Despite a few nostalgic young Obama shots (and the cover which features a controlled smile on a woman who seems almost to be physically restraining herself), most of them looked like this: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://viz.dwrl.utexas.edu/files/080215_NA01_wide-horizontal-1.jpg&quot; class=&quot;center&quot; alt=&quot;Michelle Obama speaking to advisers she leans back against the wall with her hands tucked behind her back she does not smile as does her addressee her face has a serious expression or perhaps one of concern&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://viz.dwrl.utexas.edu/files/080215_SO03_vl-vertical.jpg&quot; class=&quot;center&quot; alt=&quot;Michelle Obama speaking to unknown addressee at a table she looks stern and serious&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;center&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;em&gt;both images property of Newsweek&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hillary, on the other hand, as Tim&#039;s devil picture indicates and as Jon Stewart has pointed out, seems discomforting in her happiness, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/clinton-turns-from-anger-to-sarcasm/&quot;&gt;&quot;hard-nosed realist&quot;&lt;/a&gt; who enjoys lambasting hope and faith.  When she makes these sarcastic comments in speeches and during debates, she smiles, even laughs.  While I think we would agree that this normally says, &quot;hey, joke here!&quot; it is read by these critics as over-rehearsed or abusively cynical.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Perhaps what I am most intrigued by in this debacle is the disjunct of rhetorical strategy and analysis.  While Obama&#039;s serious posture is productively rebellious, making her a thoughtful  as well as humorous (Newsweek says that she&#039;s not the expected &quot;Stepford booster, smiling vacantly at her husband and sticking to a script of carefully vetted blandishments&quot;), I think Clinton &lt;em&gt;joyfully&lt;/em&gt; produces her barbs so that the listener is encouraged to hear her and &lt;em&gt;laugh along&lt;/em&gt;, a sort of &lt;em&gt;benevolence&lt;/em&gt;.  The effect, though, is suspicion and distance; these critics argue that her smiles actually &lt;em&gt;isolate&lt;/em&gt; the audience and I wonder what context creates this reading.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://viz.dwrl.utexas.edu/old/content/serious-side-sarcasm#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://viz.dwrl.utexas.edu/old/taxonomy/term/9">Hillary Clinton</category>
 <category domain="http://viz.dwrl.utexas.edu/old/taxonomy/term/18">Humor</category>
 <category domain="http://viz.dwrl.utexas.edu/old/taxonomy/term/300">Michelle Obama</category>
 <category domain="http://viz.dwrl.utexas.edu/old/taxonomy/term/301">political rhetoric</category>
 <category domain="http://viz.dwrl.utexas.edu/old/taxonomy/term/266">rhetoric of the body</category>
 <category domain="http://viz.dwrl.utexas.edu/old/taxonomy/term/304">sarcasm</category>
 <category domain="http://viz.dwrl.utexas.edu/old/taxonomy/term/369">satire</category>
 <category domain="http://viz.dwrl.utexas.edu/old/taxonomy/term/302">women</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:18:38 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Jillian Sayre</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">243 at http://viz.dwrl.utexas.edu/old</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
