Talk:Menippean satire

Zinoviev and wilson

By northrop frys description of mennipean satire it seems that there are 2 authors which I would list as mennipean, these are zinoviev, who actually calls his characters by the state of mind he wishes to satarize (or laud, in some cases). and wilson has many different viewpoints and character monologues taken to the extreme in his Illuminatus! trilogy. though wilson does dabble in juvenalian satire especcially in the new inquisition. what would suffice as proof to add these to the list of mennipean satirists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.147.236 (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Menippeah vs. Menippean satire

These two articles are about the same subject. Menippeah should redirect here or visa versa. Any comments or suggestions? If not, I will merge Menippeah into Menippean satire. John Harvey (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that "Menippeah" is about a more recent phenomenon, whereas Menippean satire is about a classical era (Greek/Latin) phenomenon. -- TimNelson (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget there's also the article Mennipea, which does need to be merged with one of these others. As for the first two articles mentioned for merging: I can't tell how different they are. There does seem to be some overlap, and neither one is so long as to make merging impractical. If you compare the list of examples, there's very little overlap in the texts mentioned, yet both articles reference ancient and modern texts. I'd like to see whether the Menippeah article could be expanded and differentiated more clearly from the Menippean satire article -- perhaps we should devote one to the modern genre and the other to the classical genre? The problem would be how to accommodate Bakhtin into both articles without creating too much repetition. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Mennipea is simply a mistake. A citation or two would give the odd invention Menippeah the semblance of some weight. --Wetman (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"Or" or "And"?

Should this sentence:

Contemporary scholars including Frye classify Swift's A Tale of a Tub or Gulliver's Travels, Thomas Carlysle's Sartor Resartus, François Rabelais' Gargantua and Pantagruel or Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland or O'Briens The Third Policeman as Menippean satires.

Say:

Contemporary scholars including Frye classify Swift's A Tale of a Tub and Gulliver's Travels, Thomas Carlysle's Sartor Resartus, François Rabelais' Gargantua and Pantagruel, Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland, and O'Briens The Third Policeman as Menippean satires.

?

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.254.110 (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to be revised by someone who knows what it's trying to say, and can come right out and say it, rather than making arch, cryptic comments like "which we may call a novel with some sense of unease." -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Just delete it entirely if it's not to your personal taste. The line merely suggests that there might be some question whether the book is genuinely a "novel" and that the definition of "novel" might be reconsidered by the thoughtful reader. To say all that explicitly would derail the train of thought. And to say it explicitly might seem to be "thoughtful", therefore "original" —and you know where that leads... So delete it, and don't puzzle over it, if it offends you. --Wetman 23:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

So much of this article seems like a paean to Frye. I'd like to cut a lot of it, or at least move it into a subcategory, especially since it seems to draw too much on later impressions of Menippean satire which do not fit the Classical form. Existent80 July 6, 2005 23:53 (UTC)

When someone says of any article "I'd like to cut a lot of it"— well, that does seem disarmingly honest. Perhaps this contributor will reconsider, however, and make some thoughtful additions instead, based on his reading. Since Northrop Frye's major book offers some structural definitions of genres and how they work, Anatomy of Criticism itself might make a good start. Any further References to add to the article? Something to balance the unseemly weight of Frye? --Wetman 7 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)

I disagree, I see exactly what the author tries to say - after all, he is defining an abstract term with a widely encompassing definition (after all, there aren't too many books that can be classified as a Menippean satire with complete confidence). Moreover, the author's lively and creative tone makes this article engaging and interesting.

______________

I find the history (if it is properly arranged) to be quite interesting and informative. Again, conditioned on it being verifiable, I believe that it should stay. However, the lack of a clear and forthright definition ab initio is extremely damaging to the usefulness of the article. Why not simply adopt the STANDARD definition which is endorsed by and large by most within the community: "a form of satire which involves a mixture of verse and prose". To elaborate is splendid -- to elaborate without a more straightforward 'baseline' definition is asiatic and off-putting.

I tend to agree with the unsigned comment above. In older (i.e., pre-Frye) usage, "Menippean satire" frequently simply meant "prosimetrum". The introduction in the Loeb edition of Boethius's Consolation calls the work a Menippean satire, and C. S. Lewis, among other critics, used the term in the same way. Someone coming to the article after encountering such a usage is bound to be confused by the text as it stands. Deor 15:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

__________

I can say with 100% certainty there is no such person as Thomas Kharpertian. Considering that Theodore is my father.

Commedia dell'arte

Does anyone know whether there is any explicit connection between Menippean satire and Commedia dell'arte? The line "Such satires deal less with human characters than with the single-minded mental attitudes, or "humours", that they represent: the pedant, the braggart, the bigot, the miser, the quack, the seducer" piqued my interest. -- 201.51.211.130 20:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Bakhtin, in his work 'Rabelais and his world' discusses the dogmatization and formalization process of the grotesque and carnivalesque forms of humor, relating this to the commedia dell'arte.

"There was a formalization of carnival-grotesque images, which permitted them to be used in many different ways and for various purposes. This formalization was not only exterior; the contents of the carnival-grotesque element, its artistic, heuristic, and unifying forces were preserved in all essential manifestations during the seventeenth century: in the commedia dell'arte (which kept a close link with its carnival origin), in Molière's comedies (related to the commedia dell'arte), in the comic novel and travesty of the seventeenth century [...]" (Bakhtin 1968: 34)

The relation between grotesque forms of humor and the menippean satire are easy to make, since Bakhtin sees Rabelais' Gargantua both as a grotesque comedy and as a menippean satire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.7.66 (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Modern Menippean novels

Coming here via a chain of stray references I cannot offer anything useful, except to note that the initial definition:

The genre of Menippean satire is a form of satire, usually in prose, which has a length and structure similar to a novel and is characterized by attacking mental attitudes instead of specific individuals.[1] Other features found in Menippean satire are a rhapsodic nature,[citation needed] a fragmented narrative,[citation needed] the combination of many different targets,[citation needed] and the rapid moving between styles and points of view.[citation needed]

would, for me, be a useful definition of many of Carl Hiassen's novels set in modern Florida, which offer a critique of politics and society. Can some Menippean scholar who also admits to low-brow reading perhaps add more widely read novels so that those of us who read Menippean crap without knowing it better understand? [[[Special:Contributions/60.242.50.195|60.242.50.195]] (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)]

Help!

Could some one help me with the reference I tried to make to the McLuhan quote I used - I have given the correct reference in the Reference Section but I have not done note 10 correctly. Could someone who knows the system better than me please help and correct my error - thank you Logan1939 (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)logan1939

Monty Python

Monty Python's "Life of Brian" has many examples of this. It attacks the religious mindset in general (eg, the bit with the Shoe and the Gourd). The shoe is the sign

Misleading post-classical examples

The following text under the Examples section perpetuates a terminologal confusion:

 Elements of the Menippean satire have also been pointed out in the Gospels.[10]

 Later examples include The Consolation of Philosophy of Boethius[11] and 
 The Caesars of Julian the apostate [12]

These examples use the term in its antiquated meaning as 1) an admixture of forms, e.g. prose and poetry, and 2) using allusion or fantastical images.

I suggest that either this text be removed or a section added that clarifies rather than perpetuates the confusion.

This is a prime example of why not to believe everything one reads on Wikipedia, since I discovered it as a an authoritative claim that Böethius’ Consolations

FredLoney (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

(cont.)...might well be mocking Lady Philosophy’s argument. Poor neglected, misunderstood Böethius must be rolling in his grave. Can we please offer him relief? FredLoney (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)