Alain de Botton asserts, humorists are a vital function in society because they are able “to convey with impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly.” He is right in some ways because it is true that humorists are able to convey important messages that might be impossible for others to do so. However, he is quite mistaken when he states that humorist serves as a vital function to society.
Humorists, cartoonists, stand-up comics, satirical writers, hosts of television programs are all alike in that they can make fun of things or other people but they can get away with it. Humorists can get away with mocking an important figure or laugh at the government while others can’t because they aren’t serious. Comedians, humorists or satirical writers may sound serious when they are telling us the important message but many people will only brush it off as a joke. Because a humorist’s job is to tell jokes then the people won’t take it as a serious matter. Others can’t say the same message since they might be in danger if they said it because when other people say it the others would think that they are saying it as a serious matter. More people would think that he or she saying it is being serious and is denouncing someone or something. The only reason humorists can get away with conveying “impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly” is because most people wouldn’t take them seriously.
It is unlike what Botton has suggested that humorists are a vital role in society. Humorists can be said as people who tell jokes. If one were to think carefully at the purpose of the job of a humorists one would remember that their job is to tell jokes and entertain. Humorists are being listened to and being loved because they tell jokes that enlightens people. Humorists are not as important as Botton proposes because they cannot be taken seriously. Even if an important message were being conveyed through the mouths’ of humorists or cartoonists almost no one would take the message seriously because when it is said by a humorist the message is simply weakened. For example, the satire "On Laziness" written by Christopher Morley states that a person should be lazy because it will benefit them. Morley tells the readers that the lazy people are the ones who gets the benefits. The true message behind his satire is to tell the people not to be lazy; even though it is true that people shouldn't be lazy but will people actually listen to his true message? Because he told this message by being satirical it made is arguments weaker. He said it as though he really felt like people should be lazy. In fact, even if he was using a jockative tone to tell the audience that they should be lazy not much people would consider the message that he is actually conveying. When Morley tells us this message through a satire it weakens the message and the message will no longer be taken seriously. The same important message might be conveyed through the mouths’ of an important figure, such as the president of the United States, more people would take it seriously.
An important message must be conveyed under a serious matter or by someone serious in order for this message to get through the minds of the audience. A good example would be the book 1984 by George Orwell and the television show Spongebob. In the book 1984, George Orwell tries to tell us an important message. He tries to tell the readers that there are bound to be terrible things that will happen if we let a tyrant rule a society; in the book the tyrant, Big Brother, rules the by using Telescreen to spy on the citizens and posters that stares at you when you walk by. In Spongebob: Back to the Past, the same message is being conveyed in that the theme is the same; this episode of Spongebob tries to tell the audience that it is horrible for a tyrant to rule over a place because the tyrant will be a horrible person and just like the book 1984 the tyrant uses Telescreen and posters of themselves to watch over people. Even though both the cartoon and the book had the same message but the level of seriousness is different. Most if not all the people who read this book would take the message in the book seriously because it is written by George Orwell; the message is very strong in the book because it seems like the message that he sends across to the readers might be a possible future of the world. Whereas in Spongebob it wouldn’t be taken seriously at all because it is a cartoon and most people would think that cartoons don’t convey important messages because it is for kids and it is just for entertainment. Not only is the message weakened because it is a cartoon but also because it was told under an absurd situation; nothing can be more absurd than a talking starfish and a talking sponge. Depending on who or what is presenting the important message, the message can differ from being important or a practical joke.
