Carl Matheson is a professor and currently holding a chair in the philosophy department at the University of Manitoba. He writes in his essay, The Simpsons, Hyper-Irony, and the Meaning of Life, about how all comedy has a similar pattern of quotationalism and hyper-irony. He does this to inform the reader of the rise of pop-culture parodies, and how this has affected comedy in history. In Matheson’s essay, he argues that hyper-irony undercuts the moral agenda throughout the plot and the development of the characters. He does this by using examples from The Simpsons, writing in an explanatory tone, and having a strong structure.
Matheson, in order to strengthen his position, uses examples of television shows throughout history to emphasize that comedy has been on this trend toward quotationalism that had started as early as the seventy’s with Mary Hartman Mary Hartman. (288). The use of examples is remarkably effective by giving the reader more evidence to hit home his original point. He compares …show more content…
He begins with what the plot of the episode entails, and he follows it up with how hyper-irony is used in this particular episode. (295). The way Matheson decides to explain to the reader a significantly complicated concept is done flawlessly. He implies that if a comedic piece uses any type of hyper-irony as a part of the plot, the piece no longer can push a sort of political agenda because of the fact that the supposed agenda will eventually be part of a strategic joke. Matheson underlines how the show keeps the audience from getting bored. The Simpsons still develops the characters and have those happy ending we as humans crave. Matheson claims the only reason The Simpsons episodes ever end with that happy family twist is to keep the viewer from losing interest rather than trying to push a liberal family moral agenda as some may
Matheson, in order to strengthen his position, uses examples of television shows throughout history to emphasize that comedy has been on this trend toward quotationalism that had started as early as the seventy’s with Mary Hartman Mary Hartman. (288). The use of examples is remarkably effective by giving the reader more evidence to hit home his original point. He compares …show more content…
He begins with what the plot of the episode entails, and he follows it up with how hyper-irony is used in this particular episode. (295). The way Matheson decides to explain to the reader a significantly complicated concept is done flawlessly. He implies that if a comedic piece uses any type of hyper-irony as a part of the plot, the piece no longer can push a sort of political agenda because of the fact that the supposed agenda will eventually be part of a strategic joke. Matheson underlines how the show keeps the audience from getting bored. The Simpsons still develops the characters and have those happy ending we as humans crave. Matheson claims the only reason The Simpsons episodes ever end with that happy family twist is to keep the viewer from losing interest rather than trying to push a liberal family moral agenda as some may