You are in free guest mode.
Timed Practice
Revision List
Attempt History
Progress Tracking
Create a free account to unlock these tools
Practice Reading: Fill in the Blanks (Dropdown)
ID: #5466
Humour 2
* Select the correct answer into all dropdown fields. You need to answer all questions before clicking verify button.
Most of us to have, or like to think we have, a sense of humour. It makes us better company and is an effective way of dealing with the various annoyances and frustrations that life brings, whether by people or by circumstances. We assume that it gives us the ability to laugh at ourselves, even when others make of us. Now, what is the difference between humour and satire, and is it true, as many people seem to think, that humourists are on the whole optimistic and sympathetic, while satirists are cynical and negative? I will be taking two writers - Henry Fielding, a writer of comedy, and Jonathan Swift, a satirist - to examine what the differences might be and how much a comic or satiric view of things is a matter of character and temperament, and to see how much the lives these two men led coincided with their respective visions. However, first I'd like to put a theory of sorts that would seem to reverse the general idea that humour is a positive and satire a negative view of the world. Humour is a way of accepting things as they are. Confronted with human stupidity, greed, vice, and so on, you shrug your shoulders, laugh, and carry on. After all, there is nothing to be done. Human nature is unchanging and we will never reform and improve ourselves. Satirists, on the other hand, begin with the idea that making fun of the follies of man is a very way of reforming them. Surely, in believing this they, rather than the humourists, are the optimists, however angry they may be.
Result:
With a free account:
Retry and compare every attempt.
How difficult was this question?
Others found:
100% Easy · 0% Medium · 0% Hard
Saving...