An Experiment in Comedy and Murder: Exploring relationships between Satire, Parody, and Genre Rachel Marsh Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Surrey Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences School of Literature and Languages Supervisors: Dr Paul Vlitos and Professor Bran Nicol ©Rachel Marsh 2020 DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY This thesis and the work to which it refers are the results of my own efforts. Any ideas, data, images or text resulting from the work of others (whether published or unpublished) are fully identified as such within the work and attributed to their originator in the text, bibliography or in footnotes. I agree that the University has the right to submit my work to the plagiarism detection service TurnitinUK for originality checks. Whether or not drafts have been so- assessed, the University reserves the right to require an electronic version of the final document (as submitted) for assessment as above. R Marsh 2 SUMMARY This thesis seeks to understand the relationship between satire, parody and genre. The project is based on the principle that satire is a mode of rhetorical discourse that uses parody to distinguish itself from other modes, as well as perpetrate a specific socio-political message. Whereas, genre is a type of literature that is defined by distinct codes. A novel was written to test these principles and to discover if a genre can be changed by the inclusion of satire. Two genres were included in this novel, one that traditionally contains a satiric purpose (campus fiction) and one that does not (crime fiction). The satirical message used in the novel focuses on the barriers that marginalised groups face when participating in higher education, which is included in the campus fiction stream of the novel. The crime fiction stream features a man- eating monster. The novel is entitled The Life and Times of a Doctoral Thesis. R Marsh 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This PhD has not been completed in isolation, and without the help of numerous people – many of whom I have never met face-to-face – it would not be complete. My eternal gratitude goes out to each one. Thank you to my long-suffering partner Kris Getchell, who spent many weekends, evenings, and holidays without me as I ‘just finished this section’. I’m sure he will be happy to no longer hear the excuse, ‘When the thesis is finished’. Despite being a writer, I can’t imagine a series of words or phrases that properly convey how grateful I am to my supervisor, Dr Paul Vlitos. He’s put up with my bad habits, the stretches of time in which I didn’t submit work, last minute requests for feedback, missed deadlines, malapropisms, nonsensical ideas, bad writing, and my inability to keep things short. Thank you for being such a stellar and patient supervisor. I am so very grateful for my PhD cohorts: Mine Sevinc, Emily Fisher, and Claudia Davidson. Not only have these wonderful women provided me with critical feedback as I muddled through this process, they have been my support system. Even though we’ve spent stretches of time apart, they were always there when I needed help. They are the best parts of this PhD. I would also like to say thank you to the School of Literature and Languages for funding me and supporting me throughout the process. Thank you to Karen Short, Alison Stubley, and Milda Balse for putting up with my nonsense, and always being patient, knowledgeable, and kind. Back when this project was only a twinkle in my eye, Kathleen Gray and Nicole Devarenne encouraged me to apply for the PhD. They’ve read my chapters, provided feedback, and helped me work through a number of thesis and writing related conundrums. They have kept my imposter syndrome at bay. I would also like to say thank you to Karen Graham. I’ve watched her develop her own research, narrative, and theories, and she provided me with a model for the type of academic I want to be: analytical but always interesting and creative. I thank her for all the chat and for suggesting Surrey. My own personal cheerleader Anne-Marie Higgins should not only be thanked, but she should be commended for putting up with me. She’s one of the most wonderfully silly, kind, and considerate people I know. She is the nicer version of me, and having her in my life during this project has kept me from turning into an evil academic. R Marsh 4 My sisters, Susan and Marianne, always gave me the peace and space to work when I came home. I must also thank them for taking care of Dad and being such great sisters. Thanks to Cori Marsh for always showing an interest in my work and for drawing Comics Man. Such a talented artist, and I look forward to the day I can say I had an ‘original Cori cartoon’ in my thesis. Beverley Craw-Eismont often gave me a place to rest my head in London, and – for the majority of the PhD – she was my weekly respite after a day in the library. She’s always shown an interest in what I do, providing me with feedback and critique, even when I didn’t ask for it. She’s been my tie to St Andrews, one of my oldest friends in Scotland, and a constant during the inconsistencies of a PhD. I joined Graduate Women Scotland (East) the summer after starting the PhD, and they have provided me with an image of the type of woman I want to grow to be: kind, articulate, thoughtful, clever, and friendly. They accepted me into their group despite the fact I often disappeared to Guildford for stretches of time. They read my work, gave me feedback, supported me and cheered me on. I owe a debt of gratitude to the fiercest group of old ladies I’ve ever met. I would like to say thank you to: Bronwin Patrickson for reading, commenting and providing such wonderful insight, Ian Jones for proofreading and correcting my Latin, Sharon Wheeler for giving me insight into the world of British journalism, Heather Sharpe for filling me in on policing, Rachael Burns and Police Scotland for patiently answering my questions, Kae Leigh for checking my forensics, Russel McLean for emailing back despite being gravely ill, and everyone who read parts of the thesis and provided me with honest feedback. Also thank you to everyone who provided me with their frank and honest opinions on the troubles of higher education. And thank you to those in the secret Facebook group; you know who you are. A final thank you goes to Carmen Martin who set me on this path fourteen years ago. R Marsh 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 7 Chapter One Defining Satire, Genre, and Parody 11 What is satire? 12 What is genre? 16 What is parody? 29 Why is irony vital to parody? 34 How is parody an aspect of the ridiculous? 39 A definition of satire and genre 41 Chapter Two Understanding Satiric Purpose 43 What is satiric purpose? 43 Satire as dissidence 48 Satire, audience, and topical relevance 50 Creating satiric purpose 62 Fashioning a sum from the many and making it funny 66 Understanding satiric purpose 69 Chapter Three Structuring the novel 70 The campus and crime fiction genre codes 71 What is world building? 77 Using genre codes to world build 87 World building and the satiric message 89 Bridging the genres 93 Blending genres 97 World building and narrative changes 107 Understanding the novel’s structure 117 Chapter Four Satiric purpose and representations of setting and character 119 Setting, satire, and genre 120 The Caledonian antisyzygy 131 Character – Ensemble cast 136 Race 138 Nationality 151 Class 156 Gender 163 Sexuality and age 174 Results of representations of setting and character 177 Conclusion Results 179 Genre disruptions and satire 180 Genre interactions 183 The reading and writing of satire 187 Contributions to knowledge 191 Bibliography 194 Appendix One 209 Appendix Two 221 Appendix Three 230 Appendix Four 236 R Marsh 6 INTRODUCTION This thesis tests the relationship between satire, genre, and parody. The premise of this PhD is based on Robert Phiddian’s essay ‘Satire and the limits of literary theories’ (2013), which argues that ‘Satire never has been an exclusively literary activity. It is, rather, a rhetorical strategy (in any medium) that seeks wittily to provoke an emotional and intellectual reaction in an audience on a matter of public (or at least inter-subjective) significance.’ 1 Much of Phiddian’s essay discusses the stranglehold the formalists have on critical discourse surrounding the concept of satire. He states that when broaching satire: […] literary scholars have done what we are programmed to do, which is resort to more subtle and virtuosic close reading of form and context. Endearing though this is as a habit, it does not provide much intellectual equipment for understanding the sudden satirical controversies that balloon in the media over the Satanic Verses or the Mohammed cartoons in Denmark.2 Phiddian seeks to move satire from a ridged ‘discussion about how to read a canon of literary works presented as transcending mere topicality’3 to a ‘theory of rhetoric – of free speech, its limits and responsibilities.’4 This thesis was inspired by Phiddian’s essay in two ways: the theory behind separating the rhetorical mode from the literary text, and how this separation determines the manner in which a satirist might interact with an audience. Phiddian’s essay has moved me to test theory in practice. In regards to theory, if satire is a form of discourse, or – as he also states – a mode, then it will need to rest within a literary form, such as a genre.