It is true that if humorists didn't say some of the things they do that they probably would never be said. However, that may be for the best. Some of the things that humorists say are offensive and rude when the possible point to them is to be funny. de Botton challenges the idea that the goal of a humorist is not to entertain, but to proceed with impunity messages that might be considered dangerous or impossible to state directly. Different humorists have different goals. Some of their goals might be to entertain, some may be just to make people laugh, and some could be to say things that are dangerous or impossible to state directly to the person in which it effects. In other words, I do agree with de Botton's argument, but that isn't true for all humorists. Stand-up comics and cartoonists are usually just to entertain or make people laugh, not always though. Usually satirical writers are where dangerous messages are not stated directly to those they effect. If one has ever read “The Handmaid's Tale” then they have read a satirical story. The purpose of this book was not to entertain or to be comical, but to reveal an impossible message to state directly. The author's message was that women were used as political tools. The author striped the handmaids of their names, …show more content…
The authors proposal was to eat the children. The children are suffering anyway because of hunger and not having a roof over their head, so why not create a solution that appeals to everyone? He proposes that the families can sell their children so they can be eaten. The author sees this as a win-win situation. The family gets money to buy food and the children are killed so that they can feed starving people. Now the kids are no longer suffering too. His proposal is not meant to be dark and gloomy. He is simply proposing a solution to accommodate for everyone's