as this has taken off considerably, which i did not anticipate, i would like to clarify that the understanding of the form i speak of here is distinct from “love of the work”. to postulate that good satire must emerge from a place of personal love for what it is satirical of, for example, is a perspective that blatantly ignores the history and intent of satire. i don’t think catch-22 works as a novel because joseph heller loved military bureaucracy, it works because (among other things) the continuous use of paradox as a stylistic tool reflects heller’s own experiences encountering the absurdity of military logic.
in the context of fairy tales, lack of emotional attachment is not the problem. i believe the problem is a generally condescending and distinctly literary attitude around a form that often rejects literary structure, frequently coming out of a history of oral storytelling specifically among poor communities, which is altered through telling, and later through collecting, and later still through rewriting in an attempt at pedagogy (to say nothing of the précieuses). many attempts to reimagine, satirize, or pastiche fairy tales seem to me to fail because they are not approaching the medium of “fairy tale” as a legitimate medium on its own. people who love fairy tales do this, too, and i do not think presuming emotion is a solid base for any kind of artistic criticism. it does not matter if you like fairy tales. you just have to be able to pick them apart and understand how they work.
tl;dr satire does not require love to be good, and i made this post because i fucking love the musical into the woods and you can watch the complete obc proshot (with generally accurate closed captioning) here