I have launched an effort to gain some understanding of literature. One thing I have discovered (I have in fact discovered a great number of interesting bits of understanding) is the importance of the concept of irony in literature. Irony provides the structure and style of many literary accomplishments. I suspect you are like me in that when I first encountered the use of this word I was confused. I thought I had some general understanding of the word and had no idea of its broad application or possible meaning.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica had this as the introduction to its explanation of the meaning of the word “ironyâ€.
“ language device, either in spoken or written form (verbal irony), in which the real meaning is concealed or contradicted by the literal meanings of the words, or in a theatrical situation ( dramatic irony), in which there is an incongruity between what is expected and what occurs. Verbal irony arises from a sophisticated or resigned awareness of contrast between what is and what ought to be and expresses a controlled pathos without sentimentality. It is a form of indirection that avoids overt praise or censure, as in the casual irony of the statement “That was a smart thing to do!†(Meaning “very foolishâ€).â€
I have found that there is a mountain of books that elaborate on the use of this concept. The book and movie “Catch 22†is totally constructed on this concept. We discover in the movie that the phrase “catch 22†refers to section 22 in the manuals psychiatrists were commanded to use when evaluating airmen who reported in sick complaining that they had become crazy because of the stress of flying the dangerous bombing missions. This section 22 states that an airman can be exempted from flying more missions only if judged to be crazy. The airman could be judged crazy only if he admitted himself to the psychiatrist as being crazy but section 22 also said that anyone sane enough to judge himself as being insane under these conditions was obviously a sane person.
David Brooks, an often seen TV commentator and prominent conservative writer for the NY Times, recently published an essay in the NY Times speaking to the irony of many middle class voters “voting rich†by supporting the elimination of the estate tax. Brooks made a reasonable argument for this bit of irony.
If one understands the concept of irony one can begin to see all the opportunities available to use this concept in literature or for any mode of discourse. One need only read the headlines in today’s papers to recognize just how useful irony might be to illuminate our distorted rationalization.
I HATE irony! i think its a real method of distancing one from what “you” (in general not you in particular Chuck!!) say
so that
You never really have to put yourself “behind” or “into” any assertion you make.
Its a method of breaking down the significance of almost anything without actually generating anything new.
Its “the get out clause†of post modern capital – the retreat that costs nothing because you never tried or even intended to advance in the first place!
Eg I can tell you that Abba are “the bomb” greatest pop band ever but if you put me to severe interrogation its “like dude I was being ironic”
I love that great early Simpson’s episode where one of the kids at the concert turns to the other:
Kid a: Are you being “ironic”
Kid b I don’t even know any more…
And Finally Bob Marley: “talking aloud and saying nothing”
Because I have been studying about the concept of irony I have been struck recently about the ironic nature of many things in present day events. One might see the irony in certain daily events.
The US threatens to rain down on Iraq, during the first 48 hours of war, thousands of smart bombs and rockets to punish Iraq for Iraq’s WMD (weapons of mass destruction).
The US threatens to ignore the wishes of the UN in order to punish Iraq for ignoring the wishes of the UN.
Some might find irony in many of Bush’s favorite expressions; “compassionate conservativeâ€, “uniter not a dividerâ€, “leave no child behindâ€.
One is reminded of the statement during the Vietnam War made by US forces that it was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.
How are you defining “UN wishes”? What the UN wishes is usually defined by its officially passed resolutions. Otherwise, why is it that the wishes of France, Germany, Russia, and China are “UN wishes” while the wishes of the U.S., U.K., Spain, Australia, and Japan are not “UN wishes”?
The last passed resolution of the UN before the invasion (and unanimously passed) was an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein (UN1441). It said, “do x or there will be ‘serious consequences’”. The UN inspectors themselves said that Saddam failed to do x and, after years of sanctions and smaller attacks, everyone who voted for 1441 knew what ‘serious consequences’ meant.
There never was a following resolution before the invasion stating that UN nations were not to follow through on the terms of the previous resolution. Therefore, if any group of nations has the more logical claim to representing “UN wishes” it would be that group which followed through on the demands of the last passed resolution.
However, if press conferences from an arbitrary assortment of disagreeing national leaders counted as “UN wishes” then we could say the invasion was against UN wishes.
But since such a judgment would be rather silly, then in this case, there is no irony in invading against the wishes of some nations to follow through on an ultimatum which the UN officially passed.
In Afghanistan–U.S. (us) drops bombs, then a packed lunch and first aid equipment. Irony? Yes. Washee, ironee–all part of the Western laundry mentality.
