Talk:Irony: Difference between revisions

The landlord being evicted from his home is analogous to Adolph Coors being allergic to beer. So why is the former presented as an example of genuine irony, while the latter is labelled "controversial"? In my opinion, neither one is truly ironic.

And why are the landlord and the atheist under the heading of "Irony and Sarcasm"? Actually, I think both of those examples should just be removed because they're out of place and they contradict everything that comes before them.

---

From the article:

Gr. dpciwLa, from eipwv, one who says less than he means, eipeu’, to speak

Can someone please fix the scanos here, and spell out the Greek language words in Greek?

---

An example of irony in speech would really help this article. I know what irony is, but I can't come up with a good ironic sentence at the moment. Anyone else? —Frecklefoot

Do you really consider the firefighter example "ironic?"

Great article... but I wonder about this example:

An ironic "Well done" would come when a firefighter across the street from a burning building sees a child on the window ledge and dashes across through traffic to catch the falling child in his arms. Both the speaker and the firefighter understand that "Well done" doesn't begin to express the half of it. They share a perception of irony.

This is what I'd call "understatement," and I had not previously considered understatement to be a form of irony.

AHD4's definitions are:

1a. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning. b. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning. c. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See synonyms at wit1. 2a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: “Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated” (Richard Kain). b. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic. 3.Dramatic irony. 4. Socratic irony.

It's true that 1a says "something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning" and therefore understatement qualifies as a kind of irony, and it's true that it meets Mencken's requirement that there be the perception of an excluded outsider—here, the speaker is trying to express his depth of regard to the firefighter without communicating it to bystanders—but it seems to me that, to be called irony, there should be at least a degree of humor. Specifically, the slightly nasty humor that comes from some sense that someone or other is being treated disrespectfully.

Dpbsmith 12:58, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This definition of irony is misguided and biased towards certain meanings. Its a mess I'm not about to address. Just pointing it out. It needs a rewrite.

What "definition of irony" are you referring to? The article as a whole? A specific part of the article? The dictionary definition I cite above on the talk page? Toward what meanings is it biased? The present contents of the article deals mainly with the strict meaning for the word irony. Personally, I'd label people who regard this as the only correct definition "purists." However, these purists happen to include Fowler and some other usage arbiters. I thought I'd dealt with this adequately in the section I added, Irony#Usage controversy.

"Just pointing it out" doesn't help if you can't be more specific about where you feel the problems lie. Even though I'm not a purist, I happen to think it's a darn good article, and that it's important for people to understand what irony means in the strict sense of the word, even if they choose to use it in a broader sense.

I believe that there's been a sort of faddism lately about trying to restrict the word to its primary meaning; people play games in which they jump on any non-strict use of the word irony. If it were possible to document this, it would make an interesting addition to the article. Usages change. Perhaps the word "irony" is evolving toward a stricter usage. That probably wouldn't be such a bad thing.

As for "it needs a rewrite," "then who will help me rewrite this Wikipedia article?" said the little red hen. "Not I!" said the goose. "Not I!" said the sheep. "Not I!" said Dpbsmith. "Then I will do it myself," said the little red hen. And she did. Dpbsmith 13:30, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

--- I'm hesitant to enter this discussion halfway through, but will anyway...

It seems to me that the article is quite correct in stating that, in modern usage, there is no longer any need for a double audience. In deed the Coors example illustrates this well.

However the Sullivan example is not in the least ironic by any defintion I understand. It was just bad luck !

I also agree with earlier comment that the firefighter example is not a good one. Why not use the Coors example instead ?

Is it ironic that an article about irony can't give a clear example ?"  ;-) Julianp 04:08, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

God's irony: a sermonette

Dear Mr Mellowfellow.com I found your article website attached to a an article on wikipedia about Irony. I fully agree with what you say and I am pretty damn sure I now know where one of my acquaintances got his notions about the irony that Isn’t It Ironic is unironic. I would be very interested to see what your opinion is about what I have said about my reaction to reading the definition of irony on Wikipedia. Perhaps if you get time and are inspired or can be bothered you could print what i have written here on your site if you think it pertinent, cogent, and relevant. Please keep in mind that it actually has nothing to do with Alanis’s song which may make its inclusion ironic? I found it fascinating reading about wiki’s definition and description and meaning of irony. I guess I would globally have to agree. I think I would also have to say that I am not totally sure I have understood in toto everything and every point and nuance the article is expressing. I think I adequately get the gist which maybe a good start. However I would stipulate that these definitions of irony are heavily slanted in a certain direction of thought. I say this because in remembrance of other definitions of irony and my previous exposure to those thoughts ideas and definitions about irony they said probably the same kind of thing but in a or with a differing slant and approach. In my remembrance of previous definitions of irony I remember there being a definite focus in the logic of the exegesis of the definition and its expression to be an explanation of and including a definite moral imputation. In the examples of the wiki definition I think this proves my point. Where it goes on about the Coors brewer being allergic to beer can it not plausibly be construed as denigrating by association (possible word association of allergic which is of the field/domain vocabulary of disease which most people would consider negative and beer which could be depending on the beholders conception of this concepts moral worth either good or bad. but because of its juxtaposittion of allergic and beer in the same sentence with an obvious ironic element is it not crying out to the reader to come to some kind of moral imputation about the subject) Interesting use of the word subject-how could one little sentence like this be a subject. What exactly am I meaning by the word subject here? Am I referring or meaning in some way the overall interpreted discourse’s overall meaning in the context or wider context of where this statement or sentence came from? And I am assuming of cause it did come from a context or wider context possibly could this have been jargonly EXPRESSED AS A DISCOURSE? It just came to mind that perhaps I was seeing far to much or interpreting far too much into the sentence or statement ( in this case it would have been on the negative side why could you not have a hyperbolised blown out of proportion positive interpretation aswell? And really who is to say which interpretation is actually positive or not?). The whole overall interpretation of the brewers allergy to beer could be just a compassionate cum pitying observation that the poor owner could not partake in his produced product which perhaps in the mind of the author who makes a compassionate case for its expression that beer is in fact positive. Why build up a sympathetic case or interpretation, which this interpretation is, in this context or ironic context, that the poor brewery owner is at a disadvantage, unless you like beer or moralistically think it of value? Perhaps the other ironic case will also better prove my case- the one about the atheist being killed by a falling cross. But just before we go to my thoughts about the second case I would just like to bring to someone’s attention a thought that crosse my mind in relation to this context of irony that why do we even have a word for the concept-obviously in our culture it must be important /worthwhile-why so?-any practical meaningful reason why/justification? What does this then say about our culture-culture being a mirror to our own souls. How did the first person discover come across irony and why would anyone anywhere necessarily think it important. For some societies irony is non existent why therefore does it appear in some and not others? Why do we call an atheist killed by a falling cross ironic? Who says it is ironic-who is noticing and why are they noticing and frankly quite what are they noticing? I think in a round about Socratic fashion I am coming to some sort of answer. it goes to my current hobbyhorse of the fact that there is a modern and ancient world. In the ancient world people were obsessed with morality. Morality came from god and there was a telos to everything which was monistic (from monism my usage HERE being that everything is seen and telossed by in and through a human mancentric conceptualisation of cosmology). God had a will. That will was the essence of order. People were afraid of chaos. Anything that was chaos was therefore defined as being outside the pale/bounds of God’s will. Anything not deemed as a part of god’s will was exterminated because that was how they dealt with chaos. In the modern world the general concept of chaos has changed and general concepts of monism or at least we are now officially aware of the problem so that we deal with chaos in a different manner. I think this proves that irony is a back door way of preaching and is a method of thought that is very ancient. It is a way of disarming your opponent in a way that is almost invisible. I would possibly state that irony is linked to an individual who is an idealist and at heart socially and politically conservative in at least or to some degree conservative.

For is not the cross falling on the atheist a subtle way to state gods judgement on the unbeliever. For in a modern perspective the cross falling and killing him has no cause and affect mechanism-it is in a modern thought pattern deemed pure coincidence

• I know plenty of modern people who still believe in a God who is active in the world, and though few of them believe God is in the habit of smiting unbelievers, they would still appreciate the irony. In any case, your proposed dichotomy of "socially and politically conservative" vs. "modern" has been noted. ;-) --Jay (Histrion) 22:33, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

so why unless you are at least aware of ancient modes of thought would you ever even bother to notice any irony which provides a clandestine moral content to extract from any discourse a moral or overall lesson or moral lesson from the overall semantic parameters of the discourse (or at least the semantic interpretation of that discourse). Another interpretation would be what? I have yet to find one in this case. This case seems to be inherently of the ancient unmodern way of thinking precisely because all the constituents of the equation come from an essentially ancient phenomena-religion. The atheist the cross and the fate which only surely an omnipotent god is in control of especially in the light of a monotheistic interpreartion and bent in religion screams out surely for a religious or moralistic interpretation. It would be even more screaming out for a religious interpretation if the cause of death was lightening because that is the preferred way literally and culturally/friguatively of how Zeus/Jehovah/God/Allah ends people’s existence. I have never come across an instance of Allah striking someone with lightening. There’s always a first shot-is that ironic? Will I be the target/targum? Is that ironic?

Here is another example of irony to contemplate. What particular use of irony is it? Is it in fact ironic-why is it ironic? Whose noticing and why? “ Ronald Raegan spent decades preparing for his national political debut. His experience as an orator dates back to 1928, when, as a freshman at Eureka College, the future chief executive lead a student strike against a school president who wanted to cut special programs and to reduce his teaching staff in order to save money. When Raegan spoke to his classmates and teachers at a heated meeting, they rose to their feet in acclamation. The strikers won. Eureka’s budget-minded president resigned and ronald Raegan went on to become head of the student government. Recalling the prophetic meeting, he has written, “ I discovered that night that an audience has to feel to it and, in the parlance of the theatre, the audience and i were together.”1 (annotation that i will state after the quote) The incident strikes us for two reasons. First, we note the amusingly ironic fact that the man who would one day arrest student demonstrators and later call for budget reductions in education began his career by attacking a university president whose policies one might compare to what Raegan himself would espouse in future. 1 Annotation: Ronald Raegan and Richard G. Hubler, Where’s the rest of me? (new York Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1965), pp 28. Reference to whole quote: Erickson, Paul D, Raegan Speaks, New York Uni press 1985, pp 13.

i0;

Etymology

The Semitic root of the Greek word is derived from the Accadic term erewum, "covering" Does anyone else doubt that this is an authentic Akkadian word? Got the Akkadian dictionary anyone?Wetman 17:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

firefighter

I appreciate that there is an example, and I think that this example does distinguish between sarcasm and irony. However, I think a simpler example would make this point more clearly. -LegCircus

"An example of sarcastic speech might be a response such as "Well done" or "Great job", said in an angry tone to a worker who has done something wrong. An ironic "Well done" would come when a fire-fighter across the street from a burning building sees a child on the window ledge and dashes across through traffic to catch the falling child in his arms. Both the speaker and the fire-fighter understand that "Well done" doesn't begin to express the half of it. They share a perception of irony."

How is jai alai court ironic?

Reading this article, the single most confusing thing is how the home that shares a glass wall with a jai alai court is ironic. Isn't that just stupid, not ironic? It would help if situational irony was further explained, along with the example. (Otherwise a new example would be good.)

Irony

I guess I may be a purist by some definitions yet I see the value of a language that evolves and adapts to meet a need. Much of what I hear on TV or radio news broadcasts, written by people who are supposed to be exemplars of our prestige dialect here in the United States, almost consistently identify simple coincidence as irony: "Joe Blow, the home-run hitter, pounded in his 35th home run of the season today. Ironically, Joe's uniform bears the number 35" or "It's raining in Louisiana, ironically, an area hard hit by last month's flooding." To me, these are just coincidences and not irony at all.

Yet I see that our language seems to be groping for something more than coincidence to suit the situations in these examples. The problem I see is that there is no other word in English that so aptly describes something which is ironic. As Steven Wright the comic might observe, there is no synonym in English for synonym. So there seems to be no synonym for irony. Thus the one word we have to capture this concept should be preserved, in my humble view, for a meaning as close to those most widely understood as possible and proscribe loosening this meaning to contain simple coincidence or comparison: "The male peacock, ironically, is the gender with the most spectacular plumage."

As to the jai-alai example, I also was confused by it. A jai-alai fronton (at least those that I have seen) has a "glass wall" much like a racquetball court does, to permit spectators a better view of the action. I will grant that it is not made of window glass so fragile it would break in the action of the game, but probably some modern clear plastic. But most casual speakers would call it glass, so the confusion with the example is understandable.

Irony

I guess I may be a purist by some definitions yet I see the value of a language that evolves and adapts to meet a need. Much of what I hear on TV or radio news broadcasts, written by people who are supposed to be exemplars of our prestige dialect here in the United States, almost consistently identify simple coincidence as irony: "Joe Blow, the home-run hitter, pounded in his 35th home run of the season today. Ironically, Joe's uniform bears the number 35" or "It's raining in Louisiana, ironically, an area hard hit by last month's flooding." To me, these are just coincidences and not irony at all.

Yet I see that our language seems to be groping for something more than coincidence to suit the situations in these examples. The problem I see is that there is no other word in English that so aptly describes something which is ironic. As Steven Wright the comic might observe, there is no synonym in English for synonym. So there seems to be no synonym for irony. Thus the one word we have to capture this concept should be preserved, in my humble view, for a meaning as close to those most widely understood as possible and proscribe loosening this meaning to contain simple coincidence or comparison: "The male peacock, ironically, is the gender with the most spectacular plumage."

As to the jai-alai example, I also was confused by it. A jai-alai fronton (at least those that I have seen) has a "glass wall" much like a racquetball court does, to permit spectators a better view of the action. I will grant that it is not made of window glass so fragile it would break in the action of the game, but probably some modern clear plastic. But most casual speakers would call it glass, so the confusion with the example is understandable.