ENGLISH 101W AT SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY: INTRODUCTION TO FICTION.
I found this debate very hard to follow and because of that couldn't really get the Rhetorical irony in it. Mostly the two of them just keep talking at the same time so that no one can be heard clearly. Do you have a clearer example of this type of irony? I would love to hear it.Monica
I'm interested in the that irony in general was defined in lecture, and I think the comment above illustrates my thoughts quite well. To me, the inherent sincerity of irony is more important than the insincerity. There must be an intimacy between the ironic speaker and his/her dialectical partner(s) that allows a sincere intent to be understood despite being clothed in its opposite. Insincerity is a necessary part of irony, but it serves to convey sincere ideas. Irony without understood sincerity is no irony at all.-J.L.
The sincerity of the insincerity of irony would be .... its own irony.
Truly. I notice now that I should have restricted my statement to apply only to spoken irony such as Roman irony, sarcasm, or invective. The basic cocept of irony transcends (in)sincerity. -J.L.
Well, we disagree at this point of our dialectic. The basic concept of irony is insincerity. We'll talk about this in lecture tomorrow or next week ....
I'll raise it in lecture tomorrow. Irony can't wait until next week. I'll literally blow up if it does.*-J.L.
Post a Comment