Talk:Irony

Literature Top‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Aesthetics / Continental Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Aesthetics
	Continental philosophy

On 27 August 2007, Irony was linked from Reddit, a high-traffic website. (Traffic)

All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Irony is a paradox

A paradox in the sense of a seeming contradiction. Rederect to talk on paradox for sourses.

This needs to be added to the article. Gerhard Ris (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

organizational issues

I am puzzled by the distinction between Typology and Use in the TOC. The typology given, which mostly adheres to its source, is not followed in the subsequent presentation.

Is there some logic to this that I do not see?

If the answer is no, then I would propose pluralizing Typologies to include at least that of D.C. Muecke and maybe also Wayne Booth. In place of Uses we could then adopt Muecke's distinction between "specific" or "particular" and what he calls "general irony", that is, "life itself or any general aspect of life seen as fundamentally and inescapably an ironic state of affairs" (p.120). This separates – at least in broad strokes – the stuff that writers do from the stuff that philosophers present as our existential situation. That would distinguish the ironies found in the plays of Shakespeare or the works of J. Swift from those of Socrates or F. Schlegel; that is, roughly, irony as a rhetorical device from irony as a way of life.

Also, separately, is there a reason for blockquoting short quotations that are not literary examples?

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

notes on recent edits

Since this article appears to have been largely abandoned, and because I did not get a single response to the immediately above, which I posted almost three months ago, I today began a large-scale edit on my own initiative.

There are a lot of different ways to organize the primary rhetorical/literary/specific forms of irony, and I can cite multiple high-quality sources to this effect. Left to my own devices, this section is likely to be mostly some kind of synthesis of Muecke and Booth. Criticisms or suggestions, however, are most welcome. I have the background to write and source this section, but my knowledge of the literature is hardly comprehensive. If you have expert judgment to share, please do.

The secondary metaphysical/existential/general sense is, for me, much easier to organize and support with high-quality sources. Though, of course, I very much welcome input here as well.

I think that right now the article is in at least as good of a state as when I started my edits this afternoon, and so I am leaving it for at least this evening. I will continue my work later in the week.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that during this interim period the article will be inconsistent between ref tags and the sfn template. Because it is quite tedious, I'm not going to convert existing sources until I'm sure they will remain in the article when I finish this round of edits, at which point I will convert any still in ref tags. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've now introduced all of the sections I have planned to include on irony as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. I'm sure I'll continue to edit and expand them with additional sourcing as I get to work on the philosophical part of the article; but, if this part of the article seems to anyone to be missing something important enough to warrant its own section, please do share here!

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Believe this may be a more concise (and understandable) articulation of the broad definition Here:

Irony

Irony, in its broadest sense, is the juxtaposition

of what’s on the surface versus what is -really- the actual case/outcome to be expected 2600:1000:B122:9E60:65D5:6509:FE68:735F (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sign

What is the irony of the picture of the boy holding up a sign: "A child holds a sign with the ironic message that signs aren't cool"?2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:F93C:2133:1B30:546E (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If he really believed the message on his sign, he probably wouldn't be holding up such a sign. HiLo48 (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of ironic

That this article on the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit is locked. Just a little joke for us here on the talk page. Ike Saunders (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]