Table of contents Introduction 3 Mission 4 Method 4 Theory 5
|
|  Yüklə 258 Kb.
|
Recognizing ironyBooth’s Four Steps of Reconstruction notes in the first step that the reader is required to reject the literary meaning of the statement, but before we can make such a rejection, one must be able to determine whether the author is trying to be ironic – how do we recognize that we should even begin a reconstruction? According to Booth, there are clues in texts that can help the reader to recognize irony. In spoken or verbal ironies, especially in conversations, we are accustomed to catching a number of clues that are not in themselves ironic such as direct nudges of the elbow and winks of the eye. The same kind of nudges can be found in written irony, where the author provides clues of ironic meaning. Booth gives a variety clues intended by authors of various literary works. I will not go through all of them but merely mention some in order to construct a general perception of his theory. As mentioned, clues of irony are often provided by the author’s own voice, which can sometimes be seen in titles, where the author will use a direct epithet in his or her title to describe one of the qualities of his speaker. Booth uses examples of Thomas Mann’s Felix Krull, Confidence Man (1954) and The Hollow Men (1925) by T.S. Eliot. These titles give us direct information that we can use in suspecting ‘secret’ intentions behind the narrator’s words. Furthermore, some authors use epigraphs as clues to ironic intentions which again serve as direct notion of the author’s objective and as such provide the reader to recognize ironic meanings. Booth mentions other clues such as deliberate errors where the speaker betrays ignorance that is simply incredible, which leads to the belief that the author, in contrast, knows what he is doing. After going through Booth’s notion on ironic clues in literature, it becomes clear that such clues are indeed needed in order to identify an author’s intentions and thereby understand an ironic work. Without these nudges it would seemingly be difficult if not impossible to recognize irony. Through the examination of Booth’s theory on irony, it becomes apparent that he employs a more rhetorical and pragmatic perspective and as such irony can be perceived as a local and temporary effect that communicates a specific message and does not necessarily destabilize the whole work. Furthermore, Booth’s focus on the communicative aspects of irony provides a number of interpretational tools that can register the many degrees of the concept of irony and subsequently improving its analytical value. Purpose of ironyIf we from the section above presume to have knowledge of what irony is and how to recognize it, one important question remains concerning irony. What is the purpose of using irony? As mentioned in the introduction, irony surrounds our everyday life and it is practiced by us and others and the mainstream culture of television. Therefore it seems appropriate to ask why we employ this rhetoric language device in Western culture. However, it should be noted that irony comes in different types and shows that this device is not always an intentional move made by an ‘author’. Irony of fate, cosmic irony and irony of event fall under the category of non-verbal ironies and are unintentional (at least as an atheist I choose to believe so). They can be described as the discrepancy between the expected result and the actual result of a situation where no ‘author’ is to blame. As such I choose, for the purpose of the subject at hand, to ignore these types since the matter of the Postironical relies on the intentional practice of irony. Returning to the question of the purpose of knowledge, one might find some indication of the aspect when examining Booth’s theory on the four steps of reconstruction, where the intention seems to signify a social gesture. Booth’s example “It’s raining” can be used to show what I am talking about. If his friend were to say “lovely weather we’re having today”, when it is pouring rain, it is meant to be ironic when it is obvious to them both that it is not a lovely weather. Of course, there is the possibility that his friend actually likes the rain but through the process of reconstructing his statement, this alternative is discarded since the opposite seems more plausible. As such the ironic statement becomes a friendly gesture because it is assumed by the ‘author’ that Booth knows what he actually means. And this translates into a presumed acknowledgement of Booth’s understanding, which compliments his intellect without trying to establish it prior to the statement. It is apparent that this aspect does not represent the entire answer to the question of the purpose of irony, but it shows the notion of one way irony can be used as social behavior. Irony in visual artsAs mentioned in the introduction I seek to employ the characteristics of Post(irony) from literature into film, but as you may have observed the theory so far has mainly been dealing with the focus on irony in written form namely literature. According to the Swedish university Professor Lars Elleström in Devine Madness (2002), film would be a field where one might expect to find rather developed theories on the study of irony. However, this is not the case according the Elleström, who believes that although the extent of word irony in film discourse is very high, the concept is almost never theoretically scrutinized. As such Elleström uses a part of his book to criticize theorists on the subject of irony in film, which he claims are too limited in their view of filmic irony. However, Elleström does note some aspects that I find relevant in connection to this thesis. Firstly, Elleström claims that irony in film may certainly be equivalent to irony in reality to which I agree. Like the world around one, a film is presented via speech, visual and aural elements, characters, actions, and situations. To write about irony in film may be simply a variation of making ironic interpretations of more or less ordinary lives that the viewers live.9 As such one could argue that clues to irony, as discussed earlier, may be easier to locate in film as supposed to literature, because the “nudges” represented in film are visual and not written. I will briefly return to Booth concerning this issue. Booth gives an example of the complexity of interpreting irony in written form. If a friend comes into the room and says “it’s raining”, one’s inferences about his intentions are ordinarily quick and automatic. But to accept his statement as a plain and simple effort to give information is highly complex and depends on a elaborate context of linguistic and social assumptions, as well as assumptions about his character and our relationship. This is seen as soon as we note in any part of his statement or in its context any element that challenges the simplest literal interpretation. Suppose he comes into the room dripping wet, stands for a moment looking dejected, and then mourns, “It’s raining”. It suddenly becomes clear that he is no longer just giving information, because we already have that information by looking at him. An important point here is made by Booth, But the precise content of his statement will not be clear to anyone reading my account here, because the three words “looking dejected” and “mourns” cannot tell enough about his character and our situation to show whether he is joking with a playful mournful tone or speaking from a mood of black despair.10 Furthermore, the statement can have other interpretations based on the listener’s knowledge about what kind of statements the speaker is accustomed to make or knowledge of a quarrel they had just had or by information about the speaker’s rheumatism – in fact by any of innumerable contextual modifications which are brought to consciousness only when challenged. For that reason, “it is more obviously clear that elaborate inferences are always required when reading literature.”11 This aspect brings us back to the issue of irony in film, because if in a movie or play, a character comes in dripping wet and says ”It’s raining”, the author may well want us to think about what it means to say something so obvious as all that. It may suggest, as Booth puts it, “literal-mindedness12”, or even stupidity. However, the viewer’s interpretation becomes clear if the character speaks in an ironic tone and perhaps after the other character looks at him standing there, dripping, for about thirty seconds. So, in literature as in life, “it’s raining” can mean an unlimited number of things depending on the context. Based on the aforementioned aspect one might argue that detecting irony in film is less demanding than in literature.
|