Sunday, November 07, 2004

The End of Irony

These two comments from this Jeff Jarvis post really struck me:

So why didn't the equally angry [as Michael Moore] Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and Swift Boat Vets lose it for Bush?

Posted by Patrick at November 7, 2004 09:49 AM

"So why didn't the equally angry Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and Swift Boat Vets lose it for Bush?"

It's almost impossible anymore to tell when someone's being ironic.

Posted by Angus Jung at November 7, 2004 09:54 AM


So true. In our current polarized political climate, irony, and often subtle humor in general, is impossible to distinguish from the actual rhetoric used by either side. In my last column I wrote with a wry, ironic overly-militaristic style. I don’t think, obviously, that all problems are solvable, or should be solved, with violence. I was parodying the right wing belligerati (coinage!) as much as I was making fun of the left wing pacifists. Still, to leftists my words must have hovered just at the border of believability, if not directly in-line with how they view the opposing side.

But, in this age where we are at war but we aren’t, and Saddam was a mad genocidal dictator but he wasn’t, what hope does such irony have?

In a way, this would seem the most fertile ground possible for irony. But that’s the rub: the ironies of this age are so multitudinous as to be universal. How can we separate the ironic from the real if reality IS ironic? Irony is mundane. Maybe the world has always been as such, with irony prevalent in our day to day lives, and maybe it’s just our sense of humor that has been jilted by this new polarized age.

Is irony so widespread that it cannot be extricated from reality? Now that would be ironic.

update: this is post number 101. Isn't that ironic?

update 2: no. no it isn't.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home