As one who has felt despair at the deadpan literal-minded responses
to _Candide_ (and nearly every other satirical work from the 18th
century) among my students, I suppose I ought to agree that "in this
age of irony, irony is dead," but I do not. It's not really the
subject of this list, but the problems with Daniel's satiric post
are endemic to e-lists, it seems to me, based on nearly identical
experiences on lists as disparate as C18-L, NASSR-L, MILTON-L
and several others. Irony reads either as literal statement or,
in some cases, nasty and usually unthinking sarcasm in this medium,
even among readers who ought to (by virtue of their training, if
nothing else) be more alert to the mechanisms (and charms) of irony.
I admit that I suspected irony first time through, but had to re-read
the post be reassure myself that the list was not being flamed.
It is certainly mere coincidence, but this kind of misreading has
occurred on three lists in the past ten days, and it reminds me that
someone with the right tools really needs to do a study of the
way language functions on e-lists---specifically on those mostly
inhabited by sophisticated reader/writers--trained academics who
seem unable to bring their usual sophistication to bear on some
kinds of posts. I know that there have been many published
discussions of language on the net, but I am not aware of any
analysis of the particular rhetorics of academic lists? Any
candidates?
Tom Dillingham
to _Candide_ (and nearly every other satirical work from the 18th
century) among my students, I suppose I ought to agree that "in this
age of irony, irony is dead," but I do not. It's not really the
subject of this list, but the problems with Daniel's satiric post
are endemic to e-lists, it seems to me, based on nearly identical
experiences on lists as disparate as C18-L, NASSR-L, MILTON-L
and several others. Irony reads either as literal statement or,
in some cases, nasty and usually unthinking sarcasm in this medium,
even among readers who ought to (by virtue of their training, if
nothing else) be more alert to the mechanisms (and charms) of irony.
I admit that I suspected irony first time through, but had to re-read
the post be reassure myself that the list was not being flamed.
It is certainly mere coincidence, but this kind of misreading has
occurred on three lists in the past ten days, and it reminds me that
someone with the right tools really needs to do a study of the
way language functions on e-lists---specifically on those mostly
inhabited by sophisticated reader/writers--trained academics who
seem unable to bring their usual sophistication to bear on some
kinds of posts. I know that there have been many published
discussions of language on the net, but I am not aware of any
analysis of the particular rhetorics of academic lists? Any
candidates?
Tom Dillingham