define irony? Come on you fellow booklovers... debate time!

[timepiececlock]

I got into a mini-debate with my History of Western Civ professor today.

The topic: Greek tragedies

The point of discussion: Is irony a recognizable element or theme in Greek tragedies, literarily speaking?

I say yes. He didn't really see how irony was part of the tragedy formula.

I brought up Oedipus. The guy leaves his family for fear of killing his father and ends up killing his father anyway, because "father" it turns out is a debateable word. And his parents sent him away for fear of him killing his father only to have him grow up and kill him in circumstances resulting from sending him away.

How is that stuff anything BUT ironic?

Also, the fact that the Greek Tragic Hero's tragic flaw is also typically his greatest virtue/asset is in itself ironic. It's an irony built into the nature of Greek tragedy.

I ended up telling him that yes, Greek tragedies usually include literary irony. He asked if I could elaborate.

Here's where my rolling ball dropped like a bomb and my memory failed me.

I could only remember one type of literary irony, and I distinctly remember being taught in many lit classes that there were at least 3 or 4 categories of irony in literature. I told him I couldn't remember. He said that when I did he'd be interested in hearing more, and could I bring a list?

I said I definitely would. And then he went back to teaching and half of the rest of the class gave me a weird look.

Here's how you can help!

What are the forms of irony in literature?

The only one I can remember at the moment is when the audience knows what the characters do not know.

I know there are more types. Y'all are well-read folks. Help?


EDIT: thisficklemob, evemac, spicedrum and pepperlandgirl4, you gals kick ass. Thank for the help! I've got a veritable arsenal to take with me to class on Monday. I am *so* going to win this discussion. I already have; he just doesn't know it yet.

Comments

[thisficklemob.livejournal.com]

True. But our prof seemed to think there was a lot of playing with canon that even the "original" playwrights did. Because everyone knows the story of Oedipus already... so they have to give it their own spin. We read one play, Helen, where Helen of Troy is revealed to have really been in Egypt during the whole Trojan War – the Helen that got fought over in Troy was a copy created by Hera. So Helen really was faithful, and reunited with her husband, and all that. It felt really fanficky to me – retcon! Whee!

In another case, they have this big crisis where one guy is about to kill this girl, until a goddess comes down and says, "wait wait, your best friend is going to marry her." And critics have blasted this play as completely implausible forever, but my prof was like... there are certain things that happen, that MUST happen, because they are set in the mythology. By making it so very blatant that deus ex machina was needed, he may be commenting on the device and mocking other plays, as well as technically playing by the rules.

The point is not whether or not he killed him, but the resulting emotional from finding out his relationship to him.

Exactly. But in this particular play, the prof thought it was interesting how quickly he leapt to that conclusion, on how little evidence. So it doesn't undermine "canon", but it also leaves it open as to whether the patricide and incest even happened.