As Alanis Morissette herself said of her song, "Ironic", “The irony of ‘Ironic’ is that it’s not an ironic song at all.”

The Roots of Irony as Language

Part Two: The Fork in the Road

The Fork in the Road

In Part One, we discussed the neurological network that differs from person to person. Some people understand irony, while others do not understand it. There is a mechanism in the thalamus that allows ironic content to enter the brain for response. Those who do not have that mechanism deny the brain entry of any ironic content, assuming it to be an error in communication. It is reflected back to the sender as untranslatable, whereas the receiver who accepts the ironic content, converts it into translatable responses (usually, laughter). When sensory messages are sent to the brain for reaction, they reach a fork in the road, per se. One road leads back without reaction, while the other road reaches the brain which then reacts. Before we review types of Irony, let's take a look at this fork-in-the-road mechanism and try to understand how it works.

The easiest way to understand how the brain differs in the acceptance or denial of Irony is to consider how the brain works in relation to something else, say, like "pain", for instance.

 

The Phantom Pain Paradox

People who have had a leg amputated can sometimes still feel pain in the leg that is no longer there. However, there are just as many cases of people who have had a leg amputated not feeling any more pain because there is no leg there to experience pain. 

Blame the difference in responses to the brain, especially the thalamus, the station for the comings and goings of neural messages. In the case of the amputee who no longer feels pain, the brain shut down input from that sector of the body where the leg used to be; why accept messages from a source which can no longer send messages?! In the case of the amputee who still feels pain, the brain has not rerouted signals and keeps that source open for business, even though that source is no longer there. It doesn't matter to the brain, so it doesn't "rewire" the nerves to ignore the "leg". It knows it is gone, it can see there is no leg, but the brain still considers it as part of the whole.

Just as people believe that a person in a coma still may dream, the brain believes the leg can still feel and so still reacts with pain responses as if the leg were still there. 

Taken from the view of the amputee who feels no pain, because there is no source for it, the logic of the amputee who feels pain is both antithetical and absurd. 

Yet, Phantom Pain does exist. It hurts, and it is real. 

Therefore, we can ascribe Phantom Pain to the "Irony accepting brain". And for those who feel no pain from a lost source, we have the "Irony denying brain". 

This has always been my thesis. I defended it at the academic level, but never at the medical level. I've convinced others that at the thalamic region, Irony lives and dies, but I've never proven my thesis by getting my hands bloody with dissections and such. Anyway... let's continue. 

Where the Road to Irony Leads

Literary Irony:

In Othello by Shakespeare, Iago, the villain of the play, is seen by the audience as evil, but the other characters in the play see him as "honest". 5 characters die due to Honest Iago's machinations. 

Shakespeare leads Othello down Iago's tragic path, while the playwright leads the audience down an ironic path. The communication with the play-goers requires them to acknowledge Iago's evil as they watch the other characters treat him as a man of straight-forward wisdom. 

Comic Irony

Steve Martin created a type of humor that required acceptance of the premise in order to reach the unexpected payoff. On the Tonight Show, he performed a routine in an umbrella hat. Mid performance, he stopped to acknowledge the tittering of the audience. "You're wondering at my head-wear, aren't you? You're thinking he's an umbrella-head. You're thinking that all umbrella-heads throw fish. That's not true. Unless we lose our temper. But not tonight. We're having a good time tonight." The audience continues to titter and giggle, not sure whether their laughter is upsetting Martin or this is part of the routine. Soon, Martin gets more upset at the laughter till he's visibly angry, at which time he opens his white coat, removes a giant flounder, and throws it at the curtains. 

You see, all umbrella-heads throw fish, but only when they're upset. The more the routine made the audience laugh, the more upset he became till he threw a fish. It was a routine within a routine, and the audience was a part of it. The umbrella-hat was not even a part of the routine until the audience tittered at his wearing it but not acknowledging it. By trying to suppress their laughter, the routine became funnier, thus allowing Martin to become upset enough to throw the fish, by which time, the audience could openly laugh at the joke and at themselves for being set up so subtly. 

A non-ironic person would think the show were serious and would no doubt shush the tittering crowd for upsetting the comic. The ironic person would have been part of the routine for the routine to work. If the whole crowd were non-ironic, the routine would have fallen flat.

Ironic Wit

In the Era of the Wit and the Fop, the Restoration Period of England, the Fop overdressed, wore too much make-up, and feigned intelligence way beyond his station. The Wit, however, dressed plainly, acted ignorant, yet spoke ironically to communicate the obvious about Fops--that they were phony. But a Wit never had to say so directly, but through clever uses of ironic language, he could say so indirectly, oftentimes right to the Fop's face. In some cases, the Fop would believe he was being flattered as the Wit insulted him.

In William Congreve's Way of the World, true marriage is described as freedom to have lovers and be independent of her husband, which, of course, is ironic, as freedom from marriage is independence or bachelorhood and to expect to have lovers is the opposite of fealty. In essence, the Wits in Congreve's play mock marriage by pointing out a typical unfaithful marriage between Fops and describing it as the perfect marriage, making all the Fops believe they are doing it right.

Again, the audience is intended to side with the Wits, although they may sense that they too are being targeted by the playwright's witty characters. Although the play is a satire on social mores of the time, Congreve uses Irony with his audience by including them on the joke by indirectly making them the indirect joke. 

Conclusion

There are many types of Irony to be found in literature, stage comedy, plays, movies, and many other forms of entertainment. They all require that the audience have that ironic sensibility. We have that capability to understand Monty Python, SCTV, Kids in the Hall, Laurel and Hardy, WC Fields, and all the classics, and we are rewarded with laughs. I'm glad this is the path I was put on. It saddens me to think that I couldn't laugh at Biggus Dickus.