Ironies and Paradoxes :: Literary Writing Essays

Ironies and ParadoxesABSTRACT In modern-day literary culture in that respect is a widespread belief that ironies and paradoxes ar closely akin. This is due to the greatness that is assumption to the use of language in contemporary estimations of literature. Ironies and paradoxes seem to cost the sorts of a linguistic rebellion, innovation, deviation, and play, that have throughout this century become the prevailing criteria of literary value. The association of irony with paradox, and of both with literature, is often ascribed to the New Criticism, and much specifically to Cleanth Brooks. Brooks, however, used the two terms in a appearance that was un naturalized, even eccentric, and that differed significantly from their use in figurative theory. I therefrom examine irony and paradox as verbal figures, noting their characteristic indications and criteria, and, in particular, how they differ from one another (for instance, a paradox means only what it says whereas an iron y does not). I argue that irony and paradox as soundless by Brooks have important affinities with irony and paradox as figures, but that they must be regarded as quite distinct, both in figurative theory and in Brooks extended sense. In contemporary literary culture there is a widespread belief, or feeling, that ironies and paradoxes are closely akin. This is due in part to the huge importance that is given to the use of language in contemporary descriptions and estimations of literature. Ironies and paradoxes seem to reflect and cost the sorts of linguistic rebellion, innovation, deviation, and play, that have throughout this century become the dominant criteria of literary value.The explicit association of irony with paradox, and of both with literature, is often ascribed to the New Criticism, and much specifically to Cleanth Brooks. Brooks, however, used the two terms in a sort that was unconventional, even eccentric. He seemed to think of irony as a commandment of order a nd unity not so much a feature of language or meaning as a sort of viscidness yoking disparate elements together, rather like Aristotles conception of wholeness and integrity in Poetics 8 (Brooks 1951). As for paradox, Brooks seemed to regard it as a lumber in language very like Viktor Shklovskys defamiliarisation that is, a deviation from conventional language designed to wrench our perceptions and our thoughts into unaccustomed, and therefore enlightening, pathways. Paradox, in this view, is a whatchamacallit which compensates for the limitations of conventional language, and is thus the only way in which poets can persuade the unconventional insights that are their stock in trade.