>>Isn't one of the most important distinctions between irony and
sarcasm the fact that people say that irony can be 'lost' on the
listener/reader/viewer whereas noone says the same about sarcasm (even
though such losses can take place in any communication as illustrated
by Angela's protest above)?<<
I'm not at all sure that this is where the distinction would reside.
but perhaps you are right: there is nothing missed in sarcasm. in sarcasm, the content of a discussion is really beside the point. what is important in sarcasm is the humiliation that promotes an attachment to the one being sarcastic, for fear of oneself becoming the target of the abuse: 'please don't beat me, I am (one of) you'.
so: it is a real community being enacted, not a delusional one; and it is no less a community because it consists of the drawing up of boundaries.
yoshie also wrote:
>>Is it not why irony is one of the most
sophisticated mechanisms to be used in the making of individualism, in
that it
allows you to experience an imagined community between you (the
Reader) and the Author?<<
the problem with this formulation is that it seeks little more than to let the author off the hook for the community being enacted. it also places the blame for the 'imagined community', the communication, on the readers' apparent desire for the enhancement of their individuality.
if the reader responds to a text by saying: 'the author speaks (to) me', what is at issue is not only the desire to be spoken (to) -- which assumes a community, not an individuality, btw -- but also the desire of the author for an authoritative (if not authoritarian) voice to which the reader has replied. why else would claims to 'getting it' have to be public?
angela