Michael Yates wrote:
> Now I was there to explain the style to those who did not understand it
> and to explain that MR was a radical magazine and that Yurick was
> appalled by the drug business. But the writer does not know who will
> read what he or she has written or in what context or with what level of
> schooling and sophistication. So does the radical writer, one who
> desires a transformation of the social order, have any special
> obligation to write in manner which would make it difficult to be
> misunderstood, especially about a subject critical to those actually
> living in the ghettoes? Some students said yes and some no. What do you
> think?
I think more important than learning facts is learning how to think critically. And one of the most important parts of learning how to think critically is learning that every argument imposes a perspective along with its facts. The skills that make it possible to appreciate irony are thus the same that allow people to see through established ideology. They both start with the same questions: what is the writer assuming and why? Who is he, and what does he stand for, and how does that affect what he means?
It's not something you can learn with one article. But it's something anyone can learn if they read several, because as people have already pointed out, everyone uses irony, kidding and sarcasm in everyday life with their familiars. And everyone weighs what people say against who they are. It's just learning that these things exist in writing too that takes a little time. But it's an indispensible thing to learn if one is ever to get anything really valuable out of the world of writing.
Michael
__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com