Irony and Textual Argument...

We all know that the meanings of words evolve over time. A prime example is the word 'irony.' As made famous in Alanis Morrisete's song Ironic, she gives situations that are taken to be seen as ironic. In reality, according to the definition of ironic, these aren't. Coincidence, maybe, serendipity, maybe, they are more like what people used to call 'fate.'

What is irony? Well, to take off from Alanis' song, a man in fear of flying whose plane crashes on his first flight isn't irony. Irony would be a man afraid of flying choosing instead the safer route of driving who is killed by a plane crashing onto his car. Perhaps it is ironic that the lyrics in Alanis' song aren't ironic.

Another example of irony centers around the KLF. If anyone is familiar with their relatively brief but bright history, they might remember that the KLF (initials which stand for Kopyright Liberation Front, among others) were at the forefront of the copyright issue that is so explosive today. They borrowed stuff unapologetically beginning sometime circa 1987, though it was ultimately not without consequence. Their 'Chill Out' mix is a classic.

The irony is that in an effort to be subversive they became as popular as the artists and industry they were seeking to subvert. Is the irony that they became famous and became victims of the very same thing which they were doing? Is it irony if it is intentional? They set out to make a popular (in the basest meaning of the word) record by using a basic beat and really over the top meaningless lyrics sung sincerely, most blatantly in their use of Tammy Wynette for vocals. They succeeded. So is it ironic that they ripped other peoples' stuff off and here we are, twenty years, later, ripping off their stuff online? Or is that simply karma? Or were they prophetic?

Anyhow, people will fight over what the Bible says by quoting the King James Version of the Bible and then breaking down the English meaning of the word. But they are one step removed from the Old English usage of the word from which the KJV came and another step removed from the original Greek/Hebrew. So we are two steps removed from the original use of the word. Worse is when someone will argue from, say, the New Living Translation (which is but a paraphrase/interpretation moreso than a translation) and we are yet one more step removed. So we begin arguing over, quite literally, nothing, at least nothing in the sense that we are not fighting over what we think we are fighting over.

As time goes on, we begin to quote authors not close to the source but those who came later. And later. And later. I suppose that is why I will trace footnotes back to older and older sources in order to read what the original authors wrote. If I'm going to quote a recent author/scholar and am unfamiliar with his/her sources, how can I really understand what he/she is saying? There is nothing worse than arguing a point that isn't the point being made at all.

So where is the irony in this post? Probably that I am using so many words to argue about not arguing over words.