What is the distinction between irony and sarcasm? I have a vague "feel" for when one term of the other is inappropriate, but can't quite put my finger on it.

I think most of the stories by O'Henry are ironic, whereas anything written by Ambroce Bierce is sarcastic. Of course, anything written by Asa Lovejoy is open to debate, so....

Irony is a form of expression in which an intended meaning is the opposite of the literal meaning of the words used. So if I were to yell "Nice driving!" at another driver who had just forced me to brake sharply, I'd be using irony.

Sarcasm is intended to wound or hurt another; it is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule. If I were to nominate GW Bush for the Nobel Peace Prize I'd be using sarcasm.

There is often a fine line between irony and sarcasm: the difference is that sarcasm is used with intent to wound.

The English use irony very often when making humorous remarks, and this sometimes causes friction in their dealings with Americans, who mistake the irony for sarcasm.

I apologise for ever offending anybody through sarcasm/irony confusion. Anyway I have a few questions on the theme.

Was Alanis Morrissette correctly detecting irony when she talked about no smoking signs on her cigarette breaks?

Are American teachers sarcastic?

Was Alanis Morrissette correctly detecting irony when she talked about no smoking
signs on her cigarette breaks?
_____________________________________________
I'd call it ironic that a singer would be a smoker. The potential for throat irritation and/or cancer are higher among smokers. I also find it ironic that tobacco, which was a sacramental drug among indigenous peoples of the Americas, has been so corrupted by ever-so-righteous white men. (Last statement is sarcasm, pure and simple!)

There is only one instance of irony in that whole song.

quote:

---

And as the plane crashed down he thought
"Well, isn't this nice." And isn't this ironic ... don't you think?

---

An excellent criticism of the song (especially the lack of true irony) is at http://www.mellowfellow.com/ironic.shtml

I suppose some American teachers are sarcastic. Certainly I remember a few sarcastic British teachers.

Irony is defined as how New York City tap water tastes.


No, wait a minute. Can't leave it at just that. Irony is defined as the incongruity between what is expected and what actually occurs.

A major pet peeve of many (George Carlin, for one. His take on this subject should be required reading for all word mavens.) is the confusion between "irony" and "coincidence." To use one of Carlin's examples, if a ball player receives the same uniform number as his father did when he played the game, and the sportscaster says "Isn't that ironic?" the sportscaster is just being an idiot which, judging from those I've seen, is probably no major news. It's not ironic, it's just a coincidence. Likewise, Morrissette singing "It's like rain on your wedding day" has nothing to do with irony unless, possibly, you were a meteorologist who specifically forecasted clear skies.

If I joined the He-Man Women Haters Club one month and got married the next, that might be hypocrisy on my part but it's not irony. If I joined the He-Man Women Haters Club and ended up marrying the only female member there, that would be ironic.

I don't believe the spirit with which the comment is delivered really matters either way. An ironic comment can be as biting as any sarcastic one.


General rule of thumb:

Irony is that which causes the listener to respond "Hmmm... Now isn't that interesting!"
Sarcasm is that which causes the listener to respond "Hmmm... Lean over here a bit and let me slap you!!"

So, last week I was out shovelling snow with Son #2 and Son #3, when #3 dumped snow down the neck of #2, and #2 said "Thanks, a lot!", and at dinner that evening we couldn't decide if #2 was being ironic , sarcastic, or facetious. Still don't really know.

quote:

---

An ironic comment can be as biting as any sarcastic one.

---

In that case it is sarcasm, by definition.

A big irony reported in the papers here in the U.S. today:

Surgeons in North Carolina botched a double-lung and heart transplant on a young 17-year-old. They re-transplanted her (another set of lungs with a heart), to no avail, and the poor young girl died. Ironically, the physicians wanted to remove some of her organs for possible transplantation (e.g. her corneas wouldn't have been affected by her recent illness)--but her parents refused.

I guess one could understand it in the face of the incomprehensible error the hospital made (wrong blood type of first organs), but still....