Being unironic in the age of the Web

We all know about signaling a joke when writing, especially online, but sometimes we need to signal that we really mean our words at face value.

Sometimes you need to play it straight.

Much has been made of the need for tools to indicate humor, irony, "just kidding," and other states of nonseriousness in our e-mails, texts, and instant messages.

That's why we have emoticons and shorthands like "LOL," right? The Atlantic published an article by Megan Garber a few months ago headed "How to Tell a Joke on the Internet." In it she traced the classic sideways smiley (colon, hyphen, close paren) to a group of Carnegie Mellon University researchers in 1982. Trading quips on an online message board, they needed a way to signal "just kidding."

I'm sure this year's complement of incoming college freshmen includes legions who will have to be told by their Composition 101 instructors that no, a smiley is not a recognized punctuation mark.

The surprise of the article was just how long it took to find the right way to indicate irony typographically – a quest predating the Internet. One attempt at a point d'ironie, in the form of a backward question mark, goes back to the 1840s in France.

And the American writer Ambrose Bierce offered the "snigger point." At the Atlantic's website, it appears as a sideways parenthesis, suspended in the line of type like a tiny hammock anchored between a pair of quotation marks.

But what do you do when you mean your words to be taken at face value? For instance: "Have I made myself clear?"

That's a line it's easy to imagine the late character actor Gale Gordon harrumphing at Lucille Ball, or before her, at Eve Arden, of "Our Miss Brooks" fame. As he said it, it was meant to convey, "I have said what I feel I need to say to put you in your place."

The Free Dictionary explains this idiom with a little parenthetical: "(Indicates anger or dominance.)"

But at a literal level (and admittedly, probably in a calmer tone of voice than Mr. Gordon's characters used), it's not a bad question to ask. An essential lesson in leadership is learning to ensure that your messages get across.

A good way to do that is to get the other person to repeat your message in his or her own words. But the words "Have I made myself clear?" have picked up such baggage that you wouldn't use them to ask the question in writing. You'd ask, "Did that make sense?" or something like that.

This concern with un-irony popped up after I'd had a couple of occasions within the same day to say to people, in effect, "Thank you for sharing." In both cases I meant it at face value. But that expression has come to be used as a general putdown of those who provide Way Too Much Information.

The phrase has been adapted as the title of a movie about ... well, I don't want to be one of those oversharing types myself.

Talk-show host Dick Cavett had an opportunity back in 1971 to show he knew when not to use a set phrase that had long since been co-opted for comedy.

During taping before a live audience, one of his guests keeled over on the couch, and died. (The show never aired.) Wanting to call for help, Mr. Cavett went to the edge of the stage. But he realized that the set phrase for just such an occasion – "Is there a doctor in the house?" – would have sounded like a laugh line.

And so what he asked instead was, "Is there a doctor in the ... audience?"

As a wit like Cavett knows, sometimes you just have to play it straight.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.