>>103966042Which brings us back to the original issue. Is Heathcliff actually insincere/ironic or attempting to subvert expectations. You could argue that it is, to varying degrees of success, but I'm not sure I would agree with that analysis. That is to say, I see an internal consistency and sincerity in the jokes and humor of modern Heathcliff. The "ironic" readings tend to come from people bring in their own expectations of what Heathcliff "should" be or what comedy/humor "is." If the subversions of expectations are the result of pre-conceived notions brought in by the reader, does it then become ironic comedy? If whether or not something is ironic comedy is a reflection of the reader's pre-conceived notions rather than the creator's intent, then I don't think it's quite fair to classify something as being "ironic comedy."
To use an example from another medium, I present to you: The Room. (To be clear, this is purely to illustrate my point, not a comparison between the two. The Room is horribly crafted while Heathcliff is a masterwork.) The Room is considered by many to be a comedy. Afterall, it's hilarious. However, it's humor wasn't intentional. The movie is supposed to be a drama, and it's extremely self-serious in that regard. So then, is The Room "ironic"? Is it a comedy? No, it's a drama that people treat as a comedy. This is where the term enjoying something ironically comes about. However, the irony here isn't in The Room, but in the viewer's enjoyment of The Room. The movie itself is still a drama. Again, intent matters.
To bring this back to Heathcliff, was the intention of Gallagher to be ironic? Is he trying to subvert expectations, or are readers like you just bringing in their own expectations and having those pre-conceived notions subverted, regardless of Gallagher's intent.
I personally do not consider Heathcliff to be "anti-/ironic comedy" for this reason. I think it's just comedy, and some have too strict a definition of what that means.
