ne challenge to identifying Shaw’s use of overt irony is its very per-vasiveness. In a quantitative study of Shaw’s ironic thinking about WWI,I found that Shaw’s thinking as expressed inCommon Senseinvolved de-scriptions of hundreds of situational ironies (Hanchett Hanson, 19993).3Using a methodology in keeping with the principles that have been outlined here, thisstudy identified 306 distinct situation ironies, .88 per 100 words, in the entire text ofCommonSense(interrater reliability, 80%).Distinct situational ironieswere based on the count of allsituational ironies identified, less those coded asexamples onlyof ironic principles alreadystated and counted within the discussion of a particular topic.

IRONY AND CONFLICT35In the first few pages ofCommon Sense(1914/1931), Shaw describedthe war as an ironic twist on the standard war script. In attacking whatwas believed to be the foreign characteristics of the enemy, each side wasactually attacking an aspect of itself. The English, who were supposed tobe fighting Junkers and militarists, were also being led by Junkers andmilitarists. This led to a further, more cutting or tragic irony. In fightingthis war, the people on each side were actually strengthening what theydetested—the Junkers and militarists—in their own societies. Thus, oneironic insight was the basis of the next. After describing those two ironies,Shaw moved to the “remedy”:No doubt the heroic remedy for this tragic misunderstanding is thatboth armies should shoot their officers and go home to gather in theirharvests in the villages and make a revolution in the towns...Butthere is no chance—or, as our Junkers would put it, no danger—ofour soldiers yielding to such an ecstasy of common sense (p. 20).Here is another example of verbal irony as condensed referenceto situation scripts. Linking the term “heroic” to shooting superiorofficers and to the daily work of the harvest (overstatement); using theterm “misunderstanding” for the war itself (understatement); linkingrevolution to common sense and then the very concept of an “ecstasyof common sense” (stylistic placing) are all techniques of verbal irony(Muecke, 1969). Note that none of this irony was necessary to make thelogical argument for a solution. That argument: the people of Germanyand England should insist that their governments withdraw from thewar and focus on domestic reforms. The verbal irony added edge. It alsoevoked an array of event scripts and, thereby, contributed to the flow of theargument.The “heroic” reference re-evoked the standard war script in whichheroism plays a key role. The “misunderstanding” reference then implieda more intimate communication script, or a more local political script,where misunderstandings would be standard fare. Then dropping in thereference to revolution, took the situation to another extreme of politicalconflict.Here, Shaw did not just add a single ironic twist to a standard eventscript. He evoked and juxtaposed multiple scripts. That juxtaposition setup a spectrum of perspectives for considering the implications of the pro-posed remedy. At one end, the remedy amounted to revolution for theexisting powers; at the other, it dramatized the possibility of neighborlyrecognition of mutual interests between England and Germany. In betweenwas the actual fighting force, the soldiers who could conceivably redirecttheir energy to a different concept of heroism and, thereby, bring about36MICHAEL HANCHETT HANSONthe remedy. Here we see a type of ironic “logic,” in which irony went be-yond questioning assumptions and provided frameworks for exploring aconcept.