ITTOL - Lecture 6/7 - Brooks, Irony as a Principle of Structure

Cleanth Brooks, in "Irony as a Principle of Structure" (The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends, Third Edition, David H. Richter, Bedford/St. Martin's, Boston, NY, 2007 p 799-806) asserts that context (structure) determines meaning:

The memorable verses in poetry ... derive their poetic quality from their relation to a particular context....Even the meaning of any particular item is modified by the context. (800)

The simplest proof of this can be seen by making a study of irony:

...the obvious warping of a statement by the context we characterized as ironical. (800)

And sarcasm is the simplest form of irony; occuring when the context creates "a reversal of meaning".
Brooks stresses that ironical statements must arise naturally from "the pressure of the context" and not be "...merely callow, glib, and sentimental." (801). Assume the same is true for any meaning; if we cannot show that it arises directly from the context (structure) of the text, is it valid?

...we are forced to raise the question as to whether the statement grows properly out of a context; whether it acknowledges the pressure of the context... (801)

While Brooks claims irony can be found in poetry of "every period" he says it is "strikingly" noticeable in the modern age for a number of reasons:

• the "breakdown of a common symbolism"
• the "general scepticism as to universals" [absolute truths?]
• the "depletion and corruption of the language itself" through modern mechanisms i.e. radio, commercial advertising, film, etc.

These statements, on their own, are somewhat ironical. If Literature, in particular, Western literature, relies on a "common symbolism" and "universals" i.e. Greek myths, the Bible, Christianity, European culture, etc. are not large parts of it "merely callow, glib, and sentimental"? Haven't the authors relied on Richards emotive references, rather than art, to get across their meaning? Also, have radio, films and advertising really depleted the language or simply created new symbolism and universals?
What may have looked like a "breakdown" in language to Brooks appears, today, to have resulted in a plethora of new words, ideas, symbols and universal truths which are global, versus Western, in nature; making it even easier for authors to be "callow, glib and sentimental". How many of today's best sellers will be read 100 years from now?