The Irony of “A man who’d died and returned to life” - “I am a Corpse”
Master Effendi narrates, “After hearing the miracle of my voice, you might think, “Who cares what you earned when you were alive? Tell us what you see. Is there life after death? Where’s your soul? What about Heaven and Hells? What’s death like? Are you in pain? You’re right, the living are extremely curious about the Afterlife. Maybe you’ve heard the story of the man who was so driven by this curiosity that he roamed among soldiers in battlefields. He sought a man who’d died and returned to life amid the wounded struggling for their lives in pools of blood, a soldier who could tell him about the secrets of the Otherworld. But one of Tamerlane’s warriors, taking the seeker for the enemy, cleaved him in half with a smooth stroke of his scimitar, causing him to conclude that in the Hereafter man gets split in two.” First, it is ironic that Master Effendi can recount his story yet he is death. Ordinarily, death people do not have the capacity to narrate anything for their form does not permit them. Second, the insinuation about a man who resurrected is ironic for death is normally irreversible. The curious man who goes seeking the resurrected man meets his death instead of finding the man who had resurrected. Accordingly, for the living to answers all the queries they have regarding the Afterlife, they must experience death personally.
The Irony of Dogs’ Rationality - “I am a Dog”
The narrator affirms, “I’m a dog, and because you humans are less rational beasts that I, you’re telling yourselves, “Dogs don’t speak.” Nevertheless, you seem to believe a story in which corpses speak and characters use words they couldn’t possibly know. Dogs do speak, but only to those who know how to listen.” First, asserting that the dog’s rationality exceeds that of humans is an irony which exposes the inherent irrationality in humans which would not be present in humans. Although humans are endowed with higher intelligence than animals particularly dogs, at times, some humans behave in manner in which dogs would not tolerate. Second, affirming the dog’s capacity to speak is ironic; ordinarily, dogs bark and wag tails. The affirmation implies that dogs can be more effective communicators than humans although they cannot talk like conventional humans.
