Though the definition of irony is contested, its usefulness in revealing a deeper truth about the author’s beliefs can be affirmed with greater stability – to an extent. Before the leap of uncovering those truths can be made, however, the text must be analyzed for the existence of irony. Under Wayne C. Booth’s “Is it Ironic?” guidelines in A Rhetoric of Irony (1974), Primo Levi’s short story “Heading West” (1971, 1987) is ironic by means of the title, conflicts of fact between characters’ dialogue and actions, conflicts of belief between the text and the author, and the use of allegory though its significance is undervalued by Booth. Irony appears to exist in Levi’s piece according to Booth’s checklist, but a brief look into the reconstruction of the allegory that seems to be both anti-Nazism and pro-suicide raises speculation about Levi’s intents and the cause of his death.

            One of the more obvious clues of irony that the author gives is the title of the work according to Booth. For a title to be ironic, it should “give us [the readers] . . . information that we can immediately use in suspecting ‘secret’ intentions behind the narrator’s words” (Booth 53). A title of this sort essentially sets the stage for an ironic reading. However, the title can be ironic in relation to the text post-reading as well. “Heading West” refers to moving toward the end of life just as the sun moves westward to end the day. When it is looked at from two different perspectives, “Heading West” has the qualities of dramatic irony prior to reading the work and absurd incongruity after reading the story. Walter, the main character, is a scientist who studies lemmings that he believes commit mass suicide in order to find a “cure” for suicidal tendencies, and suicide, in reference to the title, can be attributed to heading westward toward death rather than eastward toward life. According to Booth, “dramatic irony always depends strictly on the reader’s or spectator’s knowing something about a character’s situation that the character does not know” (255). The title is initially ironic in a dramatic sense since the readers have insight about what will happen whereas Walter does not. Levi may be using the title to plant an initial assumption that Walter’s efforts will be futile even before the story is read – hinting at the readers to look at Walter’s goal for the cure with skepticism and an eye for what the story really means, a beneath-the-surface level reading. “Heading West” describes what is happening in the story: the world and everyone in it is heading toward death in one way or another, whether it be desired or not. In the first couple pages, however, the readers are presented with the Walter’s desire to halt that westward progression, but the title already says that Walter will not succeed. After reading the story, the title becomes ironic in the sense that it is incongruous with Walter’s every action toward his goal for a cure and the fact that he fails to succeed. Thus by the conclusion of reading the story, the title of “Heading West” could be seen as Levi’s mockery of Walter’s wasted efforts. From the former analysis of the title, it presents a dramatic sense of irony, but from the latter, it highlights the absurdity of Walter’s goal. However, Levi’s intent could be for both to apply, and since authorial intent is the foundation of whether or not irony is present (Booth 91), then this becomes an important consideration both in intent for the text’s usage and for the message Levi is trying to convey. Levi is trying to tell the readers from the beginning not to trust Walter’s actions, but rather to trust the message the author provides in the title. In this way, Levi is immediately making known to his readers that his truth is not in accordance with Walter’s goal. 

            Another clue that points to the existence of dramatic irony in Levi’s piece is what Booth dubs “conflicts of fact” (61) between Walter’s dialogue and actions, which occur when “a plausible but false voice is presented . . . [and] contradictions of this voice are introduced” (62). Dramatic irony occurs when “an author deliberately asks us to compare . . . what a character says now with what he says or does later” (Booth 63). A significant conflict of fact within “Heading West” is revealed in the comparison between Walter’s initially expressed belief and his further actions. Walter recognizes through a discussion with his assistant scientist, Anna, that lemmings that do not have the desire to live are justified because “‘life does not have a purpose,’” since life only consists of pain and eventual death with few benefits (Levi 589). Though he makes this assertion that the lemmings are right and life has no purpose, he still continues to devote his life to finding a “cure” for suicidal tendencies and to make lemmings and the Arunde tribe want to live. The text states that “Walter thought and spoke of nothing else” but his research (Levi 590). If he truly believes that life is pointless, why would he devote his life to the purposeof stopping suicidal tendencies, especially since his goal that promotes life as if it were worthwhile disaffirms what he claims to have realized? What is Levi’s purpose in portraying Walter as such an inconsistent figure? The absurdity of Walter’s self-contradiction indicates that irony is present and that Levi is trying to push the readers to reconstruct Walter’s contradiction into revealing an important message about motive. In light of this incongruity, Walter’s motive does not seem to be to help others as a whole, but rather to succeed as an individual. This worldview of ranking the individual over humanity is also referenced in his later discussion about the outcome of the cure with Anna: “‘[It will be] a good thing for the individual, certainly. A good thing for the human race, doubtful’” (Levi 591).  The individual he is helping is himself. In finding a cure, he promotes himself and receives his “fifteen minutes of success” (Levi 594), yet prolongs the painfulness of life for those who initially have the mindset of not wanting to live or endure the inevitable agony. He, the individual, is more important than that group of people. 

            Another distinct conflict of fact arises within the description of the Arunde tribe’s worldview. One of the main assertions of the tribal leader makes about the mindset of his people is that they do not believe in reward and punishment (Levi 593). However, the way the tribe deals with the process of suicide directly contradicts that claim. If a tribal member begins to experience more pain than pleasure in his or her life, he is allowed to go before the council to ask for permission to commit suicide (Levi 593). Are not pleasure and pain synonymous with reward and punishment? Rewards are pleasurable and punishment is painful. Both groups produce positive and negative affect, are generally thought of as desirable verses undesirable, and result in either the tendencies to or to not continue certain behaviors (like living, for example). Given these similarities, is it not contradictory for the text to read that the tribal leader “was aware of the fundamental difference between their beliefs and those of other peoples” (Levi 593), when pleasure or pain are essentially the resulting feelings from receiving reward or punishment, respectively? Furthermore, the tribe states that it prefers death to “drugs and illusion” (Levi 595), but what does it mean that they use a drug to attain death, especially when the drug produces an illusory state of “stupefaction” (Levi 593)? How is Factor L, Walter’s drug that is a cure for suicide, any less of a “drug” than Ktan, which is what the tribal members take to commit suicide that has “toxic and narcotic effects” (Levi 593)? Granted, Factor L provides lifelong illusion while Ktan’s is only temporary, but bothare reality-altering drugs. 

            These irreconcilable facts within the text give rise to deeper conflicts of belief between those expressed by the text and those held by the author. Conflicts of belief are also important indicators of irony according to Booth, and are evident in the contrast between the characters’ dialogue and actions and Levi’s beliefs. Booth describes this aspect as “unmistakable conflict between the beliefs expressed and the beliefs we hold and suspect the author of holding” (73). Levi is a Cartesian and a chemist. His foundational belief, defined and otherwise evident within his other works of Survival in Auschwitz (If This is A Man) (1947) and The Drowned and the Saved (1986), is that the ability to think and question is what makes a man a human. When that ability is threatened, weakened, or given up entirely, a man ceases to be. Life only exists in the ability to think and process. Levi probably does not agree with all that Professor Osiasson, Walter, and Anna do, which is another indicator of irony according to Booth: “Unless what the voice [of the character] says or does conflicts in some clear way with what we can be sure the author would say, we will not knowthat the passage is ironic” (57). Levi, given his Cartesian beliefs, is highly unlikely to agree with the mindset of Professor Osiasson, who insists that lemmings are driven by hunger and ignores Walter’s new information contradicting that assertion (588). Walter seems to act as Levi’s mouthpiece when he sarcastically makes the remark against the professor, “‘It’s easy to repeat the same thing over an entire career, and with a clear conscience. All you have to do is shoot down new facts’” (Levi 587). Levi places great importance on questioning information and giving it proper analysis, but Professor Osiasson’s choice to blatantly ignore the evidence is inconsistent with Levi’s values. Levi may be trying to express his Cartesian beliefs through ironizing what his characters say and do. 

Further conflicts of belief are evident within specific aspects of plot. Levi’s choices about elements of the story as a whole conflict with what he considers to be an absolute truth. Walter’s pharmacologists discover that an alcohol in the blood, found in people who want to live and absent in the lemmings and the Arunde tribe, is the “cure,” so Walter distributes it to people who have lost the desire to live (Levi 594). These people who blindly, unquestionably accept this drug cure are deluding themselves, a choice not synonymous with Levi’s beliefs. The suicidal humans who accept the cure are destroying a part of themselves – the thoughts that contain the desire to die. They are effectively reducing themselves to the illusion that a part of themselves never existed. Furthermore, the stark contrast between Levi’s belief and the main characteristic of lemmings in the story lends itself to the undeniable recognition that irony must exist in “Heading West” under Booth’s guideline. Though lemmings are not human, the choice to use them as the experimental focus in the story guides readers to see how conflicting beliefs are present, for lemmings are here presented as creatures who blindly follow each other even to their death rather than think independently. 

            These conflicts of belief also exist on an even larger scale with respect to Levi’s allegory, to which Booth’s checklist does not quite do adequate justice. The broad definition of allegory states that both a literal and a symbolic meaning exist. However, if Levi’s story is looked at literally it seems to have no actual meaning, or at least not one that is straightforward and cohesive enough to be justified. There are so many conflictions that exist paragraph by paragraph (for example, with Walter), not to mention the absurdity of the fact that the scientists assume the lemmings are killing themselves, when in fact, mass suicide is a known myth and Walter and Anna do not even see the lemmings drowning as they swim – they just swim out of sight (Levi 586). What kind of literal meaning is to be made from the surface interpretation of what is explicitly said in Levi’s allegory? There is no meaning! What is asserted through the goal of curing lemmings who may not even be suicidal is only absurdity. Thus, in order to find any true meaning the reader must reconstruct the convolutions within the prose of the allegory, which lends itself to the allegation that Levi’s allegory must be, in some way, ironic.

Though Booth mainly asserts that allegory is not ironic because it does not change but rather only adds to the meaning of a work (25), he does admit that allegory can be ironic if it has some other intent, for example, to be against institutions such as communist totalitarianism (26). “Heading West” seems to be against the institution of Nazism, and the most significant way Levi portrays this is through Walter’s scientific efforts. Walter’s goal seems to be fairly synonymous with Nazi purification ideals, but given Levi’s views the story most likely has the underlying intent to reject Nazis ideals. Levi endured the Holocaust in Auschwitz and witnessed firsthand the effort of Adolph Hitler to “purify” the human race of Jews and cripples and all who were without the idealized blue-eyed, fair complexion. In a similar fashion in “Heading West,” Walter is attempting to “purify” the world of those with suicidal tendencies through the cure. Walter tries to eliminate what he believes to be a weakness. He, in essence, wants to change what makes the lemmings what they are – their characteristic of blindly following each other to death. He additionally wants to change what makes the Arunde tribe unique and to subvert what they find to be contented way to go about life and death. He finds this cure in “normal” blood and tries to distribute it to those who do not have the right alcohol component (Levi 594). The link between Hitler and Walter’s efforts of purifying the human race lends itself to the supposition that Levi adamantly disagrees with this goal of his main character, and that his allegory can be considered ironic according to Booth due to the intentions against institutional Nazism. 

            Though Levi’s allegory is ironic with regard to Booth’s requirement to be against an institution, his allegory also proves to be ironic in a different way in that it advocates for the freedom of suicide both through the Arunde tribe and some of Walter and Anna’s dialogue. Booth’s limits with regard to allegory come to the surface again when the reader attends to Levi’s intentions for what his reader will formulate about the Arunde tribe as a result of reconstruction. In addition to being against the worldview of purification that is more than just an institution of Nazism, Levi may be trying to use his allegory as an irony to reveal things about himself. Though “Heading West” can be read as allegorical through Walter, the lemmings, and other aspects of the story, the allegory of the Arunde tribe is the most compelling for the argument of irony. Also, while different characters act as mouthpieces for Levi as evidenced later, the Arunde tribe is the most consistent with his beliefs. What Levi may intend is for his readers to recognize that elder of the Arunde tribe is him. Evidence for this within the story rests in the fact that Levi gives him preference in the story over the other characters. He describes the leader as a calm, mature, and prepared man who evidently puts much thought into his words and society (Levi 592), he gives the elder the last word in the story, and his tribe ironically (in a cosmic, fateful sense) outlives the scientist trying to “save” them from extinction by suicide. Furthermore, the last words of the Arunde tribe elder are in alliance with Levi’s views for freedom and thought: “‘We prefer freedom to drugs and death to illusion’” (595). Evidence of his connection with the tribe external to the story is evident through certain quotes and letters in which he advocates for the freedom to commit suicide. 

Why is it important for readers to recognize that Levi shares the views of the Arunde tribe, or rather, in allegorical terms, that the tribe elder is a representation of Levi himself? The implications of Levi having their view, his empathy for those with the freedom and desire to commit suicide, reach beyond the scope of the words on the page. This link provides readers with insight about the cause of Levi’s death as being a suicide verses an accident. Perhaps what Levi has more than one intent with what he is trying to say through the allegory of “Heading West.” He wishes both to criticize Nazi institutionalism and to allow deeper readers to look beyond the ironic façade into the truth beneath about his deepest desires and inclinations. Perhaps Levi is extending an invitation for others to follow him, assuring them of his understanding with those who do not wish to live, promising that he is starting something that contrasts to the worldview of those who believe in the value of life and choose drugs and illusion. 

            Though there are instances of conflicts of belief between the characters and the author and a connection between Levi and the Arunde tribe, there are also indications that Levi may be speaking with his own voice through Walter and Anna about what he truly feels – and this complicates whether or not irony is present since it diverges from Booth’s guidelines that deal with reconstructing meaning rather than taking it at face-value. However, perhaps irony exists within the contradiction that Levi’s characters sometimes do and other times do not speak as he would. Anna describes her personal experience with depression as, “‘That hole. That emptiness . . . everything useless around me, drowned in a sea of uselessness’” (Levi 588). Walter asks, “‘Why should he [a living being] want to live? Why should he alwayswant to live?’” (Levi 588). Levi republished “Heading West” just before his death. Could these words from Levi’s characters be expressing his thoughts? What does this say about irony, if such words are explicit? What would Booth have to say about these potential “direct” quotes from the author? Why would Levi be presenting a message both through the contradictory nature of Walter’s dialogue and goal, and through his empathies toward the Arunde tribe and some of what Walter and Anna verbally express? For example, Walter says, “‘Between those who have a love of life and those who have lost it no common language exists’” (Levi 589). This quote highlights that a separation exists between those who will and will not understand Levi, the author who may rest on the side of those without a love of life. The part of the population without suicidal tendencies is excluded from comprehension according to this quote. However, if the same Walter who speaks this were to appear in the real world and attempt to eliminate those without the will to live, then Levi’s foundational desire to be understood would be greatly threatened. Does this not imply how fervently Levi is against Walter’s goal? Why, then, does Levi give those words to Walter, whose entire goal threatens Levi’s beliefs?

Though Booth may claim otherwise, Levi’s allegory is arguably ironic regardless of whether or not each piece of symbolism has roots in the intent to be against an institution given the fact that he is trying to convey a different message about himself within the same allegory. It may be true to say that one can read and get something (perhaps as surface-level as entertainment or as relatively deep as a moral lesson) out of “Heading West” without figuring out what each aspect of the work represents, a fact which Booth claims renders an allegory non-ironic (25), but to say that recognizing the allegorical representations an author makes merely addsto the work instead of transformingit belittles Levi’s intent. It is doubtful that Levi would not desire for his readers to comprehend what he is trying to reveal beneath the surface of his fictional plot and characters. What Levi is trying to say reaches a significance beyond that of simple ethics and institution – it is a declaration against a toxic worldview of purification and brain-washing that he may be claiming is still present, and an assertion for the freedom to commit suicide. Levi’s connection with the allegory gives readers a transformed outlook on the significance of the story with regards to both the world and his death. The reader is not to go “Ah, this is what this all represents – that is delightfully interesting,” but rather, he or she is to exclaim, “I cannot believe it!” and, “Other readers should understand the implications of this!” The significance and perpetuation of the message within the work becomes so much more important to the reader when he or she voices the latter. Not only do Levi’s representations transform the story and its message, but they also transform the reaction of the reader and therefore the his or her connection to the work. 

            Determining whether or not a piece is ironic is not where the analysis ends; it may never cease considering the fact that Levi’s allegory presents more than one debatable message and that Walter’s contradictory nature causes speculation. What does it mean to construct two things, such as Walter and the tribe, that have conflicting meanings and impulses to produce an ironic allegory, and why does Levi use suicide as the base for the critique he is trying to make of Nazism and the worldview against the freedom to commit suicide? Why is an ironic allegory the best for thinking about suicide, especially considering Walter’s realization that life has no purpose and that Levi is trying to create a piece that has an intended message? Or, does Levi produce this story that is not cohesive but rather contradictory and confusing in order to show that he believes life has no purpose, and thus condones suicide through that? The implications of the presence of irony and the author’s intents for the results of reconstruction are crucial to getting to the true meaning that the irony hides underneath a layer meant to be uncovered. However, intent and meaning can be highly contested. Without clear, direct word from the author, speculation and differing perspectives can result in risky deviances from the author’s truth, yet at the same time irony may be able to speak the truth better than sincerity can. “Heading West” may or may not disclose to readers whether Primo Levi’s death was by accident or suicide, but that may be just one of the messages Levi wants us to ponder over constantly in order to keep fresh in our minds the tragedy of the Holocaust, which he believes should never be forgotten.

​

​

Works Cited

​

Booth, Wayne C. A Rhetoric of Irony. The University of Chicago Press, 1974. 

 

Levi, Primo. “Heading West.” The Complete Works of Primo Levi. Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2015. pp. 586-595.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​