[Bêthberry]

I am late for something that I helped set up! Initially I had merely wished to salvage a discussion of The Soddit from the axe, but this thread now is marvellous. Rather than replying directly to everyone, I shall simply toss out a few provocative ideas. What's a daughter of Bombdil to do but play, after all.

Originally posted by Estelyn
Parody is play. It is playing with words, plot elements, and characters to give them a new twist. For that reason, people who are not into playing with language probably don?t appreciate it. That?s fine ? there are other variations of language usage that I don?t appreciate, so fair enough!

This is, I think, one of the crucial aspects of parody in that it looks not at the world or human foibles, as satire does, but at language, to tease out what fun, what unexpected views, what new and arresting ideas can be found in the works. To boldly go where the first author had not gone before.

The few times I've seen William Shatner parody himself

I'm with Helen on this. I would greatly love to know whether Shatner is in fact providing a little self-reflection or is just marketing himself, as Salvator Dali did. (not that I am by any means equating Shatner with Salvator, whose names have always to me sounded a ring of truth about their work.

Does anybody else feel that enjoyment of parody involves a personality element that some people have and some don't?

Hmm, Helen, does this mean you are coming around to one of the points argued on the infamous C-thread, to assume HeronIstarion's term? (I have to fight against the allusion that reminds me of, the C-section, although perhaps that has its appropriateness.) That the site of enjoyment/ interpretation/ meaning lies in the hands of the reader rather than the writer?

I like very much tar-ancalime's definition of parody from music and the idea that the purpose of a parody is to draw out something for an audience which was difficult to see in the original. Lovely punning on mass and Mass, tar-ancalime.

With this idea and with those of quality, which so many here seem to be suggesting is an aspect of parody perhaps more important than in the original, I wonder if we aren't into that nebulous area of intentionality. Do we like parodies in which the author did not intend to ridicule the original, but merely play with it, to bring greater delight or enlightenment to the audience? Is the hint of authorial denigration of the original something which ruins the fun or which speaks only to those who don't like the original?

I will now put myself within firing range. Those who have read our (yes, Esty, I dare to say "our" although it was your conception originally, for it has been propagated by posts from many hands ) infamous RPG serial, The Entish Bow, I ask you to consider this about my characters. I have I guess three major parodic strains there. The first was Saladriel and Celeborn, with the spinoff Vinaigrettiel, followed closely stage left by Orlando l'Oreal Bloom, and most lately by Gucyberry and Ricky Ricardillo. Who can tell what was my intention in writing any of these characters? Have I been a constant lover of Tolkien or have I been unfaithful? Did I wish to play the rebel in REB and if so, why? And were my intention or intentions consistent? Can any of you interpret what was in the author's mind?

Hey dol, merry dol. Play on, McDowners.