Saurreg's post:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Saraphim
Ah, but there is a third kind. The group who love and respect Tolkien (or any original work, really) to the degree that nothing anyone says or parodies can possibly matter to thier idea of the original.
|
I shall play the Devil's advocate here just for further discussion's sake. The following is by no means intended to insult or provoke anyone.
If one should feel very strongly for a piece of work or for the creator of that work, so much so that he holds it in idolatry, I would presume that emotions hold that person in high sway. It is hard to believe that such a passionate individual would not be susceptible to external provocations that challenges his favoring of the said piece of work or the above-mentioned creator. His "faith" is not unshakable.
It is not my intention to divulge into the human pysche since I am obviously no student in this field of study, but I should think that every reaction that stems from provocations of such nature, are emotional responses of varying spectrums of different people from either the first category who like parodies (the casual reader) or the first group who dislike parodies (the diehard loyalist). Most probably the second.
Take for example, yours truly translates this discussion thread into an experiment. I start a new thread insulting Tolkien to the lowest and post rude and irrelevant parodies/satires. Chances are the thread would be bombarded by hordes of second category people (the diehards or the chivalrists, whatever) eager for my blood, that is their emotional response - to take me down before my provocations propagate. But there will of course be those who read the contents of this horrible thread, shake their heads and remark to themselves,
"This chap has obviously fallen out from his tree, but my faith or point of view is still there so I will not be bothered,"
By weaving such a mindset/thought, those calm folks have already felt the effects of my provocation. The only thing that seperates them from the above-horde that wants my blood is the degree in which they percieve the threat posed by my provocation and their corresponding emotional response. And in this case, the latter choose to take solace in their "faith" which is only but a fail-safe mechanism to deal with the effects of my provocation.
P.S: Rest assured I will not attempt forum suicide by initiating such an experiment.
Sleepy Ranger's post:
As for me parodies and the actual thing are placed in different categories. I enjoy parodies but the real book always remains a masterpiece. And I only read parodies if I like the original work.
Lalaith's post:
Few things are too sacred for parody, IMO, as long as the parody is a. funny and b. short.
I like the parodies on Dead Ringers and French and Saunders, because they were sketches that made their point, and then the writers went onto something else. But if the parody goes on for nearly as long as the original, then unless it is exceptionally well-written, the joke begins to wear rather thin.
Lalwendė's post:
I've been thinking again about parodies/spoofs, and I've definitely come to the conclusion that it's hard to find a truly great parody. I think it depends upon the knowledge of the writer/director/comedian has of the source material. An example in point might be Kill Bill, which obviously parodied Kung Fu movies - it was obvious that Tarantino knew his genre inside out or he wouldn't have maintained the quality of the films for that length of time (and that's a moot point with some). Another good example, perhaps better, might be Spinal Tap.
But, when you think of the Austin Powers series of films, they began humourously, but then declined in quality as they became more elaborate and strayed from the original idea. There's a temptation to extend a profitable parody beyond its lifespan as a means of making more £££s, unfortunately.
So, IMHO, to be a good parody, the understanding of source material must be excellent, and the writing must be tight and focussed. Of course, there's also only so far the joke can be taken.
Thinking about it, I find film parody
much more entertaining, but maybe I've read some really poor literary parody! As for finding parody/spoofs offensive, I'd only think this if they were
really badly written. Now, if someone who is into literary parody could recommend the absolute best, then I might like
those!
Mithalwen's post:
With the Dead Riners things it was almost another variant ..... some were not parodying LOTR but used the fact of the outline of the story bein familiar enouh (sorry the keyboard is refusin to type theletter between f&h in the alphabet!!!!)
to most listeners to use it as a basis for topical humour ... the route of the quest bein a tactic to avoid the London conestion charge .....
Encaitare's post:
A parody should not be pushed too far, otherwise it just gets campy and distasteful. As Lalwende said, Austin Powers is a good example. They're all funny, but the laughs are cheap and the same jokes over and over get tiresome. I think that a really great parody is something -- if I may even use this word to refer to a parody! -- original. It should play off the original but not rely on it or follow it word-for-word. I have read some parodies which are crossovers with LotR and usually a comedy movie, and it's just not funny after a while because the author simply replaces the names/places in the original movie with those from LotR. The jokes aren't funny anymore and it only serves to drive one ballistic!