I must admit, that, in general, I'm in line with Fordim in not liking parodies. But with a proviso - I don't like
bad parodies, and almost all
direct parodies, unfortunately, fall under said category. So I never enjoyed Lesslie Nilssen
(sp?, and in this case I don't accept any critique, Rimbaud!) movies, per instance.
But (and a mighty weighty strong but at that):
Quote:
|
a parody is a work that is based on or derived from another existing work or theme
|
So is any other work, even the most serious and jaw-breaking of, say, existential philosophical one-ton volumes. As in Physics - cause and effect. Tolkien himself leaned heavily on all kind of existing (and not-existing, but reconstructed) works and themes. So parody is just another way of expressing one's sub-creative abilities, and art in its own right, and channelling author's personal information/experience received from preceding sources. Any activity, in fact, is. I'm able to light a match, as such a skill of mine was based/derived from that of my parents, heh. (Canonicity thread, you are unquenchable!). I can light matches in a mocking way too.
Another 'So':
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Esty
First of all, there are good parodies and there are bad ones. Should you have started off with one of the poor examples, it could make you think that parodies are a bad thing. [b]But those that are well-written and well thought out are wonderful![b]
|
Should it be considered spam to advise you go for Terry Pratchatt for your money? Man mocks out everything in sight (per instance - and I've said elswhere that I'm a sneak and can keep anything Tolkien related - there is such a person as Gimlet the dwarf in TP's world, and a load of other references to JRRT, see
Making Fun of It thread), one even can put a claim
not a single one of Tp's works is not a compilation or a mix up of existing themes, and yet, and yet his art in brewing such a beer makes the cocktail highly original. (Private information for your notice - your humble servant fell off his bed once, reading Small Gods. That is, not simply fell off, but cause of laughing histerically. Another sample of cause and effect)
Driving to the point now, be patient:
For the parody to be good, in my opinion, there are three mandatory requirements:
1. The author of a parody should be a good artist himself
2. S/he should love the work s/he intends to spoof
3. S/he should know the work s/he intends to spoof
The success of the parody, good or bad, now, mainly depends on how well-known and loved is the work parodied.
Good parody bears the function of a self-analysis, helping to alianate one from one's possible obsession at times, or even see something in a new light, which would have pass unnoticed if taken always seriously. Humour generally does help see things from different angle, and widening yer horizon is a good for ye (self-spamming - see
ME Jokes)
As for satire, I always thought of it as of a more negative and somehow political kind of the two, aimed not at any particular work in itself, but at the dominant idea/concept of the particular work or a society the author of the satire lives in . (So, Gulliver is a satire, not parody). Suppose someone were to create a work mocking out Tolkien's religion, or moral code, - that would have been satire, not parody.
For the satire to be good, there are also three requirements:
1. The author of a satire should be a good artist himself
2. S/he should have the dominant idea/concept to replace the one s/he mocks out
3. S/he should be very well versed in both concepts - one s/he mocks out and one s/he propagates
The success of the satire, now, depends on how many supporters both ideas/concepts have. Mentioned
Gulliver would have been a failure three centuries earlier
cheers