Tolkien and Parody

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Bêthberry's post:

Wow, many interesting 'takes' on how we should/can respond to a book which makes fun of one of our favourite books. Thank you everyone for responding.

dancing spawn of ungoliant, my response might have been premature, but I don't think it is off topic. It follows from considering what kind of book The Soddit is, and how we feel about books which ridicule those we hold dear. I think it is central to the kind of book it is to ask how we feel about that kind of book, and I think several Downers here have suggested interesting ways to think about parody.

Webster's states that both parody and satire are the same. A "spoof" of the original. Maybe you can tell me what's the difference Bêthberry because I'm afraid of misinterpreting your post.

Saurren, that is what I was suggesting, that "in theory", that is, in definitions and in literary theory, there is not much distinction made between parody and satire--or rather, the lines are inconsistent. However, I thought that among general readers we often make a distinction, that parody is 'gentler' and 'satire' is harsher. There is, after, quite a vast range of comic works which "imitate" some original. There are travesties, burlesques, mock-heroic, Menippean satires, just plain old satires, farces, and plagairisms. I particularly am intrigued by davem's point about parody being "cheap" and wonder if that inherent quality helps readers place or determine how valuable such a book as The Soddit is.
What I also wondered about was how the reader's attitude towards the original (Tolkien's The Hobbit) might influence their thoughts about The Soddit. Is The Soddit funny if people don't know The Hobbit? Or is it outrageous if people dearly love The Hobbit? Do we come away thinking more highly of The Hobbit after reading A.R.R.R. Roberts' book? Hookbill the Gomba discussed some of these points, whereas Lalwendë raised a point I had not thought about at all, the length of the parody. I know that when I was writing Saladriel and Celery for the first Revenge of the Entish Bow, I thought our salad jokes had a dressing which wilted them fairly fast, but Orlando L'Oréal Bloom had stronger hair spray.

Farce, yes, but deeply moving in its own way (& to be repeated at Tolkien 2005.) Though, to be honest, what I especially liked about that was that it depended on the audience having a real knowledge of the book.

davem has I think made another important point here. This must have worked much the same way that the stage play, The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, Abridged, works for me. Knowing the originals and seeing how silly and ridiculous the abridgements are is the whole point of the fun.

I hope I haven't intruded on what you wished to say about The Soddit, Sleepy Ranger. Does The Soddit make us appreciate The Hobbit all the more or do we leave with a distasteful mouthful of ridicule which cannot stand up to the original. Most Downers here are seeming to imply the latter I think.


Saraphim's post:

I know two types of people who like parodies; the first are people who are acquainted with the original work the parody is based on and would not mind viewing the work in an askewed perspective for a good laugh or to view the original work in another angle as additional food for thought. These people like the original work but are generally casual and easy-going over it. Not "too-into-it" and "taking-it-easy" are the orders of the day here.

The second group of people are more disturbing because they did not like the orginal work and hope that the parody likens the work to their point of view (courage in numbers maybe?) and reinforce their prejudice. Such people are rare but they do exist.

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.

Perhaps I am merely projecting here; creating a group of one (which is technically not a group at all). But personally, I found The Soddit and Bored of the Rings to be very funny, especially to one who knows the original and can get the allusionary jokes and gags, which may not be funny entirely on thier own.


Fordim Hedgethistle's post:

As usual Bethberry you pose a question to which I do not have an answer, and yet feel compelled to give one.

I do not like parodies or spoofs, and darned if I know why. I think that the answer would have something to do with the fact that they seem to be 'easier' than creating something new or entirely one's own. It's so easy to be negative and pretend that one is cool or smart by doing so. So much harder to respond to something with a positive affirmation of what is good about it, coupled with reasoned, constructive criticism of its shortcomings.

Mind you, I am not saying that people who write or enjoy reading spoofs are wrong or uncreative and negative, I'm just trying to explain why I feel the way I do. It just seems to me that parody is all about how smart and witty and wonderful the parodist can be, while trying to cloak it as an homage to somebody else's abilities.

I do love a self-parody. The few times I've seen William Shatner parody himself I've been doubled over with laughter and my opinion of the man has gone up. Tolkien was not adverse to self parody as well, from time to time, usually in his Letters. I think what I find attractive in self-parody is the capacity that it demonstrates for self-analysis and realisation. It shows that the artist is willing and able to step outside his own creation and apprehend it from a different point of view.

I should add that I've never read the book in question, nor Bored of the Rings -- perhaps if I did, my opinion would change.