Tolkien and Parody

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Saurreg's post:

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.


Lalwendë'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!

[davem]

I was just thinking (forgive me if this has been said, I've only been able to skim the latest posts in this thread) that perhaps my problem with Tolkien parodies is that too many of them seem not to be poking fun at the books but at the readers, which I suppose I take seriously - we're just sad geeks, only fit for these 'sophisticates' to laugh at. Perhaps its 'mockeries', not parodies or satires, I have a problem with.

(Paranioid? Who me? Why are you saying that???? )

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Smart you for setting up a new thread Esty, I am now free to float further ideas about parody and Tolkien.

I said initially that I don't like parodies or spoofs, and I stand by that, insofar as I don't like books that make fun of other books. I do, however, like satiric parodies in which a book or a movie makes fun of a human foible, weakness -- or a particular political/social aspect of the human world. I satire because it can be entertaining while fulfilling a social purpose by commenting directly on the world in such a way as to seek change or redress shortcomings.

This is perhaps why satire and Tolkien (or satire and fantasy) are incompatible. Fantasy is already a form of commentary on the world (my comments in the "Real" thread notwithstanding ) that exists at an oblique angle -- the primary world is already tweaked into different shapes in order for the commentary to take place. There is, then, no need or place for satire in a fantastic work.

Satire and fantasy, at their best, do the same work from different ends. Satire criticises the world with the idea of transforming it; fantasy transforms the world in such a way that implies criticism. In either case we are given a view of the world transformed, and a hint of what things could or should be like. This difference leaves a profound imprint on the finished works. A satiric work like Swift's Gulliver's Travels attempts to re-imagine humanity by shrinking people down to the size of toys, or blowing them up to giants so that we can see humans in all their deformity and flaws, and then act to change those in ourselves. A fantastical work like LotR attempts to re-imagine humanity by shrinking people down to the size of hobbits, or inflating them to a towering figure of perfection like Aragorn so that we can see what human nature is capable of becoming.

As I work through this I'm really beginning to see more and more connections between how fantasy and satire work!!! In both, there is not an attempt to show the 'human condition' in a single emblematic character; instead human traits or aspects are split and embodied among bunch of different characters. In this sense, Swift divides the human into Hounyhyns and Yahoos, Tolkien into the Edain and the Eldar.

Interestingly enough, satire can seem to bear the weight of fantastical elements (i.e. horses that talk, people the size of your thumb, giants) while the reverse is not true. As soon as an overtly satiric element emerges in a work of fantasy, the "spell" of the secondary world would fall apart since it would become merely a mask or palimpsest for the primary world and not a separate subcreated reality. I think this is because in a satiric work, the fantastic elements are expressions of allegory (i.e. tiny people=human pretensions to greatness; giants=humanity's gross desires and hungers), and we all know that for fantasy to 'work' it must work toward or within applicability not allegory!

[tar-ancalime]

Forgive me if this is irrelevant, but:

The way we use the word "parody" now is different from its former meaning. Unfortunately for the pertinence of my comments, though, my knowledge of the subject is confined to music--I don't know if there was ever a literary equivalent of this.

In the Renaissance, many composers wrote works called Parody Masses. A Parody Mass was a setting of the Ordinary of the Mass using an existing tune (often a secular song) as the cantus firmus, or underlying melody. These Masses were not, of course, intended to poke fun at either the original tune or the Mass itself; their intent was rather to bring something recognizable to the masses into the Mass (sorry, I couldn't resist!). In effect, the Parody Mass made the Mass more accessible to the congregants, most of whom could not speak Latin. One particular tune "L'Homme Armee" was so popular that just about every composer in France wrote a Mass on it.

I wonder if there is any vestige of that left in modern parodies--do they serve any kind of purpose in bringing some part of the original to people who might not otherwise understand or even encounter it? Or are they so insular as to be understandable only to those who already know and love the original work?

[Saurreg]

So if we go by the definition given to us by tar-ancalime, then a parody is a work that is based on or derived from another existing work or theme. That would mean that provocating spoofs are usually satires just as Bêthberry had claimed. Ah, now that makes things clearer.

I agree with Fordim that one must not simply dismiss parodies or satires if they portray actual persons. It may not be just a case of being disrespectful and generating self-satisfaction through another person's discomfort or shortcomings. If we go by current forum definitions, than many a political and social commentators throughout the ages have used satires to communicate the ideas and observations when it was impossible to do so directly. From mythical Aesop to Thackeray and from Thackeray to Orwell, all these writers have written satires in one form or another to illustrate the ills of humanity and society. Such works carry great merit and are welcomed in most reading circles for the message they try to convey. Today's parodies and satires may lack the sense of urgency, importance or even relevance compared to the seminal works of old, but it will not harm to just try to read them and think on both sides before passing judgement.

Good thread Estelyn Telcontar

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Granted, the question "What would Tolkien do?" is facetious! But what would Tolkien think of parodies of his works? We know that he had a wonderful sense of humour from reading his works, but would it have amused him to read spoofs of them, or would he have been annoyed, feeling the plagiaristic aspect as an intrusion on his creation?

Most parodies write "unauthorized" on the front, so it is not necessary to have the author's permission or approval. We joke about JRRT turning in his grave when we read particularly cheeky parodies. (As a matter of fact, Squatter and Underhill "invented" the Travest-O-Meter (TM) to measure the RPM (rotations per minute). It is presumed to have been destroyed by overload during a recent episode of the "Entish Bow" RPG. ) So are parodists being disrespectful to the work of the original author?

By the way, the above-mentioned apparatus brings yet another term into play here - travesty. How would that be different from parody, spoof, and satire?


(footnote: I just realized that my facetious question is itself a parody! Since the original is a religious topic, I do hope that it's not offensive to anyone. I'm not sure whether my inability to resist a play on words is a strength or a weakness... *sigh* )

[HerenIstarion]

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):

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':

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

[davem]

Maybe another problem is that the parodist is making money out of someone elses' work. Yes, Gulliver's Travels was a satire, but not on any particular author's work, & it wasn't sold on the back of anyone else's hard work. The difference between ARRR Robert's (& Peter Jackson's) work & Terry Pratchett's is that Pratchett's work may satirise some of Tolkien's themes & characters but it doesn't ride on the back of Tolkien's work.

[mark12_30]

There is a big issue with personality and parody, I think. I say this largely because I don't enjoy parody much at all, regardless of form; I am trying to remember if I have ever encountered a parody of any type that I have enjoyed.

It's not that I have no sense of humor (although some might so accuse me)-- Tolkien in particular can leave me chuckling for extended periods of time, and so can some members of this board. Golly, I *still* laugh (even as I write) over Ewan MacGregor's eyeliner. But parodies don't hold my attention, and I wander off looking for something more interesting. I'm not sure whether it's because parodies often tend towards humor I find distasteful, or whether I feel that if I appreciate the original, I'd rather not have it tomatoed for my supposed enjoyment.

Also-- filk parodies abound; I hardly ever enjoy them (Alan Sherman being a notable exception, but I grew up with that.)

On the ComingOfAge thread, we joked for a while about an RPG blending TOlkien with Led Zeppelin. It was great fun to joke about, but once the casting began I wanted to have very little to do with it! And there was nothing offensive involved that I recall. So I come back around to the personality thing.

...all right, I did think of a particular form of parody which I have enjoyed: certain, select, old-time saturday morning cartoons. Rocky And Bullwinkle's Fractured Fairy Tales. Or Bullwinkle's Poetry corner-- also good. And another: Elmer & Bug's Niebelungenlied:

"Oh Bwun-HIL-da, you're so WOVE-wy!"
"Yes, I KNOW it, I can't HELP it!"

The Magic Helmet... And that obese white horse.... Niebelungenlied had me gasping for air. I'm getting off topic, I guess...

But I have yet to find a written parody that holds my interest, and I have no desire to even check out a Tolkien parody. I'd rather laugh at Tolkien's own jokes, which abound within the text.

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

Edit:

The few times I've seen William Shatner parody himself

Fordim, that I would love to see.