Tolkien and Parody

[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.

[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.

[mark12_30]

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 ...

Re-considering Shrek 2, this makes sense to me.

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?

For Truth-- no, although certainly the perception (of truth showing Truth) is reader-dependant.

For humor-- certainly.

(Helen sits back and waits to be parodied)

[Estelyn Telcontar]

It's always good to ask questions! If no one else answers one, you start thinking about it yourself. So it is with my question on the difference between "parody" and "travesty". The more I reflect on the latter, the more it seems to me to be a negative kind of copy, a mockery of the original. Wouldn't the orcs and trolls be made as a travesty of Elves and Ents? Then I conclude that I would prefer to stick to the term "parody", denoting a type of play with words, friendly and fun-loving.

Still, the question remains - what would Tolkien think of the parodies on his works?

[Lalwendë]

This topic's been in the back of my mind for days now, not least as I've been thinking about what parodies I have enjoyed, and why I have enjoyed them.

One literary parody that was good was Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey, a parody of Gothic Novels. Yet, much as I enjoyed this, it is still my least favourite of her novels. I much preferred the satire, her biting humour is better seen in Emma, for example, and Northanger Abbey is not as satisfying as these, it feels more...forced.

I'm not sure I agree that the purpose of a modern parody is to draw out meaning for the audience; think about films like Scary Movie, or Airplane. They are simply parody for the sake of it - or parody to make money!

I definitely do not like the sense that the author/creator of a parody is merely trying to ridicule. It smacks of playground bullies somehow - as though you're being made to feel like you ought to be seen to be laughing. And this is generally the main feature of a bad parody. Now if the parodist can come up with a new take on things, a twist that makes you go "aaah, I see", and they are clever, then the parody does work. Other parodies which work are those which gently play on something - like Shrek!

I am almost dreading a parody film of LOTR coming out, something like Scary Movie, as it would be based on the films of LOTR. I suspect it would play heavily on stereotypes rather than knowledge of the work, something which is very easy to do, yet hard to pull off without being tasteless.

Speaking of taste, I agree that personal taste is a huge part of comedy and what people like. I can quote half the lines in The League of Gentlemen ("this is a local shop..."), but I sat through Dumb and Dumber with a face like thunder!

OK, seeing as others have had a go, here's some ideas for rules for good parody:
Have a good knowledge and understanding of what you are basing your parody on.
Do not resort to mockery or cheap humour.
Be playful or clever.
Don't carry the joke on once you get to the punchline.

What would Tolkien have thought of parodies? I'm sure he'd have read them - he had a famously good sense of humour, but he would only have liked the good ones, of course.

[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.