Tolkien and Parody

[Estelyn Telcontar]

On the discussion of the Hobbit parody The Soddit, a general discussion on the nature of parody and its validity (or lack of it) was begun. So as not to overload or hijack that thread, I'd like to place the most pertinent posts here so that the discussion can continue. Please do remember that posts, while allowing for broad generalization on the topic, should still be as Tolkien-related as possible!


(I can't copy individual posts from the original thread, and I don't want to split that one, since it would lose coherency, so I'm copying the contents of relevant posts here and acknowledging the members who wrote them.)


Bêthberry's post:

What is it about parody that attracts some and not others? I might direct this question to Estelyn as well, who bought and talked about this particular book during our meetings in London and who of course is known to dabble occasionally in parody of her own.

Why do some fans enjoy parodies of what they like and others not? This is not to say either perspective is right or wrong, but simply to consider some of the things we look for and value when we read. Does parody allow us some gentle distance from something that we might otherwise become obsessive about or does it suggest somehow a critique of its original? Is parody an inferior genre in that it clearly "depends" upon a precursor text? I don't think there is, in theory at least, a hard and fast line between parody and satire, but do general readers make such a distinction?


Saurreg's post:

Hmm, 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.

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.

Similarly I can think of two types of people who distain parodies. The first group are fervert diehard royalists of the author or the ideas pertaining in the original work. They are so completely enamored/enticed that they view any askewed or even slightly different interpretation of the work as "sacrilegious blasphemy" because it threatens their own convictions in their beliefs and ideas on the work. Such xenophobic attitude may stem from fear of being "wrong" in their current thoughts and also perhaps the desire of keeping what little self-solace one can derive from such beliefs and convictions.

The second group of people are what I term as "chivalrists" They believe that it is morally wrong to take the work of another and twist it either to insult or make fun of. These chivalrists are either traditional in mindset or are generally compassionate and sympathetic. Alternatively, chivalrists could behave they way they do out of cowardice or insecurity. If it could happen to them, it could happen to you. So let's strike first.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Lalwendë's post:

I wouldn't say parody and satire are the same thing, although sometimes they can be combined. "The Soddit", "Bored of the Rings", "Barry Trotter", these are all straight parodies as they're based on a pre-existing work. Another example might be where French & Saunders take off famous films. A true satire is a comment on something in history or society, such as Kurt Vonnegut's novels or "Gulliver's Travels". Comedy shows such as The Day Today combine both - parodies of characters and TV formats with satirical comment.

Now, I find parody quite funny, but I also find it gets tiresome after a while, and I start to wonder why the writer or comedian could not come up with their own original material. For that reason I've been really wary of the Tolkien parodies, I suspect they would be kind of...unsatisfying, although I wouldn't say an absolute no to reading them.

When certain comedians take off LOTR it can be funny. I found the Avid Merrion sketches quite funny - although obviously not written by someone with real knowledge of the books or films. And I like the Orange cinema advert with Sean Astin. All in all, I think the best parodies are the briefest ones.


davem's post:

I suppose Lalwende has said it all. Generally I find parody boring & unconvincing, but most of all its cheap. I distinguish it from satire, I suppose, which I usually understand to be more subtle.

Its Tolkien parodies that don't interest me specifically, as they are almost never well done. Of course, there are always exceptions!

At Oxonmoot two years ago we were presented with The Reduced Silmarillion, which was hilarious, because it was written & performed by people who knew the book. Its difficult to give a true flavour of the thing, but all the parts were played by men (Luthien Tinuvial being played by a guy in a blonde wig was something to see), Ulmo was a three foot high inflatable penguin, & in the Last Battle Morgoth's dragons were paper aeroplanes. 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.

I suppose my position is that I'm not against parodies as such, they're just not my thing.


Mithalwen's post:

I did like Bored of the Rings - with the proviso that not being American or quite old enough... some of the jokes missed their mark ...whereas the French and Saunders and Dead Ringers skits made me howl with laughter as did the online secret diaries ..... I bough the Barry Trotter but couldn't get past the first few pages so I didn't go for the soddit.... However I must admit that I have indulged in parody writing in my time


Hookbill the Goomba's post:

There are two types of Parodies, a direct parody, and an indirect parody. The Latter is a humorous take on a particular genre, where as a direct parody is what it says, directly parodying a single thing, Book/ TV program/ Film ect.
I think it’s fairly obvious which one this is...

Apparently the Sellamillion (Sell a million, w00t! Just noticed that!) Will not be as a direct parody as the others were. Although there will be a parody of Beren and Luthien. The rest will be made up gibberish I expect.


Encaitare's post:

Anyway, it's true that most parodies are done pretty poorly. But I have read a few that have made me laugh hysterically, my favorites being a monosyllabic version of FotR and the "Gat Gandizzle" parody over at stupidring.com which makes everyone act all "gangsta." I can see, though, why some people are against such parodies, as they are pretty much belittlement of the original work.

[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.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Diamond18's post:

Edit: This post was written without seeing Fordim's reply.

Originally Posted by Saurreg

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.

I’d fall into that category, methinks. Though I’ve never really felt the urge to read Bored of the Rings or others. Really, the only Tolkien parodies I’ve read were threads or links posted in Mirth, that “What if LotR had been written by someone else?” thread in Books, and Esty’s Entish Bow RPGs.

I think there’s a third definition missing here: the spoof. As I see it (in my own little world) the spoof is the gentlest form of mockery – instead of making any judgements or copying the general storyline, it includes element(s) in a wink wink nudge nudge fashion. For instance, “Shrek” parodied and satired many fairy tale archtypes, but I would say the scene where Fiona channels Trinity is more a spoof of the Matrix than a parody. It’s just one element that pops up unexpectedly, and it’s rather affectionate to its source material.

When I write in the REB RPGs, I see it as a spoof of LotR (among a rather lot of other things). I have a half-elf who blithely spouts the worst poetry in the galaxy, but that doesn’t mean I think Tolkien’s Elven poetry is bad. Quite the opposite. I just thought it was be a way to turn LotR on its head.

I’ve written spoofs, parodies, and satires of my own original work, incidentally. I’ve also written s/p/s’s of general story types. I see it as a way to just keep it real. That said, I have to be in the right mood to appreciate the merits of mockery, or I too can just shrug and wonder what’s so clever.

Lame parodies/satires are just sad, really.


Estelyn's post:

I like parodies, satire, and spoofs! (For those who have noticed my Fiona avatar, or may even have read the notorious ‘Entish Bow’ RPG, for which I am the chiefly responsible culprit, that may be stating the obvious, but I do want to make sure my standpoint is clear!) I’m pretty sure I have an old paperback copy of ‘Bored of the Rings’ around somewhere, and while plundering English bookshops recently, I purchased ‘The Soddit’ (along with both ‘Barry Trotter’ books, parodies of You-Know-Who). I’ll give a brief opinion on ‘The Soddit’ in a later post, since writing this one has taken up the time I have for now, but let me add my comments to the general discussion on the worth and nature of parodies which Bêthberry started.

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. But those that are well-written and well thought out are wonderful! I’ve found some examples of this category on the Flying Moose site, which hosts the Tolkien satire pages, in a very few of the best ‘secret diaries’, and in the finest moments of the ‘Entish Bow’.

I would see differences between the categories spoof, parody, and satire. ‘Spoof’ would seem to me to be the lightest-hearted of them and could be used generically. ‘Parody’, I think, refers more to a humorous version concentrated on a single work and contains the element of turning things around to show their funny, often ridiculous, side and using specific characters and places. ‘Satire’ is more general and can be sharper, more bitter and pointed in its humour; it can be based on real life situations such as politics.

Why parody? (I’m using the word in a general sense, so much of what I say can apply to both other categories as well.) 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!

‘Shrek’, to take an example dear to my heart and mentioned by Diamond above, plays with fairy tale concepts, turning them around. The dragon should not be killed – it could be your ally later (and it just might be a female!). Your true love is not necessarily the handsome prince. What you consider ugly could be real beauty.

Most parodies play with the characters’ names (and those of places), using close equivalents that are comical, either because they are words with a different meaning or perhaps brand names. The latter is one of the reasons that much parody is dated after a few years – or why the jokes don’t work in a different country. (‘Bored of the Rings’ is an example of the former – some of the references are no longer funny, since they are now unfamiliar.) As Mithalwen said:

not being American or quite old enough

Good parody can only be written by one who loves the work being parodied, in my opinion. As Diamond wrote above:

it’s rather affectionate to its source material

Why bother to play with something one doesn’t like? (Unless blatant commercialism is the reason for writing it… ) This is where I’m with 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 their 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 their own.

Make that a group of at least two – and I know that there are more of that kind out there!

Playing with a work I love (either as a reader or writer) gives me a different angle on it, enables me to see it in a new, fresh way. And the element of familiarity which is so essential to understanding parody is given, since I know the work well enough to catch the references – or write them, if I’m doing it myself. Good parody must be based on a thorough knowledge of the original source! As davem says:

it depended on the audience having a real knowledge of the book

That also answers Bêthberry’s question as far as I’m concerned – I don’t think a parody is enjoyable to a reader who is not familiar with the original work on which it is based.

Yes, in some ways writing a parody is easier than writing an original, Fordim, since one has the given story on which to base it, but consider it a form of sub-creation, then it is justified in a Tolkienized sense! And without some kind of originality, it’s a poor 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???? )