Irony, Parody, Sarcasm, and Satire
- Thread starter BvBPL
- Start date
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
Infracted for PDMA.
Heaven forbid there be moderation where requested.
Moderator Action: Moderators retain the right to determine what is RD and what isn't. A thread will be stripped of its RD status if the discussion that takes place after the OP is not RD-worthy. This is especially true if a mod note was already placed about the opening post. The RD tag is not a "strict moderation" request. Furthermore, PDMA is against the rules. If you have an issue with a moderator action, you should PM the moderator who did it instead of posting about it publicly. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Moderator Action: Moderators retain the right to determine what is RD and what isn't. A thread will be stripped of its RD status if the discussion that takes place after the OP is not RD-worthy. This is especially true if a mod note was already placed about the opening post. The RD tag is not a "strict moderation" request. Furthermore, PDMA is against the rules. If you have an issue with a moderator action, you should PM the moderator who did it instead of posting about it publicly. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Last edited by a moderator:
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Anyway. To return to Gulliver, which is definitely on topic, btw. Since it's a prime example of satire.
I've done some research on it. But without actually reading the thing, I can't determine if it contains stuff which for want of a better word I'll call smutty.
I've found Swift compared to Richardson, though, who was certainly adult in his outlook.
In fact, that whole period was pretty liberal in its attitudes.
And then along came the Victorians, some of whom disliked Swift intensely, and edited the Travels down to a fairy story whence it got its reputation as a children's tale.
That's my inexpert opinion, for what it's worth. And I'm keeping it. Right up to the very moment when someone proves me wrong.
I've done some research on it. But without actually reading the thing, I can't determine if it contains stuff which for want of a better word I'll call smutty.
I've found Swift compared to Richardson, though, who was certainly adult in his outlook.
In fact, that whole period was pretty liberal in its attitudes.
And then along came the Victorians, some of whom disliked Swift intensely, and edited the Travels down to a fairy story whence it got its reputation as a children's tale.
That's my inexpert opinion, for what it's worth. And I'm keeping it. Right up to the very moment when someone proves me wrong.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I think the distinction between parody and satire is that the latter has to offer some sort of commentary. A parody can just be goofing on something, presenting it in a funny or absurd way, while a satire offers some insight into its object which forces us to consider it in a different light. Space Balls parodies science-fiction, but Blazing Saddles satirises Westerns; watching the former shouldn't necessarily change the experience of watching science-fiction, but the latter should make you think differently about Westerns. It's not a clear line, of course, because sometimes simplistic goofing can be sufficient to constitute satire; a poster of a dictator with a funny mustache drawn on become satirical because it forces you to think of the dictator not as an iron superman but as just some dude. The distinction I think has to be one of purpose rather than of high-mindedness, or we end up with something equivalent to the old chesnut that you like porn but I like erotica.
What they have in common, I think, what distinguishes them from simple mockery, is that they must in essence use the object against itself. They have to draw their essential humour from the terms of their object, and while parody is obviously able to play a bit looser with this because it's going for the laugh rather than the point, but it should still draw out some contradiction, tension or absurdity in the original. If you re-write Star Trek as a workplace comedy, it's not a parody (at least, not of Star Trek), because Start Trek isn't a workplace comedy. Replacing the bridge crew with foul-mouthed Taysiders is a parody, because it's taken something present in the original, turned it a bit, and the humour comes from watching it fall apart. ("I'ss laik hee-haw wiv ivver sin afor, cap'n, ken.")
What they have in common, I think, what distinguishes them from simple mockery, is that they must in essence use the object against itself. They have to draw their essential humour from the terms of their object, and while parody is obviously able to play a bit looser with this because it's going for the laugh rather than the point, but it should still draw out some contradiction, tension or absurdity in the original. If you re-write Star Trek as a workplace comedy, it's not a parody (at least, not of Star Trek), because Start Trek isn't a workplace comedy. Replacing the bridge crew with foul-mouthed Taysiders is a parody, because it's taken something present in the original, turned it a bit, and the humour comes from watching it fall apart. ("I'ss laik hee-haw wiv ivver sin afor, cap'n, ken.")
Berzerker
Deity
Spaceballs and Blazing Saddles
TY Mel Brooks
TY Mel Brooks
It's a parody, but not remotely funny except to people who think that body-shaming is a fun thing to do.
There are far better parodies of Star Trek out there, such as Stone Trek (Star Trek done in the style of the Flintstones) and Red Shirt Diaries (TOS episodes from the pov of a female Red Shirt, in a parody version of those episodes).
