Tolkien spoofs, satires and parodies
Sean_Q_
for the Master and his works?
My thesis is, not necessarily.
In the preface of (for me) the funniest and best Tolkien spoof,
_Bored of the Rings_ the authors profess respect for Tolkien
and his works despite their humorous mangling of the story.
Also many other works of satire have appeared on Usenet. I myself
am among the perpetrators.
However in article "Re: Using the ring in Iran" Noel Q. von Schneiffel
speaks out against:
> bad jokes and blasphemous mockery... ritualistic, heretical
> bashing of Tolkien's greatness... nonsensical blathering
How then can a work of satire be evaluated for its content of, and
if present, degree of mockery, blasphemous or otherwise?
The answer is subtle and hard to describe with precision. American
judge Potter Stewart was unable to formulate a definition of
pornography, but declared that "I know it when I see it."
So do Noel and other Honorable Members of these forums know heretical
bashing when they see it, distinguishing it from legitimate satire?
Or can there be such a thing as legitimate Tolkien satire at all?
My own personal test is simply that I quit reading material if it
becomes tedious and boring. Therefore if a spoof is short and to
the point I'm more likely to read it all and get a good laugh than if
it goes on and on... and yet _BotR_, of pocket book length was (mostly)
funny all the way through, so go figure.
Another thing to consider is that JRRT's works are of such magnitude
that they can afford to laugh at rivals and satires, secure in their
greatness and immeasurable strength.
In other words a meerkat may bleat at a rhinoceros, but it still remains
a rhinoceros. --[Kalahari Bushman saying of my own recent invention]
Anyway I recently announced an intention to inflict some reposts of
my own attempts at Tolkien parody on alt.books.inklings. This threat
was met with silence from all quarters, indicating either quiet dissent
or total indifference. Therefore to make them easier to ignore I will
include "[AFT repost]" in the titles.
SQ
Michael Ikeda
> Does posting a Tolkien parody by definition constitute
> disrespect for the Master and his works?
>
> My thesis is, not necessarily.
>
Especially since one of the best pieces of Tolkien parody (Farmer
Giles of Ham) was actually written by Tolkien.
--
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association
Öjevind Lång
news:h2jajt$p5k$1...@aioe.org...
[snip]
> My own personal test is simply that I quit reading material if it
> becomes tedious and boring. Therefore if a spoof is short and to
> the point I'm more likely to read it all and get a good laugh than if
> it goes on and on... and yet _BotR_, of pocket book length was (mostly)
> funny all the way through, so go figure.
I enjoyed he first chapters of BotR but then tired of it. Among other
things, I thught there was a meanness to the book that decreased the fun. On
the other hand, O. Sharp has a lot of thoroughly enjoyable material at his
Tolkien Sarcasm Page.
[snip]
> Anyway I recently announced an intention to inflict some reposts of
> my own attempts at Tolkien parody on alt.books.inklings. This threat
> was met with silence from all quarters, indicating either quiet dissent
> or total indifference. Therefore to make them easier to ignore I will
> include "[AFT repost]" in the titles.
I think you should crosspost that material to alt.fan.tolkien and
rec.arts.books.tolkien.
�jevind
Stan Brown
> In the preface of (for me) the funniest and best Tolkien spoof,
> _Bored of the Rings_
I enjoyed /bored of the Rings, but people first reading it today
won't have the same experience. While the plot is of course
unchanged, most of the brand names are long vanished.
"Serutan", "Goodgulf", ""Orlon", the "Roi-tanners", and the rest were
funny when they were well-known brand names; now they just look like
name changes to avoid litigation from the Tolkien Estate.(*)
(*) As far as I know, the estate never attempted any kind of action
against BotR.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
>
> So do Noel and other Honorable Members of these forums know heretical
> bashing when they see it, distinguishing it from legitimate satire?
> Or can there be such a thing as legitimate Tolkien satire at all?
>
> My own personal test is simply that I quit reading material if it
> becomes tedious and boring. Therefore if a spoof is short and to
> the point I'm more likely to read it all and get a good laugh than if
> it goes on and on... and yet _BotR_, of pocket book length was (mostly)
> funny all the way through, so go figure.
I never claimed that good Tolkien satire is impossible! I just do not
like the kneejerk stuff that people, and especially the TEUNC
heretics, pass off as satire every day here, and that in fact is
nothing but mockery and deliberate hurting of other people's good
taste. Good satire is a laborious and difficult task, and it takes
time to do it right. As a rule, it should never take less time to
write than the original. Tolkien wrote LotR between 1937 and 1949.
Which means, any good satire on LotR should take at least 12 years to
write. So if you want to start doing it right tomorrow, I will be the
first to laugh about it and applaud you when you publish it in 2021.
Also, the first sentence should always be "Tolkien is great, and I am
his humble servant", to dispel any doubt that it may perhaps be meant
derogatory.
If you have some old quality stuff you'd like to share, bring it on!
Noel
Pseudonymus al-Faqha'ter III
> However in article "Re: Using the ring in Iran" Noel Q. von Schneiffel
> speaks out against:
>
> > bad jokes and blasphemous mockery... ritualistic, heretical
> > bashing of Tolkien's greatness... nonsensical blathering
>
> How then can a work of satire be evaluated for its content of, and
> if present, degree of mockery, blasphemous or otherwise?
>
> The answer is subtle and hard to describe with precision. American
> judge Potter Stewart was unable to formulate a definition of
> pornography, but declared that "I know it when I see it."
>
> So do Noel and other Honorable Members of these forums know heretical
> bashing when they see it, distinguishing it from legitimate satire?
> Or can there be such a thing as legitimate Tolkien satire at all?
There can be no legitimate mockery of the One Holy and Ineffable
TOLKIEN.
That is why we had to destroy TEUNC.(*) We tried to destroy the AFT e-
text at O. Sharp's Tolkien Sarcasm Page as well, but an eldritch power
(possibly Balrogian) restrained us.
(*) We didn't enjoy poisoning the CHOKLIT; but it had to be done.
hen...@swirve.com
> There can be no legitimate mockery of the One Holy and Ineffable
> TOLKIEN.
Thus is the truth! And you should listen to it carefully, with
respect, awe and a cup of silver pesos in your hand, for without the
proper veneration of sacred TOLKIEN, you are like unto a drunken Dwarf
hanging outside a hotdog stand. However, illegitimate mockery of
Tolkien is a good and praiseworthy endeavour, one you should indeed
strive to attain.
Horus Engels
Count Menelvagor
> "Sean_Q_" <no.s...@no.spam> skrev i meddelandetnews:h2jajt$p5k$1...@aioe.org...
>
> [snip]
>
> > My own personal test is simply that I quit reading material if it
> > becomes tedious and boring. Therefore if a spoof is short and to
> > the point I'm more likely to read it all and get a good laugh than if
> > it goes on and on... and yet _BotR_, of pocket book length was (mostly)
> > funny all the way through, so go figure.
>
> I enjoyed he first chapters of BotR but then tired of it. Among other
> things, I thught there was a meanness to the book that decreased the fun. On
> the other hand, O. Sharp has a lot of thoroughly enjoyable material at his
> Tolkien Sarcasm Page.
yes. the prologue i find quite amusing, and tim benzedrine hysterical.
in the second half, the book does get meaner, as you say (lots of
murders towards the end), and also has a bit of an uninspired feeling
feeling. one has the sense that the 2nd hhalf didn't get much editing.
i'm doing the thing lewis says we shdn't, which is to offer
speculation about the book's genesis as criticism; but i'm not sure
how to make my meaning clearer. there's too much filler, is perhaps
what i'm trying to say.
(i do like the 1st half, and the map is also amusing.)
as for posting parodies here: by all means.
Derek Broughton
> Does posting a Tolkien parody by definition constitute disrespect
> for the Master and his works?
Absolutely not. Good parody is always a token of respect.
>
> However in article "Re: Using the ring in Iran" Noel Q. von Schneiffel
> speaks out against:
>
> > bad jokes and blasphemous mockery... ritualistic, heretical
> > bashing of Tolkien's greatness... nonsensical blathering
I'm sure the Professor (however little I may understand his far higher level
of understanding than my own meagre beginnings) means that quite literally.
There's not enough time in one life for _bad_ jokes. But well done parody
should not need bad jokes.
> The answer is subtle and hard to describe with precision. American
> judge Potter Stewart was unable to formulate a definition of
> pornography, but declared that "I know it when I see it."
>
> So do Noel and other Honorable Members of these forums know heretical
> bashing when they see it, distinguishing it from legitimate satire?
> Or can there be such a thing as legitimate Tolkien satire at all?
If I have learned anything from Herr Prof. v. Schneiffel, it is that he does
indeed know it when he sees it, and will be sure to let us know.
> My own personal test is simply that I quit reading material if it
> becomes tedious and boring. Therefore if a spoof is short and to
> the point I'm more likely to read it all and get a good laugh than if
> it goes on and on... and yet _BotR_, of pocket book length was (mostly)
> funny all the way through, so go figure.
I completely agree. One of the marks of most great comedy is that it stops
before you tire of it. Monty Python, whatever one thinks of them, were
successful because their sketches were often finished before you quite got
the point. I can think of a few sketch comedy groups that showed promise
that never quite understood that. You, being Canadian, might be familiar
with Radio Free Vestibule. I always thought they were hilarious, for the
first half of every sketch, but they never learned when to quit and always
lost me before they got to the punchline (though I _still_ can't say
"galoshes" without laughing).
> In other words a meerkat may bleat at a rhinoceros, but it still remains
> a rhinoceros. --[Kalahari Bushman saying of my own recent invention]
Surely "it" remains a meerkat? Perhaps, I'm missing the point...
> Anyway I recently announced an intention to inflict some reposts of
> my own attempts at Tolkien parody on alt.books.inklings. This threat
> was met with silence from all quarters, indicating either quiet dissent
> or total indifference. Therefore to make them easier to ignore I will
> include "[AFT repost]" in the titles.
While I would be interested in such posts (though I may have read them
before), I'm fairly sure an announcement like "Listen up everybody, I have a
joke..." should _always_ be met with indifference.
--
derek
Derek Broughton
> Good satire is a laborious and difficult task, and it takes
> time to do it right. As a rule, it should never take less time to
> write than the original. Tolkien wrote LotR between 1937 and 1949.
> Which means, any good satire on LotR should take at least 12 years to
> write.
That's an interesting thesis. I'm not sure it needs to actually take as
long as the original (after all, the satirist has the ability to capitalize
on the work the original author did), but there may well be a good case to
be made that there is a direct relationship between the time taken to write
the original and the quality and time-spent creating a satire. That is:
Let T = the time taken to write the original
t = the time taken to write the satire
S = the number of satirists involved (many hands make light work, etc)
Q = the quality of the satire
r = is one of those nice fudge factors scientists always throw in
Then: Q = rSt / T
--
derek
Öjevind Lång
news:11q7i6-...@morgen.pointerstop.ca...
[snip]
> I completely agree. One of the marks of most great comedy is that it
> stops
> before you tire of it. Monty Python, whatever one thinks of them, were
> successful because their sketches were often finished before you quite got
> the point.
"Whatever one thinks of them"? Suh, are you disrespecting Monty Python?
Well, anyay, I think you should heed this recommendation from them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ
�jevind
Christopher Henrich
Derek Broughton <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> I completely agree. One of the marks of most great comedy is that it stops
> before you tire of it. Monty Python, whatever one thinks of them, were
> successful because their sketches were often finished before you quite got
> the point. I can think of a few sketch comedy groups that showed promise
> that never quite understood that. You, being Canadian, might be familiar
> with Radio Free Vestibule. I always thought they were hilarious, for the
> first half of every sketch, but they never learned when to quit and always
> lost me before they got to the punchline (though I _still_ can't say
> "galoshes" without laughing).
I never heard of Radio Free Vestibule. It's obvious that I Have Missed
Something.
I do remember, from the 50's, a radio comedy show called "Rawhide." It
was like Monty Python in that it featured extreme silliness powered by
notable cleverness.
>
> > In other words a meerkat may bleat at a rhinoceros, but it still remains
> > a rhinoceros. --[Kalahari Bushman saying of my own recent invention]
>
> Surely "it" remains a meerkat? Perhaps, I'm missing the point...
Well, you see, in the Kalahari language, verbs agree in gender with
their subjects; "meerkat" and "bleat" had feminine gender whereas
"rhinoceros" and "remains" had masculine gender.... [1]
Actually, I had the same hesitancy about construing that saying. But I
think that making the antecedent of "it" be the rhino is acceptable.
[1] Bullshit, of course. But I would not put it past the Kalahari to
have something even stranger in their grammar. For that matter, English,
analyzed by contemporary linguists, has syntactical features that might
astonish you. How about transitive and intransitive prepositions?
Try
<http://courses.umass.edu/ling201/readings/pullum-abc-radio-nature-of-pre
ps.pdf>
--
Christopher J. Henrich
chen...@monmouth.com
http://www.mathinteract.com
"A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver." -- Boon
Julian Bradfield
> In article <11q7i6-...@morgen.pointerstop.ca>,
> Derek Broughton <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>> > In other words a meerkat may bleat at a rhinoceros, but it still remains
>> > a rhinoceros. --[Kalahari Bushman saying of my own recent invention]
>>
>> Surely "it" remains a meerkat? Perhaps, I'm missing the point...
>
> Well, you see, in the Kalahari language, verbs agree in gender with
> their subjects; "meerkat" and "bleat" had feminine gender whereas
> "rhinoceros" and "remains" had masculine gender.... [1]
>
> Actually, I had the same hesitancy about construing that saying. But I
> think that making the antecedent of "it" be the rhino is acceptable.
>
> [1] Bullshit, of course. But I would not put it past the Kalahari to
> have something even stranger in their grammar. For that matter, English,
Not bullshit, as it happens. It's not as simple as masculine and
feminine, but in San languages (or at least the one I've read anything
about), verbs do agree with their governing noun (which is not
necessarily the subject). In the case of !Xoo, there are five noun
classes with which the verbs and adjectives agree. However, I don't
know how the agreement would work in this case - maybe both verbs
would agree with rhinoceros.
Tamf Moo
> necessarily the subject). In the case of !Xoo, there are five noun
> classes with which the verbs and adjectives agree. However, I don't
> know how the agreement would work in this case - maybe both verbs
> would agree with rhinoceros.
a wise course of action. rhinoceroses are almost as unpleasant to
disagree with as dragons.
--
tamf
see ei ole minu kohuke.
TT Arvind
> That is:
>
> Let T = the time taken to write the original
> t = the time taken to write the satire
> S = the number of satirists involved (many hands make
> light work, etc)
> Q = the quality of the satire
> r = is one of those nice fudge factors scientists always
> throw in
>
> Then: Q = rSt / T
You forgot the live dragon. As Tolkien said, "It does not do to leave
a live dragon out of your calculations."
--
Arvind
Sean_Q_
> Sean_Q_ wrote:
>> In other words a meerkat may bleat at a rhinoceros, but it still remains
>> a rhinoceros. --[Kalahari Bushman saying of my own recent invention]
>
> Surely "it" remains a meerkat? Perhaps, I'm missing the point...
You're correct that the sentence was gramatically ambiguous. However,
it was hard translating Bushmanese, especially not knowing the language
(beyond what I picked up in _The Gods Must be Crazy_ I & II).
I thought meerkats were cool, until I saw one killing someone else's
baby (on _Meerkat Manor_) and she wasn't even hauled up for
Meerkittenicide.
SQ
Derek Broughton
> "Derek Broughton" <de...@pointerstop.ca> skrev i meddelandet
> news:11q7i6-...@morgen.pointerstop.ca...
>
> [snip]
>
>> I completely agree. One of the marks of most great comedy is that it
>> stops
>> before you tire of it. Monty Python, whatever one thinks of them, were
>> successful because their sketches were often finished before you quite
>> got the point.
>
> "Whatever one thinks of them"? Suh, are you disrespecting Monty Python?
_I_ am certainly not dissing Monty Python, but I know there are quite a
large number of humour-impaired induhviduals who don't find them funny.
> Well, anyay, I think you should heed this recommendation from them:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ
>
I'm going to be whistling the rest of the day...
--
derek
Derek Broughton
>
> I do remember, from the 50's, a radio comedy show called "Rawhide." It
> was like Monty Python in that it featured extreme silliness powered by
> notable cleverness.
The 50s? I didn't know it went back so far, but it ran for quite a long
time. Max Ferguson was, if not all the characters, very nearly so.
>> > In other words a meerkat may bleat at a rhinoceros, but it still
>> > remains a rhinoceros. --[Kalahari Bushman saying of my own recent
>> > invention]
>>
>> Surely "it" remains a meerkat? Perhaps, I'm missing the point...
>
> Well, you see, in the Kalahari language, verbs agree in gender with
> their subjects; "meerkat" and "bleat" had feminine gender whereas
> "rhinoceros" and "remains" had masculine gender.... [1]
Ah, well that clears that up :-)
--
derek
Derek Broughton
> On 2009-07-06, Christopher Henrich <chen...@monmouth.com> wrote:
>> Well, you see, in the Kalahari language, verbs agree in gender with
>> their subjects; "meerkat" and "bleat" had feminine gender whereas
>> "rhinoceros" and "remains" had masculine gender.... [1]
...
>> [1] Bullshit, of course. But I would not put it past the Kalahari to
>> have something even stranger in their grammar. For that matter, English,
>
> Not bullshit, as it happens. It's not as simple as masculine and
> feminine, but in San languages (or at least the one I've read anything
> about), verbs do agree with their governing noun (which is not
> necessarily the subject).
Proving once again that truth _is_ stranger than fiction! I, having learned
everything I know about the San from a couple of documentaries and the No. 1
Ladies Detective Agency, didn't even know there was more than one San
language.
> In the case of !Xoo, there are five noun
> classes with which the verbs and adjectives agree. However, I don't
> know how the agreement would work in this case - maybe both verbs
> would agree with rhinoceros.
_Everything_ must agree with a rhinoceros.
--
derek
Derek Broughton
Damn! Back to square one.
--
derek
Tamf Moo
>>> Then: Q = rSt / T
>> You forgot the live dragon. As Tolkien said, "It does not do to leave
>> a live dragon out of your calculations."
>
> Damn! Back to square one.
no! absolutely not. you can not make a square one. where will you find a
cave to suit it?
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
> Derek Broughton wrote:
> >>> Then: Q = rSt / T
> >> You forgot the live dragon. As Tolkien said, "It does not do to leave
> >> a live dragon out of your calculations."
>
> > Damn! Back to square one.
>
> no! absolutely not. you can not make a square one. where will you find a
> cave to suit it?
If he can't find a cave, then we *must* give the squared dragon a home
in the formula.
So no we've got:
Q = rSt / T + D²
Noel
Raven
meddelelsen
news:acfc5cb1-8957-45b9...@h18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> If he can't find a cave, then we *must* give the squared dragon a home
> in the formula.
What is a squared dragon, one who wears a conservative suit and does not
smoke? Smaug must have been a total hippie then, with his colourful outfit
and mind-altering fumes.
Korpen.
Tamf Moo
> What is a squared dragon, one who wears a conservative suit and does not
> smoke? Smaug must have been a total hippie then, with his colourful outfit
> and mind-altering fumes.
you must be confusing him with his cousing, Puff.
Raven
news:7bmlf6F...@mid.individual.net...
> you must be confusing him with his cousing, Puff.
Was he named for a smoke of tobacco or for a smoke of something even more
prohibited?
Corbeau.
Öjevind Lång
meddelandet news:4a563f46$0$56777$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
I think he may have been nicknamed for his sexual orientation.
�jevind
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
>> Well, anyay, I think you should heed this recommendation from them:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ
>>
>
> I'm going to be whistling the rest of the day...
Heh. Actually, I couldn't get the damned tune out of my head for the rest of
*my* day.
Öjevind
Trudy Shaw
to use newsgroups I never posted. I didn't remember that I'd joined until I
clicked on the link to it on "The Tolkien Sarcasm Page" (okay, so that gives
away whether I think all Tolkien parody is heinous) and my email program
automatically opened up. I'm not sure this will even work, but I'll give it
a try.
"Sean_Q_" <no....@no.spam> wrote in message news:h2jajt$p5k$1...@aioe.org...
> Does posting a Tolkien parody by definition constitute disrespect
> for the Master and his works?
>
> My thesis is, not necessarily.
It's like joking within a family. You have to know each other intimately to
be able to even know what to joke about. To write a good satire or parody of
JRRT's writing, you have to be very familiar with it. I once read a parody
of LotR "as written by Dante" - it was hilarious, but difficult!! I was
familiar enough with Dante's style to "get it," but sure not well enough to
write something like that! The "heretical bashing of Tolkien's greatness"
comes from people who don't know his writing well enough to make *good*
jokes about it. The author of one satire I've seen admitted that he hadn't
read Tolkien, but he really didn't need to admit it because the satire
itself made it obvious.
Also like joking within a family, if you don't love each other someone's
going to get hurt. Knowledge, love, and respect for JRRT's writing (and his
readers) is at the heart of every good parody.
> Another thing to consider is that JRRT's works are of such magnitude
> that they can afford to laugh at rivals and satires, secure in their
> greatness and immeasurable strength.
I once read that you can judge the true power of a religion by whether its
members have a sense of humor about it. In other words, they don't have to
protect its honor or be defensive about it. Of course, that will never cover
every single member of a religion. There are definitely some Tolkienites who
have absolutely no sense of humor about it and assume that anyone making
jokes is trying to destroy Tolkien down. I think, rather, loving humor is
the admission that no matter what we do we can never destroy him or his
work.
> Anyway I recently announced an intention to inflict some reposts of
> my own attempts at Tolkien parody on alt.books.inklings. This threat
> was met with silence from all quarters, indicating either quiet dissent
> or total indifference. Therefore to make them easier to ignore I will
> include "[AFT repost]" in the titles.
Since I've never posted here before, these aren't repeats, although they've
been up on my website for awhile. Hope it's okay to post the links because
the Wizard of Oz parody, especially, needs its visuals.
In light of needing to really know a work before you can write a good parody
of it, it's not surprising that the only two (good) Tolkien parodies I've
ever managed to come up with are based on the Winnie the Pooh stories:
http://www.frodolivesin.us/fun/id118.htm
and "The Wizard of Oz":
http://www.frodolivesin.us/fun/id275.htm
The A.A. Milne satire is completely based on *Tolkien's* "The Hobbit" and
"The Lord of the Rings", while the one involving "The Wizard of Oz" plays on
the differences between movies and books for both Tolkien and Baum. (I was a
book purist at the age of 5, when I was horrified at what the movie did to
"The Wizard of Oz". The absolutely worst betrayal was to make it "all a
dream"!!)
--Oh, and just to mention since it came up in one post: Parodies and satires
of a work are not copyright infringement of it. As (now Senator) Al Franken
said after the judge threw out Fox News's lawsuit against him: "Parody is
free speech in America, even if the subject of the parody doesn't "get it."
Öjevind Lång
news:d-OdnYy1H6DV4_7X...@earthlink.com...
> Hello -- I evidently joined this newsgroup awhile back, but not knowing
> how to use newsgroups I never posted. I didn't remember that I'd joined
> until I clicked on the link to it on "The Tolkien Sarcasm Page" (okay, so
> that gives away whether I think all Tolkien parody is heinous) and my
> email program automatically opened up. I'm not sure this will even work,
> but I'll give it a try.
Welcome! ;-)
[snip]
> Also like joking within a family, if you don't love each other someone's
> going to get hurt. Knowledge, love, and respect for JRRT's writing (and
> his readers) is at the heart of every good parody.
I completely agree.
�jevind
Öjevind Lång
news:7chdr1F...@mid.individual.net...
> "Trudy Shaw" <tgs...@earthlink.net> skrev i meddelandet
> news:d-OdnYy1H6DV4_7X...@earthlink.com...
>
>> Hello -- I evidently joined this newsgroup awhile back, but not knowing
>> how to use newsgroups I never posted. I didn't remember that I'd joined
>> until I clicked on the link to it on "The Tolkien Sarcasm Page" (okay, so
>> that gives away whether I think all Tolkien parody is heinous) and my
>> email program automatically opened up. I'm not sure this will even work,
>> but I'll give it a try.
>
> Welcome! ;-)
Oops! I didn't mean to wink; it looks weird. I just meant a smiley of the
old :-) type.
�jevind
Dirk Thierbach
> Hello -- I evidently joined this newsgroup awhile back, but not knowing how
> to use newsgroups I never posted.
Welcome.
> I once read a parody of LotR "as written by Dante" - it was
> hilarious, but difficult!!
Interesting. Can you remember the title? Is it on the web?
> I once read that you can judge the true power of a religion by whether its
> members have a sense of humor about it.
Good one.
> In light of needing to really know a work before you can write a good parody
> of it, it's not surprising that the only two (good) Tolkien parodies I've
> ever managed to come up with are based on the Winnie the Pooh stories:
> http://www.frodolivesin.us/fun/id118.htm
Nice background :-)
For some reason, after reading "Eefro" I switched mentally to "Watership
Down" and it took conscious effort to switch back to "Winne the Pooh".
> and "The Wizard of Oz":
> http://www.frodolivesin.us/fun/id275.htm
The Scarecrow. LOL. Completely forgot about it.
- Dirk
Steuard Jensen
> Hello -- I evidently joined this newsgroup awhile back, but not
> knowing how to use newsgroups I never posted.
Well, we're glad you've done so now! Welcome!
> In light of needing to really know a work before you can write a good parody
> of it, it's not surprising that the only two (good) Tolkien parodies I've
> ever managed to come up with are based on the Winnie the Pooh stories:
> http://www.frodolivesin.us/fun/id118.htm
> and "The Wizard of Oz":
> http://www.frodolivesin.us/fun/id275.htm
I've bookmarked those to read as soon as I have a chance (I'm moving
this week, so no promises). They sound like fun!
But I've meant to comment in this thread for a while, because I don't
recall seeing our own newsgroup E-text parody project mentioned in
this context. Those who are too new to remember the E-text can find
its main home as part of O. Sharp's Tolkien Sarcasm Page:
http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/book/
I remain very proud of what we accomplished with that (not least that
we finished at all). But I know that not every part of it appeals to
every reader; I've seen a number of people quit early on because they
decide "it's all _____" and therefore not something that appeals to
them. (Mind you, even during the project it was obvious that people
sometimes had opposite reactions to the same chapter: tastes vary.)
It might be nice to be able to say "These few were especially well
received" or even "If you didn't like that one, maybe this one is more
your style."
So here's a question for everyone who's had the patience to read much
of the E-text: Which was your favorite chapter in each of the six
books? That is, which was the very most enjoyable to you personally?
(Please leave any comments about /least/ favorite chapters unspoken: I
know we all had our rough spots along the way, and I don't want to
hear about mine!)
Steuard Jensen
Tamf Moo
>> Welcome! ;-)
>
> Oops! I didn't mean to wink; it looks weird. I just meant a smiley of
> the old :-) type.
did you get a moat in your eye?
--
tamf
currently obsessed with castle paraphernalia.
Tamf Moo
> It's like joking within a family. You have to know each other intimately to
> be able to even know what to joke about. To write a good satire or parody of
> JRRT's writing, you have to be very familiar with it. I once read a parody
> of LotR "as written by Dante" - it was hilarious, but difficult!! I was
> familiar enough with Dante's style to "get it," but sure not well enough to
> write something like that! The "heretical bashing of Tolkien's greatness"
> comes from people who don't know his writing well enough to make *good*
> jokes about it. The author of one satire I've seen admitted that he hadn't
> read Tolkien, but he really didn't need to admit it because the satire
> itself made it obvious.
well said. it's difficult (if not impossible) to be original enough to
be witty in a parody when you don't feel on solid ground in the universe
you're parodying.
[Sean Q]
>> Anyway I recently announced an intention to inflict some reposts of
>> my own attempts at Tolkien parody on alt.books.inklings. This threat
>> was met with silence from all quarters, indicating either quiet dissent
>> or total indifference. Therefore to make them easier to ignore I will
>> include "[AFT repost]" in the titles.
maybe everyone's just silently rotting their tomatoes, just in case they
don't like it? <nirglive> post away!
> In light of needing to really know a work before you can write a good parody
> of it, it's not surprising that the only two (good) Tolkien parodies I've
> ever managed to come up with are based on the Winnie the Pooh stories:
> http://www.frodolivesin.us/fun/id118.htm
"You may be a Hobbit of Very Little Brain, but I think you have found a
Ring that makes you invisible."
excellent!
(i'm saving the other one for later)
> (I was a
> book purist at the age of 5,
respect!
Öjevind Lång
news:7clh4oF...@mid.individual.net...
> �jevind L�ng wrote:
>
>>> Welcome! ;-)
>>
>> Oops! I didn't mean to wink; it looks weird. I just meant a smiley of
>> the old :-) type.
>
> did you get a moat in your eye?
Perhamps I got a prembone.
�jevind
Troels Forchhammer
"Trudy Shaw" <tgs...@earthlink.net> spoke these staves:
> Hello -- I evidently joined this newsgroup awhile back, but not
> knowing how to use newsgroups I never posted.
Clearly you've found out how to, so welcome in our midst!
If you've followed the conversations for a while, I guess there's
little in the way of advice to add, although I, like Bilbo, have a fair
sampling of that ;-) -- I shall just add a last item in Shire-fashion:
'Don't let your head get too big for your hat!'
> "Sean_Q_" <no....@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:h2jajt$p5k$1...@aioe.org...
>>
>> Does posting a Tolkien parody by definition constitute disrespect
>> for the Master and his works?
>>
>> My thesis is, not necessarily.
>
> It's like joking within a family. You have to know each other
> intimately to be able to even know what to joke about.
Something which also goes for joking within this particular group of
Tolkien enthusiasts -- a number of the parodies and joking pieces that
are posted here are, I believe, referencing this group and the great
debates of old as much as, or even more than, they are referencing
Tolkien's work directly.
> To write a good satire or parody of JRRT's writing, you have to be
> very familiar with it.
Agreed!
> Also like joking within a family, if you don't love each other
> someone's going to get hurt. Knowledge, love, and respect for
> JRRT's writing (and his readers) is at the heart of every good
> parody.
Indeed!
>> Another thing to consider is that JRRT's works are of such
>> magnitude that they can afford to laugh at rivals and satires,
>> secure in their greatness and immeasurable strength.
I probably would put it a bit more restrainedly, but I certainly agree
with the basic notion: that Tolkien's work is of such high quality that
no amount of satire and parody will detract from it; rather the reverse
-- most parodies and satires (particularly, as Trudy points out, the
good ones) display a great deal of love and respect for the Professor's
work.
It would seem unlikely that none of Tolkien's detractors have tried
satire and parody, though I have mostly come across those that have
come with criticisms of the literary kind (many of which can be refuted
fairly easily as Tom Shippey demonstrates in, for instance, 'J.R.R.
Tolkien: Author of the Century').
> I once read that you can judge the true power of a religion by
> whether its members have a sense of humor about it. In other
> words, they don't have to protect its honor or be defensive about
> it.
I'm inclined to be rather careful about such generalisations, although
I'd agree that the ability to laugh at yourself and your own beliefs is
generally a good sign -- a sign of good mental health and a surplus of
mental strength.
<snip>
> Hope it's okay to post the links
Links are always OK (unless, of course, they are not related to Tolkien
or yourself, in which case it may be a bit more tricky -- links to
commercial sites that are not specifically Tolkien related such as
<http://www.tolkien.com> are generally not appreciated . . . ).
<snip>
I've made a note of them -- but I've got quite a bit of catching up to
do after being away from the internet for 10 days ;-)
> I was a book purist at the age of 5, when I was horrified at what
> the movie did to "The Wizard of Oz". The absolutely worst betrayal
> was to make it "all a dream"!!
I don't know if Tolkien ever knew the Wizard of Oz, but I'm sure that
he'd agree that this was a grave betrayal. When speaking about what
fairy-story is _not_, Tolkien said:
Next, after travellers' tales, I would also exclude, or
rule out of order, any story that uses the machinery of
Dream, the dreaming of actual human sleep, to explain the
apparent occurrence of its marvels. At the least, even if
the reported dream was in other respects in itself a fairy-
story, I would condemn the whole as gravely defective: like
a good picture in a disfiguring frame. [...]. But if a
waking writer tells you that his tale is only a thing
imagined in his sleep, he cheats deliberately the primal
desire at the heart of Fa�rie: the realisation, independent
of the conceiving mind, of imagined wonder.
['On Fairy-Stories' section 'Fairy Story', _Tree and Leaf_ p. 13f]
And shortly after he asserts that 'It is at any rate essential to a
genuine fairy-story, as distinct from the employment of this form for
lesser or debased purposes, that it should be presented as "true."'
By changing it all to be, as you say, 'all a dream,' they removed the
story further from the realm of fairy-stories as Tolkien defined them
-- something he would likely find deplorable (given his emphatic
defence of fairy-storis and the enjoyment of them).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not
refer to reality.
- Albert Einstein
John W Kennedy
> I don't know if Tolkien ever knew the Wizard of Oz,
It's known that Lewis didn't.