Talk:Parody/Archives/2014

How is this a definition?
"As the literary theorist Linda Hutcheon (2000: 7) puts it, "parody … is, not always at the expense of the parodied text."

It's hard to tell due to the needlessly technical language in the introduction (a problem with 90% of the articles on wikipedia which focus on linguistic themes) but I don't see how this is a definition. To say parody is not always at the expense of the parodied text is to note how parody is often employed, not to state a definition of what parody is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.158.94 (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point--somewhere along the line, the quote from Hutcheon got abridged to the point of no longer being a definition. It originally read "parody … is imitation with a critical difference, not always at the expense of the parodied text," and I have just put the missing phrase back in. What do you find needlessly technical about the language of the intro? Can you point out particular words or phrases that should be changed to make it more accessible? --Hickoryhillster (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well that certainly adds a bit of clarity. My comment was more based on a general frustration with reading many articles on linguistic terms and finding that the introduction is unclear (there seems to be a tendency, I guess amongst English language students who like to edit these articles, to showcase one's linguistic talents rather than writing an easy to read article for the layman). In this case it was mainly due to the editing problem you describe as it doesn't read as badly now.
 * Hmm. I'd always been taught that one's linguistic talents were best showcased by making writing easy for the layman to read.  Apparently these English students aren't very talented, or perhaps they've degenerated into self parody? 12.233.146.130 (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Parodies in Movies
what about parody in movies songs etc...

True. Definition was biased towards literature, so I reworded it. --user:Heron

So, basically...
The first sentence of the article states that a parody is an imitative work created to imitate by means of imitation. And no one has a problem with that? There's no way to sugarcoat it folks, that's pure shite! =D 72.16.17.161 (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Also, make sure to keep the reference to Gina Parody on there, because, yeah, all those people looking up "parody" wanted the politician no one's ever heard of. Brilliant work. A+

top importance; start class
"A parody is a creative work intended to comment on an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of satiric or ironic imitation."

There's my rewrite of the first sentence. I think it's a gem, at least compared to what's there now. And you can have it for free.

Ever heard of the KISS principle, people? There's a definition here on muddled-pedia... however, the very first sentence of *that* article makes no sense grammatically. Whew, lotsa work to do around here. I suggest starting with the banishment of everyone who currently has an account and then hiring some actual f**king editors. Nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. =)

72.16.17.161 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)