This study scrutinizes parody in Stoppard&rsquo / s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, The Real Inspector Hound, and Dogg&rsquo / s Hamlet, Cahoot&rsquo / s Macbeth. After a historical survey of the definitions of parody with a stress on its definitions in our era, this study puts forward its definition of parody which is mainly based on Bakhtin&rsquo / s dialogic criticism. Parody then can be defined as a deliberate imitation or transformation of a socio-cultural product that takes a stance towards its original subject of imitation. Based on the original subject of parody, three kinds of parody are distinguished: genre, specific, and discourse. Following determining the kinds of parody that each of the aforementioned plays exhibits, this study expounds how Stoppard applies parody of the characters, plots, and themes in relation to their original subjects of parody. Later, a close critical study of these parodies will be conducted to elaborate on their functions and significances in each of the plays, their relations with and efficacy in the thematic context of the plays, the techniques used to achieve them, and how far they are applied in line with or opposite to the post-modern&rsquo / s ideas.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Indiana University, 1968. / Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 231-247).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel. 1933. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. 187-192).

This thesis argues the case for the parodic voice in a range of works by Richard Strauss. In doing so, it challenges the long-held view of Strauss as a composer whose music has little to offer beyond superficial grandeur and shallow sentimentality; music which may be impressive in some respects but, ultimately, remains stubbornly one-dimensional. Parody — a double-voiced device — plays with texts and subtexts and, by definition, insists upon the presence of dimensions additional to the one located on the surface. Thus, the grandly pompous or sweetly sentimental exterior of a given passage may function within a context in which the pomposity or sentimentality is undone, critiqued, or, at very least, dented by the critical presence of a parodic voice. Indeed, I argue that we should be particularly sceptical of reading at face value those episodes in Strauss's works where the trivial, the banal, or, very often, the sublime is (apparently) projected, for this is frequently a cue for the parodic. The emergence of Strauss's parodic voice can be traced to a work relatively early in his career: the Burleske for piano and orchestra (1886). Here, in this quasi piano concerto (or, indeed, anti-piano concerto) we find double-voiced strategies used to telling effect. This study therefore takes the Burleske as its starting point and uses the work as a means of introducing parody theory generally. Subsequent chapters consider in detail specific episodes in Der Rosenkavalier (1910), Ariadne auf Naxos (both the 1912 version and the 1916 revision), and Intermezzo (1923). Thus, the body of works that form the core of this investigation are firmly rooted in the period of Strauss's so-called 'volte-face', the post-Elektra period when the composer was conventionally thought to have turned his back on progressive trends and produced one shallow, empty, irrelevant work after another. Examination of the composer's parodic voice suggests otherwise.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Department of Music, Stanford University, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 427-439).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Indiana University, 1968. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 231-247). Also issued in print.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Columbia University, 1941. / Published also without thesis note. Vita. Bibliography: p. [127]-132.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Columbia University, 1931. / Vita. Published also without thesis note. Bibliography: p. 408-428.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 1996. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [271]-280).

This thesis explores the relationship between the genre of Greek poetry called parôidia and parody as a literary mode. I argue that the poetics of parôidia as genre are inextricably linked to the poetics of parody as mode. This argument produces a new methodological approach to the concept of parody, which recognizes its idiosyncratic nature. Since everyone has different ideas about what parody is, there is no absolute definition of parody. Instead, I use approaches drawn from cognitive linguistics and poetics to illuminate the parodic script, a set of terms commonly used to explain parody’s effect but which in themselves do not define parody. This methodology is supported by an appendix that analyses the terminology of parody in Greek (!αρῳδία, !αρῳδή, etc.). I argue that the noun !αρῳδία is only ever found with a generic meaning before the first century BC. The main body of the thesis examines six poems from this genre, parôidia, to demonstrate how this genre influenced Greek ideas about parody. This thesis is the first literary study of all of the major poems belonging to the genre. Furthermore, it is the first study of parody to appreciate fully the importance of this genre for notions of parody. While most studies of parody have centred on Greek Comedy, I show that this genre, which has been almost entirely left out of discussions of parody, is essential for the development of parody as a mode. As the first detailed literary study of the genre parôidia, the central chapters provide new interpretations of the genre’s most important poems. In several of these, I show how the poems engage in different kinds of satire. For instance, Timon uses Sceptic philosophy against the dogmatic sophists, and Archestratus uses tropes drawn from the figure of the comic mageiros. In other chapters, I argue that the humour of the poems derives in part from their manipulation of the audience’s expectations. Thus the Batrachomyomachia leads us to anticipate divine intervention, but uses this expectation to create humorous reveals at the end of the poem. In each chapter, I aim to show specifically how the poem’s parody of epic contributes to its construction of meaning. The conclusion then brings these chapters together to present the bigger picture of Greek conceptions of parody that emerge from these discussions. What links the poetry of a Sceptic philosopher and a shit-stained nobody from Thasos? Are there any similarities between the espousal of fine cuisine in Archestratus and the absurdification of the Batrachomyomachia? I conclude by making three claims: 1) parody’s allusive form must be understood as multifaceted and can be approached through several frameworks; 2) parody is not inherently critical of the text it parodies, but can use the process of parody as a framework for satirizing other figures; 3) although frequently regarded as a “low” or “playful” form, parody incorporates its supposedly inferior literary position into its construction of meaning. Parôidia, I argue, is not only a product of its specific literary and cultural context but also contributes to the shaping of parody in Greek thought.