Response to : What, if anything can Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, teach us about the modern legal distinction between parody and satire?
Thesis: The Canterbury Tales teach us that in the modern legal system's definition of satire and parody, a parody, which is prosecutable by law, may avoid legal action if the thing in question is entertaining or beneficial to society, through the use of humor, while a satire, while a satire, which may be similar in nature, is considered completely fine by law as long as the thing in question is the likeness of another person or character.
Questions to Answer/ Points:
What is the legal definition of each?
Is the Canterbury Tales a satire or parody? How so? Could it be considered the other?
-Parody of other works, Confessio Amantis, Decameron
-Satirical characters
Does the Canterbury Tales "steal" from other works?
Example of contemporary satires that aren't prosecuted under law.
Why certain things arent prosecuted.
-Often humorous, good natured.
-Often enjoyed by a mass audience.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good questions and the topic seems to be fine. I would also consider writing about how you personally feel about which one should be legal or not. Also, comparing, contrasting the two could potentially yield more reasons why the two of them are treated differently by law.
ReplyDeleteCan a parody avoid legal actions being taken on it by being humorous? You need to give an example to make statements like this. The Canterbury Tales can't be an example for this because it was written in a different legal context. If CT is a parody and parodies are illegal, then should CT be deemed a bad work of literature? You pointed out the legal view on parodies and satires, but what does CT have to show us about it?
ReplyDelete