> On Apr 23, 2009, at 12:53 PM, SA wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure what this means. Colbert inhabits the space of
>> conservatives in what way?
>
> To be convincing as a parodist - and I don't think Colbert is all that
> convincing, but that's just me - you have to take on some of that
> which you are parodying. You have to think and act like your target.
> You can even view the parodic elements as some sort of defense against
> the temptations of the parodied position. In other words, there's some
> weird appeal to being a right-wing yahoo, but you find the appeal
> uncomfortable, so you bury the role in a layer of irony. Lets you have
> it both ways.
Yup. That's what I thought you/Butler meant. But it confused me at first, because you're right - by that maxim Colbert isn't a good parodist at all. Either the maxim's wrong or what Colbert does isn't parody. I think it's a little of both. I think Butler's maxim applies to an "ironic" style of parody, but what Colbert does isn't ironic at all.
There's a type of parody that invites the viewer to look at the object of parody from both the inside and the outside and the poignancy comes from the discrepancy between the two regards. With Colbert, his act is a purely external critique in the garb of parody.
SA