.png)
I have no idea what sort of competition we have in these categories, but here is this:
For the record, I still don't see this book as a parody. Nothing against parodies, I just don't see that as an accurate descriptor for The Fob Bible.
(Also: apologies for Blogger's blurring things. Should have uploaded this to Photobucket....)
That's really interesting. Who assigns the categories, I wonder?
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteI have often wondered that. I've long held the suspicion that they are based on the Library of Congress designations, but not all books are filtered through the LoC.
Are all parodies sarcastic and irreverent?
ReplyDeleteAs to the labeling, last.fm allows the users to assign labels. This generally works but there are a few instances when someone will label something totally wrong.
.
ReplyDeleteI define parody as a reworking of the same story with the sole intent to make light where it made serious.
Th. - No, they're not based on LCSH, except to the extent that both are hierarchical subject classifications. LCSH doesn't reproduce the entire hierarchy, though, so you'd never see "Religion & Spirituality -- Christianity," just "Christianity."
ReplyDeleteND - Assigning labels or tags leads to a tag cloud, where the premise is that the good data will visually outweigh the bad data. Amazon does allow tagging, but those tags show up on a different part of the page than the area we're talking about.
Th. (again) - The Library of Congress defines parodies in part as "comic or distorted imitations," which seems like a fair definitions but, no, it's not what you're going for, here. (At least, if Melyngoch's story is representative.)