the problem of pastiche
4 Jan 2007 05:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cimorenethe problem with writing a pastiche of an extremely famous comedian is that the reason someone becomes known as one of the brightest humourists of their generation, or one of the wittiest dialogue-writers working in television, or the cornerstone of the british humour tradition, or whatever, is that they are already funnier and wittier than almost everybody else.
it's easier to write a pastiche of the sort of surface feel of a style (both a talent and a skill in itself, separate from comic genius, and not all that rare) than to create the humour, but not easy enough to eliminate the tremendous unlikelihood of someone else being nearly as funny and clever as terry pratchett or pg wodehouse or joss whedon or tom stoppard or kevin smith or douglas adams. it's like going into ice-skating with an eye to becoming a michelle kwan impersonator.
a good short-term impression of the rhythm or feel of the right dialogue or narration is much more common than a successful longer piece, but simultaneously rather unsatisfying for the reader; substance is both what you want, and what gives away most pastiches as inadequate.
it's easier to write a pastiche of the sort of surface feel of a style (both a talent and a skill in itself, separate from comic genius, and not all that rare) than to create the humour, but not easy enough to eliminate the tremendous unlikelihood of someone else being nearly as funny and clever as terry pratchett or pg wodehouse or joss whedon or tom stoppard or kevin smith or douglas adams. it's like going into ice-skating with an eye to becoming a michelle kwan impersonator.
a good short-term impression of the rhythm or feel of the right dialogue or narration is much more common than a successful longer piece, but simultaneously rather unsatisfying for the reader; substance is both what you want, and what gives away most pastiches as inadequate.
