Speak for yourself. Jon Stewart is many things, but an “ugly dweeb” ain’t one of 'em.
I believe the departed december was a fan. So there’s at least ONE.
M-hmmm. Thank you, Sister Woman.
To me the combination of modest cuteness combines with major helpings of intelligence and humor to make Jon Stewart (Leibowitz) one of the sexiest celebrities in entertainment today.
Ah ha! I’m not the only one to be taken in by Tinsley’s confusing comic!
Miller, believe it or not, I am not completely opposed to your views. I agree that it is possible to do a parody where you attribute words to someone else; hell, Tom Toles does it to Bush just about every day. Like I said in my last post, I think it is a matter of degrees. I think that in a parody that looks and has an overall feel that is so close to the original work, you have to be very careful. Here, a previous poster has said that the parody artwork is very close to the original (contrast this with someone like Toles who draws caricatures of the Bush, whereas the Stewart comic is not a caricature of Tinsley’s artwork), I’ve said, and no one has disagreed, that the text of the parody is not that far from something Tinsley would actually say, and then add in the signature (which isn’t there, making this entire conversation somewhat pointless) and you’ve got an entire package that a reasonable person could believe was actually the work of Tinsley, and expresses Tinsley’s actual views.
I’m not sure about that. I would argue that the individual cartoon, while admittedly part of a larger series, is able to stand on its own as a separate work. That is, it can be taken out of the series and not lose its impact. Also, it was probably created independently from the others in the series. Specifically, there may have been a different artist doing each of the parodies. If nothing else, creation of one parody doesn’t seem to bleed into another; there would have been a definite stopping point between one parody and the next. This would be in contrast to a book, where one chapter is a continuation of the previous and the context of surrounding chapters would be more important. You could contrast the present situation with a hypothetical strip where panels one and three are stick figures drawn by Stewart himself, and panel two is a parody of Tinsley. There, context within the strip would be critical because the parodied panel presumably couldn’t stand on its own.
:dubious: Are you arguing from legal principles or are you just winging it?
The intent of a parodist is relevant and the law will take into account the parodic work as a whole, and the whole work would be the entire book. The cartoons were created as part of the effort to create the book America. This metaphysical stuff about when the creation of one cartoon starts and ends is not relevant, because the audience doesn’t see it going on.
rpinrd
1)The comic is unsigned. Tinsley signs his comics so that is clue one that the strip is a parody
2)The comic is on a page of comic parodies in an entirely satirical book
3)It ends with Mallard saying “Oops, I forgot to tell a joke” which is clearly a reference to how disturbingly unfunny this supposed comic is. For that to be a real cartoon, Bruce Tinsley would have had to come to the realisation that his strip is often joke free and decide to take a jab at himself.
Short version: This would get tossed out of court in a heart beat.
When Jon first took over the Daily Show from Kilborne Comedy Central used to run a commercial that just said “Fake news…Angry Jew!” It has stuck with me.
rpinrd, you’ve admitted you haven’t seen the original book. You’ve posted comments that show you know nothing of the legal history or case law involving parody. Your continuing posts are just digging you a deeper and deeper hole, because they are wrong on every single point. You should really stop arguing this.
Though anybody who saw the brilliant coverage of Scott McLellan on the Karl Rove fiasco last night knows that “fake news” is a bit of false modesty.
Except, as has been pointed out, for the last panel, which explicitly mocks Tinsley for having no sense of humor. That’s the key to this parody, the part that puts the whole thing into its proper perspective. That is where the parody lies in this comic strip, not in the encapsulation of Tinsley’s politics in the first two panels.
What you’re complaining about here, essentially, is that the comic is too subtle for some people to understand. But that is going to be true of absolutely any parody, no matter how broad. No matter how obvious you make your joke, there is somebody, somewhere, who is stupid enough to think you’re being serious. At some point, this ceases to be the responsibility of the artist and rests instead on the culpability of the audience.
Perhaps, but interpretations of a given work made when it is taken entirely out of its original context absolutely cannot be blamed on the artist who created it. The parody strip was created and released solely in the context of a chapter parodying political comics in a book parodying the political process of the USA. If a third party comes along and takes that strip out of its original context, and tries to present it as the work of the parodied artist, then the blame for that lies with the person who altered the comic’s context, not the person who created the parody. If I told you that the actor Ralph Fiennes has made several violently anti-Semetic remarks, but neglected to mention that he made them in the context of his role as a villain in Schindler’s List, it’s not Fiennes fault for making those statements, it is mine for presenting them without their proper context.
Better go tell Margaret Cho and Chris Rock to switch to food service, then. And don’t tell the Comedy Police that I still have a copy of Judy Tenuda’s Butt Pirates and Lesbetarians CD. 
If you want to see the original parody, use Amazon’s “Search inside this book” feature on this page to search for the term “Fillmore”. The comic is on page 160.
You might be able to see the comic directly here. That’s the link Amazon gave me, but I don’t know if it’s stable.
Just posting to note that Tyrrell McAllister’s link worked fine for me, and that “Mallard Fillmore” is indeed completely unfunny.
This reminds me about what Al Franken said about Bill O’Reilly’s law suit.
“The court ruled that satire is constitutionally protected, even when the object of satire doesn’t get it.”