Abstract
M.A.
The idea that parody can be used as an instrument of internal criticism and at
the same time be a form of literary history is the point of departure for this
study. By analysing and comparing the parody pendants of D.J. Opperman
("Met apologie" in Kuns-mis, 1964) and Johann Johl ("Dubbelloop: 'n
pastiche" in Gewalste woord, 1990), the way in which parody functions as
internal criticism and even as method of periodisation in literary history is
examined. D.J. Opperman parodies the Afrikaans poets of the thirties. In the parodies he
establishes a critical dialogue with these poets and their work by means of the
intertextual nature of parody. Through these parodies he comments on each
poet's oeuvre with regard to the mannerisms and personal style of writing
apparent in their work by exaggeration and intentional ridicule. However, the
parody does not only reduce the poet's work to a ridiculous level, but is also
used as a vehicle of praise for the highlights in the poet's work. Furthermore,
by restricting these parodies to the poets of the thirties and two of their
successors of the forties, Opperman also establishes a kind of miniature literary
history. One can deduce some aspects of the characteristics of the thirties
poetry from these parodies. In the same way Johann Johl parodies the Afrikaans writers of the sixties and
seventies. Here the critical dialogue is established on two levels. On the first
level it serves as criticism on the work of D.J. Opperman and that done by the
poets of the thirties by means of the intertextual relationship existing between
the parody pendants. In doing so it compares and contrasts the renewal in
Afrikaans literature by the poets of the thirties to the renewal brought by two
writers of the sixties and seventies. In this study the focus will be on the writers
of the sixties (Breyten Breytenbach and Etienne Leroux). On the second level it
serves as criticism on the work of Breyten Breytenbach and Etienne Leroux as well as a form of miniature literary history of the writers of the sixties. Some
characteristics of this period in the Afrikaans literature can be deduced from
these parodies.
The whole study is based on the statement made by Lyotard (Hutcheon,
1985:1) "Art forms have increasingly appeared to distrust external criticism to
the extent that they have sought to incorporate critical commentary within their
own structures in a kind of self-legitimizing short-circuit of the normal critical
dialogue." From what has been said above, it is clear that parody may well be
this "self-legitimizing short-circuit". The parodies analysed in this study are
examples of parody being used as an internal instrument of criticism, thus
incorporating critical commentary within art's own structures. Furthermore,
due to its intertextual nature, parody also comments on the characteristics of
(in this case) two important periods (the thirties and sixties) in the history of
Afrikaans literature and therefore also serves as a kind of miniature literary
history.