SW...Mostly Parody

I don’t know why but Brian’s comment made me thing immediately of Derrida.
“During the class discussion on Jameson, we discussed schizophrenia as “the breakdown of the signifying chain.” By this, I think he meant that “schizophrenia” arises when there is a break down between Signifiers and the Signified.”
For some reason this made me think of binary oppositions and Derrida’s idea of deconstruction. How we can’t get around the absence and the presence. By just switching it to absence/presence doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t get around the trace that it already is. It is not meant to destroy the binary opposition, to make them equal, simply to understand what it is a trace of. To become aware of these constructed ideals.
Isn’t parody intertext in many ways? I mean if parody means to mock something, one must have an idea of the piece being mocked in order to fully understand it correct? Again I will bring up Lisa’s ever so present example of family guy. This show mocks many things—possibly my favorite, is Starwars—and in these parodies there is obviously intertext at work. This sense of a trace as well. What might happen is one day, someone will parody Family Guy, and eventually the idea that Starwars was ever an “original” could be lost in trace. Kinda like how through language we lose meaning (anyone remember the “flesh eating dwelling that reproduces?).
Are all parodies intertexulized? Is all funny intertext parody?

--Scarlett Wishes