Talk:National Lampoon's Doon

Novels: Sci-fi Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Science fiction task force.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bored of the rings?

Why is this mentioned in the "See Also" section. Apart from also being a parody, the two works are completely unrelated. They're not both parodying of the same thing. It wouls seem to make more sense to not list it at all or to list all parodies ever written... 195.153.45.54 11:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were both published in connection with the Harvard Lampoon... AnonMoos 13:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are also examples of the same style of humor, namely the sort that is typified by the punning references, somewhat-dated pop-culture references, and mocking style typical not only of Bored of the Rings but also lampoons in MAD magazine and could arguably be considered part of a seminal genre of lampoon that not only made movies such as Airplane! possible, but even necessary. --Samuel John Klein (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]