Please help!! I’ll give Brainliest and points! In your own words how would you describe the difference between a parody and
satire?

Hey hey hey!!

a parody is usually a comedic commentary about a work, that requires an imitation of the work (could be a film or whatever dhkasjjs). Satire, on the other hand, even when it uses a creative work as the main idea of the message, offers commentary and criticism about the world, not that specific creative work

Explanation:

I hope this help- Have a great day/night 0v0

A parody is a composition that imitates the style of another composition, normally for comic effect and often by applying that style to an outlandish or inappropriate subject. Seth Grahame-Smith's Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is a perfect example of parody. Grahame-Smith took Jane Austen's text and introduced zombies into the storyline. Throughout the reworked novel, he maintained Austen's writing style, voice, and even much of the original storyline, creating a new work that is recognizable as being Jane Austen's but that definitely isn't.

difference

A satire, on the other hand, is intended to do more than just entertain; it tries to improve humanity and its institutions. A satire is a literary work that tries to arouse the reader's disapproval of an object — a vice, an abuse, a faulty belief — by holding it up to ridicule. Satirists use euphemism, irony, exaggeration, and understatement to show, with a greater or lesser degree of levity, the follies of mankind and the paradoxes and idiocy that they can lead to.Some great examples of satire include George Orwell's Animal Farm, which ridicules the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia; Voltaire's Candide, which attacks the philosophy of Optimism; and Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels, which satirizes the "high-class" tastes, social expectations, and popular philosophies of his time.

i feel like it is actually b.

emerson essentially believes that traveling is overrated. he supports this perspective through an initial focus on "the idea" of places like italy, england, and egypt, and the fascination of "educated americans" with them. he argues that those places only took on the grand, majestic ideas that they represent because "they who made england, italy, or greece venerable in the imagination did so by sticking fast where they were, like an axis of the earth." yes, those places are grand, but only because they so clearly represent the places that they are. the art and culture of italy, england, and egypt is authentic, and therefore significant.

plz mark brainliest