Yes, but nobody likes Umbridge. *Grin* I loathe parodies. I believe in originals. I can't agree with you, though. Sorry. :S
I guess you missed the irony of that whole quote then. LOL. I never meant to say I agree or disagree with the point you were trying to make. I agreed with you on in it in fact. What I disagree with is the point that someone else can't/shouldn't make a comment on someone eles's work. Anyone can make a comment on someone else's work, it's not illegal, (maybe it's just bad form?). I was merely providing examples of works in which this DOES happen and where it DOES have a valid point.
I have never seen a direct compare and contrast really. And to do so, I would assume that it belongs in non-fiction instead of fiction. I would disagree with plopping your characters in an already created would in an attempt to deconstruct that world, compare and contrast your world to their world, or to change that world. It would be one thing to continue to use that world in the way it is meant to be, but to go in there and change profound things of that world so your ideas are more plausible is a bit much... and almost feels like you're defaming that world. I can see character thoughts changing such as not making one of your character not have black and white morals, but to change the world around your character to do that is a different story if that makes sense. I would instead say: focus on changing that character so that it clashes and/or fits with that already created world the way it currently is. The only real way I see profoundly changing a world is by setting your story way in the past or way in the future or have a hybrid world that co-currently works with that created world. But to me if you are wanting to that, you are still creating your own world with heavy influence of another world... so its is more original and stand-alone. Another way to work around this if you really would love to explore another author's world and change it is to be straight forward with your intentions. Do not hide it from the readers. Like start the story out with a boy sitting on his bed and reading the first Narnia book and use a device that transports him into the book. Maybe he falls asleep and dreams about the world. Maybe he gets a special edition of the Narnia book that transports him into the book and he has his own adventures that drastically differ from the original books. Maybe he doesn't agree with it and so he sits down at his desk and decides to write his own Narnia book of his own by using the same elements and characters but when he changes them, he's explaining to you why he changed from the way it was in the book. This way... it is clear that you co-currently wanting to work and use a set world to do what you want to do. In the end, you have to make sure that the kid wakes up from his dream or whatever and still has a special love for the original Narnia book that is sitting on his bed but it means even more to him because he had is own adventure with it. However, I am not sure if how much of this is considered infringement. If are not straight forward with the reader about your intentions with the book - that it is meant to change an already existing book and its ideas, I think has more negative aspects than positive ones. One you have to consider that if you are wanting to change the Narnia books, you have to recognize that you're not happy with the set work. Second, you have know that there are millions out there that are, and if you are changing something, you have to know that those that are most likely going to be reading your book are those that have already read the original books. Your fan base is not your own and you have the potential of angering them if you break something they love. Also... by making a statement like "this is what Narnia should be," you are falling into a trap in which you are telling instead of showing. You are depending on the readers to have an idea of what Narnia was and you are also depending on the readers to be able to tell the difference between your world and the original Narnia world. For the casual reader, not many are going to pay attention to small details and if those small details change, unless it is emphasized, they are going to believe that it was part of the original. This seems to be have tendencies of non-fiction more than fiction really.
I concur. Just drop allusions of character actions from your other stories so readers will know that it's set in the same universe. Take my Amos Garnier mystery. It's set in Ashwick, Massachusetts in the 1770s and another book I'm planning on is set in that same city, but fifty-sixty years later. It's about completely different characters with a completely different plot. Amos and pretty much everyone he met in his stories are very much dead now. Readers aren't gonna think you're boring for setting your stories in the same universe. Just make the plot and characters different.
In the case of the Foundation universe, Asimov himself thought it was worth continuing by other authors. He wrote the afterword to a short story collection set in his universe, approved an outline for another author to write a new trilogy shortly before his death, and his estate has commissioned another two trilogies.
