The importance of the three early poems by Tomaž Šalamun (1941–) from the mid-1960s lies not so much in their inner textual structure, but rather in their intertwining with the contemporary literary, artistic, cultural and socio-political contexts. This intertwining clearly shows that literature can go well beyond its boundaries; however, not with parody but with satire. In the example of the poem “Duma 1964”, one can observe how strong an effect a socio-political satire, which subjects the parody, will have on a totalitarian authoritative system. Free satire is not feasible, because it automatically oversteps the boundary of literature and takes on the function of direct political criticism, which is instantly criminalized by the authorities, and therefore threatens the author’s physical existence. This is a unique example of an impact of a parodic satirical poem in Slovenian literary history. At the same time, the violence used against the author by the totalitarian authorities – because of a supposedly ideologically subversive text – glorifies him literarily, culturally, socially and politically and consolidates his status as an exceptional persona of letters and political opposition, although in his other poems the author’s attitude towards this is satirical. The second poem by the same author, “Domovina” (“Homeland”), shows that in an unintentional rivalry of two almost simultaneously published parodic satirical poems by the same author, the reception of the second one remains in the shadow of the first one, because its parodic explicitness and satirical sharpness are not as strong. The third poem, “Sposoben umetnik” (“A Capable Artist”), shows how parody can incite a public reaction, but only from the author of the parodied text. But since he did not hold a high or influential position within political society, his reaction was not notable enough and did not bring any sanctions against the author of the parody. It did reveal, however, a personal upset of the parodied author over the fact that his non-poetical text had lost its original, merely informative function and became unexpectedly, and without his knowledge or approval, a poetical text. However, not through any kind of intensive or complex textual transformation, but simply through a relocation of an almost ad verbatim transcription of the text from one publication to another, or rather from a newspaper report to a cycle of poems and a poetry collection. Even this parodist’s act was sufficient to tum the original, serious and informative text into a parody of a certain journalistic approach and into a satire of a certain type of reporting on the art of painting. The author of the parodied text was hurt the most, whereas those readers who sensed the parody and satire were amused. Those who were not aware of the parodied author’s response and the context, or were not interested in collage in poetry – because they preferred more advanced poems in terms of form and personal expression – were left indifferent.
