I think so.
i don’t know, isn’t the synthesis part of what makes it a meme?
Metamemes? Isnt that what the submeme tree is for?
We’ve used the term metameme to refer to that kind of thing, but that’s not very accurate. Instead, we usually call them memebrids or just meme hybrids.
A metameme is more accurate to refer to a meme about a meme. “Milhouse is not a meme” is a metameme.
I can’t think of any other meme about memes off the top of my head.
But there are a ton of iterations of other memes that are meta.
Meta Yo Dawg:
Meta Advice Yo Dawg Memebrid:
Meta Kanye Yo Dawg Memebrid
Meta Mudkip Kanye Yo Dawg Memebrid:
Kanye Yo Dawg Memebrid that is NOT META:
Macrochan has a collection of meta-macros.
making allusions or references to other memes is prolly common enough to be considered a characteristic of internet memes, but not a defining “character,” per se. /wordplay/
I guess it really depends. I mean, sure, if you could take it far, it would work, but like posted in Chris’s post above, it probably won’t work.
Blubber, that is pure awesome.
A section of Meta-macros would be interesting, but I wouldn’t call it neccessary.
This meme-within-a-meme effect (mise en abyme in literature) used to happen after a meme had been oldmeme for a while, as a way of reinventing it for some renewed humor. But, it seems like its becoming more and more common to do with any meme, old or new.
Placing a meme within itself is more reminiscent of the Droste Effect, and probably deserves a separate distinction.
Also, it might be worth noting that there are two ways that a meme can work in tandem with another meme. Some memes (like Yo, Dawg or Two Weiners) are very conducive to accepting other memes. Yet, others (Verbose, Sparta, Kanye) are more suited towards invading other memes. Very few can do both well.