I'm really not sure how to comment on this one. You submitted this on the heels of your Food of the Day parody, which was well-acclaimed by two legends in this group. And that alone is worthy of grand kudos. It also tells me that you are more talented at parodies than can be gleaned from this particular parody. Perhaps my definition of "Parody" is too narrow. What we do is by convention a Lyrical Parody. I might define a Lyrical Parody as "A poem that can imitate the melody, harmony, rhythm and poetic structure of a host song of general renown. The parody should tell a story in its own right, a story that may or may not be related to the host song. A parody should have at least some comical undertone, should avoid words that appear in the host song, unless the host words enhance the comedic value of the parody. Whenever the number of host words exceeds 20% of the parody's total words, the parody should be critically reviewed to assure it is "transformative," that is, Is it really a newly creative work, or is it really just an edited revision of the host? A parody should be critical of or make fun of the host, or at the very least, ignore it. When a parody praises its host, it ceases to be parody, and becomes "Pastiche." Your parody of Hope ignores the poetic structure of its host, Hope; copies the lyrics of Hope too much and for no apparent reason; and fails to present a story of the greatest day of your life. CML and conqueror tell me that you can write great parodies. I look forward to your writing many more.