11 November 2001
Bored of the Rings
Henry N. Beard and Douglas C. Kenney of The Harvard
Lampoon
1969
160 pp (PB)
This review was posted to the Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.sf.written. Read the discussion here
I came across this book at a used book sale, asking price $0.50. I had never read it, and it is pretty famous, so I figured what the hell.
The back of the book has a reviewer's blurb which says, "Never have I laughed so hard at any other book.... unquestionably a comic masterpiece as well as a brilliant parody of J.R.R. Tolkien's famous THE LORD OF THE RINGS.... a CATCH-22 for lovers of the days of yore." I suspect that said blurb, from the Harvard Daily News, is either a fake, or was written by a friend of one of the authors, because Bored of the Rings is neither a "comic masterpiece" nor a "brilliant parody," and it certainly doesn't hold a candle to an actual classic like Heller's Catch-22.
The plot is certainly recognisable as that of The Lord of the Rings, albeit condensed to 160 pages, so I won't bother to describe it. In its general shape, it hews fairly closely to Tolkien's, and variations are more for the purpose of shortening the story, than to serve the "humor."
The humor in this "comic masterpiece" consists mainly of:
Additionally, the reader is treated to assorted outdated ethnic slurs and stereotypes, assorted bestiality (and vegerasty!) references[1], and a smattering of bizaare imagery.
Now, recasting heroes as less-than-admirable types has a long history in comic fantasy, but the problem here is that such a bunch of reprobates has ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHATSOEVER to undertake the Ring Quest in the first place! Sure, they do it to prevent the Dark Lord from Taking Over the World, but why should they care? A good parody works with the material it's supposed to be parodying (e.g. Pratchett's Wyrd Sisters or Maskerade), and doesn't just pick some elements to change while ignoring the effects such changes would have on the rest. This fault is what makes Bored of the Rings a badly-written parody, as well as an un-funny one.
Part of my problem with the book is probably cultural context. Maybe if I was an upper-class 19-year-old boy who got in to Harvard on my family connections and/or wealth, circa 1969, I might find Bored of the Rings funny. If I was a frothing Tolkien fan, I might find it offensive. But, as a late-20th-century intellectual, I just find it dumb.
Before anybody accuses me of totally missing the point, I'll admit that that's probably the case. From what I'd heard of the book, I didn't expect that it would be to my liking, and the authors state outright in their introduction that it's "a book as readable as Linear A and of the same literary value as an autographed gatefold of St. Simon Stylites," whoever that is. I certainly won't argue against their analysis.
Bored of the Rings may be worth reading as an item of historical interest, but if you're actually looking for funny comic fantasy, I refer you to Terry Pratchett.
[1] Now, I have nothing against bestiality jokes per se, but just saying, "so-and-so had sexual relations with a sheep/baby dragon/carrot" does not a joke make.