Book Thoughts: BORED OF THE RINGS, by "THE HARVARD LAMPOON"
P. Korda
I'm on.
HENRY N. BEARD
DOUGLAS C. KENNEY
(OF THE HARVARD LAMPOON)
BORED OF THE RINGS
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_, 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 LOTR, 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:
1. Renaming all the characters and locations after consumer products, sex
toys, or stupid puns which Piers Anthony would be ashamed to use.
2. Recasting all the heroic characters from Tolkien's story as cowards,
charlatans, and all-round blackguards.
Additionally, the reader is treated to assorted outdated ethnic slurs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, the recasting of heroes as less-than-admirable types has a long
history in comic fantasy and satire in general, 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_ to be funny. If I was a frothing Tolkien fan, I might find
it offensive. But, me being me, I just find it dumb.
Before anybody accuses me of totally missing the point, I'll admit that
that's definitely 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/musk-ox" does not a joke make.
--
Pam Korda
John S. Novak, III
> 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_, 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_.
I always figured that the blurbs were as fake as the teaser in the
front cover, which to my knowledge appeared nowhere in the actual text
of the book.
This is the sort of thing that I chuckled at out of enthusiasm, a sense
that I should like it because it was Tolkien-related, and pure callow
youth the first, last, and only time I read it. I believe I was in
high school, at the time.
I really expect it wouldn't age very well if I tried it today.
[...]
Yeah, sounds like I was right.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
The Humblest Man on the Net
P. Korda
John S. Novak, III <j...@cegt201.bradley.edu> wrote:
>In article <aL0I7.104$N4....@news.uchicago.edu>, P. Korda wrote:
>
>> 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_, 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_.
>
>I always figured that the blurbs were as fake as the teaser in the
>front cover, which to my knowledge appeared nowhere in the actual text
>of the book.
Well, the blurbs _inside_, from the likes of John Keats are obviously
fake. The bit on the back sounds much more earnest than anything else
in the entire book, which is why I assumed it was real. Although I'll
freely admit to Not Getting It. Anybody know for sure?
--
Pam Korda
kor2 @ midway.uchicago.edu
Matt McIrvin
j...@concentric.net (John S. Novak, III) wrote:
> In article <aL0I7.104$N4....@news.uchicago.edu>, P. Korda wrote:
>
> > 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_, 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_.
>
> I always figured that the blurbs were as fake as the teaser in the
> front cover, which to my knowledge appeared nowhere in the actual text
> of the book.
I don't *think* there has ever been any such paper as the "Harvard
Daily News," but I could be wrong. (There is a long-standing and
traditional rivalry between the Harvard Lampoon and the Crimson, which
has long referred to the Lampoon as a "so-called humor magazine.")
--
Matt McIrvin
Eric Walker
[... on _Bored of the Rings_]
The descriptions rendered are dreadful, but recognize that they
could be applied to any spoof of a serious work, whether that
spoof be inherently great, mediocre, or awful.
I think it comes down to what you are expecting from the thing.
Let me quote from the Foreword:
"Spring found us with decayed teeth and several pounds of
foolscap covered with inky, illegible scrawls. A quick
rereading proved it to be a surprisingly brilliant satire on
Tolkien's linguistic and mythic structures, filled with
little takeoffs on his use of Norse tales and wicked phoneme
fricatives. A cursory assessment of the manuscript's sales
appeal, however, quickly convinced us that dollarwise the
thing would be better employed as tinder for the library
fireplace. The next day, hindered by near-fatal hangovers
and the loss of all our bodily hair (but that's another
story), we sat down at two supercharged, fuel-injected
345-hp Smith-Coronas and knocked off the opus you're about
to read before tiffin."
In other words, cerebral it ain't and You Were Warned.
College humor is a special subspecies, and it appeals to some
and not to others, and to some of the some only after a few
drinks. But when you're in the mood, it goes down tolerably,
rather like Cheetos and beer.
It is by no means a dark morass: there are definite gleams of
light here and there. But chacun a son gout.
P.S.: It has, I believe, *never* been out of print. If that's
true, that's about a third of a century full of new readers
coming from _somewhere_.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, webmaster
Great Science-Fiction & Fantasy Works
http://owlcroft.com/sfandf
Karen Williams
up as hopelessly dumb, but my brother thought it was hysterically
funny. He laughed out loud quite a bit while reading it. Of course,
he was twelve or so at the time, which is when those sorts of
jokes are at their funniest.
--
Karen Williams
bra...@ix.netcom.com
John David Galt
> interest, but if you're actually looking for _funny_ comic fantasy, I refer
> you to Terry Pratchett.
I beg to differ. BOTR has more good laughs in it than any ten books
by Pratchett (who is at best only mildly amusing).
Colin Chock
-what about those who got in on merit?
--
bis später,
Colin
Fencing Pro, Honolulu Club
www.sallehonolulu.com
www.honoluluclub.com
"the word processor & the foil"
545 8750
fax 739-5277
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
Accepting payment for fencing lessons, gear, t-shirts, etc. through PayPal;
make payments to my email address, ch...@prodigy.net
PayPal lets users send and receive money online. Click on this link to sign
up:
https://secure.paypal.com/refer/pal=chock%40prodigy.net
SALLE HONOLULU FEATURED IN ONLINE MAGAZINE
http://FencerGirl.tripod.com/tfamag12.htm
-two articles by me:
http://fencergirl.tripod.com/tfamag7.htm
-my Sherlock Holmes story:
http://fencergirl.tripod.com/tfamag9.html
-another article by me:
http://fencergirl.tripod.com/tfamag10.html
Tom Scudder
> I've given up on the numbers, because I can never remember what number
> I'm on.
>
> HENRY N. BEARD
> DOUGLAS C. KENNEY
> (OF THE HARVARD LAMPOON)
> BORED OF THE RINGS
> _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.
BORED OF THE RINGS starts off brilliant (the "Prologue: Concerning
Boggies" still makes me laugh till milk comes out of my nose), but
follows the opposite progression to LOTR: once you get out of the
Shire/Sty, things go downhill. Tim Benzedrine was a great idea, but
didn't actually work too well in practice, and the poltroonery &
incompetence of Arrowroot & Goodgulf just aren't funny.
On the other hand, there are good bits. And some of the single-line
parodies still wander in and elbow aside the main text when I re-read
LOTR ("and on their brows were things written, both fair and foul,
like 'unleash Chiang Kai-Shek' and 'I love my wife but oh you kid'"
... "It is the spumoni, beloved of the elves. Do not drink of it, for
it promotes tooth decay.")
So, is it a good book?
No. There's also a song.
Luke Webber
news:3BF0CBB2...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us...
While I enjoy a lot of Pratchett, I'm forced to agree. Satire is generally
considered to be low art, but BOTR is plainly a work of a very high order.
It's been twenty years since I've read it, but some passages are still
inscribed in my memory. Gotta get another copy.
Luke
Nancy Lebovitz
P. Korda <ko...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>I've given up on the numbers, because I can never remember what number
>I'm on.
Numbers?
>
>HENRY N. BEARD
>DOUGLAS C. KENNEY
> (OF THE HARVARD LAMPOON)
>BORED OF THE RINGS
>
>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 jokes are stupid....)
>
>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
Or perhaps a 12-year-old.
>family connections and/or wealth, circa 1969, I might find _Bored of
>the Rings_ to be funny. If I was a frothing Tolkien fan, I might find
>it offensive. But, me being me, I just find it dumb.
>
Once I tried reading _Bored of the Rings_ right after reading _Lord of
the Rings_ so that I'd be sure to get all the jokes. BOTR seemed as
though it had been written by orcs.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Robert Carnegie
I enjoyed it, I hesitate to say at what age, but I felt that the
world portrayed was very small compared to Tolkien's very large one.
The inside front cover teaser, rather offputting to me at first sight,
was the best and subtlest joke in the book, and one of the best and
subtlest I'd seen in a while - assuming it isn't a very old gag,
like the Heckawi which folks were just discussing.
So now it joins my re-read queue in line behind Asimov's robot murder
stories, q.v.
The characters' motives - Aragorn-analogue was dumb and wanted to be
heroic, for Gandalf-analogue it was a scheme to take over Gondor-analogue
and probably raid the treasury, and Ferrodo got the shaft; he was
given a Ring with a jinx and if he didn't get rid of it he was screwed.
I forget if the other guys had any motives beyond hypothetically
getting laid.
Lois Tilton
> I remember managing to get about five pages into and giving it
> up as hopelessly dumb, but my brother thought it was hysterically
> funny. He laughed out loud quite a bit while reading it. Of course,
> he was twelve or so at the time, which is when those sorts of
> jokes are at their funniest.
The stuff they have on that Tolkein parody page is funnier.
--
LT
Sherwood Smith
wrote:
It's astoundingly 'sixties' in tone, feel, jokes, politicians' names
(remember Bebe Rebozo?) etc. I remember laughing so hard I got
hiccoughs, but now it just seems...odd. Though memory of laughter, of
gatherings and group readings of favorite bits, linger enough to raise
some ghost chuckles.
John S. Novak, III
>>I really expect it wouldn't age very well if I tried it today.
> It's astoundingly 'sixties' in tone, feel, jokes, politicians' names
> (remember Bebe Rebozo?) etc. I remember laughing so hard I got
> hiccoughs, but now it just seems...odd. Though memory of laughter, of
> gatherings and group readings of favorite bits, linger enough to raise
> some ghost chuckles.
Having never, in fact, lived through the sixties, that might explain
why looking back I think it will have aged badly for me. I admit,
though, I certainly did enjoy it the last time I read it, which must
have been about twelve years ago, so you never know.
Hell, maybe I'd get more of the 60's era jokes, just for being much
better read today.
Inna final analysis, though, even though it's a short little book, I
have more things on my to be read pile than I know what to do with
right now, so this one can stay off it.
Sherwood Smith
wrote:
>In article <3bf12b3a....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, Sherwood Smith wrote:
>
>>>I really expect it wouldn't age very well if I tried it today.
>
>> It's astoundingly 'sixties' in tone, feel, jokes, politicians' names
>> (remember Bebe Rebozo?) etc. I remember laughing so hard I got
>> hiccoughs, but now it just seems...odd. Though memory of laughter, of
>> gatherings and group readings of favorite bits, linger enough to raise
>> some ghost chuckles.
>
>Having never, in fact, lived through the sixties, that might explain
>why looking back I think it will have aged badly for me. I admit,
>though, I certainly did enjoy it the last time I read it, which must
>have been about twelve years ago, so you never know.
There are a lot of cultural refs that (deservedly) haven't lingered (I
don't know if Bardall is still making commercials, frex, and so you
know what the Watusi was?)
>
>Hell, maybe I'd get more of the 60's era jokes, just for being much
>better read today.
>
>Inna final analysis, though, even though it's a short little book, I
>have more things on my to be read pile than I know what to do with
>right now, so this one can stay off it.
>
It;s the kind of thing to have lying around for the occasional
no-brain brief read...you take in a chapter, maybe chuckle, shake your
head, and put it down again.
Even remembering it fondly I can't read it straight through, though
the autumn of '69 I couldn't put it down--even read it over and over,
gasping with laughter, and inevitably at Mythopoeic Society meetings
(we were all die-hard Tolkien fans) out it would come for group reads
of favorite bits. "Nixon Dirksen Nasahist, Watusi boogaloo" used to
slay us, though that might be mostly unintellible now!
Lee DeRaud
wrote:
[massive snip]
>Before anybody accuses me of totally missing the point, I'll admit that
>that's definitely the case.
You think? :-)
I suspect that if the authors read your post, they would be positively
dumbfounded that anyone took *anything* that seriously.
Lee
Lee DeRaud
<nos...@spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>It's been twenty years since I've read it, but some passages are still
>inscribed in my memory.
Yup: "...as they set out along the rising gorge that led to the next
chapter."
I would dearly love to have a poster-sized copy of the map.
Lee
P. Korda
*shrug* I wasn't looking to take it seriously. I DEFINITELY wasn't
expecting Great Litrachur, but I was kind of hoping it would be
funny. The paucity of humorous (IMO, of course) material left me with
no choice but to try to analyze WHY I didn't think it was funny.
That's the problem with humor-- it's highly dependent on personal
taste: one man's Funniest Thing He's Ever Read is another's pointless
bestiality reference.
--pam
Randy Money
I remember getting a great many laughs out of it 20+ years ago. Now, who
knows? Still, as a casual fan of Big East basketball, the dread Ballhog
of Villanova still elicits a chuckle -- dribble, dribble, fake, dribble,
fake, shoot, swish.
I suspect anyone who can handle a coupling of the good Mel Brooks movies
in dumbed-down S. J. Perelman (or would that be dumbed-up Dave Barry?)
prose will still get a laugh or two out of BOTR.
Randy M.
David Dyer-Bennet
Considerable of the text of that book has become running gags in the
part of fandom I hang out in. At least two bits from the climactic
scene (I guess this is in some sense a technical spoiler), "Look! The
Winged Victory of Samothrace!" and "'Floop,' suggested the tar pit" in
particular. Also "'Aiieee!' shouted Legolam. 'A Thesaurus!'". And,
incidentally, the Thesaurus is one of many examples of a renaming that
*is* funny and does *not* follow the stereotype listed by the original
reviewer.
I'm also kinda fond of Oxidol, the goddess of quick tricks and small
slams (bridge joke).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net / Ghugle: the Fannish Ghod of Queries
Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
Lee DeRaud
wrote:
>In article <epe2vtsau28c5mt2p...@4ax.com>,
>Lee DeRaud <lee.d...@boeing.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 03:49:26 GMT, ko...@midway.uchicago.edu (P. Korda)
>>wrote:
>>[massive snip]
>>>Before anybody accuses me of totally missing the point, I'll admit that
>>>that's definitely the case.
>>
>>You think? :-)
>>
>>I suspect that if the authors read your post, they would be positively
>>dumbfounded that anyone took *anything* that seriously.
>
>*shrug* I wasn't looking to take it seriously.
A post exceeding 100 lines critiquing *anything* fulfills my primary
criterion for 'taking it seriously'. YMMV.
Lee
David Dyer-Bennet
> I remember managing to get about five pages into and giving it
> up as hopelessly dumb, but my brother thought it was hysterically
> funny. He laughed out loud quite a bit while reading it. Of course,
> he was twelve or so at the time, which is when those sorts of
> jokes are at their funniest.
I just reread it, as part of my reread of Tolkien, and I still find it
very funny. I don't find the grotesqueries people have complained
about particularly funny; but the whole book is filled with funny
stuff in between all that other stuff. In fact, it's funny on a lot
of different levels.
"Five-ten is your height, one ninety your weight, you cash in your
chips about page 88."
P. Korda
Lee DeRaud <lee.d...@boeing.com> wrote:
>A post exceeding 100 lines critiquing *anything* fulfills my primary
>criterion for 'taking it seriously'. YMMV.
Well, since one of my goals in posting these reviewlets is to
stimulate discussion and help keep up the signal-to-noise ratio on the
newsgroup, there wouldn't be much point in writing, "I did not like
this book. The End," now would there? :)
And, I note that by trashing what is evidently a Fandom favorite, I
have prompted something like 20 on-topic posts, so nyah.
Maybe I should post something critical of the _real_ _The Lord of the
Rings_... (oh, wait, Chad already did that).
-pam
Michael Hellwig
well I guess it's the same difference as saying you rather like "American
Pie" or something like "O Brother Where Art Thou" movie-wise ...
different tastes .. I tend to hate "dumb" humour stuff like American Pie
and laugh wildly at Coen movies or Pratchett novels (though "The Fifth
Elefant" was rather lame ... but the truth and thief of time were better
again)
just my 0.02 Euro
--
Michael Hellwig aka The Eye olymp.somewhere.at admin
to contact me via email, don't use the above address, but the...@gmx.li
Aaron Brezenski
Michael Hellwig <the...@gmx.li> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 23:28:50 -0800, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>>> _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.
>>
>> I beg to differ. BOTR has more good laughs in it than any ten books
>> by Pratchett (who is at best only mildly amusing).
>
>well I guess it's the same difference as saying you rather like "American
>Pie" or something like "O Brother Where Art Thou" movie-wise ...
Wow. I must be pretty bizarre (no news, really). I loved both.
>different tastes .. I tend to hate "dumb" humour stuff like American Pie
>and laugh wildly at Coen movies or Pratchett novels (though "The Fifth
>Elefant" was rather lame ... but the truth and thief of time were better
>again)
My attempts at Pratchett have been unsuccessful, thus far, but as a college
sophomore, I *loved* BOTR.
--
Aaron Brezenski
Not speaking for my employer in any way.
Karen Williams
>
> There are a lot of cultural refs that (deservedly) haven't lingered (I
> don't know if Bardall is still making commercials, frex, and so you
> know what the Watusi was?)
No, it's the Bat-usi.
--
Karen Williams
bra...@ix.netcom.com
Karen Williams
>
> Considerable of the text of that book has become running gags in the
> part of fandom I hang out in. At least two bits from the climactic
> scene (I guess this is in some sense a technical spoiler), "Look! The
> Winged Victory of Samothrace!" and "'Floop,' suggested the tar pit" in
> particular. Also "'Aiieee!' shouted Legolam. 'A Thesaurus!'".
Ah, *that's* where those came from. <lightbulb comes on>
--
Karen Williams
bra...@ix.netcom.com
Lee DeRaud
wrote:
>Maybe I should post something critical of the _real_ _The Lord of the
>Rings_... (oh, wait, Chad already did that).
I said 'critique', *not* 'criticize'. :-)
Lee
Konrad Gaertner
Were you counting the headers? Netscape's newsreader claims Pam's
original post is only 74 lines.
--KG
Jerry Friedman
> I'm on.
>
> DOUGLAS C. KENNEY
> (OF THE HARVARD LAMPOON)
> BORED OF THE RINGS
Interesting. I don't think my edition has (or had) the names of the
authors--just "by _The Harvard Lampoon_" or something.
> 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_, 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_.
In the sense that BotR was funny, while _Catch-22_ was mildly amusing?
Fortunately, of course, Heller was above silly character names.
> The plot is certainly recognisable as that of LOTR, 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:
>
> 1. Renaming all the characters and locations after consumer products, sex
> toys, or stupid puns which Piers Anthony would be ashamed to use.
>
> 2. Recasting all the heroic characters from Tolkien's story as cowards,
> charlatans, and all-round blackguards.
Well, you're leaving out the fact that they're often _specific_
cc&arb. Making Aragorn into a film cowboy may not have been that
brilliant, but making Saruman into Walt Disney is the sort of
originality reserved for genius. You're also leaving out the
reversals of LotR situations (Arrowthorn and Eorache, or Gimlet and
Legolam humming "Nearer, My God, to Thee") and the extra bits of
backstory
(Sorhed and Schlob).
> Additionally, the reader is treated to assorted outdated ethnic slurs
> and stereotypes, assorted bestiality (and vegerasty!) references[1],
> and a smattering of bizaare imagery.
I like the word "vegerasty", but I don't remember it from the book.
Unless we're with the Vee-Ates.
> Now, the recasting of heroes as less-than-admirable types has a long
> history in comic fantasy and satire in general, 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.
You've got to be kidding. Not that it's badly written or unfunny,
which are matters of taste (mostly), but that Frito et al. should have
had motivation. It's funnier, or at least sillier, if they don't, and
it can also be a parody of the stuff in LotR about Frodo's being *deep
voice, mysterious expression with suggestion of twinkle in eye*
INTENDED to be the Ring-Bearer.
> 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_ to be funny. If I was a frothing Tolkien fan, I might find
> it offensive. But, me being me, I just find it dumb.
I was about 13, middle-class, but going to a private school and (as it
turned out) later to go to Princeton. It worked for me.
> Before anybody accuses me of totally missing the point, I'll admit that
> that's definitely 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.
The early saint who lived for decades as a hermit on top of a pillar.
ObPratchett: _Small Gods_.
> _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.
Who is also above silly character names.
> [1] Now, I have nothing against bestiality jokes per se, but just
> saying, "so-and-so had sexual relations with a sheep/baby
> dragon/musk-ox" does not a joke make.
But what about "a bed that looked as if it had been slept in by
perverted kangaroos"? Now _that's_ funny.
And that marvelous encapsulation of universal human experience [*] at
the door to Andrea Doria. And "simultaneously fixing the wagons of
the Nozdrul". And that magnificent map. And "An Elvin-maid there was
of old,/ A stenographer by day..." Ah, what memories you're bringing
back.
I don't know whether I'd like BotR if I reread it now, but it has a
place in my heart, and when I e-mail my friends from college, I might
easily say, "A syanon esso decca hi hawaya!"
[*] Robertson Davies, in another context.
--
Jerry Friedman
Charles Frederick Goodin
Karen Williams <bra...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I remember managing to get about five pages into and giving it
>up as hopelessly dumb, but my brother thought it was hysterically
>funny. He laughed out loud quite a bit while reading it. Of course,
>he was twelve or so at the time, which is when those sorts of
>jokes are at their funniest.
Lampoon's name on it.
That said, it does have a sort of MAD magazine feel to it -- not
hilarious, but not completely unfunny if you like that sort of thing.
--
chuk
Lee DeRaud
I *swear* I saw a three-digit number (as reported by Agent). :-)
Could be wrong...my bad.
A 74-line post still represents *significant* effort for something PK
"doesn't take seriously".
Lee
P. Korda
Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>ko...@midway.uchicago.edu (P. Korda) wrote in message
>news:<aL0I7.104$N4....@news.uchicago.edu>...
>> Additionally, the reader is treated to assorted outdated ethnic slurs
>> and stereotypes, assorted bestiality (and vegerasty!) references[1],
>> and a smattering of bizaare imagery.
>
>I like the word "vegerasty", but I don't remember it from the book.
>Unless we're with the Vee-Ates.
It's not in BOTR. I made it up especially for the review, because I
didn't know the proper term for unnatural sexual congress with animate
vegetables.
>You've got to be kidding. Not that it's badly written or unfunny,
>which are matters of taste (mostly), but that Frito et al. should have
>had motivation. It's funnier, or at least sillier, if they don't, and
>it can also be a parody of the stuff in LotR about Frodo's being *deep
>voice, mysterious expression with suggestion of twinkle in eye*
>INTENDED to be the Ring-Bearer.
YMOV.
A work of comedy can get by without a sensible plot if the humor is
effective. When comedy fails, one must fall back on other elements,
such as plot, characters, setting, quality of prose and so forth. If
those things hold up, the work needn't be a total waste of time.
Haven't you ever read a story or watched a movie that was intended to
be a comedy, but which you just didn't think was funny, at all?
>> 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_ to be funny. If I was a frothing Tolkien fan, I might find
>> it offensive. But, me being me, I just find it dumb.
>
>I was about 13, middle-class, but going to a private school and (as it
>turned out) later to go to Princeton. It worked for me.
As others have pointed out, being 13 is probably immensely helpful in
enjoying BOTR. When I was 13, I was very fond of Piers Anthony and
late Heinlein, and thought that LOTR was a decent adventure, but kind
of boring.
-pam
Taki Kogoma
to rec.arts.sf.written decree...
>Hey, I'd say it's the funniest LotR parody ever published with National
>Lampoon's name on it.
No such animal exists.
Gym "BotR is from *Harvard* Lampoon." Quirk
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
quirk @ swcp.com | superior to what I have now."
Veteran of the '91 sf-lovers re-org. | -- Gym Quirk
John David Galt
> I just reread it, as part of my reread of Tolkien, and I still find it
> very funny. I don't find the grotesqueries people have complained
> about particularly funny; but the whole book is filled with funny
> stuff in between all that other stuff. In fact, it's funny on a lot
> of different levels.
What I liked best were the poems. That, and the fact that they made
Tom Bombadil a dopehead (in the original you really have to wonder
how he could stay in that forest for thousands of years and not go
stark raving nuts!!!)
John David Galt
>
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 23:28:50 -0800, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
> >> _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.
> >
> > I beg to differ. BOTR has more good laughs in it than any ten books
> > by Pratchett (who is at best only mildly amusing).
>
> well I guess it's the same difference as saying you rather like "American
> Pie" or something like "O Brother Where Art Thou" movie-wise ...
My first choice is anything with Peter Sellers in it. Second would be
anything by Mel Brooks, especially "High Anxiety" (but you have to be
an obsessive Hitchcock fan to even _get_ most of the jokes in it).
Thomas Yan
ko...@midway.uchicago.edu (P. Korda) wrote:
-snip-
> 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_ to be funny. If I was a frothing Tolkien fan, I might find
> it offensive. But, me being me, I just find it dumb.
-snip-
I enjoy some dumb humor, and while I laughed in a few places (e.g. the
bit(s) about the eagles), I overall did not find this book very funny.
I was disappointed by it; I finished it only because it was short and,
besides being boring, not too painful to read.
--
Thomas Yan (ty...@twcny.rr.com) Note: I don't check e-mail often.
Be pro-active. Fight sucky software and learned helplessness.
Apologies for any lack of capitalization; typing hurts my hands.
Progress on next DbS installment: pp1-38 of pp1-181 of _Taltos_
FR
news:mmcirvin-A5D792.00394013112001@[192.168.123.1]...
> I don't *think* there has ever been any such paper as the "Harvard
> Daily News," but I could be wrong. (There is a long-standing and
> traditional rivalry between the Harvard Lampoon and the Crimson, which
> has long referred to the Lampoon as a "so-called humor magazine.")
Quite correct. I suspect the Crimson would rather pull out its small
intestine with a twezer through its collective belly button than praise the
Lampoon. Or vice versa. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if this is the
Lampoon saying 'yah boo!' to the Crimson in a rather public way.
--
Fatima Raja [who didn't get in through her family connections]
David Dyer-Bennet
But for some reason far fewer people quote Sam's line in between
("Hola! A 1927 Indianhead nickel!").
David Dyer-Bennet
> ko...@midway.uchicago.edu (P. Korda) wrote in message news:<aL0I7.104$N4....@news.uchicago.edu>...
> > I've given up on the numbers, because I can never remember what number
> > I'm on.
> >
> > HENRY N. BEARD
> > DOUGLAS C. KENNEY
> > (OF THE HARVARD LAMPOON)
> > BORED OF THE RINGS
>
> Interesting. I don't think my edition has (or had) the names of the
> authors--just "by _The Harvard Lampoon_" or something.
The 1969 first edition (paperback) has the names of the authors
inside, and signed to the statement on the back, but not on the cover
or on the spine.
P. Korda
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>jerry_f...@yahoo.com (Jerry Friedman) writes:
>> ko...@midway.uchicago.edu (P. Korda) wrote in message
>news:<aL0I7.104$N4....@news.uchicago.edu>...
>> > HENRY N. BEARD
>> > DOUGLAS C. KENNEY
>> > (OF THE HARVARD LAMPOON)
>> > BORED OF THE RINGS
>>
>> Interesting. I don't think my edition has (or had) the names of the
>> authors--just "by _The Harvard Lampoon_" or something.
>
>The 1969 first edition (paperback) has the names of the authors
>inside, and signed to the statement on the back, but not on the cover
>or on the spine.
Huh. Do later editions _not_ have the authors' names? That seems a
mite odd. Do you know why that's the case (if it is)?
(I can think of two possible scenarios: 1. The authors, having grown
up and become dull and respectable, don't want their names associated
with it any more, 2. The Harvard Lampoon saying, "We own all rights to
this, so go away.")
-pam
James Gassaway
:>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...<
:
: -what about those who got in on merit?
:
Then you're too busy actually attending college to have time for
collegiate humor.
--
Multiversal Mercenaries. You name it, we kill it. Any time, any reality.
Reverend Sean O'Hara
>
> It's astoundingly 'sixties' in tone, feel, jokes, politicians' names
> (remember Bebe Rebozo?) etc.
Well, so does the Illuminatus! Trilogy. However, one of them is funny
for people who've learned of the '60's through VH1, while the other is
just a series of bad puns and sex.
--
Reverend Sean O'Hara
You too can be an ordained minister: http://www.ulc.org
Culture Editor for Expulsion: http://www.expulsion.org (new & improved)
"So what state is Wales in?" - G. W. Bush (quoted by Charlotte Church)
Reverend Sean O'Hara
>
> >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...<
> -what about those who got in on merit?
They can write dissertations on alcohol- vs. drug-induced collegiate
humor.
Luke Webber
news:3BF1C006...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us...
> What I liked best were the poems. That, and the fact that they made
> Tom Bombadil a dopehead (in the original you really have to wonder
> how he could stay in that forest for thousands of years and not go
> stark raving nuts!!!)
IMO the real miracle is that Goldberry didn't kill him in his sleep. A
useful man in a crisis, no doubt, but what a putz! <g>
Luke
Susan Stepney
>
> In article <96efe132.01111...@posting.google.com>,
> Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >I like the word "vegerasty", but I don't remember it from the book.
> >Unless we're with the Vee-Ates.
>
> It's not in BOTR. I made it up especially for the review, because I
> didn't know the proper term for unnatural sexual congress with animate
> vegetables.
Presumably it's whatever the word for "natural sexual congress with
animate
vegetables" is, prefixed with "un"?
--
_____________________________________________________________________
Susan Stepney tel +44 1223 254890 step...@logica.com
Logica UK Ltd, Betjeman House, 104 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 1LQ, UK
http://public.logica.com/~stepneys/ http://www.logica.com/
John S. Novak, III
>> It's astoundingly 'sixties' in tone, feel, jokes, politicians' names
>> (remember Bebe Rebozo?) etc.
> Well, so does the Illuminatus! Trilogy. However, one of them is funny
> for people who've learned of the '60's through VH1, while the other is
> just a series of bad puns and sex.
Okay, I'll bite: Which do *you* think is which?
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
The Humblest Man on the Net
Lee DeRaud
wrote:
>In article <m2u1vxg...@gw.dd-b.net>,
Henry Beard (among many other things) went on to write the scathingly
incorrect "Political Correctness Dictionary"..."dull and respectable"
are *not* the words that come to mind when I hear his name.
Lee
Lee DeRaud
wrote:
>In article <3BF163C8...@gmu.edu>, Reverend Sean O'Hara wrote:
>
>>> It's astoundingly 'sixties' in tone, feel, jokes, politicians' names
>>> (remember Bebe Rebozo?) etc.
>
>> Well, so does the Illuminatus! Trilogy. However, one of them is funny
>> for people who've learned of the '60's through VH1, while the other is
>> just a series of bad puns and sex.
>
>Okay, I'll bite: Which do *you* think is which?
Does it matter? He apparently believes it's possible to learn of the
'60s by watching VH1...
Lee
David Dyer-Bennet
I don't own a later edition, but based on the cover images of the
current edition as displayed at Amazon, it's probably the same. The
front cover does not give their names, the back cover does reproduce
their signatures to the "statement from the author". There isn't an
image of the title page, but I note that Amazon lists the actual
author's names in their database.
Adam Canning
> In article <aL0I7.104$N4....@news.uchicago.edu>,
> P. Korda <ko...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> >I've given up on the numbers, because I can never remember what number
> >I'm on.
>
> Once I tried reading _Bored of the Rings_ right after reading _Lord of
> the Rings_ so that I'd be sure to get all the jokes. BOTR seemed as
> though it had been written by orcs.
Orcs have better literary standards.
Barring Orcish Intellectuals who keep going on about how the Gorean saga
proves Mankinds essential inferiority due to its total inability to
understand the essential truthfulness of its leitmotif and sexual
politics. But they are posers at heart.
Adam
Robert Carnegie
> In article <96efe132.01111...@posting.google.com>,
> Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I like the word "vegerasty", but I don't remember it from the book.
> >Unless we're with the Vee-Ates.
>
> It's not in BOTR. I made it up especially for the review, because I
> didn't know the proper term for unnatural sexual congress with animate
> vegetables.
"Tree huggers", if we're dealing with the scene where Tom Bombadil
rescues the hobbits from malevolent arbres.
Memorable but disgusting, and yet somehow I can't help wondering -
Nancy Lebovitz
John S. Novak, III <j...@cegt201.bradley.edu> wrote:
>In article <3BF163C8...@gmu.edu>, Reverend Sean O'Hara wrote:
>
>>> It's astoundingly 'sixties' in tone, feel, jokes, politicians' names
>>> (remember Bebe Rebozo?) etc.
>
>> Well, so does the Illuminatus! Trilogy. However, one of them is funny
>> for people who've learned of the '60's through VH1, while the other is
>> just a series of bad puns and sex.
>
>Okay, I'll bite: Which do *you* think is which?
Just so recycle the joke, Wilson and/or Shea have said that half the events
in _Illuminatus!_ are real and half are made up, but which events go into
which category kept changing.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Jerry Friedman
> In article <96efe132.01111...@posting.google.com>,
> Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >ko...@midway.uchicago.edu (P. Korda) wrote in message
> >news:<aL0I7.104$N4....@news.uchicago.edu>...
>
> >> Additionally, the reader is treated to assorted outdated ethnic slurs
> >> and stereotypes, assorted bestiality (and vegerasty!) references[1],
> >> and a smattering of bizaare imagery.
> >
> >I like the word "vegerasty", but I don't remember it from the book.
> >Unless we're with the Vee-Ates.
>
> It's not in BOTR. I made it up especially for the review, because I
> didn't know the proper term for unnatural sexual congress with animate
> vegetables.
Sorry to be unclear. I meant that I didn't remember the incident.
But it came back to me: Moxie and Pepsie and the slender scallions.
> >You've got to be kidding. Not that it's badly written or unfunny,
> >which are matters of taste (mostly), but that Frito et al. should have
> >had motivation. It's funnier, or at least sillier, if they don't, and
> >it can also be a parody of the stuff in LotR about Frodo's being *deep
> >voice, mysterious expression with suggestion of twinkle in eye*
> >INTENDED to be the Ring-Bearer.
>
> YMOV.
>
> A work of comedy can get by without a sensible plot if the humor is
> effective. When comedy fails, one must fall back on other elements,
> such as plot, characters, setting, quality of prose and so forth. If
> those things hold up, the work needn't be a total waste of time.
>
> Haven't you ever read a story or watched a movie that was intended to
> be a comedy, but which you just didn't think was funny, at all?
Often, as my tastes in written humor are unsubtle, and sometimes I
have enjoyed the book in other ways. I think we can agree that Beard
and Kenney had humor as their only goal and weren't trying to offer
anything for readers to fall back on.
> >> 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_ to be funny. If I was a frothing Tolkien fan, I might find
> >> it offensive. But, me being me, I just find it dumb.
> >
> >I was about 13, middle-class, but going to a private school and (as it
> >turned out) later to go to Princeton. It worked for me.
>
> As others have pointed out, being 13 is probably immensely helpful in
> enjoying BOTR. When I was 13, I was very fond of Piers Anthony and
> late Heinlein, and thought that LOTR was a decent adventure, but kind
> of boring.
For a year or two before reading BotR, and a number of years after,
LotR was my favorite book ever.
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
> In article <m2u1vxg...@gw.dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >jerry_f...@yahoo.com (Jerry Friedman) writes:
> >> ko...@midway.uchicago.edu (P. Korda) wrote in message
> >news:<aL0I7.104$N4....@news.uchicago.edu>...
>
> >> > HENRY N. BEARD
> >> > DOUGLAS C. KENNEY
> >> > (OF THE HARVARD LAMPOON)
> >> > BORED OF THE RINGS
> >>
> >> Interesting. I don't think my edition has (or had) the names of the
> >> authors--just "by _The Harvard Lampoon_" or something.
> >
> >The 1969 first edition (paperback) has the names of the authors
> >inside, and signed to the statement on the back, but not on the cover
> >or on the spine.
>
> Huh. Do later editions _not_ have the authors' names? That seems a
> mite odd. Do you know why that's the case (if it is)?
I might have just missed the names. I can't check because I'm not
sure where my copy is now--possibly in the possession of Infinity,
Ltd., the Princeton U. sf fan club.
--
Jerry Friedman
Paul David John Andinach
> In article <aL0I7.104$N4....@news.uchicago.edu>,
> P. Korda <ko...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> > I've given up on the numbers, because I can never remember what
> > number I'm on.
>
> Numbers?
This was number (n) in a series of "Book Thoughts" reviews.
(I can't remember what number he's on, either.)
Paul
--
The Pink Pedanther