Xenite.Org News

Terry Pratchett butchers "The Lord of the Rings" in Washington Post article - Lord of the Rings news - J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings

June 18, 2000 at 19:39:29

One would expect better from a well-known British author like Pratchett than the debauchery of cliches and misinformation which he has published in the Washington Post for their Sunday, June 18, 2000 edition. One must ask what book Practhett was referring to, since it clearly wasn't J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings.

The author of the wacky, zany Discworld novels (he hates having them called "zany" and "wacky") starts off well enough in his review of the critical reaction to a well-known UK poll which declared Tolkien's Lord of the Rings to be the book of the century. He got the fact of the poll basically correct. From there it was downhill.

"Certainly Tolkien's mountains had more character than his characters", Pratchett preaches. "--indeed," he continues, "part of the attraction of TLOTR is that the fictional Middle Earth itself is practically alive; storms are vindictive, mountains cruel." No, actually, the storms are just expressions of the powers of great beings, but we'll accept that the Dwarves call Caradhras "the Cruel", although the implication is that there is a spirit behind the mountain (quite possibly the Balrog whom Gandalf later slays).

"Elsewhere, there are problems for the modern reader," Pratchett adds in his first direct assault on the Book of the Century. "Whole races are labeled Good or Bad. Women barely figure in the plot." Really? Gosh. And here all of Tolkien's wonderful exposition on the tragedies of the Elves, the importance of individual choice, and the significance of Galadriel (who though off-stage quite often figures prominently in the storyline) and Arwen (who though off-stage most of the time figures prominently in resolving Frodo's primary conflict) are suddenly reduced to "problems for the modern reader." By implication, anyone who doesn't have a problem with Tolkien's handling of the women must be living in the Stone Age...so he's managed to insult the larger part of Tolkien's reading audience alongside the author himself.

"There is not a great deal of agonizing about the nature of morality," Pratchett continues in his parade of pathetic slurs. If there is not a great deal of agonizing about the nature of morality, then what should one call all those scenes where Frodo confronts Gollum, Faramir, Boromir, and where Denethor and Gandalf wage a war of metaphors over the decision to destroy the Ring? What should we make of the long-winded Council of Elrond where rights and wrongs are trotted out like models on a runway? What of the lengthy episodes which invite reprimand to Frodo from Aragorn and Gandalf. What is right and wrong in The Lord of the Rings, if it is so clear-cut to "the modern reader"?

Pratchett's attempt to wax sentimental and praise Tolkien reaches out with such grasping attributions as "Because of Tolkien, the bookstores in the '80s were filled with more bad fantasy than you could shake a magic sword at."

The article imparts virtually nothing of value to the critic or the scholar, provides no insight to the curious fan about the appeal of Tolkien to the "modern reader" (most of whom were alive before Tolkien took his last breath), and offers no information of substance.

Pass it up. Or, read it if you haven't had a good queasy feeling in your ancient innards lately.