Moorcock blasts Tolkien

[helium3]

I like his books, but letting him teach me that he is far more mature or liberal or whatever simply strikes the wrong chord inside of me.

Did you even read the essay?

 

[dcas]

Tolkein's prose, plotlines, and characters are extremely safe.

How many major characters have to die for the plotline not to be "safe"? If what you say below is true (I don't read much fantasy), then I would venture to guess that Tolkien's imitators don't really understand his stories all that well.

This has had an inordinate influence on so many writers who followed him, churning out their safe, predictable, trite trilogies in which the good guys are good, the bad guys are bad, and the Hero gathers his Seven Samurai of assorted characters who go on a Cook's Tour of a generic fantasy world which is exactly the right size to fit onto two facing pages of a standard paperback, their mission being to Collect the Plot Vouchers which they can turn in to the author at the end of the trilogy, at which time the Dark Lord is defeated and everyone lives Happily Ever After in your standard, safe and extremely dull eucatastrophe.

Personally, I find Moorcock well-nigh unreadable. I barely got through Elric of Melnibone, it coming highly recommended by a friend, and couldn't read anything beyond that.

 

[Cam Banks]

Tolkien needed an editor.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[IcyCool]

I generally like Moorcock's writing more than Tolkien's (much, much easier to get through) but on this I think hes being pedantically iconoclastic and snarky.

I bet it helps him sell more books, though. You sell more books if you get more public awareness (good or bad). Mocking a widely loved author will certainly get you attention.

Of course, screaming, "I'M NOT WEARING PANTS!" in a crowded area will also get you attention, so Moorcock's nothing special in what he's doing here.

 

[Halivar]

At least we've got our own fantasy version of Hogan vs. Macho Man.

You gotta be kidding. Ultimate Warrior pwns both at the same time.

 

[francisca]

This has had an inordinate influence on so many writers who followed him, churning out their safe, predictable, trite trilogies in which the good guys are good, the bad guys are bad, and the Hero gathers his Seven Samurai of assorted characters who go on a Cook's Tour of a generic fantasy world which is exactly the right size to fit onto two facing pages of a standard paperback, their mission being to Collect the Plot Vouchers which they can turn in to the author at the end of the trilogy, at which time the Dark Lord is defeated and everyone lives Happily Ever After in your standard, safe and extremely dull eucatastrophe.

I bet he really loves Star Wars!

 

[dcas]

Tolkien needed an editor.

I'm sure he had one @ Allen & Unwin.

 

[sckeener]

I read it. He just comes off as being resentful of Tolkien's success to me.

Since he blasts many other authors (just Tolkien being the most famous), I didn't get that feel.

For me the issue is bland settings where conflict is one sided. In Tolkien there is little gray. The plots are basically black and white, evil vs good. One has to look for subtext to see gray.

Since Moorcock's books tend to deal with law vs chaos with both being equally bad, I usually do not have to look far to find complex issues.

Tolkein's prose, plotlines, and characters are extremely safe. This has had an inordinate influence on so many writers who followed him, churning out their safe, predictable, trite trilogies in which the good guys are good, the bad guys are bad, and the Hero gathers his Seven Samurai of assorted characters who go on a Cook's Tour of a generic fantasy world which is exactly the right size to fit onto two facing pages of a standard paperback, their mission being to Collect the Plot Vouchers which they can turn in to the author at the end of the trilogy, at which time the Dark Lord is defeated and everyone lives Happily Ever After in your standard, safe and extremely dull eucatastrophe.

Thanks...you said what I was having trouble with!

I think you also just described the standard campaign too.

How many major characters have to die for the plotline not to be "safe"? If what you say below is true (I don't read much fantasy), then I would venture to guess that Tolkien's imitators don't really understand his stories all that well.

I think he meant by 'safe' as in safe choices. It wasn't like he picked a creature from an evil nation to lead the assault on Mordor.....such as a black elf ranger

I bet he really loves Star Wars!
Rotflmao. I bet Tolkien would.

 

[mhensley]

Personally, I find Moorcock well-nigh unreadable. I barely got through Elric of Melnibone, it coming highly recommended by a friend, and couldn't read anything beyond that.

You and me both. The first Elric story is really good, but it rapidly goes downhill from there. Plus I can't stand whiny, uber-munchkin characters like Elric. He makes even Drizt and Elminster likable in comparison.

 

[dcas]

I think he meant by 'safe' as in safe choices. It wasn't like he picked a creature from an evil nation to lead the assault on Mordor.....such as a black elf ranger

I personally find Aragorn & the gang far more believable than Driz'zt (to whom I think you're referring), but YMMV.

As far as C.S. Lewis is concerned, I assume Moorcock is referring to his 'Narnia' stories -- can one really criticize them for not being "challenging" knowing what they are (primarily children's stories)? I don't think the Space Trilogy is quite as "comforting" and un-challenging.