Moorcock blasts Tolkien

[Mark Hope]

Depending on how the films are put together, the mythic, tragic elements could come across quite well and counteract Elric's apparent unlikeability. (Although, fwiw, I'm not sure that he is all that unlikeable. There is a certain wry humour to his attitude that could come across quite well in combination with his more doom-laden maudlin moods).

If the first film combines the elements of Elric of Melnibone and The Dreaming City, the film begins with the unsuccesful invasion of Imrryr and Yyrkoon's betrayal of Elric. The hunt for Stormbringer and Moonblade (along with Rackhir's help) then follow, with the film climaxing with Elric's decision to lead a barbarian fleet against his own people and sack the Dreaming City.

The film would, by necessity need to address (or compact) Elric's year of wandering and Yyrkoon's placing of Cymoril in her enchanted slumber, but with that consideration it makes for a pretty good arc. It takes Elric from disenchanted emperor to vengeful destroyer and kinslayer, via a couple of runesword en route. From that perspective, I'd think that the audience could very well buy in to sympathy for Elric and his predicament, as well as experience a vicarious thrill at his revenge and the subsequent tragic death of Cymoril.

Stormbringer itself makes a natural finale for the series and would take a whole film to do justice. If the studios take the tried-and-tested (if predictable) trilogy format, some serious work would need to be done with the middle of the story. It is in those years that some of Elric's strangest adventures take place. Moonglum's introduction would go some way to engaging the audience here (he isn't in the first film by all accounts) and presumably something could be made of Tanelorn. The middle years, while some of the most revealing and enjoyable in the books, seem more problematic from a film perspective.

 

[Darth Shoju]

I'm uncertain just how well the world of Elric would translate to the silver screen. Elric himself is certainly not a very likeable or identifiable character from what I remember, and that would be key to any sort of film success. It's been a long time since I read the books, though. I could see it doing moderately well, simply because it is so different from most fantasy fare - I've usually seen it identified as a conscious reaction to and rejection of all the various fantasy genre tropes that came before it.

I'd have to agree with you, which is why I compared Star Wars to the D&D alignment system: neither one holds up under the rigors of close scrutiny. As has been pointed out in this thread, much of mythology is also difficult to analyse in this fashion. I'd say in many ways Tolkien's works have the same problem; not surprising since he was building a mythology of his own. While I'd argue that LoTR is much deeper than Star Wars, there's still a breaking point where you've taken it apart too much.

Something else that has rankled me has been the assertation at some points in this thread that JRRT was a BAD writer. Certainly he was no Joyce or Shakespeare or Tolstoy, but he is far from being a *bad* writer. If you want to see bad writers there are plenty of those to go around.

But one thing this thread has proven to me is that I must read more of Moorecock's work. I've really only ever read a Stormbringer comic by Darkhorse that I don't think did him justice. The movie sounds interesting. What details are there to go around? Is the script just in development or are there names attached to the film as well?

 

[Mark Hope]

Something else that has rankled me has been the assertation at some points in this thread that JRRT was a BAD writer. Certainly he was no Joyce or Shakespeare or Tolstoy, but he is far from being a *bad* writer. If you want to see bad writers there are plenty of those to go around.

Robert Vardeman - War of Powers series! The lizardman with two, er, "swords" gets my vote as iconic fantasy character of the millennium

But one thing this thread has proven to me is that I must read more of Moorecock's work. I've really only ever read a Stormbringer comic by Darkhorse that I don't think did him justice.

Well, you certainly have plenty to choose from, lol. Del Rey are releasing a "definitive" series of Elric editions starting next year, so those would be worth a look. I've read the Topps version of Stormbringer, which was not bad, but still doesn't compare to the book (which, as a purely personal opinion, is my favourite fantasy book evar).

The movie sounds interesting. What details are there to go around? Is the script just in development or are there names attached to the film as well?

According to what Moorcock says, the screenplay has been completed and the film has been costed (so the studios, Universal iirc, know how much they will need to spend on it). So far no casting has been done, but the Weitz brothers have been named as directors. Moorcock wrote the screenplay with them (he has managed to retain a solid degree of creative control over the project) and has said that they are very passionate about the material and want it "done right". They have a bit of a hit-miss track record, but as Peter Jackson has shown, respect and passion for the material goes a looong way in producing a quality end result. The Weitz brothers are apparently busy with the movie version of Pullman's His Dark Materials at the moment, though, so I dunno where the Elric movie is at in terms of further development.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Well, if they have him played by Keanu Reeves....

"Stormbringer...? Woah!"

I'd like to see Paul Bettany in that role - considering his recent roles (including an albino killer) and his physique, I'd think he would be perfect!

 

[Mark Hope]

I'd like to see Paul Bettany in that role - considering his recent roles (including an albino killer) and his physique, I'd think he would be perfect!

I agree - after seeing A Knight's Tale, he seemed a fine choice. But I did wonder if he could be persuaded to play another albino after the one he played in DaVinci Code. It might work against the role - but then again, it might strengthen the image. Not sure how it would come across. Jude Law has also been mentioned as a possibility (along with dozens of others in a slew of Elric casting threads at multiverse.org - not quite as bad as the Dragonlance casting threads, but in a similar vein ).

 

[Celtavian]

The reason they do this is that in general, the political, moral, or emotional significance of an action does not just depend on what I intend to do when I act. Suppose Jones is a sweet, lovely person who was nonetheless brought up in a racist society. Jones makes a movie--and lots of people see it--that depicts black people as lazy, stupid, frequently submissive, and in many cases sexually ravenous. Jones might have made the movie thinking that he was honestly and even sympathetically depicting his characters--he might not have even thought of black people in racist terms. (Insofar as Jones is a racist at all, his racism, let's say, is entirely subconscious.) Shouldn't we at least criticize Jones' movie as a racist movie, even though Jones didn't mean it as such?

Your supposition is baseless when applied to a fantasy tale. It shows that modern folk overly politicize stories that have no modern application. Lord of the Rings is a fantasy tale, period.

If someone includes the material you stated, then that automatically politicizes the work. Anytime you depict a real group of people in a particular manner and do so with the idea that you truly believe all people of that type are that way, you politicize your own work.

Tolkien did nothing of the kind. There is no comparison. Your supposition is absurb, baseless, and indefensible in the context of Tolkien's work. Any attributions you make are baseless as Tolkien was well aware that his work did not apply to real life and explained this in the foreward to Lord of the Rings.

Authors can, have, and continue to tell tales that have absolutely no political, social, or religious significance just to tell an entertaining tale. It is people like yourself who try to force into their stories a greater meaning than was intended. I myself, as a person who enjoys writing, find it irritating. If I write a story that includes elements that compare to real life, I do so for the sole purpose of telling a story that a real person can relate to. It for the most part isn't intended to adjust another person's worldview, it is intended as an element to drive the story.

I tire of pseudo-intellectuals in society attempting to attribute greater things to artistic works. They are artistic works, not all done to influence society. Most of them are in fact created for entertainment. If some foolish person wants to tie more into them than they should, that is due to their own short comings rather than the short comings of the author.

 

[Darth Shoju]

Robert Vardeman - War of Powers series! The lizardman with two, er, "swords" gets my vote as iconic fantasy character of the millennium

LOL never heard of that one. There are a few D&D novels that I've read that have to fall into the category of bad though.

According to what Moorcock says, the screenplay has been completed and the film has been costed (so the studios, Universal iirc, know how much they will need to spend on it). So far no casting has been done, but the Weitz brothers have been named as directors. Moorcock wrote the screenplay with them (he has managed to retain a solid degree of creative control over the project) and has said that they are very passionate about the material and want it "done right". They have a bit of a hit-miss track record, but as Peter Jackson has shown, respect and passion for the material goes a looong way in producing a quality end result. The Weitz brothers are apparently busy with the movie version of Pullman's His Dark Materials at the moment, though, so I dunno where the Elric movie is at in terms of further development.

Cool. Sounds encouraging. Thanks! Now I'll have to make sure I've read some Elric before seeing it.

What stories would you guys recommend to a Moorcock n00b? A primer of his work if you will...Elric and otherwise?

 

[Celtavian]

re

Yes. I think everything you say is absolutely right. But there's an intermediate position here. One can recognize that we should still read, appreciate, and study books with reprehensible politics, but one might also argue that we should still try to expose any political commitments latent in a text, and explicitly engage those commitments as part of our experience of reading. Doing this might be very important: one might argue that art can be very seductive, and a capable writer (I do think Tolkien is a capable writer in this sense) can make a reader sympathetic to certain political attitudes without the reader or even, in some cases, the writer, knowing exactly what's going on. If this argument is right, then doing this becomes especially important for very prominent writers like Tolkien or Lewis, who reach a huge number of people, often on profound levels and when they are very young.

You would be a fool to allow a work of fiction to influence your politics. The entire idea is obnoxious and presupposes that human beings are that foolish. If works of fiction influenced politics, we wouldn't have the systems we have today.

What your idea presupposes is that a person can't imagine a different world, a fantastic world, with certain romantic ideas without himself believing in the politics of the world. That is a very ignorant idea to put forth that is easily proven wrong.

 

[Celtavian]

I have the same feelings about Robert E. Howard and Edgar Rice Burroughs. They were people of their times, and reading their work is both fun and instructional (both in D&D and writing terms), but there is a racist slant to both authors. Sometimes, I think, Burroughs was aware of this slant and tried to fight it, but ultimately he was mired in it.

Still love the books, though.

OTOH, I don't think that the same can be said of Tolkein. Or at least, not to the same degree. It seems to me that Tolkein ascribed equal value to people, but that he didn't consider them to fit into the same roles in the world. He seemed to think that, for example, some people were better suited by birth to be kings, but that kings themselves were of no greater worth (having only a different social role) than farmers.

RC

Tolkien himself did not necessarily believe that. Let me use myself as an example, I am writing a story that includes the idea of a particular bloodline ruling a particular kingdom as ordained by a single god.

Reading this work, one might conclude that I a am a religious person who believes blood lineage is of great importance. When you actually found out that I am somewhat agnostic person who doesn't believe in any of the world religions and strongly disagrees with any idea that a person is born to greatness, what could you say then? Nothing.

Tolkien mined ideas from romantic mythology where such beliefs are prevalent. He did so because a part of his mind liked the idea, not because he believed in them politically.

As a more extreme example, it would be like Quentin Tarantino believing that mass murder is cool because he makes some very violent movies. There are certain things he enjoys about such scenes, but he himself does not in anyway engage in his character's behaviors or encourage others to do so. He just likes to make cool movies. Though is sounds a bit rude to attribute such words to Tolkien, I would say Tolkien wanted to write a "cool" book.

Fiction, and art, does not drive the politics of the world. It never has. It is only relevant to a those who study such workds who enjoy discussing the political and cultural significance of certain works of art. To most humans, including myself, works of fiction, be it books, movies, or music are just to read, watch or listen to. I use reason to determine my course in politics and other areas that might require me to make a moral decision. I do so with as many of the facts in hand as I can obtain without opening my Tolkien book or any book for that matter other than one that might cover the situation in a non-fictional manner to make my decisions.

 

[Flyspeck23]

If someone includes the material you stated, then that automatically politicizes the work. Anytime you depict a real group of people in a particular manner and do so with the idea that you truly believe all people of that type are that way, you politicize your own work.

Tolkien did nothing of the kind. There is no comparison. Your supposition is absurb, baseless, and indefensible in the context of Tolkien's work. Any attributions you make are baseless as Tolkien was well aware that his work did not apply to real life and explained this in the foreward to Lord of the Rings.

To quote Tolkien: "The dwarves of course are quite obviously - wouldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews?" (Link).

I tire of pseudo-intellectuals in society attempting to attribute greater things to artistic works. They are artistic works, not all done to influence society. Most of them are in fact created for entertainment. If some foolish person wants to tie more into them than they should, that is due to their own short comings rather than the short comings of the author.

It all depends on what you consider "art". And I'd say that even if a given object perceived as art was made for entertainment purpose only, that'd say alot about the art and the artist. Among other things it tells me that the artists is delusional about his/her work.

Isn't ever interaction in human society a way to influence society, however slightly? Even if I just want to entertain you, I'm still deciding how (in which way, on what topics, in which words, ...) to entertain you, and why (because I like you, I want to make money, I've got a point to make, I've got too much spare time, ...). Those decisions might be conscious or not.

You would be a fool to allow a work of fiction to influence your politics. The entire idea is obnoxious and presupposes that human beings are that foolish. If works of fiction influenced politics, we wouldn't have the systems we have today.

But?

You'd be a fool to discard all literature as entertainment (only). Which of course you're not

What your idea presupposes is that a person can't imagine a different world, a fantastic world, with certain romantic ideas without himself believing in the politics of the world. That is a very ignorant idea to put forth that is easily proven wrong.

So those "romantic ideas" are coming out of thin air, and the author has no influence on which ideas to use, and how?

What you're saying is that art can't be held responsible for its content (if only it's fantasy). Frankly, I don't believe that.