Howard v. Moorcock

Whom do you prefer, Moorcock or Howard?

  • I like Robert Howard better.

    Votes: 28 59.6%
  • I like Michael Moorcock better.

    Votes: 19 40.4%

Simple enough, really. I'm curious which of these two is more popular within our little EN community.

Please note, I'm asking about overall experiences, not characters. This isn't "Is Conan a better character than Elric?" or "Could Dorian Hawkmoon kick Kull's ass?" (Probably not). I'm asking about the authors' works as a whole (or as whole as you've experienced them).

You'll note, BTW, that the poll does not have an "I like both equally" option. I don't mean to be unfair to those who do like them both equally, but I'm looking for the opinions of those who do have a preference.

I'd love to know why you chose as you did (or why you didn't vote), if you don't mind taking a moment to explain.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


The only Moorcock I've read is the Elric saga, while I've read most all of Howard's work. I enjoy both immensely, but I like Howard's writing style better than Moorcock's.
 


Mmmmm, Moorcock (boy does that sound bad) - two different styles but as I am one of the few people to have read more than just Elric, Hawkmoon and Corum, I may be a little one sided, such as Jerry Cornelius, Oswald Bastable, Michael Kane and some others. Howard was great but Moorcock made me see things differently.
 

I never liked Moorcock. Maybe I didn't read him for the first time until I was too old to appreciate him, or something. Certainly most of my friends read him in junior high. It's a little too smugly wannabe intellectual for me. Howard, on the other hand, is raw, primal fantasy at it's funnest.
 


I'll take either one in very, very small amounts, but about equally.

Neither is a favourite author of mine.

Of the Old School Pulps, gimme Fritz Lieber, every time :)
 



Remove ads

Top