Moorcock blasts Tolkien

[Akrasia]

Perhaps Moorcock is simply bitter is that Tolkien already told the tale of the sword ‘Stormbringer’ with greater poetry and evocativeness in the story of Turin from The Silmarillion?

I recommend that people read ‘Of Turin Turambar’ in The Silmarillion. It is hard not conclude that the sword Anglachel/Gorthang is Stormbringer (a black sentient sword with an evil will…).

 

[wilrich]

. . . Moorcock's disagreement with Tolkien is, IMHO, mostly political, on artistic grounds he doesn't have much of a point at all.

Quoted for truth! That sums it up better than I ever could!

 

[Jin_Kataki]

I am not even gonna bother to read through this entire thread cause I am sure it is just going back forth.

bottom line is a writer should write what he wants and if the reader likes it he should read it.

This is like one person saying Godfather was the greatest movie ever and another person saying it was overdramatized drivel. Both statements are true cause a movie or a book or a song or any form of artistic expression is whatever the individual takes away from it.

 

[Tuzenbach]

Dissecting Moorcock: A Psychoanalytic Approach

Now, Mr Moorcock is in no real position to criticize, since he's spent the past several decades writing the same book again and again, but he does have two real advantages over the Tolkein-imitators: He has a new plot to offer, and he tells it in simple, unpretentious prose without any waffle. Moorcock writes in five pages what Tolkein or Eddings would write in fifty pages, and Brooks would write in a hundred and fifty pages, and Jordan would write in a ten-volume epic.

Utterly true about the simplicity of Moorcock, but is it truly advantageous? I mean, reading fantasy novels is supposed to be for the sake of enjoyment. And enjoyment isn't normally meant for abbreviation. It would be somewhat akin to paying to sit in a movie theatre and merely experiencing the trailors. Why do it?

Tolkien = Novels

Moorcock = Cliff's Notes

The title arises from Moorcock's claim that the writing of Tolkien, Lewis, Adams and others has a similar purpose to the Winnie-the-Pooh writings of A. A. Milne, another author of whom he disapproves: it is intended to comfort rather than challenge.​

I've read the first 6 books of the Elric series, along with Hawkmoon, Count Brass, & Earl Aubec. Do you know what? All of these characters have one very important trait in common: they're UNCOMFORTABLE!!!

First, we have Elric. And he's not happy. He's not sure why, but he is. So he goes and does stuff. Then Hawkmoon. He's not happy either. So he goes and does other stuff. In fact, there's one thing he does which he's constantly trying to undo in an effort to do it "better" the second time around. Not sure if this guy ever finds happiness, but throughout most of the series, he's a gloomy mess. And the same generalization could be ascribed to both Count Brass & Earl Aubec. They're all very unhappy, unsatisfied, and ultimately, UNCOMFORTABLE characters.

Such was the focus upon constantly searching for something, endlessly striving to break free from the mold of "uncomfortability" with all of Moorcock's characters that I began to believe these as aspects of Michael Moorcock himself. I suppose Freud would call this phenomenon "projection".

In short, because Moorcock is uncomfortable, he unconsciously seeks release from this by expressing it. No, not by saying "I, Michael Moorcock am uncomfortable", but by presenting a bunch of characters generally dissatisfied with their current existence.

Also, as Moorcock embodies the mentality of "uncomfortableness", anything that is contrary is wrong.

Thus, Moorcock has issues with Tolkien.

 

[Tuzenbach]

Here's what it boils down to, in analogy form. Moorcock wants Blade Runner to be the most popular form of sci-fi entertainment. Star Trek or Star Wars is instead. He feels the need to complain about this loudly because he writes Bladerunner-esque stuff and feels that Star Trek and Star Wars are childish and immature. Up with Blade Runner!

It's the same thing you get anywhere. Group A who is a smaller group than Group B looks at Group B's stuff and wonders how they could possibly prefer it to Group A's stuff, which is clearly superior. If only Group B knew that Group A's stuff were better. Time to tell them all about how they're wrong and show them the error of their ways.

I've been on both sides. But, its still just an oppinion.

Isn't this just a metaphor for what I said?

 

[Woas]

Who's Moorcock and what does all that make-pretend word jibba jab all mean?!

 

[Thunderfoot]

The only other writer I've ever seen use "bourgeois" in that context was Karl Marx, therefore I surmise that Mr. Moorcock is a commie!

Seriously though, I see the point he is trying to make, happy endings are bad things, we must all languish in the despair of the real world and God is dead... I hate beatniks!!!

Frankly his opinion is stated in less of a mature fashion than half the posters to this thread. He likes small words, and obviously small meanings. When I was taught English and verbal comprehension, writing that contained these two "unspoken" spoken variables meant the speaker had small thoughts. He has proven my Literature teachers correct in their assessments.

It’s a shame really, he has no small amount of talent, too bad all he appears to want is success.

 

[eyebeams]

It's worth noting that Moorcock's critique is not an ad hominem, as he knew Tolkien personally.

 

[eyebeams]

Such was the focus upon constantly searching for something, endlessly striving to break free from the mold of "uncomfortability" with all of Moorcock's characters that I began to believe these as aspects of Michael Moorcock himself. I suppose Freud would call this phenomenon "projection".

In short, because Moorcock is uncomfortable, he unconsciously seeks release from this by expressing it. No, not by saying "I, Michael Moorcock am uncomfortable", but by presenting a bunch of characters generally dissatisfied with their current existence.

Also, as Moorcock embodies the mentality of "uncomfortableness", anything that is contrary is wrong.

Thus, Moorcock has issues with Tolkien.

Actually, Moorcock's is perfectly frank about his characters exploring existential issues that concern him. And as I've said, he actually met Tolkien and CS Lewis. Wikipedia sez:

Moorcock is a fervent supporter of the works of Mervyn Peake, and an almost equally fervent detractor of the works of J. R. R. Tolkien. He met both Tolkien and C. S. Lewis in his teens, and claims to have liked them personally even though he does not admire them on artistic grounds. In Fantasy: The Hundred Best Books (July 1991), however, he and his co-author James Cawthorn are generous to Tolkien's work.

Moorcock criticises works like The Lord of the Rings for their Merry England point of view, famously equating Tolkien's trilogy to Winnie-the-Pooh in his essay "Epic Pooh."

 

[Aus_Snow]

as I've said, he actually met Tolkien and CS Lewis.

Except that what you actually said was:

he knew Tolkien personally.

Which is a different thing entirely, wouldn't you say?