Moorcock blasts Tolkien

[Tuzenbach]

Actually, Moorcock's is perfectly frank about his characters exploring existential issues that concern him.

Ah, so you're saying Moorcock's decision to drown us in his own uncomfortability via his characters is a *conscious* one? I feel a lawsuit coming on.....

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Personally, I like Tolkien's writing. I like Moorcock's, too. Moorcock is a bit of an ass, though. I think he caught "pretentious artist" disease somewhere along the line. Maybe very early along the line, actually...

 

[Wrathamon]

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."

Sounds like the young kid not liking the old dudes.

I like Moorcock's work... but I have to admit after awhile it got stale. Elric was extremely predicatable... Oh look a new character, timer starts... how many pages will it be till Elric goes nuts and kills them by accident or on purpose? But, I LOVED it as a kid, it was refreshing. I was so use to reading Captain America and Superman comics and here was an anti-hero that was so dark. It was different. I then read some Conan (and again conan isnt the nicest guy in the world but Elric would have been the badguy in a conan book).
I also liked that the books were short and to the point.

THe lord of the rings was much harder for me to read back then... it is also extremely slow in the beginning and hard for young kids to get hooked, so I dont see how it was a kids book. No kid has the attention span to sit through the shire journey and not run off and play stick ball.

 

[billd91]

The fact is that every single non-white character in the books is evil. And none of them have dialogue. If Tolkien didn't have an opinion about non-white people, he would have made everybody as white as Saruman and the other bad guys.Surely you must acknowledge that some books do have subtext. Right? You can't seriously be suggesting that no ever written books have themes or messages beyond their direct literal statements.

Considering that the number of non-white human characters in the story about whom we know anything of substance is very small, I think you're reading WAY too much into this.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Sorry man, but you whiffed here.

Some (myself included) believe that a major theme of the Lord of the Rings is that there isn't a Happily Ever After for everyone. That's what the Scouring of the Shire is all about. It's what Frodo's scars--physical and psychological--symbolize.

Read my post again. Was I talking about JRRT or his imitators?

JRRT's work is and remains extremely safe.

 

[Mark Hope]

Yawns, stretches and wakes up, glaring in irritation that the thread has dared to continue while I was sleeping...

Plenty of stuff to reply to, though

I don't know what you're talking about but I'm only referring to the humans in the books.

There are orcs in the tower of Cirith Ungol that have dialogue. That's what I was talking about. But you just meant humans, so never mind.

Perhaps it would be cute or amusing it it wasn't so ******* boring and cliche.

Bourgeois elitist!

I actually had a few exchanges with Mike Moorcock on the subject of Tolkien.

I think that people are overblowing Mike's statement. He is a writer, and he has political opinions. Like any of us. From there, he can express his opinions, and he's conscious these opinions reflect his personal tastes in terms of literature and politics. He doesn't expect people to change their minds over what he says, and he's certainly not thinking of fans of Tolkien (such as I) as debilitated morons overly nostalgic and/or right wing.

So, I think one should just take a step back and look at his criticism as coming from someone who is on the opposite side of the fence on both style and political points of view. He does make some sound arguments, but it's not necessary to choose sides. I'm both a Tolkien and Moorcock fan, myself, and I like their writings and personalities for different reasons.

QFT.

Eminently sensible comment .

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…).

Lol, no, no, no, no. The Turin story is great and all, but Stormbringer came out in 1965, 12 years before the Silmarillion saw publication. Get your facts straight.

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...

I've seen this a couple of times in the thread (so not singling you out particularly here, P&P, just lifting your quote) and I'm not really sure what it's supposed to mean. There is a central theme to his work (individuals vs systems, personal responsibility etc) but I don't see how these make his books "the same book". How can you compare Gloriana to Stormbringer, or Warhound and the World's Pain to Behold the Man, or even the Hawkmoon books to the Corum books? I'd be interested in seeing someone back this assertion up with concrete examples.

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.

Absolutely correct, except it's not unconscious. The early Elric stories, for example, are conscious explorations of the author's preoccupations at the time of writing. Moorcock is quite open about this.

 

[Akrasia]

Lol, no, no, no, no. The Turin story is great and all, but Stormbringer came out in 1965, 12 years before the Silmarillion saw publication. Get your facts straight.

My facts are 'straight'. Tolkien already "told the tale of the sword ‘Stormbringer’" in the Turin story before the Second World War. Indeed, the essential elements were in place before Moorcock was born. The mere fact that Tolkien's many stories regarding the First Age were not published until they were collected and edited posthumously by his son does not change that fact. (I never said that The Silmarillion was published before 'Stormbringer. Read my original post. )

 

[Mark Hope]

My facts are 'straight'. Tolkien already "told the tale of the sword ‘Stormbringer’" in the Turin story before the Second World War. Indeed, the essential elements were in place before Moorcock was born. The mere fact that Tolkien's many stories regarding the First Age were not published until they were collected and edited posthumously by his son does not change that fact. (I never said that The Silmarillion was published before 'Stormbringer. Read my original post. )

I did read your post. What you said was this:

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?

You are explicitly referencing the Silmarillion here - hardly surprising that someone calls you on it. The fact that Tolkien conceived of the Tale of Turin before Moorcock was even born is utterly irrelevant, given that the Tale of Turin never saw publication in that time. Furthermore, how on Earth can Moorcock be bitter about something that he had never even heard of and which didn't see publication until 12 years after Stormbringer? If you had made some argument about Kullervo, you'd have a better point. As it stands, your claim is just bizarre.

 

[Akrasia]

... Furthermore, how on Earth can Moorcock be bitter about something that he had never even heard of and which didn't see publication until 12 years after Stormbringer?...

*sigh* Even when one includes a '' in one's post (which you strangely edited out when you quoted me) some people seem remakably eager to misinterpret what is intended as a glib, lighthearted comment with utter gravity. Such are the perils of internet communication.

My original comment merely noted the similarity between the two tales, and suggested in an entirely lighthearted manner that this may have rankled Moorcock, thus prompting him to write his essay (and thus the ''). It was only when you seemed to imply that Tolkien wrote the story of Turin after 'Stormbringer' that I felt the need to point out that the opposite was true. (On rereading your post I see that I may have misunderstood you. My apologies.)

Anyhow, I regret that you misunderstood my original post, and that it upset you so much.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Moorwho?

To me it just sounds that he's been thinking long and hard to find something to criticise Tolkien with, for critic's sake and because of envy. A heckler who wants to sell more.

I haven't read those books, and now I'm not likely to ever get them. If I don't like someone's attitude, he can create the best stuff there is, I'm not buying.