Moorcock blasts Tolkien

[Mark Hope]

*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.

Lol, no worries - you haven't upset me and there's no utter gravity . I didn't edit out your smilie - sometimes they don't come through when you copy/paste a quote, that's all.

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.)

No problem and no apology necessary. I enjoy the back-and-forth of a good debate - the more strongly worded the better, as far as I am concerned.

I understand your overall point (I am indeed aware of the history of Tolkien's writings and am looking forward to the publication of the Narn next year with giddy anticipation). I just doubt that Moorock was at all motivated by any feelings of bitterness regarding the Turin story. In fact, given the absence of any reference to the Silmarillion in Epic Pooh, and the fact that the Silmarillion didn't come out until just before Epic Pooh was published (combined with Moorock's dislike for Tolkien), it's entirely possible that Moorcock has never read the tale of Turin. But that's just supposition on my part.

You know what, I'll ask him ...

Edit:Turns out there is already a thread about this over at multiverse.org from 2004. This is Moorcock's initial reply with some more thoughts later on.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Bourgeois elitist!

Heh.

By the way, if anyone were to actually take serious umbrage at the post that Mark Hope quoted part of there, be sure to first of all note that my comments were not based solely on the link provided at the beginning of this thread.

I decided to do a bit (well, a fair bit) of my own research before coming out with that admittedly rather caustic post.

And, in all seriousness, I would stand by every word of it. 100%.

I recommend that anyone who's interested in just how bad Moorcock gets in this particular way, have a look around the net and possibly elsewhere. Because yeah. . . he well and truly makes a total ass of himself. Just as Pullman did, and for just the same kind of demented reasons.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I'll never really understand why people criticize works of fiction where the author had no intent to include political, social, or religious statements within the work. They are no doubt in there, but only because they are in the author. None of what Tolkien wrote is intended in to influence society in the same manner as a book like 1984.

As Tolkien himself stated, he wrote Lord of the Rings to try his hand at a longer tale. I see no reason to attack a man who wrote because he wanted to entertain other people with a story from his very fertile imagination.

Contrary to what Moorcock may believe, the themes are not comforting. They are in fact very frightful and only comforting to those who have read it so many times they know the end. It should also be noted that if the themes in Lord of Rings did not resonate strongly with the public as being very human and very relevant, they woudln't be so immensely popular.

People in real life aren't these grey people constantly conflicted by evil thoughts. People in real life are generally good people with some minor vices trying to do the right thing in sometimes hard circumstance. That is where Tolkien's story hits the nail squarely on the head. He shows people as the are. Often simple, with an intelligence and insight often greater than we give them credit for, sometimes thrown into situations where they have to do an incredibly difficult task that is both unsavory and dangerous.

The man lived through two world wars. He knows alot better than many of these young, liberal, hippy writers what it is to watch decent men and women thrown into the meat grinder of conflict and manage to maintain some sanity and fortitude when both should be gone.

More people should read up on who Tolkien was and what time he grew up in before criticizing his work. The man didn't even see his first automobile until boyhood. He grew up in very rural areas and had a great love of all things natural.

Just very tired of attacks on Tolkien's work by people who know nothing about the man or the the time he grew up in. They don't even seem to have the slightest respect for the fact that he wrote the story to tell a tale and no other purpose. The only reason they do this is because his work has become immensely popular and they have no respect for Tolkien's desire that his book not be politicized or viewed in any manner other than as an attempt at tale telling. I take the authors word and respect it, and I hope others, especially writers, would do the same.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Any form of expression (artistic or otherwise) is an attempt to communicate, and can be judged on the basis of both what the creator(s) was (were) seeking to communicate and how well that goal was achieved. Both of these criteria have strong subjective elements -- one isn't wrong for liking or not liking any particular work. However, it is possible to speak about (and critique) expressive works intelligently on this basis.

(This includes, IMHO, expressive works like RPGs as well.)


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

Are you suggesting that it is impossible to make an ad hominem attack against someone you know personally?

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Moreover, the only time Tolkein suggested any color for the hobbits, that color was brown (in The Hobbit, Chapter 1, when he describes their fingers...he also says that their hair is naturally curly).

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

JRRT's work is and remains extremely safe.

Define "safe" in this context.......

 

[Raven Crowking]

Allow me to quote Mr. Moorcock himself:

I have to admit here, too, that I haven't read large chunks of Lord of the Rings. I realised this after attending the final movie and realising I had no clear idea what was going to happen, though I remember skipping through the books looking for references to Golem, who could be said to be a much closer to Elric's precurser than any bloody fair-haired elf or other...

(from http://www.multiverse.org/fora/showpost.php?p=15991&postcount=17)

Weird that the guy who wrote Epic Pooh would also admit to not having read the work he is critiquing. Weirder yet that he would admit "skipping through the books" looking for references to Gollum if all of the characters are so dull and safe.

When I first assailed LotR as a child, I didn't finish the book either. LotR is a massive, dense work that requires some real fortitude and depth to work through. I do remember looking for references to Gollum, as Moorcock says he did. To be honest, it took me three tries to get through LotR (finally done when I was 12), and that first full reading didn't give me anything more than a superficial understanding of what Tolkein was writing. I didn't see the connections. I didn't understand the themes. I was immensely puzzled about the characters in Rohan riding in "the van"....where did that van come from?

So, eventually, I read it again. And, by that time, my understanding had grown. Then I read some works about LotR and thought "Where was all this stuff when I was reading it?" So I read it again. And again.

And each time, to this day, I am caught by connections and depths that I didn't see before. I am amazed by the work, even after knowing the plot...by its depth and complexity, and by the solidness of its world. When I first read LotR aloud to my son, I was caught by Sam & Frodo's conversation about tales...which mentions a father reading the book to his son. And the love of that relationship (& I am not talking sexual love here) so parallels the love of parent and child when reading that book that I had to blink back tears. At each phase of my life, I have found something in Tolkein that corresponds.

If I had stopped the first time I tried to read LotR, I might have agreed with Moorcock's essay now. If I had just managed to get through it the one time, I might have agreed with some on this thread. However, having put in the effort to read and digest the work many times, I have to say that it is simply the finest novel I have ever read. I fully agree that it is a hard book to read. But saying that it is not worthwhile just because it is hard.....that I cannot agree with.

YMMV.

RC

 

[replicant2]

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

JRRT's work is and remains extremely safe.

I have read it again. You conflated Tolkien and his imitators and painted them with the same brush. Or am I missing something?

 

[Umbran]

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.

Of course not. However, the problem is that since they aren't direct, literal, or explicit you cannot tell the difference between those that are placed there by the author, and those pieced together by the reader that have nothing to do with what they author thought.

Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

And even if one does find a subtext, we forget to include historical perspective. Let us consider one clear example: Tolkien was a sexist because he had no solid female characters. Well, LotR was first published in 1954 - by today's standards pretty much every adult American and Brit of the time (including most women) were sexist. So, criticizing him for that is rather like criticizing him for being a man of his time.

Failure to be a visionary on a particular topic is not a valid criticism.