Moorcock blasts Tolkien

[Odhanan]

I really think Mike's making sound arguments. After all, only someone blatantly ignorant of JRRT's works would pretend that they aren't affected by a strong nostalgy, strong moral standpoints and strong literary opinions (basically, every literary work after Chaucer sucks because it's no longer true English folklore - I know, it's a gross shortcut I make here, but bear with me) on the author's part.

It's absolutely true - there's no denying it.

Mike on the other hand comes from another school of literature. In fact, the complete opposite, really. His style is clean, with short evocative sentences that go to the point and stab the reader with baroque images. The guy is like an impressionist of literature. He is a progressist who rose with the 60's. He sang with Blue Oyster Cult. He wants to shock with his works. Not comfort. I mean: come on! How much more opposite can you be from JRRT?

I must however precise that Mike has also been repeating in each instances of "debates" about Tolkien that he "liked the chap but disliked the writing". There is such a distinction. Really.

 

[lukelightning]

I think Moorcock's criticisms are perfectly valid. No author is exempt from critique, no matter how influential his works are.

 

[dcas]

I think Moorcock's criticisms are perfectly valid. No author is exempt from critique, no matter how influential his works are.

Whether an author is exempt from criticism or not has nothing to do with whether a given set of criticisms are valid.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Whether an author is exempt from criticism or not has nothing to do with whether a given set of criticisms are valid.

QFT

(And, again, we must remember that Moorcock himself admits not reading the work he is criticizing...that makes it much less likely that his is an informed opinion. )

 

[comrade raoul]

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.

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?

 

[Odhanan]

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

I agree. When I read the LotR for the first time, it was I think when I was twelve years old, and I gave up just before the Council of Elrond, when Aragorn and the hobbits are leaving Bree for the wilderness. I think I wasn't ready for such a style at the time. I let the book sleep on a shelf with a bookmark for about three months, if I remember well. Then I picked it up again, and my big shock came with the Council. I was blown away. I loved that chapter. A chapter that probably wouldn't have been written by a more well, conformist writer. The amount of information, the extreme complexity of the narrative there... I just fell in love. Literally.

I read the rest of the book in three days.

So I relate to your own experience with LOTR, RC. Once again, I think MM makes has some good arguments. Doesn't mean I agree on the final judgment of value, however. I don't.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

To quote the Big Lebowski,

What is disingenuous and ludicrous about Moorcock's position is not the truth of this statement which is basicaly undeniable (except that there is a huge oversimplification of the consciousness of a class) but the idea that one cannot or should not appreciate literature with whose political perspective one does not agree.

True that. I enjoyed Starship Troopers (the book, not the movie) despite disagreeing with its politics, and I enjoy Lovecraft's writing despite the fact that he was a racist - which is quite obvious from some of his stories.

 

[Odhanan]

If you're interested by my opinion, on both stylistic and moral points of view, I also agree much more with Tolkien than I do with Mike. I truly think that literature exists to emphasize what's fundamentally good about humankind. What makes us who we are, and allows us to go on with our lives. That's I think what is the true core value within the LotR. And I agree also with Tolkien's vision of style: the hell with conventions. Write however you want. If you have a clear knowledge, mastery and love for your work, it'll shine through.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

Why does there have to be any meaning in a story? Why can it just be entertaining and leave it at that?

And to be honest i had never even heard of Moorcook before joining these boards and i still dont know what it is he writes.
I at least know and have read what CS Lewis and Tolkien have written. Sound to me like someones jealous.

 

[Wombat]

Moorcock has fun, candy writing, without too much thought or style. It is highly repetitive, often recycling the same plots, even the same stories, over and over again with some vague notion that "these heroes are all the same hero"; I think this is merely a cover for having a very few ideas. His worlds, while great Saturday Morning Cartoon fun, or great for gee-whiz slam-bang viciousness, are not very well developed nor do they make a lot of sense. Then again, his focus is entirely on the main character(s) with little attempt to create more. He is popular now, but I wonder for how long?

Tolkein writes in a highly archaic, old-fashioned manner, a style much less in tune with the modern world. Many people are bored with his style and go crazy when they run across the poems. The plot isn't slam-bang. But the world is complete, utterly thought out. The themes are deep, cutting across specific times and cultures. Tolkein will last.