Moorcock blasts Tolkien

[dcas]

I do think that Tolkien had a certain amount of class bias.

I think it is true that he had a high regard for the monarchy and the aristocracy, but I'm not sure that "bias" is the right word for it. It's more like a bias in favor of a particular worldview (that men, including those who belong to the nobility, should know their place and act accordingly) rather than a bias in favor of a particular group or groups.

 

[Mark Hope]

I think it is true that he had a high regard for the monarchy and the aristocracy, but I'm not sure that "bias" is the right word for it. It's more like a bias in favor of a particular worldview (that men, including those who belong to the nobility, should know their place and act accordingly) rather than a bias in favor of a particular group or groups.

Yeah, that's more or less what I mean. Like I say, I don't any overt sense of prejudice from his writing, more a feeling that this was just how he saw the world as working.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yeah, that's more or less what I mean. Like I say, I don't any overt sense of prejudice from his writing, more a feeling that this was just how he saw the world as working.

Agreed.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

And who are the "honkey establishment" in LotR?

In LotR, the "West" in general and Gondor more specifically. But it varies depending on the writer and the world they create.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hey, what about:
Raymond Feist
David Eddings
Terry Brooks
Robert Jordan

I did list Moorcock in the "Possibles", but he is far from a certain member of the Big Four. As far as your humorous quartet go, a body of solid work is not the same thing as pushing the boundaries into new forms (and I am not so sure I'd say that Brooks or Jordan have as solid a body of work as Feist or Eddings, but tastes vary ). Howard practically invented Sword & Sorcery from whole cloth. Tolkein brought epic fantasy into the modern era, making it both important and accessable to the average reader. Those were huge feats.

If I were listing important modern authors, I'd include Neil Gaimen, Charles de Lint (more for his earlier work than his current), Emma Bull, Stephen King (for the Gunslinger books), Terry Pratchett, and Robert Holdstock as writers who really seem to "get" the intrinsic symbolic meaning of fantasy literature while pushing their writing into new directions. Again, YMMV.

(I'd also include individual books, such as Wicked by Gregory Maguire, as important modern works of fantasy.)


RC

 

[Storm Raven]

Well, I doubt anyone will ever write a scholarly book entitled Moorcock: Author of the Century.

True, but I think it reasonably likely that at some point someone might write a scholarly book about Moorcock's work. It will likely be obscure, and not particularly extensive, but he has enough ideas that it seems likely to happen.

Hmmm, well I am not really a fantasy fiction fan, but the four SF authors I think are generally mentioned as the biggies are: Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, and Niven. Would Moorcock be among the "big four" of fantasy writers? (This is an honest question, not a rhetorical one, as I don't follow fantasy fiction.)

It is noteworthy that of the "Big Four" you mention, Moorcock has spewed vitriol at three of them in public: he considers reading the works of Niven, Heinlein, and Asimov to be the equivalent of reading Mein Kampf, because he believes that the views they express are equally abhorrent as the openly racist drivel produced by a third rate mind in an Austrian prison (find his essay "Starship Stormtroopers" to read all about this). He also despises Anne McCaffrey, H.P. Lovecraft, Poul Anderson, and just about any other science fiction of fantasy author who had the temerity to write about anything other than the wonderousness of an anarchist society.

I find his criticisms of Asimov as an ardent "anti-socialist" to be extraordinarily laughable, since I find Asimov's work to be very kind to socialism as an idea on the whole. Reading his essays, it is clear (to me) that he hasn't really read most of the works he critiques, and comes to them with a predisposition that taints anything he says. However, for all of his silly political views, his books are actually worth reading.

In my experience, the science fiction author rankings usually only list a "big three" (Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein), with Niven being at or near the top of the next tier, which is where I would put Moorcock. But if I had to come up with a "big four" of fantasy I would go with Tolkien, Howard, Lieber, and Poul Anderson. I might replace either Lieber or Anderson with Moorcock, but that would be a close call.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In LotR, the "West" in general and Gondor more specifically. But it varies depending on the writer and the world they create.

Oh.

I thought perhaps you were talking about the elves, the dwarves, the hobbits, and the ents as well -- all of whom got royally hosed.

RC

 

[dcas]

I thought perhaps you were talking about the elves, the dwarves, the hobbits, and the ents as well -- all of whom got royally hosed.

The hobbits certainly didn't get "hosed" -- in fact the events set in motion by the end of the War of the Rings ushered in a Renaissance age in hobbit culture. OK, so I'm exaggerating, but the hobbits of the Shire (with the exception of Frodo) seemed ultimately to profit from the destruction of the Ring.

And of course the Ents are brown-skinned, so of course they got hosed.

 

[Mark Hope]

I did list Moorcock in the "Possibles", but he is far from a certain member of the Big Four. As far as your humorous quartet go, a body of solid work is not the same thing as pushing the boundaries into new forms (and I am not so sure I'd say that Brooks or Jordan have as solid a body of work as Feist or Eddings, but tastes vary ).

Heh heh, indeed. FWIW, I really did enjoy the Belgariad and then literally felt cheated by the Malloreon. Fiest was fun, but I kinda ran out of steam with, er, whatever the one was called that came after the one set in the desert (King's Buccaneer?) Dunno what his recent stuff is like - might be awesome for all I know.

Howard practically invented Sword & Sorcery from whole cloth. Tolkein brought epic fantasy into the modern era, making it both important and accessable to the average reader. Those were huge feats.

Totally. I am still in awe of Howard's Conan books - over a year and a half after reading them, the buzz still hasn't worn off. Amazing stuff.

If I were listing important modern authors, I'd include Neil Gaimen, Charles de Lint (more for his earlier work than his current), Emma Bull, Stephen King (for the Gunslinger books), Terry Pratchett, and Robert Holdstock as writers who really seem to "get" the intrinsic symbolic meaning of fantasy literature while pushing their writing into new directions. Again, YMMV.

My god, Gaiman is incredible. A storytelling genius. I read the first Gunslinger book when it was released and then decided to wait for the entire series before continuing (on my list for the New Year ) but what I read was truly outstanding. I am a really big King fan overall, though. For a supernatural author, nobody does regular life as well as him. His characters are utterly believable, which makes the supernatural elements all the more compelling imho.

I was also hugely impressed by Guy Gavriel Kay (I read Tigana, which was beautiful, and the Fionavar Tapestry, which was an ingenious reworking of well-known myths). Donaldson was also cool, but I thought that he needed to get a smaller thesaurus

I'd also include individual books, such as Wicked by Gregory Maguire, as important modern works of fantasy.)

Never heard of this one. What's it like?

In my experience, the science fiction author rankings usually only list a "big three" (Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein), with Niven being at or near the top of the next tier...

What about Phillip K. Dick? I'm not familiar with him myself (my girlfriend raves about him, though) but he seems to have been pretty influential.

 

[dcas]

It is noteworthy that of the "Big Four" you mention, Moorcock has spewed vitriol at three of them in public: he considers reading the works of Niven, Heinlein, and Asimov to be the equivalent of reading Mein Kampf, because he believes that the views they express are equally abhorrent as the openly racist drivel produced by a third rate mind in an Austrian prison (find his essay "Starship Stormtroopers" to read all about this).

Wow, even his essays are almost unreadable.