Moorcock blasts Tolkien

[Umbran]

And you say that Heinlein and Niven took a infantile view of the world.

Now, folks, I think we can maintain a somewhat more respectful tone than this.

Additionally, this thread has no gaming content to speak of. I'm moving it off to the Media Lounge

 

[Mark Hope]

And I'm aware that there's self-parody built into the stories (there's a Moorcock-authored pastiche somewhere in my collection about a character who is undressed by his romantic conquest to unveil the Torso of x, the Hand of y, the Leg of z, and the... well, y'know).

The Stone Thing . Named for the eponymous, er, stone thing. Elric at the End of Time and The Last Call are in a similar vein (although without the prosthesis). Chuckletastic.

 

[sckeener]

Additionally, this thread has no gaming content to speak of. I'm moving it off to the Media Lounge

Sad but true. I had stopped reading the thread. I had hoped for more discussion about the icons or themes in the settings that were Tolkien like and if they were falling under Moorcock's essay.

It did not turn out that way.

 

[JohnSnow]

Now, I happen to agree with Moorcock's critique of Tolkien's work as being motivated by a particular set of political and religious ethics; I also don't think anything he says is vaguely new. (The Chesterton Journal and numerous Oxford Circle scholars have been saying the same thing for decades.)

I wouldn't disagree that Tolkien's work is motivated by "a particular set of political and religious ethics." However, I'm not exactly sure that Moorcock correctly identifies what they are. You said it yourself. Tolkien is very interested in restraint, the use of power, temptation, the lure of wealth and, significantly and profoundly, hubris.

Tolkien uses most of those things (lust for power, wealth) as stand-ins for hubris: the "sin of pride." His writing holds up the notion that those who serve are the finest of us all - Sam, the servant, and Faramir, the true Steward.

By contrast, to those whom much is granted, much is expected. Aragorn has to live up to his lineage, not because of his "noble heritage" but because he has to redeem the sin of his ancestor. Isildur was of the blood of the West, but he failed miserably because of his pride. Aragorn is his descendant, and he succeeds because of his humility. He lives not as a king, but as a ranger in the wilderness, reviled and mistrusted by those he has sworn to protect. His exalted lineage DEMANDS he take these noble actions. And by living up to that, he fulfills the promise of his heritage. That is why he's heroic.

Compare the two brothers, Boromir and Faramir. Boromir is the favored son, praised by his father, possessing every manly virtue. He looks at the ring and what does he see? A prize. Power. The chance for glory. He looks temptation in the face, and he FAILS. By contrast, Faramir faces the same test. He captures the ring, protected by only 2 small hobbits, with a company of men at his back and the ability to take it by force. This is "a chance for Faramir, Captain of Gondor, to show his quality." And he does. He knows the ring for what it is, and he is "not the sort of man to desire such a thing." He sees the temptation and chooses NOT to succumb to it. Which is why HE is heroic.

The Ring plays to power and ambition. The hobbits are able to resist the ring for the longest time because hobbits are the humblest of all creatures in Middle Earth. Frodo, for all his aristocracy and learning, remains humble. That's his heroism. He succumbs in the end, proving that even the humblest can succumb to temptation. But it's his pity and humility (and Bilbo's) in NOT judging Gollum which saves the day. Because they weren't quick to "deal out death and judgement," evil loses.

The "wise" and powerful in middle earth resist the temptation to use the Ring. Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, and Aragorn himself ALL resist the temptation. In some cases, barely. Galadriel could take the ring, overthrow Sauron, and save her people. But she would become something evil - "fair and terrible" forcing "all to love (her)." And so she chooses to diminish and go into the West. She sacrifices ALL.

Sam is Frodo's "servant" yes, but his friend as well. Tolkien wasn't exalting a Victorian "master and servant" dynamic, but a much earlier concept: the Chain of Being. In pre-industrial society, every one and everything had a place. And ALL were equally important. Modern "equal opportunity" basically says "All people may rise to become nobility" and therefore, "worthwhile." That's a whole lot different than "all people have it within them to behave nobly, whatever their station."

Tolkien clearly believes the latter. Sam, the servant, is just as noble as any aristocrat, but he doesn't have to stop being a servant to show his quality. There's nothing inherently shameful about serving. Forced someone into servitude is evil. But serving is not.

That's been part and parcel of Christian thought since day 1. Remember that Jesus washed his apostles' feet, serving THEM, in effect. You can read that as a "patriarchal attempt to preserve the status quo" or you can read it as "humility is good." Tolkien sees it the latter way.

And, to further disagree with Moorcock, it's certainly not a "comforting" message that defeating evil often requires the ultimate sacrifice. But that the goal is worth ANY sacrifice. And THAT'S the message.

Now I admit, Tolkien doesn't really get into the vagaries of how to identify "evil" in the real world. :\

 

[pawsplay]

Actually, he has made his career writing, fantasy and otherwise. He just happens to have strong opinions which he expresses in addition to his fiction.

I'm not trying to summarize his whole life. Let me restate: Elric is what he is famous for. And he sure has written a lot of Elric.

Elric is far from despotic. The very genesis of his character arc derives from a dislike of despotism and the consequences of its overthrow. Yes, he frequently responds with violence and demonic pacts, but is frequently portrayed as doing so reluctantly. If you accept Tolkien's message that the LotR characters have the ability to do good yet fail, you must also accept Moorcock's message that Elric is similarly flawed.

That just puts him in the same moral category as various John Wayne Mel Gibson, "reluctant heroes" who are forced to show manly they are in the face of evil.

Easy, perhaps, but incorrectly, I would argue. Elric is anything but "ultra masculine". His effeminacy is well portrayed, as is his physical weakness and lack of "awesomeness", save through the crutch of drugs or murder. Maybe those are your fantasies, but they aren't mine. Patriarchal ruler-hero? Hardly. He is anything but patriarchal and eschews rule at the first opportunity. He embodies a search for a personal humanity, far more than embodying a standard everyman. Elric would probably love to be an everyman, but must literally sacrifice everything he holds dear in order to achieve that goal.

Elric is a guy who believes he has the duty to rule, who smacks people with a sword to establish his moral position. he is, essentially, King Arthur.

He is not my fantasy... He is in the same category as Drizzt, Blade, and other cool, edgy, not quite evil characters who fulfill the fantasies of people who want to be a hero, but also want to indulge their egoistic fantasies of being a scary badass.

Gibberish. Pure gibberish. Well, except for the bit about the phallic symbol maybe ...

You seemed to have had no problem reading the rest of my post. Why don't we see if you can write, too?

I won't question whether you have read the Elric books or not, but I would argue that your interpretation of them is pretty unusual and not really supported by the text or the author's claims about how and why he wrote them.

So what? He claims he was tired of the Conan archetype, yet his most well known series is a valentine. My interpretation may be unusual in the sense of "not held by the majority," but it's not a rare opinion.

Elric is an ironic character, but as the core, is a macho badass, just like all the other macho badasses, and represents the rulership of intellect and refinement over the masses. "Heavy is the head that wears the crown," indeed.

Like many artists, Moorcock is more interesting when doing art than talking about it. He's not, in any case, one of my favorite authors, although is influence is quite amazing.

 

[pawsplay]

Now I admit, Tolkien doesn't really get into the vagaries of how to identify "evil" in the real world. :\

Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

That is a viewpoint I wish we had more of in the "real world."

 

[takyris]

When I come home from work, here's what I get to do:

- Play with the little dude
- Make dinner
- Eat dinner
- Play with the dude
- Give dude bath or put dude to bed (wife does the other)
- Make gaming post for my pbem game
- Actually socialize with my wife (watch a show together, play a game together, smooch, etc)

Between that and going to bed, I've got about 20 minutes to read.

I've got back problems, residual fallout from my parents' acrimonious divorce, lingering concerns about what I'm doing to my 2-year-old son by raising him directly under massive power lines, and $20,000 in credit card debt because I had to pay off my car when I moved up to Canada and because Turbotax screwed up the way my wife and I declared my wife's defunct stock options and the IRS came a-knockin'.

You're darn right I'm going to pull out the comfort reading. If I want to experience fatigue and grim necessity, I can put the book down.

If the complaint is just a slam on comfort reading, Moorcock is welcome to bite me. If the complaint is that there's nothing except comfort reading out there, I can't speak for what things were like when this essay was originally written, but my trips to Chapters (like Borders, but in Canada) show me plenty of grim people with the blood of demons forced into a sorcery they don't want gablah gablah gablah.

I'm not trying to stop anyone from reading it. (Correction: I'm not trying to stop anyone from reading it if that's what they want to read. I'm happy to warn off people who aren't sure if it's what they want, though.) In fact, people are willing to share their opinions and disagree as to what's good and what's bad. That's wonderful.

But Moorcock couldn't have gotten his stuff published without Jayarrarrtee getting his stuff published (not because Moorcock's stuff is so Tolkienesque, because it isn't, obviously, but because the fantasy market wouldn't be the two or three shelves at Chapters that it is without Tolkien). You don't have to like the giant whose shoulders you're standing on, but yelling about how he should have been taller makes you look kind of petulant.

 

[JohnSnow]

Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

That is a viewpoint I wish we had more of in the "real world."

I am suitably chastened.

I also think you could reasonably argue that the whole story could be viewed as a cautionary tale on the use and abuse of power. The ends don't justify the means, and no matter what, you should do the right thing, even if it costs you everything.

And that sometimes, it can be hard to know what "the right thing" is, so your best bet is to humbly do that which must be done.

Comforting, indeed.

 

[Elfdart]

Moorcock does have a point.

He should wear a hat to cover it up. Moorcock is a tool who tries to pretend that his own works are much better than those of other writers, then calls Gore Vidal (who is one of great writers of the last hundred years) a literary snob. Vidal gave very favorable reviews to The Wizard of Oz and Tarzan, so he's not exactly hostile to fantasy/sci-fi. Want some cheese to go with your whine, Mr. Moorcock?

You can spin anything if you try hard enough.

In a similar vein, I much prefer David Brin's gutting of Star Wars:
http://www.davidbrin.com/starwarsarticle1.html

Brin is to George Lucas what Moorcock is to Tolkien: a bitter hack who is jealous of someone else's superior talent and greater success.

For the truth about Brin's dishonest hatchetjob:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/

I'm starting to wonder if one of George's kids made fun of one of Brin's kids, for him to be carrying around so much hostility that he would misrepresent both the words and movies of George Lucas in his defamatory attack. Some have E-mailed to suggest that Mr. Brin is simply jealous of George Lucas' enormous financial success with the Star Wars series, and that he feels George's talent didn't merit his rewards. If that's the case, then he simply needs to grow up. George knew what the public wanted, while the self-professed "populist" David Brin's popularity is still confined to a very small segment of the population. All of which leads me to wonder: who's the real populist, Mr. Brin?

Interesting coincidence that someone would bring up Star Wars and Michael Moorcock. A few years ago, some nitwit at Salon wrote a piece claiming that screenwriter Leigh Brackett was the real genius behind Star Wars and that Lucas was a derivative hack. Michael Moorcock chimed in with a letter about how he was a friend of the late Mrs. Brackett and she told him that working for Irvin Kershner was terrible and so on. The problem is, Moorcock is a liar. Leigh Brackett wrote maybe two-thirds of a rough draft of the screenplay for The Empire Strikes Back and died just a few weeks later. Nothing from her script was used in the final screenplay or the movie. She did not work with director Irvin Kershner at all since she died before Kershner was hired to direct and because her rough draft wasn't used in any way, shape or form. The script, according to Lawrence Kasdan, was mostly the work of George Lucas with an assist from Kasdan, who was brought in late.

Stephen Haffner, who actually was a friend of Brackett's (unlike name-dropper Moorcock) and has seen her version of The Empire Strikes Back noted that Brackett's screenplay was nothing like what appeared in the movie.

Haffner

FWIW, Leigh Brackett turned in the first draft of TESB (her cover page
reads: STAR WARS SEQUEL) in February of 1978 before dying of cancer
weeks later on March 24th.

While she wrote her script from story notes and telephone interviews
with Lucas, none (I repeat NONE!) of her contributions were utilized in
subsequent drafts or the final script. I've read her script and
although I'm a big Brackett fan (in 2002 I published a 500-page book of
her earliest stories), her screenplay is pretty bad.

Lucas enjoyed working with Brackett and wanted her name on the film and
he ensured that her estate would benefit from the finished product.
I've read a letter written by Richard C. Jones, then-attorney for
Brackett's estate and he is effusive on how above-board and reputable
Lucas is.

Grist for the mill,

Stephen Haffner
Big Poobah
HAFFNER PRESS

There's more:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.pulp/msg/512907a82519cac2?hl=en&

Notice how Michael Moorcock is so eager to smear those who are more successful than he is? And in such a dishonest and despicable manner? Just like David Brin, who will go down in history as the writer who gave us The Postman (if he's remembered at all), Michael Moorcock will be remembered as the guy who created the forerunners of the Drizzt novels, which like their predecessors are only noteworthy because they are so humorously bad -like Steven Seagal movies.

For the record, I never much cared for Snored Through The Rings whether in book, cartoon or movie form, but I have no use whatsoever for bitter, mendacious sniping from the likes of David Brin and Michael Moorcock.

 

[Ulrick]

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…).

So one could argue that Moorcock infringed on Tolkien estate intellectual property???