pawsplay said:
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.
Why do you keep going on about Elric being "manly" and "macho"? God knows where you're getting this from - it really isn't reflected in the novels. Maybe you think that killing someone with a sword equates to being manly? Weird.
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.
OK, you're kidding, right? Please tell me that you're joking, because this has to be one of the most ludicrous mischaracterisations of Elric that I have ever read. Now I have to ask - have you actually read the Elric series?
You seemed to have had no problem reading the rest of my post. Why don't we see if you can write, too?
Yeah, I really have no idea what you're trying to say here.
My interpretation may be unusual in the sense of "not held by the majority," but it's not a rare opinion.
No, it's unusual in the sense of "utterly ridiculous and not at all supported by the novels."
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.
There you go again with the macho thing. Bizarre. I really don't see where you see Elric as being identified with rulership from. He is anything but.
takyris said:
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.
Excellent points. There are times when I would rather wrap myself up in Middle Earth (or Pern or Fionavar or wherever) and take a time-out from the concerns of the world. There is a time for everything.
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.
Not so sure I agree with this. Moorcock was getting himself published by age 17 (and not in the fantasy field), which was only a year or two after LotR had been released - and well before it gained any kind of widespread popularity or recognition. He wrote the Elric stuff more on the back of Howard and Burroughs, afaik - there was a market for the genre before the Prof, strange as it may seem today. And LotR didn't hit the big time until the pirated copies were released in the USA in the early to mid 1960s. Elric was already on the shelves by then.
As I've mentioned in this thread a couple of times before, I am a huge fan of Tolkien and Moorcock and don't necessarily agree with everything that either of them say. But I don't hold with the notions that Moorcock is motivated by professional jealousy or could not have written Elric without Tolkien. Those ideas have no basis in the facts.
MulhorandSage said:
How unfortunate that Moorcock doesn't appreciate the popularity of literary approaches that differ from his.
Gotta agree with you here.
Moorcock's invective would be better served by attacking authors who follow market trands rather than their muses, or by lauding some of the great authors that we don't give enough respect toward. But then, we wouldn't be paying much attention to him if he wasn't attacking Tolkien, would we?
Actually, that is the main gist of his essay. There is much less Tolkien-hate in there than others would have you believe. His criticisms are very much levelled at the rafts of Tolkien imitators and market-chasers. And he spends far more time lauding lesser-known authors who he believes deserve more attention and respect. It's a shame that his detractors in this thread have conveniently overlooked this central issue of the essay. When I read it last week, I was far more struck by his support of other authors than his dislike of Tolkien. But what would the internet be without vitriolic haters, eh?
