Moorcock blasts Tolkien

[Mark Hope]

Hey Mark,

In response to your note about Elric not being dependent upon Tolkien's stuff:



Bad writing on my part. I've got no doubt that Elric could have gotten published without Tolkien, but I don't think it would have had the popularity it achieved without the big comfortable authors there to create a nice healthy fantasy section for Moorcock's edgier stuff to live in.

This is a much larger point than Elric and Aragorn, and maybe years from now I'll disagree with this, but I think that the hard edgy subsections of any movement absolutely need the soft comfortable subsections of that movement. If it's a political movement (any political movement), you need the hard-line no-compromise you-won't-be-comfortable activists as well as the we're-normal-folks comfy people. One group pushes the envelope, while the other makes the contents of the envelope more acceptable to people who aren't part of the group.

Does LotR have some comfortable qualities? Yeah. And yeah, it was in the young adult section for awhile. But it also worked to move fantasy from the one-step-from-porn ghetto it was in -- an adult male seen reading a fantasy novel on the bus before the comfy movement might as well have been reading a dirty book. Whether you like or dislike Howard, it's tough to argue that Howard was improving the pulp fantasy movement's acceptance level with people who weren't already fans.

Elric would still have gotten published without Tolkien, but without Tolkien and Brooks and Eddings and everyone else that the edgy-fantasy people grimace at, without the folks who got fantasy onto the bestseller lists and read by little old ladies on airplanes, nobody except the tiny hardcore pulp-fantasy community would know about him.

Yeah, I'd agree with this. Tolkien generated an appetite for fantasy, allowing other authors to cater to differing tastes within that appetite. It's possible that someone else might have come along and helped fantasy to break into the mainstream, but in our universe it was Tolkien and pretty much all fantasy authors published since he hit the big time owe him a debt of one kind or another - willing or not.

 

[IcyCool]

I’m saying he wouldn’t have captain Kirk kiss Uhura.

He didn't have a habit of having his characters do completely gratuitous things, no (at least that I remember).

Had the kiss between Kirk and Uhura been for some reason other than "shock value" and "to challenge social norms", then I would herald it as a brilliant inclusion. But it wasn't. What purpose did it serve for the story? And it is sadly no more "significant" than Howard Stern.

 

[fusangite]

Speaking of which, what color are Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippen?

As I keep stating, what is relevant is how Tolkien wrote about races that exist in the real world.

I'm done here. I've spelled-out exactly what Tolkien wrote about non-white people in his books. If you guys want to continue your mental acrobatics in a desperate attempt to rebrand the text I have posted as non-racist, to argue that Aragorn is black, or whatever, I'll leave you to your fun.

 

[Mark Hope]

I'm done here. I've spelled-out exactly what Tolkien wrote about non-white people in his books. If you guys want to continue your mental acrobatics in a desperate attempt to rebrand the text I have posted as non-racist, to argue that Aragorn is black, or whatever, I'll leave you to your fun.

If I can grab you by the elbow in a wholly inaproppriate manner before you leave...

I'm not sure that it's as cut and dried as you say. It seems to me that there could be a strong geographical element at work here that is not necessarily racist. If Sauron controls the areas beyond the old kingdoms of the Dunedain, is that by default a racist decision? Isn't it just a natural result of Tokien's decision to generate an "English myth"? Is that racist in and of itself?

(I was going to stay out of this particular aspect of the thread, but this idea has been fermenting throughout the day and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it. Right - you can have your elbow back now...)

 

[GwydapLlew]

The Mouth of Sauron is said to be from the "Black Numenoreans" (oops, there's that word "black" again! ), so he would likely have been pale-skinned. But he is not described as such.

And Tolkein specifically states that the so-called Black Numenoreans are called that because they fell away from the side of good, not because of their skin color.

Edit: Yes, yes, and it still presupposes a bias against the mixing of races. I know how Mssr. Fusangite is going to go with that one!

Black = evil is not racism, it's a standard response to the color. If I call someone a black knight, I'm not racist; if I say 'black is slimming' I'm not stating that Africans are thinner than Europeans.

It's also worth pointing out that most characters are not specifically described as being pale. IIRC, when the hobbits first meet Aragorn he is described as "dark."

The descriptions are designed to be evocative. Aragon was dark - highly tanned, rough around the edges, long hair and not cleanly shaven. /I/ fit that description on the weekends in the summertime, and I assure you that I'm not African.

 

[sckeener]

On what basis?

His work is the basis. I don't see anything that really pushes the edge. Gollum is the closest I think he comes to it and the one character that is usually entirely in the DM's hands.

Gollum taken out of Tolkien ruins many RPGs for me.

I don't believe that there is any setting that cannot be used to create "unsafe" stories. Or "safe" stories, for that matter.RC

Of course; however it is all dependent on the DM/players. Many of the settings are bland. They are just rehashs of Tolkien. I thought FR was too much of a rip from the Tolkien until I read Eric Boyd's post about Dragons of Faerûn...the whole Unther vs Mulhorand issue makes me ponder and think rather than calms. ...all the moral issues.

Settings can help DMs to create morally un/safe settings and settings like Dark Sun are setup that way from the start.

I think Ptolus does a better job though of mixing all the flavors. Just reading it I get the feel that I could run any sort of setting I wanted despite the Tolkien feel.

 

[Darth Shoju]

As I keep stating, what is relevant is how Tolkien wrote about races that exist in the real world.

I'm done here. I've spelled-out exactly what Tolkien wrote about non-white people in his books. If you guys want to continue your mental acrobatics in a desperate attempt to rebrand the text I have posted as non-racist, to argue that Aragorn is black, or whatever, I'll leave you to your fun.

Leave if you wish but I found your argument unconvincing. I usually find you to be incredibly insightful and generally look forward to your posts, but I'm not convinced by the examples you provided.

You can insult the people who disagree with you all you want but it does not strengthen your argument.

 

[Darth Shoju]

I think he meant the word safe to mean that despite Tolkien's popularity he is not on any banned book lists.

He didn't step on any of societies taboos. He didn't risk getting banned.

I believe you're right about the booklists but he was certainly banned where I'm from (small town Manitoba), right along with The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and Macbeth (and anything that remotely resembled a role-playing game). Also my aunt (a devout Catholic-not that I am lumping all Catholics in with her) described Tolkien as "insane" and "disturbed".

 

[Raven Crowking]

Leave if you wish but I found your argument unconvincing. I usually find you to be incredibly insightful and generally look forward to your posts, but I'm not convinced by the examples you provided.

You can insult the people who disagree with you all you want but it does not strengthen your argument.

I agree completely.

Fusangite, you've quoted, and I do not find your quotes to be compelling evidence to your arguments. It is at least common courtesy to allow me to actually pull out the books & supply counter-quotes before you dismiss them.

I once wrote a story that took place (partly) during WWII, and I agonized over whether or not to allow my characters to use the term "Japs". In the end, I decided to let them use the term, because the characters themselves would do so.

Your quoted dialogue, IMHO, is of the same nature. Gollum mistrusts everything. If we are to take Gollum's word for it, Aragorn, the elves, and Sam Gamgee at least are also nasty and/or wicked. Therefore, we can hardly assume that because Gollum says something the reader is supposed to believe it is true.

Your other dialogue quotes come from one of the men serving under Faramir. However, when Faramir tells Frodo & Sam that he has puzzled out the riddle of the dream, and knows they bear the Ring, he doesn't say "Don't worry about my men, though, they're all solid." Instead, he advises them to not trust his men, because not all would cast aside that temptation. The men of Gondor are as flawed and human as the rest of us.

OTOH, I guarantee you that I can pull quotes out of LotR that say specifically that many of the men duped by Sauron and Saruman are not evil. The only duped men we know are truly evil are those in the Scouring of the Shire, the Mouth of Sauron, and the Pirates of Umbar.

Even Bill Ferny is evil in the "self-interested" and "casually cruel" way, taking advantage of the state of affairs for his own profit and amusement rather than revelling in his (non-existant) power.


RC


EDIT: Also, the point is not that Aragorn is black (though the hobbits may well be), but rather that the terms "swarthy" and "dark" in LotR are (or may be) applied to people who are not dark-skinned in a racial sense. Bill Ferny is presumably of the same racial group as the rest of the men of Bree (his last name is pointed out as a Bree-ism, he owns a house, and is known in Bree, so it is unlikely that he just came up visiting from Far Harad).

 

[dcas]

Also my aunt (a devout Catholic-not that I am lumping all Catholics in with her) described Tolkien as "insane" and "disturbed".

Interesting since Tolkien was a devout Catholic himself. Not to start a religious discussion, but I know devout Catholics (including myself) who like Tolkien, as well as devout Catholics who do not (not in the sense of not liking his writing, but in the sense of believing that he is a bad influence). YMMV.