Moorcock blasts Tolkien

[Raven Crowking]

I particularly like his stories about Solomon Kane. This is just great. They have be re-printed recently, and you can find the anthology on Amazon, if I'm not mistaken.

The best part about the new series containing the complete Conan, Solomon Kane, and Bran Mak Morn stories are the fragments and synopses, IMHO. Not only do you get some fantastic completed fiction, but you get some insight into exactly how that fiction was developed.

Did you know that they are reprinting the complete Howard contrabutions to Weird Tales (plus some other material) in a 10-volume set? I have 1-3 already, and am eager to get 4+!


RC

 

[Vigilance]

Sorry, but he admits to not having actually read the work he is criticizing. His opinion is, therefore, not an informed one. Ergo, his opinion is not as good as anyone else's....merely as good as anyone else's who hasn't read LotR.

RC

Uh... I see no mention of him not having read the works he discusses in that essay, having just read it again.

And again, my central point stands: people are always shocked that a writer has a strong opinion about writing and writers and always ascribe any criticism to jealousy of one sort or another.

Why would a successful novelist be presumed MORE jealous than someone who can't even get published (like oh say, 90% of all literary critics).

What I am speaking of is the wonderment of a writer having an opinion and then, in the wake of that wonderment, everyone's need to cast about for an ulterior motive which all the noble non-professional writers among us do not have.

 

[Mark Hope]

Uh... I see no mention of him not having read the works he discusses in that essay, having just read it again.

Moorock has mentioned at multiverse.org that he read some of LotR but didn't finish it. There's a link to the relevant thread a couple of pages back.

And again, my central point stands: people are always shocked that a writer has a strong opinion about writing and writers and always ascribe any criticism to jealousy of one sort or another.

Why would a successful novelist be presumed MORE jealous than someone who can't even get published (like oh say, 90% of all literary critics).

What I am speaking of is the wonderment of a writer having an opinion and then, in the wake of that wonderment, everyone's need to cast about for an ulterior motive which all the noble non-professional writers among us do not have.

Yeah, agree with all of this in spades .

 

[dcas]

Why would a successful novelist be presumed MORE jealous than someone who can't even get published (like oh say, 90% of all literary critics).

On the contrary, I don't presume that Moorcock is more jealous than Tolkien's other critics, or even that he is necessarily jealous at all. That said, the tone of his essay does smack of professional jealousy. But of course it could well be that he no longer holds the same opinion of Tolkien, et al. that he did 18 years ago.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Uh... I see no mention of him not having read the works he discusses in that essay, having just read it again.

http://www.multiverse.org/fora/showpost.php?p=15991&postcount=17

What I haven't read, of course, is the Tolkien, though I believe he began the Silmarrillion earlier than parts of Lord of the Rings, at least. I have to admit here, too, that I haven't read large chunks of Lord of the Rings. I realised this after attending the final movie and realising I had no clear idea what was going to happen, though I remember skipping through the books looking for references to Golem

Obviously, a writer can have an opinion. Equally obviously, people can have opinions about that opinion.

I have written several reviews, and I have sold short stories, poetry, and articles. When I do those reviews, I work very hard to choose things that I think people should be pointed to to review. Only in the rare instance is something so bad, and so hyped, that I have felt the need to do a cautionary (bad) review. Some critics, OTOH, (otherwise writers or not) seem to specialize in tearing down the works of others (in some cases while promoting their own).

I am not sure that I believe Moorcock is the type of person who consistently does the second. If you read the thread the link above goes to, you will find (for instance) that he promoted Tales Before Tolkien and was considering reading The Silmarillion. He also seems to have a sense of humour about the simularities between Elric and Turin.

Of course, in many cases, the "ulterior motive which all the noble non-professional writers among us" have is the desire to avoid seeing something they love called crap. Especially by somebody who hasn't read it. This is similar to making a claim that the Director's Cut of Bladerunner bites, even though you only watched the first 20 minutes then scanned using Fast Forward in hopes that you would see some sex scenes or a Terminator-style robot.

Slamming LotR as he did could have been a form of self-promotion. There is a competition in terms of book sales. It could also have simply been lazy critiquing. There are very, very few of us who are not guilty of a little self-promotion and a little laziness from time to time.


RC

 

[WayneLigon]

Sorry, but I don't buy that "swarthy" and "non-white" mean the same thing.

Very true, especially in the style of language Tolkien was using. Swarthy can also refer to people with any degree of olive complection, such as Middle Eastern or Mediterranean types, or anyone who is dark-complected, such as someone who tans readily. I've also seen it used in some older literature to refer to people with black or brown hair. Referring to someone as 'Dark' is also used for people with black hair or very dark brown hair regardless of their skin tone.

Tolkien is an older educated gentleman writing in the 1930's, so much of his command of idiom is going to be formed in the early 1900's. We always have to remember how word usage amd meanings tend to drift.

I do believe that many hobbits have a somewhat swarthy complexion as they are described as having "long clever brown fingers" (either in The Hobbit or in the preface or foreword to LOTR).

White people generally don't have brown fingers. Also, golden hair is said to be rare among them.

They do when they tan from being outdoors a lot, as hobbits generally are. Halflings are rural rustics, often described in literature of the time and place as being darker skinned by virtue of working outside a lot or even simply being less likely to have had a recent bath or handwashing.

 

[Rackhir]

There's a good article on Wikipedia about Tolkien and racisim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_and_racism

I think a lot of it comes down to what you are looking for and how you want to interpret things.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Very true, especially in the style of language Tolkien was using. Swarthy can also refer to people with any degree of olive complection, such as Middle Eastern or Mediterranean types, or anyone who is dark-complected, such as someone who tans readily. I've also seen it used in some older literature to refer to people with black or brown hair. Referring to someone as 'Dark' is also used for people with black hair or very dark brown hair regardless of their skin tone.

Tolkien is an older educated gentleman writing in the 1930's, so much of his command of idiom is going to be formed in the early 1900's. We always have to remember how word usage amd meanings tend to drift.

Exactly so.

They do when they tan from being outdoors a lot, as hobbits generally are. Halflings are rural rustics, often described in literature of the time and place as being darker skinned by virtue of working outside a lot or even simply being less likely to have had a recent bath or handwashing.

Well, we do know that hobbits enjoy baths, based upon LotR. The house in Crickhollow has enough tubs for Frodo, Sam, and Pippen to bathe in the same room at the same time. When they reach Tom Bombadil's house, they seem very enthusiastic about the bath. They write poetry about bathing. They seem fairly cleanly, too -- Bilbo being worried about not having a pocket handkerchief and all.

Of course, this could be a peculiarity among this particular group of hobbits. Still, it seems reasonable to me to assume that most hobbits bathe when given the chance. They just don't swim.

That said, I doubt very much that, were Tolkien a racist, he would have described his protagonist as having brown fingers and dark curly hair. Of course, I could be wrong. It would hardly be the first time.

 

[Vigilance]

Obviously, a writer can have an opinion. Equally obviously, people can have opinions about that opinion.

I think what you mean to say is writers in the ABSTRACT can have opinions. Any time a writer ACTUALLY has an opinion, in my experience, an ulterior motive is ascribed so the offending opinion can be disregarded as soon as possible.

Often it is professional jealousy (as when anyone criticizes Tolkien or Lewis or Asimov), other times it is artistic jealousy (as when Stephen King or a writer of similar financial stature criticizes someone's writing) or in this case laziness.

I am willing to bet, based on that essay, the Moorcock's definition of "not having read Tolkien" is different from mine.

He certainly seemed familiar with the book to MY reading of that essay, including a much better handle on Tolkien's influences than most of those who read nothing BUT Tolkien and praise him incessantly, or reflexively defend him whenever his writing is attacked.

Let me add a personal opinion to the mix: Tolkien is not a great writer. He is a very good one and as the father of modern epic fantasy, he will be read for a long time. But I run into people at Cons and game stores who swear up and down he's one of the greatest writers who ever lived. Ugh.

He's not Shakespeare. He's not Milton. He's not Tennyson. He's not the anonymous author of Beowulf. He admired them all, as we all do, but he's NOT one of the 100 greatest writers who ever lived. He's probably not even one of the 100 greatest writers of the 20th century.

All this hand-wringing because Michael Moorcock refuses to worship at the altar is very sad. And very expected. Loving a work of escape/pulp literature does not make you dumb. It's not a personal attack against someone that their favorite work is badly written. (And in case anyone is unclear, I am not directly referring to Raven or anyone else in this thread.)

It's just not.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think what you mean to say is writers in the ABSTRACT can have opinions. Any time a writer ACTUALLY has an opinion, in my experience, an ulterior motive is ascribed so the offending opinion can be disregarded as soon as possible.

I'm not sure about your experience, but in my experience writers can ACTUALLY have opinions. That doesn't mean that thier opinions are all buttered gold with chocolate sauce, however. They don't always go down smoothly.

There are two writer's opinions I have taken offense to in recent years (5+). One was Orson Scott Card's when he slammed ST: TOS, and the other was Moorcock's re: LotR in Epic Pooh. Of course, I find both of the opinion pieces in question to offer something less than an educated opinion, and to offer some form of self-agrandizement. I think Moorcock is slightly less guilty of this than Card, but I do think that in both cases there is an undertone of resentment.

Simply because not everyone writing a critique has ulterior motives, it does not follow that no one writing a critique has ulterior motives.

Contrast this to Stephen King, whose critique of the seminal works of horror (Danse Macabre) demonstrates that he has both fully examined his subject and fully thought out not only what his feelings are toward it, but also how this relates to his own work.

I am willing to bet, based on that essay, the Moorcock's definition of "not having read Tolkien" is different from mine.

He certainly seemed familiar with the book to MY reading of that essay, including a much better handle on Tolkien's influences than most of those who read nothing BUT Tolkien and praise him incessantly, or reflexively defend him whenever his writing is attacked.

Okay, then. I'm not certain what in that essay makes you think Moorcock has read LotR, though there is certainly evidence that he understands the influence it has had on later writers. Nor am I sure who you mean by "those who read nothing BUT Tolkien and praise him incessantly, or reflexively defend him whenever his writing is attacked".

What I am certain of is that many (though not all) of the things written in this thread to dispute Moorcock's essay are well thought out (the opposite of reflexive IMHO), nor have I seen any indication that anyone in this thread has read nothing BUT Tolkien.

OTOH, the one thing that ought to be obvious to all is that Moorcock admits to not having read "large chunks of" LotR....and no ad hominem attack against those who point out that, by his own admission, his is not an informed opinion is going to change that. Attacking those who point out the problems with his essay is, pretty much, a sort of "last resort" thing when someone doesn't want to have to face those problems.

NOTE: This does not mean that Moorcock is wrong. You can come to a correct conclusion through faulty means. If I say the sky is blue because ducks can fly, my illogic doesn't make the sky somehow mauve instead.

You say that you believe Tolkien is not a great writer.

Fair enough.

I think he is, but I'd certainly agree that he isn't the greatest writer who ever lived. I wouldn't rank him with Shakespeare.....And, as I hope we all know, there is a whole lot of subjectivity in determining who is or is not "one of the 100 greatest writers who ever lived" or "one of the 100 greatest writers of the 20th century."

Hastur forbid that we should all have the same tastes, or I'd probably never have sold a word!

However, I doubt anyone gives a flaming flumph whether or not "Moorcock refuses to worship at the altar". It is what he rather stridently promotes as the failings of Tolkien's work -- which fly in the face of the experiences of those, like myself, to whom it speaks -- that some find objectionable. Or, if not objectionable, simply untrue.

If you go upthread, you'll find some attacks on Moorcock's works that others, to whom Moorcock's work speaks, defend against. Also Brin. Also Niven. Defending things you value is just human nature.

[Tongue-in-Cheek Mode]I mean, what's with all this hand-wringing because some posters refuse to worship at the altar of Epic Pooh is very sad. And very expected. It's not a personal attack against you that this particular piece of criticism is badly written and not very well researched. [/Tongue-in-Cheek Mode]

Have a good weekend,

RC