Moorcock blasts Tolkien

[Mark Hope]

The only deeper thought one can get from the Matrix movies is that if you take the imagery and logorrheic dialogue from a late 80s Calvin Klein Obsession ad and throw in fight scenes straight out of the Three Stooges, plus moronic gunplay (firing a pistol in each hand was a tired joke when Hopalong Cassidy did it in the 1940s) and take it all VERY seriously, you can convince the gullible that they are watching something profound.

You might wish to look into gnostic thought and Manicheist doctrine and apply those to the Matrix films before dismissing their subtext. The techno-hip, kungfu wannabe trappings of the movie are just window dressing and largely irrelevant to the deeper dualistic mythology that is referenced throughout the movie, and has been part of religious and philosophical thought for over 2000 years. Or maybe you missed that amidst all the tight leather pants...

 

[Elfdart]

I don't recall reading anything in Brin's or Moorcock's articles about "other works are bad because they are more successful", or about Marxism. I'm afraid you've goofed here.

That's the obvious reason. Both believe in a kind of infantile Marxism as demonstrated by Brin's fondness for the UFP in Star Trek, plus his belief that science fiction should present a populist message and Moorcock's attacks on George Lucas in The New Statesman, a Marxist publication, as well as his attacks on Tolkien's work for being typical bourgeois middlebrow nonsense. Both also attack artists who just happen to be more successful. I don't remember anything about Tolkien attacking Margaret Mitchell or Lucas attacking Disney or David Selznick. Mostly it's because Tolkien and Lucas were successful and secure about it, and probably because they had enough class to know it's unseemly to let the Green-Eyed Monster out of its cage.

This guy has clearly no understanding of hyperbole, has he? Brin is obviously exagerrating the issue in order to make his points. It's maybe not the best way to go about it, but a sophomoric literal reading and subsequent refutation of his article misses the point entirely.

Hyperbole: exaggeration, such as "This suitcase weighs a ton!" when it only weighs 40 pounds

Lie: saying things a person knows are untrue, like David Brin's assertions about George Lucas and Star Wars, or Stephen Hart's claim (seconded by Michael Moorcock) that a script Leigh Brackett didn't write was the reason for the clever dialogue in The Empire Strikes Back

 

[Mark Hope]

That's the obvious reason. Both believe in a kind of infantile Marxism as demonstrated by Brin's fondness for the UFP in Star Trek, plus his belief that science fiction should present a populist message and Moorcock's attacks on George Lucas in The New Statesman, a Marxist publication, as well as his attacks on Tolkien's work for being typical bourgeois middlebrow nonsense. Both also attack artists who just happen to be more successful. I don't remember anything about Tolkien attacking Margaret Mitchell or Lucas attacking Disney or David Selznick. Mostly it's because Tolkien and Lucas were successful and secure about it, and probably because they had enough class to know it's unseemly to let the Green-Eyed Monster out of its cage.

No, I'm afraid that this is just wild supposition on your part. Both Brin and Moorcock amply explain their reasoning in their respective articles, and neither article makes any mention of the relative success or lack of Marxist politics of their respective targets as being cause for criticism. You can read into it what you like, but your claims are utterly unsupported by the texts - much the same sort of misleading behaviour which you accuse Brin and Moorcock of, ironically enough ...

Hyperbole: exaggeration, such as "This suitcase weighs a ton!" when it only weighs 40 pounds

Specifically, exaggeration for the effect of drawing attention to the subject at hand. In other words, what Brin does time and time again in his article - a well-recognised (if heavy-handed) method of making a point.

Lie: saying things a person knows are untrue, like David Brin's assertions about George Lucas and Star Wars, or Stephen Hart's claim (seconded by Michael Moorcock) that a script Leigh Brackett didn't write was the reason for the clever dialogue in The Empire Strikes Back

No, again you appear to have misread the article. Hart states that Kershner is credited with the "sense of urgency and drama" in ESB and suggests that this does an injustice to Brackett. He makes no reference at all to "clever dialogue", as you erroneously state. Moorocock doesn't comment on dialogue at all, simply saying that Brackett's account of her experience on the film matched Hart's. You have no way of knowing what specific elements he (or Brackett) refers to. So I'm afraid that your version of events is again unsupported. Bad luck!

 

[Umbran]

Brin's point is pure nonsense, just like Moorcock's, translated thusly: "Other works are bad because they are more successful and don't adhere to a the kind of juvenile Marxism I cling to."

So much for my hopes.

Elfdart - I directed you to The Rules once before. I do so again. Real world politics are not an appropriate topic for these boards. By extnsion, then, neither is a discussion of what form of political beliefs a particular author holds to. Doubly so when it is tied to words like "juvenile", "imbecile" and the like.

I'm going to have to ask you to take such things elsewhere. I don't want to see it in this thread again, or elsewhere on these boards. This goes for everyone - while the politics of authors may in general be reasonably included in critical discussion, they are not appropriate here.

If there's any questions about this, please feel free to e-mail me, or another one of the mods.

 

[Mark Hope]

For LotR to survive I think it needs to become what it is, what a lot of Shakespeare's material was: mythology--and mythology doesn't belong to anyone. Tolkien's myths have to be appropriated and transformed by other storytellers, by better, more nuanced writers. Otherwise, as his own writing (in terms of approach as well as style) continues to become more and more dated (and it was already dated when he first published it--The Hobbit appeared 15 years after Ulysses), interest in those stories will evaporate. And that would be a shame.

Interestingly enough, Tolkien himself expressed a wish that this happen to his work (did somebody quote his words on this already in the thread?) He had wanted his work on his "legendarium" to form a larger framework, and then for other hands to expand upon it, in art, poetry, literature and song. He quite literally wanted it to enter the realms of myth - I am sure that he would have had a keen appreciation of the longevity that myth enjoys when compared to literature. (And speaking as someone who tried to write a sequel to LotR when I was 10 years old, I would have to agree with his sentiment ...)

For all the liberties that Peter Jackson took with Lotr when making his movies, I really couldn't fault him. Quite apart from the fact that Jackson made some damn fine movies that were true to the spirit of the books, I had a feeling that Tolkien would have recognised it as a genuine attempt to give breadth and longevity to the myth of Middle Earth, and would have heartily approved.

 

[Elfdart]

No, again you appear to have misread the article. Hart states that Kershner is credited with the "sense of urgency and drama" in ESB and suggests that this does an injustice to Brackett.

How is it an injustice to Leigh Brackett, who had nothing to do with the script used on TESB?

He makes no reference at all to "clever dialogue", as you erroneously state.

From the article:

The last and most crucial link to "Star Wars" and literary science fiction is Leigh Brackett, the original scriptwriter for "The Empire Strikes Back," the first sequel, and by any reasonable standard the best of the series. The late Pauline Kael was a tireless champion of journeyman director Irvin Kershner, and many film buffs take her lead in crediting Kershner with the movie's sense of urgency and drama. But this does an injustice to Brackett, whose career uniquely bridged pulp science fiction and Hollywood. Brackett started out writing space operas in the Smith mode. Her first short story was published by Astounding in 1940, and she quickly became known as an expert pulp technician. She was also a capable teacher, upgrading the work of her husband Edmond Hamilton and tutoring the young Ray Bradbury, who credits her with getting him started as a writer.

and

Brackett died of cancer shortly after submitting her first draft of "The Empire Strikes Back." Though the film's credits list her as screenwriter along with Lawrence Kasdan, Pollock says Lucas had to throw out her draft and start from scratch with Kasdan's help. This is hard to swallow, bearing in mind that Lucas and Kasdan also co-wrote "Return of the Jedi." The strengths of "The Empire Strikes Back" echo those of Brackett's own work as surely as the mediocrity of "Return of the Jedi" matches that of Kasdan's subsequent films, all built from secondhand materials: Chandler-lite for "Body Heat," warmed-over John Sayles for "The Big Chill."

The obvious implication by Hart is that Leigh Brackett wrote the screenplay for the movie when in fact, she did not. When he refers to Brackett's earlier work (which is world famous for clever dialogue) as "proof" that she wrote TESB, that's exactly what he's referring to.

Moorocock doesn't comment on dialogue at all, simply saying that Brackett's account of her experience on the film matched Hart's.

What experience on the film? She died before they shot a frame of film. None of her script was used. The facts don't match Hart's absurd story. The only thing that does is a letter from Moorcock where he claims that Brackett's experience matched Hart's tall tale. Since Hart's version is bogus, so is Moorcock's claim to back up that bogus story.

You have no way of knowing what specific elements he (or Brackett) refers to. So I'm afraid that your version of events is again unsupported. Bad luck!

It's not my version. It's the truth. Unless you think George Lucas, Irvin Kershner, Lawrence Kasdan, Stephen Haffner (her publisher), and the executors of Brackett's estate have engaged in a conspiracy spanning four decades to forge her papers (which are on display at Eastern New Mexico University and Skywalker Ranch), cheat her out of credit (when they gave it to her anyway even though they didn't have to) and for what purpose, exactly? The story by Hart is a lie, as is Moorcock's endorsement of it. Your dishonesty would also fall in that category.

 

[Mark Hope]

How is it an injustice to Leigh Brackett, who had nothing to do with the script used on TESB?

Hart's assertion appears to be that Brackett's work had some degree of influence over later work on the film.

The obvious implication by Hart is that Leigh Brackett wrote the screenplay for the movie when in fact, she did not. When he refers to Brackett's earlier work (which is world famous for clever dialogue) as "proof" that she wrote TESB, that's exactly what he's referring to.

No, it's not obvious, I'm afraid. You appear to making extended inferences to support your preconceptions. The most you can draw from the article is that the ideas in Brackett's work were still influential upon later work on the film. Hart may be completely wrong in this assumption, but that's another matter entirely, and not germane to the point I am trying to make (namely that you can't accuse people of lying until you can prove their intent - which you can't.)

What experience on the film?

The fact that she wrote a partial first draft indicates that she was working on the film. So what if she died before shooting started? Script work is still part of the film, even when it's unused. Let's not split hairs over something as obvious as that.

She died before they shot a frame of film. None of her script was used. The facts don't match Hart's absurd story. The only thing that does is a letter from Moorcock where he claims that Brackett's experience matched Hart's tall tale. Since Hart's version is bogus, so is Moorcock's claim to back up that bogus story.

Again, no. You can't know what Moorcock is referring to when he says that Brackett's version of the story matched Hart's. Maybe he is just referring to the fact that her script was discarded. In the absence of that knowledge, you can't reasonably claim that anyone is lying. And Hart's imprecise language skirts around any clear assertions regarding the script. He may well be obscuring the matter on purpose to facilitate his argument. But he may not. You can't know for sure either way. I wouldn't call someone a liar when you can't actually be sure of the facts.

It's not my version. It's the truth.

No, Elfdart, it's not. It's just your opinion, just like pretty much everything else posted in this thread. And there's no shame in admitting that you don't have a monopoly on the truth - just a monopoly on your own opinion.

Unless you think George Lucas, Irvin Kershner, Lawrence Kasdan, Stephen Haffner (her publisher), and the executors of Brackett's estate have engaged in a conspiracy spanning four decades to forge her papers (which are on display at Eastern New Mexico University and Skywalker Ranch), cheat her out of credit (when they gave it to her anyway even though they didn't have to) and for what purpose, exactly? The story by Hart is a lie, as is Moorcock's endorsement of it. Your dishonesty would also fall in that category.

Again, there are many ways to interpret this without needing to claim that some bizarre conspiracy is at play, as I have shown. And for the second time, I'd like to ask that you refrain from making personal attacks against me. Please.

 

[dcas]

might it not be better to address the argument Brin is making, namely that he finds it distasteful that Vader's single act of contrition (killing Palpatine and saving Luke) is enough to redeem a life of evil.

How does one address this argument without making reference to real-world religions? Adherents of one real-world religion in particular will have no problem with this (and note that Vader did more than kill Palpatine, save Luke, and say "I'm sorry" -- he gave his own life to save Luke), while those who are not adherents of said religion might find it unpalatable.

It goes deeper than that. Lucas implies that those who are strong with the Force are superior to those who are not. Indeed, just by virtue of his birth, Anakin is predestined to save the galaxy. And by virtue of their birth, the Jedi are the principal guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy, irrespective of what the galaxy thinks about the matter. So it's not just the Sith.

Well, yes, and one might add that this is one of the reasons that they (the Jedi) were purged: they overreached.

 

[Mark Hope]

How does one address this argument without making reference to real-world religions? Adherents of one real-world religion in particular will have no problem with this (and note that Vader did more than kill Palpatine, save Luke, and say "I'm sorry" -- he gave his own life to save Luke), while those who are not adherents of said religion might find it unpalatable.

You can take a purely philosophical approach and address the question of whether Vader's actions in saving Luke (including his self-sacrifice, as you point out) are enough to outweigh his evil actions over the course of his life up to that point. It can be seen as an issue of morals, rather than one of religion. There are plenty of real-world philosophies that address morals without taking recourse to religion. Beyond that, you can view it from within the Star Wars universe and use it to illuminate the workings of the Force. From the latter angle at least, one's post-mortem unity of the Force would appear to be dependent upon a purely internal state of conscience, rather than any external morality, for example. This raises the question "Is there justice for Vader's victims?", among other things.

Well, yes, and one might add that this is one of the reasons that they (the Jedi) were purged: they overreached.

Yeah, that's an interesting perspective. I seem to recall Yoda alluding to this at some point during Attack of the Clones, when he is talking to Mace and Obi-wan. He says something along the lines of the Jedi having become to secure in their position, or somesuch.

 

[dcas]

As distasteful as academics might find the idea of Tolkien being seen as the greatest author of the last 1000 years, I'll bet they'd have an even harder time accepting King on that throne...

Well, then, that makes it clear that it is not merely a popularity contest, for if it were, then King would be at the top and Tolkien would be a few places down.

Tom Shippey points out that in the British polls that ranked Tolkien and LOTR #1, that so rankled the "literati," most of the writings that were ranked after Tolkien's were books that were generally taught in school (I'm listing from memory so I could be mistaken): Catcher in the Rye, Lord of the Flies, Ulysses, etc. Where Lord of the Rings differs is that it is not frequently taught in school, and people are reading it by choice -- and it is the only book they are reading by choice that they are listing as great literature. Stephen King isn't listed, Tom Clancy isn't listed, etc.