Moorcock blasts Tolkien

[Mark Hope]

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.

Well, I'm sure that popularity plays a part, but I'd agree that there is a more genuine appreciation for Tolkien's work involved here. I haven't read Shippey's book yet (I have a copy, but it keeps getting bumped off my reading list and just got packed away into a box along with most of my other books) but that list is pretty interesting. It certainly points to a real sense of worth attached to LotR by a huge number of readers.

 

[dcas]

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.

I wouldn't make this argument. I guess that one can, but I would find it unconvincing. Perhaps that is why Brin believes that Lucas is an elitist, because according to Brin's philosophy Vader's ultimate redemption means (in the Star Wars universe) that Luke's life is worth the lives of all those whom Vader killed. And that is what Brin finds so unacceptable.

 

[Mark Hope]

I wouldn't make this argument. I guess that one can, but I would find it unconvincing. Perhaps that is why Brin believes that Lucas is an elitist, because according to Brin's philosophy Vader's ultimate redemption means (in the Star Wars universe) that Luke's life is worth the lives of all those whom Vader killed. And that is what Brin finds so unacceptable.

I'm not sure I'd want to support that outlook either, actually - just playing devil's advocate a bit. I don't think that Lucas intends for us to analyse the film to this degree, but I can see what Brin dislikes about it, given that he has taken his analysis to that level. Like you suggest and I alluded to in my edit above, it prompts one to wonder about a seeming lack of justice for all those whom Vader killed. The Force (or the midichlorians, lol) seem not to be too bothered about that. So long as Vader is at peace with himself, then everything is A-OK. A bit of an odd turn of events. Oh well - thankfully it's possible to see it as a fun end to a fun movie and not probe too deeply.

 

[Vigilance]

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.

And this is exactly the point Brin is making, and it's one that can be applied to all sorts of heroic fiction. In fact this idea of thinking of Vader's victims, as opposed to Vader's heroic sacrifice, is the crux of Brin's argument.

Vader had a destiny. His destiny involved turning evil and killing thousands, maybe millions, before heroically dying by removing an even greater evil and redeeming himself.

This is a classic fantasy/legendary construct.

Within the "rules" of legend and fantasy, asking about Vader's victims is as applicable as asking about Achilles' victims. How many men died so that Achilles could live his life of glory? Was it fair that Achilles cut men down like wheat who couldn't hurt him because he was invulnerable? Was he really a great warrior worthy of glory since he wasn't in any real danger?

These are questions the ancients never bothered to ask. If you were favored by the gods or otherwise had an unfair advantage over your opponents, it sucked to be your opponent.

These are however, questions modern readers ask. We tend not to see things in absolutes.

And of course you can turn this whole thing around too. How many people does Luke kill? It's a lot. Think about how many crewmen were on the death stars alone.

Were they all evil? Probably not. Does that matter? Within the realm of heroic fantasy, not much. But it's a worthy question to ask and it does Brin credit to bring it up.

The Empire in Star Wars serves the same purpose as the Nazis in the Indiana Jones movies (or Hellboy or really any other movie where Nazis are used as villains). They're EVILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL. So evil you don't need to ask yourself if it's ok to slaughter them in droves.

The fact that Nazis are used so often as villains is precisely to STOP the audience from asking the questions Brin is posing about the Empire. See? It's not just Brin. Modern writers realize their audience might say "whoa, I'm rooting for a guy who just slaughtered that sympathetic guard who just came outside for a smoke".

Star Wars tries to achieve this same effect (not worrying about the heroes felling scores of bad guys) through code. Sometimes they're faceless stormtroopers (who are identical outside and in- even if you take the helmet off they're clones), sometimes they're droids.

One reason to make them identical is so you never go "aww... I liked that guy!"

All in an attempt to let us off the hook so we can enjoy some mindless mayhem.

Chuck

 

[Mark Hope]

And this is exactly the point Brin is making, and it's one that can be applied to all sorts of heroic fiction. In fact this idea of thinking of Vader's victims, as opposed to Vader's heroic sacrifice, is the crux of Brin's argument.

Absolutely. It might be the case that his use of hyperbole has indeed obscured this message, but I agree that it's a perfectly valid point, given that he chooses to look at the movies in this way.

And of course you can turn this whole thing around too. How many people does Luke kill? It's a lot. Think about how many crewmen were on the death stars alone.

Were they all evil? Probably not. Does that matter? Within the realm of heroic fantasy, not much. But it's a worthy question to ask and it does Brin credit to bring it up.

Also known as the Clerks Postulate ...

The Empire in Star Wars serves the same purpose as the Nazis in the Indiana Jones movies (or Hellboy or really any other movie where Nazis are used as villains). They're EVILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL. So evil you don't need to ask yourself if it's ok to slaughter them in droves.

Exactly. Just like orcs in D&D (whoa, gaming content!)

My girlfriend just commented that it might be possible that Palpatine could have died at peace with himself (even though that might have meant being at peace with a thoroughly evil life), had he not been thrown down the shaft by Vader. Given that the Force is seemingly neutral, and it is the will of the user that gives it its character, could this mean that there might be a Sith afterlife? Where you become a glowy red sprit? (She subsequently made it clear that she wasn't being serious and told me I couldn't post this bit. Bummer.)

 

[Wayside]

I suggest you read Joseph Pearce's Tolkien: Man and Myth or T. A. Shippey's J. R. R. Tolkien: Author of Century. They quote extensively from the critical outrage expressed over Tolkien's continued popularity.

Of course you can, if you look hard enough, find people frothing at the mouth over it, just like you can rummage around these forums and find people frothing at the mouth over the success of Pokemon or the failure of Farscape. But the truth is that all this talk of critical outrage is spin, or is still hung up on the reactions of critics 30 or 40 years ago, whose mores are no longer representative of academics in any way whatsoever (these are the same people who made sure Joyce was a career-killer until the 1950s; yet now Joyce is practically his own major).

The overwhelming majority of academics are at worst indifferent to Tolkien, and most of them, especially medievalists, are rather fond of him. I've seen more schools that offer a Tolkien class than ones that don't. And you realize, for example, that both Pearce and Shippey are academics?

There is no "critical outrage"--which implies something widespread--just the occasional overzealous wahoo. If you collect the wahoos in one place you can certainly make it seem like academics are all a bunch of stuffy Tolkien haters, which I'm sure feeds the egos of a lot of Tolkien's fans inasmuch as it lets them believe they're sticking it to the man, but the whole issue is really a non-issue.

 

[Wayside]

Hmmm, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. What does Ulysses have to do with whether or not Tolkien's writing is "dated" (and I guess from your post that you mean, in part, "inaccessible")?

Stylistically, Ulysses isn't dated, despite being written 15-30 years earlier than The Hobbit (even longer before LotR). My point is that Tolkien's stilted writing is only becoming farther and farther removed from what ordinary people are going to be willing to put up with. Of the 50 students I have this semester, for example, a whopping 2 of them have read Tolkien. The number who've seen the movies, on the other hand...

His longevity will be in the myth itself, not in his particular expression of it.

It's worthwhile to point out that every time a critic has said that LOTR would not be successful or that the Tolkien era is coming to an end that he has been proven wrong. One would think that critics would stop making such predictions.

It's worthwhile to note that Tokien is probably about as well-known in the world at large as lactose tolerance. This stuff is all relative. It's silly to think Tolkien is going to disappear overnight, and it's equally silly to think he'll remain this popular forever.

 

[dcas]

Stylistically, Ulysses isn't dated, despite being written 15-30 years earlier than The Hobbit (even longer before LotR). My point is that Tolkien's stilted writing is only becoming farther and farther removed from what ordinary people are going to be willing to put up with. Of the 50 students I have this semester, for example, a whopping 2 of them have read Tolkien. The number who've seen the movies, on the other hand...

I thought it was interesting that you brought up Ulysses because it is much more inaccessible than The Lord of the Rings, or even The Silmarillion, will ever be. Very few people would read Ulysses, or even Joyce's much shorter and more accessible Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, out of choice; people read them because they are taught in school. No, stylistically Ulysses isn't 'dated,' I guess, but it still remains almost completely impenetrable.

I think 'archaic' would be a better word to describe Tolkien's writing than 'stilted' or 'dated' since those two carry negative connotations. And yet one of the things that people most enjoy about The Lord of the Rings is the quality of the writing, archaic or no.

 

[Storm Raven]

I'll take Lucas, Homer and the person who wrote The Epic of Gilgamesh
over the man responsible for The Postman when it comes to storytelling, thank you very much.

I find it telling that you love to harp on The Postman when talking about Brin, somehow blaming him for the fact the Costner made a lousy movie based on his book. Given that the movie had almost nothing in common with the book other than a postapocalyptic setting in which a character impersonates a postman, the movie's weakness really doesn't do anything to damn Brin as a storyteller. Especially since the book, considered on its own, is a pretty good novel (actually, it is three pretty good novellas worked together as a novel, but that's neither here nor there). And it isn't even one of his best works.

If the worst thing you can say about an author is "one of his weaker books was made into a lousy movie nothing like the actual book itself", then your argument is pretty much an unconvincing one.

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."

Except Brin doesn't cling to any kind of political philosphy like you ascibe to him. I can only imagine that you never bothered to actually read his books for you to come to such a conclusion.

For a point-by-point refutation of Brin's lies and stupidity:

The "refutation" leaves much to be desired. It assumes things that don't appear to be true (i.e. only the Sith think the "special" should rule). Sure, the jedi council "officially" only advises the democratically elected government, but who actually decides the policy? It sure doesn't seem to be the assembly. Through the movies, the Jedi make all the decisions, and call all the shots. To the extent that the assembly does anything, it seems to just ratify the decisions the jedi have already made. The "Republic" when you really look at it, seems to be a democracy in form, but not in practice.

 

[Storm Raven]

Since when is a movie review a legal brief? Using legalese in a movie review is the surest sign of the hack.

It is a word, in common usage, today, by large numbers of people. Perhaps you missed this.

Since you missed the link last time:

No, I didn't miss the link. I read it. And guess what, the link is to an unpersuasive "refutation" that gets its facts wrong, makes unwarrented assumptions, and is basically irrelevant because of this.

That's just one shovelfull of lies from David Brin. The people in Star Wars who overthrow the Republic, claim the right to rule over the galaxy and so on are the villains. Now either David Brin is a complete imbecile who must also think the message in Schindler's List is "Nazis are Kewl!" or he's deliberately lying about the series.

And the people who support the Republic are just as elitist and confident that their birthright is to rule over the lesser denizens of the galaxy. They are just more subtle and clever about the way they go about it. The Jedi council was as much an undemocratically elected elite ruling the galaxy as the Sith who replaced them were. They were simply "benevolent" rulers (seriously, name any single instance other than confirming Palpatine as chancellor, in which the "democratically elected assembly" took any significant action that was not simply a rubber stamp of the decision of the Jedi council).

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight -just as golf and football are both sports, so knocking Tiger Woods for his lack of touchdowns is a good comparison.

I can say "I think Tiger Woods is a better golfplayer than Andre Ware is a football player, and thus a better sportsman". The analogy is apt here. Brin is a better writer of written fiction than George Lucas is a producer of movie fiction.

Seriously, if "Translating preferences from one genre to another is not absurd in any way, shape, or form." then why was Brin's one attempt (thank goodness!) at a movie such a laughable flop that nearly ruined Kevin Costner's acting career? If writing movies and writing novels are similar enough that it's not apples and oranges (or football and golf), surely the great David Brin would have succeeded, right?

Except, of course, that Brin had almost nothing to do with the production of the movie. Eric Roth and Brian Helgeland were the screenwriters. Kevin Costner, Steve Tisch, and Jim Wilson produced the thing. Kevin Costner was the director. Note that none of those people are named David Brin. In point of fact, Brin was not in the cast or crew of the movie in any capacity. He is credited as the writer of the original novel, but he had nothing to do with the movie that was made from it. So your argument falls apart like the house of cards that it is.

If you have an argument that stands up to investigation, make it.