Moorcock blasts Tolkien

[PapersAndPaychecks]

In the Narn i Hin Hurin, Turin (the "hero") brings about the downfall of several Elvish nations, kills his best friend, unwittingly marries and impregnates his sister (who commits suicide when she finds out who he really is), and eventually kills himself when he realizes all that he's done...

NIHH is still a morality play, though. The bad guy does bad things and eventually gets his come-uppance; it's all perfectly safe and unchallenging stuff.

Gollum's story is more interesting, because it's potentially about redemption -- he's a character struggling to change his own nature. But Tolkein doesn't dare to explore the story to the full; he kills off Gollum and it turns out that Samwise is the hero. (This also happens with Boromir's attempt at self-redemption -- the character gets killed off rather than allow the story to dwell any more on this character who's sullied himself with guilt.)

I think Tolkein's better than, say, Terry Brooks. If Brooks had written it, Frodo would've been the hero and Sam would've stayed the loyal sidekick.

But if Moorcock had written it, Gollum would've thrown Frodo and Sam into the Cracks of Doom, he'd have put the ring on himself, and overthrown the Dark Lord Sauron and the Valar and the Maiar and the Istari, and died in the process, and then mankind would've been set free to make his own destiny.

 

[francisca]

But if Moorcock had written it, Gollum would've thrown Frodo and Sam into the Cracks of Doom, he'd have put the ring on himself, and overthrown the Dark Lord Sauron and the Valar and the Maiar and the Istari, and died in the process, and then mankind would've been set free to make his own destiny.

And all of that in about 192 pages, to boot.

 

[Prophet2b]

Criticizing Tolkien and Lewis for "safe" (if that's even a correct analysis) fantasy is hardly a fair analysis, I think - even if he's right. While not the very first of their kind, they did help to especially pave the way for the fantasy fiction movement - it's not their fault if everyone else copied them after they were through.

In fact, to be completely honest, I have a very hard time criticizing authors for what they're trying to do, so long as they accomplish their own purposes, even if I don't like it. So some people don't like Tolkien? That doesn't make it bad. It usually just means people prefer different literary styles. Tolkien was a bit long winded (I say "a bit" because he was nothing compared to authors like Robert Jordan) - I happen to like that. I can totally understand if some people don't.

But Tolkien himself said that he was not writing his story to be analogous to anything at the time or in the past. He just wanted to write a story - so that's what he did.

Moorcock's critique of Tolkien's relgious and philosophical views are his own to make, I suppose - but I could just as easily rip Moorcock's stories apart, because his own ideologies obviously come through the pages, as well. Any author will write a measure of his own philosophical views into his story - I'm not even sure he can help it.

Of course, this isn't even addressing the logical fallacy of assuming that just because something is reused over and over again it must be bad. Who says so? It might make them all the same. But it doesn't make them bad. Nor does something that's different automatically make it good - it just makes it different. If he wants to write something different - hey, fantastic. Who says someone else has to do that, though?

I happen to enjoy Tolkien-esque and Lewis-esque type stories. Even written by those people who have taken the Tolkien torch and carried it on all these years. If someone else doesn't, that's fine - it's their own taste in literature. But Moorcock's criticisms of Tolkien and Lewis are, in my mind, hardly fair. After all, if everyone listened to him, we'd all be stuck in the same place we are now - with tons of copies of Moorcock, instead of Tolkien. So, in the end, I suppose I'm not 100% sure what his final point is or what he's even suggesting.

This isn't to say that I personally dislike Moorcock or his writings, not at all - just that that one article seemed to be a load of fallacious crock.

 

[Shemeska]

On the other hand, Moorecock did use the work "bourgeois" twice in that opinion piece. Using it once makes me suspicious. Twice sets off my "elitist " alarm. :\

Very very true.

 

[Mallus]

One would think, though, that the primary function of a story is to entertain.

I thought Moorcock was criticizing what readers were being entertained by.

 

[Deuce Traveler]

I hate to throw this in there, but from what I've understood this is a lot about politics, also. Heilein can be considered a conservative with a libertarian streak. Tolkien can be considered a conservative with a Catholic faith. Moorcock can be considered a leftist, and sometimes an anarchist at that, and will attack the political elements of Tolkien and Heinlein while ignoring his own evident bent.

 

[Gentlegamer]

By the way, I think Tolkien covered his own view on Moorcock implicitly in the foreward to the second edition of Lord of the Rings . . .

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

The accents are a "translation" into English of the original languages to suggest the mindset and content of the "original" speaker. You should note that Sam and other rustic hobbits don't have "posh" accents, rather accents appropriate to their learning and culture. Similarly, the language of the Rohirrim was deliberately stylized as "middle English" to suggest its linguistic place in relation to others, such as the common Westron tongue.

Sure, that's how JRRT justified it.

Still, the fact remains: the bad guys are dark-skinned and poorly-spoken; the good guys are fair-skinned and, for the most part, articulate. And the ones who're not articulate (because they don't have as much money as the articulate ones) also know their place. As I've said above, Sam's actually the hero of LOTR but he stays subservient to his master right to the end of the story.

One would think, though, that the primary function of a story is to entertain. That was certainly JRRT's and REH's purpose.

Oh, absolutely.

Moorcock's issue is that he needs meaty plot and characterisation to be entertained by a story, and I've got to say that I'm with him. I don't find Winnie the Pooh an entertaining read either.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I thought Moorcock was criticizing what readers were being entertained by.

If so, the elitist hat is for Moorcock to wear.

 

[Mallus]

If so, the elitist hat is for Moorcock to wear.

Well, yeah, sure, in that essay. Despite the polical trappings Moorcock ends up making a Great Books argument -note that by the end he's name-dropping Joyce and Faulkner.