Moorcock blasts Tolkien

[Gentlegamer]

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.

I wouldn't say Saruman, Wormtongue, the Witch-king, the Mouth of Sauron, or Denethor are poorly-spoken (or Smaug in the Hobbit). Of course, none of them are the "darkies" you're refering to. I thought it was pretty clear that the other Men of Middle-earth that are the "bad guys" have been duped by Sauron. Sam even questions whether the slain Southron was really so evil or had been forced by his leaders to march to a far away land to make war and would rather have stayed home. The only seemingly irredeemably evil folks are the orcs, which are non-human.

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.

Instead of enjoying the story, you're broadcasting your own "20th (or 21st) century" views on "labor relations" into the story. In fact, if Tolkien had followed the common 20th century style, LOTR would have been much more predictable . . . and boring. I think all this brings out what Lin Carter has written about the genre of the "well-wrought tale" and its value as opposed to the common 20th century style focused on social issues (class/race relations, politics, economics, psychology, etc).

By the way, are you discounting the "racial reconciliation" represented by Legolas/Gimli/Galadriel?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Here's what it boils down to, in analogy form. Moorcock wants Blade Runner to be the most popular form of sci-fi entertainment. Star Trek or Star Wars is instead. He feels the need to complain about this loudly because he writes Bladerunner-esque stuff and feels that Star Trek and Star Wars are childish and immature. Up with Blade Runner!

It's the same thing you get anywhere. Group A who is a smaller group than Group B looks at Group B's stuff and wonders how they could possibly prefer it to Group A's stuff, which is clearly superior. If only Group B knew that Group A's stuff were better. Time to tell them all about how they're wrong and show them the error of their ways.

I've been on both sides. But, its still just an oppinion.

 

[dcas]

Tolkein doesn't face his characters with difficult choices, so all the choices they make are predictable.

I agree that the choices are (mostly) predictable (but then that might be hindsight: I know how the story ends), but I would disagree with the assertion that the choices are not difficult. The crux of the matter, IMHO, is this: Tolkien believed in Original Sin and his critics, by and large, probably do not. So they don't see why a good character should necessarily be tempted by evil, and so don't regard his choices as being particularly difficult.

 

[Deuce Traveler]

I agree that the choices are (mostly) predictable (but then that might be hindsight: I know how the story ends), but I would disagree with the assertion that the choices are not difficult. The crux of the matter, IMHO, is this: Tolkien believed in Original Sin and his critics, by and large, probably do not. So they don't see why a good character should necessarily be tempted by evil, and so don't regard his choices as being particularly difficult.

Good points.

 

[trancejeremy]

Moorcock is an interesting guy (and very personable), but if you contrast his politics with what he does, he's something of a hypocrite. For instance, he lives in Texas because it has no income tax there.

Similarly, while he can be a heck of a writer when he wants to be, a lot of his early stuff is pretty much a copy of pulp writers (ERB in particular). Which can be entertaining, but is in terms of writing quality, is much worse than anything Tolkien did.

So to a certain extent, you have to take his criticisms with a grain of salt.

 

[billd91]

I agree that the choices are (mostly) predictable (but then that might be hindsight: I know how the story ends), but I would disagree with the assertion that the choices are not difficult. The crux of the matter, IMHO, is this: Tolkien believed in Original Sin and his critics, by and large, probably do not. So they don't see why a good character should necessarily be tempted by evil, and so don't regard his choices as being particularly difficult.

I also don't see the choices as being particulary safe or easy. The hobbits constantly move into deeper danger that completely outclasses them with constant fear and the burden of their task even though situations come up in which they can choose different paths. The choices seem "safe" to over-analytical readers because they're undeniably the correct moral ones to make given the situation in LOTR. And yet, sticking to the correct moral path in the face of overwhelming opposition isn't really a safe thing to do in real life, is it? It's just that JRRT's idea of an ideal society is different from Moorcock's or a lot of other people in the latter 20th and early 21st centuries.

 

[JohnSnow]

Since others have handled the philosophical arguments well, I'll skip that. However, I do have a few comments about some of what's been said.

In the comics world, JRRT would have been a hell of a plotter, but they would have left the actual scripting to someone else.

And the world would have been deprived of a great work of literature. Tolkien's prose is DENSE, there's no argument there. But Tolkien was a great lover of language, and the Lord of the Rings is an excellent example of what happens when you let someone who loves language just WRITE.

Moorcock's prose is very matter-of-fact and to-the-point. It reads almost like a newspaper article, and it's not particularly poetic, just tightly plotted descriptions of the core of the action. Tolkien's work, by contrast, is almost epic poetry. I recommend everyone read The Lord of the Rings aloud sometime. It's a whole different creature and it reads just fine. The prose flows and the florid language holds your interest if you're LISTENING to it. It may take longer to say something, but it says it in a way that you can enjoy how it's being said. Obviously, if you don't love language as Tolkien did, this florid prose will just annoy you when you're reading it.

Consider this: most of the GREAT lines from the Lord of the Rings films are Tolkien's actual dialogue. Where they edit his dialogue, it's a crime and a bastardization, and it falls completely flat. Fortunately, the filmmakers were aware of this, and did more "moving" of dialogue from one part of the story (or character) to another than actually trying to rewrite it.

For example, consider Sam's lines about "dropping no eaves" or the whole exchange involving "po-ta-toes." And then there was Frodo and Gandalf's exchange about whether Bilbo should have killed Gollum. Or Elrond's "Indeed, it is impossible to separate you, even when he is summoned to a secret council and YOU are not." And there are countless other examples. Nearly every memorable line (well, the good ones) is Tolkien's dialogue, lifted word for word.

The story moves slowly because it's a celebration of language. Tolkien put what he loved into his epic, which is the reason for what a friend of mine referred to as "all the hippy love poetry." That's his right as an author and an artist. What's Moorcock's "art?" The so-called "originality" of his story? Please. His point-of-fact prose? That makes him a good craftsman, NOT an artist.

Proved by the fact that he's been retelling the same story for 30 years.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Great point on dialog, JS!

A favorite of mine is Gandalf's admonishment to Frodo "not to be too hasty to deal out death in judgment . . . even the very wise cannot see all ends." Pure Tolkien!

An example of going wrong in the film where dialog was changed was Eowyn's confrontation of the Witch-king, IMO.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

And the world would have been deprived of a great work of literature. Tolkien's prose is DENSE, there's no argument there. But Tolkien was a great lover of language, and the Lord of the Rings is an excellent example of what happens when you let someone who loves language just WRITE.

I'm a professional writer, and I assure you that no one has as high of an opinion about their writing as a writer, but I also acknowledge that the ignorant hacks who dare snip away pieces of my brilliant prose sometimes have a point.

LotR needs a LOT of pruning. There are some gems in there -- the "poe-tay-toes" stuff is gold, I agree -- but JRRT would have been a lot better off if, say, he and CS Lewis had sat down and gone through the story together.

"Say, old boy, do you realize you barely have any women in here? I know you said you're going to put some more into the appendix, but don't you think it would improve things to add a few scenes in before hand? And you know I love your poetry, but these gents do sing an AWFUL lot, don't they?"

Neither popularity nor age are indicative of perfection. There's a lot to like about JRRT's works, but I think he definitely could have used a better editor. In many ways, I think Peter Jackson improved the story (although he also added some clunkers, like the "is Aragorn alive?" sequence) by pruning it down to its most dramatic elements and bringing in the romantic through-line from the appendix and merging minor elves together.

 

[Mark Hope]

Something that doesn't seem to have been highlighted sufficiently in this thread is that Epic Pooh, by Moorcock's own admission, is purely his own personal opinion and not intended as an elitist attack on other authors. Furthermore, rather than being Moorcock's final expert elitist word on the matter, he intends it as the opening salvos of a debate on the subject. He is generally open to dissenting opinion in my experience. Although the article is nearly 30 years old (published in 1978), it loses some context when read in isolation. If you read it as part of Wizardry and Wild Romance, you can see it as part of a larger study of the development of epic fantasy from legendary epics to modern times. These aren't cut and dried pronouncements - they are personal polemics intended to generate discussion, nothing more. I'd say it's strange to read so many snide remarks in response to this but, well, it is the internet after all...

For my own perspective, I'm a huge fan of Moorcock and Tolkien, but they are clearly authors of fundamentally different character. Tolkien is primarily into sub-creation and the exploration of the eucatharsis. Moorcock is very much into more visceral, character-drivn storytelling and the exploration of individuals vs. systems. Chalk and cheese, to say the least. With this in mind, it's hardly surprising that Moorcock takes issue with the Prof's approach.

I'd have to say that I agree with the idea that Tolkien's tales are somewhat on the "warm mug of cocoa" side, and I prefer the more challenging nature of Moorcock's work, but both have their place in my tastes. For when I want an evening by the fire, wrapped in a snug blanky, Tolkien is my man. I love the "tales within tales" aspect of some of his work. But when I want to be "out there", having my brain turned inside out with a succession of deranged ideas, then it's all about Mike.

On the whole, I really don't think that Moorcock is jealous of Tolkien's success. He really doesn't seem interested in being lauded by the galleries. Forty years of continued publishing, multiple prestigious awards, financial and artistic independence - I'm sure I'd rather choose these over the kind of frustrations and loss that Tolkien suffered over the years. Tolkien agonised over the release of LotR into the world and died with his true authorial wishes unfulfilled. Hardly something to envy.

Is Epic Pooh elitist? Given that Moorcock's work includes such enthusiastic pulp offerings as Sojan the Swordsman, Kane of Old Mars and genre tributes such as those found in Tales from the Texas Woods, I'd hardly say so. Outspoken and opinionated, certainly. But that's the luxury of publishing - and, these days, the internet. Certainly no more elitist than Tolkien himself or even anyone else presenting their opinions in this thread - me included .

Ooh, I have rambled. Oh well. I just read all of Wizardry and Wild Romance not two days ago, by coincidence, so these comparisons are fresh in my mind.