Moorcock blasts Tolkien

[JohnSnow]

I largely agree with what you've said Gg, so thanks for that!

I truly enjoy The Lord of the Rings as poetry. That may be partially due to the fact that I heard it long before I read it, but I credit Tolkien's enjoyment of the flow of language.

Most fictional prose has become singularly matter-of-fact. And the stories just usually aren't that original. In fact, where I have most enjoyed Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series isn't so much in what he's written (which has gotten a bit complicated) as how he writes it. There are times that series has made me laugh out loud. And there are lines from it that just feel "right." I picked the series up to begin with because of Jordan's "signature" opening paragraph, which felt like epic poetry to me when I first read The Eye of the World, and still does. Ditto George Martin and Jim Butcher, who also write stuff that I just enjoy reading because of the language.

By contrast, Stephen Donaldson's stories may be brilliant, but his writing makes me want to gouge my eyes out.

 

[Warbringer]

IMHO

When, and if, you take a look at the English authors that Moorcock himself prefers, you will find that his taste runs to those that challenge, or at least distest the the status quo. Many of those authors come from the turn of the C19th and were forward looking enough to see the demise of the British Empire.

Moorcock took that as the root plot of his main character; a soul lost in the years in which an empire is in final decline, an empire that he doesn't agree with the premise of anyway.

Moorcock is a socialist on a good day, an anorchist on a bad one.

Tolkien, on other hand is a lumbering ludite in love with the country in which he lived; the shire, the epitamy of "quaint english sentiment". Form his comfortable middle class position, of course the good guys had "noble - royal blood"; even bilbo is a classic lord in the manor character.

That alone is a reason for Moorcock to challenge the status quo of Tolkien’s style; only those that are “ordained” to lead can save the day; and no, Boromir was not “ordained”, but merely a steward.

Unfortunately, it clouds any judgements that can be taken away from his “essay”. Critism, delivered so tersly, is rarely constructive.

 

[Umbran]

Consider, for a moment:

The Hobbit was first published in 1937 - two years before Moorcock was even born.

Moorcock's Elric sequence started in 1963, nearly a decade after LotR.

The authors are men of different generations, with vastly different perspectives. Given the differences in times, and the history that passed, I think it reasonable to expect that the audiences wanted different things, too. Critique that ignores the historical perspectives of the author and audience misses much that informs the writing.

 

[billd91]

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.

The only way in which PJ improved JRRT's story is in the way he adapted it for the cinema without losing too much of the underlying character and subtext of the work. One of the wonderful differences between the silverscreen and written media is that they can tell the same general story in tremendously different ways. While the movie would be limited to the watcher's ability to sit in one place and can make visual, tone, and musical statements in much shorter time than can be conveyed with the written word, the written version can be more expansive and intricate in its use of language.
JRRT's works had all the editing they needed and, even if the ignorant hacks have a point now and then, JRRT's vision should hold sway and, given his works' popularity, I think he was right to craft it as he did.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Instead of enjoying the story, you're broadcasting your own "20th (or 21st) century" views on "labor relations" into the story.

Let's say rather that I object to Tolkein's assumptions on these "labor relations." They're slightly offensive to me.

 

[Mark Hope]

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.

To put this in perspective, though, he chose Texas because he was apparently being pursued for a false claim for income taxes that he didn't owe by an over-zealous official. Hardly a sign of hypocrisy.

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.

Agreed, which is pretty much what I mean when I say that his criticisms aren't the product of an elitist attitude. Moorcock simply doesn't like Tolkien's writing (although, by all accounts he was fond of the man himself) and is able to explain precisely why this is. You're not reading the words of a critical snob, you're reading the opinions of an incisive critic.

 

[LordEther]

I would agree that The Lord of the Rings included a number of difficult choices. I don't by any means feel that Tolkien's work is light-hearted, "simplistic," or easy. His protagonists definitely have problems (in the modern age of fantasy, it's easy to dismiss the horrible racism involved in the Legolas/Gimli situation as par for course, but the elf/dwarf divide we all know and love hasn't always been), some die (quite horribly, in the case of Boromir), and things frequently go wrong for the protagonists (even if they right themselves almost immediately after).

But The Lord of the Rings is definitely black and white, insofar as morality and politics are concerned, which, I think, sits poorly with some (and understandably so).

Personally, I prefer Moorcock's (older) stories to Tolkien's, due in large part to the politics of their worlds. While it's true that the Haradrim and the Easterlings and the other "ruddy" or dark-skinned folk of Middle Earth weren't evil in the same way Tolkien's Orcs were, the fact remains that they were were the ones duped en masse by Sauron, which left a group of predominately white cultures of Men and Elves (the latter of which, to my knowledge, were all "fair") to stand against the combined might of Mordor and those weaker, lesser men who succumbed.

Now, I'm not suggesting that Tolkien was a racist, or even that TLotR is steeped in racist philosophy; I don't believe either. I do think, however, that it's undeniable that certain aspects of Tolkien's mythology, from the idea of Dunedain (Men who are, by the way, simplybetter than others...) ancestral "purity" to the divine right of kings, prompts a sort of disconnect from many modern readers. My understanding is that TLotR was intended to have precisely the opposite effect (that is, it was meant to resonate with certain ideas in us, particularly regarding hardship, choices, bravery, authority, humanistic optimism, etc.), but many are somewhat less receptive, in my opinion, to some of Tolkien's devices.

While I enjoyed The Lord of the Rings immensely, I find it difficult to imagine a world like Middle Earth working. Ever. I think society's moved in such a direction that, for some, it's hard not to be a little cynical at sight of things like wise, capable rulers who seem perfectly suited for the job (e.g. Aragorn, and just about everyone related to him) solely by virute of lineage, or a race of near-perfect, wise beings (e.g. Elves... if one hasn't read the Silmarillion) who are generally benevolent, kind, beautiful, etc.
Particularly difficult is the fact that it takes a magic ring forged by an ancient evil for many of these people to let this power go to their heads. The idea of the corrupting nature of power is a significant part of our cultural identity (at least here in the US), and only seeing it applied to certain groups of people (Middle and "Lesser" Men) in The Lord of the Rings really makes it seem, in my opinion, less mature at first glance than it actually is.

Just some thoughts...

 

[JohnSnow]

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?"

Umm, first off, Lewis DID read the story as JRRT wrote it. And he critiqued it.

Secondly, a medieval world (which is what Tolkien was writing about) is largely a man's world. Tolkien's got about the ratio of male to female characters present in most medieval myths.

Largely offstage love interests: Arwen & Rosie Cotton
Fae advisors: Galadriel
Warrior woman: Eowyn

As for the singing...well...what do you think people did in the middle ages for entertainment while they were traveling? I suppose Tolkien could just have written: "As they were camping, Aragorn sang a story of Luthien Tinuviel" or "They laid Boromir to rest in the boat, and sang a dirge of his life." Sure, that would have moved the story along, but part of the point of a book is HOW it gets there, not just getting there.

The question is: was Tolkien trying to write a modern novel or was he attempting to craft a throwback epic? I think the answer's clear. You don't have to LIKE what he was writing, but you can't criticize it for style.

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.

I'm not making an argument that it's "perfect." However, I disagree that a lot of Jackson's changes are improvements to the story. Yes, many of them improve the presentation of the story as a film, but some things work fine in literature that don't work in film.

Authors who focus entirely on telling the story miss the point. No story is so original that it has to be published. Yes, some things authors write are self-indulgent, and an editor can help to trim that. But far too many editors are focused on appeasing a publishing house whose intent is packaging the story so it's accessible to as many people as possible, ensuring it will make money, not necessarily on improving the narrative itself.

Of course, to be published, many authors need to make those concessions. So it's something of a double-edged sword.

My two cents.

 

[billd91]

Let's say rather that I object to Tolkein's assumptions on these "labor relations." They're slightly offensive to me.

Does the aristocratic, even country gentry, social order of LOTR really cause you trouble? If so, there's a lot of brilliant and older literature that you're cutting yourself off from.

Being a bit of a leveller myself, I can see the social hierarchies as not being an ideal ordering of modern society, but the tale is still enjoyable as it is. It's not exactly about modern reality, is it? So why must it's social structures be as egalitarian as modernity allows?

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

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. :\

How bourgeois of you.

While Moorcock does have a point, here are two things to consider:

First, Moorecock wrote this many years ago (I wonder how he feels now), when he was not only a retro-hippy in the post-60s era, but when it that was still fashionable. The criticism struck me – and still does – somewhat like the criticisms of Spielberg for making children and families something good and worthwhile in his movies. Basically, I find it difficult to swallow the alternatives.

Second, Tolkien was one of the first, if not the first, to use the The criticism struck – and still does – somewhat like the criticisms of Spielberg for making children and families something good and worthwhile in his movies. Basically, I find it difficult to swallow the alternatives.

In addition, Tolkien was one of the first, if not the first, to use the story elements PapersAndPaychecks wrote about. The late Professor did it well. However, I do not think it is fair to blame him for the fact so very many other good writers have used those same story elements until they ran them into the ground. And the bad writers have just kicked dirt over them, burying them deep.

And IcyCool, leave me and my pants situation alone.