Moorcock blasts Tolkien

[Mark Hope]

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

And vice versa. I can't remember what Lewis thought of LotR, but I recall that Tolkien didn't like Narnia very much,

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

And for some reason, I imagine Eowyn as being the only one who ever wore any shoes! No, I know that's not relevant in the slightest, but I had to get it off my chest.

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.

Excellent point. The poetry and songs are some of my favourite parts of LotR. I really like the glimpses that they give of a larger, forgotten world. Tales within tales...

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.

Well, yes you can if you don't like it. That's Moorcock's point. He just doesn't like the style or the tone. Nothing wrong with him saying so.

 

[IcyCool]

How bourgeois of you.

Elitist!

And IcyCool, leave me and my pants situation alone.

Moorcock's Elric books are on my reading list (right after I finish reading Armor for the umpteenth time). And to paraphrase and butcher a PotC 2 quote, "A man should read in pants, or no pants at all. It just so happens that I have no pants in my reading room."

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I bet he really loves Star Wars!

That one liner is going to be hard to top.

 

[MerricB]

And vice versa. I can't remember what Lewis thought of LotR, but I recall that Tolkien didn't like Narnia very much,

Lewis loved LotR, from what I can remember.

Cheers!

 

[JohnSnow]

Well, yes you can if you don't like it. That's Moorcock's point. He just doesn't like the style or the tone. Nothing wrong with him saying so.

Well, true. But then it's not exactly criticism so much as opinion. What Moorcock said was "I don't like the style or tone." As to why, he basically says: "I just don't agree with his philosophy and I wouldn't write that way."

Uh-huh. And that's why Moorcock is not Tolkien. As if this is a revolutionary concept worth an essay. Great he has an opinion. But, as they say, everyone does. And I'm sure being controversial just to be controversial and try to trumpet his own writing had NOTHING to do with it.

On another topic:

And vice versa. I can't remember what Lewis thought of LotR, but I recall that Tolkien didn't like Narnia very much,

If I recall correctly, Lewis thought The Lord of the Rings was brilliant. On the other hand, they had a difference of opinion about the way allegory and symbolism should be used in a story. Tolkien thought Lewis was heavy-handed and used Narnia to pass on the moral message of Christianity by hitting people over the head with a hammer. Tolkien felt that literature should stand on its own, and that any moral message should be conveyed in the narrative itself, with a minimum of fuss.

Hence, there's no obvious "Christ figure" in The Lord of the Rings. On the other hand, careful perusal of Tolkien's works will reveal that Middle Earth is monotheistic, but with 'powers' tasked to act as 'stewards' of creation. Basically, Christian philosophy is ALL over it. You're just not bludgeoned over the head with it. Lewis, by contrast, has Aslan basically crucified to atone for the "sin of a man" and then resurrected to complete his task. The children get their weapons from Father Christmas. And then there's all the "son of Adam," "daughter of Eve" stuff. I don't think it's inaccurate to say that Lewis was quite upfront with Narnia's Christianity. Not that it's bad, but Tolkien just found it preachy. It was better, he felt, to show present a morality tale as an example and let people draw their own lessons from it.

An interesting sidelight worth noting is that Lewis WAS an atheist until conversations with Tolkien turned him into a Christian. Now Lewis joined the Church of England, while Tolkien was a Roman Catholic, but Tolkien was definitely responsible for Lewis's conversion. So, I think it's fair to say that Tolkien may have known what he was talking about regarding the best way to convey the message.

If you can ever read any of it, their correspondence is quite fascinating.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Honestly, the biggest impression I got from Moorcock's essay is that he didn't understand Tolkein at all.

To say that Tolkein is dense is an understatement. There are layers of meaning and inter-connectivity in his work that surprise me even after having read LotR 30+ times. When Aragorn sings the Ballad of Luthien Tinuviel, the story not only resurrects the ancient world for us, but it is integral to understanding the Men of the West (and how Aragorn can be so old), Elrond Halfelven, and the tradgic nature of Aragorn's own love story. When Frodo sings in the Prancing Pony, Tolkein is allowing us insight into just how innocent the Shire is as well as entertaining us. Comparing the poetry of various peoples allows us to see them, in a way, as they see themselves. I don't believe there is a single wasted word in LotR.

Characters in Tolkein don't make hard choices? Their solutions are always obvious? Kill Gollum or keep him with you, unbound and free to roam is an easy choice? Try pulling that one on your players and see what they choose. Aragorn's choice to forgive Boromir and not speak of what he did wasn't an easy choice either. Nor was Frodo's choice to take the Ring, or the leave the Fellowship and strike off on his own. Tolkein is willing to allow his characters to do the right thing; this is often not the easy thing. Do you think that the Fellowship wasn't comforted by the idea of taking the Ring to Minas Tirith and resting (before Frodo left them)? Again, try these choices with your players and see if they do the hard-but-right thing over the easy-but-wrong thing.

If anything, Moorcock portrays a form of easy moral ambiguity. Tolkein presents people who try to be good in a hostile world, but sometimes make poor choices out of foolishness or pride (Denethor, Boromir), who sometimes despair (Denethor, the Company when Gandalf is slain, Theoden -- even Saruman's treachery is motivated by despair as much as by lust for power), and greed (or curiosity, as with Pippin). The main villians of the setting -- Gollum, the orcs, even Sauron -- were all good beings in the begining that fell because they were unable to resist fear or desire, or an awful combination of the two.

Let it be noted as well that many of the "Good" characters are not so shining as one might claim. The elves commit the same sin as Sauron -- trying to hold back change, and order the world as they would like (that is what the Elven Rings were made to do). The dwarves are often consumed by greed (as we see in The Hobbit) and tend to keep their honor closer than their word. The Rohirrim are ready to slay strangers in their lands....as are the elves of Lothlorien (who only admit the Fellowship because Elrond has bade them to).

The orcs, although the "bad guys" would rather have a quiet life. Likewise many of the men who fight for Sauron or Saruman do so not because they are evil, but because they have been tricked into believing that the "good guys" are -- Tolkein is specific about this in the battle of Helm's Deep and in the battle of the Pelenor Fields, in addition to the thoughts of Sam when he watches the battle in Ithilien.

This is a heck of a lot less black & white than simply ignoring these issues and having your characters do whatever is expedient. If more D&D campaigns had this level of moral depth, there would be far more campaigns that I'd enjoy, for one. YMMV.

Nor is it true to say that, because one might use poetic language to write for children (and this is not true of every children's book, either), that it therefore follows that using poetic language is childish.

In short, it is my opinion that Moorcock doesn't know what he is talking about. Further, it is my opinion that LotR is one of the most ethically complex things I have ever read -- certainly moreso than any of the Moorcock or Howard I've enjoyed over the years. To my way of thinking, Moorcock and Howard offer uncomplicated adventure and fantasy. If I want complexity, Tolkein is the (as yet) unrivalled master.


RC

 

[Mark Hope]

Well, true. But then it's not exactly criticism so much as opinion. What Moorcock said was "I don't like the style or tone." As to why, he basically says: "I just don't agree with his philosophy and I wouldn't write that way."

Uh-huh. And that's why Moorcock is not Tolkien. As if this is a revolutionary concept worth an essay. Great he has an opinion. But, as they say, everyone does.

Well, yes. So what is so strange that he chooses to share his? If there had been an internet in 1978, he would likely have posted it there (as he has done several times in recent years). I disagreed with a few of his assessments of LotR a few years ago and he more or less shrugged and said: "I'm temperamentally not disposed to like the tone of the book -- but then I don't like Winnie the Pooh and other children's stories much either -- just my taste." That's the long and short of it. It's just an opinion, that's all.

And I'm sure being controversial just to be controversial and try to trumpet his own writing had NOTHING to do with it.

Can't agree with you here. He doesn't trumpet his own writing at all. Epic Pooh - in fact, Wizardry and Wild Romance in its entirety - is notable for its complete lack of reference to any of Moorcock's own work. This is why I can't agree with accusations of superiority or elitism in this thread. He isn't comparing other writing to his own. He's giving his personal viewpoints on the subject. Cynical claims that it is controversy for controversy's sake are unfounded and unsupported.

On another topic:

...snip stuff that I couldn't remember earlier on...

Yeah, that was pretty much what I was trying to recall. Been a while since I read Tolkien's letters .

Honestly, the biggest impression I got from Moorcock's essay is that he didn't understand Tolkein at all.

You know, that's pretty much the size of my own criticisms of Epic Pooh. Although Tolkien himself has said that the purpose of a fairy tale is consolation and eucatharsis, I find that LotR as a whole is more about a lament for consolation that never comes, a tale without hope, where victory can only ever slow the decay into ruin and our heroes all die knowing that the world they fought to save must ultimately fade. The only peace they find is eventually in death. It's probably due to Moorocock's personal taste and dislike of Tolkien's tone and style, but I think that this element has gone unremarked upon. That said, Moorcock has also qualified his comments in Epic Pooh by saying that his issue is more with the rafts of LotR-imitators that have polluted the fantasy genre than with LotR itself. With which I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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

Then he needed to do more of it.

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.

Well, if the point of the exercise is to write a book that mostly appeals to the author, go nuts. If, on the other hand, the point is to engage with the readers, some concessions to not knocking them unconcious with Song #470 aren't inappropriate.

Different authors, of all literary merit, make different choices where to be on that continuum with any of their given works. I think LotR would benefit from a Princess Bride-style "good parts" version. YMMV.

You don't have to LIKE what he was writing, but you can't criticize it for style.

No, I really can. I can criticize the choices he made as self-indulgent and momentum-killing, which I think they pretty much inarguably are. You can choose to not mind, which is also your right.

Authors who focus entirely on telling the story miss the point.

So what's the point, then? LotR doesn't have an astonishing style to it. It set the bar for world creation, no question, and it's got a main through-line with several side stories that readers respond to in varying degrees. (I disagree with Jackson, for instance, that LotR is the story of Aragorn. I think it's the story of the hobbits and would have cut a lot of the humanity stuff in favor of the Sharkey segment in RotK.)

As another writer once said, the play's the thing.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That said, Moorcock has also qualified his comments in Epic Pooh by saying that his issue is more with the rafts of LotR-imitators that have polluted the fantasy genre than with LotR itself. With which I wholeheartedly agree.

Good lord, yes. The failings of JRRT are minor beside the people regurgitating his works endlessly with increasingly diminishing returns.

That said, I think JRRT's shorter works are stronger than LotR and count The Hobbit as one of my favorite works of all time, with Farmer Giles of Ham close behind. (I also love Winnie the Pooh.)

 

[ThirdWizard]

Honestly, the biggest impression I got from Moorcock's essay is that he didn't understand Tolkein at all.

Wow, I agree with everything RC said!