Moorcock's Elric saga, do they get better?

[IcyCool]

So, based on the suggestions of a few folks here, I've plowed through the first 2 Elric books. At this point, I'm feeling a little bit like Job, with Moorcock as the Devil. Rather than continuing in good faith that these books become better (and potentially wasting my time), I figured I'd ask here. Do the Elric books get better? Or do they continue to be more of the same?

 

[Storm Raven]

So, based on the suggestions of a few folks here, I've plowed through the first 2 Elric books. At this point, I'm feeling a little bit like Job, with Moorcock as the Devil. Rather than continuing in good faith that these books become better (and potentially wasting my time), I figured I'd ask here. Do the Elric books get better? Or do they continue to be more of the same?

I'm not sure what you mean by "better". If you mean "does Moorcock change his writing style" the answer is no. Moorcok has been writing in the same style for pretty much his whole career.

 

[WayneLigon]

Do the Elric books get better? Or do they continue to be more of the same?

Indeed, we'd need to know what you consider better. Elric was created in direct reaction to Conan, and is his opposite in almost every single aspect. Where Conan was tall and strong, Elric is weak; only Stormbringer gives him strength to go on. Conan defeats his foes and generally saves the day. Elric is probably more a danger to everyone around him than anything else. Conan is at heart a pretty uncompicated individual. Elric constantly doubts himself; the moral quandries he faces provide much amusement for Arioch, his demon-lord patron.

Does Elric turn himself around and become more heroic, and repudiate the power of Stormbringer? No. Spoilers follow ->

Spoiler

In fact, at the end of the series, Moonglum throws himself on Stormbringer to give Elric strength, then the sword turns on Elric and drains Elric's soul. It transforms into it's true demonic self and sneers at Elric, saying it was a thousand times more evil than Elric was.

 

[IcyCool]

I'm not sure what you mean by "better". If you mean "does Moorcock change his writing style" the answer is no. Moorcok has been writing in the same style for pretty much his whole career.

That pretty much answers my question. Thanks.

 

[IcyCool]

Indeed, we'd need to know what you consider better.

"Better" was a poor choice of words. "Is there any growth to the character" or "will I be reading the same novel several times over" would have been better questions. From the sounds of it, if I didn't like the first couple, I'm not going to like the rest.

 

[Darthjaye]

I think the better question would have been what were you expecting from them? What did you hope was going to transpire based on what you enjoy reading or have read in general? This, in turn, might help those who post here steer you towards something you haven't read that may be more suitable to what you might indeed enjoy.

 

[Rackhir]

"Better" was a poor choice of words. "Is there any growth to the character" or "will I be reading the same novel several times over" would have been better questions. From the sounds of it, if I didn't like the first couple, I'm not going to like the rest.

Well I thought the first book was the weakest of the series, so I wouldn't necessarily be discouraged if that was the only one you disliked. The second book though is "Sailor on the Seas of Fate", which has a number of important events and is pretty classic Moorcock. If you didn't like that one then, you probably won't like much of any Moorcock. Judging from the attitude of your follow up posts, it sounds like he's just a bad match for what you enjoy, since the complaints you're hinting at aren't complaints I'd make about the books or are ones you could level at most of the genre literature.

 

[IcyCool]

To be fair, I know what I like. That said, I didn't like "Sailor on the Seas of Fate". It's not that it isn't well written (it's possible that it is), I just didn't like it (it was a boring read to me). It sounds like I'm not going to like his other stuff either. That's how it goes, I guess. I've still got plenty of stuff in my reading queue, but I think I'll start another thread to gather suggestions to add to it.

Thanks all for your comments.

 

[trancejeremy]

The thing with Elric, is that it's a weird series. He wrote the original series in what, the 60s, which had a definite end. But later on, he went back and wrote more Elric stories (whole novels, actually, the early Elric stuff was sort of short stories/novellas).

I would also disagree that Moorcock's writing style has stayed the same. He varies his style greatly from series to series, depending on the series. And even within Elric it has changed a lot - the very early Elric stuff is written in the vein of Conan (sort of an anti-Conan, but similar prose style), while the later stuff is quite different (since they are whole novels, not just short stories, you don't have to develop things so quickly). In the later novels, I do think Elric's personality becomes far more developed, simply than just being an anti-Conan.

 

[billd91]

To be fair, I know what I like. That said, I didn't like "Sailor on the Seas of Fate". It's not that it isn't well written (it's possible that it is), I just didn't like it (it was a boring read to me). It sounds like I'm not going to like his other stuff either. That's how it goes, I guess. I've still got plenty of stuff in my reading queue, but I think I'll start another thread to gather suggestions to add to it.

Thanks all for your comments.

I'd say the biggest highlights in the saga, or at least the ones with the most significant things going on, are:

Elric of Melnibone (#1)
Weird of the White Wolf (#3)
Stormbringer (#6)

If you hit those, you've pretty much covered the most important events.