Moorcock: the Anti-Tolkien

[King Mob]

I've just finished reading Michael Moorcock's essay on fantasy called Epic Pooh (http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.php?id=953). Seeing that Tolkien is a much discussed author in this forums, I wondered what you people think of Moorcock's view on fantasy (i suggest you read the essay if you haven't which, by the way, is quite good).

Personally I can't help but think Moorcock is right. BUT i also think that you can have in mind all of those things that Tolkien and Lewis and other fantasy authors have and stand for, and still enjoy the books while being fully aware that you are being fed a conservative comfy sermon. And come out alive without being brainwashed. And have a good time.

What do you think?

[Zee.]

I think you're wrong. Have a nice day.




Tolkien created a world better than the one we live in. He's an Epic Fantasy writer. It's all in the name.

[JBI]

I think you're wrong. Have a nice day.




Tolkien created a world better than the one we live in. He's an Epic Fantasy writer. It's all in the name.

I'd disagree and say neither are particularly good writers. As for Tolkien's world being better than our own - 90% of it is our own, the rest, well, it's loaded with some highly idealized rubbish like drunken dwarfs and aristocrats - not to mention Balrogs and whatnot, so I don't think it is that nice.

The real point was a sort of neo-pastoral, a return to a pre-Industrial sort of England, which he achieved - but hell, I'm in Canada - the natural landscape here is far more real and powerful than the Tolkienian imaginings.

[mayneverhave]

Tolkien created a world better than the one we live in. He's an Epic Fantasy writer. It's all in the name.

There's nothing inherently better in riding a horse as opposed to a car, especially a very fast car.

And given that there's very little chance of my walking outside today only to get my head lopped off by a battle-ax, I would have to disagree with you.

[Zee.]

I didn't really mean what i said to be honest, I was just a bit disgruntled and felt like disagreeing with someone

[higley]

Seems like he's got a bone to pick with some particular authors who write with an agenda, and praises passages from some others who coincidentally have not had the same influence as Lewis and Tolkien (who at this point, have become easy targets for cynics). Something in the tone in the article feels a tad defensive. At one point he suggests that people turn to fantasy as they reach the end of the sidewalk for their personal betterment; that is, they can't improve themselves and so they look to fantasy to give them satisfaction. But then he turns right around and accuses Lewis and Adams of advocating complacency and tempered ambitions. This seems contradictory, or he's just accusing fantasy writers of being incapable of providing the escapism their readers are looking for.

I find it interesting that he criticizes "those deeply and often unconsciously wedded to their cultural presumptions, who regard examination of them as an attack" but manages the dubious feat of laying condemnations on those who write about worlds that contradict his standards of reason. I don't understand his reckoning that, should a book be classified as fantasy, it ought to automatically be excluded from the ranks of literature.

I also think it's funny just HOW many fantasy books this guy has read in pursuit of evidence. If he enjoyed any of them, even for a minute, does he throw his entire line of reason into jeopardy?