# Moorcock blasts Tolkien



## sckeener

Old news, but since Tolkien and Moorcock both influenced D&D so much I was wondering what other enworlders thought. 

Here's the essay of Epic Pooh

Here's a bit from the Wiki-about Epic Pooh:

Moorcock criticises a group of celebrated writers of epic fantasy for children, including Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, and Richard Adams. His criticism is based on two principal grounds: the poverty of their writing style, and a political criticism. Moorcock accuses these authors of espousing a form of "corrupted Romance", which he identifies with Anglican Toryism. The defining traits of this attitude are an anti-technological, anti-urban stance which is ultimately misanthropic, that glorifies a vanished or vanishing rural idyll, and is rooted in middle-class or bourgeois attitudes towards progress and political change.​and more from the wiki

The title arises from Moorcock's claim that the writing of Tolkien, Lewis, Adams and others has a similar purpose to the Winnie-the-Pooh writings of A. A. Milne, another author of whom he disapproves: *it is intended to comfort rather than challenge*.​
I tend to think of myself as more a Moorcock D&D DM/player than a Tolkien.  When reading Ptolus, I get a strong Tolkien vib, but it is an urban setting.   It has a ton of gray making me think of Moorcock (and Lovecraft.)  Groups that a player will like/agree with are sided with villians and things like that....Ptolus can make you think or be totally brainless (choice of the players and DM,  a setting that fits everyone)....

When I read Eric Boyd's post about Dragons of Faerûn...the whole Unther vs Mulhorand issue makes me ponder and think rather than calms. ...all the moral issues.

There is the Difference between FR, Eberron, Middle Earth, Greyhawk etc. thread where it is discussed that there really isn't much difference between the settings... (however after reading Eric Boyd's post, I tend to see FR as a complex beast of different authors...i.e. some parts are Tolkein and others are not)


----------



## Aaron L

Well, I dont think an attack on writing that is designed to comfort is a very valid criticism.  Comfort is a very important thing.

I generally like Moorcock's writing more than Tolkien's (much, much easier to get through) but on this I think hes being pedantically iconoclastic and snarky.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

Moorcock is a self-important weenie who makes the same mistake all such artists make.  It's what the reader/viewer/listener takes away from your work that matters, not what you intended.  

Despite the authors' denials, many have read LotR and Watership Down as cautionary tales about appeasement in the face of fascism and totalitarianism, among other interpretations.  Hardly safe and comforting.  

I knew too many proto-goth Elric wanna-be's in college to take Moorcock as seriously as he takes himself, anyway.


----------



## gamecat

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> I knew too many proto-goth Elric wanna-be's in college to take Moorcock as seriously as he takes himself, anyway.




I knew one of those.

>.<


----------



## AuraSeer

sckeener said:
			
		

> The title arises from Moorcock's claim that the writing of Tolkien, Lewis, Adams and others has a similar purpose to the Winnie-the-Pooh writings of A. A. Milne, another author of whom he disapproves: *it is intended to comfort rather than challenge*.



I know how he feels. I disapprove of can openers. *They are intended to open cans rather than to carve pumpkins*. 

Seriously, even if we assume he's right, why would it be bad that works are different from each other? If every book was intended solely to be "challenging" (or solely "comforting" or solely anything else), literature would be awfully boring.


----------



## ThirdWizard

I read it. He just comes off as being resentful of Tolkien's success to me.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks

Moorcock does have a point.

Tolkein's prose, plotlines, and characters are extremely safe.  This has had an inordinate influence on so many writers who followed him, churning out their safe, predictable, trite trilogies in which the good guys are good, the bad guys are bad, and the Hero gathers his Seven Samurai of assorted characters who go on a Cook's Tour of a generic fantasy world which is exactly the right size to fit onto two facing pages of a standard paperback, their mission being to Collect the Plot Vouchers which they can turn in to the author at the end of the trilogy, at which time the Dark Lord is defeated and everyone lives Happily Ever After in your standard, safe and extremely dull eucatastrophe.

It's become a horrible formula of bad fantasy, and some writers have churned out reams and reams of it (not to mention David Eddings or Terry Brooks or Robert Jordan by name, of course... oops!)

Now, Mr Moorcock is in no real position to criticize, since he's spent the past several decades writing the same book again and again, but he does have two real advantages over the Tolkein-imitators:  He has a new plot to offer, and he tells it in simple, unpretentious prose without any waffle.  Moorcock writes in five pages what Tolkein or Eddings would write in fifty pages, and Brooks would write in a hundred and fifty pages, and Jordan would write in a ten-volume epic.


----------



## tonse

I'm certainly not a fan of Tolkien, but a casual reader of Moorcock. In the end: Who cares what he thinks? I like his books, but letting him teach me that he is far more mature or liberal or whatever simply strikes the wrong chord inside of me. Not to mention ripping a dead man's work.

At least we've got our own fantasy version of Hogan vs. Macho Man. Even if one can't strike back anymore...


----------



## francisca

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Now, Mr Moorcock is in no real position to criticize, since he's spent the past several decades writing the same book again and again, but he does have two real advantages over the Tolkein-imitators:  He has a new plot to offer, and he tells it in simple, unpretentious prose without any waffle.  Moorcock writes in five pages what Tolkein or Eddings would write in fifty pages, and Brooks would write in a hundred and fifty pages, and Jordan would write in a ten-volume epic.



That's a fair assessment, and squares with his admiration of Leiber.

Guys like Leiber and REH were writing for the pulp rags at the time.  You had 4-8 pages scattered about the magazine, not 160+ plus pages to spread your story over.  Writing for that format leads to a kind of economy in one's writing.  Sort of an implied, Python-esque "GET ON WITH IT!".  

Moorecock's writing follows in that tradition, IMNSHO.

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.  :\


----------



## Halivar

For me, the difference between Tolkien and modern writers like Moorcock, Brooks, Jordan, et. al. is that Tolkien had a story, _and he only had to tell it once._

Compare this to today's "it has to be 13 volumes" crowd of tree-killers, and Tolkien becomes a breath of fresh air.


----------



## helium3

tonse said:
			
		

> I like his books, but letting him teach me that he is far more mature or liberal or whatever simply strikes the wrong chord inside of me.




Did you even read the essay?


----------



## dcas

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Tolkein's prose, plotlines, and characters are extremely safe.




How many major characters have to die for the plotline not to be "safe"? If what you say below is true (I don't read much fantasy), then I would venture to guess that Tolkien's imitators don't really understand his stories all that well.



> This has had an inordinate influence on so many writers who followed him, churning out their safe, predictable, trite trilogies in which the good guys are good, the bad guys are bad, and the Hero gathers his Seven Samurai of assorted characters who go on a Cook's Tour of a generic fantasy world which is exactly the right size to fit onto two facing pages of a standard paperback, their mission being to Collect the Plot Vouchers which they can turn in to the author at the end of the trilogy, at which time the Dark Lord is defeated and everyone lives Happily Ever After in your standard, safe and extremely dull eucatastrophe.




Personally, I find Moorcock well-nigh unreadable. I barely got through _Elric of Melnibone_, it coming highly recommended by a friend, and couldn't read anything beyond that.


----------



## Cam Banks

Tolkien needed an editor.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## IcyCool

Aaron L said:
			
		

> I generally like Moorcock's writing more than Tolkien's (much, much easier to get through) but on this I think hes being pedantically iconoclastic and snarky.




I bet it helps him sell more books, though.  You sell more books if you get more public awareness (good or bad).  Mocking a widely loved author will certainly get you attention.

Of course, screaming, "I'M NOT WEARING PANTS!" in a crowded area will also get you attention, so Moorcock's nothing special in what he's doing here.


----------



## Halivar

tonse said:
			
		

> At least we've got our own fantasy version of Hogan vs. Macho Man.



You gotta be kidding. Ultimate Warrior pwns both *at the same time*.


----------



## francisca

> This has had an inordinate influence on so many writers who followed him, churning out their safe, predictable, trite trilogies in which the good guys are good, the bad guys are bad, and the Hero gathers his Seven Samurai of assorted characters who go on a Cook's Tour of a generic fantasy world which is exactly the right size to fit onto two facing pages of a standard paperback, their mission being to Collect the Plot Vouchers which they can turn in to the author at the end of the trilogy, at which time the Dark Lord is defeated and everyone lives Happily Ever After in your standard, safe and extremely dull eucatastrophe.




I bet he really loves Star Wars!


----------



## dcas

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> Tolkien needed an editor.




I'm sure he had one @ Allen & Unwin.


----------



## sckeener

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I read it. He just comes off as being resentful of Tolkien's success to me.




Since he blasts many other authors (just Tolkien being the most famous), I didn't get that feel.  

For me the issue is bland settings where conflict is one sided.  In Tolkien there is little gray.  The plots are basically black and white, evil vs good.  One has to look for subtext to see gray.  

Since Moorcock's books tend to deal with law vs chaos with both being equally bad, I usually do not have to look far to find complex issues.



			
				PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Tolkein's prose, plotlines, and characters are extremely safe. This has had an inordinate influence on so many writers who followed him, churning out their safe, predictable, trite trilogies in which the good guys are good, the bad guys are bad, and the Hero gathers his Seven Samurai of assorted characters who go on a Cook's Tour of a generic fantasy world which is exactly the right size to fit onto two facing pages of a standard paperback, their mission being to Collect the Plot Vouchers which they can turn in to the author at the end of the trilogy, at which time the Dark Lord is defeated and everyone lives Happily Ever After in your standard, safe and extremely dull eucatastrophe.




Thanks...you said what I was having trouble with!  

I think you also just described the standard campaign too.



			
				dcas said:
			
		

> How many major characters have to die for the plotline not to be "safe"? If what you say below is true (I don't read much fantasy), then I would venture to guess that Tolkien's imitators don't really understand his stories all that well.




I think he meant by 'safe' as in safe choices.  It wasn't like he picked a creature from an evil nation to lead the assault on Mordor.....such as a black elf ranger

I bet he really loves Star Wars! 
Rotflmao.  I bet Tolkien would.


----------



## mhensley

dcas said:
			
		

> Personally, I find Moorcock well-nigh unreadable. I barely got through _Elric of Melnibone_, it coming highly recommended by a friend, and couldn't read anything beyond that.




You and me both.  The first Elric story is really good, but it rapidly goes downhill from there.  Plus I can't stand whiny, uber-munchkin characters like Elric.  He makes even Drizt and Elminster likable in comparison.


----------



## dcas

sckeener said:
			
		

> I think he meant by 'safe' as in safe choices.  It wasn't like he picked a creature from an evil nation to lead the assault on Mordor.....such as a black elf ranger




I personally find Aragorn & the gang far more believable than Driz'zt (to whom I think you're referring), but YMMV.

As far as C.S. Lewis is concerned, I assume Moorcock is referring to his 'Narnia' stories -- can one really criticize them for not being "challenging" knowing what they are (primarily children's stories)? I don't think the Space Trilogy is quite as "comforting" and un-challenging.


----------



## Mallus

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> I knew too many proto-goth Elric wanna-be's in college to take Moorcock as seriously as he takes himself, anyway.



Shouldn't you, umm, _read_ an author's works before you decide whether or not you take them seriously?

Re: Moorcock vs. Tolkien... Moorcock's got a something of point. Or at least a position. He's argued that literature of the fantastic shouldn't be considered a kind of written "comfort food", which so much of is. 

What he fails to do, speaking generally, is recognize the value, or even need, for "comfort narratives" (while overstating their harmful effect, most oftern in the form of their unstated political assumptions). And what he fails to do specifically with regard to Tolkien is give credit to the ernomous scope and power of Middle Earth purely as an act of imagination.

LoTR could have been "Triumph of the Will" with elves, and as long it was set in Tolkien's world it would have been a monumental work.


----------



## reanjr

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> Tolkien needed an editor.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




Wow.  Editors would have ruined Tolkien's books.  They tried hard to mess it up in little ways, but it was not allowed (Dwarfs and Elfs, anyone?).  If Tolkien chose a way of saying something, you can be assured it was a conscious choice for which he understood the ramifications.

I'd have to agree with previous sentiments that Moorcock is jealous and trying to drum of awareness of his writing.  Let's face it, there are probably ten times as many people who have read Tolkien and loved it than have even HEARD OF Moorcock.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

francisca said:
			
		

> 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.  :\




Yeah, back when I was in film school, "bourgeois" was one of those words that made me shake my head everytime I ran across it. It almost always made whoever used it look elitist.


----------



## Henrix

Well, Moorcock is a bit peevish, but he does have a point, Tolkien, and most other fantasy, is written in a childish tone about childish themes. 

And that's no news (nor was it when he first wrote that article in -89). Tolkien was long delegated to the children's shelves in libraries, and it is only because of their immense popularity that they can be found on other shelves these days.

There is fantasy that is not written for kids. Compare Tolkien to Fritz Leiber, or Robert Howard. His works are better written, absolutely, but also more comforting and, let's face it, childish.



And Elric really isn't Moorcock's best work, just the best known.


----------



## frankthedm

I think it comes down to;

This is the hero of the story.
Vs.
This is the _hero_ of the story?​


----------



## Hawkshere

You can spin anything if you try hard enough.

In a similar vein, I much prefer David Brin's gutting of _Star Wars_:
http://www.davidbrin.com/starwarsarticle1.html


----------



## francisca

Henrix said:
			
		

> Well, Moorcock is a bit peevish, but he does have a point, Tolkien, and most other fantasy, is written in a childish tone about childish themes.
> 
> And that's no news (nor was it when he first wrote that article in -89). Tolkien was long delegated to the children's shelves in libraries, and it is only because of their immense popularity that they can be found on other shelves these days.
> 
> There is fantasy that is not written for kids. Compare Tolkien to Fritz Leiber, or Robert Howard. His works are better written, absolutely, but also more comforting and, let's face it, childish.
> 
> 
> 
> And Elric really isn't Moorcock's best work, just the best known.



Yeah.  It's kinda like complaining that a car doesn't make a good boat.

Besides, Moorecock could be accused of all kinds of "60's style revolution" leftist mindset in his own works.  It's not surprising at all that Lewis and Tolkien would grate on his nerves.  Pot, meet kettle.  Clash of idealogy, flipside of the same coin, and all that.


----------



## Slife

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I think it comes down to;
> 
> This is the hero of the story.
> Vs.
> This is the _hero_ of the story?​



QFT.  Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## Henrix

francisca said:
			
		

> Yeah.  It's kinda like complaining that a car doesn't make a good boat.




It's more like complaining about that a car is too much like a boat, because the constructors thought cars had to be like boats.   

A lot of fantasy is childish, even when written for adults, because they copy the tone in Tolkien.


----------



## reanjr

Henrix said:
			
		

> Well, Moorcock is a bit peevish, but he does have a point, Tolkien, and most other fantasy, is written in a childish tone about childish themes.




I disagree (except for the Hobbit).  They are written in such a way as to be appropriate for children, but I wouldn't say that it was a childish tone or childish themes.  They were mythological.  Read Beowulf, it comes off the same way.


----------



## Cam Banks

reanjr said:
			
		

> Wow.  Editors would have ruined Tolkien's books.  They tried hard to mess it up in little ways, but it was not allowed (Dwarfs and Elfs, anyone?).  If Tolkien chose a way of saying something, you can be assured it was a conscious choice for which he understood the ramifications.




I disagree. I think he had a lot of well-thought ideas and was a masterful linguist and historian, but his writing reads like getting a wisdom tooth extracted whilst somebody quietly whispers really neat things into your ear to distract you.

I love the Lord of the Rings, but it's not because of the glacial movement and lousy structure of the books.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## mmu1

I'll admit that I've only ever read some of Moorcok's Elric stuff, and none of his other books (couldn't stomach Elric), so my view isn't really comprehensive, but as things stand, my take is this: 

I'd rather read through fifty "wasted" pages in which Tolkien goes off on a tangent about the history of his world, than five pages of Moorcock over-describing a guy swinging a sword or brooding. The former makes me feel like I'm there, whereas the latter just bores me.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> I disagree. I think he had a lot of well-thought ideas and was a masterful linguist and historian, but his writing reads like getting a wisdom tooth extracted whilst somebody quietly whispers really neat things into your ear to distract you.
> 
> I love the Lord of the Rings, but it's not because of the glacial movement and lousy structure of the books.



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

I'm also surprised to see Ptolus offered up as something sharing LotR's flaws. I don't find the villains in Ptolus terribly appealing, which is unusual for me, but nor do I find the good guys particularly good. Monte explicitly set up many of the groups in the city as morally ambivalent, with the Shuul and the Brotherhood of Redemption getting explicit sidebars to that effect. Even the Fallen are led by a celestial.

The purely good groups, like House Dragon, read relatively thinly to me and seem intended more as plot devices than as tentpoles of the setting.

Even the future of the empire isn't set out in terms of black and white: Probably the best outcome for the empire lies with the claimant with the worst claim on the office (and who isn't likely to live many more years even if he does gain control), while those with the better claims have some serious issues in their visions of the future. It's all shades of gray, IMO.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

I do agree with Moorcock's macro-point that too much fantasy fiction is safe and predictable and is mostly a bad regurgitation of better works. But honestly, that's the fault of the readers more than anything. If people stopped buying the tripe, the publishers would stop filling the damn shelves with it.


----------



## Gold Roger

I've really only read Tolkiens work as pure entertainment and haven't read Moorcocks at all, so neither of them influence my view of fantasy much.

But may be being someone watching the issue from the outside is an advantage at times. So here's my "outsider view" for those that might consider it:

It seems to boil down to a conflict of save escapeism black and white fantasy vs. shades of grey more ambiguous and dark fantasy. 

I'll take the part of Moderate Man(TM):

It's a thing of preferences, but to get the whole experience neither extreme is perfect.

Which means for my fantasy gaming (to get back to the purpose of this forum): My games contain both: true evil and good creature black/white conflicts and shining hope as well as shades of gray, moral dillemas and depressing darkness.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Tolkien has an editior: Christopher Tolkien (since 1972)

Moorcock and others miss an essential element of Tolkien's works: the art of sub-creation. That is one of the primary aspects that gives his works its force, energy, and entertainment value. Additionally, his prose and poetry is masterful and a joy to read in itself.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks

dcas said:
			
		

> How many major characters have to die for the plotline not to be "safe"?




Oh, I agree that Moorcock kills a whole lot more characters than Tolkein, but that wasn't really what I was talking about... character death doesn't make an edgy, challenging story.

Tolkein doesn't face his characters with difficult choices, so all the choices they make are predictable.  It's all safely colour-coded: the good guys are white, and the bad guys are dark.  (And I do mean guys - women in Tolkein aren't allowed to be evil, or elderly, or even ugly.)  Even the accents are carefully sanitised; the good guys have a posh accent and the orcs talk like dock labourers.

Compare that against Moorcock, particularly the Elric stuff from before he tacked on the extra books...

Elric was the antithesis of the Sword & Sorcery hero.  At the time the character was conceived, Conan was the archetype:  muscular, unsophisticated, brave, violent, chivalrous towards women (whose job it usually was to swoon in Conan's arms, except for Valeria and Belit who are just man-manque Amazons).  Elric was the perfect opposite:  slim, weak, tends to kill women rather than save them, sophisticated to the point of decadence, drug-ridden, and instead of being the guy who kills the sorcerors from the mysterious alien elder race, he IS the sorceror from the mysterious alien elder race.

Elric's a parody and his function is to challenge your preconceptions about fantasy.


----------



## SWBaxter

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Moorcock does have a point.
> 
> Tolkein's prose, plotlines, and characters are extremely safe.




In the _Narn i Hin Hurin_, Turin (the "hero") brings about the downfall of several Elvish nations, kills his best friend, unwittingly marries and impregnates his sister (who commits suicide when she finds out who he really is), and eventually kills himself when he realizes all that he's done.

In fact, Turin and Elric appear to both be based in part on the same figure, Kullervo, a tragic figure in Finnish mythology. Tolkien's writings cover a pretty wide range of plotlines and characters, many of them not very "safe" at all. Moorcock's disagreement with Tolkien is, IMHO, mostly political, on artistic grounds he doesn't have much of a point at all.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

What if one likes shades of gray in one's fiction AS AN ESCAPE from the black and white (well, mostly black) of the real world?  

Anyway, I actually don't much like LotR OR what I've read of Moorcock's work.  The latter is too high-powered for my tastes, the former too bloody long.  Leiber and especially Howard pwn, as the saying goes, the pair put together as both storytellers and ESPECIALLY as writers.  Howard's ability to combine lyrical prose, intensity of feeling and economy of words on a consistent basis ranks him among the best in the English language, regardless of genre, something I wouldn't say of any other fantasy writer.  CS Lewis was also a great writer, but his skill with words was shown to better effect in other works.  I wouldn't call either Moorcock or Tolkien a great WRITER, although the latter might count as a great AUTHOR for the detail and subtlty of his work.

Moorcock's comments, directed as they are against the originators of the genre he dislikes, come off as snarky and purely political/ideological.  If he were restricting his complaints to the stagnant, superficial epic fantasy genre BASED on those earlier writers' work, I'd be in total agreement (although most 'modern' epic fantasy seems to be slanted, albeit clumsily and inconsistently, toward an ideology he probably likes better).


----------



## Gentlegamer

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Even the accents are carefully sanitised; the good guys have a posh accent and the orcs talk like dock labourers.



The accents are a "translation" into English of the original languages to suggest the mindset and content of the "original" speaker. You should note that Sam and other rustic hobbits don't have "posh" accents, rather accents appropriate to their learning and culture. Similarly, the language of the Rohirrim was deliberately stylized as "middle English" to suggest its linguistic place in relation to others, such as the common Westron tongue.


> Compare that against Moorcock, particularly the Elric stuff from before he tacked on the extra books...
> 
> Elric was the antithesis of the Sword & Sorcery hero.  At the time the character was conceived, Conan was the archetype:  muscular, unsophisticated, brave, violent, chivalrous towards women (whose job it usually was to swoon in Conan's arms, except for Valeria and Belit who are just man-manque Amazons).  Elric was the perfect opposite:  slim, weak, tends to kill women rather than save them, sophisticated to the point of decadence, drug-ridden, and instead of being the guy who kills the sorcerors from the mysterious alien elder race, he IS the sorceror from the mysterious alien elder race.
> 
> Elric's a parody and his function is to challenge your preconceptions about fantasy.



No argument on how Elric was made different from the standard swords & sorcery "hero." I'd say his most important difference was the Elric, as the "protagonist," made use of sorcery. His genre predecessors almost exclusively made use of the sword.

One would think, though, that the primary function of a story is to _entertain_. That was certainly JRRT's and REH's purpose.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks

SWBaxter said:
			
		

> In the _Narn i Hin Hurin_, Turin (the "hero") brings about the downfall of several Elvish nations, kills his best friend, unwittingly marries and impregnates his sister (who commits suicide when she finds out who he really is), and eventually kills himself when he realizes all that he's done...




NIHH is still a morality play, though.  The bad guy does bad things and eventually gets his come-uppance; it's all perfectly safe and unchallenging stuff.

Gollum's story is more interesting, because it's potentially about redemption -- he's a character struggling to change his own nature.  But Tolkein doesn't dare to explore the story to the full; he kills off Gollum and it turns out that Samwise is the hero.  (This also happens with Boromir's attempt at self-redemption -- the character gets killed off rather than allow the story to dwell any more on this character who's sullied himself with guilt.)

I think Tolkein's better than, say, Terry Brooks.  If Brooks had written it, Frodo would've been the hero and Sam would've stayed the loyal sidekick.

But if Moorcock had written it, Gollum would've thrown Frodo and Sam into the Cracks of Doom, he'd have put the ring on himself, and overthrown the Dark Lord Sauron and the Valar and the Maiar and the Istari, and died in the process, and then mankind would've been set free to make his own destiny.


----------



## francisca

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> But if Moorcock had written it, Gollum would've thrown Frodo and Sam into the Cracks of Doom, he'd have put the ring on himself, and overthrown the Dark Lord Sauron and the Valar and the Maiar and the Istari, and died in the process, and then mankind would've been set free to make his own destiny.



And all of that in about 192 pages, to boot.


----------



## Prophet2b

Criticizing Tolkien and Lewis for "safe" (if that's even a correct analysis) fantasy is hardly a fair analysis, I think - even if he's right.  While not the very first of their kind, they did help to especially pave the way for the fantasy fiction movement - it's not _their_ fault if everyone else copied them after they were through.

In fact, to be completely honest, I have a very hard time criticizing authors for what _they're_ trying to do, so long as they accomplish their own purposes, even if I don't like it.  So some people don't like Tolkien?  That doesn't make it bad.  It usually just means people prefer different literary styles.  Tolkien was a bit long winded (I say "a bit" because he was nothing compared to authors like Robert Jordan) - I happen to like that.  I can totally understand if some people don't.

But Tolkien himself said that he was not writing his story to be analogous to anything at the time or in the past.  He just wanted to write a story - so that's what he did.

Moorcock's critique of Tolkien's relgious and philosophical views are his own to make, I suppose - but I could just as easily rip Moorcock's stories apart, because his own ideologies obviously come through the pages, as well.  _Any_ author will write a measure of his own philosophical views into his story - I'm not even sure he can help it.

Of course, this isn't even addressing the logical fallacy of assuming that just because something is reused over and over again it must be bad.  Who says so?  It might make them all the same.  But it doesn't make them bad.  Nor does something that's different automatically make it good - it just makes it different.  If he wants to write something different - hey, fantastic.  Who says someone else has to do that, though?

I happen to enjoy Tolkien-esque and Lewis-esque type stories.  Even written by those people who have taken the Tolkien torch and carried it on all these years.  If someone else doesn't, that's fine - it's their own taste in literature.  But Moorcock's criticisms of Tolkien and Lewis are, in my mind, hardly fair.  After all, if everyone listened to him, we'd all be stuck in the same place we are now - with tons of copies of Moorcock, instead of Tolkien.  So, in the end, I suppose I'm not 100% sure what his final point is or what he's even suggesting.

This isn't to say that I personally dislike Moorcock or his writings, not at all - just that that one article seemed to be a load of fallacious crock.


----------



## Shemeska

francisca said:
			
		

> 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.  :\




Very very true.


----------



## Mallus

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> One would think, though, that the primary function of a story is to _entertain_.



I thought Moorcock was criticizing what readers were being entertained _by_.


----------



## Deuce Traveler

I hate to throw this in there, but from what I've understood this is a lot about politics, also.  Heilein can be considered a conservative with a libertarian streak.  Tolkien can be considered a conservative with a Catholic faith.  Moorcock can be considered a leftist, and sometimes an anarchist at that, and will attack the political elements of Tolkien and Heinlein while ignoring his own evident bent.


----------



## Gentlegamer

By the way, I think Tolkien covered his own view on Moorcock implicitly in the foreward to the second edition of Lord of the Rings . . .


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> The accents are a "translation" into English of the original languages to suggest the mindset and content of the "original" speaker. You should note that Sam and other rustic hobbits don't have "posh" accents, rather accents appropriate to their learning and culture. Similarly, the language of the Rohirrim was deliberately stylized as "middle English" to suggest its linguistic place in relation to others, such as the common Westron tongue.




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.  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.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> One would think, though, that the primary function of a story is to _entertain_. That was certainly JRRT's and REH's purpose.




Oh, absolutely.

Moorcock's issue is that he needs meaty plot and characterisation to be entertained by a story, and I've got to say that I'm with him.  I don't find Winnie the Pooh an entertaining read either.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Mallus said:
			
		

> I thought Moorcock was criticizing what readers were being entertained _by_.



If so, the elitist hat is for Moorcock to wear.


----------



## Mallus

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> If so, the elitist hat is for Moorcock to wear.



Well, yeah, sure, in that essay. Despite the polical trappings Moorcock ends up making a Great Books argument -note that by the end he's name-dropping Joyce and Faulkner.


----------



## Gentlegamer

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> 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

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> 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

dcas said:
			
		

> 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

dcas said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots 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

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## 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

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> 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

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> 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

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> 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, simply_better _ 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

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> 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

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> 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

francisca said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Mark Hope

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> 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

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> How bourgeois of you.




Elitist! 



			
				The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> 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

francisca said:
			
		

> I bet he really loves Star Wars!




That one liner is going to be hard to top.


----------



## MerricB

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> 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

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> 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:



			
				Mark Hope said:
			
		

> 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

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> 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 .



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 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

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> 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

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> 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

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 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!


----------



## Mark Hope

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> 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.)



Funnily enough, I couldn't give a hoot about LotR's pacing, length and occasional bouts of flaccidity.  I read it more like an immersive experience of Middle Earth.  I'd be quite happy if it were twice the length with three times as many songs about dead elves and trees ...

But yeah, _The Hobbit_ is great from start to finish as a coherent novel.  And I have a soft spot for the bear of little brain as well.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> 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.




Yup.  Creating a seminal work that attracts hoards of imitators for generations is not a sign of weakness of the original material, even if it might arguably be a real annoyance.


----------



## LordEther

Raven Crowking, I agree with most of what you said, particularly involving the complexity of LotR, its presentation, and its characters. I feel the need, however, to throw out some thoughts on the "moral ambiguity" angle. I think the divide on the two writers' moral ambiguity stems from a difference in its perceived definition. I would agree with you that Tolkien's work is full of a number of characters who try to do good in a world that might not reward such attempts. Some of these characters fail and making poor choices. Fairly consistently, though, in LotR, the reader has a pretty good indication of what constitutes good and what constitutes evil. While there are exceptions, they are just that... exceptions. So, while usually, Tolkien does a great job at providing situations in which only a special sort could possibly hope to do the right thing, Moorcock, in my opinion, is much better at providing situations without a clear right/wrong divide. 

For example, in RotK, we know what Denethor should have done during the attack on Minas Tirith. At the very least, we know "It's over! I'm lighting myself and my son on fire!" is not the right answer. The question, however, in that circumstance is, what kind of person would it take to do the "right" thing and face down the situation alongside one's people and the brave knights of the city? 

It's a very real and significant question, but it's of a completely different nature than we find in Moorcock's writing, in which protagonists regularly find themselves in situations where (thematically or ethically) "correct" responses don't seem to exist. 

What the reader would have done were (s)he the deposed Elric after Yrkkoon (or whatever that guy's name is) took over Imryyr likely depends less on the individual's idea of right or wrong than on his or her expedience and personality traits. Because, really, there aren't too many thematically or ethically "correct" things to do when you're an emperor and your cousin steals your empire and your girlfriend (who happens to be another cousin) and your subjects don't much like you anyway, and the only people you can turn to are more people who really don't like or trust you and can't get along amonst themselves either. The key question here is less about the difficulty involved in pursuing the "right" course of action than it is a matter of actually _identifying _ that course of action. Here, upon seeing what Elric chooses to do, after the initial "Man, what?", the moral question is likely more along the lines of... "Well, what was he _supposed _ to do?" 

That may not make as much sense as I hoped it would... but... meh. Just some thoughts.


----------



## fusangite

sckeener said:
			
		

> Moorcock criticises a group of celebrated writers of epic fantasy for children, including Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, and Richard Adams. His criticism is based on two principal grounds: the poverty of their writing style, and a political criticism. Moorcock accuses these authors of espousing a form of "corrupted Romance", which he identifies with Anglican Toryism. The defining traits of this attitude are an anti-technological, anti-urban stance which is ultimately misanthropic, that glorifies a vanished or vanishing rural idyll, and is rooted in middle-class or bourgeois attitudes towards progress and political change.



To quote the Big Lebowski,







			
				The Dude said:
			
		

> *Well, yeah.*​




What is disingenuous and ludicrous about Moorcock's position is not the truth of this statement which is basicaly undeniable (except that there is a huge oversimplification of the consciousness of a class) but the idea that one cannot or should not appreciate literature with whose political perspective one does not agree. 

If I only read great literature by people whose values I completely agreed with, my reading list would be short and I would have missed almost all of the greatest reading experiences of my life.

Tolkien is puts forward a racist Victorian worldview in his books with which I disagree. But his romantic attachment to premodern lifeways is not exclusive to racist Victorians; much of the contemporary left holds similar views as evidenced by its vigorous defense of aboriginal group rights and traditional life ways including such things as hereditary aristocratic governance. Furthermore, there are also the Christian aspects of his writing which, again, are shared by many people who do not identify with 19th century romantic English Tory thought. 

There is a lot in Tolkien's worldview or literary project to object to. But I can't think of many other great writers about whom this statement is not also true.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

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




The film attempts to be coherent to a viewer who has not read the book.  Such changes are a necessity of the change in medium.

I am sure that Tolkien rolled in his grave when the Uruk barked "Meat is back on the menu, boys!" but the line works extremely well nonetheless.  

(Tolkien would have absolutely abhorred a distinctly French word like 'menu' sneaking its way into Middle Earth.  One of his motivations in creating Middle Earth was to explore the pleasures of the particular sounds of English's pre-Norman roots, as well as create a mythology with the richness and appeal of, say, Arthurian England with none of the borrowed French trappings.)


----------



## Thanatos

Umbran said:
			
		

> 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.




QFT.

I like both of them, but they do have very different writing styles. When I read the article though, I think that Umbran nailed it on the head

Of course...I like alot of easy fantasy novel reads like the Eberron books, some Dragonlance and some of the other books (the one with the fairy and justicar come to mind)...so...I'm easily entertained by both simple and complex stuff.

At the end of the day, far more often then not, I've enjoyed a tale for a few hours and don't feel I wasted my money or time and thats what counts to me. Though, on occasion, I have found I picked out a real stinker...


----------



## Doug McCrae

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> It seems to boil down to a conflict of save escapeism black and white fantasy vs. shades of grey more ambiguous and dark fantasy.



There's a lot in Moorcock that is black and white imo. Certainly not his heroes, Elric and Erekose are especially morally dubious. Many of his villains are pure evil though - Bishop Belphig from Phoenix in Obsidian and Princess Sharadrim from The Dragon In The Sword are both utterly selfish hedonists who cause the death of thousands in pursuit of their own pleasure. The gods of Chaos that the Eternal Champion often opposes have similar attitudes. At the end of Stormbringer the titular sword famously states 'Farewell, friend. I was a thousand times more evil than thou!'

Moorcock draws very clear distinctions between different cultures in many of his books, presenting some as healthy, others as deeply unhealthy. The hero invariably ends up fighting for those that are healthy against those that are unhealthy. Examples of healthy cultures include the Scarlet Fjord from PiO, Ghestenheem from TDitS and the Eldren culture in The Eternal Champion. Examples of unhealthy ones include Rowernarc from PiO, Granbretan and Melnibone.


----------



## JohnSnow

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

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




But "the play" isn't the story. The play is the presentation of the story. _Romeo & Juliet_ is not _West Side Story._ And _My Fair Lady_ isn't the same as the Greek myth Pygmalion, even though it's based on it.

The story is...well...there's only so many stories to tell. So any given story (plot) itself is usually a regurgitation of a hundred other stories that have come before. Twists and turns and style are all that distinguishes one author's version of the hero's tale from another. Part of Tolkien's "style" was to write the thing as if it were an epic narrative about a fictional world, complete with poetry, languages, et cetera.



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> 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.




As an aside, you're aware the "good parts" thing is something Goldman made up out of whole cloth, right?

I do disagree with your opinion. Which is all this is: your opinion.



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> me said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



But the problem is you're criticizing his style because it's not what you would do. You call his choices self-indulgent and momentum-killing, but to say that it's "inarguable" is, absurd. That's your opinion. I grant you couch it with a phrase like "pretty much" which gives you a whole lot of wiggle room.

Maybe I don't mind because I don't think his choices are momentum-killing. Maybe I like the way the narrative works. You don't. That doesn't mean I'm wrong and you're right. My opinion is just as valid as yours.

You can choose not to enjoy Tolkien's style, but to argue it should have been different is to make it a different book by a different author. If you don't like it, fine, that's your right. But it's awfully presumptuous of you to make claims about how books "ought" to be written.

Finally, to address one thing Mark said:



			
				Mark Hope said:
			
		

> Can't agree with you here. (Moorcock) 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.




But simply by writing the essay, he was drawing attention to himself. Saying, basically, "Look at what I have to say" and, oh, by the way, I'm a writer too. I can't blame him for it, but I'm sure he wasn't oblivious to the buzz the article would generate. And the resulting potential interest in his works liable to come out of it.

Not to say he didn't agree with it, but being controversial IS usually a good way to get people's attention.


----------



## taliesin15

Part of the problem with that is Moorcock is lumping together some very different writers! For contrast, see comments about Tolkien (much more extensive and well-thought out, one should add) by Harold Bloom (a number of works) and Northrop Frye (The Secular Scripture). 

No doubt Tolkien was an Anglican Tory, but he wrote some deeply moving and gripping works. Lord of the Rings grows with power each time I re-read it. It has even more power for me having read many of his sources, beyond Beowulf (which itself merits serious study), namely the earliest English poetry out there like The Seafarer, The Wanderer and early English riddles. 

Just the fact that Tolkien invented several languages alone assures he will be considered one of the greats for centuries to come. But, and I'm someone who likes Moorcock, I mean, come on. Elric? Will anyone really be reading this a hundred years from now? Talk about people in glass houses.


----------



## Prophet2b

fusangite said:
			
		

> There is a lot in Tolkien's worldview or literary project to object to.




Or agree with and learn from, if you look at the glass from another angle.


----------



## Ripzerai

Moorcock subsequently mellowed about Tolkien quite a bit, including him in his list of 100 best fantasy books (though not near the top). His "Epic Pooh" was more a personal manifesto than anything else; his own writing and particularly his work as an editor tends to be very political, and he tended, especially when he was younger, to judge other works based on their politics.

Note, however, that I haven't bothered to read this thread, as I'm so fervently in Moorcock's camp on this one (I didn't like _Lord of the Rings_, but I love Moorcock's stuff) that I'd probably be needlessly argumentative.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone

Comments like this:



> Moorcock accuses these authors of espousing a form of "corrupted Romance", which he identifies with Anglican Toryism.




are what turned me off to studying literature (that and four years of honors English).  I mean, so what?  As far as I'm concerned, I either enjoy the story and writing style, or I don't.  I give a rat's rear end about the political leanings of the author or the sub-sub-genre of a writing style.  Moorcock, IMO, could better have used his 500 words starting another Elric story.


----------



## comrade raoul

One has to separate the issues at hand.

First, it's really important to leave Moorcock's abilities as a writer aside when criticizing his arguments. You don't have to be able to write good novels to say important and insightful things about literature; nor do you have to be a capable literary critic to be an excellent novelist. That's like saying you have to know a lot about human physiology to be an excellent runner. I mean, everyone has a few favorite examples of people who are really good at both (mine is probably A. S. Byatt), and one certainly might help with the other, but the vast majority of excellent critics do not write fiction, and vice versa.







			
				AuraSeer said:
			
		

> Seriously, even if we assume he's right, why would it be bad that works are different from each other? If every book was intended solely to be "challenging" (or solely "comforting" or solely anything else), literature would be awfully boring.



I think a more charitable interpretation of Moorcock might be that comforting books aren't necessarily _bad_, at all, and there's nothing wrong with enjoying comforting books once in a while. It's only a problem if we hold up the comforting books as great literature--remember the statistic that _The Lord of the Rings_ are the popular choice for the *greatest work of twentieth-century literature*--and don't even _try_ to challenge ourselves. (And it's also the case that Moorcock's claim about Tolkien's books--that they're primitive and stultifying in philosophical and literary terms--is completely compatible with their _also_ being amazing achievements in world-building and, to some extent, wonderful exercises for the imagination.)

Note too that this claim is logically independent of (although related to) the other claims that Moorcock makes--that the Tolkien books are really badly written, and that their implicit politics are reactionary in a very harmful way.


----------



## taliesin15

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I do agree with Moorcock's macro-point that too much fantasy fiction is safe and predictable and is mostly a bad regurgitation of better works. QUOTE]
> that's another reason I recommend Frye's Secular Scripture (and Bloom for that matter) on Tolkien--Frye points out, quite rightly, that Tolkien is working within a particular tradition
> 
> in any case, this thread is pretty pointless to me--we'd be much more productive here discussing some authors hardly anyone brings up--anyone out there read the works of John Crowley? Or how about Keith Roberts? Roberts' novel Pavane is one of the great works of the fantasy genre.


----------



## JohnSnow

fusangite said:
			
		

> Tolkien puts forward a racist Victorian worldview in his books with which I disagree. But his romantic attachment to premodern lifeways is not exclusive to racist Victorians;




This is PC crap. People are always pointing out the racial or sexual characteristics of heroes or villains and drawing conclusions about the author's own racism, sexism, or lack thereof.

"In Tolkien's books, the good guys are white, and the bad guys are dark, so he must be a racist!"
"There are no strong female characters, so he must be a sexist."
"Frodo and Sam are too friendly. Tolkien must have been gay."

Ad absurdum. PLEASE!!! You're seeing what you choose to see. That's all.

This is as absurd as the guy in _Chasing Amy_ casting the "racist" epithet at _Star Wars_ because Darth Vader represented "black power" until he was revealed to be an old white man. Or the people who heard the bad Count Dracula accents on aliens in _Phantom Menace_ and decided it was in some way "anti-Asian." If you see those accents as Asian, that's YOUR problem.

It's almost as ridiculous as the people who attacked Peter Jackson claiming he was capitalizing on the Trade Center attacks by naming the second LotR movie _The Two Towers._ People just need to get a clue and stop trying to read so much agenda into everything.

Sheesh.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> The story is...well...there's only so many stories to tell.



I know this is an English 101 cliche, and I've certainly been hearing it since high school English at the very least, but I think it's bunk, unless we reduce the plots to an absurd degree, which, of course, is the whole basis of literary criticism, one could argue.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> As an aside, you're aware the "good parts" thing is something Goldman made up out of whole cloth, right?



Please avoid the temptation to get condescending.



> But the problem is you're criticizing his style because it's not what you would do. You call his choices self-indulgent and momentum-killing, but to say that it's "inarguable" is, absurd.



And so are the people on this thread who are saying his style is clearly good because people have ripped off his plots and world-building for years. (Although notably, no one's tripping over themselves to rip off his style.)



> You can choose not to enjoy Tolkien's style, but to argue it should have been different is to make it a different book by a different author. If you don't like it, fine, that's your right. But it's awfully presumptuous of you to make claims about how books "ought" to be written.



And vice-versa on all the folks holding it up as a paragon work, both on this thread and countless others here on ENWorld.

But honestly, authors have survived readers and critics saying how books "ought" to be for years. I suspect we could find 100 examples of that on threads here about D20 books on the first page of the main General board alone.

If JRRT could survive Rankin/Bass and Ralph Bakshi, he can survive me thinking his book is too flabby.


----------



## Mark Hope

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Finally, to address one thing Mark said:
> 
> But simply by writing the essay, he was drawing attention to himself. Saying, basically, "Look at what I have to say" and, oh, by the way, I'm a writer too. I can't blame him for it, but I'm sure he wasn't oblivious to the buzz the article would generate. And the resulting potential interest in his works liable to come out of it.
> 
> Not to say he didn't agree with it, but being controversial IS usually a good way to get people's attention.



I see what you are saying here, and there is no real way to know if Moorcock was being controversial to court attention.  Of course the publication of the essay draws attention to his other works, but that is a truism and I don't see how you can convincingly argue that any publication is designed to have that as its primary effect.

That assertion is rendered even less likely when you consider the fact that, by 1978, Moorcock had already won eight prestigious awards for his writing (including the Nebula award, British Fantasy award, Guardian fiction award and 4 August Derleth Awards).  So I doubt that he needed to rely upon something like _Epic Pooh_ to garner additional attention.  Don't forget that _Epic Pooh_ was initially only released as a pamphlet and didn't enjoy widespread circulation - hardly the kind of choice of publication that you would make if you are attempting to court publicity through controversy.  In fact, it wasn't until 9 years later that the essay was released as part of a the _Wizardry and Wild Romance_ collection.

Again, I do see the point that you are trying to make, but I don't feel that it is supported by the facts of the essay's publication, or Moorcock's own career achievements to date.


----------



## comrade raoul

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> If JRRT could survive Rankin/Bass and Ralph Bakshi, he can survive me thinking his book is too flabby.



[size=-2](I really loved those Rankin/Bass movies.)[/size]


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Or the people who heard the bad Count Dracula accents on aliens in _Phantom Menace_ and decided it was in some way "anti-Asian." If you see those accents as Asian, that's YOUR problem.



Yeah, because it's impossible that someone who created something we loved as children could turn out to make some really strange artistic choices later on, including using ridiculous caricature voices for multiple characters including, most infamously, Jar-Jar Binks.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

comrade raoul said:
			
		

> [size=-2](I really loved those Rankin/Bass movies.)[/size]



At least you're properly ashamed of it.   

Actually, I love, love, love John Huston as Gandalf and that was my biggest hurdle to overcome with the Peter Jackson movies. But watching the Hobbit on DVD today, I cringe at some of the shortcuts they used in production, like the "ZOOOOOOOM IN on a still picture" technique for combat.

Hell, I even like "The Greatest Adventure" song and would buy it from iTunes, were it available.

(I know people will stone me for that.)


----------



## comrade raoul

fusangite said:
			
		

> If I only read great literature by people whose values I completely agreed with, my reading list would be short and I would have missed almost all of the greatest reading experiences of my life.



Yes. I think everything you say is absolutely right. But there's an intermediate position here. One can recognize that we should still read, appreciate, and study books with reprehensible politics, but one might also argue that we should still try to expose any political commitments latent in a text, and explicitly engage those commitments as part of our experience of reading. Doing this might be very important: one might argue that art can be very seductive, and a capable writer (I do think Tolkien is a capable writer in this sense) can make a reader sympathetic to certain political attitudes without the reader or even, in some cases, the writer, knowing exactly what's going on. If this argument is right, then doing this becomes _especially_ important for very prominent writers like Tolkien or Lewis, who reach a huge number of people, often on profound levels and when they are very young.


----------



## fusangite

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> This is PC crap. People are always pointing out the racial or sexual characteristics of heroes or villains and drawing conclusions about the author's own racism, sexism, or lack thereof.



What is politically correct is saying that these books should not be read or appreciated because of their racism or sexism. Noticing what the books have to say about questions of race or sex is just being analytical and honest about the books.

I love these books, in spite of the fact that they are clearly racist. Intellectual rigor, ie. paying attention to what the books are saying is not an invention of the political correctness movement or even in an invention of the modern era. For as long as people have been reading books and thinking about them, they have formed opinions about the prejudices, philosophies and agendas of their authors. Ancient Greece had literary criticism for God's sake. Think of how intellecutally impoverished a world we would live in if we only read books literally and failed to extrapolate thematic elements from them. 

The fact is that every single non-white character in the books is evil. And none of them have dialogue. If Tolkien didn't have an opinion about non-white people, he would have made everybody as white as Saruman and the other bad guys.







> Ad absurdum. PLEASE!!! You're seeing what you choose to see.



Surely you must acknowledge that some books do have subtext. Right? You can't seriously be suggesting that no ever written books have themes or messages beyond their direct literal statements.

Assuming, then, that you acknowledge that many books do have such elements and that, I hope, that these books are well-represented in what we consider to be great literature, I have to ask: if Tolkien is great literature, why would his works not contain theme, subtext and metatext?







> It's almost as ridiculous as the people who attacked Peter Jackson claiming he was capitalizing on the Trade Center attacks by naming the second LotR movie _The Two Towers._ People just need to get a clue and stop trying to read so much agenda into everything.



Look buddy. Suggesting that great literature may contain submerged themes is not a conspiracy theory; it's the consensus of everyone who studies it.


----------



## JohnSnow

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Please avoid the temptation to get condescending.




Just to clarify, it really was an aside, not an attempt at condescension.

I've run into lots of smart and otherwise well-informed people who have never read Goldman's own remarks on the subject and assumed he was serious. I suppose I should have assumed that you know, but you know what they say about assumptions...

My apologies if it came across as condescending.



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> And so are the people on this thread who are saying his style is clearly good because people have ripped off his plots and world-building for years. (Although notably, no one's tripping over themselves to rip off his style.)




Agreed. I don't think Tolkien's imitators are proof of anything, other than that it's very easy to make a buck knocking off a popular work.

People not tripping over themselves to imitate his style, well, that's true. But on the other hand, how many fantasy writers could be professors of language and literature at Oxford University? You'd have to basically have Tolkien's background to imitate his style with any success. And fortunately, most writers are smart enough to realize that they don't. So I wouldn't call that proof of anything other than that, as far as has been demonstrated, only Tolkien could write what Tolkien wrote.



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Yeah, because it's impossible that someone who created something we loved as children could turn out to make some really strange artistic choices later on, including using ridiculous caricature voices for multiple characters including, most infamously, Jar-Jar Binks.




Now who's being condescending?

Should all the aliens have spoken perfect English? I suppose that's the _Star Trek_ solution - duck the issue entirely. Subtitles? Some people complained bitterly about having to read dialogue, and Lucas had "established" that most characters in the story spoke the trade language of the Empire/Republic (presented as English). To convey the concept that it's not their native language, some of them speak a funnily accented version of it...even in the original trilogy (Yoda, Ackbar).

As to Jar Jar...well...everybody makes mistakes. But I still maintain people can always read into something what they choose to.

My two cents.


----------



## Mark Hope

fusangite said:
			
		

> The fact is that every single non-white character in the books is evil. And none of them have dialogue.



Don't some of the orcs in Cirith Ungol have dialogue?  It's pretty poor, but I'm sure they say some stuff...

Sigh.  This kind of post is a sign that I should go to bed.  I was really enjoying this thread as well...


----------



## Xyanthon

I’ve been (and still am) a fan of both Moorcock AND Tolkien ever since I was old enough to be interested in fantasy.  Equally, I like C.S. Lewis as well as Robert E. Howard.  I think there is plenty of room in the fantasy field for complex issues dealing with shades of grey; protagonists who may or may not be all that heroic; classic tales of good versus evil; etc.  See, that is what I love about fantasy; it can take on so many forms and be really entertaining and liberating (or in some cases really dismal).  I think much of the arguments of who is better, more complex, trite, trash, etc are all really missing the point.  The fact is they are all opinion.  So despite Mr. Moorcock’s views (and I believe he perfectly justified in having them) I have my own different opinion which to me is the more valid and trumps his in my little corner of the world.  So I’ll go on being a fan and dreaming of relaxing in the Shire with a beer or delving into the decadence of Melnibone; wielding a lance on dragon back or stepping through the back of the wardrobe; being witness to dark and unspeakable rituals or bearing witness to the birth of gods; riding a sand worm or swimming beneath the sea.  In my flights of fantasy, there is more than enough room to accommodate them all


----------



## Remathilis

Having read 98% of everything in this thread, I can't help but think Moorcock has a point, but its not a really strong one.

Moorcock is saying (in essence) that fantasy should be used as an instrument of social commentary. Basically, he comments Tolkien is "safe" by not challenging the social norms in his world (Aragorn is a fit ruler because he is born into it, Arwen never challenges her place in elf-society, Sam is a servant who never questions his lord, etc). 

Elric, by constrast, is anti-society. He doesn't fit into the world he is born into, but doesn't take on the trappings of true evil. Instead of filling his role in society, he rebels against it.

Apples and Oranges, I say.

However, to say one is superior to another is a straw-man. Social commentary has its place, but a diet of it can make one bitter and jaded. Its like saying the best Sci-fi should only be Brave New World, 1984, and A Clockwork Orange. They are all important books, but Star Trek, Star Wars, and Buck Rodgers all have a viable place in the pantheon as well.


----------



## fusangite

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> Don't some of the orcs in Cirith Ungol have dialogue? It's pretty poor, but I'm sure they say some stuff...



I don't know what you're talking about but I'm only referring to the humans in the books.


----------



## JohnSnow

fusangite said:
			
		

> What is politically correct is saying that these books should not be read or appreciated because of their racism or sexism. Noticing what the books have to say about questions of race or sex is just being analytical and honest about the books.
> 
> I love these books, in spite of the fact that they are clearly racist. Intellectual rigor, ie. paying attention to what the books are saying is not an invention of the political correctness movement or even in an invention of the modern era.




True. Paying attention to what books say is not an invention of political correctness or of the modern era. However, assuming that every minor plot point in a book is profoundly significant IS. Literary people need something to write about. If they just accepted that the racist subtext in Tolkien's books isn't really there, what would literature PhD candidates write their theses about?

Following your line of thought, the Elric stories are clearly an indictment of albinos.

Gieven that most medieval societies WERE sexist, is it sexist to portray that? I don't particularly think so. I'd argue you can learn more about Tolkien's opinion about women by looking at what Eowyn DOES do than at how many women characters exist in the books.



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> Assuming, then, that you acknowledge that many books do have such elements and that, I hope, that these books are well-represented in what we consider to be great literature, I have to ask: if Tolkien is great literature, why would his works not contain theme, subtext and metatext?




Just because I'm saying the stories don't have the theme, subtext, and metatext you claim they do doesn't mean they don't have any. It does mean I find it simplistic to read racism into the story simply because of its presentation of some characters as villains who are "swarthy" or "dark" or clad in black. Especially when two of the central characters overcome the racism and prejudice of their own societies to become fast friends. And all of these really significant villains are part of Sauron's faceless hordes. Unless you're going to attach significance to the symbolism of the color black. In which case you're attaching racist significance to the school of thought that bad things come from dark places.

There are other examples I could give, like Saruman (the White) being one of the chief villains. Or the central role of Denethor in furthering Sauron's aims (a white male of the same race as Aragorn, but less lineage).

Sauron, by the way, is completely formless and never appears in the story.

There's plenty of subtext about the conflict between nature and technology, the danger of pride, the perils of playing god and so forth. There's mythological significance to things like "Men of the West" "the land in the East" or even that Sauron's minions came from the South. All of that is embedded in centuries of European mythology. Maybe you can argue that those myths themselves are racist, and you might be right.

So I ask, does drawing on those myths make someone racist? Even when they're clearly writing that racism and intolerance are BAD.

To paraphrase Freud, sometimes an orc is just an orc.


----------



## Prophet2b

fusangite said:
			
		

> What is politically correct is saying that these books should not be read or appreciated because of their racism or sexism. Noticing what the books have to say about questions of race or sex is just being analytical and honest about the books.
> 
> I love these books, in spite of the fact that they are clearly racist. Intellectual rigor, ie. paying attention to what the books are saying is not an invention of the political correctness movement or even in an invention of the modern era.




Wow...  You know absolutely nothing about J.R.R. Tolkien.

I'm going to _strongly_ recommend you go read some Tolkien biographies and some of his other works before you say anything else along these lines, because you have absolutely _no_ idea what you're talking about.

I could spend a good hour writing up a post detailing Tolkien's critiques of racism and what he believes concerning the equality of men and women (which we can find in other sources, either by him or people who knew him, etc. - studies have been done).  But I don't really have the time.

This is just absurd.  Completely and utterly.  Tolkien was the farthes thing from a sexist and a racist that one could possibly be.  His books had absolutely _nothing_ to do with those topics.

What _you_ read into it is your own fault.  Not his.  Don't blame the author for the reader's inferences.


----------



## MerricB

taliesin15 said:
			
		

> No doubt Tolkien was an Anglican Tory...




But he wasn't. Tolkien was a Catholic. That was - and probably still is - quite unusual in England.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Basically, he comments Tolkien is "safe" by not challenging the social norms in his world (Aragorn is a fit ruler because he is born into it, Arwen never challenges her place in elf-society, Sam is a servant who never questions his lord, etc).




Heh. Aragorn is a fit ruler because he's been brought up right (by Elrond), not because anyone born to that bloodline is right for it. He's the descendant of Isildur who managed to make the terribly wrong decision of not destroying the Ring!

Arwen completely _abandons_ Elf society to marry Aragorn.

What is also true is that Middle Earth at the start of the Lord of the Rings is in decline. All the great kingdoms have failed; those that remain are in decline. The wilderness is encroaching. After LotR you have the renewal of both the Rohan and Gondor cultures (and Shire likewise). 

The social norms of the hobbits are to stay at home and ignore the world...

Cheers!


----------



## Aus_Snow

. . .

Well. This thread has made for some interesting work-time reading.

Some of Moorcock's statements remind me somewhat of Pullman's attack on the Narnia stories.

It's so _very_. . . predictable?. . . when self-styled 'anti-religious' types zealously crusade against the supposed evils of what they claim to be crusading zeal.

Perhaps it would be cute or amusing it it wasn't so ******* boring and cliche.


----------



## Odhanan

I actually had a few exchanges with Mike Moorcock on the subject of Tolkien. 

I think that people are overblowing Mike's statement. He is a writer, and he has political opinions. Like any of us. From there, he can express his opinions, and he's conscious these opinions reflect his personal tastes in terms of literature and politics. He doesn't expect people to change their minds over what he says, and he's certainly not thinking of fans of Tolkien (such as I) as debilitated morons overly nostalgic and/or right wing.

So, I think one should just take a step back and look at his criticism as coming from someone who is on the opposite side of the fence on both style and political points of view. He does make some sound arguments, but it's not necessary to choose sides. I'm both a Tolkien and Moorcock fan, myself, and I like their writings and personalities for different reasons.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> (Tolkien would have absolutely abhorred a distinctly French word like 'menu' sneaking its way into Middle Earth.  One of his motivations in creating Middle Earth was to explore the pleasures of the particular sounds of English's pre-Norman roots, as well as create a mythology with the richness and appeal of, say, Arthurian England with none of the borrowed French trappings.)





Not at all....if the film was aimed at the French.

In his notes for translating LotR, Tolkein went to great pains to ensure that the translated names and languages would correspond not to his English, but to earlier forms of the language LotR was translated into.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> The film attempts to be coherent to a viewer who has not read the book.  Such changes are a necessity of the change in medium.



I undestand. I still think preserving more of the actual dialog in that scene would have been better.

One thing added that I think was actually better than in Tolkien was Boromir's final words to Aragorn in the film.


> I am sure that Tolkien rolled in his grave when the Uruk barked "Meat is back on the menu, boys!" but the line works extremely well nonetheless.
> 
> (Tolkien would have absolutely abhorred a distinctly French word like 'menu' sneaking its way into Middle Earth.  One of his motivations in creating Middle Earth was to explore the pleasures of the particular sounds of English's pre-Norman roots, as well as create a mythology with the richness and appeal of, say, Arthurian England with none of the borrowed French trappings.)



Accurate analysis. Tolkien was also quite good at coming up with a "logical" linguistic explanation for things, so for example:
the Uruk-hai was using words he learned from the language instruction of Sharkey (Saruman), who taught them a hodge-podge of vulgar Westron with foreign words from Rhun (where Saruman had traveled extensively) (such as the word "menu").


----------



## Raven Crowking

BTW, the two largest themes in LotR are:

(1)  The world must be allowed to move forward, even if it means that we must decline and die.

(2)  Sometimes, to achieve what is right for others, we must sacrifice the ability to enjoy it ourselves.

These are not "comforting" notions.

YMMV.

(BTW, Thanks ThirdWizard.  Disagreeing on one or two topics doesn't mean we have to disagree on everything!   )


----------



## Nomad4life

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> What if one likes shades of gray in one's fiction AS AN ESCAPE from the black and white (well, mostly black) of the real world?




You know, I feel just like that sometimes, especially as I get older; that R/L is mostly composed of slightly differing textures of black.  Sometimes it’s nice to read fantasy just to go back to dealing with good ol’ college-days gray.


----------



## Gentlegamer

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> 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.



Lewis wrote in his autobiography, Surprised by Joy, that as a vaguly Protestant English Literature professor, he "had been warned explicitly against Catholics and implicitly against philogists. Tolkien was both." [paraphrase]

The protagonist of Lewis's "Space Trilogy," is Dr. Ransom, a philogist.


----------



## replicant2

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Moorcock does have a point.
> 
> Tolkein's prose, plotlines, and characters are extremely safe.  This has had an inordinate influence on so many writers who followed him, churning out their safe, predictable, trite trilogies in which the good guys are good, the bad guys are bad, and the Hero gathers his Seven Samurai of assorted characters who go on a Cook's Tour of a generic fantasy world which is exactly the right size to fit onto two facing pages of a standard paperback, their mission being to Collect the Plot Vouchers which they can turn in to the author at the end of the trilogy, at which time the Dark Lord is defeated and everyone lives Happily Ever After in your standard, safe and extremely dull eucatastrophe.




Sorry man, but you whiffed here.

Some (myself included) believe that a major theme of the Lord of the Rings is that there isn't a Happily Ever After for everyone. That's what the Scouring of the Shire is all about. It's what Frodo's scars--physical and psychological--symbolize.

Even though Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin "scour" the evil from the Shire, innocence has been lost for good. 

Tolkien never portrayed war as an event that leads to a happy ever after, and if that's what you truly believe I suggest you read the books again. Either that or you might be confusing Tolkien with some of the hacks (admittedly numerous) that came after him, writers that copied his formula and archetypes but sorely lacked his depth of meaning.


----------



## Ulrick

Michael Moorcock "invented" the Chaos Symbol, and I love the Stormbringer quote in my sig. However, I do like LotR and Middle Earth. One can learn a lot as a DM on how to build a world with deep history. Moorcock's worlds are just invented for the sake of including them in the plot in that particular corner of the Mutiverse.

I like both authors. In many ways they represent extremes in the fantasy literature genre. And I think that people can learn important things from each. Moorcock has been "blasting" Tolkien for years now. It's just the way it is. I'm not going to let one author influence my judgement on another, particulary in this context. Moorcock is a prolific writer, period, but a lot of what he writes (in my opinion) doesn't have much substance to it (I have read all 15 of his ominbus' by the way, back when was a "neo-gothic college student"--as somebody put it earlier). I even read somewhere (on multiverse.org, I think) that Moorcock often has a goal of 60,000 words for a novel. He then breaks the novel down into three parts, 20,000 words each. Each part has roughly 4-6 chapters of 2000-5000 words long. Each chapter must have something magical or special happen roughly every 500 words so. Yes, he's written some good stuff with this technique, and it probably helps him meet deadlines, but I have to say that there's something good about letting a story evolve on its own like Tolkien did.


----------



## Akrasia

Perhaps Moorcock is simply bitter is that Tolkien already told the tale of the sword ‘Stormbringer’ with greater poetry and evocativeness in the story of Turin from The Silmarillion? 

I recommend that people read ‘Of Turin Turambar’ in The Silmarillion.  It is hard not conclude that the sword Anglachel/Gorthang _is_ Stormbringer (a black sentient sword with an evil will…).


----------



## wilrich

SWBaxter said:
			
		

> . . .  Moorcock's disagreement with Tolkien is, IMHO, mostly political, on artistic grounds he doesn't have much of a point at all.





Quoted for truth!  That sums it up better than I ever could!


----------



## Jin_Kataki

I am not even gonna bother to read through this entire thread cause I am sure it is just going back forth.

bottom line is a writer should write what he wants and if the reader likes it he should read it.  

This is like one person saying Godfather was the greatest movie ever and another person saying it was overdramatized drivel.  Both statements are true cause a movie or a book or a song or any form of artistic expression is whatever the individual takes away from it.


----------



## Tuzenbach

*Dissecting Moorcock: A Psychoanalytic Approach*



			
				PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Now, Mr Moorcock is in no real position to criticize, since he's spent the past several decades writing the same book again and again, but he does have two real advantages over the Tolkein-imitators: He has a new plot to offer, and he tells it in simple, unpretentious prose without any waffle. Moorcock writes in five pages what Tolkein or Eddings would write in fifty pages, and Brooks would write in a hundred and fifty pages, and Jordan would write in a ten-volume epic.




Utterly true about the simplicity of Moorcock, but is it truly advantageous? I mean, reading fantasy novels is supposed to be for the sake of enjoyment. And enjoyment isn't normally meant for abbreviation. It would be somewhat akin to paying to sit in a movie theatre and merely experiencing the trailors. Why do it? 

Tolkien = Novels

Moorcock = Cliff's Notes






			
				sckeener said:
			
		

> The title arises from Moorcock's claim that the writing of Tolkien, Lewis, Adams and others has a similar purpose to the Winnie-the-Pooh writings of A. A. Milne, another author of whom he disapproves: *it is intended to comfort rather than challenge*.​




I've read the first 6 books of the Elric series, along with Hawkmoon, Count Brass, & Earl Aubec. Do you know what? All of these characters have one very important trait in common: they're *UNCOMFORTABLE!!!*

First, we have Elric. And he's not happy. He's not sure why, but he is. So he goes and does stuff. Then Hawkmoon. He's not happy either. So he goes and does other stuff. In fact, there's one thing he does which he's constantly trying to undo in an effort to do it "better" the second time around. Not sure if this guy ever finds happiness, but throughout most of the series, he's a gloomy mess. And the same generalization could be ascribed to both Count Brass & Earl Aubec. They're all very unhappy, unsatisfied, and ultimately, *UNCOMFORTABLE* characters.

Such was the focus upon constantly searching for something, endlessly striving to break free from the mold of "uncomfortability" with all of Moorcock's characters that I began to believe these as aspects of Michael Moorcock himself. I suppose Freud would call this phenomenon "projection". 

In short, because Moorcock is uncomfortable, he unconsciously seeks release from this by expressing it. No, not by saying "I, Michael Moorcock am uncomfortable", but by presenting a bunch of characters generally dissatisfied with their current existence.

Also, as Moorcock embodies the mentality of "uncomfortableness", anything that is contrary is wrong. 

Thus, Moorcock has issues with Tolkien.


----------



## Tuzenbach

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> 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.



 Isn't this just a metaphor for what I said?


----------



## Woas

Who's Moorcock and what does all that make-pretend word jibba jab all mean?!


----------



## Thunderfoot

The only other writer I've ever seen use "bourgeois" in that context was Karl Marx, therefore I surmise that Mr. Moorcock is a commie!

Seriously though, I see the point he is trying to make, happy endings are bad things, we must all languish in the despair of the real world and God is dead... I hate beatniks!!! 

Frankly his opinion is stated in less of a mature fashion than half the posters to this thread.  He likes small words, and obviously small meanings.  When I was taught English and verbal comprehension, writing that contained these two "unspoken" spoken variables meant the speaker had small thoughts.  He has proven my Literature teachers correct in their assessments.  

It’s a shame really, he has no small amount of talent, too bad all he appears to want is success.


----------



## eyebeams

It's worth noting that Moorcock's critique is not an ad hominem, as he knew Tolkien personally.


----------



## eyebeams

Tuzenbach said:
			
		

> Such was the focus upon constantly searching for something, endlessly striving to break free from the mold of "uncomfortability" with all of Moorcock's characters that I began to believe these as aspects of Michael Moorcock himself. I suppose Freud would call this phenomenon "projection".
> 
> In short, because Moorcock is uncomfortable, he unconsciously seeks release from this by expressing it. No, not by saying "I, Michael Moorcock am uncomfortable", but by presenting a bunch of characters generally dissatisfied with their current existence.
> 
> Also, as Moorcock embodies the mentality of "uncomfortableness", anything that is contrary is wrong.
> 
> Thus, Moorcock has issues with Tolkien.




Actually, Moorcock's is perfectly frank about his characters exploring existential issues that concern him. And as I've said, he actually met Tolkien and CS Lewis. Wikipedia sez:

_Moorcock is a fervent supporter of the works of Mervyn Peake, and an almost equally fervent detractor of the works of J. R. R. Tolkien. He met both Tolkien and C. S. Lewis in his teens, and claims to have liked them personally even though he does not admire them on artistic grounds. In Fantasy: The Hundred Best Books (July 1991), however, he and his co-author James Cawthorn are generous to Tolkien's work.

Moorcock criticises works like The Lord of the Rings for their Merry England point of view, famously equating Tolkien's trilogy to Winnie-the-Pooh in his essay "Epic Pooh." _


----------



## Aus_Snow

eyebeams said:
			
		

> as I've said, he actually met Tolkien and CS Lewis.



Except that what you actually said was:




> he knew Tolkien personally.



Which is a different thing entirely, wouldn't you say?


----------



## Tuzenbach

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Actually, Moorcock's is perfectly frank about his characters exploring existential issues that concern him.




Ah, so you're saying Moorcock's decision to drown us in his own uncomfortability via his characters is a *conscious* one? I feel a lawsuit coming on.....


----------



## Philotomy Jurament

Personally, I like Tolkien's writing.  I like Moorcock's, too.  Moorcock is a bit of an ass, though.  I think he caught "pretentious artist" disease somewhere along the line.  Maybe very early along the line, actually...


----------



## Wrathamon

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Actually, Moorcock's is perfectly frank about his characters exploring existential issues that concern him. And as I've said, he actually met Tolkien and CS Lewis. Wikipedia sez:
> 
> _Moorcock is a fervent supporter of the works of Mervyn Peake, and an almost equally fervent detractor of the works of J. R. R. Tolkien. He met both Tolkien and C. S. Lewis in his teens, and claims to have liked them personally even though he does not admire them on artistic grounds. In Fantasy: The Hundred Best Books (July 1991), however, he and his co-author James Cawthorn are generous to Tolkien's work.
> 
> Moorcock criticises works like The Lord of the Rings for their Merry England point of view, famously equating Tolkien's trilogy to Winnie-the-Pooh in his essay "Epic Pooh." _




Sounds like the young kid not liking the old dudes.

I like Moorcock's work... but I have to admit after awhile it got stale. Elric was extremely predicatable... Oh look a new character, timer starts... how many pages will it be till Elric goes nuts and kills them by accident or on purpose? But, I LOVED it as a kid, it was refreshing. I was so use to reading Captain America and Superman comics and here was an anti-hero that was so dark. It was different. I then read some Conan (and again conan isnt the nicest guy in the world but Elric would have been the badguy in a conan book).
I also liked that the books were short and to the point. 

THe lord of the rings was much harder for me to read back then... it is also extremely slow in the beginning and hard for young kids to get hooked, so I dont see how it was a kids book. No kid has the attention span to sit through the shire journey and not run off and play stick ball.


----------



## billd91

fusangite said:
			
		

> The fact is that every single non-white character in the books is evil. And none of them have dialogue. If Tolkien didn't have an opinion about non-white people, he would have made everybody as white as Saruman and the other bad guys.Surely you must acknowledge that some books do have subtext. Right? You can't seriously be suggesting that no ever written books have themes or messages beyond their direct literal statements.




Considering that the number of non-white human characters in the story about whom we know anything of substance is very small, I think you're reading WAY too much into this.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks

replicant2 said:
			
		

> Sorry man, but you whiffed here.
> 
> Some (myself included) believe that a major theme of the Lord of the Rings is that there isn't a Happily Ever After for everyone. That's what the Scouring of the Shire is all about. It's what Frodo's scars--physical and psychological--symbolize.




Read my post again.  Was I talking about JRRT or his imitators?

JRRT's work is and remains extremely safe.


----------



## Mark Hope

_Yawns, stretches and wakes up, glaring in irritation that the thread has dared to continue while I was sleeping..._

Plenty of stuff to reply to, though 



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> I don't know what you're talking about but I'm only referring to the humans in the books.



There are orcs in the tower of Cirith Ungol that have dialogue.  That's what I was talking about.  But you just meant humans, so never mind.



			
				Aus Snow said:
			
		

> Perhaps it would be cute or amusing it it wasn't so ******* boring and cliche.



Bourgeois elitist!
 



			
				Odhanan said:
			
		

> I actually had a few exchanges with Mike Moorcock on the subject of Tolkien.
> 
> I think that people are overblowing Mike's statement. He is a writer, and he has political opinions. Like any of us. From there, he can express his opinions, and he's conscious these opinions reflect his personal tastes in terms of literature and politics. He doesn't expect people to change their minds over what he says, and he's certainly not thinking of fans of Tolkien (such as I) as debilitated morons overly nostalgic and/or right wing.
> 
> So, I think one should just take a step back and look at his criticism as coming from someone who is on the opposite side of the fence on both style and political points of view. He does make some sound arguments, but it's not necessary to choose sides. I'm both a Tolkien and Moorcock fan, myself, and I like their writings and personalities for different reasons.



QFT.

Eminently sensible comment .



			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> Perhaps Moorcock is simply bitter is that Tolkien already told the tale of the sword ‘Stormbringer’ with greater poetry and evocativeness in the story of Turin from The Silmarillion?
> 
> I recommend that people read ‘Of Turin Turambar’ in The Silmarillion. It is hard not conclude that the sword Anglachel/Gorthang is Stormbringer (a black sentient sword with an evil will…).



Lol, no, no, no, no.  The Turin story is great and all, but _Stormbringer_ came out in 1965, 12 years before the _Silmarillion_ saw publication.  Get your facts straight.



			
				PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Now, Mr Moorcock is in no real position to criticize, since he's spent the past several decades writing the same book again and again...



I've seen this a couple of times in the thread (so not singling you out particularly here, P&P, just lifting your quote) and I'm not really sure what it's supposed to mean.  There is a central theme to his work (individuals vs systems, personal responsibility etc) but I don't see how these make his books "the same book".  How can you compare _Gloriana_ to _Stormbringer_, or _Warhound and the World's Pain_ to _Behold the Man_,  or even the _Hawkmoon_ books to the _Corum_ books?  I'd be interested in seeing someone back this assertion up with concrete examples.



			
				Tuzenbach said:
			
		

> Such was the focus upon constantly searching for something, endlessly striving to break free from the mold of "uncomfortability" with all of Moorcock's characters that I began to believe these as aspects of Michael Moorcock himself. I suppose Freud would call this phenomenon "projection".
> 
> In short, because Moorcock is uncomfortable, he unconsciously seeks release from this by expressing it. No, not by saying "I, Michael Moorcock am uncomfortable", but by presenting a bunch of characters generally dissatisfied with their current existence.



Absolutely correct, except it's not unconscious.  The early _Elric_ stories, for example, are conscious explorations of the author's preoccupations at the time of writing.  Moorcock is quite open about this.


----------



## Akrasia

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> Lol, no, no, no, no.  The Turin story is great and all, but _Stormbringer_ came out in 1965, 12 years before the _Silmarillion_ saw publication.  Get your facts straight.




My facts _are_ 'straight'.  Tolkien already "told the tale of the sword ‘Stormbringer’" in the Turin story before the Second World War.  Indeed, the essential elements were in place before Moorcock was born.  The mere fact that Tolkien's many stories regarding the First Age were not published until they were collected and edited posthumously by his son does not change that fact.  (I never said that The Silmarillion was published before 'Stormbringer.  Read my original post.  )


----------



## Mark Hope

Akrasia said:
			
		

> My facts _are_ 'straight'.  Tolkien already "told the tale of the sword ‘Stormbringer’" in the Turin story before the Second World War.  Indeed, the essential elements were in place before Moorcock was born.  The mere fact that Tolkien's many stories regarding the First Age were not published until they were collected and edited posthumously by his son does not change that fact.  (I never said that The Silmarillion was published before 'Stormbringer.  Read my original post.  )



I did read your post.  What you said was this:


> Perhaps Moorcock is simply bitter is that Tolkien already told the tale of the sword ‘Stormbringer’ with greater poetry and evocativeness in the story of Turin from The Silmarillion?



You _are_ explicitly referencing the Silmarillion here - hardly surprising that someone calls you on it.  The fact that Tolkien conceived of the Tale of Turin before Moorcock was even born is utterly irrelevant, given that the Tale of Turin never saw publication in that time.  Furthermore, how on Earth can Moorcock be bitter about something that he had never even heard of and which didn't see publication until 12 years after _Stormbringer_?  If you had made some argument about Kullervo, you'd have a better point.  As it stands, your claim is just bizarre.


----------



## Akrasia

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> ...  Furthermore, how on Earth can Moorcock be bitter about something that he had never even heard of and which didn't see publication until 12 years after _Stormbringer_?...




_*sigh*_  Even when one includes a '' in one's post (which you strangely edited out when you quoted me) some people seem remakably eager to misinterpret what is intended as a glib, lighthearted comment with utter gravity.  Such are the perils of internet communication.

My original comment merely noted the similarity between the two tales, and suggested in an entirely lighthearted manner that this may have rankled Moorcock, thus prompting him to write his essay (and thus the '').  It was only when you seemed to imply that Tolkien wrote the story of Turin _after_ 'Stormbringer' that I felt the need to point out that the opposite was true.  (On rereading your post I see that I may have misunderstood you.  My apologies.)

Anyhow, I regret that you misunderstood my original post, and that it upset you so much.


----------



## Kae'Yoss

Moorwho?

To me it just sounds that he's been thinking long and hard to find something to criticise Tolkien with, for critic's sake and because of envy. A heckler who wants to sell more. 

I haven't read those books, and now I'm not likely to ever get them. If I don't like someone's attitude, he can create the best stuff there is, I'm not buying.


----------



## Mark Hope

Akrasia said:
			
		

> _*sigh*_  Even when one includes a '' in one's post (which you strangely edited out when you quoted me) some people seem remakably eager to misinterpret what is intended as a glib, lighthearted comment with utter gravity.  Such are the perils of internet communication.



Lol, no worries - you haven't upset me and there's no utter gravity .  I didn't edit out your smilie - sometimes they don't come through when you copy/paste a quote, that's all.



> My original comment merely noted the similarity between the two tales, and suggested in an entirely lighthearted manner that this may have rankled Moorcock, thus prompting him to write his essay (and thus the '').  It was only when you seemed to imply that Tolkien wrote the story of Turin _after_ 'Stormbringer' that I felt the need to point out that the opposite was true.  (On rereading your post I see that I may have misunderstood you.  My apologies.)



No problem and no apology necessary.  I enjoy the back-and-forth of a good debate - the more strongly worded the better, as far as I am concerned.

I understand your overall point (I am indeed aware of the history of Tolkien's writings and am looking forward to the publication of the _Narn_ next year with giddy anticipation).  I just doubt that Moorock was at all motivated by any feelings of bitterness regarding the Turin story.  In fact, given the absence of any reference to the _Silmarillion_ in _Epic Pooh_, and the fact that the _Silmarillion_ didn't come out until just before _Epic Pooh_ was published (combined with Moorock's dislike for Tolkien), it's entirely possible that Moorcock has never read the tale of Turin.  But that's just supposition on my part.

You know what, I'll ask him ...

_*Edit:*Turns out there is already a thread about this over at multiverse.org from 2004.  This is Moorcock's initial reply with some more thoughts later on._


----------



## Aus_Snow

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> Bourgeois elitist!



 Heh.

By the way, if anyone were to actually take serious umbrage at the post that Mark Hope quoted part of there, be sure to first of all note that my comments were not based solely on the link provided at the beginning of this thread.

I decided to do a bit (well, a fair bit) of my own research before coming out with that admittedly rather caustic post.

And, in all seriousness, I would stand by every word of it. 100%. 

I recommend that anyone who's interested in just how bad Moorcock gets in this particular way, have a look around the net and possibly elsewhere. Because yeah. . . he well and truly makes a total ass of himself. Just as Pullman did, and for just the same kind of demented reasons.


----------



## Celtavian

*re*

I'll never really understand why people criticize works of fiction where the author had no intent to include political, social, or religious statements within the work. They are no doubt in there, but only because they are in the author. None of what Tolkien wrote is intended in to influence society in the same manner as a book like _1984_. 

As Tolkien himself stated, he wrote _Lord of the Rings_ to try his hand at a longer tale. I see no reason to attack a man who wrote because he wanted to entertain other people with a story from his very fertile imagination.

Contrary to what Moorcock may believe, the themes are not comforting. They are in fact very frightful and only comforting to those who have read it so many times they know the end. It should also be noted that if the themes in _Lord of Rings_ did not resonate strongly with the public as being very human and very relevant, they woudln't be so immensely popular.

People in real life aren't these grey people constantly conflicted by evil thoughts. People in real life are generally good people with some minor vices trying to do the right thing in sometimes hard circumstance. That is where Tolkien's story hits the nail squarely on the head. He shows people as the are. Often simple, with an intelligence and insight often greater than we give them credit for, sometimes thrown into situations where they have to do an incredibly difficult task that is both unsavory and dangerous.

The man lived through two world wars. He knows alot better than many of these young, liberal, hippy writers what it is to watch decent men and women thrown into the meat grinder of conflict and manage to maintain some sanity and fortitude when both should be gone. 

More people should read up on who Tolkien was and what time he grew up in before criticizing his work. The man didn't even see his first automobile until boyhood. He grew up in very rural areas and had a great love of all things natural. 

Just very tired of attacks on Tolkien's work by people who know nothing about the man or the the time he grew up in. They don't even seem to have the slightest respect for the fact that he wrote the story to tell a tale and no other purpose. The only reason they do this is because his work has become immensely popular and they have no respect for Tolkien's desire that his book not be politicized or viewed in any manner other than as an attempt at tale telling. I take the authors word and respect it, and I hope others, especially writers, would do the same.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jin_Kataki said:
			
		

> Both statements are true cause a movie or a book or a song or any form of artistic expression is whatever the individual takes away from it.





Any form of expression (artistic or otherwise) is an attempt to communicate, and can be judged on the basis of both what the creator(s) was (were) seeking to communicate and how well that goal was achieved.  Both of these criteria have strong subjective elements -- one isn't _wrong_ for liking or not liking any particular work.  However, it is possible to speak about (and critique) expressive works intelligently on this basis.

(This includes, IMHO, expressive works like RPGs as well.)


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

eyebeams said:
			
		

> It's worth noting that Moorcock's critique is not an ad hominem, as he knew Tolkien personally.




Are you suggesting that it is impossible to make an ad hominem attack against someone you know personally?
 
RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

billd91 said:
			
		

> Considering that the number of non-white human characters in the story about whom we know anything of substance is very small, I think you're reading WAY too much into this.




Moreover, the only time Tolkein suggested any color for the hobbits, that color was _brown_ (in The Hobbit, Chapter 1, when he describes their fingers...he also says that their hair is naturally curly).

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Read my post again.  Was I talking about JRRT or his imitators?
> 
> JRRT's work is and remains extremely safe.





Define "safe" in this context.......


----------



## Raven Crowking

Allow me to quote Mr. Moorcock himself:



			
				Michael Moorcock said:
			
		

> I have to admit here, too, that I haven't read large chunks of Lord of the Rings. I realised this after attending the final movie and realising I had no clear idea what was going to happen, though I remember skipping through the books looking for references to Golem, who could be said to be a much closer to Elric's precurser than any bloody fair-haired elf or other...




(from http://www.multiverse.org/fora/showpost.php?p=15991&postcount=17)

Weird that the guy who wrote _Epic Pooh_ would also admit to not having read the work he is critiquing.  Weirder yet that he would admit "skipping through the books" looking for references to Gollum if all of the characters are so dull and safe.

When I first assailed LotR as a child, I didn't finish the book either.  LotR is a massive, dense work that requires some real fortitude and depth to work through.  I _do_ remember looking for references to Gollum, as Moorcock says he did.  To be honest, it took me three tries to get through LotR (finally done when I was 12), and that first full reading didn't give me anything more than a superficial understanding of what Tolkein was writing.  I didn't see the connections.  I didn't understand the themes.  I was immensely puzzled about the characters in Rohan riding in "the van"....where did that van come from?

So, eventually, I read it again.  And, by that time, my understanding had grown.  Then I read some works _about_ LotR and thought "Where was all this stuff when I was reading it?"  So I read it again.  And again.

And each time, to this day, I am caught by connections and depths that I didn't see before.  I am amazed by the work, even after knowing the plot...by its depth and complexity, and by the solidness of its world.  When I first read LotR aloud to my son, I was caught by Sam & Frodo's conversation about tales...which mentions a father reading the book to his son.  And the love of that relationship (& I am not talking sexual love here) so parallels the love of parent and child when reading that book that I had to blink back tears.  At each phase of my life, I have found something in Tolkein that corresponds.

If I had stopped the first time I tried to read LotR, I might have agreed with Moorcock's essay now.  If I had just managed to get through it the one time, I might have agreed with some on this thread.  However, having put in the effort to read and digest the work many times, I have to say that it is simply the finest novel I have ever read.  I fully agree that it is a hard book to read.  But saying that it is not worthwhile just because it is hard.....that I cannot agree with.

YMMV.

RC


----------



## replicant2

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Read my post again.  Was I talking about JRRT or his imitators?
> 
> JRRT's work is and remains extremely safe.




I have read it again. You conflated Tolkien and his imitators and painted them with the same brush. Or am I missing something?


----------



## Umbran

fusangite said:
			
		

> Surely you must acknowledge that some books do have subtext. Right? You can't seriously be suggesting that no ever written books have themes or messages beyond their direct literal statements.




Of course not.  However, the problem is that since they aren't direct, literal, or explicit you cannot tell the difference between those that are placed there by the author, and those pieced together by the reader that have nothing to do with what they author thought.

Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.  

And even if one does find a subtext, we forget to include historical perspective. Let us consider one clear example: Tolkien was a sexist because he had no solid female characters.  Well, LotR was first published in 1954 - by today's standards pretty much every adult American and Brit of the time (including most women) were sexist.  So, criticizing him for that is rather like criticizing him for being a man of his time. 

Failure to be a visionary on a particular topic is not a valid criticism.


----------



## Odhanan

I really think Mike's making sound arguments. After all, only someone blatantly ignorant of JRRT's works would pretend that they aren't affected by a strong nostalgy, strong moral standpoints and strong literary opinions (basically, every literary work after Chaucer sucks because it's no longer true English folklore - I know, it's a gross shortcut I make here, but bear with me) on the author's part. 

It's absolutely true - there's no denying it. 

Mike on the other hand comes from another school of literature. In fact, the complete opposite, really. His style is clean, with short evocative sentences that go to the point and stab the reader with baroque images. The guy is like an impressionist of literature. He is a progressist who rose with the 60's. He sang with Blue Oyster Cult. He wants to shock with his works. Not comfort. I mean: come on! How much more opposite can you be from JRRT?

I must however precise that Mike has also been repeating in each instances of "debates" about Tolkien that he "liked the chap but disliked the writing". There is such a distinction. Really.


----------



## lukelightning

I think Moorcock's criticisms are perfectly valid.  No author is exempt from critique, no matter how influential his works are.


----------



## dcas

lukelightning said:
			
		

> I think Moorcock's criticisms are perfectly valid.  No author is exempt from critique, no matter how influential his works are.




Whether an author is exempt from criticism or not has nothing to do with whether a given set of criticisms are valid.


----------



## Raven Crowking

dcas said:
			
		

> Whether an author is exempt from criticism or not has nothing to do with whether a given set of criticisms are valid.




QFT

(And, again, we must remember that Moorcock himself admits not reading the work he is criticizing...that makes it much less likely that his is an informed opinion.    )


----------



## comrade raoul

Celtavian said:
			
		

> I'll never really understand why people criticize works of fiction where the author had no intent to include political, social, or religious statements within the work. They are no doubt in there, but only because they are in the author. None of what Tolkien wrote is intended in to influence society in the same manner as a book like _1984_.



The reason they do this is that in general, the political, moral, or emotional significance of an action does not _just_ depend on what I intend to do when I act. Suppose Jones is a sweet, lovely person who was nonetheless brought up in a racist society. Jones makes a movie--and lots of people see it--that depicts black people as lazy, stupid, frequently submissive, and in many cases sexually ravenous. Jones might have made the movie thinking that he was honestly and even sympathetically depicting his characters--he might not have even _thought_ of black people in racist terms. (Insofar as Jones is a racist at all, his racism, let's say, is _entirely subconscious_.) Shouldn't we at least criticize Jones' _movie_ as a racist movie, even though Jones didn't mean it as such?


----------



## Odhanan

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> When I first assailed LotR as a child, I didn't finish the book either.  LotR is a massive, dense work that requires some real fortitude and depth to work through.  I _do_ remember looking for references to Gollum, as Moorcock says he did.  To be honest, it took me three tries to get through LotR (finally done when I was 12), and that first full reading didn't give me anything more than a superficial understanding of what Tolkein was writing.  I didn't see the connections.  I didn't understand the themes.  I was immensely puzzled about the characters in Rohan riding in "the van"....where did that van come from?
> 
> So, eventually, I read it again.  And, by that time, my understanding had grown.  Then I read some works _about_ LotR and thought "Where was all this stuff when I was reading it?"  So I read it again.  And again.
> 
> And each time, to this day, I am caught by connections and depths that I didn't see before.  I am amazed by the work, even after knowing the plot...by its depth and complexity, and by the solidness of its world.  When I first read LotR aloud to my son, I was caught by Sam & Frodo's conversation about tales...which mentions a father reading the book to his son.  And the love of that relationship (& I am not talking sexual love here) so parallels the love of parent and child when reading that book that I had to blink back tears.  At each phase of my life, I have found something in Tolkein that corresponds.
> 
> If I had stopped the first time I tried to read LotR, I might have agreed with Moorcock's essay now.  If I had just managed to get through it the one time, I might have agreed with some on this thread.  However, having put in the effort to read and digest the work many times, I have to say that it is simply the finest novel I have ever read.  I fully agree that it is a hard book to read.  But saying that it is not worthwhile just because it is hard.....that I cannot agree with.
> 
> YMMV.
> RC



I agree. When I read the LotR for the first time, it was I think when I was twelve years old, and I gave up just before the Council of Elrond, when Aragorn and the hobbits are leaving Bree for the wilderness. I think I wasn't ready for such a style at the time. I let the book sleep on a shelf with a bookmark for about three months, if I remember well. Then I picked it up again, and my big shock came with the Council. I was _blown away_. I *loved* that chapter. A chapter that probably wouldn't have been written by a more well, conformist writer. The amount of information, the extreme complexity of the narrative there... I just fell in love. Literally. 

I read the rest of the book in three days. 

So I relate to your own experience with LOTR, RC. Once again, I think MM makes has some good arguments. Doesn't mean I agree on the final judgment of value, however. I don't.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert

fusangite said:
			
		

> To quote the Big Lebowski,
> 
> What is disingenuous and ludicrous about Moorcock's position is not the truth of this statement which is basicaly undeniable (except that there is a huge oversimplification of the consciousness of a class) but the idea that one cannot or should not appreciate literature with whose political perspective one does not agree.




True that. I enjoyed _Starship Troopers_ (the book, not the movie) despite disagreeing with its politics, and I enjoy Lovecraft's writing despite the fact that he was a racist - which is quite obvious from some of his stories.


----------



## Odhanan

If you're interested by my opinion, on both stylistic and moral points of view, I also agree much more with Tolkien than I do with Mike. I truly think that literature exists to emphasize what's fundamentally good about humankind. What makes us who we are, and allows us to go on with our lives. That's I think what is the true core value within the LotR. And I agree also with Tolkien's vision of style: the hell with conventions. Write however you want. If you  have a clear knowledge, mastery and love for your work, it'll shine through.


----------



## Arashi Ravenblade

Why does there have to be any meaning in a story? Why can it just be entertaining and leave it at that?

And to be honest i had never even heard of Moorcook before joining these boards and i still dont know what it is he writes. 
I at least know and have read what CS Lewis and Tolkien have written. Sound to me like someones jealous.


----------



## Wombat

Moorcock has fun, candy writing, without too much thought or style.  It is highly repetitive, often recycling the same plots, even the same stories, over and over again with some vague notion that "these heroes are all the same hero"; I think this is merely a cover for having a very few ideas.  His worlds, while great Saturday Morning Cartoon fun, or great for gee-whiz slam-bang viciousness, are not very well developed nor do they make a lot of sense.  Then again, his focus is entirely on the main character(s) with little attempt to create more.  He is popular now, but I wonder for how long?

Tolkein writes in a highly archaic, old-fashioned manner, a style much less in tune with the modern world.  Many people are bored with his style and go crazy when they run across the poems.  The plot isn't slam-bang.  But the world is complete, utterly thought out.  The themes are deep, cutting across specific times and cultures.  Tolkein will last.


----------



## Storm Raven

Arashi Ravenblade said:
			
		

> And to be honest i had never even heard of Moorcook before joining these boards and i still dont know what it is he writes.
> I at least know and have read what CS Lewis and Tolkien have written. Sound to me like someones jealous.




For all his faults, Moorcock probably has little to be jealous about. He is the author of the _Elric_ series of books, as well as related series featuring the characters of Hawkmoon, Corum, and Ekerose. He won a Nebula award for the novella _Behold the Man_, and the Campbell and World Fantasy Awards for _Gloriana_. He is a member of the Science Fiction Writers Hall of Fame, and has been given a World Fantasy Award for lifetime achievement.

In general, I would consider someone who claims to be a fantasy fiction fan but has never read anything by Moorcock to be akin to someone claiming to be a science fiction fan, but never having read anything by Larry Niven (i.e. woefully uninformed).


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> True that. I enjoyed _Starship Troopers_ (the book, not the movie) despite disagreeing with its politics, and I enjoy Lovecraft's writing despite the fact that he was a racist - which is quite obvious from some of his stories.




I have the same feelings about Robert E. Howard and Edgar Rice Burroughs.  They were people of their times, and reading their work is both fun and instructional (both in D&D and writing terms), but there is a racist slant to both authors.  Sometimes, I think, Burroughs was aware of this slant and tried to fight it, but ultimately he was mired in it.  

Still love the books, though.

OTOH, I don't think that the same can be said of Tolkein.  Or at least, not to the same degree.  It seems to me that Tolkein ascribed equal value to people, but that he didn't consider them to fit into the same roles in the world.  He seemed to think that, for example, some people were better suited by birth to be kings, but that kings themselves were of no greater worth (having only a different social role) than farmers.

RC


----------



## Mark Hope

Arashi Ravenblade said:
			
		

> Why does there have to be any meaning in a story? Why can it just be entertaining and leave it at that?
> 
> And to be honest i had never even heard of Moorcook before joining these boards and i still dont know what it is he writes.
> I at least know and have read what CS Lewis and Tolkien have written. Sound to me like someones jealous.



There have been a few statements like this in the thread.  It does not follow that anyone who dislikes Tolkien must therefore be jealous of him.  An examination of Moorcock's career achievements (either when the essay was written in 1978, or to date) will reveal that he has little to be jealous of.  It's an attractive and easy way to dismiss someone's arguments, but it does not actually hold much water in light of the facts.


----------



## dcas

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> For all his faults, Moorcock probably has little to be jealous about. He is the author of the _Elric_ series of books, as well as related series featuring the characters of Hawkmoon, Corum, and Ekerose. He won a Nebula award for the novella _Behold the Man_, and the Campbell and World Fantasy Awards for _Gloriana_. He is a member of the Science Fiction Writers Hall of Fame, and has been given a World Fantasy Award for lifetime achievement.




Well, I doubt anyone will ever write a scholarly book entitled _Moorcock: Author of the Century_.  



> In general, I would consider someone who claims to be a fantasy fiction fan but has never read anything by Moorcock to be akin to someone claiming to be a science fiction fan, but never having read anything by Larry Niven (i.e. woefully uninformed).




Hmmm, well I am not really a fantasy fiction fan, but the four SF authors I think are generally mentioned as the biggies are: Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, and Niven. Would Moorcock be among the "big four" of fantasy writers? (This is an honest question, not a rhetorical one, as I don't follow fantasy fiction.)


----------



## Raven Crowking

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> For all his faults, Moorcock probably has little to be jealous about.




I have to agree with Storm Raven here.

OTOH, I also have to point out (again) that by his own admission, not having read LotR, Moorcock is woefully uninformed about the work he is critiquing.  His is not an informed opinion.  It would be as though someone posted some part of their campaign on EN World, and I tried to make overarching statements about the campaign, and the ability of the DM, from those statements.

Even if you agreed with my conclusions, you'd have to consider that the reasoning behind those conclusions was likely to be faulty.

Likewise with _Epic Pooh_.

RC


----------



## The Grumpy Celt

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Define "safe" in this context.......




The honkey's will win and the honkey establishment will be preserved and the not-honkey establishment will be cast down and the not-honkey's will be punished. Say what you will, but Moorcock's reversal of this sells less than Tolkien.


----------



## Raven Crowking

dcas said:
			
		

> Hmmm, well I am not really a fantasy fiction fan, but the four SF authors I think are generally mentioned as the biggies are: Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, and Niven. Would Moorcock be among the "big four" of fantasy writers? (This is an honest question, not a rhetorical one, as I don't follow fantasy fiction.)





That's an interesting question, all right.

I'd say, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Tolkein and Howard belong in the Big Four for fantasy authors, but I am not 100% sure who the others would be.  Eddison, Peake, Burroughs, Dunsany, Morris, Lewis, and Le Guin would all be in the running for me, as well as Moorcock.

Probably, I would say that the Big Four (in terms of both story and influence) would be Tolkein, Howard, Dunsany, and Lewis.

YMMV.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> The honkey's will win and the honkey establishment will be preserved and the not-honkey establishment will be cast down and the not-honkey's will be punished. Say what you will, but Moorcock's reversal of this sells less than Tolkien.





Hmmm.

And who are the "honkey establishment" in LotR?


RC


----------



## Mark Hope

Wombat said:
			
		

> Moorcock has fun, candy writing, without too much thought or style.  It is highly repetitive, often recycling the same plots, even the same stories, over and over again with some vague notion that "these heroes are all the same hero"; I think this is merely a cover for having a very few ideas.



A common misconception.  While there is thematic repetition in some of Moorcock's work and similar plots do crop up in a handful of places, this is not true of the vast bulk of his work.  I've cited a few titles in a previous post, but you might wish to compare works such as _Gloriana_, _Behold the Man_, _Warhound and the World's Pain_, _Revenge of the Rose_, _Fortress and the Pearl_, _An Alien Heat_, all four _Pyat_ books, the _Corum_ books, the _Kane_ novellas and the _Second Ether_ trilogy (to name but 22!) to see that this argument is without merit where the larger body of his writing is concerned.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> For all his faults, Moorcock probably has little to be jealous about. He is the author of the Elric series of books, as well as related series featuring the characters of Hawkmoon, Corum, and Ekerose. He won a Nebula award for the novella Behold the Man, and the Campbell and World Fantasy Awards for Gloriana. He is a member of the Science Fiction Writers Hall of Fame, and has been given a World Fantasy Award for lifetime achievement.



Exactly.  I don't agree with everything Moorcock says in _Epic Pooh_, but it's one thing to disagree with some of his conclusions and another thing entirely to ascribe mean-spirited character traits to him and make false claims about his writing and attitudes.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I have the same feelings about Robert E. Howard and Edgar Rice Burroughs. They were people of their times, and reading their work is both fun and instructional (both in D&D and writing terms), but there is a racist slant to both authors. Sometimes, I think, Burroughs was aware of this slant and tried to fight it, but ultimately he was mired in it.
> 
> Still love the books, though.



Great example.  I had a Conan marathon a while ago and read all of the REH stories back to back.  One thing that struck me again and again were the strong racist overtones.  I often had the opinion that REH wasn't even aware that they were there - that he just happened to think that this was how people really were.



> OTOH, I don't think that the same can be said of Tolkein. Or at least, not to the same degree. It seems to me that Tolkein ascribed equal value to people, but that he didn't consider them to fit into the same roles in the world. He seemed to think that, for example, some people were better suited by birth to be kings, but that kings themselves were of no greater worth (having only a different social role) than farmers.



While nowhere on the same level as REH, I do think that Tolkien had a certain amount of class bias.  As with REH, I don't think he was really aware of it as anything other than just being his personal world-view, but there are whiffs of it in LotR without a doubt.  The last time I read it, I got a funny feeling from some of his passages about the greater worthiness of the High Men.  It was clear that there was no malice behind it, but I was reminded of the way that some neo-Nazis have latched onto his work as a piece of Aryan rhetoric.  Utterly absurd, of course, but the echoes of the ubermensch are there nevertheless.  And, let's face it, it's an attractive idea still today that certain folks have "the right stuff" - it speaks to the human desire to excel and to feel a sense of inborn value.


----------



## Mark Hope

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That's an interesting question, all right.
> 
> I'd say, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Tolkein and Howard belong in the Big Four for fantasy authors, but I am not 100% sure who the others would be.  Eddison, Peake, Burroughs, Dunsany, Morris, Lewis, and Le Guin would all be in the running for me, as well as Moorcock.
> 
> Probably, I would say that the Big Four (in terms of both story and influence) would be Tolkein, Howard, Dunsany, and Lewis.
> 
> YMMV.
> 
> 
> 
> RC



Yeah, that's a hard one.  I'd agree with Tolkien and Howard for sure.  Don't think Lewis deserves one of the top spots.  I'm not sure about Dunsany.  He has certainly had the long-lasting influence, although has fallen in comparative obscurity.  On terms of influence, Moorcock might deserve a place on this list (the multiverse, law and chaos, doomed heroes, and bigass runeswords are widespread in no small part due to him) but I don't know how widespread his appeal is.  He seems to have been an influence on many writers, rather than on many readers, similar to Dunsany.  Still, he has staying power and I'd think he will go the difference.  YMMV, like you say 

Hey, what about:
Raymond Feist
David Eddings
Terry Brooks
Robert Jordan

 

As for the validity of the criticisms of LotR in _Epic Pooh_, the admission that he hasn't fully read the book does scupper the larger argument to some degree.  But I do note that the criticisms in the essay relate more to tone and style (something that you can get a feel of from an incomplete reading) than to the completion of the plot.  Still, it's a fair point that you make.


----------



## dcas

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> I do think that Tolkien had a certain amount of class bias.




I think it is true that he had a high regard for the monarchy and the aristocracy, but I'm not sure that "bias" is the right word for it. It's more like a bias in favor of a particular worldview (that men, including those who belong to the nobility, should know their place and act accordingly) rather than a bias in favor of a particular group or groups.


----------



## Mark Hope

dcas said:
			
		

> I think it is true that he had a high regard for the monarchy and the aristocracy, but I'm not sure that "bias" is the right word for it. It's more like a bias in favor of a particular worldview (that men, including those who belong to the nobility, should know their place and act accordingly) rather than a bias in favor of a particular group or groups.



Yeah, that's more or less what I mean.  Like I say, I don't any overt sense of prejudice from his writing, more a feeling that this was just how he saw the world as working.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's more or less what I mean.  Like I say, I don't any overt sense of prejudice from his writing, more a feeling that this was just how he saw the world as working.





Agreed.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And who are the "honkey establishment" in LotR?




In LotR, the "West" in general and Gondor more specifically. But it varies depending on the writer and the world they create.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> Hey, what about:
> Raymond Feist
> David Eddings
> Terry Brooks
> Robert Jordan





I did list Moorcock in the "Possibles", but he is far from a certain member of the Big Four.  As far as your humorous quartet go, a body of solid work is not the same thing as pushing the boundaries into new forms (and I am not so sure I'd say that Brooks or Jordan have as solid a body of work as Feist or Eddings, but tastes vary   ).  Howard practically invented Sword & Sorcery from whole cloth.  Tolkein brought epic fantasy into the modern era, making it both important and accessable to the average reader.  Those were huge feats.

If I were listing important modern authors, I'd include Neil Gaimen, Charles de Lint (more for his earlier work than his current), Emma Bull, Stephen King (for the Gunslinger books), Terry Pratchett, and Robert Holdstock as writers who really seem to "get" the intrinsic symbolic meaning of fantasy literature while pushing their writing into new directions.  Again, YMMV.

(I'd also include individual books, such as Wicked by Gregory Maguire, as important modern works of fantasy.)


RC


----------



## Storm Raven

dcas said:
			
		

> Well, I doubt anyone will ever write a scholarly book entitled _Moorcock: Author of the Century_.




True, but I think it reasonably likely that at some point someone might write a scholarly book about Moorcock's work. It will likely be obscure, and not particularly extensive, but he has enough ideas that it seems likely to happen.



> _Hmmm, well I am not really a fantasy fiction fan, but the four SF authors I think are generally mentioned as the biggies are: Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, and Niven. Would Moorcock be among the "big four" of fantasy writers? (This is an honest question, not a rhetorical one, as I don't follow fantasy fiction.)_




It is noteworthy that of the "Big Four" you mention, Moorcock has spewed vitriol at three of them in public: he considers reading the works of Niven, Heinlein, and Asimov to be the equivalent of reading _Mein Kampf_, because he believes that the views they express are equally abhorrent as the openly racist drivel produced by a third rate mind in an Austrian prison (find his essay "Starship Stormtroopers" to read all about this). He also despises Anne McCaffrey, H.P. Lovecraft, Poul Anderson, and just about any other science fiction of fantasy author who had the temerity to write about anything other than the wonderousness of an anarchist society.

I find his criticisms of Asimov as an ardent "anti-socialist" to be extraordinarily laughable, since I find Asimov's work to be very kind to socialism as an idea on the whole. Reading his essays, it is clear (to me) that he hasn't really read most of the works he critiques, and comes to them with a predisposition that taints anything he says. However, for all of his silly political views, his books are actually worth reading.

In my experience, the science fiction author rankings usually only list a "big three" (Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein), with Niven being at or near the top of the next tier, which is where I would put Moorcock. But if I had to come up with a "big four" of fantasy I would go with Tolkien, Howard, Lieber, and Poul Anderson. I might replace either Lieber or Anderson with Moorcock, but that would be a close call.


----------



## Raven Crowking

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> In LotR, the "West" in general and Gondor more specifically. But it varies depending on the writer and the world they create.





Oh.

I thought perhaps you were talking about the elves, the dwarves, the hobbits, and the ents as well -- all of whom got royally hosed.

RC


----------



## dcas

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I thought perhaps you were talking about the elves, the dwarves, the hobbits, and the ents as well -- all of whom got royally hosed.




The hobbits certainly didn't get "hosed" -- in fact the events set in motion by the end of the War of the Rings ushered in a Renaissance age in hobbit culture. OK, so I'm exaggerating, but the hobbits of the Shire (with the exception of Frodo) seemed ultimately to profit from the destruction of the Ring.

And of course the Ents are brown-skinned, so of course they got hosed.


----------



## Mark Hope

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I did list Moorcock in the "Possibles", but he is far from a certain member of the Big Four.  As far as your humorous quartet go, a body of solid work is not the same thing as pushing the boundaries into new forms (and I am not so sure I'd say that Brooks or Jordan have as solid a body of work as Feist or Eddings, but tastes vary   ).



Heh heh, indeed.  FWIW, I really did enjoy the _Belgariad_ and then literally felt cheated by the _Malloreon_.  Fiest was fun, but I kinda ran out of steam with, er, whatever the one was called that came after the one set in the desert (_King's Buccaneer_?)  Dunno what his recent stuff is like - might be awesome for all I know.



> Howard practically invented Sword & Sorcery from whole cloth.  Tolkein brought epic fantasy into the modern era, making it both important and accessable to the average reader.  Those were huge feats.



Totally.  I am still in awe of Howard's Conan books - over a year and a half after reading them, the buzz still hasn't worn off.  Amazing stuff.



> If I were listing important modern authors, I'd include Neil Gaimen, Charles de Lint (more for his earlier work than his current), Emma Bull, Stephen King (for the Gunslinger books), Terry Pratchett, and Robert Holdstock as writers who really seem to "get" the intrinsic symbolic meaning of fantasy literature while pushing their writing into new directions.  Again, YMMV.



My god, Gaiman is incredible.  A storytelling genius.  I read the first Gunslinger book when it was released and then decided to wait for the entire series before continuing (on my list for the New Year ) but what I read was truly outstanding.  I am a really big King fan overall, though.  For a supernatural author, nobody does regular life as well as him.  His characters are utterly believable, which makes the supernatural elements all the more compelling imho.

I was also hugely impressed by Guy Gavriel Kay (I read _Tigana_, which was beautiful, and the _Fionavar Tapestry_, which was an ingenious reworking of well-known myths).  Donaldson was also cool, but I thought that he needed to get a smaller thesaurus 



> I'd also include individual books, such as Wicked by Gregory Maguire, as important modern works of fantasy.)



Never heard of this one.  What's it like?



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> In my experience, the science fiction author rankings usually only list a "big three" (Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein), with Niven being at or near the top of the next tier...



What about Phillip K. Dick?  I'm not familiar with him myself (my girlfriend raves about him, though) but he seems to have been pretty influential.


----------



## dcas

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> It is noteworthy that of the "Big Four" you mention, Moorcock has spewed vitriol at three of them in public: he considers reading the works of Niven, Heinlein, and Asimov to be the equivalent of reading _Mein Kampf_, because he believes that the views they express are equally abhorrent as the openly racist drivel produced by a third rate mind in an Austrian prison (find his essay "Starship Stormtroopers" to read all about this).




Wow, even his essays are almost unreadable.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> There is a central theme to his work (individuals vs systems, personal responsibility etc) but I don't see how these make his books "the same book".  How can you compare _Gloriana_ to _Stormbringer_, or _Warhound and the World's Pain_ to _Behold the Man_,  or even the _Hawkmoon_ books to the _Corum_ books?  I'd be interested in seeing someone back this assertion up with concrete examples.



Moorcock certainly doesn't always tell the same story, but sometimes he does, particularly in the Eternal Champion cycle. The classic example is the killing of the twin sorcerer/buildings Agak and Gagak, the same events being retold from different perspectives in Sailor On The Seas Of Fate and The Quest For Tanelorn. A second example of repetition is the first Jerry Cornelius book, The Final Programme, which has a plot segment, the attack on the French chateau, which is an exact duplicate of Elric's attack on Melnibone in The Dreaming City.

There is repetition of a lesser degree throughout the Eternal Champion series which is made explicit in the books, the champion himself being aware of this repetition. The champion is doomed to constantly battle (usually against chaos) to preserve the Cosmic Balance. He often has a companion, a jovial less brooding person than the champion, and a lover. The champion often fights for healthy cultures, ie those closer to a balance between law and chaos, versus unhealthy cultures. (I gave examples of these in a previous post). The book's climax is often the healthy culture being under seige or direct attack by enemy forces while the champion goes on a quest for a power source or other means by which to lift the seige. This occurs in Phoenix in Obsidian (the scarlet fjord is attacked by the silver warriors), Dragon in the Sword (the bear-like creatures city being attacked by the forces of chaos) and many others.


----------



## replicant2

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> He also despises Anne McCaffrey, H.P. Lovecraft, Poul Anderson, and just about any other science fiction of fantasy author who had the temerity to write about anything other than the wonderousness of an anarchist society.




On a tangental note, Anderson's *The Broken Sword* is much, much better than any of Moorcock's Elric stories, IMO. Read this story and tell me that he doesn't explore the themes of an all-powerful but ultimately corrupting weapon much more effectively than Moorcock did with Mournblade.

For the record, I would also put Anderson in the big four.


----------



## Mark Hope

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Moorcock certainly doesn't always tell the same story, but sometimes he does, particularly in the Eternal Champion cycle. The classic example is the killing of the twin sorcerer/buildings Agak and Gagak, the same events being retold from different perspectives in Sailor On The Seas Of Fate and The Quest For Tanelorn. A second example of repetition is the first Jerry Cornelius book, The Final Programme, which has a plot segment, the attack on the French chateau, which is an exact duplicate of Elric's attack on Melnibone in The Dreaming City.
> 
> There is repetition of a lesser degree throughout the Eternal Champion series which is made explicit in the books, the champion himself being aware of this repetition. The champion is doomed to constantly battle (usually against chaos) to preserve the Cosmic Balance. He often has a companion, a jovial less brooding person than the champion, and a lover. The champion often fights for healthy cultures, ie those closer to a balance between law and chaos, versus unhealthy cultures. (I gave examples of these in a previous post). The book's climax is often the healthy culture being under seige or direct attack by enemy forces while the champion goes on a quest for a power source or other means by which to lift the seige. This occurs in Phoenix in Obsidian (the scarlet fjord is attacked by the silver warriors), Dragon in the Sword (the bear-like creatures city being attacked by the forces of chaos) and many others.



Agreed.  As I mentioned above, there is an element of this in his work, and the above are good examples of that kind of thing.  I just dispute the claim that most or all of his writing falls into this category.  It's in the minority.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks

Moorcock's up there with Lovecraft and Leiber and Howard and Tolkein in that narrow category of people who've had popular fantasy games written around their material.  There's a major film in the works too, and they don't make films out of the work of minor fantasy authors. After Tolkein himself and Terry Pratchett, it's hard to think of a better-selling British fantasy author than Moorcock, and Moorcock's been immensely influential over the writers who followed.

I'm not saying Moorcock's necessarily terribly original -- all the law/chaos theme flowing through Moorcock's work comes from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions -- and neither am I saying that it's always terribly good.  The fact is that Moorcock lived through a longish time when he had to write a novel every three or four months to pay the bills.  To do that, he wrote to a very disciplined and structured plan, beginning with an outline and working back to the details, and he did reuse very similar elements time and again, and this is glaringly obvious to anyone familiar with the Moorcock corpus.

Moorcock's fairly transparently a liberal (in the British sense of the word, not the American one) and seemingly a humanist or atheist.  By wordcount he's had at least twice as much material published as Tolkein did.  Actually, I think I've got more than sixty Moorcock novels on my shelves.

Compare this against Tolkein's slow, undisciplined way of writing, his relatively comfortable circumstances (and yes, I know Tolkein's parents weren't rich and I know he went to war, but when he was writing he didn't have to write to pay the bills), and his conservative catholicism and you've got two almost diametrically opposite writers.

You might be moved by Tolkein's imaginative sweep, but Moorcock's much better at the technical side of writing.  He writes deliberately simple, direct prose in short, active voice sentences.  His words are often chosen with great precision and there's a consistent style.  Tolkein experiments with various styles - in LOTR, pastoral for the hobbits in the Shire, right through to epic, particularly for the later battle scenes - and he overwrites nearly as badly as Donaldson or Jordan.


----------



## Storm Raven

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> What about Phillip K. Dick?  I'm not familiar with him myself (my girlfriend raves about him, though) but he seems to have been pretty influential.




I'd put him in the list of "good science fiction authors" along with, say, Pournelle, Brin, and Haldeman.

Oh, and when I was contemplating my "big four" of fantasy, I forgot to mention Andre Norton, who someone might reasonably choose to stick in that group.


----------



## Raven Crowking

dcas said:
			
		

> The hobbits certainly didn't get "hosed" -- in fact the events set in motion by the end of the War of the Rings ushered in a Renaissance age in hobbit culture. OK, so I'm exaggerating, but the hobbits of the Shire (with the exception of Frodo) seemed ultimately to profit from the destruction of the Ring.
> 
> And of course the Ents are brown-skinned, so of course they got hosed.





First off, what makes you think that the hobbits are _not_ brown-skinned?

Second, the destruction of the One Ring ushers in the Age of Men....The Fourth Age (which is our age) of Middle Earth.  Saruman takes over the Shire, Wormtongue eats a few hobbits, and they are generally ruled by orc/human crossbreeds until the Scouring.  Thereafter, Sam makes a fine mayor, and the King loves the Shire, but the seeds of its destruction have been sown.  How far beyond that generation does the Shire prosper?  Sam's dust from the Lady Galadrial helps, but is the Shire ever what it was before Saruman razed parts of it?

Paradoxically, the "growth" of the hobbits is also their tradgedy.  Merry and Pippen die, and are buried far from home.  Eventually even Aragorn dies, and then Arwen wills herself to die as well.  Legolas and Gimli depart.  The Shire is subsumed by the men Frodo and Sam helped to preserve.

In order to understand how deeply the Free Peoples of Middle Earth are hosed, it is essential to realize that _we live in Middle Earth_.  Tolkein isn't talking about some other fantasy planet; his work is a fantasy history of our world (much in the same way that Howard's Cimmeria was in our remote past).  In LotR, _our world_ is the end result of the War of the Ring.

You merely have to examine the world of our time (or especially, the world of Tolkein's time) in relationship to the world of the Third Age to see how deeply, and how enduringly, the Free Peoples sacrificed in order to thwart Sauron.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> You might be moved by Tolkein's imaginative sweep, but Moorcock's much better at the technical side of writing.  He writes deliberately simple, direct prose in short, active voice sentences.  His words are often chosen with great precision and there's a consistent style.  Tolkein experiments with various styles - in LOTR, pastoral for the hobbits in the Shire, right through to epic, particularly for the later battle scenes - and he overwrites nearly as badly as Donaldson or Jordan.




Well, here we disagree.

For example, the change in styles as the hobbits move farther and farther from the Shire isn't experimenting with various styles.  It is part of an overarching style; Tolkein is changing his language to reflect the unfamiliarity of the hobbits with the peoples and cultures they are encountering.  This was a very deliberate choice, and is explained in his Note to Translaters.


RC


----------



## JohnSnow

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> You might be moved by Tolkein's imaginative sweep, but Moorcock's much better at the technical side of writing. He writes deliberately simple, direct prose in short, active voice sentences. His words are often chosen with great precision and there's a consistent style. Tolkein experiments with various styles - in LOTR, pastoral for the hobbits in the Shire, right through to epic, particularly for the later battle scenes - and he overwrites nearly as badly as Donaldson or Jordan.




That's a stylistic difference.

Moorcock, from what I've read, writes mostly journalistic-style fantasy. Which involves simple, directive prose in active voice. It's very descriptive and to the point, I'll give him that.

Tolkien, by contrast, doesn't write that way. He wasn't TRYING TO. He was trying to write epic prose fantasy. That's something other writers try to do as well. Some of them succeed admirably most of the time, like George Martin. Others succeed some of the time, like Robert Jordan. And still others fail miserably most of the time, like Donaldson.

Tolkien's work feels like it came out of a previous era. The pastoral stuff in the shire shares more in common with Don Quixote than any recent work. Basically, as a piece of 20th-Century literature, _The Lord of the Rings_ is a throwback. It's a celebration of language and a deliberate attempt to create Epic literature - not marketable "fluff."

Given its success, Tolkien could just have chosen to write 20 sequels to _The Hobbit_, cranking them out like bad spinoffs. But he chose to do something VERY different instead. He challenged himself, because he could. The end result was _The Lord of the Rings_, an experiment at writing the grand epic of a fictional world by a professor of literature and language. Its style is quite deliberate.

You may not like epic prose, but you shouldn't criticize it just because it's not journalism fantasy.

I'd definitely put Moorcock behind Leiber in the "ranking" of great fantasy writers. Being a prolific writer doesn't make you a great writer. Writing about things other people find controversial and uncomfortable doesn't make you a gifted artist. What it may make you is a disciplined tradesmen with pretentious notions that your writing is all about the "craft." That may not be the case with Moorcock, but it might be. I'd say he's been successful because his work strikes a chord with some people.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I own _Elric of Melnibone_ and I've read it in its entirety. Since completing it, I've looked at some of Moorcock's other works and chosen to pass. His anarchistic nihlism bores me. His plots bore me. I find his prose descriptive, but not particularly evocative.

I'm not saying Moorcock is a bad writer. He's just not my cup of tea, so far as I've seen. But critiquing a work you haven't read in its entirety...

That says it all I think.

Obviously, he doesn't like _The Lord of the Rings._ Maybe he doesn't get it because he disagrees with its philosophy. Maybe he doesn't get it because he just doesn't like the style. Maybe he doesn't get it because he just doesn't want to.

But he absolutely, most assuredly, CAN'T get it if he hasn't read it. It's one book, published in three volumes by the publisher. I wouldn't dare critique a work of Moorcock's I'd only read through chapter 4, on any grounds other than "plot" or "style," and then all I could say would be very limited.

So, not having read the entire book, Moorcock is entitled to the following opinions:

"_I_ don't like Tolkien's writing style."
"_I_ didn't agree with the themes."
"It didn't grab _me_."

And that's pretty much all he's qualified to say, by his own limited familiarity with the work.

Anything more is...well, I'll leave that unsaid.


----------



## eyebeams

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Except that what you actually said was:
> 
> Which is a different thing entirely, wouldn't you say?




Actually, no, since he's said both things to characterize his association with them. It is sometimes difficult for people to remember -- particularly if they are not well versed in the history of the genre -- that Moorcock is pretty aged now and has been published and working as a writer since he was 17 years old.

As for me, I have a sneaking suspicion that many people actually like the culture around Middle Earth fandom and the world's trivia and structure instead of the actual writing. I rarely see even Tolkien fans actually quote Tolkien's descriptive prose for appreciation. They repeat pithy dialogue and such but I rarely see anyone quote Tolkien describing somebody actually doing something. One of the reasons the Peter Jackson films were an overdue idea is that Tolkien's descriptions of anything living and not made of wood are vague enough to allow great leeway. Consider that fact that nobody knows what the balrog really looks like, and not because of Lovecraftian fiat. Consider, also, the difference between how battles are described in Tolkien and how they are portrayed.

In terms of creating a mythology, Tolkien certainly can't be beat. The trouble is that this was not really the defualt objective of fantasy literature. If you're coming into fantasy literature to be immersed in a mythology, you probably aren't actually interested in what Moorcock had to say in an essay that's nearly 30 years old. But if you're interested in fantasy as literature after the fashion of other forms of literature, where prose, layered symbolism and social context are accepted elements, Tolkein just isn't going to cut it. That wasn't his personal objective and Tolkien scholarship is so corrupt with the influence of fandom little depth can come of it.

As for other authors, Niven and Heinlein combine interesting speculation with infantile politics. Niven is not quite so bad, though his sheltered upbringing as the beneficiary of his grandfather's profits from business fraud leads him to say extremely stupid things about normal people, as Niven is not really acquainted with anyone like that. (Example: One of his books features the brutally oppressed, impoverished underclass of a colony planet whiling away the time at a fancy cocktail party, possibly because Niven has probably not been to other sorts of parties). Heinlein is the more interesting of the two and pioneered the idea of science fiction as a genre of social import. He also used that insight to say some very dumb things and entertain some fairly strange thoughts about women.


----------



## Storm Raven

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Example: One of his books features the brutally oppressed, impoverished underclass of a colony planet whiling away the time at a fancy cocktail party, possibly because Niven has probably not been to other sorts of parties).




Which book was that? I've read a fair amount of Niven, and I don't recall this.



> _Heinlein is the more interesting of the two and pioneered the idea of science fiction as a genre of social import. He also used that insight to say some very dumb things and entertain some fairly strange thoughts about women._




And yet, in many of his novels, he was able to say some very interesting things about women. Versatility means being able to say many different things about a given topic.


----------



## eyebeams

dcas said:
			
		

> Would Moorcock be among the "big four" of fantasy writers? (This is an honest question, not a rhetorical one, as I don't follow fantasy fiction.)




Maybe. Contrary to popular belief, Howard is not really among them simply because most people haven't read him (in many cases, even if they think they have). Plus, there's still debate as to whether he was actually any good or not. Even people who defend his work sometimes admit that it is not as polished as it might be and is not particularly nuanced.

Then you have Mervyn Peake, who was probably one of the most important writers of the fantastic ever, but whose work is extraordinarily difficult for many people to read. Part of the trouble with fantasy is that many things that are really interesting are not comforting or comfortable. The pathos is not going to lead you to the expected resolution or in the expected meter. Gene Wolfe deserves far more recognition then he gets. He's ben called the finest American author in any genre, but I doubt that many "fan" types have read him.

C.S Lewis and Tolkien? Definitely. J K Rowling is there too. These are primarily the result of sheer numbers and the popularity of a general set of themes. They are, after all, so popular that a mildly precocious 14 years old can get rich off of a fairly despirited pastiche of their work.

I'd add Roger Zelazny. Neil Gaiman is up there nowadays; he and Rowling are the most mainstream-friendly fantasy authors. I'd put Moorcock more on the line with Clive Barker.


----------



## Gentlegamer

This discussion reminds me that tomorrow is September 22 . . . Our Birthday, and time for me to start reading _The Lord of the Rings_ again.


----------



## JohnSnow

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I rarely see even Tolkien fans actually quote Tolkien's descriptive prose for appreciation. They repeat pithy dialogue and such but I rarely see anyone quote Tolkien describing somebody actually doing something.




Tolkien's descriptions are relatively...dense. Being able to quote it off the top of your head is like memorizing poetry. You want something other than dialogue? How about a song?

There is an inn, a merry old inn
beneath an old grey hill,
And there they brew a beer so brown
That the Man in the Moon himself came down
one night to drink his fill.

The ostler has a tipsy cat
that plays a five-stringed fiddle;
And up and down he runs his bow,
Now squeaking high, now purring low,
now sawing in the middle.

The landlord keeps a little dog
that is mighty fond of jokes;
When there's good cheer among the guests,
He cocks an ear at all the jests
and laughs until he chokes.

They also keep a hornéd cow
as proud as any queen;
But music turns her head like ale,
And makes her wave her tufted tail
and dance upon the green.

And O! the rows of silver dishes
and the store of silver spoons!
For Sunday there's a special pair,
And these they polish up with care
on Saturday afternoons.

The Man in the Moon was drinking deep,
and the cat began to wail;
A dish and a spoon on the table danced,
The cow in the garden madly pranced,
and the little dog chased his tail.

The Man in the Moon took another mug,
and rolled beneath his chair;
And there he dozed and dreamed of ale,
Till in the sky the stars were pale,
and dawn was in the air.

Then the ostler said to his tipsy cat:
"The white horses of the Moon,
They neigh and champ their silver bits;
But their master's been and drowned his wits,
and the Sun'll be rising soon!"

So the cat on his fiddle played hey-diddle-diddle,
a jig that would wake the dead:
He squeaked and sawed and quickened the tune,
While the landlord shook the Man in the Moon:
"It's after three!" he said.

They rolled the Man slowly up the hill
and bundled him into the Moon,
While his horses galloped up in rear,
And the cow came capering like a deer,
and a dish ran up with the spoon.

Now quicker the fiddle went deedle-dum-diddle;
the dog began to roar,
The cow and the horses stood on their heads;
The guests all bounded from their beds
and danced upon the floor.

With a ping and a pong the fiddle-strings broke!
the cow jumped over the Moon,
And the little dog laughed to see such fun,
And the Saturday dish went off at a run
with the silver Sunday spoon.

The round Moon rolled behind the hill,
as the Sun raised up her head.
She hardly believed her fiery eyes;
For though it was day, to her suprise
they all went back to bed.

How's that for a quote?


----------



## eyebeams

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Which book was that? I've read a fair amount of Niven, and I don't recall this.




A Gift from Earth. Another howler is his contention that it would only take less than a day for people to stat killing and raping each other in the absence of cops, despite the total absence of scarcity or a profit motive arising from any violence in the story. Niven somehow intellectually understands that people with less money than him are more often involved in bad things, but seems to have trouble visualizing exactly why.



> And yet, in many of his novels, he was able to say some very interesting things about women. Versatility means being able to say many different things about a given topic.




If some of those things are dumb, it's not versatility so much as unevenness. Heinlein's best work really took place before he gathered a fandom apparatus around him. Later work like Friday was really terrible.


----------



## eyebeams

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> How's that for a quote?




Actually, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I can look around all day and find lots of references to elements of the fictional culture and mythology, including songs and descriptions of objects and mediated situations, but it takes some looking to find anybody mention that they found a prortrayal of someone's emotional state compelling, or that they were thrilled by the decsription of a battle. In many case, Tolkien does not describe violence at all, limiting himself to laundry lists of who killing who/what.


----------



## Storm Raven

eyebeams said:
			
		

> A Gift from Earth. Another howler is his contention that it would only take less than a day for people to stat killing and raping each other in the absence of cops, despite the total absence of scarcity or a profit motive arising from any violence in the story. Niven somehow intellectually understands that people with less money than him are more often involved in bad things, but seems to have trouble visualizing exactly why.




I haven't read that one, but it seems to me that people who are members of an underclass often attend parties despite being discriminated against. I'm not seeing the big mental disconnect between "downtrodden underclass" and "attending a party". I find it interesting too, that you level a criticism based upon a relatively obscure and early work of Niven's, while ignoring _Protector_, _Ringworld_, _Ringworld Engineers_, _The Integral Trees_, _Smoke Ring_, and all of the other, much more prominent works that have made him well-known.

And, do you really think that people need scarcity and profit motive to rape and kill? A fair number of people probably would, but for some, there is certainly no need for that sort of motivation.



> _If some of those things are dumb, it's not versatility so much as unevenness. Heinlein's best work really took place before he gathered a fandom apparatus around him. Later work like Friday was really terrible._




Actually, I quite liked _Friday_, at least in part because the protagonist was an african-american woman, unlike many others in science fiction.


----------



## pawsplay

Every single one of Tolkien's characters has the capacity to do good, and every single one of them is guilty of at least one moral failure in the face of temptation. That's hardly comfortable. Further, LOTR is a pretty stern criticism of people minding their own business.

Let's talk about Moorcock. This is a guy who has made his career criticizing the testesterone-laded barbarian hero archetype, attacking "safe" politics, and generally snarking at genre fantasy. Yet Elric is a sword-wielding killer who solves most problems by attacking with a demonic sword or making evil bargains, who emobides despotism in both its benign and tyrranical forms, and has come to embody an entire branch of the epic fantasy genre. The phrase that springs to mind is "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones."

It's very easy to read Elric as a Teddy Roosevelt analog, an ultra masculine character who fulfills egoistic fantasies of being awesomeness incarnate, a patriarchal ruler-hero,, and further, a cosmic "Everyman" who embodies a (masculine, Western, individualistic) essential quality of humanity. 

In short, the champion of the universe, the embodiment of balance, is a privileged aristocratic male who wields terrible powers of destruction through a phallic symbol. 

Moorcock is everything he rails against in that except: comforting (to the ego of Elric fans), idyllic (though the Melniboneans give way to humanity, the humanity they give way to basically suck), hypermasculine, and complicit with European classism.


----------



## JohnSnow

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Actually, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I can look around all day and find lots of references to elements of the fictional culture and mythology, including songs and descriptions of objects and mediated situations, but it takes some looking to find anybody mention that they found a prortrayal of someone's emotional state compelling, or that they were thrilled by the decsription of a battle. In many case, Tolkien does not describe violence at all, limiting himself to laundry lists of who killing who/what.




Is this like the critique that _Star Wars_ showed the destruction of Alderaan without depicting the devastation to the planet itself?

I can't cite a quote of description because I don't have the books with me. I don't have any of the descriptive prose "off the top of my head" because there's SOO much of it. I'd never argue the books aren't DENSE. They are.

I can find a few things on the internet. This isn't one of my favorite passages but, from the siege of Gondor...

_"Gandalf did not move. And in that very moment, away behind in some courtyard of the City, a c0ck crowed. Shrill and clear he crowed, recking nothing of wizardry or war, welcoming only the morning that in the sky far above the shadows of death was coming with the dawn.

"And as if in answer, there came from far away another note. Horns, horns, horns. In dark Mindolluin's sides they dimly echoed. Great horns of the North wildly blowing. Rohan had come at last."_

And then there's this one, which IS one of my favorites:

_"So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of the Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dúnedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his undead sinews to his will."_

I find those words VERY evocative. Wistful, almost. Like I said, nobody has to like it, but those of us that do have our reasons.


----------



## dcas

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Actually, I quite liked _Friday_, at least in part because the protagonist was an african-american woman, unlike many others in science fiction.




I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but where is it stated that Friday is black? I read it ages ago, and I recall that the cover of my copy portrayed a buxom white woman with short hair.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I am fairly certain that Friday is not any kind of minority or else she would not have been able to marry into her original S-group (the one that didn't want one of its daughters marrying a Tongan).


----------



## Raven Crowking

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Maybe. Contrary to popular belief, Howard is not really among them simply because most people haven't read him (in many cases, even if they think they have). Plus, there's still debate as to whether he was actually any good or not. Even people who defend his work sometimes admit that it is not as polished as it might be and is not particularly nuanced.




I just spent my lunch hour reading some Howard (thanks to the Wildeside Press) and I agree that Howard is not as polished as he could be.  But he is raw, energetic, and hugely influencial.  Lots of people haven't read Shelley or Stoker, but due to Frankenstein and Dracula they are nonetheless among the Big Four for the Gothic horror genre.  Ditto H.G. Wells for War of the Worlds and The Invisible Man, and Stevenson for The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.  (All of which, btw, are worth reading.)

I do agree with you about Peake, and he would definitely be in consideration for the Big Four IMHO.  He was a better writer than Howard in many ways, but not as influential by far.



> J K Rowling is there too.




Not in my book.    

I've read all the Harry Potter books, but she isn't particularly clever with plot, theme, or character.  If anything deserves to be called _Epic Pooh_ that would be the Harry Potter novels.  YMMV and IMHO, of course.    

Her books may be selling -- and more power to her for that; at least it gets kids started! -- but they don't share the depth, complexity, or human understanding/realism required to be make her one of the Big Four.  The best thing I can say about Harry Potter is that, at the end of the first movie, a young child behind me said "The book was better."      So, for that alone, JKR will always have a place in my heart.



> I'd put Moorcock more on the line with Clive Barker.




I'd put Moorcock on the line of _early_ Clive Barker.  IMHO, Barker is the better author.


RC


----------



## Mark Hope

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Let's talk about Moorcock. This is a guy who has made his career criticizing the testesterone-laded barbarian hero archetype, attacking "safe" politics, and generally snarking at genre fantasy.



Actually, he has made his career writing, fantasy and otherwise.  He just happens to have strong opinions which he expresses in addition to his fiction.



> Yet Elric is a sword-wielding killer who solves most problems by attacking with a demonic sword or making evil bargains, who emobides despotism in both its benign and tyrranical forms, and has come to embody an entire branch of the epic fantasy genre. The phrase that springs to mind is "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones."



Elric is far from despotic.  The very genesis of his character arc derives from a dislike of despotism and the consequences of its overthrow.  Yes, he frequently responds with violence and demonic pacts, but is frequently portrayed as doing so reluctantly.  If you accept Tolkien's message that the LotR characters have the ability to do good yet fail, you must also accept Moorcock's message that Elric is similarly flawed.



> It's very easy to read Elric as a Teddy Roosevelt analog, an ultra masculine character who fulfills egoistic fantasies of being awesomeness incarnate, a patriarchal ruler-hero,, and further, a cosmic "Everyman" who embodies a (masculine, Western, individualistic) essential quality of humanity.



Easy, perhaps, but incorrectly, I would argue.  Elric is anything but "ultra masculine".  His effeminacy is well portrayed, as is his physical weakness  and lack of "awesomeness", save through the crutch of drugs or murder.  Maybe those are your fantasies, but they aren't mine.  Patriarchal ruler-hero?  Hardly.  He is anything but patriarchal and eschews rule at the first opportunity.  He embodies a search for a personal humanity, far more than embodying a standard everyman.  Elric would probably love to be an everyman, but must literally sacrifice everything he holds dear in order to achieve that goal.



> In short, the champion of the universe, the embodiment of balance, is a privileged aristocratic male who wields terrible powers of destruction through a phallic symbol.
> 
> Moorcock is everything he rails against in that except: comforting (to the ego of Elric fans), idyllic (though the Melniboneans give way to humanity, the humanity they give way to basically suck), hypermasculine, and complicit with European classism.



Gibberish.  Pure gibberish.  Well, except for the bit about the phallic symbol maybe   ...

I won't question whether you have read the Elric books or not, but I would argue that your interpretation of them is pretty unusual and not really supported by the text or the author's claims about how and why he wrote them.


----------



## eyebeams

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I haven't read that one, but it seems to me that people who are members of an underclass often attend parties despite being discriminated against. I'm not seeing the big mental disconnect between "downtrodden underclass" and "attending a party". I find it interesting too, that you level a criticism based upon a relatively obscure and early work of Niven's, while ignoring _Protector_, _Ringworld_, _Ringworld Engineers_, _The Integral Trees_, _Smoke Ring_, and all of the other, much more prominent works that have made him well-known.




Not any party at all. A Southern California-style cocktail party. It really is jarring.  As for his other work, I've always found Known Space a combination of gameable and silly. Mostly silly.



> And, do you really think that people need scarcity and profit motive to rape and kill? A fair number of people probably would, but for some, there is certainly no need for that sort of motivation.




Unfortunately, the short story in question is not about one borderline psychopath struggling with temptation. It's about everybody going crazy because OMG NO COPS.



> Actually, I quite liked _Friday_, at least in part because the protagonist was an african-american woman, unlike many others in science fiction.




That's super. Maybe we can have a novel where the black, female protagonist doesn't get a nipple sawed off.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> If you accept Tolkien's message that the LotR characters have the ability to do good yet fail, you must also accept Moorcock's message that Elric is similarly flawed.




Well, I do buy it, but not because I _have to_.    

Tolkein is a lot better at conveying this idea (IMHO) than Moorcock is.  Tolkein's subtlty is better than what I would term the "bombast" of Moorcock in this regard.  As someone once said, "Understatement is more effective than hyperbole."


RC


----------



## Storm Raven

dcas said:
			
		

> I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but where is it stated that Friday is black? I read it ages ago, and I recall that the cover of my copy portrayed a buxom white woman with short hair.




The cover was inaccurate, and Heinlein was very annoyed by it. I'd have to get my copy out to find the passage in which she is described.



> _EDIT: Now that I think about it, I am fairly certain that Friday is not any kind of minority or else she would not have been able to marry into her original S-group (the one that didn't want one of its daughters marrying a Tongan)._




Being prejudiced against Tongans is not the same as being prejudiced against african americans. Her original S-Group shows itself, ultimately, to be quite narrow minded in other ways, so the apparent hypocrisy should not be surprising.

_Friday_ is also interesting because it, in many ways, presaged the development of cyberpunk, being published a couple years before Gibson put out _Neuromancer_, and yet dealing with many of the themes that Gibson became famous for talking about: the decay of the traditional state, the rise of megacorporations, genetic and surgical manipulation of humans, a deprived underclass, and so on.


----------



## Warbringer

Wombat said:
			
		

> He is popular now, but I wonder for how long




Given the first Elric novel was 1961, it's not like he's a new fad (Indeed, the first novel appeared merely 6 years after Allen&Unwin finished its first publication of LotR)

The days of raving about Elric are behind us; with songs about him from Deep Purple, Blue Oyster Cult and Hawkwind. Elric was the first true anti-hero in S+S, and trust me, he's been copied as many times as the Tolkien has been regurgitated


----------



## Mark Hope

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If anything deserves to be called _Epic Pooh_ that would be the Harry Potter novels.  YMMV and IMHO, of course.



Lollerskates, yes!



> I'd put Moorcock on the line of _early_ Clive Barker.  IMHO, Barker is the better author.



Clive Barker is God.  He just is.  It can be empirically proven.  And I love him in a deeply unhealthy fashion.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Well, I do buy it, but not because I have to.



You do!  You _have_ to!!


----------



## Raven Crowking

As an aside, I have to say that Storm Raven is correct.  Friday was black.


----------



## eyebeams

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Every single one of Tolkien's characters has the capacity to do good, and every single one of them is guilty of at least one moral failure in the face of temptation. That's hardly comfortable. Further, LOTR is a pretty stern criticism of people minding their own business.




No. It's completely comfortable because you can easily identify those failings and not feel ambiguous about them. It's the Eddas by way of Catholicism.



> Let's talk about Moorcock. This is a guy who has made his career criticizing the testesterone-laded barbarian hero archetype, attacking "safe" politics, and generally snarking at genre fantasy. Yet Elric is a sword-wielding killer who solves most problems by attacking with a demonic sword or making evil bargains, who emobides despotism in both its benign and tyrranical forms, and has come to embody an entire branch of the epic fantasy genre. The phrase that springs to mind is "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones."
> 
> It's very easy to read Elric as a Teddy Roosevelt analog, an ultra masculine character who fulfills egoistic fantasies of being awesomeness incarnate, a patriarchal ruler-hero,, and further, a cosmic "Everyman" who embodies a (masculine, Western, individualistic) essential quality of humanity.
> 
> In short, the champion of the universe, the embodiment of balance, is a privileged aristocratic male who wields terrible powers of destruction through a phallic symbol.




That's the point. Elric is not supposed to be a nice man and is not supposed to be someone who bucks up, redeems himself and helps everyone because of it. Moorcock has described aspects of Elric's story as "pornographic."



> Moorcock is everything he rails against in that except: comforting (to the ego of Elric fans), idyllic (though the Melniboneans give way to humanity, the humanity they give way to basically suck), hypermasculine, and complicit with European classism.




Tell me: Do they actually teach people what irony is in school still?

The funny think is that you can't really table any charge against Elric that Moorcock hasn't levelled himself -- in fact, that he hasn't actually built into the character in order to explore it. The point of Elric is that he succeeds because he is *weak* and *unhappy.*  He's also a coward and engages in pointless diversions. The reason Elric wins is because he's not even good at being complicit with classism in its ultimate metaphoric form.

I think MM could at this point stand to hand the sword up, but like many working writers he's sensitive to what sells and seems to be using the genre to really tell magic realist stories. If you can catch a read of "London Bone" I highly recommend it. But I think that MM's sexual politics are somewhat retrograde (stuck in the 1970s left) and he really, really needs to explore the promise in some of his short fiction.


----------



## eyebeams

Warbringer said:
			
		

> Given the first Elric novel was 1961, it's not like he's a new fad (Indeed, the first novel appeared merely 6 years after Allen&Unwin finished its first publication of LotR)
> 
> The days of raving about Elric are behind us; with songs about him from Deep Purple, Blue Oyster Cult and Hawkwind. Elric was the first true anti-hero in S+S, and trust me, he's been copied as many times as the Tolkien has been regurgitated




On that topic, the essay was written in 1978.


----------



## Storm Raven

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Not any party at all. A Southern California-style cocktail party. It really is jarring.  As for his other work, I've always found Known Space a combination of gameable and silly. Mostly silly.




Poor people don't have cocktail parties? I'm left to wonder about _your_ experience with "common folk".



> _Unfortunately, the short story in question is not about one borderline psychopath struggling with temptation. It's about everybody going crazy because OMG NO COPS._




And? You don't think a fair number of people wouldn't? Lots of science fiction features people going nuts on a regular basis even _with_ cops, who kill them (Brunner, Sheckley, and so on). Why is it hard to suppose that a fair number would not do so if there were none? Heck, we have examples of societies in which there are no cops, and they have all turned out to be havens for violent and vicious behaviour at the drop of a hat (Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and so on). Maybe it is just some sort of irrational belief in the efficacy of an anarchist system that makes you so certain that society would work really well without police.



> _That's super. Maybe we can have a novel where the black, female protagonist doesn't get a nipple sawed off._




As part of a torture scene in which the clandestine courier of a mysterious employer is captured and her captors try to get information out of her. In which all but one participant was later killed. Because, you know, it would make a much better book if we shielded a protagonist from the perils of their profession because we don't want to have a scene in which a minority is harmed for fear of offending someone.

And you say that Heinlein and Niven took a infantile view of the world.


----------



## Akrasia

Hey!  Where's the *Jack Vance* love?  He belongs in any 'top 5' list of fantasy authors of the 20th century.  

Certainly well ahead of Moorcock (IMO, etc.). 



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> ... Gene Wolfe deserves far more recognition then he gets. He's ben called the finest American author in any genre, but I doubt that many "fan" types have read him...




Gene Wolfe ... _great_ writer.  Shame on any fan of fantasy/science fiction who has not read his 'New Sun' stories.


----------



## Warbringer

My favorite quote from "Epic Pooh

"Terry Pratchett once remarked that all his readers were called Kevin. He is lucky in that he appears to be the only Terry in fantasy land who is able to write a decent complex sentence."


----------



## Raven Crowking

eyebeams said:
			
		

> No. It's completely comfortable because you can easily identify those failings and not feel ambiguous about them. It's the Eddas by way of Catholicism.




That the elves and Sauron are guilty of the same sin isn't at all easily identifiable.  At least, it took me more than one reading to become aware of it.  Are the failings of Aragorn obvious?  What of the failings of Gandalf?

The failings of the characters _in the movies_ are obvious.  But then, the movies are nowhere near as complex.

From my point of view, though "Elric is not supposed to be a nice man and is not supposed to be someone who bucks up, redeems himself and helps everyone because of it." and "The point of Elric is that he succeeds because he is *weak* and *unhappy.*  He's also a coward and engages in pointless diversions. The reason Elric wins is because he's not even good at being complicit with classism in its ultimate metaphoric form." describes something far more comfortable than what Tolkein describes.  

It is easy to be weak and unhappy.  It is easy to be cowardly.  It is easy to engage in pointless diversions.  It is hard, and uncomfortable, to sacrifice so that others may have that easy life.

RC


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Hey!  Where's the *Jack Vance* love?  He belongs in any 'top 5' list of fantasy authors of the 20th century.



Eh. He's one of those artists whose primary importance is that he influenced other artists (either directly or via Gygax). While that certainly qualifies him for a certain sort of list, he doesn't really belong on the top 5 fantasy authors of the 20th century, IMO. His work was neither a massive critical or commercial success.

But that's probably another (very fun) thread.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks

All this discussion about black female characters, and nobody's mentioned Earthsea?  Ursula Le Guin is definitely one of the founders of modern fantasy.

I think it's easier to make sense of claims about the top authors if you subcategorise them.  So, for example:  Epic fantasy:  Tolkein, Donaldson, Le Guin.  Sword and sorcery:  Leiber, Moorcock, Howard.  New Weird:  Barker, Gaiman, Mieville.  And Gene Wolfe, who needs to be mentioned but doesn't fit into pigeonholes easily...


----------



## Raven Crowking

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> All this discussion about black female characters, and nobody's mentioned Earthsea?




When I was talking about who the fantasy Big Four would be, I put Le Guin in the running.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> When I was talking about who the fantasy Big Four would be, I put Le Guin in the running.




My apologies.

All this discussion about black female characters, and nobody except Raven Crowking has mentioned Earthsea?


----------



## Storm Raven

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> My apologies.
> 
> All this discussion about black female characters, and nobody except Raven Crowking has mentioned Earthsea?




Well, the discussion really has only occurred in the context of discussing Heinlein's novel _Friday_, which features such a character, making it unusual in the genre (especially unusual at the time is was published), so there wasn't any real cause to bring up the handful of other examples.

I wouldn't put LeGuin in the "Big Three" (or "Big Four" if you prefer) of fantasy, but in the group just below that. Just as, say, Niven, Anderson, and LeGuin (among others) would be in the top tier down from the "Big Three" of science fiction, I'd put LeGuin, Moorcock, and Anderson in the top tier down from the "Big Three" of fantasy.


----------



## ruleslawyer

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That the elves and Sauron are guilty of the same sin isn't at all easily identifiable.  At least, it took me more than one reading to become aware of it.  Are the failings of Aragorn obvious?  What of the failings of Gandalf?
> 
> The failings of the characters _in the movies_ are obvious.  But then, the movies are nowhere near as complex.
> 
> From my point of view, though "Elric is not supposed to be a nice man and is not supposed to be someone who bucks up, redeems himself and helps everyone because of it." and "The point of Elric is that he succeeds because he is *weak* and *unhappy.*  He's also a coward and engages in pointless diversions. The reason Elric wins is because he's not even good at being complicit with classism in its ultimate metaphoric form." describes something far more comfortable than what Tolkein describes.
> 
> It is easy to be weak and unhappy.  It is easy to be cowardly.  It is easy to engage in pointless diversions.  It is hard, and uncomfortable, to sacrifice so that others may have that easy life.
> 
> RC



I tend to agree. Even when I first read the Elric books (in 6th grade), I found Elric to be extraordinarily melodramatic and unnecessarily mopey, and was a bit jarred by Moorcock's purple prose. Don't get me wrong; I like Moorcock's writing just fine (except for where I find it annoyingly pornographic, like _Gloriana_; I have the same problem with some of Leiber's later fantasy work). And I'm aware that there's self-parody built into the stories (there's a Moorcock-authored pastiche somewhere in my collection about a character who is undressed by his romantic conquest to unveil the Torso of x, the Hand of y, the Leg of z, and the... well, y'know). But I don't place his fantasy work on some level that's more _complex_ than Tolkien's. Tolkien's vision is astoundingly complex, and thoroughly humanist in some very interesting ways; he and LeGuin share a commonality of interest in "adult" themes such as restraint, the varied uses of power, temptation, the lure of wealth, and a number of other subjects. 

Now, I happen to agree with Moorcock's critique of Tolkien's work as being motivated by a particular set of political and religious ethics; I also don't think anything he says is vaguely new. (The Chesterton Journal and numerous Oxford Circle scholars have been saying the same thing for decades.)


----------



## Rackhir

eyebeams said:
			
		

> A Gift from Earth. Another howler is his contention that it would only take less than a day for people to stat killing and raping each other in the absence of cops, despite the total absence of scarcity or a profit motive arising from any violence in the story. Niven somehow intellectually understands that people with less money than him are more often involved in bad things, but seems to have trouble visualizing exactly why.




First off you have failed to understand that the story "Cloak of Anarchy" isn't about what is likely to happen, it's about "what if this situation did happen" and the implications that follow from it. Most of Niven's stories are set up like that. He isn't interested in forcasting how things might be. He wants to think about how things would be IF x was the situation.

You also seem to have missed the fact characters were locked in the park with essentially no resources (no food and the only water resource the fountain had been taken over by the thugs), no way to communicate with anyone outside the park and no way to tell when they would be able to get out of the park. And of course nobody has ever panicked in such a situation. 

Then you seem to have overlooked that the story was set in essentially a "golden age" society, where nobody was poor (at least nobody in the story) and they had pretty much anything they wanted. So the story was in fact about how spoiled, wealthy, jaded people would react if you put them in a situation where you take all that away from them. Not about  these "bad poor people" you seem to have invented out of whole cloth.


----------



## Umbran

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And you say that Heinlein and Niven took a infantile view of the world.





Now, folks, I think we can maintain a somewhat more respectful tone than this.

Additionally, this thread has no gaming content to speak of.  I'm moving it off to the Media Lounge


----------



## Mark Hope

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> And I'm aware that there's self-parody built into the stories (there's a Moorcock-authored pastiche somewhere in my collection about a character who is undressed by his romantic conquest to unveil the Torso of x, the Hand of y, the Leg of z, and the... well, y'know).



_The Stone Thing_ .  Named for the eponymous, er, stone thing.  _Elric at the End of Time_ and _The Last Call_ are in a similar vein (although without the prosthesis).  Chuckletastic.


----------



## sckeener

Umbran said:
			
		

> Additionally, this thread has no gaming content to speak of.  I'm moving it off to the Media Lounge




Sad but true.  I had stopped reading the thread.  I had hoped for more discussion about the icons or themes in the settings that were Tolkien like and if they were falling under Moorcock's essay.  

It did not turn out that way.


----------



## JohnSnow

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Now, I happen to agree with Moorcock's critique of Tolkien's work as being motivated by a particular set of political and religious ethics; I also don't think anything he says is vaguely new. (The Chesterton Journal and numerous Oxford Circle scholars have been saying the same thing for decades.)




I wouldn't disagree that Tolkien's work is motivated by "a particular set of political and religious ethics." However, I'm not exactly sure that Moorcock correctly identifies what they are. You said it yourself. Tolkien is very interested in restraint, the use of power, temptation, the lure of wealth and, significantly and profoundly, hubris.

Tolkien uses most of those things (lust for power, wealth) as stand-ins for hubris: the "sin of pride." His writing holds up the notion that those who serve are the finest of us all - Sam, the servant, and Faramir, the true Steward. 

By contrast, to those whom much is granted, much is expected. Aragorn has to live up to his lineage, not because of his "noble heritage" but because he has to redeem the sin of his ancestor. Isildur was of the blood of the West, but he failed miserably because of his pride. Aragorn is his descendant, and he succeeds because of his humility. He lives not as a king, but as a ranger in the wilderness, reviled and mistrusted by those he has sworn to protect. His exalted lineage DEMANDS he take these noble actions. And by living up to that, he fulfills the promise of his heritage. That is why he's heroic.

Compare the two brothers, Boromir and Faramir. Boromir is the favored son, praised by his father, possessing every manly virtue. He looks at the ring and what does he see? A prize. Power. The chance for glory. He looks temptation in the face, and he FAILS. By contrast, Faramir faces the same test. He captures the ring, protected by only 2 small hobbits, with a company of men at his back and the ability to take it by force. This is "a chance for Faramir, Captain of Gondor, to show his quality." And he does. He knows the ring for what it is, and he is "not the sort of man to desire such a thing." He sees the temptation and chooses NOT to succumb to it. Which is why HE is heroic.

The Ring plays to power and ambition. The hobbits are able to resist the ring for the longest time because hobbits are the humblest of all creatures in Middle Earth. Frodo, for all his aristocracy and learning, remains humble. That's his heroism. He succumbs in the end, proving that even the humblest can succumb to temptation. But it's his pity and humility (and Bilbo's) in NOT judging Gollum which saves the day. Because they weren't quick to "deal out death and judgement," evil loses.

The "wise" and powerful in middle earth resist the temptation to use the Ring. Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, and Aragorn himself ALL resist the temptation. In some cases, barely. Galadriel could take the ring, overthrow Sauron, and save her people. But she would become something evil - "fair and terrible" forcing "all to love (her)." And so she chooses to diminish and go into the West. She sacrifices ALL.

Sam is Frodo's "servant" yes, but his friend as well. Tolkien wasn't exalting a Victorian "master and servant" dynamic, but a much earlier concept: the Chain of Being. In pre-industrial society, every one and everything had a place. And ALL were equally important. Modern "equal opportunity" basically says "All people may rise to become nobility" and therefore, "worthwhile." That's a whole lot different than "all people have it within them to _behave nobly,_ whatever their station."

Tolkien clearly believes the latter. Sam, the servant, is just as noble as any aristocrat, but he doesn't have to stop being a servant to _show his quality._ There's nothing inherently shameful about serving. Forced someone into servitude is evil. But serving is not.

That's been part and parcel of Christian thought since day 1. Remember that Jesus washed his apostles' feet, serving THEM, in effect. You can read that as a "patriarchal attempt to preserve the status quo" or you can read it as "humility is good." Tolkien sees it the latter way.

And, to further disagree with Moorcock, it's certainly not a "comforting" message that defeating evil often requires the ultimate sacrifice. But that the goal is worth ANY sacrifice. And THAT'S the message.

Now I admit, Tolkien doesn't really get into the vagaries of how to identify "evil" in the real world. :\


----------



## pawsplay

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> Actually, he has made his career writing, fantasy and otherwise.  He just happens to have strong opinions which he expresses in addition to his fiction.




I'm not trying to summarize his whole life. Let me restate: Elric is what he is famous for. And he sure has written a lot of Elric.



> Elric is far from despotic.  The very genesis of his character arc derives from a dislike of despotism and the consequences of its overthrow.  Yes, he frequently responds with violence and demonic pacts, but is frequently portrayed as doing so reluctantly.  If you accept Tolkien's message that the LotR characters have the ability to do good yet fail, you must also accept Moorcock's message that Elric is similarly flawed.




That just puts him in the same moral category as various John Wayne Mel Gibson, "reluctant heroes" who are forced to show manly they are in the face of evil.



> Easy, perhaps, but incorrectly, I would argue.  Elric is anything but "ultra masculine".  His effeminacy is well portrayed, as is his physical weakness  and lack of "awesomeness", save through the crutch of drugs or murder.  Maybe those are your fantasies, but they aren't mine.  Patriarchal ruler-hero?  Hardly.  He is anything but patriarchal and eschews rule at the first opportunity.  He embodies a search for a personal humanity, far more than embodying a standard everyman.  Elric would probably love to be an everyman, but must literally sacrifice everything he holds dear in order to achieve that goal.




Elric is a guy who believes he has the duty to rule, who smacks people with a sword to establish his moral position. he is, essentially, King Arthur.

He is not my fantasy... He is in the same category as Drizzt, Blade, and other cool, edgy, not quite evil characters who fulfill the fantasies of people who want to be a hero, but also want to indulge their egoistic fantasies of being a scary badass.



> Gibberish.  Pure gibberish.  Well, except for the bit about the phallic symbol maybe   ...




You seemed to have had no problem reading the rest of my post. Why don't we see if you can write, too?



> I won't question whether you have read the Elric books or not, but I would argue that your interpretation of them is pretty unusual and not really supported by the text or the author's claims about how and why he wrote them.




So what? He claims he was tired of the Conan archetype, yet his most well known series is a valentine. My interpretation may be unusual in the sense of "not held by the majority," but it's not a rare opinion. 

Elric is an ironic character, but as the core, is a macho badass, just like all the other macho badasses, and represents the rulership of intellect and refinement over the masses. "Heavy is the head that wears the crown," indeed.

Like many artists, Moorcock is more interesting when doing art than talking about it. He's not, in any case, one of my favorite authors, although is influence is quite amazing.


----------



## pawsplay

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Now I admit, Tolkien doesn't really get into the vagaries of how to identify "evil" in the real world. :\




_Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends._

That is a viewpoint I wish we had more of in the "real world."


----------



## takyris

When I come home from work, here's what I get to do:

- Play with the little dude
- Make dinner
- Eat dinner
- Play with the dude
- Give dude bath or put dude to bed (wife does the other)
- Make gaming post for my pbem game
- Actually socialize with my wife (watch a show together, play a game together, smooch, etc)

Between that and going to bed, I've got about 20 minutes to read.

I've got back problems, residual fallout from my parents' acrimonious divorce, lingering concerns about what I'm doing to my 2-year-old son by raising him directly under massive power lines, and $20,000 in credit card debt because I had to pay off my car when I moved up to Canada and because Turbotax screwed up the way my wife and I declared my wife's defunct stock options and the IRS came a-knockin'.

You're *darn right* I'm going to pull out the comfort reading. If I want to experience fatigue and grim necessity, I can put the book *down*.

If the complaint is just a slam on comfort reading, Moorcock is welcome to bite me. If the complaint is that there's nothing *except* comfort reading out there, I can't speak for what things were like when this essay was originally written, but my trips to Chapters (like Borders, but in Canada) show me plenty of grim people with the blood of demons forced into a sorcery they don't want gablah gablah gablah.

I'm not trying to stop anyone from reading it. (Correction: I'm not trying to stop anyone from reading it if that's what they want to read. I'm happy to warn off people who aren't sure if it's what they want, though.) In fact, people are willing to share their opinions and disagree as to what's good and what's bad. That's wonderful.

But Moorcock couldn't have gotten his stuff published without Jayarrarrtee getting his stuff published (not because Moorcock's stuff is so Tolkienesque, because it isn't, obviously, but because the fantasy market wouldn't be the two or three shelves at Chapters that it is without Tolkien). You don't have to like the giant whose shoulders you're standing on, but yelling about how he should have been taller makes you look kind of petulant.


----------



## JohnSnow

pawsplay said:
			
		

> _Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends._
> 
> That is a viewpoint I wish we had more of in the "real world."




I am suitably chastened.  

I also think you could reasonably argue that the whole story could be viewed as a cautionary tale on the use and abuse of power. The ends don't justify the means, and no matter what, you should do the right thing, even if it costs you everything.

And that sometimes, it can be hard to know what "the right thing" is, so your best bet is to humbly do that which must be done.

Comforting, indeed.


----------



## Elfdart

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Moorcock does have a point.




He should wear a hat to cover it up. Moorcock is a tool who tries to pretend that his own works are much better than those of other writers, then calls Gore Vidal (who is one of  great writers of the last hundred years) a literary snob. Vidal gave very favorable reviews to _The Wizard of Oz_ and _Tarzan_, so he's not exactly hostile to fantasy/sci-fi. Want some cheese to go with your whine, Mr. Moorcock?



			
				Hawkshere said:
			
		

> You can spin anything if you try hard enough.
> 
> In a similar vein, I much prefer David Brin's gutting of _Star Wars_:
> http://www.davidbrin.com/starwarsarticle1.html




Brin is to George Lucas what Moorcock is to Tolkien: a bitter hack who is jealous of someone else's superior talent and greater success.

For the truth about Brin's dishonest hatchetjob:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/



> I'm starting to wonder if one of George's kids made fun of one of Brin's kids, for him to be carrying around so much hostility that he would misrepresent both the words and movies of George Lucas in his defamatory attack. Some have E-mailed to suggest that Mr. Brin is simply jealous of George Lucas' enormous financial success with the Star Wars series, and that he feels George's talent didn't merit his rewards. If that's the case, then he simply needs to grow up. George knew what the public wanted, while the self-professed "populist" David Brin's popularity is still confined to a very small segment of the population. All of which leads me to wonder: who's the real populist, Mr. Brin?




Interesting coincidence that someone would bring up Star Wars and Michael Moorcock. A few years ago, some nitwit at Salon wrote a piece claiming that screenwriter Leigh Brackett was the real genius behind Star Wars and that Lucas was a derivative hack. Michael Moorcock chimed in with a letter about how he was a friend of the late Mrs. Brackett and she told him that working for Irvin Kershner was terrible and so on. The problem is, Moorcock is a liar. Leigh Brackett wrote maybe two-thirds of a rough draft of the screenplay for _The Empire Strikes Back_ and died just a few weeks later. Nothing from her script was used in the final screenplay or the movie. She did not work with director Irvin Kershner at all since she died before Kershner was hired to direct and because her rough draft wasn't used in any way, shape or form. The script, according to Lawrence Kasdan, was mostly the work of George Lucas with an assist from Kasdan, who was brought in late.

Stephen Haffner, who actually was a friend of Brackett's (unlike name-dropper Moorcock) and has seen her version of _The Empire Strikes Back_ noted that Brackett's screenplay was nothing like what appeared in the movie. 

Haffner


> FWIW, Leigh Brackett turned in the first draft of TESB (her cover page
> reads: STAR WARS SEQUEL) in February of 1978 before dying of cancer
> weeks later on March 24th.
> 
> While she wrote her script from story notes and telephone interviews
> with Lucas, none (I repeat NONE!) of her contributions were utilized in
> subsequent drafts or the final script.  I've read her script and
> although I'm a big Brackett fan (in 2002 I published a 500-page book of
> her earliest stories), her screenplay is pretty bad.
> 
> Lucas enjoyed working with Brackett and wanted her name on the film and
> he ensured that her estate would benefit from the finished product.
> I've read a letter written by Richard C. Jones, then-attorney for
> Brackett's estate and he is effusive on how above-board and reputable
> Lucas is.
> 
> Grist for the mill,
> 
> Stephen Haffner
> Big Poobah
> HAFFNER PRESS




There's more:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.pulp/msg/512907a82519cac2?hl=en&

Notice how Michael Moorcock is so eager to smear those who are more successful than he is? And in such a dishonest and despicable manner? Just like David Brin, who will go down in history as the writer who gave us _The Postman_ (if he's remembered at all), Michael Moorcock will be remembered as the guy who created the forerunners of the Drizzt novels, which like their predecessors are only noteworthy because they are so humorously bad -like Steven Seagal movies.

For the record, I never much cared for _Snored Through The Rings_ whether in book, cartoon or movie form, but I have no use whatsoever for bitter, mendacious sniping from the likes of David Brin and Michael Moorcock.


----------



## Ulrick

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Perhaps Moorcock is simply bitter is that Tolkien already told the tale of the sword ‘Stormbringer’ with greater poetry and evocativeness in the story of Turin from The Silmarillion?
> 
> I recommend that people read ‘Of Turin Turambar’ in The Silmarillion.  It is hard not conclude that the sword Anglachel/Gorthang _is_ Stormbringer (a black sentient sword with an evil will…).




So one could argue that Moorcock infringed on Tolkien estate intellectual property???


----------



## dcas

Ulrick said:
			
		

> So one could argue that Moorcock infringed on Tolkien estate intellectual property???




No . . . while the story of Turin Turambar was written long before that of Elric!!, it wouldn't be published until 1977, long after Elric!! was in print.

I agree with Akrasia that Turin is a much more interesting character than Elric!!


----------



## Jin_Kataki

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Any form of expression (artistic or otherwise) is an attempt to communicate, and can be judged on the basis of both what the creator(s) was (were) seeking to communicate and how well that goal was achieved.  Both of these criteria have strong subjective elements -- one isn't _wrong_ for liking or not liking any particular work.  However, it is possible to speak about (and critique) expressive works intelligently on this basis.
> 
> (This includes, IMHO, expressive works like RPGs as well.)
> 
> 
> RC




Critique is one thing, but what I am getting from this guy is he feels he is better and right and anyone who disagrees is inferior.


----------



## MulhorandSage

How unfortunate that Moorcock doesn't appreciate the popularity of literary approaches that differ from his.

It's a fair analysis, but... so what if Tolkien is comfortable, Anglican/Catholic, anti-urban, and what ever. I don't want all fantasy fiction to be Tolkien, nor do I want it to be the delayed adolescent angst that's central to Moorcock's work, nor Howard's badass Western-tinged machismo, or Leiber's urban charm, or (lamentably obscure) authors like James Branch Cabell. I just want to see talented authors following their muses and doing creative work, even if I don't always appreciate the final result. 

And how, given the literary climate in which it was created, can anyone really think that an 800 page epic fairy tale for adults was "safe". From a publishing standpoint, it was a work that should have been buried in obscurity for the rest of time. Nobody, including Tolkien, thought it would have much of an audience, and even the books' champions expected it to lose money. Is that "safe"? Safe is following in the predictable patterns that everyone else writes and milking the market. Neither Tolkien, nor Lewis, nor Moorcock are "safe" in that regard.

Moorcock's invective would be better served by attacking authors who follow market trands rather than their muses, or by lauding some of the great authors that we don't give enough respect toward. But then, we wouldn't be paying much attention to him if he wasn't attacking Tolkien, would we?

I hope that somewhere. Moorcock acknowledges the debt he owes Tolkien for opening up the fantasy market in the 1960s and 70s, from which a lot of fantasists prospered. However, if he doesn't, it's no big deal.


----------



## Vigilance

Well, I don't see a problem with Moorcock critizing Tolkien, there's a lot to criticize. His opinion is as good as anyone else's.

It's not any BETTER than anyone else's either though. Just one reader's opinion. 

Why people are continually mystified that writers have strong opinions about writing, and writers, is beyond me. 

Chuck


----------



## Tuzenbach

Umbran said:
			
		

> ".....Additionally, this thread has no gaming content to speak of....."





OK, just to humour you:

How many gold pieces is a Melnibonean Wheel worth? I believe it was described as possessing the ability to purchase (amongst other things) ships, manor houses, a squadron of the finest horses, small castles, etc., etc.....


----------



## Storm Raven

Elfdart said:
			
		

> Notice how Michael Moorcock is so eager to smear those who are more successful than he is? And in such a dishonest and despicable manner? Just like David Brin, who will go down in history as the writer who gave us _The Postman_ (if he's remembered at all)




Well, no. Brin will be remembered for his Hugo and Nebula award winning novels such as _Startide Rising_ and _The Uplift War_. Just because someone has an opinion concerning pop culture doesn't mean they are a hack, and Brin is decidedly not a hack.

(And for the record, I am of the opinion that Brin's fiction is decidely superior to Lucas').


----------



## Mark Hope

pawsplay said:
			
		

> That just puts him in the same moral category as various John Wayne Mel Gibson, "reluctant heroes" who are forced to show manly they are in the face of evil.



Why do you keep going on about Elric being "manly" and "macho"?  God knows where you're getting this from - it really isn't reflected in the novels.  Maybe you think that  killing someone with a sword equates to being manly?  Weird.



> Elric is a guy who believes he has the duty to rule, who smacks people with a sword to establish his moral position. he is, essentially, King Arthur.



OK, you're kidding, right?  Please tell me that you're joking, because this has to be one of the most ludicrous mischaracterisations of Elric that I have ever read.  Now I have to ask - have you actually read the Elric series?



> You seemed to have had no problem reading the rest of my post. Why don't we see if you can write, too?



Yeah, I really have no idea what you're trying to say here.



> My interpretation may be unusual in the sense of "not held by the majority," but it's not a rare opinion.



No, it's unusual in the sense of "utterly ridiculous and not at all supported by the novels."



> Elric is an ironic character, but as the core, is a macho badass, just like all the other macho badasses, and represents the rulership of intellect and refinement over the masses. "Heavy is the head that wears the crown," indeed.



There you go again with the macho thing.  Bizarre.  I really don't see where you see Elric as being identified with rulership from.  He is anything but.



			
				takyris said:
			
		

> You're darn right I'm going to pull out the comfort reading. If I want to experience fatigue and grim necessity, I can put the book down.



Excellent points.  There are times when I would rather wrap myself up in Middle Earth (or Pern or Fionavar or wherever) and take a time-out from the concerns of the world.  There is a time for everything.



> But Moorcock couldn't have gotten his stuff published without Jayarrarrtee getting his stuff published (not because Moorcock's stuff is so Tolkienesque, because it isn't, obviously, but because the fantasy market wouldn't be the two or three shelves at Chapters that it is without Tolkien). You don't have to like the giant whose shoulders you're standing on, but yelling about how he should have been taller makes you look kind of petulant.



Not so sure I agree with this.  Moorcock was getting himself published by age 17 (and not in the fantasy field), which was only a year or two after LotR had been released - and well before it gained any kind of widespread popularity or recognition.  He wrote the Elric stuff more on the back of Howard and Burroughs, afaik - there was a market for the genre before the Prof, strange as it may seem today.  And LotR didn't hit the big time until the pirated copies were released in the USA in the early to mid 1960s.  Elric was already on the shelves by then.
As I've mentioned in this thread a couple of times before, I am a huge fan of Tolkien and Moorcock and don't necessarily agree with everything that either of them say.  But I don't hold with the notions that Moorcock is motivated by professional jealousy or could not have written Elric without Tolkien.  Those ideas have no basis in the facts.



			
				MulhorandSage said:
			
		

> How unfortunate that Moorcock doesn't appreciate the popularity of literary approaches that differ from his.



Gotta agree with you here.



> Moorcock's invective would be better served by attacking authors who follow market trands rather than their muses, or by lauding some of the great authors that we don't give enough respect toward. But then, we wouldn't be paying much attention to him if he wasn't attacking Tolkien, would we?



Actually, that is the main gist of his essay.  There is much less Tolkien-hate in there than others would have you believe.  His criticisms are very much levelled at the rafts of Tolkien imitators and market-chasers.  And he spends far more time lauding lesser-known authors who he believes deserve more attention and respect.  It's a shame that his detractors in this thread have conveniently overlooked this central issue of the essay.  When I read it last week, I was far more struck by his support of other authors than his dislike of Tolkien.  But what would the internet be without vitriolic haters, eh?


----------



## Aus_Snow

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> But what would the internet be without vitriolic haters, eh?



*sigh* Presumably, I've been lumped in with 'them'. Either way, this probably needs to be addressed. It seems a bit like the faithful 'closing ranks', from what I've seen thus far.

Michael Moorcock has shown himself to have earned that very title you assign others (a "vitriolic hater"), from some of what I've read over the last couple of days.

Now, the thing is, I had *no* preconceived ideas about this writer as a person, before now-ish. I don't tend to leap blindly to conclusions, either. I've read some of his books, and some of Tolkien's. I'm not a rabid fan, or detractor, of either's written works. I'm not now, and I haven't ever been.

Anyway, as I said in a previous post, if anyone wants to get a clearer idea of just where Michael Moorcock stands/stood on such 'issues', I strongly suggest (for example) googling: [Moorcock Tolkien]. Something like that. Not a bad place to start at least (I seem to recall).

With some ease, you'll find a _number_ of personal attacks of a quite venomous (and ludicrous) nature. These are Moorcock's own words, and they are rather damning.

It's not about who's 'better', or whose work outshines the other's (as far as I'm concerned), but simply whether these attacks are/were warranted, coherent, meaningful in any way whatsoever. . . that kind of thing.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jin_Kataki said:
			
		

> Critique is one thing, but what I am getting from this guy is he feels he is better and right and anyone who disagrees is inferior.




I hope when you said "this guy" you meant Moorcock, not me....


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Well, I don't see a problem with Moorcock critizing Tolkien, there's a lot to criticize. His opinion is as good as anyone else's.





Sorry, but he admits to not having actually read the work he is criticizing.  His opinion is, therefore, not an informed one.  Ergo, his opinion is not as good as anyone else's....merely as good as anyone else's who hasn't read LotR.

RC


----------



## Odhanan

> I just spent my lunch hour reading some Howard (thanks to the Wildeside Press) and I agree that Howard is not as polished as he could be. But he is raw, energetic, and hugely influencial.



Completely agreed. I love Howard's style. It's strong, very much "in your face", with potent images and words and not so much fluffy developments. 

I particularly like his stories about Solomon Kane. This is just great. They have be re-printed recently, and you can find the anthology on Amazon, if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## Odhanan

> Sorry, but he admits to not having actually read the work he is criticizing. His opinion is, therefore, not an informed one. Ergo, his opinion is not as good as anyone else's....merely as good as anyone else's who hasn't read LotR.
> 
> RC



It's certainly possible for his opinion to be more informed, but don't you think he is making good points nonetheless? LotR really is about comfort, in my opinion. It is about strong moral standpoints. It is anti-technological and wishful to stand on these strong moral (some would call them conservative) standpoints. 

After, you can always discuss the fact of criticizing these traits of Tolkien's writing, and it's very much related to the (left-wing/liberal/provocative) personality of Moorcock which is very much against all these things. I may not agree with the way it's presented or the conclusion drawn from the points, but the points remain, I think.


----------



## Mark Hope

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> *sigh* Presumably, I've been lumped in with 'them'.



No, not at all!  I agree with some of what you've said and disagree with other comments, but you've made your points fairly and honestly.  To clarify, while there is plenty to disagree with in _Epic Pooh_, should one be so inclined, there is no reason to ascribe bitterness, small-mindedness, jealousy or other unsavoury traits to the essay's author just because one happens to disagree with him.  I have no respect whatsoever for those who conduct themselves in that fashion.

As I've said a few times in this thread, I am a huge fan of both authors, but I see no reason to allow baseless personal comments on either Moorcock or Tolkien's motivations to go unchallenged from either side of the fence.  As my posts in this thread show, I have an even opnion for both sides of the argument - just little patience for subjective unpleasantness.



> Michael Moorcock has shown himself to have earned that very title you assign others (a "vitriolic hater"), from some of what I've read over the last couple of days.



See, this I don't agree with.  _Epic Pooh_ has plenty of criticism for Tolkien's writing, but is always polite about the Prof himself.  That's the disconnect that I am talking about.  Just because you disagree with someone's views, there's no reason to make them out to be some kind of embittered nutjob.



> Anyway, as I said in a previous post, if anyone wants to get a clearer idea of just where Michael Moorcock stands/stood on such 'issues', I strongly suggest (for example) googling: [Moorcock Tolkien]. Something like that. Not a bad place to start at least (I seem to recall).
> 
> With some ease, you'll find a _number_ of personal attacks of a quite venomous (and ludicrous) nature. These are Moorcock's own words, and they are rather damning.



You might well be right there (although I did the search you recommended and read through 5 pages of Google results without finding anything particularly heinous).  Still, Moorcock has mellowed in recent years towards the Prof, which needs to be borne in mind.  Anyway, if you want to point me in the direction of some choice nuggets, I'll happily stand corrected.


----------



## Raven Crowking

I don't have to go to Amazon to find the complete Solomon Kane stories...I have to go to my bookshelf!    



			
				Odhanan said:
			
		

> LotR really is about comfort, in my opinion. It is about strong moral standpoints. It is anti-technological and wishful to stand on these strong moral (some would call them conservative) standpoints.




Well, I do agree that LotR is anti-technological and about strong moral standpoints.  LotR suggests that there are clear moral actions, but that they are not always easy to see nor always what we would wish them to be.

If LotR is about comfort, it is the same comfort offered by the Book of Job:  There is some purpose behind your suffering.  (Except, of course, that Frodo is more like Moses...able to save his people, but not able to enjoy the benefits thereof.)


RC


----------



## dcas

I find LOTR "comforting" to read because I have read it many times and am familiar with it, not because the novel itself is intrinsically comforting. The thought that "many fair things will fade and be forgotten" is not comforting at all. YMMV.


----------



## sckeener

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Read my post again. Was I talking about JRRT or his imitators?
> 
> JRRT's work is and remains extremely safe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "safe" in this context.......
Click to expand...



I think he meant the word safe to mean that despite Tolkien's popularity he is not on any banned book lists.

He didn't step on any of societies taboos.  He didn't risk getting banned.

I think many RPGs go this route...safe little money makers.  Hol being a wonderful example of an exception. Dark Sun, Planescape, and (heck even) Spelljammer are other examples of unsafe settings.

Nothing wrong with safe.  Everyone needs it at some point.  The problem are ruts and getting stuck in them.  IMHO many fantasy settings are rip offs of Tolkien.  Eberron to me feels like an attempt at having it both ways...safe Tolkien feel...but modern and edgy.

Ptolus feels like another Eberron to me, but much much better.  It feels safe to me.  It has all the fantasy Tolkien staples such as snobish elves, standard dwaves, a 'Sauron' type defeated in a great war, etc....but all that is shallow stuff and the meat to Ptolus is the organizations, very complex groups.  The setup of groups the players might agree with that have alliances with the villian groups is wonderful....I can just watch my players twist and squirm at their choices.


----------



## fusangite

John Snow said:
			
		

> Paying attention to what books say is not an invention of political correctness or of the modern era. However, assuming that every minor plot point in a book is profoundly significant IS.



Nice strawman there John! What I am doing is making a very specific argument about how Tolkien writes about non-white people.







> Literary people need something to write about. If they just accepted that the racist subtext in Tolkien's books isn't really there, what would literature PhD candidates write their theses about?



So, anyone who is paid to write something can’t be trusted? I’ll just leave this argument aside for now. Well, in that case, I’m safe. I’m basing my conclusions solely on reading the words written in the books and I’m not being paid a cent.







> Following your line of thought, the Elric stories are clearly an indictment of albinos.



I haven’t read these stories so I cannot say.







> Gieven that most medieval societies WERE sexist, is it sexist to portray that?



No. You will note I’m not suggesting that LOTR is sexist. I’m suggesting it is racist.







> I don't particularly think so. I'd argue you can learn more about Tolkien's opinion about women by looking at what Eowyn DOES do than at how many women characters exist in the books.



I agree. What matters is how an identity group is portrayed overall, not how frequently they appear in the book. I did not, for instance, agree with Jackson’s decision to enlarge Arwen’s part.







> Just because I'm saying the stories don't have the theme, subtext, and metatext you claim they do doesn't mean they don't have any.



Good. Now we’re getting somewhere. Now, perhaps, we can have an intelligent discussion about the words Tolkien wrote and what we can glean from them.







> It does mean I find it simplistic to read racism into the story simply because of its presentation of some characters as villains who are "swarthy" or "dark"



So, you see absolutely nothing significant in the fact that every single time any non-white human character is mentioned in LOTR, Tolkien tells his readers that they are evil?

Given that Tolkien could have made all the humans in the books as white as Aragorn, why do you think he chose to include non-white people? Perhaps if you offered an alternate theory of why the author might be choosing to include non-white characters, you might convince me of your views.







> Especially when two of the central characters overcome the racism and prejudice of their own societies to become fast friends.



Indeed. Some kinds of prejudice are bad in Tolkien’s view. But what I am talking about is how Tolkien portrays members of racial groups that actually exist not whether he is racist towards groups that do not exist at all.







> And all of these really significant villains are part of Sauron's faceless hordes.



That’s not the case. Take the guy in Bree. Take the Mouth of Sauron. 

Why don’t you offer an alternate theory of why Tolkien chose to make the humans who served Sauron mostly non-white whereas the humans who fought against him were all white?







> Unless you're going to attach significance to the symbolism of the color black.



No. I’m attaching significance (not symbolism) to the fact that the areas of the map that are analogues of Central Asia and Africa are populated by non-white people who follow Sauron.







> In which case you're attaching racist significance to the school of thought that bad things come from dark places.



No. I’m attaching significance to the fact that people who are described as “dark-skinned,” “swarthy,” or “slant-eyed” are all evil in Tolkien’s works. Every single one of them. To a man.







> There are other examples I could give, like Saruman (the White) being one of the chief villains. Or the central role of Denethor in furthering Sauron's aims (a white male of the same race as Aragorn, but less lineage).



This isn’t news. I state the same thing in my original post. I’m not arguing 100% of the villains are non-white. That’s patently untrue. What I’m arguing is that 100% of the non-whites are villains.







> There's plenty of subtext about the conflict between nature and technology, the danger of pride, the perils of playing god and so forth. There's mythological significance to things like "Men of the West"



Yes. And how they fell because of miscegenation. Nothing racist apparently about preaching the evils of race mixing and blaming the destruction of a whole society (Arnor) on it.







> "the land in the East" or even that Sauron's minions came from the South. All of that is embedded in centuries of European mythology. Maybe you can argue that those myths themselves are racist, and you might be right.



Because Tolkien’s books are not 100,000 pages long, they do not include all beliefs held by premodern Europeans at all historical moments. Tolkien has selectively deployed a number of images and ideas from our premodern past. I think it is perfectly legitimate to form opinions about which ideas from the past he has included in his books and which he has excluded.







> So I ask, does drawing on those myths make someone racist?



It can. Yes. If I am writing a book based on American cinema and I choose to make _Birth of a Nation_ a major source for thematic elements and ignore every movie starring Sidney Poitier then yes. My choices are racist. There are all kinds of ideas in the European past that are not merely non-racist but anti-racist such as the Saint Christopher legends, Parzifal or Greek ideas about Egypt. Tolkien is choosing, despite his novels’ otherwise medieval themes to include a bunch of early modern and Victorian ideas about race that, frankly, were not even part of the medieval European worldview. In many ways, he is imposing his own time’s conservative ideas of race on a narrative inspired by a period in which people did not think in racial terms. 







> Even when they're clearly writing that racism and intolerance are BAD.



I’m really not appreciating this idea that we should ignore everything Tolkien says about non-white humans because he thinks white dwarves and white elves should get along.







			
				Prophet 2B said:
			
		

> Wow... You know absolutely nothing about J.R.R. Tolkien.
> 
> I'm going to strongly recommend you go read some Tolkien biographies and some of his other works before you say anything else along these lines, because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.



The novels speak for themselves. Your argument that Tolkien’s novels cannot be racist because of things he did in his personal life is a silly way of reading his work or any work of literature for that matter.

If I see something on the page of a book that is racist. The text on the page doesn’t change because of the writer is a member of the NAACP. The text stays the same. The book’s message stays the same. What is relevant to whether LOTR is racist is the text that comprises LOTR. LOTR can’t stop being racist because of things outside of the text that comprises it.







> I could spend a good hour writing up a post detailing Tolkien's critiques of racism and what he believes concerning the equality of men and women (which we can find in other sources, either by him or people who knew him, etc. - studies have been done). But I don't really have the time.



Well, if you find the time I would be most interested. 

But are you really saying that every person who says, “I’m not racist,” or “I believe everyone is equal,” is therefore not racist. Because many of defenders of institutionalized racism, at least in the US, have said exactly those things. Aren’t most racist statements prefaced with the words, “I’m not racist but…”?







> This is just absurd. Completely and utterly. Tolkien was the farthes thing from a sexist



That’s great. But remember I’m not calling Tolkien sexist. I’m calling him racist.







> and a racist that one could possibly be. His books had absolutely nothing to do with those topics.



Books that depict racial conflict have to do with race. Books that depict men and women interacting have to do with sex and gender. Books are about the things they contain. I don’t know how a book that included both male and female characters could avoid pertaining to questions of sex and gender.







			
				billd91 said:
			
		

> Considering that the number of non-white human characters in the story about whom we know anything of substance is very small, I think you're reading WAY too much into this.



Doesn’t it seem strange to you that non-white humans appear at all? Why bother to draw the reader’s attention to the fact that Sauron’s armies are full of black and Asiatic people? Most readers would just assume everyone was white if Tolkien did not specifically make mention of race.







			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> However, the problem is that since they aren't direct, literal, or explicit you cannot tell the difference between those that are placed there by the author, and those pieced together by the reader that have nothing to do with what they author thought.



I think you can. The fact is that just because literary studies is not physics doesn’t mean that any book can mean whatever its reader decides it means. 







> And even if one does find a subtext, we forget to include historical perspective. Let us consider one clear example: Tolkien was a sexist because he had no solid female characters.



People really want to make this an argument about sexism because then they can win. But the fact is that I agree with those who say Tolkien is not sexist. The reasoning you put forward here is not a good way to analyze a work of literature. The sexism argument is based on what isn’t in the text. My argument is about what _is_ in the text.







> Well, LotR was first published in 1954 - by today's standards pretty much every adult American and Brit of the time (including most women) were sexist. So, criticizing him for that is rather like criticizing him for being a man of his time.



Whereas arguing that miscegenation is wrong and filling Sauron’s legions with Asians and Africans is not commensurate with the views of educated people in the era of Brown v. Board of Education.







> Failure to be a visionary on a particular topic is not a valid criticism.



Agreed. But that’s not what I am saying.


----------



## Raven Crowking

sckeener said:
			
		

> I think he meant the word safe to mean that despite Tolkien's popularity he is not on any banned book lists.
> 
> He didn't step on any of societies taboos.  He didn't risk getting banned.




So, basically, you think the argument is that Tolkien's work wasn't primarily different from what was being offered elsewhere?  Which of the "fantasy staples" were staples before Tolkien?  Claiming that he didn't push the boundaries because hordes followed him to settle the land he opened up (and, often, ruining it in the process) has nothing to do with whether or not LotR is safe or original.

And, FYI, Tolkien _has_ been banned, just not on a widespread basis.  The sheer scope and popularity of his work, combined with the fact that there wasn't yet a significant Religious Right Anti-Fantasy concern yet, has prevented banning.  Because, even if he was writing as a Catholic, JRRT's Middle Earth has a nordic soul.  It's message is not one of preservation; it's message is that preservation is doomed to fail.  It's message is not that the world is ours to do with as we please; it is that we are stewards who imagine ourselves kings.

The success of The Hobbit was a shocker, but even given its popularity, LotR was such a different animal that it wasn't originally published as it was intended (six volumes).  There was no certainty that LotR would be popular.  There were no shelves filled with fantasy novels at book stores.  Tolkien was doing something new....or re-inventing something very old.  He was pushing boundaries.  He wasn't anti-society, but whether or not one is anti-society has nothing to do with whether or not one is "safe".

If this really was a comfortable, easy book

(1)  Why is it so hard to get through?  IMHO, this is a book that requires dedication.  Comfortable books are those that offer only distraction.

(2)  Why, in all the plethora of imitators, has no one been able to reproduce this "comfortable" model and make it work?

In effect, it is as though one is claiming that Joyce or Tolstoy are easy, comfortable reads.  They might be, if you know their work very well, but to most they are not.

You are perhaps conflating "familiar" with "comfortable."  When you say of Ptolus that it has "all the fantasy Tolkien staples such as snobish elves, standard dwaves, a 'Sauron' type defeated in a great war" you are at once acknowledging that those ideas would not be "staples" were it not for JRRT, while at the same time suggesting that these shallow and debased versions of what JRRT did are somehow the same as the use of the original themes and characters in LotR.

Not even close.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

fusangite said:
			
		

> So, you see absolutely nothing significant in the fact that every single time any non-white human character is mentioned in LOTR, Tolkien tells his readers that they are evil?




Wormtongue is an example of a white human character in LotR that I would say is pretty specifically evil.

Please give me one example of a non-white human character in LotR that is Tolkien says is evil.  I need something to work with here.

RC


----------



## Mark Hope

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Wormtongue is an example of a white human character in LotR that I would say is pretty specifically evil.
> 
> Please give me one example of a non-white human character in LotR that is Tolkien says is evil.  I need something to work with here.
> 
> RC



I am guessing that Bill Ferny would fit the bill.  I recall him being described as "swarthy".  Don't recall what colour the Mouth of Sauron was, though - sorry.

It's a matter of record that Tolkien himself was an ardent anti-racist and and outspoken critic of the nazi's race doctrine and apartheid, for example.  He also donated money to anti-apartheid causes.  So while you could argue that he was nevertheless racist (and so hypocritical, cynical or just a liar), I don't think that the facts would bear this out.

I do think it's possible that LotR could contain racist elements, however.  A reader can infer whatever he likes from the work.  The intent of the author must carry some weight in this consideration, however.  In such a case, I would argue that, _if_ LotR has racist elements, they are scarcely conscious and certainly not malicious.

The fact that the Middle Earth legendarium was intended as a "myth for England" may have something to do with the predominance of "white" races.  It could easily be the case that Tolkien decided that the regions beyond this core area would be under the control of the enemy - hence the people from those regions are "swarthy" by default, rather than by design.

At the end of the day, it's not a subject that motivates me to great passion.  Looking at the author and his life, I see no evidence for racism and so I find desires to read such motivations into his writing to be somewhat suspect.  As someone has already said, sometimes an orc is just an orc.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> I am guessing that Bill Ferny would fit the bill.  I recall him being described as "swarthy".  Don't recall what colour the Mouth of Sauron was, though - sorry.




Sorry, but I don't buy that "swarthy" and "non-white" mean the same thing.  Also, I believe it was Bill Ferny's friend from the Prancing Pony who was described as "swarthy"....and it is strongly implied in LotR that he is not human.


EDIT:  I should probably elaborate on the above.  "Swarthy" means having a naturally dark skin color, but it doesn't mean that one must have a naturally dark skin color to a specific degree, nor does it mean that one must be non-white.  In the REH stories, for example, the term "swarthy" is often used to describe races that Howard considers "white" (such as the Picts).  Bill Ferny's friend, it is implied, is an orc/human crossbreed that can pass as human (the original AD&D 1e half-orc) and was probably of the same human stock as the people Saruman duped into attacking the Rohirrim.

Tolkien makes sure to tell us, repeatedly, that the people attacking Rohan and Gondor are not evil, but have been told repeatedly that Rohan and Gondor were evil.  If this is not the story of our time -- each side using claims that the other is evil to motivate their people and excuse their actions -- it was certainly the story of JRRT's time.

OTOH, we know as a fact that the "good" white humans hunted other humans (the woses) for sport.  We know that the Rohirrim were fierce and proud, and punished trespassers on their fields soundly.  We know that not all hobbits were good -- some were in league with Saruman (knowingly or not) long before Frodo set foot in the Old Forest.

No matter what the movies say, the elves did not aid in the defense of Helm's Deep, nor did the dwarves.  All the "good people" did not pull together against a common foe.  The LotR is simply more complex than that.

RC


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks

The Haradrim are clearly portrayed as evil.


----------



## Mark Hope

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I don't buy that "swarthy" and "non-white" mean the same thing.  Also, I believe it was Bill Ferny's friend from the Prancing Pony who was described as "swarthy"....and it is strongly implied in LotR that he is not human.
> 
> RC



Well, swarthy means of dark colour or complexion, so it does mean non-white by default.  But you might be right about it being Ferny's friend - my copy of LotR is at the back of a room filled with boxes right so I can't check.  Either way, I'm not convinced about the racist element myself - just trying to remember non-white humans.


----------



## Raven Crowking

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> The Haradrim are clearly portrayed as evil.




Are they?  Please quote.



			
				Mark Hope said:
			
		

> Well, swarthy means of dark colour or complexion, so it does mean non-white by default. But you might be right about it being Ferny's friend - my copy of LotR is at the back of a room filled with boxes right so I can't check. Either way, I'm not convinced about the racist element myself - just trying to remember non-white humans.




Please read my edit of previous post.


----------



## dcas

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I don't buy that "swarthy" and "non-white" mean the same thing.  Also, I believe it was Bill Ferny's friend from the Prancing Pony who was described as "swarthy"....and it is strongly implied in LotR that he is not human.



No, Bill Ferny is a "swarthy sneering fellow." His "friend" is described as being "squint-eyed" and "sallow" but "sallow" means pale, sickly yellow, not "yellow" as in the stereotype of Asians.

I should add (though this is a bit of a tangent) that the fact that the half-orcs (those that pass for human, that is) are sallow implies that orcs are not uniformly dark-skinned as they are portrayed in the movies.


----------



## dcas

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> I am guessing that Bill Ferny would fit the bill.  I recall him being described as "swarthy".  Don't recall what colour the Mouth of Sauron was, though - sorry.




The Mouth of Sauron is said to be from the "Black Numenoreans" (oops, there's that word "black" again! ), so he would likely have been pale-skinned. But he is not described as such.

It's also worth pointing out that most characters are not specifically described as being pale. IIRC, when the hobbits first meet Aragorn he is described as "dark."


----------



## Raven Crowking

dcas said:
			
		

> No, Bill Ferny is a "swarthy sneering fellow." His "friend" is described as being "squint-eyed" and "sallow" but "sallow" means pale, sickly yellow, not "yellow" as in the stereotype of Asians.




Nice catch.  Thank you.

In the case of Bill Ferny, then, we are looking at a native of Bree.  It would seem odd that a native of (presumably white European) Bree would turn out to be non-white, unless there is more travel in the Wilds of those days than either The Hobbit or LotR implies.

(Presumably the friend is sallow then due to his orcish blood, and therefore possible discomfort in sunlight?)


----------



## Mark Hope

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Please read my edit of previous post.



Good points across the board.  We can't really know quite how Tolkien meant to use "swarthy", I suppose, but good points nevertheless.


----------



## fusangite

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Wormtongue is an example of a white human character in LotR that I would say is pretty specifically evil.



Okay. Time #4: *Nobody is stating that all the bad guys are non-white. What I am stating is that 100% of the non-whites are bad guys.*​


> Please give me one example of a non-white human character in LotR that is Tolkien says is evil.  I need something to work with here.



Fine. Here goes.







			
				Book 1 said:
			
		

> One of the travellers, a squint-eyed ill-favoured fellow, was foreteling that more and more people would be coming north in the near future. "If room isn't found for them, they'll find it for themselves. People have a right to live, same ask other folk," he said loudly...
> 
> But there was one swarthy Breelander who stood looking at them with a knowing and half-mocking expression that made them feel uncomfortable. Presently he slipped out the door, followed by the squint-eyed southerner: the two had been whispering together a good deal during the evening...
> 
> The southern travellers had lost several horses and blamed the innkeeper loudly, until it became known that one of their own number had also disappeared in the night, none other than Bill Ferny's squint-eyed companion. Suspicion fell on him at once.



Now, while I'm at it...







			
				Book 4 said:
			
		

> "More Men going to Mordor," he said in a low voice. "Dark faces. We have not seen Men like these before, no, Smeagol has not. They are fierce. They have black eyes, and long black hair, and gold rings in their ears; yes, lots of beautiful gold. And some have red paint on their cheeks, and red cloaks; and their flags are red, and the tips of their spears; and they have round shield, yellow and black with big spikes. Not nice; very cruel wicked Men they look. Almost as bad as Orcs, and much bigger. Smeagol thinks they have come out of the South beyond the Great River's end: they came up that road. They have passed on to the Black Gate; but more may follow. Always more people coming to Mordor. One day all the peoples will be inside."





			
				Book 4 said:
			
		

> "Aye, curse the Southrons!" said Damrod. "'Tis said that there were dealings of old between Gondor and the kingdoms of harad in the Far South; though there was never friendship. In those days our bounds were away south beyond the mouths of Anduin, and Umbar, the nearest of their realms, acknowledged our sway. But that is long since. 'Tis many lives of Men since any passed to or fro between us. Now of late we have learned that the Enemy has been among them, and they are gone over to him, or back to Him -- they were ever ready to His will -- as have so many also in the East...
> 
> "They are coming!" cried Damrod. "See! Some fo the Southrons have broken from the trap and are flying from the road There they go..."
> 
> For a moment he caught a glimpse of swarthy men in red running down the slops some way off with green-clad warriors leaping after them, hewing them down as they fled... Then suddenly straight over the rim of their sheltering bank, a man fell, crashing through the slender trees, nearly on top of them... His scarlet robes were tattered, his corslet of overlapping brazen plates was rent and hewn, his black plaits of hair braided with gold were drenched with blood. His brown hand still clutched the hilt of a broken sword.





			
				Book 5 said:
			
		

> Southward beyond the road lay the main for of the Haradrim, and their horsemen were gathered about the standard of their chieftan... Then he was filled witha a red wrath and shouted aloud, displaying his standard, black serpent upon scarlet, he came against the white horse and the green with great press of men; and the drawing of the scimitars of the Southrons was like a glitter of stars...
> 
> ...but Gothmog the lieutenant of Morgul had flung them into the fray; Easterlings with axes, and Variags of Khand, Southrons in scarlet and out of Far Harad black men like half-trolls with white eyes and red tongues...





			
				Book 5 said:
			
		

> The host of Orcs and Easterlings had turned back out of Anorien...
> 
> For a strong force of Orcs and Easterlings attempted to take their leading companies in an ambush; and that was in the very plac e where Faramir had waylaid the men of Harad...





			
				Book 6 said:
			
		

> But the Men of Rhun and of Harad, Easterling and Southron, saw the ruin of their war and the great majesty and glory of the Captains of the West. And those that were deepest and longest in evil servitude, hating the West, and yet were men proud and bold now gathered themselves for a last stand of desperate battle. But the most part fled eastward as they could; and some cast their weapons down and sued for mercy.



Satisfied?


----------



## Raven Crowking

dcas said:
			
		

> The Mouth of Sauron is said to be from the "Black Numenoreans" (oops, there's that word "black" again! ), so he would likely have been pale-skinned. But he is not described as such.
> 
> It's also worth pointing out that most characters are not specifically described as being pale. IIRC, when the hobbits first meet Aragorn he is described as "dark."





Speaking of which, what color are Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippen?



			
				JRRT said:
			
		

> their feet grow naturally leathery soles and thick warm brown hair like the stuff on their heads (which is curly); have long clever brown fingers, good-natured faces




Clearly, if Aragorn is dark and the half-orc friend of Bill Ferny is pale, what we have is....what exactly?  Interestingly enough, Gollum is described as _*both*_ dark and pale....and in both cases while in his "Gollum" (as opposed to "Smeagol") persona.  Perhaps a naturally dark being who has grown pale through avoiding the sun for centuries?  But, as he is of much the same kind as the hobbits, that would imply that the hobbits were naturally dark....

......Or, perhaps, they were just swarthy.


RC


----------



## dcas

> out of Far Harad black men like half-trolls with white eyes and red tongues



Does this describe any existing racial group?


----------



## dcas

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> ......Or, perhaps, they were just swarthy.



I do believe that many hobbits have a somewhat swarthy complexion as they are described as having "long clever brown fingers" (either in _The Hobbit_ or in the preface or foreword to LOTR).

White people generally don't have brown fingers. Also, golden hair is said to be rare among them.


----------



## sckeener

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, basically, you think the argument is that Tolkien's work wasn't primarily different from what was being offered elsewhere?  Which of the "fantasy staples" were staples before Tolkien?




I’m not saying he didn’t push literary boundaries.    Goodness knows there are still plenty of English professors at college that refuse to consider SciFi or Fantasy as literature.  

I’m saying he wouldn’t have captain Kirk kiss Uhura.

As for what fantasy staples were before Tolkien, he drew from the same sources I use for my games, myths, and for the same reasons, to create an epic story.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You are perhaps conflating "familiar" with "comfortable."  When you say of Ptolus that it has "all the fantasy Tolkien staples such as snobish elves, standard dwaves, a 'Sauron' type defeated in a great war" you are at once acknowledging that those ideas would not be "staples" were it not for JRRT, while at the same time suggesting that these shallow and debased versions of what JRRT did are somehow the same as the use of the original themes and characters in LotR.
> Not even close. RC




Actually, I was talking about the fact that those settings can be used to create ‘unsafe’ stories for gaming.  I do not think many people would consider their games as good as the classics in literature.


----------



## dcas

sckeener said:
			
		

> I’m saying he wouldn’t have captain Kirk kiss Uhura.




Faramir kissed Eowyn.


----------



## fusangite

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> In such a case, I would argue that, _if_ LotR has racist elements, they are scarcely conscious and certainly not malicious.



You may well be right. But this does not stop the text of the book being what it is: racist.

I love these books and I greatly admire JRR Tolkien but this love and admiration does not blind me to the areas where I feel the books or their author fail. Do I think Tolkien had some sort of racist political project in his writing? Of course not. But let's move beyond hero worship and acknowledge the flaws that come with any great person or thing.


----------



## Mark Hope

Should the question not be something like: Was it racist of Tolkien to make "non-European" lands subservient to Sauron?

Because it seems to me that the predominance of "evil black races" in LotR is largely due to the geographical factors involved, rather than any decision to make dark races evil.  Or rather, you could argue that just as well as you could argue the case that Tolkien decided all dark races would be evil, and then gave Sauron the south and the east to suit that decision.


----------



## takyris

Hey Mark,

In response to your note about Elric not being dependent upon Tolkien's stuff:



			
				Mark Hope said:
			
		

> Not so sure I agree with this.  Moorcock was getting himself published by age 17 (and not in the fantasy field), which was only a year or two after LotR had been released - and well before it gained any kind of widespread popularity or recognition.  He wrote the Elric stuff more on the back of Howard and Burroughs, afaik - there was a market for the genre before the Prof, strange as it may seem today.  And LotR didn't hit the big time until the pirated copies were released in the USA in the early to mid 1960s.  Elric was already on the shelves by then.
> As I've mentioned in this thread a couple of times before, I am a huge fan of Tolkien and Moorcock and don't necessarily agree with everything that either of them say.  But I don't hold with the notions that Moorcock is motivated by professional jealousy or could not have written Elric without Tolkien.  Those ideas have no basis in the facts.




Bad writing on my part. I've got no doubt that Elric could have gotten published without Tolkien, but I don't think it would have had the popularity it achieved without the big comfortable authors there to create a nice healthy fantasy section for Moorcock's edgier stuff to live in.

This is a much larger point than Elric and Aragorn, and maybe years from now I'll disagree with this, but I think that the hard edgy subsections of any movement absolutely need the soft comfortable subsections of that movement. If it's a political movement (any political movement), you need the hard-line no-compromise you-won't-be-comfortable activists as well as the we're-normal-folks comfy people. One group pushes the envelope, while the other makes the contents of the envelope more acceptable to people who aren't part of the group.

Does LotR have some comfortable qualities? Yeah. And yeah, it was in the young adult section for awhile. But it also worked to move fantasy from the one-step-from-porn ghetto it was in -- an adult male seen reading a fantasy novel on the bus before the comfy movement might as well have been reading a dirty book. Whether you like or dislike Howard, it's tough to argue that Howard was improving the pulp fantasy movement's acceptance level with people who weren't already fans.

Elric would still have gotten published without Tolkien, but without Tolkien and Brooks and Eddings and everyone else that the edgy-fantasy people grimace at, without the folks who got fantasy onto the bestseller lists and read by little old ladies on airplanes, nobody except the tiny hardcore pulp-fantasy community would know about him.


----------



## IcyCool

fusangite said:
			
		

> Book 5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The host of Orcs and Easterlings had turned back out of Anorien...
> 
> For a strong force of Orcs and Easterlings attempted to take their leading companies in an ambush; and that was in the very plac e where Faramir had waylaid the men of Harad...
Click to expand...



This illustrates neither the skin color, nor evilness of anyone in particular.  Did you truncate part of your quote?

(I'm interested in this discussion, but as I haven't read the books in years and don't have the time to read them and be an informed participant, I'll have to settle for being part of the peanut gallery).


----------



## Raven Crowking

fusangite said:
			
		

> Okay. Time #4: *Nobody is stating that all the bad guys are non-white. What I am stating is that 100% of the non-whites are bad guys.*​Fine. Here goes.Now, while I'm at it...Satisfied?





Not at all.

What you have demonstrated is:

(1)  Gollum thought the men were bad guys.  Of course, Gollum also thinks that of the elves.  And just about everyone except his Precious self.

(2)  Damrod, who has been fighting these people, thinks they are bad guys.

(3)  They understood tactics.

(4)  The ones who were "deepest and longest in evil servitude" (servitude to evil, i.e., Sauron) really believed that the Captains of the West were themselves evil, and they therefore hated the West even though they themselves "were men proud and bold" who would rather die than surrender to what they thought was a great evil.  

Now, let me dig out my books this weekend and I'll reply to those quotes.  And, beyond the shadow of a doubt, I can bring up references that say specifically that at least some non-white characters in LotR were not evil.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

sckeener said:
			
		

> I’m saying he wouldn’t have captain Kirk kiss Uhura.




On what basis?

(BTW, as ground-breaking as that was, in ST:TOS, Kirk was _forced_ to kiss Uhura.)



> Actually, I was talking about the fact that those settings can be used to create ‘unsafe’ stories for gaming.




I don't believe that there is any setting that cannot be used to create "unsafe" stories.   Or "safe" stories, for that matter.

RC


----------



## Mark Hope

takyris said:
			
		

> Hey Mark,
> 
> In response to your note about Elric not being dependent upon Tolkien's stuff:
> 
> 
> 
> Bad writing on my part. I've got no doubt that Elric could have gotten published without Tolkien, but I don't think it would have had the popularity it achieved without the big comfortable authors there to create a nice healthy fantasy section for Moorcock's edgier stuff to live in.
> 
> This is a much larger point than Elric and Aragorn, and maybe years from now I'll disagree with this, but I think that the hard edgy subsections of any movement absolutely need the soft comfortable subsections of that movement. If it's a political movement (any political movement), you need the hard-line no-compromise you-won't-be-comfortable activists as well as the we're-normal-folks comfy people. One group pushes the envelope, while the other makes the contents of the envelope more acceptable to people who aren't part of the group.
> 
> Does LotR have some comfortable qualities? Yeah. And yeah, it was in the young adult section for awhile. But it also worked to move fantasy from the one-step-from-porn ghetto it was in -- an adult male seen reading a fantasy novel on the bus before the comfy movement might as well have been reading a dirty book. Whether you like or dislike Howard, it's tough to argue that Howard was improving the pulp fantasy movement's acceptance level with people who weren't already fans.
> 
> Elric would still have gotten published without Tolkien, but without Tolkien and Brooks and Eddings and everyone else that the edgy-fantasy people grimace at, without the folks who got fantasy onto the bestseller lists and read by little old ladies on airplanes, nobody except the tiny hardcore pulp-fantasy community would know about him.



Yeah, I'd agree with this.  Tolkien generated an appetite for fantasy, allowing other authors to cater to differing tastes within that appetite.  It's possible that someone else might have come along and helped fantasy to break into the mainstream, but in our universe it was Tolkien and pretty much all fantasy authors published since he hit the big time owe him a debt of one kind or another - willing or not.


----------



## IcyCool

sckeener said:
			
		

> I’m saying he wouldn’t have captain Kirk kiss Uhura.




He didn't have a habit of having his characters do completely gratuitous things, no (at least that I remember).

Had the kiss between Kirk and Uhura been for some reason other than "shock value" and "to challenge social norms", then I would herald it as a brilliant inclusion.  But it wasn't.  What purpose did it serve for the story?  And it is sadly no more "significant" than Howard Stern.


----------



## fusangite

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Speaking of which, what color are Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippen?



As I keep stating, what is relevant is how Tolkien wrote about races that exist in the real world. 

I'm done here. I've spelled-out exactly what Tolkien wrote about non-white _people_ in his books. If you guys want to continue your mental acrobatics in a desperate attempt to rebrand the text I have posted as non-racist, to argue that Aragorn is black, or whatever, I'll leave you to your fun.


----------



## Mark Hope

fusangite said:
			
		

> I'm done here. I've spelled-out exactly what Tolkien wrote about non-white _people_ in his books. If you guys want to continue your mental acrobatics in a desperate attempt to rebrand the text I have posted as non-racist, to argue that Aragorn is black, or whatever, I'll leave you to your fun.



If I can grab you by the elbow in a wholly inaproppriate manner before you leave... 

I'm not sure that it's as cut and dried as you say.  It seems to me that there could be a strong geographical element at work here that is not necessarily racist.  If Sauron controls the areas beyond the old kingdoms of the Dunedain, is that by default a racist decision?  Isn't it just a natural result of Tokien's decision to generate an "English myth"?  Is that racist in and of itself?

(I was going to stay out of this particular aspect of the thread, but this idea has been fermenting throughout the day and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it.  Right - you can have your elbow back now...)


----------



## GwydapLlew

dcas said:
			
		

> The Mouth of Sauron is said to be from the "Black Numenoreans" (oops, there's that word "black" again! ), so he would likely have been pale-skinned. But he is not described as such.




And Tolkein specifically states that the so-called Black Numenoreans are called that because they fell away from the side of good, not because of their skin color.

_Edit:_ Yes, yes, and it still presupposes a bias against the mixing of races. I know how Mssr. Fusangite is going to go with that one! 

Black = evil is not racism, it's a standard response to the color. If I call someone a black knight, I'm not racist; if I say 'black is slimming' I'm not stating that Africans are thinner than Europeans.



			
				dcas said:
			
		

> It's also worth pointing out that most characters are not specifically described as being pale. IIRC, when the hobbits first meet Aragorn he is described as "dark."




The descriptions are designed to be evocative. Aragon was dark - highly tanned, rough around the edges, long hair and not cleanly shaven. /I/ fit that description on the weekends in the summertime, and I assure you that I'm not African.


----------



## sckeener

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> On what basis?




His work is the basis.  I don't see anything that really pushes the edge.  Gollum is the closest I think he comes to it and the one character that is usually entirely in the DM's hands.

Gollum taken out of Tolkien ruins many RPGs for me.




			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I don't believe that there is any setting that cannot be used to create "unsafe" stories.   Or "safe" stories, for that matter.RC




Of course; however it is all dependent on the DM/players.  Many of the settings are bland.  They are just rehashs of Tolkien.  I thought FR was too much of a rip from the Tolkien until I read Eric Boyd's post about Dragons of Faerûn...the whole Unther vs Mulhorand issue makes me ponder and think rather than calms. ...all the moral issues.

Settings can help DMs to create morally un/safe settings and settings like Dark Sun are setup that way from the start.

I think Ptolus does a better job though of mixing all the flavors.  Just reading it I get the feel that I could run any sort of setting I wanted despite the Tolkien feel.


----------



## Darth Shoju

fusangite said:
			
		

> As I keep stating, what is relevant is how Tolkien wrote about races that exist in the real world.
> 
> I'm done here. I've spelled-out exactly what Tolkien wrote about non-white _people_ in his books. If you guys want to continue your mental acrobatics in a desperate attempt to rebrand the text I have posted as non-racist, to argue that Aragorn is black, or whatever, I'll leave you to your fun.




Leave if you wish but I found your argument unconvincing. I usually find you to be incredibly insightful and generally look forward to your posts, but I'm not convinced by the examples you provided. 

You can insult the people who disagree with you all you want but it does not strengthen your argument.


----------



## Darth Shoju

sckeener said:
			
		

> I think he meant the word safe to mean that despite Tolkien's popularity he is not on any banned book lists.
> 
> He didn't step on any of societies taboos.  He didn't risk getting banned.




I believe you're right about the booklists but he was certainly banned where I'm from (small town Manitoba), right along with _The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe_ and _Macbeth_ (and anything that remotely resembled a role-playing game). Also my aunt (a devout Catholic-not that I am lumping all Catholics in with her) described Tolkien as "insane" and "disturbed".


----------



## Raven Crowking

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> Leave if you wish but I found your argument unconvincing. I usually find you to be incredibly insightful and generally look forward to your posts, but I'm not convinced by the examples you provided.
> 
> You can insult the people who disagree with you all you want but it does not strengthen your argument.





I agree completely.  

Fusangite, you've quoted, and I do not find your quotes to be compelling evidence to your arguments.  It is at least common courtesy to allow me to actually pull out the books & supply counter-quotes before you dismiss them.

I once wrote a story that took place (partly) during WWII, and I agonized over whether or not to allow my characters to use the term "Japs".  In the end, I decided to let them use the term, because the characters themselves would do so.

Your quoted dialogue, IMHO, is of the same nature.  Gollum mistrusts everything.  If we are to take Gollum's word for it, Aragorn, the elves, and Sam Gamgee at least are also nasty and/or wicked.  Therefore, we can hardly assume that because Gollum says something the reader is supposed to believe it is true.

Your other dialogue quotes come from one of the men serving under Faramir.  However, when Faramir tells Frodo & Sam that he has puzzled out the riddle of the dream, and knows they bear the Ring, he doesn't say "Don't worry about my men, though, they're all solid."  Instead, he advises them to _not_ trust his men, because not all would cast aside that temptation.  The men of Gondor are as flawed and human as the rest of us.

OTOH, I guarantee you that I can pull quotes out of LotR that say _specifically_ that many of the men duped by Sauron and Saruman are not evil.  The only duped men we _know_ are truly evil are those in the Scouring of the Shire, the Mouth of Sauron, and the Pirates of Umbar.  

Even Bill Ferny is evil in the "self-interested" and "casually cruel" way, taking advantage of the state of affairs for his own profit and amusement rather than revelling in his (non-existant) power.


RC


EDIT:  Also, the point is not that Aragorn is black (though the hobbits may well be), but rather that the terms "swarthy" and "dark" in LotR are (or may be) applied to people who are not dark-skinned in a racial sense.  Bill Ferny is presumably of the same racial group as the rest of the men of Bree (his last name is pointed out as a Bree-ism, he owns a house, and is known in Bree, so it is unlikely that he just came up visiting from Far Harad).


----------



## dcas

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> Also my aunt (a devout Catholic-not that I am lumping all Catholics in with her) described Tolkien as "insane" and "disturbed".



Interesting since Tolkien was a devout Catholic himself. Not to start a religious discussion, but I know devout Catholics (including myself) who like Tolkien, as well as devout Catholics who do not (not in the sense of not liking his writing, but in the sense of believing that he is a bad influence). YMMV.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Odhanan said:
			
		

> I particularly like his stories about Solomon Kane. This is just great. They have be re-printed recently, and you can find the anthology on Amazon, if I'm not mistaken.




The best part about the new series containing the complete Conan, Solomon Kane, and Bran Mak Morn stories are the fragments and synopses, IMHO.  Not only do you get some fantastic completed fiction, but you get some insight into exactly how that fiction was developed.

Did you know that they are reprinting the complete Howard contrabutions to Weird Tales (plus some other material) in a 10-volume set?  I have 1-3 already, and am eager to get 4+!


RC


----------



## Vigilance

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Sorry, but he admits to not having actually read the work he is criticizing.  His opinion is, therefore, not an informed one.  Ergo, his opinion is not as good as anyone else's....merely as good as anyone else's who hasn't read LotR.
> 
> RC




Uh... I see no mention of him not having read the works he discusses in that essay, having just read it again. 

And again, my central point stands: people are always shocked that a writer has a strong opinion about writing and writers and always ascribe any criticism to jealousy of one sort or another.

Why would a successful novelist be presumed MORE jealous than someone who can't even get published (like oh say, 90% of all literary critics). 

What I am speaking of is the wonderment of a writer having an opinion and then, in the wake of that wonderment, everyone's need to cast about for an ulterior motive which all the noble non-professional writers among us do not have.


----------



## Mark Hope

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Uh... I see no mention of him not having read the works he discusses in that essay, having just read it again.



Moorock has mentioned at multiverse.org that he read some of LotR but didn't finish it.  There's a link to the relevant thread a couple of pages back.



> And again, my central point stands: people are always shocked that a writer has a strong opinion about writing and writers and always ascribe any criticism to jealousy of one sort or another.
> 
> Why would a successful novelist be presumed MORE jealous than someone who can't even get published (like oh say, 90% of all literary critics).
> 
> What I am speaking of is the wonderment of a writer having an opinion and then, in the wake of that wonderment, everyone's need to cast about for an ulterior motive which all the noble non-professional writers among us do not have.



Yeah, agree with all of this in spades .


----------



## dcas

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Why would a successful novelist be presumed MORE jealous than someone who can't even get published (like oh say, 90% of all literary critics).




On the contrary, I don't presume that Moorcock is more jealous than Tolkien's other critics, or even that he is necessarily jealous at all. That said, the tone of his essay does smack of professional jealousy. But of course it could well be that he no longer holds the same opinion of Tolkien, et al. that he did 18 years ago.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Uh... I see no mention of him not having read the works he discusses in that essay, having just read it again.




http://www.multiverse.org/fora/showpost.php?p=15991&postcount=17



			
				Michael Moorcock said:
			
		

> What I haven't read, of course, is the Tolkien, though I believe he began the Silmarrillion earlier than parts of Lord of the Rings, at least. I have to admit here, too, that I haven't read large chunks of Lord of the Rings. I realised this after attending the final movie and realising I had no clear idea what was going to happen, though I remember skipping through the books looking for references to Golem




Obviously, a writer can have an opinion.  Equally obviously, people can have opinions about that opinion.

I have written several reviews, and I have sold short stories, poetry, and articles.  When I do those reviews, I work very hard to choose things that I think people should be pointed to to review.  Only in the rare instance is something so bad, and so hyped, that I have felt the need to do a cautionary (bad) review.  Some critics, OTOH, (otherwise writers or not) seem to specialize in tearing down the works of others (in some cases while promoting their own).

I am not sure that I believe Moorcock is the type of person who consistently does the second.  If you read the thread the link above goes to, you will find (for instance) that he promoted _Tales Before Tolkien_ and was considering reading _The Silmarillion_.  He also seems to have a sense of humour about the simularities between Elric and Turin.

Of course, in many cases, the "ulterior motive which all the noble non-professional writers among us" have is the desire to avoid seeing something they love called crap.  Especially by somebody who hasn't read it.  This is similar to making a claim that the Director's Cut of Bladerunner bites, even though you only watched the first 20 minutes then scanned using Fast Forward in hopes that you would see some sex scenes or a Terminator-style robot.

Slamming LotR as he did could have been a form of self-promotion.  There is a competition in terms of book sales.  It could also have simply been lazy critiquing.  There are very, very few of us who are not guilty of a little self-promotion and a little laziness from time to time.


RC


----------



## WayneLigon

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I don't buy that "swarthy" and "non-white" mean the same thing.




Very true, especially in the style of language Tolkien was using. Swarthy can also refer to people with any degree of olive complection, such as Middle Eastern or Mediterranean types, or anyone who is dark-complected, such as someone who tans readily. I've also seen it used in some older literature to refer to people with black or brown hair. Referring to someone as 'Dark' is also used for people with black hair or very dark brown hair regardless of their skin tone. 

Tolkien is an older educated gentleman writing in the 1930's, so much of his command of idiom is going to be formed in the early 1900's. We always have to remember how word usage amd meanings tend to drift.



			
				dcas said:
			
		

> I do believe that many hobbits have a somewhat swarthy complexion as they are described as having "long clever brown fingers" (either in _The Hobbit_ or in the preface or foreword to LOTR).
> 
> White people generally don't have brown fingers. Also, golden hair is said to be rare among them.




They do when they tan from being outdoors a lot, as hobbits generally are. Halflings are rural rustics, often described in literature of the time and place as being darker skinned by virtue of working outside a lot or even simply being less likely to have had a recent bath or handwashing.


----------



## Rackhir

There's a good article on Wikipedia about Tolkien and racisim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_and_racism

I think a lot of it comes down to what you are looking for and how you want to interpret things.


----------



## Raven Crowking

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Very true, especially in the style of language Tolkien was using. Swarthy can also refer to people with any degree of olive complection, such as Middle Eastern or Mediterranean types, or anyone who is dark-complected, such as someone who tans readily. I've also seen it used in some older literature to refer to people with black or brown hair. Referring to someone as 'Dark' is also used for people with black hair or very dark brown hair regardless of their skin tone.
> 
> Tolkien is an older educated gentleman writing in the 1930's, so much of his command of idiom is going to be formed in the early 1900's. We always have to remember how word usage amd meanings tend to drift.




Exactly so.    



> They do when they tan from being outdoors a lot, as hobbits generally are. Halflings are rural rustics, often described in literature of the time and place as being darker skinned by virtue of working outside a lot or even simply being less likely to have had a recent bath or handwashing.




Well, we do know that hobbits enjoy baths, based upon LotR.  The house in Crickhollow has enough tubs for Frodo, Sam, and Pippen to bathe in the same room at the same time.  When they reach Tom Bombadil's house, they seem very enthusiastic about the bath.  They write poetry about bathing.  They seem fairly cleanly, too -- Bilbo being worried about not having a pocket handkerchief and all.  

Of course, this could be a peculiarity among this particular group of hobbits.  Still, it seems reasonable to me to assume that most hobbits bathe when given the chance.  They just don't swim.    

That said, I doubt very much that, were Tolkien a racist, he would have described his protagonist as having brown fingers and dark curly hair.  Of course, I could be wrong.  It would hardly be the first time.


----------



## Vigilance

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Obviously, a writer can have an opinion.  Equally obviously, people can have opinions about that opinion.




I think what you mean to say is writers in the ABSTRACT can have opinions. Any time a writer ACTUALLY has an opinion, in my experience, an ulterior motive is ascribed so the offending opinion can be disregarded as soon as possible. 

Often it is professional jealousy (as when anyone criticizes Tolkien or Lewis or Asimov), other times it is artistic jealousy (as when Stephen King or a writer of similar financial stature criticizes someone's writing) or in this case laziness.

I am willing to bet, based on that essay, the Moorcock's definition of "not having read Tolkien" is different from mine. 

He certainly seemed familiar with the book to MY reading of that essay, including a much better handle on Tolkien's influences than most of those who read nothing BUT Tolkien and praise him incessantly, or reflexively defend him whenever his writing is attacked. 

Let me add a personal opinion to the mix: Tolkien is not a great writer. He is a very good one and as the father of modern epic fantasy, he will be read for a long time. But I run into people at Cons and game stores who swear up and down he's one of the greatest writers who ever lived. Ugh.

He's not Shakespeare. He's not Milton. He's not Tennyson. He's not the anonymous author of Beowulf. He admired them all, as we all do, but he's NOT one of the 100 greatest writers who ever lived. He's probably not even one of the 100 greatest writers of the 20th century.

All this hand-wringing because Michael Moorcock refuses to worship at the altar is very sad. And very expected. Loving a work of escape/pulp literature does not make you dumb. It's not a personal attack against someone that their favorite work is badly written. (And in case anyone is unclear, I am not directly referring to Raven or anyone else in this thread.)

It's just not.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I think what you mean to say is writers in the ABSTRACT can have opinions. Any time a writer ACTUALLY has an opinion, in my experience, an ulterior motive is ascribed so the offending opinion can be disregarded as soon as possible.




I'm not sure about your experience, but in my experience writers can ACTUALLY have opinions.  That doesn't mean that thier opinions are all buttered gold with chocolate sauce, however.  They don't always go down smoothly.

There are two writer's opinions I have taken offense to in recent years (5+).  One was Orson Scott Card's when he slammed ST: TOS, and the other was Moorcock's re: LotR in _Epic Pooh_.  Of course, I find both of the opinion pieces in question to offer something less than an educated opinion, and to offer some form of self-agrandizement.  I think Moorcock is slightly less guilty of this than Card, but I do think that in both cases there is an undertone of resentment.

Simply because not everyone writing a critique has ulterior motives, it does not follow that no one writing a critique has ulterior motives.

Contrast this to Stephen King, whose critique of the seminal works of horror (Danse Macabre) demonstrates that he has both fully examined his subject and fully thought out not only what his feelings are toward it, but also how this relates to his own work.  



> I am willing to bet, based on that essay, the Moorcock's definition of "not having read Tolkien" is different from mine.
> 
> He certainly seemed familiar with the book to MY reading of that essay, including a much better handle on Tolkien's influences than most of those who read nothing BUT Tolkien and praise him incessantly, or reflexively defend him whenever his writing is attacked.




 

Okay, then.      I'm not certain what in that essay makes you think Moorcock has _read_ LotR, though there is certainly evidence that he understands the influence it has had on later writers.     Nor am I sure who you mean by "those who read nothing BUT Tolkien and praise him incessantly, or reflexively defend him whenever his writing is attacked".

What I am certain of is that many (though not all) of the things written in this thread to dispute Moorcock's essay are well thought out (the opposite of reflexive IMHO), nor have I seen any indication that anyone in this thread has read nothing BUT Tolkien.  

OTOH, the one thing that ought to be obvious to all is that Moorcock _admits_ to not having read "large chunks of" LotR....and no ad hominem attack against those who point out that, by his own admission, his is not an informed opinion is going to change that.  Attacking those who point out the problems with his essay is, pretty much, a sort of "last resort" thing when someone doesn't want to have to face those problems.

NOTE:  This does not mean that Moorcock is wrong.  You can come to a correct conclusion through faulty means.  If I say the sky is blue because ducks can fly, my illogic doesn't make the sky somehow mauve instead.

You say that you believe Tolkien is not a great writer.  

Fair enough.

I think he is, but I'd certainly agree that he isn't the _greatest_ writer who ever lived.  I wouldn't rank him with Shakespeare.....And, as I hope we all know, there is a whole lot of subjectivity in determining who is or is not "one of the 100 greatest writers who ever lived" or "one of the 100 greatest writers of the 20th century."

Hastur forbid that we should all have the same tastes, or I'd probably never have sold a word!  

However, I doubt anyone gives a flaming flumph whether or not "Moorcock refuses to worship at the altar".  It is what he rather stridently promotes as the failings of Tolkien's work -- which fly in the face of the experiences of those, like myself, to whom it speaks -- that some find objectionable.  Or, if not objectionable, simply untrue.

If you go upthread, you'll find some attacks on Moorcock's works that others, to whom Moorcock's work speaks, defend against.  Also Brin.  Also Niven.  Defending things you value is just human nature.

[Tongue-in-Cheek Mode]I mean, what's with all this hand-wringing because some posters refuse to worship at the altar of _Epic Pooh_ is very sad.  And very expected.  It's not a personal attack against you that this particular piece of criticism is badly written and not very well researched. [/Tongue-in-Cheek Mode]

Have a good weekend,

RC


----------



## dcas

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And, as I hope we all know, there is a whole lot of subjectivity in determining who is or is not "one of the 100 greatest writers who ever lived" or "one of the 100 greatest writers of the 20th century."



Yes, in fact if we submitted the question to a popular vote, it might well turn out that Tolkien is considered the greatest author of the 20th century (which, if memory serves, was the result of just such a poll in the UK . . . prompting cries of outrage from various academics, educators, and literary critics).

FWIW, Tom Shippey makes a very strong case for Tolkien's greatness as an author in his book _Tolkien: Author of the Century_.


----------



## Elfdart

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Well, no. Brin will be remembered for his Hugo and Nebula award winning novels such as _Startide Rising_ and _The Uplift War_. Just because someone has an opinion concerning pop culture doesn't mean they are a hack, and Brin is decidedly not a hack.




Anyone who uses the word "bailiwick" in the last 80 years without the slightest trace of irony is a hack. Case closed. Brin, like Moorcock, has no compunction whatsoever about lying to smear those who are more successful, as the link I posted earlier shows in the case of the former, and  the letter to Salon.com (where Moorcock claims Leigh Brackett told him working with Irvin Kershner was such a bad experience) proves in the latter case. 



> (And for the record, I am of the opinion that Brin's fiction is decidely superior to Lucas').




Aside from two novels ghost written by others, George Lucas hasn't written any fiction. He's a moviemaker. Your statement is as absurd as saying that Randy Moss' touchdown catches are "decidedly superior" to Tiger Woods', when Woods plays golf and not football.


----------



## taliesin15

The best analogy I could think of would be criticizing Duke Ellington for not coming up with Free Jazz, or switching to that style once Ornette Coleman came along. 

The irony is that Moorcock's prose is itself very straightforward narrative. Nothing about what I've read (all of Elric, some Hawkmoon, some Jerry Cornelius, and Gloriana) is particularly revolutionary. Basically, its a bit more intellectual than Conan, and many of his main characters are eccentric, and at least one is a kind of rock star anti-hero (the one with the Black Blade). Contrast this to two of his British contemporaries Brian Aldiss and JG Ballard. Or to (crikey) some Americans from Phil Dick to the Cyberpunks...

The point here is Tolkien is working under different assumptions, and I think it is fair to say that he is the strongest of the mythmakers of his generation. Moorcock has an aesthetic issue with Tolkien, but doesn't quite articulate that. And of course he has his own issues.


----------



## takyris

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Well, no. Brin will be remembered for his Hugo and Nebula award winning novels such as _Startide Rising_ and _The Uplift War_. Just because someone has an opinion concerning pop culture doesn't mean they are a hack, and Brin is decidedly not a hack.




I disagree.

The novels you mentioned have indeed won Hugos and Nebulae, but those particular awards, while of great interest to those in the SF Fandom community, aren't widely known by your average Joe outside the SF Fandom community.

If you take SF readers as a whole, you will have, for purposes of this argument:

- Casual SF readers, who likely haven't heard of him, because they read Orson Scott Card and Star Wars tie-ins.
- People who read enough to know who Brin is, who may or may not love him but will likely respect him for his work.
- People in the actual community who have met the man and know that he's an egotistical jerk of monumental proportions, thus poisoning the well.

I've been trapped in a hotel room with him as part of an apparently blessed group of Clarion folks who got to bask in the radiance of his sexist and condescending knowledge. The well has been poisoned. If I want cardboard characters to explain scientific principles to me, there are other authors I can turn to.

If he's remembered, it'll be as a footnote for people who like hard SF and run out of other stuff to read, or as an example of an unpleasant social situation of the times.

Beyond my personal dislike for him, that's not a slam on his writing. He writes stuff that sells well enough to support him. He gets free tickets to conventions. He gets to preach to people who can't make it past him to the hotel room door. But the list of "Who will be remembered 100 years from now?" is pretty small.


----------



## Aus_Snow

Oh. 

My mistake, and my apologies, Mark Hope. It seems I let anger override reason.

_And_ it seems I recalled the wrong search method. Heh, nice one. Now I'm not sure what I did, or how I ended up reading those charming diatribes of Moorcock's.

I think I'll bow out at this stage, before making (more of?) a fool of myself. Besides, what the hell is this commie heathen doing defending(?) some dead, allegedly conservative, Anglican dude? 

 Craziness. And yeah, I've had my fill.


----------



## Umbran

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I think what you mean to say is writers in the ABSTRACT can have opinions. Any time a writer ACTUALLY has an opinion, in my experience, an ulterior motive is ascribed so the offending opinion can be disregarded as soon as possible.




What you are looking at is human nature.

I attended a keynote speech at a conference recently, in which the speaker was talking about working well with others.  She noted some studies (without cites, I'm afraid, but it rings pretty true regardless) that had revealed the following:

When a person screws up, or behaves in what might be seen as a negative manner, he or she almost always attributes good and solid reasons for what they do.  To each person, their own actions make sense.

When _someone else_ does something similar, it is generally ascribed to a flaw in character - the other person is stupid, incompetent, evil, avaricious, egotistical, and so on.

That's basically it - when someone else does something bad, it is rarely due to some good solid reasoning that we don't happen to know.  They're just bad people.


----------



## Storm Raven

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> I am guessing that Bill Ferny would fit the bill.  I recall him being described as "swarthy".  Don't recall what colour the Mouth of Sauron was, though - sorry.




I didn't think Bill Ferny was described as "swarthy", I thought his unnamed Southron companion was.


----------



## Storm Raven

fusangite said:
			
		

> Why don’t you offer an alternate theory of why Tolkien chose to make the humans who served Sauron mostly non-white whereas the humans who fought against him were all white?




That's easy. Tolkien was a professor focused on studying the Anglo-Saxon language, and intended his work to serve as a "national eipc" of the English language (something that it does not have, while other Germanic languages all do). Drawing upon historical sources, it is apparent that the various germanic peoples in history were oftentimes invaded by waves of eastern and southern neighbors, who happened to be either Asian or Arabic/Moorish. Using _actual history_ as his guide, he set the Anglo-Saxon protagonists of his stories against their historical enemies, and portrayed them in ways that they would have been portrayed had the epic been written at a historical agen in which the various other national epics were written.

Tolkien, in other words, was going for historical accuracy in his creation of an epic for the English language.


----------



## Storm Raven

fusangite said:
			
		

> Fine. Here goes.Now, while I'm at it...Satisfied?




No, not really. I don't see any of those people being descibed as evil. I see some of them being described as seduced or deceived by evil, but not even that in most cases. For example, Bill and his friend aren't even actually shown doing anything evil, or described as anything more perfidous than "ill-favored", which is a physical description, not a moral statement, they are just disliked as annoying loudmouths.


----------



## Storm Raven

Elfdart said:
			
		

> Anyone who uses the word "bailiwick" in the last 80 years without the slightest trace of irony is a hack. Case closed. Brin, like Moorcock, has no compunction whatsoever about lying to smear those who are more successful, as the link I posted earlier shows in the case of the former, and  the letter to Salon.com (where Moorcock claims Leigh Brackett told him working with Irvin Kershner was such a bad experience) proves in the latter case.




Considering that baliwick is a term in current use in the U.S. legal community, anyone who has had any degree of contact with the U.S. court system should be comfortable using the word. Having a vocabulary that includes words currently in common use among significant professions in your country is not evidence of being a hack.

And do you have actual evidence of Brin lying? Or are you just going to rely on something Moorcock said about someone completely different than Brin?



> _Aside from two novels ghost written by others, George Lucas hasn't written any fiction. He's a moviemaker. Your statement is as absurd as saying that Randy Moss' touchdown catches are "decidedly superior" to Tiger Woods', when Woods plays golf and not football._




_Star Wars_, and all of the following movies are fiction. They are fantasy fiction, and hence, close to being in the same genre as the fiction that Brin writes. Translating preferences from one genre to another is not absurd in any way, shape, or form. To wit, I think the various _Uplift_ books are far better fiction than any of the _Star Wars_ movies.


----------



## Storm Raven

takyris said:
			
		

> I disagree.
> 
> The novels you mentioned have indeed won Hugos and Nebulae, but those particular awards, while of great interest to those in the SF Fandom community, aren't widely known by your average Joe outside the SF Fandom community.




Neither was _Cities in Flight_, but that is what Blish is primarily remembered for now. Not the Star Trek episodes and novels he wrote.



> _If you take SF readers as a whole, you will have, for purposes of this argument:
> 
> - Casual SF readers, who likely haven't heard of him, because they read Orson Scott Card and Star Wars tie-ins.
> - People who read enough to know who Brin is, who may or may not love him but will likely respect him for his work.
> - People in the actual community who have met the man and know that he's an egotistical jerk of monumental proportions, thus poisoning the well.
> 
> I've been trapped in a hotel room with him as part of an apparently blessed group of Clarion folks who got to bask in the radiance of his sexist and condescending knowledge. The well has been poisoned. If I want cardboard characters to explain scientific principles to me, there are other authors I can turn to._




And thus, your opinion considering the nature of his work is rendered entirely irrelevant. Your personal animosity towards Brin, deserved or not, makes anything you might say about his work completely unreliable.



> _If he's remembered, it'll be as a footnote for people who like hard SF and run out of other stuff to read, or as an example of an unpleasant social situation of the times._




Authors who win multiple awards for their writing are rarely remembered as "footnotes".


----------



## Elfdart

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Considering that baliwick is a term in current use in the U.S. legal community, anyone who has had any degree of contact with the U.S. court system should be comfortable using the word. Having a vocabulary that includes words currently in common use among significant professions in your country is not evidence of being a hack.




Since when is a movie review a legal brief? Using legalese in a movie review is the surest sign of the hack.



> And do you have actual evidence of Brin lying? Or are you just going to rely on something Moorcock said about someone completely different than Brin?




Since you missed the link last time:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/

and this link to Brin's hatchetjob:

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06/15/brin_main/



> By now it's grown clear that George Lucas has an agenda, one that he takes very seriously. After four "Star Wars" films, alarm bells should have gone off, even among those who don't look for morals in movies. When the chief feature distinguishing "good" from "evil" is how pretty the characters are, it's a clue that maybe the whole saga deserves a second look.
> 
> Just what bill of goods are we being sold, between the frames?
> 
> * Elites have an inherent right to arbitrary rule; common citizens needn't be consulted. They may only choose which elite to follow.
> 
> * "Good" elites should act on their subjective whims, without evidence, argument or accountability.
> 
> * Any amount of sin can be forgiven if you are important enough.
> 
> * True leaders are born. It's genetic. The right to rule is inherited.
> 
> * Justified human emotions can turn a good person evil.




That's just one shovelfull of lies from David Brin. The people in Star Wars who overthrow the Republic, claim the right to rule over the galaxy and so on are the villains. Now either David Brin is a complete imbecile who must also think the message in _Schindler's List_ is "Nazis are Kewl!" or he's deliberately lying about the series. 



> _Star Wars_, and all of the following movies are fiction. They are fantasy fiction, and hence, close to being in the same genre as the fiction that Brin writes.




Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight -just as golf and football are both sports, so knocking Tiger Woods for his lack of touchdowns is a good comparison.  



> Translating preferences from one genre to another is not absurd in any way, shape, or form. To wit, I think the various _Uplift_ books are far better fiction than any of the _Star Wars_ movies.




So how many touchdowns do you think Tiger Woods will score this weekend? 

Seriously, if "Translating preferences from one genre to another is not absurd in any way, shape, or form." then why was Brin's one attempt (thank goodness!) at a movie such a laughable flop that nearly ruined Kevin Costner's acting career? If writing movies and writing novels are similar enough that it's not apples and oranges (or football and golf), surely the great David Brin would have succeeded, right?

People are entitled to their opinions. If you think David Brin's works are the cat's meow, good for you. But I'm also entitled to my opinion: David Brin, like Michael Moorcock, is a pathetic, mendacious third-rater who smears his betters with B.S. as a cheap form of self-promotion. Brin is now hawking a book where he carries his Salieri-like obsession with Lucas to a new level of dishonesty. Funny, I don't remember Tolkien or Lucas having to attack fellow artists to get people to buy novels or movie tickets. But then they had talent. 

 The same applies to Michael Moorcock, who also tries to smear his betters with B.S.


----------



## Vigilance

Elfdart said:
			
		

> The same applies to Michael Moorcock, who also tries to smear his betters with B.S.




Moorcock's betters? 

Last I heard Moorcock and Tolkien were both very successful fantasy writers with a lot of commercial and critical praise behind them. 

Seems like Moorcock's opinion is just as good as anyone else's. Yours, mine, his... he wrote an essay about a writer he dares not to like. You disagree. All cool. 

No one is being "smeared". Last I heard, McCarthy and the HUAC have been shut down for some time now. 

Could we tone down the hyperbole a notch here please?


----------



## Darth Shoju

Elfdart said:
			
		

> Seriously, if "Translating preferences from one genre to another is not absurd in any way, shape, or form." then why was Brin's one attempt (thank goodness!) at a movie such a laughable flop that nearly ruined Kevin Costner's acting career? If writing movies and writing novels are similar enough that it's not apples and oranges (or football and golf), surely the great David Brin would have succeeded, right?




Now I have to say I really object to this.

Kevin Costner's career was pretty much over *before* _the Post Man._ I'd say sometime between rescuing Whitney Houston and making _Mad Max_ on the ocean.


----------



## Mark Hope

Elfdart, are you capable of putting forward your opinions without peppering them with sneering personal attacks every other sentence?  Any points that you might have (and you might have something valuable to add) are quite eclipsed by your shameful rude behaviour.  You belittle yourself.  Very poor.


----------



## dcas

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I didn't think Bill Ferny was described as "swarthy", I thought his unnamed Southron companion was.



Aragorn describes him [Bill Ferny, that is] as a "swarthy sneering fellow." His Southerner friend is described as "sallow" (that is, pale yellow).


----------



## Rackhir

Elfdart said:
			
		

> Seriously, if "Translating preferences from one genre to another is not absurd in any way, shape, or form." then why was Brin's one attempt (thank goodness!) at a movie such a laughable flop that nearly ruined Kevin Costner's acting career? If writing movies and writing novels are similar enough that it's not apples and oranges (or football and golf), surely the great David Brin would have succeeded, right?




If you think that David Brin had any influence or power how the movie version of "The Postman" turned out then you don't know very much about Hollywood and how it works. There's an old joke about how the blond actress was so stupid she was sleeping with the writer. Writers having essentially no power or pull in the system. Someone who's book is being adapted is a few cuts below even a writer in Lala-land. If Steven King, one of the most powerful and influential writers in the US has trouble getting a decent adaptation of his stories made, then why would you think that a SF writer of no great fame would have any more pull?


----------



## Mark Hope

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Oh.
> 
> My mistake, and my apologies, Mark Hope. It seems I let anger override reason.
> 
> _And_ it seems I recalled the wrong search method. Heh, nice one. Now I'm not sure what I did, or how I ended up reading those charming diatribes of Moorcock's.
> 
> I think I'll bow out at this stage, before making (more of?) a fool of myself. Besides, what the hell is this commie heathen doing defending(?) some dead, allegedly conservative, Anglican dude?
> 
> Craziness. And yeah, I've had my fill.



No worries, mate   All part of the fun at the fair!


----------



## Elfdart

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Moorcock's betters?
> 
> Last I heard Moorcock and Tolkien were both very successful fantasy writers with a lot of commercial and critical praise behind them.
> 
> Seems like Moorcock's opinion is just as good as anyone else's. Yours, mine, his... he wrote an essay about a writer he dares not to like. You disagree. All cool.
> 
> No one is being "smeared". Last I heard, McCarthy and the HUAC have been shut down for some time now.
> 
> Could we tone down the hyperbole a notch here please?




The hyperbole is all on Moorcock's part, not mine. If you take his attacks on Tolkien, Lewis and Milne linked to earlier, then look at this letter to Salon,

http://archive.salon.com/ent/letters/2002/04/18/lucas/print.html

where he gives an attaboy to an ignorant, dishonest attack on another artist who is more successful than he is -and tells a real whopper of a lie about Leigh Brackett and Irvin Kershner and you can see that my take of Michael Moorcock is well-founded. Namely, he resents those who have done better so much that he will lie about a dead woman to smear one of them. 



			
				Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> Now I have to say I really object to this.
> 
> Kevin Costner's career was pretty much over *before* _the Post Man._ I'd say sometime between rescuing Whitney Houston and making _Mad Max_ on the ocean.




Unfortunately, both of those movies did reasonably well IIRC. I didn't like either one (though the parody of _The Bodyguard_ with Florence Henderson was a classic)
so maybe Costner's career _deserved _ to founder. Thanks in part to David Brin, it did!



			
				Mark Hope said:
			
		

> Elfdart, are you capable of putting forward your opinions without peppering them with sneering personal attacks every other sentence?  Any points that you might have (and you might have something valuable to add) are quite eclipsed by your shameful rude behaviour.  You belittle yourself.  Very poor.




Want some cheese to go with your whine, too?



			
				Rackhir said:
			
		

> If you think that David Brin had any influence or power how the movie version of "The Postman" turned out then you don't know very much about Hollywood and how it works. There's an old joke about how the blond actress was so stupid she was sleeping with the writer. Writers having essentially no power or pull in the system. Someone who's book is being adapted is a few cuts below even a writer in Lala-land. If Steven King, one of the most powerful and influential writers in the US has trouble getting a decent adaptation of his stories made, then why would you think that a SF writer of no great fame would have any more pull?




I was responding to someone who claimed that writing a novel was comparable to making a movie. Both are art forms, but the similarities end there. So your argument is with him, not me.


----------



## Mark Hope

Elfdart said:
			
		

> The hyperbole is all on Moorcock's part, not mine. If you take his attacks on Tolkien, Lewis and Milne linked to earlier, then look at this letter to Salon,
> 
> http://archive.salon.com/ent/letters/2002/04/18/lucas/print.html
> 
> where he gives an attaboy to an ignorant, dishonest attack on another artist who is more successful than he is -and tells a real whopper of a lie about Leigh Brackett and Irvin Kershner and you can see that my take of Michael Moorcock is well-founded. Namely, he resents those who have done better so much that he will lie about a dead woman to smear one of them.



Reading comprehension clearly isn't your strong point, is it?  Moorcock says that Brackett's account of working on Star Wars matches Hart's (an account which makes no connection between Brackett and Kershner), and then notes his _own_ experience of working with Kershner.  At no point is any direct link between Brackett and Kershner mentioned by either Hart or Moorcock.  Feel free to back your position up with an actual quote.  Or just admit that the only liar in this picture is you.  Your call.



> Want some cheese to go with your whine, too?



Want some shine to go with your wit?  Or are spoonerisms beyond your staggeringly limited communication skills?


----------



## Gentlegamer

I started reading LOTR again yesterday (September 22 - Bilbo and Frodo's birthday). I read it almost every year, and without hyberbole, it gets better every time I read it.


----------



## Elfdart

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> Reading comprehension clearly isn't your strong point, is it?  Moorcock says that Brackett's account of working on Star Wars matches Hart's (an account which makes no connection between Brackett and Kershner), and then notes his _own_ experience of working with Kershner.  At no point is any direct link between Brackett and Kershner mentioned by either Hart or Moorcock.



You are a shameless liar. Here's the quote from Moorcock:



> Leigh Brackett was a good friend of mine, and *her account of the job matches Hart's. My experience of working with Kershner about three years later also echoes Hart's view. Kershner was a nightmare to work with, and all his ideas were derivative.*



Here's Hart's version:



> The last and most crucial link to "Star Wars" and literary science fiction is Leigh Brackett, the original scriptwriter for "The Empire Strikes Back," the first sequel, and by any reasonable standard the best of the series. *The late Pauline Kael was a tireless champion of journeyman director Irvin Kershner, and many film buffs take her lead in crediting Kershner with the movie's sense of urgency and drama. But this does an injustice to Brackett, whose career uniquely bridged pulp science fiction and Hollywood.* Brackett started out writing space operas in the Smith mode. Her first short story was published by Astounding in 1940, and she quickly became known as an expert pulp technician. She was also a capable teacher, upgrading the work of her husband Edmond Hamilton and tutoring the young Ray Bradbury, who credits her with getting him started as a writer.



and 



> Brackett died of cancer shortly after submitting her first draft of "The Empire Strikes Back." *Though the film's credits list her as screenwriter along with Lawrence Kasdan, Pollock says Lucas had to throw out her draft and start from scratch with Kasdan's help. This is hard to swallow, bearing in mind that Lucas and Kasdan also co-wrote "Return of the Jedi."* The strengths of "The Empire Strikes Back" echo those of Brackett's own work as surely as the mediocrity of "Return of the Jedi" matches that of Kasdan's subsequent films, all built from secondhand materials: Chandler-lite for "Body Heat," warmed-over John Sayles for "The Big Chill."



So Stephen Hart claims that Leigh Brackett was the genius behind _The Empire Strikes Back_ and not the "gasbag" George Lucas (Hart's term) or the "derivative" Irvin Kershner (Moorcock's term). Moorcock says his experience "echoes" Hart's fairy tale -which is to say, the one about Brackett writing the script used in TESB. For you to lie so brazenly about Hart's article and Moorcock's response when all one has to do is click a few links to see for him or herself shows a lot of _Chutzpah_.

One, Brackett died shortly after handing in a partial rough draft. Two, that rough draft was rejected and none of it was used. Three, Brackett had nothing to do with the filming of the movie nor did she work with director Irvin Kershner. Four, when Hart claims out of his own ignorance that Brackett must be the genius behind TESB, he's just fatuous. When Moorcock seconds Hart with a Moorcock & Bull story about how Brackett's "account of the job matches Hart's", he is lying. Hart claims Brackett wrote the screenplay used in the movie. Her publisher, estate and the others who DID write the finished product say otherwise -and have copies of her draft to back it up! 
Home Theatre Forum

Ditto



> As far as Lucas not getting credit for the screenplay, Lucas and Spielberg both did the same thing on Raiders. After spending months of notes and daily brainstorming/writing sessions with Kasdan, the two of them refused screenplay credit, even though Kasdan offered it to them. Nicholas Meyer did the same thing on Star Trek II, as did David Cronenberg on The Fly. It's not that unusual.
> 
> WGA screenwriters get paid by the draft, but Brackett never finished hers before she died. *Per WGA contract stipulation, Lucas didn't even have to pay her. But he did more than that: he not only paid her estate above the Guild minimum for her "draft," he was the one that petitioned the Writer's Guild to put her name on the screenplay credits, even though she only got about two-thirds of the way in. In one of his interviews, Kasdan stated that Lucas informed him up front that he'd be sharing credit with a writer whose stuff they couldn't even use, simply because he liked her earlier work.*
> 
> *But don't just take my word for it -- go to Skywalker Ranch and see for yourself. If you visit the library in the Archives Building (the one with the huge stained glass windows), you can read the actual drafts and treatments of all the Lucasfilm productions (with librarians looking over your shoulder making sure you don't copy or appropriate anything).
> *
> In the case of Empire, they not only had copies of Lucas's original handwritten January 1978 treatment/outline (complete with spelling corrections by his secretary/assistant Bunny Alsup), but they have Brackett's "draft" there, as well. Beat-by-beat, all the major story points/character arcs are there in Lucas's original treatment: the Probe Droid arrival, Hoth battle, asteroid field, Jedi training with Yoda, all the way through to the Vader confrontation/revelation at Cloud City (no Wampa attack on Luke, though).
> 
> Brackett's script, on the other hand, not only wanders all over the place, it even ignores several critical scenes in Lucas's outline (Vader communicating with Palpatine, Han rescuing Luke, Han's torture). What's there is as bad as some of the stuff in the prequel trilogy, and just gets worse as it limps along to page 75 (which, according to the records, is as far as she got).
> 
> There's no romance/flirtation between Han and Leia, and Lando (who is described in Lucas's outline as "suave and debonair") has about as much personality as a random Stormtrooper. In all fairness to Brackett, she may have been already very, very sick when she started. Even so, I don't understand her ignoring/changing major plot points -- and not for the better.
> 
> In November 2004, at an Empire revival screening at the Arclight in Hollywood, a friend of mine asked Irvin Kershner about the Brackett draft and the WGA credit. He confirmed what Kasdan had said, and added that Lucas and Kasdan had already done a lot of the heavy lifting before he was even brought on board. When you look at Lucas's original treatment/outline and then Kasdan's subsequent drafts, it's pretty obvious.



Michael Moorcock agrees with Stephen Hart's absurd claim that Lucas (twice nominated for Oscars for Best Original Screenplay) and Lawrence Kasdan (three Oscar nominations for screenwriting) didn't write (and couldn't have written it) the movie and says he does so because of what Brackett told him about writing the screenplay, which she in fact never wrote. That's a lie almost as shameless as yours.



> Feel free to back your position up with an actual quote.




I have not only backed up my position and given proof of my assertions, I have also exposed you as a very dishonest person who should be ashamed of himself. Of course you have no shame.


----------



## Mark Hope

Elfdart said:
			
		

> You are a shameless liar. Here's the quote from Moorcock:
> 
> _Leigh Brackett was a good friend of mine, and her account of the job matches Hart's. My experience of working with Kershner about three years later also echoes Hart's view. Kershner was a nightmare to work with, and all his ideas were derivative._
> 
> Here's Hart's version:
> 
> _The last and most crucial link to "Star Wars" and literary science fiction is Leigh Brackett, the original scriptwriter for "The Empire Strikes Back," the first sequel, and by any reasonable standard the best of the series. The late Pauline Kael was a tireless champion of journeyman director Irvin Kershner, and many film buffs take her lead in crediting Kershner with the movie's sense of urgency and drama. But this does an injustice to Brackett, whose career uniquely bridged pulp science fiction and Hollywood. Brackett started out writing space operas in the Smith mode. Her first short story was published by Astounding in 1940, and she quickly became known as an expert pulp technician. She was also a capable teacher, upgrading the work of her husband Edmond Hamilton and tutoring the young Ray Bradbury, who credits her with getting him started as a writer._



All this says is that Brackett's contribution was underestimated in Hart's opinion, with which Moorcock agrees, apparently based on what he was told by Brackett.



> and
> 
> _Brackett died of cancer shortly after submitting her first draft of "The Empire Strikes Back." Though the film's credits list her as screenwriter along with Lawrence Kasdan, Pollock says Lucas had to throw out her draft and start from scratch with Kasdan's help. This is hard to swallow, bearing in mind that Lucas and Kasdan also co-wrote "Return of the Jedi." The strengths of "The Empire Strikes Back" echo those of Brackett's own work as surely as the mediocrity of "Return of the Jedi" matches that of Kasdan's subsequent films, all built from secondhand materials: Chandler-lite for "Body Heat," warmed-over John Sayles for "The Big Chill."_
> 
> So Stephen Hart claims that Leigh Brackett was the genius behind _The Empire Strikes Back_ and not the "gasbag" George Lucas (Hart's term) or the "derivative" Irvin Kershner (Moorcock's term). Moorcock says his experience "echoes" Hart's fairy tale -which is to say, the one about Brackett writing the script used in TESB. For you to lie so brazenly about Hart's article and Moorcock's response when all one has to do is click a few links to see for him or herself shows a lot of _Chutzpah_.



Again, you completely fail to show any understanding of the text in front of you.  Moorcock is stating that Brackett's account agrees with Hart's - namely that her contribution of a partial rough draft is underestimated.  Nobody is claiming anything else - not Hart, not Moorcock and not me.  The furthest Hart goes is to say that claims that Brackett's work had no influence are "hard to swallow".  Moorcock may well have heard a similar opinion from Brackett.  There is no lie here whatsoever, despite your shrill claims to the contrary.



> One, Brackett died shortly after handing in a partial rough draft.  Two, that rough draft was rejected and none of it was used.



Correct.  You have managed to understand that much at least.



> Three, Brackett had nothing to do with the filming of the movie nor did she work with director Irvin Kershner.



Please show me where anyone has claimed that she did.  This is utterly irrelevant.



> Four, when Hart claims out of his own ignorance that Brackett must be the genius behind TESB, he's just fatuous. When Moorcock seconds Hart with a Moorcock & Bull story about how Brackett's "account of the job matches Hart's", he is lying. Hart claims Brackett wrote the screenplay used in the movie.



No he doesn't.  He skirts around the subject and says that her alleged lack of influence is "hard to swallow".  Moorock reports that Brackett said something similar to him.  He isn't lying - he is reporting what he has heard and saying that it matches Hart's account.  Maybe Hart and Brackett's accounts aren't 100% accurate, but that doesn't make Moorcock a liar, does it?  Which was, of course, the actual point that I refuted in your spiteful little outburst earlier on.



> Michael Moorcock agrees with Stephen Hart's absurd claim that Lucas (twice nominated for Oscars for Best Original Screenplay) and Lawrence Kasdan (three Oscar nominations for screenwriting) didn't write (and couldn't have written it) the movie and says he does so because of what Brackett told him about writing the screenplay, which she in fact never wrote. That's a lie almost as shameless as yours.



If anything, that makes Moorcock ill-informed at worst.  This is hardly grounds for calling the man a liar.  And I must insist that you cease making similar personal attacks against me.  I am basing my statements wholly upon what has been said by Moorcock and Hart - there is no falsehood on my part.



> I have not only backed up my position and given proof of my assertions, I have also exposed you as a very dishonest person who should be ashamed of himself. Of course you have no shame.



You have done no such thing.  You have persisted in the misinterpretation of the text to suit your own vitriolic hysteria, made direct personal attacks against public figures and other posters and failed to do anything but reveal your own lack of comprehension for the matter in hand.


----------



## Umbran

Elfdart and Mark Hope - I should hope that I don't need to remind you fellows about The Rules that we use around here, and that Rule #1 is *Keep it civil*.  I expect both of you (and everyone else) to show respect for each other and fellow posters on these messageboards, however much you may disagree.


----------



## Wayside

dcas said:
			
		

> Yes, in fact if we submitted the question to a popular vote, it might well turn out that Tolkien is considered the greatest author of the 20th century (which, if memory serves, was the result of just such a poll in the UK . . . prompting cries of outrage from various academics, educators, and literary critics).



An Amazon.com poll picked Tolkien as the greatest author _of the millennium_ and ranked Harry Potter in the top 10 as well, which shows you just how ignorant most people, especially English-speaking people, are of literature in general. Why do you suppose they settled on _LotR _ and Harry Potter? Maybe because they just haven't read a whole lot of other stuff, especially stuff written more than, say, a century ago? How can a bunch of people who haven't read most (if any) of the 20th century's greatest authors--nevermind the greatest authors of the last millennium--make an informed decision about who those authors are?

The reaction from most academics isn't outrage, it's amusement (at least in America; Europe could be a different story). We've all read _LotR_. The writing is serviceable and the story is a lot of fun, maybe even great--as a story. But, you know, reading is kind of our job, so we tend to read a lot more and a lot more critically than other people. You can imagine, then, that we don't really feel threatened by an online poll. It would be like Bob Dylan fans suddenly deciding they should be listening to Justin Timberlake instead since, you know, he's more popular, therefore better, right? Quality isn't something that's decided democratically. If it were, to be called "great" would be a meaningless honor.

(None of this is to say that Tolkien couldn't or shouldn't end up on a list of important 20th-century authors, only that, when you have a group of people calling him the single greatest author of the last 1000 years, you pretty much can't help but _laugh_.)


----------



## Pielorinho

Wayside said:
			
		

> An Amazon.com poll picked Tolkien as the greatest author _of the millennium_
> ...
> (None of this is to say that Tolkien couldn't or shouldn't end up on a list of important 20th-century authors, only that, when you have a group of people calling him the single greatest author of the last 1000 years, you pretty much can't help but _laugh_.)



Tolkien 0wNz0rZ Shakespeare.

Daniel


----------



## Vigilance

Wayside said:
			
		

> An Amazon.com poll picked Tolkien as the greatest author _of the millennium_ and ranked Harry Potter in the top 10 as well, which shows you just how ignorant most people, especially English-speaking people, are of literature in general. Why do you suppose they settled on _LotR _ and Harry Potter? Maybe because they just haven't read a whole lot of other stuff, especially stuff written more than, say, a century ago? How can a bunch of people who haven't read most (if any) of the 20th century's greatest authors--nevermind the greatest authors of the last millennium--make an informed decision about who those authors are?
> 
> The reaction from most academics isn't outrage, it's amusement (at least in America; Europe could be a different story). We've all read _LotR_. The writing is serviceable and the story is a lot of fun, maybe even great--as a story. But, you know, reading is kind of our job, so we tend to read a lot more and a lot more critically than other people. You can imagine, then, that we don't really feel threatened by an online poll. It would be like Bob Dylan fans suddenly deciding they should be listening to Justin Timberlake instead since, you know, he's more popular, therefore better, right? Quality isn't something that's decided democratically. If it were, to be called "great" would be a meaningless honor.
> 
> (None of this is to say that Tolkien couldn't or shouldn't end up on a list of important 20th-century authors, only that, when you have a group of people calling him the single greatest author of the last 1000 years, you pretty much can't help but _laugh_.)




Agree 100%.

And btw... I would agree that Tolkien has been *important* to writing. He more or less ushered in a whole new genre of writing. 

But that isn't enough to be considered a great writer. Wilkie Collins was a *very* important figure in originating what we now recognize as detective or mystery fiction. But that doesn't mean he isn't overshadowed by writers like Poe and Dickens.

Similarly without Thomas Kyd there might not have been Hamlet. But that doesn't mean Kyd shouldn't be a minor figure in the history of drama (a footnote really). 

One last thing I'd point out is that it's WAY too soon for anyone to judge LOTR as literature since we are still way too close to it. 70 years isn't enough time.

If people are still reading Tolkien 200 years from now, then I'm wrong and he's a great writer. However I happen to feel that in 100 years he'll be Wilkie Collins and in 200 years he'll be Thomas Kyd. Students conducting deep studies of the 20th century will read him as an influence of better authors. 

Of course these are just opinions of mine. No better or worse than anyone else's, including Michael Moorcock. People are WAY overreacting. 

I have no problem with defending the work of someone you think is talented but with people saying he's "smearing" people it's a little hard to stomach.


----------



## billd91

Elfdart said:
			
		

> Since you missed the link last time:
> 
> http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/
> 
> and this link to Brin's hatchetjob:
> 
> http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06/15/brin_main/
> 
> 
> 
> That's just one shovelfull of lies from David Brin. The people in Star Wars who overthrow the Republic, claim the right to rule over the galaxy and so on are the villains. Now either David Brin is a complete imbecile who must also think the message in _Schindler's List_ is "Nazis are Kewl!" or he's deliberately lying about the series.




The question here is what Brin feels about the subtext in Star Wars and he's certainly right about a few things. Lucas is awful at really exploring the subtle moral messages in the Star Wars saga. The moral tale told by Star Wars is cast so simplistically that he Lucas fails to notice, or doesn't care, what some of the underlying morality is telling us. It seems cool that Vader's last act of redemption enables him to become one with the force (or at least appear as a force ghost at the end of RotJ) and yet when you start to think about the numbers of people killed by Vader, you start to wonder. 
Brin uses hyperbole, certainly, pushing the moral subtext underpinning Star Wars to ultimate conclusions. But lies? Not really. The conclusions he reaches are pretty easily drawn, even if they aren't necessarily what Lucas intended. But I take that to indicate that Lucas never really thought hard enough about what he was writing to vett it for these implications.

In the end, Star Wars is best watched without too much mental effort. If you do put in too much work, you'll only be more and more disappointed. 

To get back on track, both Moorcock's and JRRT's works are much more interesting to wrap your brain around than anything Lucas has done.


----------



## Kem

I skipped large parts of Lord of the Rings.  If I saw poetry, I'd skip to the paragraph after.  Family History?  Ugg speed read it.  I enjoyed reading it, but I won't be reading it again.

Moorcock however, I enjoy reading much more.  Shakespeare probaly as much as Moorcock.  The Bourne books are my favorites though out of serious books to read though not Sci-Fi, my favorite Sci Fi books being Stardust by Gaimen, and Snow Crash by Stevenson.

I prefer a faster pace.  I tend to only be able to read in half hour to 1 hour sittings so I like something to have happened in that time.  This is why I have also read so much manga.  Half hour kills one volume in a series easy for me.


----------



## Mark Hope

Umbran said:
			
		

> Elfdart and Mark Hope - I should hope that I don't need to remind you fellows about The Rules that we use around here, and that Rule #1 is *Keep it civil*.  I expect both of you (and everyone else) to show respect for each other and fellow posters on these messageboards, however much you may disagree.



Ahem.  Thankyou for the reminder .  Appreciated.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> One last thing I'd point out is that it's WAY too soon for anyone to judge LOTR as literature since we are still way too close to it. 70 years isn't enough time.
> 
> If people are still reading Tolkien 200 years from now, then I'm wrong and he's a great writer. However I happen to feel that in 100 years he'll be Wilkie Collins and in 200 years he'll be Thomas Kyd. Students conducting deep studies of the 20th century will read him as an influence of better authors.



I agree - this will be real test of his "greatness".  At present it's clear that he is one of the most popular, but if that were the true measure of greatness, then Stephen King would outrank him by an order of magnitude, for example.  As distasteful as academics might find the idea of Tolkien being seen as the greatest author of the last 1000 years, I'll bet they'd have an even harder time accepting King on that throne...



> _I have no problem with defending the work of someone you think is talented but with people saying he's "smearing" people it's a little hard to stomach._



Yeah, just a little.



			
				billd91 said:
			
		

> Brin uses hyperbole, certainly, pushing the moral subtext underpinning Star Wars to ultimate conclusions. But lies? Not really.



Indeed.  If anything, his articles gave me a good laugh with their hyperbolic tone.  It's pretty plain that to accuse the man of lying is more than just a little daft.



> _In the end, Star Wars is best watched without too much mental effort. If you do put in too much work, you'll only be more and more disappointed.
> 
> To get back on track, both Moorcock's and JRRT's works are much more interesting to wrap your brain around than anything Lucas has done._



Indeed.  Star Wars is bubblegum.  Highly enjoyable bubblegum, mind you, but like you say - you can't look too deeply.

Amusingly enough, there was a "100 Greatest Films Of All Time" on tv hin the UK last night.  Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back came in at joint first place, with Godfather 1&2 coming in at joint second.  Shawshank Redemption was #3, Pulp Fiction was #4 and Some Like It Hot was #5.  My personal fave, Jacob's Ladder, wasn't even on the list.  Philisitines.


----------



## Vigilance

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> Indeed.  Star Wars is bubblegum.  Highly enjoyable bubblegum, mind you, but like you say - you can't look too deeply.
> 
> Amusingly enough, there was a "100 Greatest Films Of All Time" on tv hin the UK last night.  Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back came in at joint first place, with Godfather 1&2 coming in at joint second.  Shawshank Redemption was #3, Pulp Fiction was #4 and Some Like It Hot was #5.  My personal fave, Jacob's Ladder, wasn't even on the list.  Philisitines.




One thing that I liked about Brin's article was that it could be applied to adventure stories that are _unquestionably_ great, which he acknowledges (many of these by name). For those who thought Brin was slandering Lucas' character, the fact that his argument is KNOWINGLY applied to Gilgamesh and Achilles, and could by extension be applied to Hercules, King Arthur and so forth lets you know he understands the argument he's making.

Can such stories be used for evil political purposes? Yes. 

Have they? Oh yes. Look around at times when Henry V has undergone major revivals in England and you will have all the evidence of this you need (and then some).

So Brin's point is spot on, and it applies to Lucas just as well as it does to works of even greater value (like the aforementioned). 

This isn't a "slander". It just is. Sometimes reality bites.


----------



## Mark Hope

Vigilance said:
			
		

> One thing that I liked about Brin's article was that it could be applied to adventure stories that are _unquestionably_ great, which he acknowledges (many of these by name). For those who thought Brin was slandering Lucas' character, the fact that his argument is KNOWINGLY applied to Gilgamesh and Achilles, and could by extension be applied to Hercules, King Arthur and so forth lets you know he understands the argument he's making.
> 
> Can such stories be used for evil political purposes? Yes.
> 
> Have they? Oh yes. Look around at times when Henry V has undergone major revivals in England and you will have all the evidence of this you need (and then some).
> 
> So Brin's point is spot on, and it applies to Lucas just as well as it does to works of even greater value (like the aforementioned).
> 
> This isn't a "slander". It just is. Sometimes reality bites.



Absolutely.  Coming back to Tolkien, the Prof himself lamented this very fact when he talked about how the nazis had appropriated Germanic myth and turned it to their own purposes.  He felt that a body of myths that he found noble and pure had been irrevocably tainted by their association with nazi doctrine.

I do think that you can take this kind of analysis too far (I doubt that Star Wars will ever become a propaganda vehicle for a repressive regime, for example, for all its flaws), but it does bear thinking about the ramifications of its message, on a theoretical level if nothing else.  Moorcock has said on a few occasions that he believes that authors have a moral responsibility to consider the messages contained within their works.  He revised a sequence towards the end of later publications of _Gloriana_, for example, as he believed that the earlier version might be seen as condoning rape on some level.


----------



## Wayside

Vigilance said:
			
		

> If people are still reading Tolkien 200 years from now, then I'm wrong and he's a great writer. However I happen to feel that in 100 years he'll be Wilkie Collins and in 200 years he'll be Thomas Kyd. Students conducting deep studies of the 20th century will read him as an influence of better authors.



I agree, mostly because I think Tolkien will be a victim of IP laws if they continue in the direction they're currently headed. We could potentially stay interested in Tolkien's stories for as long as we have them, but I don't think we'll stay interested in the stories as _he _ wrote them.

Kyd is a great example here. T. S. Eliot (who is one of the two people most responsible for the place we give Shakespeare in English letters today) had an insightful observation on this point: one of the reasons Shakespeare is so good is that English drama, as a form, was well-defined by the time he arrived on the scene. In other words, he didn't have to waste his creative energies innovating new dramatic forms. And the same is true for his stories: they're all, to varying degrees, taken from other writers, including Kyd. Thus Shakespeare was able to focus on amazingly subtle characterization and intricate plotting, and of course he got some killer lines in there as well.

For _LotR_ to survive I think it needs to become what it is, what a lot of Shakespeare's material was: mythology--_and mythology doesn't belong to anyone_. Tolkien's myths have to be appropriated and transformed by other storytellers, by better, more nuanced writers. Otherwise, as his own writing (in terms of approach as well as style) continues to become more and more dated (and it was already dated when he first published it--_The Hobbit _ appeared 15 years after _Ulysses_), interest in those stories will evaporate. And that would be a shame.


----------



## dcas

Wayside said:
			
		

> The reaction from most academics isn't outrage, it's amusement (at least in America; Europe could be a different story).




I suggest you read Joseph Pearce's _Tolkien: Man and Myth_ or T. A. Shippey's _J. R. R. Tolkien: Author of Century_. They quote extensively from the critical outrage expressed over Tolkien's continued popularity.


----------



## dcas

Wayside said:
			
		

> Otherwise, as his own writing (in terms of approach as well as style) continues to become more and more dated (and it was already dated when he first published it--_The Hobbit _ appeared 15 years after _Ulysses_), interest in those stories will evaporate. And that would be a shame.




Hmmm, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. What does _Ulysses_ have to do with whether or not Tolkien's writing is "dated" (and I guess from your post that you mean, in part, "inaccessible")?

It's worthwhile to point out that every time a critic has said that LOTR would not be successful or that the Tolkien era is coming to an end that he has been proven wrong. One would think that critics would stop making such predictions.


----------



## Elfdart

billd91 said:
			
		

> The question here is what Brin feels about the subtext in Star Wars and he's certainly right about a few things.




Care to name them?



> Lucas is awful at really exploring the subtle moral messages in the Star Wars saga. The moral tale told by Star Wars is cast so simplistically that he Lucas fails to notice, or doesn't care, what some of the underlying morality is telling us.



The movie plays at two levels: On one hand, it's a kids' matinee movie like the old Errol Flynn movies. On the other, Lucas' artistry with the camera (mainly how he frames shots) and tributes to old school fillmakers and artwork can be appreciated by older viewers. Grade schoolers who watch _The Empire Strikes Back_ aren't going to notice the Wagnerian feel to it, nor are they likely to notice the influence of John Ford's _The Searchers_, while older audiences can and do.



> It seems cool that Vader's last act of redemption enables him to become one with the force (or at least appear as a force ghost at the end of RotJ) and yet when you start to think about the numbers of people killed by Vader, you start to wonder.



Wonder about what? That some religions (including a few of the more popular ones in our real world) believe in salvation even for the worst among us?



> Brin uses hyperbole, certainly, pushing the moral subtext underpinning Star Wars to ultimate conclusions. But lies? Not really. The conclusions he reaches are pretty easily drawn, even if they aren't necessarily what Lucas intended. But I take that to indicate that Lucas never really thought hard enough about what he was writing to vett it for these implications.



Yes, lies. David Brin is not stupid, so we can eliminate that possibility. He claims that the message sent in Star Wars is that certain people are born superior to others and thus have a right to rule over them. The only characters in the movies who believe that are the Sith -AKA the villains. If someone were to write about _Bridge on the River Kwai_ and claim that the movie's message is that Japanese imperialists in WW2 had a right to run slave labor camps and work the inmates to death and/or let them die of disease, starvation and exposure; that person is a liar or mentally ill. 



> In the end, Star Wars is best watched without too much mental effort. If you do put in too much work, you'll only be more and more disappointed.




You can say the same about any movie. 



> To get back on track, both Moorcock's and JRRT's works are much more interesting to wrap your brain around than anything Lucas has done.




In your opinion, maybe.


----------



## Mark Hope

Elfdart said:
			
		

> Wonder about what? That some religions (including a few of the more popular ones in our real world) believe in salvation even for the worst among us?



Rather than commenting on real-world religions (which is against forum rules, iirc), might it not be better to address the argument Brin is making, namely that he finds it distasteful that Vader's single act of contrition (killing Palpatine and saving Luke) is enough to redeem a life of evil.  It's a lovely conclusion to the saga, but it avoids addressing any of the more complex moral questions that it raises.

Maybe that's Brin's fundamental mistake though.  He is looking to read too much into a simple space opera, that (enjoyable as it is) is little more than Saturday morning matinee fare.



> Yes, lies. David Brin is not stupid, so we can eliminate that possibility. He claims that the message sent in Star Wars is that certain people are born superior to others and thus have a right to rule over them. The only characters in the movies who believe that are the Sith -AKA the villains.



It goes deeper than that.  Lucas implies that those who are strong with the Force are superior to those who are not.  Indeed, just by virtue of his birth, Anakin is predestined to save the galaxy.  And by virtue of their birth, the Jedi are the principal guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy, irrespective of what the galaxy thinks about the matter.  So it's not just the Sith.



> If someone were to write about _Bridge on the River Kwai_ and claim that the movie's message is that Japanese imperialists in WW2 had a right to run slave labor camps and work the inmates to death and/or let them die of disease, starvation and exposure; that person is a liar or mentally ill.



Phew!  Lucky nobody here is making that kind of claim then, eh? 



> You can say the same about any movie.



Sure, but with some movies you'd be wrong to say that.  Plenty of movies reward deeper thought by revealing layers of meaning that are not necessarily apparent at first.  _Memento_, _Jacob's Ladder_, _Apocalypse Now_, _eXistenZ_ and even _The Matrix_ would all meet these criteria, imho.


----------



## Elfdart

Vigilance said:
			
		

> One thing that I liked about Brin's article was that it could be applied to adventure stories that are _unquestionably_ great, which he acknowledges (many of these by name). For those who thought Brin was slandering Lucas' character, the fact that his argument is KNOWINGLY applied to Gilgamesh and Achilles, and could by extension be applied to Hercules, King Arthur and so forth lets you know he understands the argument he's making.




I'll take Lucas, Homer and the person who wrote _The Epic of Gilgamesh
_ over the man responsible for _The Postman_ when it comes to storytelling, thank you very much.



> Can such stories be used for evil political purposes? Yes.
> 
> Have they? Oh yes. Look around at times when Henry V has undergone major revivals in England and you will have all the evidence of this you need (and then some).




The biggest revival was in 1944 when Britain was fighting against Nazi Germany. Yeah, that was an evil cause. 



> So Brin's point is spot on, and it applies to Lucas just as well as it does to works of even greater value (like the aforementioned).




Brin's point is pure nonsense, just like Moorcock's, translated thusly: "Other works are bad because they are more successful and don't adhere to a the kind of juvenile Marxism I cling to." 

For a point-by-point refutation of Brin's lies and stupidity:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/



> Who is he? He is the science fiction writer who authored "The Postman", which was made into a spectacularly unsuccessful Kevin Costner movie. The article he wrote was an extremely bizarre piece of work entitled "Star Wars despots vs Star Trek populists", in which he essentially argued that the Jedi Knights of the Star Wars universe embody an anti-democracy, elitist viewpoint in which genetically superior supermen are destined to rule the universe. He contrasted this with Star Trek by gushing over Trek's populist, pro-democracy messages in which innate, genetically inherited strengths and weaknesses are irrelevant, and he made it quite obvious that he has some sort of personal axe to grind wth George Lucas. The text of his message can be found here. Have a look- do you think he makes some good points? Frankly, if you do, then you must not know much about Star Wars. Let us examine some of his more contentious claims.
> 
> One of his opening claims is that Star Wars contains the following laundry list of messages:
> 
> * Elites have an inherent right to arbitrary rule; common citizens needn't be consulted. They may only choose which elite to follow.
> * "Good" elites should act on their subjective whims, without evidence, argument or accountability.
> * Any amount of sin can be forgiven if you are important enough.
> * True leaders are born. It's genetic. The right to rule is inherited.
> * Justified human emotions can turn a good person evil.
> 
> When I looked at this, I was somewhat offended that someone would actually be trying to paint Star Wars as some sort of threat to democracy (can he really be serious? Is he descended from McCarthy?), and I was simultaneously amused that an award-winning science fiction author might actually be incapable of understanding a storyline that was designed so that eight year old children could grasp it.
> 
> You see, he seems to believe that the Jedi Knights are bad because they rule the Star Wars galaxy, they are elites, and they are not elected to their position. It is a birthright, so they hark back to the bad old days of feudalism, monarchies, empires, etc. But he forgot one little detail: Jedi Knights do not rule the Star Wars galaxy! He wrote this nonsense after watching TPM- did he actually fail to notice that the government of the Old Republic was a democratic body, complete with a senate, and a democratically elected Chancellor? Did he fail to notice that the Jedi Knights are the instruments of government policy rather than the authors of that policy? Did he have popcorn stuck in his ears when Qui-Gon solemnly warned Anakin that "it will be a hard life"? Jedi Knights serve the people, rather than ruling them. Millions of people worldwide have seen the Star Wars films, and easily grasped this fact, but David Brin is apparently not one of them. Perhaps he was distracted by his efforts to write another bomb for Kevin Costner.
> 
> What else does he have to say? Read on- as he continues to write, it becomes clear that he is either deliberately misrepresenting the Star Wars universe to advance his agenda, or his intelligence is actually so low that he cannot pick up obvious plot points like "Empire is bad" or "Supreme Chancellor is not a Jedi". He goes on to criticize mythologies in general, since they usually revolve around kings and demigods.
> 
> _Alas, Campbell only highlighted positive traits, completely ignoring a much darker side -- such as how easily this standard fable-template was co-opted by kings, priests and tyrants, extolling the all-importance of elites who tower over common women and men. Or the implication that we must always adhere to variations on a single story, a single theme, repeating the same prescribed plot outline over and over again. Those who praise Joseph Campbell seem to perceive this uniformity as cause for rejoicing -- but it isn't. Playing a large part in the tragic miring of our spirit, demigod myths helped reinforce sameness and changelessness or millennia, transfixing people in nearly every culture, from Gilgamesh all the way to comic book super heroes.
> _
> Interesting. He seems to believe that Joseph Campbell (who collaborated with George Lucas to create the mythical universe of Star Wars) is propagating an unadulterated duplicate of the ancient demigod myths of primitive cultures. But he fails to notice that Lucas and Campbell updated and revised those myths substantially: the Jedi Knights of the Star Wars universe see themselves as servants of mankind, not rulers. Many of the critical plot developments of the Star Wars movies were driven by ordinary humans. It seems that Brin was so wrapped up in the similarities to timeless myths that he simply assumed that Star Wars was a precise duplicate of those myths, rather than being loosely based on them. Maybe he should try actually watching the Star Wars films.
> 
> _It is essential to understand the radical departure taken by genuine science fiction, which comes from a diametrically opposite literary tradition -- a new kind of storytelling that often rebels against those very same archetypes Campbell venerated. An upstart belief in progress, egalitarianism, positive-sum games -- and the slim but real possibility of decent human institutions._
> 
> He goes on to make an even more bizarre claim: that "genuine" science fiction is distinguished from other forms of fiction by virtue of its adherence to populist messages. I don't know of anyone else who believes that science fiction is distinguished from other forms of fiction exclusively by the presence of populist messages, but I suppose this claim shouldn't be surprising, considering the source. "The Postman" contains no futuristic premises, no futuristic technology, no futuristic settings, or futuristic cultures. It is merely another post-apocalyptic American jingoism story but David Brin calls himself a science fiction writer, so why not redefine science fiction to include "The Postman" and exclude "Star Wars"? That sort of carefully redrawn delineation must make Brin feel really good- sort of like an elitist
> 
> _By contrast, the oppressed "rebels" in "Star Wars" have no recourse in law or markets or science or democracy. They can only choose sides in a civil war between two wings of the same genetically superior royal family. They may not meddle or criticize. As Homeric spear-carriers, it's not their job._
> 
> More of his ignorant mis-reading of the Star Wars universe. Emperor Palpatine destroyed a democratic government system (the Old Republic) in favour of his dictatorship. Obviously, the rebels would have put a democratically elected government (probably called "The New Republic", or "The Republic") back in place after defeating him (and in fact, if you read any of the post-ROTJ novels, that is precisely what happens). But why worry about that? He's on a roll, because once he has decided that the goal of the Rebels is to put Leia on the throne as the new dictator, then he can continue with his unreasoning jihad against Star Wars.
> 
> Did anyone in the entire world besides David Brin think that the Rebels intended to install Luke or Leia as a new dictator after deposing Palpatine? It is frankly mind-boggling that he would come to this conclusion after watching the original Star Wars trilogy, and even more mind-boggling that he would maintain this delusion after seeing TPM, in which the democratic government of the Old Republic was very thoroughly portrayed.
> 
> _In teaching us how to distinguish good from evil, Lucas prescribes judging by looks: Villains wear Nazi helmets. They hiss and leer, or have red-glowing eyes, like in a Ralph Bakshi cartoon. On the other hand, "Star Trek" tales often warn against judging a book by its cover -- a message you'll also find in the films of Steven Spielberg, whose spunky everyman characters delight in reversing expectations and asking irksome questions._
> 
> Perhaps he failed to notice that one of the principal heroes of the Star Wars trilogy was a snarling, seven foot tall wildebeast. In fact, all of the truly bizarre-looking aliens were on the Rebel side. In contrast, the Empire was very conformist, restricting itself almost completely to humans (sort of like the Federation Starfleet, in Star Trek). But again, he has a laundry list of criticisms about Star Wars, and he has to step through them one by one, even if there is no evidence in the films to support his claims. As for Star Trek warning against judging a book by its cover, I would say that this was true for TOS (coincidentally, the only Star Trek series which I like without reservation). But in the era of TNG, different races have uniform characteristics- you can judge a Klingon by his cover (he will be violent and ill-tempered). You can judge a Romulan by his cover (he will be duplicitous and deceitful). You can judge a Ferengi by his cover (he will be greedy and manipulative). He is completely ignoring the actual contents of Star Wars and Star Trek, in favour of some kind of modified version of Star Wars and Star Trek that he apparently carries around in his head. Unfortunately for him, the rest of us can't see that version of Star Wars and Star Trek- we can only see the version on the movie screens and television sets of the world. That version is substantially different from the version he describes.
> 
> _Above all, "Star Trek" generally depicts heroes who are only about 10 times as brilliant, noble and heroic as a normal person, prevailing through cooperation and wit, rather than because of some inherited godlike transcendent greatness. Characters who do achieve godlike powers are subjected to ruthless scrutiny. In other words, "Trek" is a prototypically American dream, entranced by notions of human improvement and a progress that lifts all. Gene Roddenberry's vision loves heroes, but it breaks away from the elitist tradition of princes and wizards who rule by divine or mystical right. By contrast, these are the only heroes in the "Star Wars" universe._
> 
> Really! The "only heroes in the Star Wars universe" are demigods, in the form of Jedi Knights? How could David Brin have possibly watched the entire classic Star Wars trilogy without noticing such pivotal characters as Han Solo, Wedge Antilles, and Lando Calrissian? Did he notice that without Han Solo's change of heart, Luke Skywalker would have died a flaming death at the hands of his father, and the Rebellion would have been crushed? Did he notice that Wedge Antilles and Lando Calrissian destroyed the second Death Star? Was he sleeping when Lando Calrissian saved the day for Leia (and in the end analysis, the entire Rebellion) when he decided to defy Vader and the Empire by helping Leia and Chewbacca escape, to save Luke? Was he suffering from temporary blindness when Sabé saved the day by distracting the Neimoidian Viceroy long enough for Queen Amidala to seize control of the throneroom? Did he notice that the Viceroy was the most critical target of the entire operation, yet no Jedi or Force child prodigies took part in his capture? Maybe he's just so completely committed to his jihad against Star Wars that he doesn't feel he needs to observe trivialities like the truth.
> 
> As for Star Trek embodying "the American Dream", there are people in this world who live outside America. In fact, 95% of the people in this world live outside America, and contrary to popular American belief, we are not necessarily dying to emigrate. Star Wars is designed to have a universal appeal, while Star Trek is designed to promote West Coast American left-wing liberal socialist viewpoints to the world. Many see the universality of Star Wars as a strength- David Brin sees it as a weakness. But then again, he had previously stated his bizarre belief that American jingoism is a mandatory component of all "genuine" science fiction, so I suppose we shouldn't expect any better. For what it's worth, even if you do subscribe to his jingoist viewpoint, you should probably be aware that in several of its primary aspects, Star Trek is highly unAmerican:
> 
> *  Socialism and Freedom: There are no independent corporations in Star Trek. They have all been nationalized, like some great futuristic Marxist-Leninist Utopia. No one can become wealthy in Star Trek- everyone has the same standard of living. This is socialism, not capitalism, and the hard reality is that capitalism is an inevitable side-effect of personal freedom. Conversely, socialism requires heavy government control and limited personal freedom.
> 
> *    The American Dream: Get real, Dave: the American Dream isn't anything as lofty as "bettering ourselves and humanity", as Picard put it. No, the real American Dream (the one gleaming in the hearts of hard-working immigrants as they struggle to climb the ladder of success) is about one thing: getting rich. Don't recoil at this politically incorrect notion- we all know it's true. But there is nothing wrong with this- the pursuit of wealth and luxury has driven most of the technological advancement of the past half-century. It isn't a bad thing unless people become so obsessed with it that they hurt other people. But if we remove the possibility of becoming rich, then we kill the American Dream.
> 
> *   Freedom of choice: In Star Wars, there are numerous manufacturers of products- corporations compete with one another to produce blaster rifles, starships, and all manner of goods. In ANH, Luke Skywalker laments the poor demand for his landspeeder ever since a superior competing model came out. But in Star Trek? To paraphrase Henry Ford, you can have any colour you want, so long as it's beige. There is no competition for government contracts- no choices offered to consumers. If they want choice, they had better leave the Federation entirely, and shop at Ferenginar.
> 
> He then goes on to attack George Lucas personally:
> 
> _Lucas defends his elitist view, telling the New York Times, "That's sort of why I say a benevolent despot is the ideal ruler. He can actually get things done. The idea that power corrupts is very true and it's a big human who can get past that."_
> 
> If David Brin would accuse George Lucas of elitism and despotism for making an off-handed pie in the sky comment about how a benevolent despot would be the ideal ruler, then how would he react to the following quote? "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Do you know who said that? John Adams, second president of the United States and one of the American Founding Fathers. Surely John Adams could not be seriously accused of anti-democratic views, yet there it is! So what's wrong?
> 
> The answer is simple. Criticism is healthy. Warning about potential pitfalls and dangers is healthy. In fact, both are absolutely necessary for a democracy to function properly. John Adams understood this, but David Brin apparently does not. He treats democracy as an object of mindless advocacy rather than a political model with strengths and weaknesses. As heretical as it may sound, democracy is not perfect; it needs constant work, public awareness, and principled leaders in order to work. It may be better than some of the known alternatives, but that doesn't mean that it's beyond criticism or that people shouldn't be allowed to talk about flaws in its operation. Nothing should ever be treated as beyond criticism, unless you've decided to take the attitude that political systems should be treated as quasi-religious dogma.
> 
> The perfection and immunity from criticism of American-style democracy is a theme that David Brin harps on throughout the rest of his article. He repeatedly explains that George Lucas' political viewpoints are not just different- they are wrong, and dangerous, and should be boycotted (whatever happened to a little American concept called "freedom of expression", Mr. Brin?). Frankly, I see nothing wrong with George Lucas' statement. A benevolent despot would be an ideal ruler. The only problem is that there is no such thing as a benevolent despot- the concept is wishful thinking.
> 
> David Brin is clearly no better at understanding quotes than he is at understanding movies. George Lucas says that a benevolent despot would be an ideal ruler, but that isn't what David Brin hears; in Brin's mind, he hears George making a blanket statement that dictatorships are an ideal form of government. George is making a pie-in-the-sky, "wouldn't it be nice" kind of statement, and Brin interprets it as "let's scrap democracy and start a dictatorship".
> 
> I'm starting to wonder if one of George's kids made fun of one of Brin's kids, for him to be carrying around so much hostility that he would misrepresent both the words and movies of George Lucas in his defamatory attack. Some have E-mailed to suggest that Mr. Brin is simply jealous of George Lucas' enormous financial success with the Star Wars series, and that he feels George's talent didn't merit his rewards. If that's the case, then he simply needs to grow up. George knew what the public wanted, while the self-professed "populist" David Brin's popularity is still confined to a very small segment of the population. All of which leads me to wonder: who's the real populist, Mr. Brin?
> 
> Think he's gone overboard yet? He's not quite done.
> 
> _Thus few protest the apotheosis of Darth Vader -- nee Anakin Skywalker -- in "Return of the Jedi."
> 
> To put it in perspective, let's imagine that the United States and its allies managed to capture Adolf Hitler at the end of the Second World War, putting him on trial for war crimes. The prosecution spends months listing all the horrors done at his behest. Then it is the turn of Hitler's defense attorney, who rises and utters just one sentence:
> 
> "But, your honors ... Adolf did save the life of his own son!"
> 
> Gasp! The prosecutors blanch in chagrin. "We didn't know that! Of course all charges should be dismissed at once!"
> 
> The allies then throw a big parade for Hitler, down the avenues of Nuremberg.
> 
> It may sound silly, but that's exactly the lesson taught by "Return of the Jedi," wherein Darth Vader is forgiven all his sins, because he saved the life of his own son. _
> 
> Only a lunatic or a blind, deaf mute would watch Return of the Jedi and interpret it thusly. Who ever said that Vader was forgiven for his sins and made a hero of the New Republic? Did we see anyone besides Luke standing at Vader's lonely funeral pyre? I didn't. You didn't. Apparently, David Brin did. Did we see anyone besides Luke showing any sympathy whatsoever toward Vader? I didn't. You didn't. Apparently, David Brin did. Let's get the facts straight: Vader's own son seemed to forgive him, but no one else did.
> 
> As for Vader's status as a Hitler-like monster, David Brin apparently missed the following facts:
> 
> *     Vader was not personally responsible for Alderaan. The Death Star was commanded by Grand Moff Tarkin, not Darth Vader. Vader had no more personal responsibility for Alderaan than did any of the other million-plus Imperial soldiers aboard the Death Star. He neither gave the order or pulled the trigger.
> 
> *     Vader was not the ruler of the Empire. Emperor Palpatine was the ruler of the Empire, and "executive responsibility" falls upon him, not Vader. BTW, Mr. Brin, if you rewatch ROTJ, you might notice that Vader killed the Emperor.
> 
> *    The opening crawl of ANH states quite clearly that the galaxy is in a state of "CIVIL WAR". The destruction of a helpless civilian target in time of war is arguably heinous, but to be brutally blunt, it's been done before, by Americans. In fact, America is the only nation on Earth that has ever used nuclear weapons against civilians, not once, but twice! But a man like Brin, who's apparently given to mindless American jingoism, is not likely to notice the irony in an American painting the use of weapons of mass destruction in wartime as an act of unfettered evil.
> 
> Vader killed many people, including many of his own officers as well as his mentor, Obi-Wan Kenobi. Obviously, he's not Gandhi. But comparing him to Hitler is excessive. Hitler is best compared to the Emperor, not Vader. Does Brin even recognize the distinction between the Emperor and Vader? They were two separate people- they cannot be treated as one person.
> 
> A final note on this subject: Vader was not forgiven for his sins- he died for his sins, but in a nod to the Christian concept of redemption through acceptance of Christ (which I've never personally understood but which is very popular in America), Vader achieves redemption through acceptance of his own good side. In any case, regardless of whether you believe in it, spiritual redemption is not equivalent to a legal pardon- you can be spiritually redeemed but still be sentenced to death by the corporeal government that collects your taxes. Does David Brin think that Vader should have been shown suffering in Hell after his death? He paid the price for his crimes, by sacrificing his own life to topple the despot that he helped rise to power. What's the problem?
> 
> But wait- is Mr. "I think that all science fiction should be mandated to promote my political ideas" done yet? Nope- he hasn't attacked Yoda yet. But give him time ...
> 
> _You already know what I think of what came next. But worshipping Darth Vader only scratches the surface. The biggest moral flaw in the "Star Wars" universe is one point that Lucas stresses over and over again, through the voice of his all-wise guru character, Yoda.
> 
> Let's see if I get this right. Fear makes you angry and anger makes you evil, right?_
> 
> Wrong. If he watched TPM (or even the old classic trilogy) he would see that hate makes you evil. Yoda's exact words are: "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering!" Vader also mentions hatred to Luke, in ROTJ. No one in his right mind would seriously argue against the notion that hatred is inherently evil. Small wonder then, that Mr. David Brin chose to "forget" that Yoda mentioned hate, because a good memory would decapitate his crusade against the things he thinks George Lucas is saying in his films. Just like he conveniently "forgot" that the Jedi Knights are civil servants rather than rulers, or that non-Jedi heroes like Han Solo, Wedge Antilles, Chewbacca, Lando Calrissian etc. existed. With a memory like that, it's a wonder that he remembers to pee before he goes to bed at night.
> 
> _But then, in "Return of the Jedi," Lucas takes this basic wisdom and perverts it, saying -- "If you get angry -- even at injustice and murder -- it will automatically and immediately transform you into an unalloyedly evil person!_
> 
> No, this isn't what Lucas is saying at all. By now, I am getting tired of David Brin's lies. They aren't misconceptions or weak arguments- they are outright lies. Are you getting tired of them too? He is now saying that the instant you feel anger, you become "an unalloyedly evil person" according to ROTJ. Funny thing though- Luke became angry in Return of the Jedi, nearly striking down his father, but he didn't become "unalloyedly evil". In TPM, Obi-Wan Kenobi is clearly seething with anger when he attacks Darth Maul- he didn't become "unalloyedly evil." Again, I must ask- did he watch the same films that we did?
> 
> _"Star Wars" belongs to our dark past. A long, tyrannical epoch of fear, illogic, despotism and demagoguery that our ancestors struggled desperately to overcome, and that we are at last starting to emerge from, aided by the scientific and egalitarian spirit that Lucas openly despises. A spirit we must encourage in our children, if they are to have any chance at all._
> 
> Now he's just getting back on his high horse about the pro-despotism messages that he thinks he sees in Star Wars. More harping on a lie which hatched from his incredible claim that the Jedi Knights are rulers. They are not. The only Force user who became a galactic ruler was the Emperor, and I'll let everyone in on a little secret that seems to have eluded the Great Science Fiction Writer David Brin: The Emperor was one of the bad guys. The first time I showed Star Wars to my little three year old son, he instinctively understood that the Empire was being obviously portrayed as the bad guys. I find it amazing that my three year old son could grasp something that seems to be beyond the comprehension of an adult science fiction writer like David Brin.
> 
> Star Wars does not present Emperor Palpatine, or his system of government, in a good light! It does not present his Empire as a superior alternative to democracy! Doesn't everyone realize this without having to see it spelled out in front of them? To be fair, I think that everyone does realize this. Everyone except for David Brin.
> 
> At this point, I have grown seriously fatigued with Brin's repetitive, ignorant, and deceptive arguments. Thankfully, he's almost done. But of course, someone who has this much preachiness in them would never be able to end an article without an outstanding example of pomposity. Let's see if David Brin can resist:
> 
> _ I don't expect to win this argument any time soon. As Joseph Campbell rightly pointed out, the ways of our ancestors tug at the soul with a resonance many find romantically appealing, even irresistible. Some cannot put the fairy tale down and move on to more mature fare. Not yet at least. Ah well.
> 
> But over the long haul, history is on my side. Because the course of human destiny won't be defined in the past. It will be decided in our future.
> 
> That's my bailiwick, though it truly belongs to all of you. To all of us.
> 
> The future is where our posterity will thrive._
> 
> I guess not. He seems to think that "history is on my side." Is it really? The Roman Empire endured for 1300 years. The Chinese dynasties endured for thousands of years. The world's most venerable democracy is only a couple of hundred years old- history's verdict isn't in yet. And even if we ignore the entire democracy vs despot issue (which has nothing to do with the pro-democracy Star Wars universe anyway), history certainly is not kind to those who deceive in order to promote their views- an ignominious group to which David Brin clearly belongs. Does he have anything else to say? How about "our future. That's my bailiwick, though it truly belongs to all of you. To all of us." Pretty good Bill Clinton-style 2-second sound-bite, Dave! Have you got any more nuggets of fortune-cookie wisdom to dispense from your cache of self-important one-liners? Hmmm, let's see how he ends his article: "The future is where our posterity will thrive." Ahh, an excellent combination of self-aggrandizement and pomposity. If those things were valued, then David Brin would be a rich man indeed.


----------



## Elfdart

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> Sure, but with some movies you'd be wrong to say that.  Plenty of movies reward deeper thought by revealing layers of meaning that are not necessarily apparent at first.  _Memento_, _Jacob's Ladder_, _Apocalypse Now_, _eXistenZ_ and even _The Matrix_ would all meet these criteria, imho.




The only deeper thought one can get from the _Matrix_ movies is that if you take the imagery and logorrheic dialogue from a late 80s Calvin Klein Obsession ad and throw in fight scenes straight out of the Three Stooges, plus moronic gunplay (firing a pistol in each hand was a tired joke when Hopalong Cassidy did it in the 1940s) and take it all VERY seriously, you can convince the gullible that they are watching something profound.


----------



## Mark Hope

Elfdart said:
			
		

> Brin's point is pure nonsense, just like Moorcock's, translated thusly: "Other works are bad because they are more successful and don't adhere to a the kind of juvenile Marxism I cling to."



I don't recall reading anything in Brin's or Moorcock's articles about "_other works are bad because they are more successful_", or about Marxism.  I'm afraid you've goofed here.



> For a point-by-point refutation of Brin's lies and stupidity:
> >_snip long, rambling diatribe_<



This guy has clearly no understanding of hyperbole, has he?  Brin is obviously exagerrating the issue in order to make his points.  It's maybe not the best way to go about it, but a sophomoric literal reading and subsequent refutation of his article misses the point entirely.


----------



## Mark Hope

Elfdart said:
			
		

> The only deeper thought one can get from the _Matrix_ movies is that if you take the imagery and logorrheic dialogue from a late 80s Calvin Klein Obsession ad and throw in fight scenes straight out of the Three Stooges, plus moronic gunplay (firing a pistol in each hand was a tired joke when Hopalong Cassidy did it in the 1940s) and take it all VERY seriously, you can convince the gullible that they are watching something profound.



You might wish to look into gnostic thought and Manicheist doctrine and apply those to the Matrix films before dismissing their subtext.  The techno-hip, kungfu wannabe trappings of the movie are just window dressing and largely irrelevant to the deeper dualistic mythology that is referenced throughout the movie, and has been part of religious and philosophical thought for over 2000 years.  Or maybe you missed that amidst all the tight leather pants...


----------



## Elfdart

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> I don't recall reading anything in Brin's or Moorcock's articles about "_other works are bad because they are more successful_", or about Marxism.  I'm afraid you've goofed here.



That's the obvious reason. Both believe in a kind of infantile Marxism as demonstrated by Brin's fondness for the UFP in Star Trek, plus his belief that science fiction should present a populist message and Moorcock's attacks on George Lucas in _The New Statesman_, a Marxist publication, as well as his attacks on Tolkien's work for being typical bourgeois middlebrow nonsense. Both also attack artists who just happen to be more successful. I don't remember anything about Tolkien attacking Margaret Mitchell or Lucas attacking Disney or David Selznick. Mostly it's because Tolkien and Lucas were successful and secure about it, and probably because they had enough class to know it's unseemly to let the Green-Eyed Monster out of its cage. 



> This guy has clearly no understanding of hyperbole, has he?  Brin is obviously exagerrating the issue in order to make his points.  It's maybe not the best way to go about it, but a sophomoric literal reading and subsequent refutation of his article misses the point entirely.



Hyperbole: exaggeration, such as "This suitcase weighs a ton!" when it only weighs 40 pounds

Lie: saying things a person knows are untrue, like David Brin's assertions about George Lucas and Star Wars, or Stephen Hart's claim (seconded by Michael Moorcock) that a script Leigh Brackett didn't write was the reason for the clever dialogue in _The Empire Strikes Back_


----------



## Mark Hope

Elfdart said:
			
		

> That's the obvious reason. Both believe in a kind of infantile Marxism as demonstrated by Brin's fondness for the UFP in Star Trek, plus his belief that science fiction should present a populist message and Moorcock's attacks on George Lucas in _The New Statesman_, a Marxist publication, as well as his attacks on Tolkien's work for being typical bourgeois middlebrow nonsense. Both also attack artists who just happen to be more successful. I don't remember anything about Tolkien attacking Margaret Mitchell or Lucas attacking Disney or David Selznick. Mostly it's because Tolkien and Lucas were successful and secure about it, and probably because they had enough class to know it's unseemly to let the Green-Eyed Monster out of its cage.



No, I'm afraid that this is just wild supposition on your part.  Both Brin and Moorcock amply explain their reasoning in their respective articles, and neither article makes any mention of the relative success or lack of Marxist politics of their respective targets as being cause for criticism.  You can read into it what you like, but your claims are utterly unsupported by the texts - much the same sort of misleading behaviour which you accuse Brin and Moorcock of, ironically enough ...



> Hyperbole: exaggeration, such as "This suitcase weighs a ton!" when it only weighs 40 pounds



Specifically, exaggeration for the effect of drawing attention to the subject at hand.  In other words, what Brin does time and time again in his article - a well-recognised (if heavy-handed) method of making a point.



> Lie: saying things a person knows are untrue, like David Brin's assertions about George Lucas and Star Wars, or Stephen Hart's claim (seconded by Michael Moorcock) that a script Leigh Brackett didn't write was the reason for the clever dialogue in _The Empire Strikes Back_



No, again you appear to have misread the article.  Hart states that Kershner is credited with the "sense of urgency and drama" in ESB and suggests that this does an injustice to Brackett.  He makes no reference at all to "clever dialogue", as you erroneously state.  Moorocock doesn't comment on dialogue at all, simply saying that Brackett's account of her experience on the film matched Hart's.  You have no way of knowing what specific elements he (or Brackett) refers to.  So I'm afraid that your version of events is again unsupported.  Bad luck!


----------



## Umbran

Elfdart said:
			
		

> Brin's point is pure nonsense, just like Moorcock's, translated thusly: "Other works are bad because they are more successful and don't adhere to a the kind of juvenile Marxism I cling to."





So much for my hopes.

Elfdart - I directed you to The Rules once before.  I do so again.  Real world politics are not an appropriate topic for these boards.  By extnsion, then, neither is a discussion of what form of political beliefs a particular author holds to. Doubly so when it is tied to words like "juvenile", "imbecile" and the like.

I'm going to have to ask you to take such things elsewhere.  I don't want to see it in this thread again, or elsewhere on these boards.  This goes for everyone  - while the politics of authors may in general be reasonably included in critical discussion, they are not appropriate here.

If there's any questions about this, please feel free to e-mail me, or another one of the mods.


----------



## Mark Hope

Wayside said:
			
		

> For _LotR_ to survive I think it needs to become what it is, what a lot of Shakespeare's material was: mythology--_and mythology doesn't belong to anyone_. Tolkien's myths have to be appropriated and transformed by other storytellers, by better, more nuanced writers. Otherwise, as his own writing (in terms of approach as well as style) continues to become more and more dated (and it was already dated when he first published it--_The Hobbit _ appeared 15 years after _Ulysses_), interest in those stories will evaporate. And that would be a shame.



Interestingly enough, Tolkien himself expressed a wish that this happen to his work (did somebody quote his words on this already in the thread?)  He had wanted his work on his "legendarium" to form a larger framework, and then for other hands to expand upon it, in art, poetry, literature and song.  He quite literally wanted it to enter the realms of myth - I am sure that he would have had a keen appreciation of the longevity that myth enjoys when compared to literature.  (And speaking as someone who tried to write a sequel to LotR when I was 10 years old, I would have to agree with his sentiment ...)

For all the liberties that Peter Jackson took with Lotr when making his movies, I really couldn't fault him.  Quite apart from the fact that Jackson made some damn fine movies that were true to the spirit of the books, I had a feeling that Tolkien would have recognised it as a genuine attempt to give breadth and longevity to the myth of Middle Earth, and would have heartily approved.


----------



## Elfdart

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> No, again you appear to have misread the article.  Hart states that Kershner is credited with the "sense of urgency and drama" in ESB and suggests that this does an injustice to Brackett.




How is it an injustice to Leigh Brackett, who had nothing to do with the script used on TESB? 



> He makes no reference at all to "clever dialogue", as you erroneously state.




From the article:


> The last and most crucial link to "Star Wars" and literary science fiction is Leigh Brackett, the original scriptwriter for "The Empire Strikes Back," the first sequel, and by any reasonable standard the best of the series. The late Pauline Kael was a tireless champion of journeyman director Irvin Kershner, and many film buffs take her lead in crediting Kershner with the movie's sense of urgency and drama. *But this does an injustice to Brackett, whose career uniquely bridged pulp science fiction and Hollywood.* Brackett started out writing space operas in the Smith mode. Her first short story was published by Astounding in 1940, and she quickly became known as an expert pulp technician. She was also a capable teacher, upgrading the work of her husband Edmond Hamilton and tutoring the young Ray Bradbury, who credits her with getting him started as a writer.




and 



> Brackett died of cancer shortly after submitting her first draft of "The Empire Strikes Back." Though the film's credits list her as screenwriter along with Lawrence Kasdan, Pollock says Lucas had to throw out her draft and start from scratch with Kasdan's help. *This is hard to swallow, bearing in mind that Lucas and Kasdan also co-wrote "Return of the Jedi." The strengths of "The Empire Strikes Back" echo those of Brackett's own work as surely as the mediocrity of "Return of the Jedi" matches that of Kasdan's subsequent films, *all built from secondhand materials: Chandler-lite for "Body Heat," warmed-over John Sayles for "The Big Chill."




The obvious implication by Hart is that Leigh Brackett wrote the screenplay for the movie when in fact, she did not. When he refers to Brackett's earlier work (which is world famous for clever dialogue) as "proof" that she wrote TESB, that's exactly what he's referring to.



> Moorocock doesn't comment on dialogue at all, simply saying that Brackett's account of her experience on the film matched Hart's.




What experience on the film? She died before they shot a frame of film. None of her script was used. The facts don't match Hart's absurd story. The only thing that does is a letter from Moorcock where he claims that Brackett's experience matched Hart's tall tale. Since Hart's version is bogus, so is Moorcock's claim to back up that bogus story. 



> You have no way of knowing what specific elements he (or Brackett) refers to.  So I'm afraid that your version of events is again unsupported.  Bad luck!




It's not my version. It's the truth. Unless you think George Lucas, Irvin Kershner, Lawrence Kasdan, Stephen Haffner (her publisher), and the executors of Brackett's estate have engaged in a conspiracy spanning four decades to forge her papers (which are on display at Eastern New Mexico University and Skywalker Ranch), cheat her out of credit (when they gave it to her anyway even though they didn't have to) and for what purpose, exactly? The story by Hart is a lie, as is Moorcock's endorsement of it. Your dishonesty would also fall in that category.


----------



## Mark Hope

Elfdart said:
			
		

> How is it an injustice to Leigh Brackett, who had nothing to do with the script used on TESB?



Hart's assertion appears to be that Brackett's work had some degree of influence over later work on the film.



> The obvious implication by Hart is that Leigh Brackett wrote the screenplay for the movie when in fact, she did not. When he refers to Brackett's earlier work (which is world famous for clever dialogue) as "proof" that she wrote TESB, that's exactly what he's referring to.



No, it's not obvious, I'm afraid.  You appear to making extended inferences to support your preconceptions.  The most you can draw from the article is that the ideas in Brackett's work were still influential upon later work on the film.  Hart may be completely wrong in this assumption, but that's another matter entirely, and not germane to the point I am trying to make (namely that you can't accuse people of lying until you can prove their intent - which you can't.)



> What experience on the film?



The fact that she wrote a partial first draft indicates that she was working on the film.  So what if she died before shooting started?  Script work is still part of the film, even when it's unused.  Let's not split hairs over something as obvious as that.



> She died before they shot a frame of film. None of her script was used. The facts don't match Hart's absurd story. The only thing that does is a letter from Moorcock where he claims that Brackett's experience matched Hart's tall tale. Since Hart's version is bogus, so is Moorcock's claim to back up that bogus story.



Again, no.  You can't know what Moorcock is referring to when he says that Brackett's version of the story matched Hart's.  Maybe he is just referring to the fact that her script was discarded.  In the absence of that knowledge, you can't reasonably claim that anyone is lying.  And Hart's imprecise language skirts around any clear assertions regarding the script.  He may well be obscuring the matter on purpose to facilitate his argument.  But he may not.  You can't know for sure either way.  I wouldn't call someone a liar when you can't actually be sure of the facts.



> It's not my version. It's the truth.



No, Elfdart, it's not.  It's just your opinion, just like pretty much everything else posted in this thread.  And there's no shame in admitting that you don't have a monopoly on the truth - just a monopoly on your own opinion.



> Unless you think George Lucas, Irvin Kershner, Lawrence Kasdan, Stephen Haffner (her publisher), and the executors of Brackett's estate have engaged in a conspiracy spanning four decades to forge her papers (which are on display at Eastern New Mexico University and Skywalker Ranch), cheat her out of credit (when they gave it to her anyway even though they didn't have to) and for what purpose, exactly? The story by Hart is a lie, as is Moorcock's endorsement of it. Your dishonesty would also fall in that category.



Again, there are many ways to interpret this without needing to claim that some bizarre conspiracy is at play, as I have shown.  And for the second time, I'd like to ask that you refrain from making personal attacks against me.  Please.


----------



## dcas

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> might it not be better to address the argument Brin is making, namely that he finds it distasteful that Vader's single act of contrition (killing Palpatine and saving Luke) is enough to redeem a life of evil.



How does one address this argument without making reference to real-world religions? Adherents of one real-world religion in particular will have no problem with this (and note that Vader did more than kill Palpatine, save Luke, and say "I'm sorry" -- he gave his own life to save Luke), while those who are not adherents of said religion might find it unpalatable.



> It goes deeper than that.  Lucas implies that those who are strong with the Force are superior to those who are not.  Indeed, just by virtue of his birth, Anakin is predestined to save the galaxy.  And by virtue of their birth, the Jedi are the principal guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy, irrespective of what the galaxy thinks about the matter.  So it's not just the Sith.



Well, yes, and one might add that this is one of the reasons that they (the Jedi) were purged: they overreached.


----------



## Mark Hope

dcas said:
			
		

> How does one address this argument without making reference to real-world religions? Adherents of one real-world religion in particular will have no problem with this (and note that Vader did more than kill Palpatine, save Luke, and say "I'm sorry" -- he gave his own life to save Luke), while those who are not adherents of said religion might find it unpalatable.



You can take a purely philosophical approach and address the question of whether Vader's actions in saving Luke (including his self-sacrifice, as you point out) are enough to outweigh his evil actions over the course of his life up to that point.  It can be seen as an issue of morals, rather than one of religion.  There are plenty of real-world philosophies that address morals without taking recourse to religion.  Beyond that, you can view it from within the Star Wars universe and use it to illuminate the workings of the Force.  From the latter angle at least, one's post-mortem unity of the Force would appear to be dependent upon a purely internal state of conscience, rather than any external morality, for example.  This raises the question "Is there justice for Vader's victims?", among other things.



> Well, yes, and one might add that this is one of the reasons that they (the Jedi) were purged: they overreached.



Yeah, that's an interesting perspective.  I seem to recall Yoda alluding to this at some point during _Attack of the Clones_, when he is talking to Mace and Obi-wan.  He says something along the lines of the Jedi having become to secure in their position, or somesuch.


----------



## dcas

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> As distasteful as academics might find the idea of Tolkien being seen as the greatest author of the last 1000 years, I'll bet they'd have an even harder time accepting King on that throne...



Well, then, that makes it clear that it is not merely a popularity contest, for if it were, then King would be at the top and Tolkien would be a few places down.

Tom Shippey points out that in the British polls that ranked Tolkien and LOTR #1, that so rankled the "literati," most of the writings that were ranked after Tolkien's were books that were generally taught in school (I'm listing from memory so I could be mistaken): _Catcher in the Rye_, _Lord of the Flies_, _Ulysses_, etc. Where _Lord of the Rings_ differs is that it is not frequently taught in school, and people are reading it by choice -- and it is the only book they are reading by choice that they are listing as great literature. Stephen King isn't listed, Tom Clancy isn't listed, etc.


----------



## Mark Hope

dcas said:
			
		

> Well, then, that makes it clear that it is not merely a popularity contest, for if it were, then King would be at the top and Tolkien would be a few places down.
> 
> Tom Shippey points out that in the British polls that ranked Tolkien and LOTR #1, that so rankled the "literati," most of the writings that were ranked after Tolkien's were books that were generally taught in school (I'm listing from memory so I could be mistaken): _Catcher in the Rye_, _Lord of the Flies_, _Ulysses_, etc. Where _Lord of the Rings_ differs is that it is not frequently taught in school, and people are reading it by choice -- and it is the only book they are reading by choice that they are listing as great literature. Stephen King isn't listed, Tom Clancy isn't listed, etc.



Well, I'm sure that popularity plays a part, but I'd agree that there is a more genuine appreciation for Tolkien's work involved here.  I haven't read Shippey's book yet (I have a copy, but it keeps getting bumped off my reading list and just got packed away into a box along with most of my other books) but that list is pretty interesting.  It certainly points to a real sense of worth attached to LotR by a huge number of readers.


----------



## dcas

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> You can take a purely philosophical approach and address the question of whether Vader's actions in saving Luke (including his self-sacrifice, as you point out) are enough to outweigh his evil actions over the course of his life up to that point.



I wouldn't make this argument. I guess that one can, but I would find it unconvincing. Perhaps that is why Brin believes that Lucas is an elitist, because according to Brin's philosophy Vader's ultimate redemption means (in the Star Wars universe) that Luke's life is worth the lives of all those whom Vader killed. And that is what Brin finds so unacceptable.


----------



## Mark Hope

dcas said:
			
		

> I wouldn't make this argument. I guess that one can, but I would find it unconvincing. Perhaps that is why Brin believes that Lucas is an elitist, because according to Brin's philosophy Vader's ultimate redemption means (in the Star Wars universe) that Luke's life is worth the lives of all those whom Vader killed. And that is what Brin finds so unacceptable.



I'm not sure I'd want to support that outlook either, actually - just playing devil's advocate a bit.  I don't think that Lucas intends for us to analyse the film to this degree, but I can see what Brin dislikes about it, given that he has taken his analysis to that level.  Like you suggest and I alluded to in my edit above, it prompts one to wonder about a seeming lack of justice for all those whom Vader killed.  The Force (or the midichlorians, lol) seem not to be too bothered about that.  So long as Vader is at peace with himself, then everything is A-OK.  A bit of an odd turn of events.  Oh well - thankfully it's possible to see it as a fun end to a fun movie and not probe too deeply.


----------



## Vigilance

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> You can take a purely philosophical approach and address the question of whether Vader's actions in saving Luke (including his self-sacrifice, as you point out) are enough to outweigh his evil actions over the course of his life up to that point.  It can be seen as an issue of morals, rather than one of religion.  There are plenty of real-world philosophies that address morals without taking recourse to religion.  Beyond that, you can view it from within the Star Wars universe and use it to illuminate the workings of the Force.  From the latter angle at least, one's post-mortem unity of the Force would appear to be dependent upon a purely internal state of conscience, rather than any external morality, for example.  This raises the question "Is there justice for Vader's victims?", among other things.




And this is exactly the point Brin is making, and it's one that can be applied to all sorts of heroic fiction. In fact this idea of thinking of Vader's victims, as opposed to Vader's heroic sacrifice, is the _crux_ of Brin's argument.

Vader had a destiny. His destiny involved turning evil and killing thousands, maybe millions, before heroically dying by removing an even greater evil and redeeming himself.

This is a classic fantasy/legendary construct. 

Within the "rules" of legend and fantasy, asking about Vader's victims is as applicable as asking about Achilles' victims. How many men died so that Achilles could live his life of glory? Was it fair that Achilles cut men down like wheat who couldn't hurt him because he was invulnerable? Was he really a great warrior worthy of glory since he wasn't in any real danger?

These are questions the ancients never bothered to ask. If you were favored by the gods or otherwise had an unfair advantage over your opponents, it sucked to be your opponent. 

These are however, questions modern readers ask. We tend not to see things in absolutes. 

And of course you can turn this whole thing around too. How many people does Luke kill? It's a lot. Think about how many crewmen were on the death stars alone.

Were they all evil? Probably not. Does that matter? Within the realm of heroic fantasy, not much. But it's a worthy question to ask and it does Brin credit to bring it up. 

The Empire in Star Wars serves the same purpose as the Nazis in the Indiana Jones movies (or Hellboy or really any other movie where Nazis are used as villains). They're EVILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL. So evil you don't need to ask yourself if it's ok to slaughter them in droves. 

The fact that Nazis are used so often as villains is precisely to STOP the audience from asking the questions Brin is posing about the Empire. See? It's not just Brin. Modern writers realize their audience might say "whoa, I'm rooting for a guy who just slaughtered that sympathetic guard who just came outside for a smoke".

Star Wars tries to achieve this same effect (not worrying about the heroes felling scores of bad guys) through code. Sometimes they're faceless stormtroopers (who are identical outside and in- even if you take the helmet off they're clones), sometimes they're droids. 

One reason to make them identical is so you never go "aww... I liked that guy!" 

All in an attempt to let us off the hook so we can enjoy some mindless mayhem. 

Chuck


----------



## Mark Hope

Vigilance said:
			
		

> And this is exactly the point Brin is making, and it's one that can be applied to all sorts of heroic fiction. In fact this idea of thinking of Vader's victims, as opposed to Vader's heroic sacrifice, is the _crux_ of Brin's argument.



Absolutely.  It might be the case that his use of hyperbole has indeed obscured this message, but I agree that it's a perfectly valid point, given that he chooses to look at the movies in this way.



> And of course you can turn this whole thing around too. How many people does Luke kill? It's a lot. Think about how many crewmen were on the death stars alone.
> 
> Were they all evil? Probably not. Does that matter? Within the realm of heroic fantasy, not much. But it's a worthy question to ask and it does Brin credit to bring it up.



Also known as the Clerks Postulate ...



> The Empire in Star Wars serves the same purpose as the Nazis in the Indiana Jones movies (or Hellboy or really any other movie where Nazis are used as villains). They're EVILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL. So evil you don't need to ask yourself if it's ok to slaughter them in droves.



Exactly.  Just like orcs in D&D (whoa, gaming content!)

My girlfriend just commented that it might be possible that Palpatine could have died at peace with himself (even though that might have meant being at peace with a thoroughly evil life), had he not been thrown down the shaft by Vader.  Given that the Force is seemingly neutral, and it is the will of the user that gives it its character, could this mean that there might be a Sith afterlife?  Where you become a glowy red sprit?  (She subsequently made it clear that she wasn't being serious and told me I couldn't post this bit.  Bummer.)


----------



## Wayside

dcas said:
			
		

> I suggest you read Joseph Pearce's _Tolkien: Man and Myth_ or T. A. Shippey's _J. R. R. Tolkien: Author of Century_. They quote extensively from the critical outrage expressed over Tolkien's continued popularity.



Of _course _ you can, if you look hard enough, find people frothing at the mouth over it, just like you can rummage around these forums and find people frothing at the mouth over the success of Pokemon or the failure of Farscape. But the truth is that all this talk of critical outrage is spin, or is still hung up on the reactions of critics 30 or 40 years ago, whose mores are no longer representative of academics in any way whatsoever (these are the same people who made sure Joyce was a career-killer until the 1950s; yet now Joyce is practically his own major). 

The overwhelming majority of academics are _at worst _ indifferent to Tolkien, and most of them, especially medievalists, are rather fond of him. I've seen more schools that offer a Tolkien class than ones that don't. And you realize, for example, that both Pearce and Shippey are academics?

There is no "critical outrage"--which implies something widespread--just the occasional overzealous wahoo. If you collect the wahoos in one place you can certainly make it seem like academics are all a bunch of stuffy Tolkien haters, which I'm sure feeds the egos of a lot of Tolkien's fans inasmuch as it lets them believe they're sticking it to the man, but the whole issue is really a non-issue.


----------



## Wayside

dcas said:
			
		

> Hmmm, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. What does _Ulysses_ have to do with whether or not Tolkien's writing is "dated" (and I guess from your post that you mean, in part, "inaccessible")?



Stylistically, _Ulysses_ isn't dated, despite being written 15-30 years earlier than _The Hobbit_ (even longer before _LotR_). My point is that Tolkien's stilted writing is only becoming farther and farther removed from what ordinary people are going to be willing to put up with. Of the 50 students I have this semester, for example, a whopping 2 of them have read Tolkien. The number who've seen the movies, on the other hand...

His longevity will be in the myth itself, not in his particular expression of it.



			
				dcas said:
			
		

> It's worthwhile to point out that every time a critic has said that LOTR would not be successful or that the Tolkien era is coming to an end that he has been proven wrong. One would think that critics would stop making such predictions.



It's worthwhile to note that Tokien is probably about as well-known in the world at large as lactose tolerance. This stuff is all relative. It's silly to think Tolkien is going to disappear overnight, and it's equally silly to think he'll remain this popular forever.


----------



## dcas

Wayside said:
			
		

> Stylistically, _Ulysses_ isn't dated, despite being written 15-30 years earlier than _The Hobbit_ (even longer before _LotR_). My point is that Tolkien's stilted writing is only becoming farther and farther removed from what ordinary people are going to be willing to put up with. Of the 50 students I have this semester, for example, a whopping 2 of them have read Tolkien. The number who've seen the movies, on the other hand...



I thought it was interesting that you brought up _Ulysses _because it is much more inaccessible than _The Lord of the Rings_, or even _The Silmarillion_, will ever be. Very few people would read _Ulysses_, or even Joyce's much shorter and more accessible _Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man_, out of choice; people read them because they are taught in school. No, stylistically _Ulysses_ isn't 'dated,' I guess, but it still remains almost completely impenetrable.

I think 'archaic' would be a better word to describe Tolkien's writing than 'stilted' or 'dated' since those two carry negative connotations. And yet one of the things that people most enjoy about _The Lord of the Rings_ is the quality of the writing, archaic or no.


----------



## Storm Raven

Elfdart said:
			
		

> I'll take Lucas, Homer and the person who wrote _The Epic of Gilgamesh
> _ over the man responsible for _The Postman_ when it comes to storytelling, thank you very much.




I find it telling that you love to harp on _The Postman_ when talking about Brin, somehow blaming him for the fact the Costner made a lousy movie based on his book. Given that the movie had almost nothing in common with the book other than a postapocalyptic setting in which a character impersonates a postman, the movie's weakness really doesn't do anything to damn Brin as a storyteller. Especially since the book, considered on its own, is a pretty good novel (actually, it is three pretty good novellas worked together as a novel, but that's neither here nor there). And it isn't even one of his best works.

If the worst thing you can say about an author is "one of his weaker books was made into a lousy movie nothing like the actual book itself", then your argument is pretty much an unconvincing one.



> _Brin's point is pure nonsense, just like Moorcock's, translated thusly: "Other works are bad because they are more successful and don't adhere to a the kind of juvenile Marxism I cling to."_




Except Brin doesn't cling to any kind of political philosphy like you ascibe to him. I can only imagine that you never bothered to actually read his books for you to come to such a conclusion.



> _For a point-by-point refutation of Brin's lies and stupidity:_




The "refutation" leaves much to be desired. It assumes things that don't appear to be true (i.e. only the Sith think the "special" should rule). Sure, the jedi council "officially" only advises the democratically elected government, but who actually decides the policy? It sure doesn't seem to be the assembly. Through the movies, the Jedi make all the decisions, and call all the shots. To the extent that the assembly does anything, it seems to just ratify the decisions the jedi have already made. The "Republic" when you really look at it, seems to be a democracy in form, but not in practice.


----------



## Storm Raven

Elfdart said:
			
		

> Since when is a movie review a legal brief? Using legalese in a movie review is the surest sign of the hack.




It is a word, in common usage, today, by large numbers of people. Perhaps you missed this.



> _Since you missed the link last time:_




No, I didn't miss the link. I read it. And guess what, the link is to an unpersuasive "refutation" that gets its facts wrong, makes unwarrented assumptions, and is basically irrelevant because of this.



> _That's just one shovelfull of lies from David Brin. The people in Star Wars who overthrow the Republic, claim the right to rule over the galaxy and so on are the villains. Now either David Brin is a complete imbecile who must also think the message in Schindler's List is "Nazis are Kewl!" or he's deliberately lying about the series._




And the people who support the Republic are just as elitist and confident that their birthright is to rule over the lesser denizens of the galaxy. They are just more subtle and clever about the way they go about it. The Jedi council was as much an undemocratically elected elite ruling the galaxy as the Sith who replaced them were. They were simply "benevolent" rulers (seriously, name any single instance other than confirming Palpatine as chancellor, in which the "democratically elected assembly" took any significant action that was not simply a rubber stamp of the decision of the Jedi council).



> _Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight -just as golf and football are both sports, so knocking Tiger Woods for his lack of touchdowns is a good comparison. _




I can say "I think Tiger Woods is a better golfplayer than Andre Ware is a football player, and thus a better sportsman". The analogy is apt here. Brin is a better writer of written fiction than George Lucas is a producer of movie fiction.



> _Seriously, if "Translating preferences from one genre to another is not absurd in any way, shape, or form." then why was Brin's one attempt (thank goodness!) at a movie such a laughable flop that nearly ruined Kevin Costner's acting career? If writing movies and writing novels are similar enough that it's not apples and oranges (or football and golf), surely the great David Brin would have succeeded, right?_




Except, of course, that Brin had almost nothing to do with the production of the movie. Eric Roth and Brian Helgeland were the screenwriters. Kevin Costner, Steve Tisch, and Jim Wilson produced the thing. Kevin Costner was the director. Note that none of those people are named David Brin. In point of fact, Brin was not in the cast or crew of the movie in any capacity. He is credited as the writer of the original novel, but he had _nothing_ to do with the movie that was made from it. So your argument falls apart like the house of cards that it is.

If you have an argument that stands up to investigation, make it.


----------



## Elfdart

dcas said:
			
		

> Well, then, that makes it clear that it is not merely a popularity contest, for if it were, then King would be at the top and Tolkien would be a few places down.
> 
> Tom Shippey points out that in the British polls that ranked Tolkien and LOTR #1, that so rankled the "literati," most of the writings that were ranked after Tolkien's were books that were generally taught in school (I'm listing from memory so I could be mistaken): _Catcher in the Rye_, _Lord of the Flies_, _Ulysses_, etc. Where _Lord of the Rings_ differs is that it is not frequently taught in school, and people are reading it by choice -- and it is the only book they are reading by choice that they are listing as great literature. Stephen King isn't listed, Tom Clancy isn't listed, etc.




I've always been of the opinion that the worst thing that can happen to a book and its author is to be included on a required reading list for school. Even the students who might otherwise like a book resent having it rammed down their throats. It's much better to discover a book on your own.


----------



## Elfdart

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The "refutation" leaves much to be desired. It assumes things that don't appear to be true (i.e. only the Sith think the "special" should rule).




It doesn't assume anything. It backs up its claims with actual quotes from the films. Brin's hatchetjob is a pack of lies.



> Sure, the jedi council "officially" only advises the democratically elected government, but who actually decides the policy? It sure doesn't seem to be the assembly.




Really? Who voted Valorum out of office? Who voted Palpatine as his successor? Who voted to give emergency powers to Palpatine? Who stood and applauded as Palpatine proclaimed himself Emperor? A hint: NOT THE JEDI!



> Through the movies, the Jedi make all the decisions, and call all the shots.




An outright lie.



> To the extent that the assembly does anything, it seems to just ratify the decisions the jedi have already made.




Another flat-out lie. You and David Brin must have watched a different version of Star Wars. Do you know where I can view it or could you at least quote the scenes in your Bizarro World version that back your false claims?



> The "Republic" when you really look at it, seems to be a democracy in form, but not in practice.




Oh it's a democracy allright. But like most democracies it gives in to corruption and despotism sooner or later.


----------



## Vigilance

Elfdart said:
			
		

> Really? Who voted Valorum out of office? Who voted Palpatine as his successor? Who voted to give emergency powers to Palpatine? Who stood and applauded as Palpatine proclaimed himself Emperor? A hint: NOT THE JEDI!




I don't think Brin's point is that the Jedi are a dictatorial power.

His point is that if the good guys need "supermen" (good ones to be sure) to save them from other "supermen" (evil ones) that the movie is elitist.

You see this trend in other works, THAT HE MENTIONS in the Salon article.

When a big-ass super-robot shows up in Metropolis, do the Metropolis PD and firefighters wage a desperate battle, showing their courage, grit and professionalism and save the day?

Nope, they hope Superman hurries up and gets there. 

Similarly, is it the rank and file army soldiers who wrestle a victory out of defeat in the Trojan war? Or is it individual acts of heroism and folly, all perpetrated by supermen (literally backed by the gods no less) that carries the day?

I would argue the latter, and it's hard to say these things aren't elitist.

That doesn't mean the people who write them, read them or watch them are horrible people. I love comics. But they're elitist by definition. They're about groups of (wait for it) elites!

Brin isn't saying that the Jedi are dictators too or that they're as bad the evil Empire they're fighting. In fact he's not even saying he dislikes the story Lucas is telling, cause he only waited a week to see the dang movie.

What he is saying is that the Old Republic is helpless on its own, using the rule of law and parliamentary procedures to combat the Sith. 

In other words, two groups of elites duking it out. Supervillain vs. superhero, man to man. 

Elitist. And fun. 

Chuck


----------



## Elfdart

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I don't think Brin's point is that the Jedi are a dictatorial power.




Then why does Brin write this bit of nonsense:



> By contrast, the oppressed "rebels" in "Star Wars" have no recourse in law or markets or science or democracy. *They can only choose sides in a civil war between two wings of the same genetically superior royal family. *They may not meddle or criticize. As Homeric spear-carriers, it's not their job.




The senior leaders of the Rebellion are all (with one exception) normal humans and aliens. The only one with any Jedi lineage is Leia, and she doesn't find until the night before the Empire gets overthrown. Luke commands a squadron of fighters. That's it. Of course, being dishonest as he is, Brin left out that the Rebellion is out to get rid of Palpatine and bring back the Republic. I defy anyone to cite a scene in the movies where Ben, Luke or Leia even hints about killing the Emperor and making themselves dictator. It's just another of Brin's lies.



> His point is that if the good guys need "supermen" (good ones to be sure) to save them from other "supermen" (evil ones) that the movie is elitist.




Then he's being stupid, isn't he?  

The Rebellion against Palpatine started before he proclaimed himself Emperor and no Jedi were involved (aside from a separate attempt by Mace Windu and three others to overthrow him) because they were killed before they had a chance to. 



> You see this trend in other works, THAT HE MENTIONS in the Salon article.
> 
> When a big-ass super-robot shows up in Metropolis, do the Metropolis PD and firefighters wage a desperate battle, showing their courage, grit and professionalism and save the day?




Because their "courage, grit and professionalism" add up to zilch when fighting something like a super-robot. _Patton_ didn't show a bunch of Cub Scouts saving the 101st Airborne at Bastogne. Not only would doing so be an insult to the 3rd Army and its commander, it's an insult to the intelligence of anyone who watches the movie since Cub Scouts couldn't have possibly defeated the SS while Allied armies could and did. 



> Nope, they hope Superman hurries up and gets there.




I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that it's a _Superman_ comic and not a Metropolis PD/FD comic. 



> Similarly, is it the rank and file army soldiers who wrestle a victory out of defeat in the Trojan war? Or is it individual acts of heroism and folly, all perpetrated by supermen (literally backed by the gods no less) that carries the day?




Achilles is killed by Paris. No divine parentage there. The Trojans are defeated because a mere mortal named Odysseus came up with the plan to get inside the city walls. Funny how you and Brin missed those parts, but then maybe you have your own version of the Iliad just as Storm Raven and Brin have their own version of Star Wars which they and they alone have seen. 



> I would argue the latter, and it's hard to say these things aren't elitist.
> 
> That doesn't mean the people who write them, read them or watch them are horrible people. I love comics. But they're elitist by definition. They're about groups of (wait for it) elites!




So someone who watches _Patton_ is an "elitist" since the movie portrays the Second World War from the point of view of the generals?   



> Brin isn't saying that the Jedi are dictators too or that they're as bad the evil Empire they're fighting. In fact he's not even saying he dislikes the story Lucas is telling, cause he only waited a week to see the dang movie.



That's exactly what he wrote.



> What he is saying is that the Old Republic is helpless on its own, using the rule of law and parliamentary procedures to combat the Sith.




In the Star Wars movies shown in theatres, cable and DVD, it's shown that with a few exceptions, the Old Republic doesn't combat the Sith at all. In fact, they beg Palpatine to stay in office past the end of his term and cheer him on as he turns the Republic into the Empire. If the version you watched showed something different, maybe you can tell me where to find a copy.



> In other words, two groups of elites duking it out. Supervillain vs. superhero, man to man.
> 
> Elitist. And fun.
> 
> Chuck




The Rebels are elites? Please cite the relevant scene in the movie that shows such a thing.


----------



## Elfdart

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No, I didn't miss the link. I read it. And guess what, the link is to an unpersuasive "refutation" that gets its facts wrong, makes unwarrented assumptions, and is basically irrelevant because of this.




Examples please.



> And the people who support the Republic are just as elitist and confident that their birthright is to rule over the lesser denizens of the galaxy.



An outright lie. Name the scene where those who support the Republic or Rebellion make such a claim.



> They are just more subtle and clever about the way they go about it. The Jedi council was as much an undemocratically elected elite ruling the galaxy as the Sith who replaced them were.



Another lie. The Jedi don't rule the Galaxy.



> They were simply "benevolent" rulers (seriously, name any single instance other than confirming Palpatine as chancellor, in which the "democratically elected assembly" took any significant action that was not simply a rubber stamp of the decision of the Jedi council).



Again, the Jedi don't rule the Galaxy. Give one example of the Senate rubber stamping a decision of the Jedi Council. There aren't any because the Jedi answer to the Republic and not the other way around. The only thing they control is internal Jedi matters and the rules of the order.



> I can say "I think Tiger Woods is a better golfplayer than Andre Ware is a football player, and thus a better sportsman". The analogy is apt here. Brin is a better writer of written fiction than George Lucas is a producer of movie fiction.




And you base this on what, exactly?



> If you have an argument that stands up to investigation, make it.



If you can make an honest argument, make it. You have made several claims that are demonstrably false and simply repeat David Brin's lies. You offer no evidence for your other claims. That's very dishonest, but typical for Brin and his apologists.


----------



## Vigilance

Elfdart said:
			
		

> Because their "courage, grit and professionalism" add up to zilch when fighting something like a super-robot. _Patton_ didn't show a bunch of Cub Scouts saving the 101st Airborne at Bastogne. Not only would doing so be an insult to the 3rd Army and its commander, it's an insult to the intelligence of anyone who watches the movie since Cub Scouts couldn't have possibly defeated the SS while Allied armies could and did.




Right. Now if Patton had done all the fighting HIMSELF, blowing up German tanks with his heat vision, then we'd have a good analogy.

Being the hero of a story isn't the same as being the SUPERHERO of the story. 



> I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that it's a _Superman_ comic and not a Metropolis PD/FD comic.




Right. Dude, there's nothing WRONG with this type of story. Jeebus dude. No one is saying superhero stories are bad, not even Brin.

He went. to see. the freaking. movie. 



> Achilles is killed by Paris. No divine parentage there.




Yeah, and the fact that Apollo guided his shot, that had nothing to do with it huh? The Iliad is a tale about super-heroes who's actions are guided by gods or blessed by gods. There's divine intervention everywhere in those tales, including efforts to keep Achilles alive (by Athena and Hephaestus) and ultimate to kill him (by Apollo). 



> The Trojans are defeated because a mere mortal named Odysseus came up with the plan to get inside the city walls. Funny how you and Brin missed those parts, but then maybe you have your own version of the Iliad just as Storm Raven and Brin have their own version of Star Wars which they and they alone have seen.




Uhhuh. 

Let's do a little geneaological digging here shall we?

Odysseus' father was Laertes, one of the Argonauts, sort of the classical version of the Avengers. So his dad hung out with Hercules and Jason.

Now Laertes' father (Odysseus' grandfather) was a guy named Arceisus. Nothing special there right? Well it turns out he was the son of Cephalus, who was descended from Hermes. 

Now Cephalus' father (Odysseus' great-great grandfather) is Aeolus who was either (according to who is being talked about and it isn't always clear) descended from either Hellen (who was descended from Zeus) or from Poseidon.

So, depending on how you want to parse the mythology, Odysseus either has the blood of Hermes and Zeus in his veins, or Hermes and Poseidon, or maybe just one of those three.

Either way, you're right, a toooooooooooooooootally normal guy Odysseus was. 

Damn you really blew me up there. Good thing I don't know anything about the Iliad huh. 



> So someone who watches _Patton_ is an "elitist" since the movie portrays the Second World War from the point of view of the generals?




No what I'm saying is if Patton didn't NEED his soldiers at all, in other words if he was a superhero who went out and felled tanks like wheat, if they had to convince him to fight to have ANY CHANCE of winning (like what happened in the Iliad, where Achilles deciding to fight turned the entire battle thanks to the participation one superhero who was choking rivers- literally according to Homer- with his kills).



> In the Star Wars movies shown in theatres, cable and DVD, it's shown that with a few exceptions, the Old Republic doesn't combat the Sith at all. In fact, they beg Palpatine to stay in office past the end of his term and cheer him on as he turns the Republic into the Empire. If the version you watched showed something different, maybe you can tell me where to find a copy.




The Old Republic is helpless to the sith, which is the point. Only the Jedi stand a chance. And yes the Sith in question is really smooth (Palpatine) so he snows people into thinking he's not a bad guy. That doesn't change the fact that the movie clearly portrays the Jedi as the ones (the only ones) with the power to stop him. 



> The Rebels are elites? Please cite the relevant scene in the movie that shows such a thing.




How about when Luke refuses to use his technological aiming device, instead relying on his superpowers to blow up the Death Star in Star Wars?

He doesn't need his technology (you know, the stuff all the non-superheroes have to use) because he has something better none of them understand. And he gets the advice to use his magic from a disembodied voice too, always handy. 

When his "superiors" in the rebel high command ask him what he's doing, he sort of tells them but basically brushes them off. 

That's an elite.

Luke is a superhero. Without Luke, they don't win. The only other guy who even got a shot missed because he had some lame targeting scanner, not a superpower. 

Oh and why did only one of the fighters get a shot? They were doing well against the Death Star's anti-spacecraft defenses.

Oh yeah, the supervillain took to space with his wingmen and felled them like wheat.

And yes, the supervillain is knocked out of the fight by a non-superhero. The normals do get lucky on occasion (though we see in the next movie how woefully inadequate Han is to face Vader when Vader knows he's there). 

But there's a fight between five superpowered characters at the heart of all 6 Star Wars movies: Vader, Palpatine, Obi Wan, Yoda (and later) Luke. No other character in the movie could stand up to any one of those.

We are shown this many times throughout the movies. In SW Obi Wan goes after Vader and the others run away (except for Han's one lucky sneak attack).

In Empire, Han gets a clear shot at Vader, who casually holds up his hand and waves it away. That's how different he is to the mundane characters. Luke does ok against him though- because he's also on that different level. 

In Jedi, Luke has surpassed Vader but Palpatine will kill him. Only Vader (and again by a little trickery) manages to off him. 

And btw, Vader, the same guy who could have killed Palpatine before any of this started by saving Mace.

In other words, the actions of the superheroes (the Jedi) decide the outcome of the entire war.

Five guys. Five elite guys.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Elfdart said:
			
		

> An outright lie.
> 
> Another flat-out lie. You and David Brin must have watched a different version of Star Wars. Do you know where I can view it or could you at least quote the scenes in your Bizarro World version that back your false claims?




A moderator has asked you to be civil and now you call someone on the board a liar?

You are banned for three days.


----------



## Mark Hope

Elfdart said:
			
		

> I've always been of the opinion that the worst thing that can happen to a book and its author is to be included on a required reading list for school. Even the students who might otherwise like a book resent having it rammed down their throats. It's much better to discover a book on your own.



Ironically enough, I pretty much agree with what Elfdart is saying here.  Studying literature used to largely ruin my appreciation of the book, poem or play concerned.  It wasn't because I resented having the book rammed down my throat, it was because the level of academic analysis that came with literature studies frequently pulled the book to pieces, leaving the reader with nothing but a collection of broken bits of over analysed text.  It was like the experience of taking a toy apart as a kid, only to find that the toy doesn't work any more once you put it back together.

(I experienced much the same thing with music.  As I progressed as a mucisian, I learned to play more and more of my favourite songs.  However, once I had dissected them and learned how they were put together, they weren't my favourites any more.  Something of the magic had gone.  So now I have a list of songs that I have promised myself that I will never learn to play.  Some are wonderful songs and I would actually quite like to be able to play them, but I know that the process of learning them will "break" them for me.)

On top of that, I also feel that some works of literature aren't meant to be analysed.  Just as we have seen in this thread with the comments on the Star Wars movies, if you look too deeply you can come up with something that was never intended to be there in the first place.  I'm sure that Lucas doesn't intend for his movies to be a lesson in ubermensch elitism, but those elements can be found if you look deeply enough.  Alternatively, so long as you are persuasive enough in your arguments, you can insert meaning where none exists.  There was a poem that I had to analyse once (_Usk_, iirc), and I was able to present it as a dyed-in-the-wool Arthurian allegory, mainly because I had been reading lots of Mary Stewart at the same time.  I have no idea if the poet intended for there to be any Arthurian elements in his poem at all, and I didn't really believe that there were.  But I was able to convince teachers and examiners that they were there for no good reason at all.  A bit daft, really.

I also had a teacher whose literature professor had been a student of T.S. Eliot.  According to him, Eliot had become so fed up with overly analytical critics that he had started inserting red-herring references into his poetry, specifically designed to confound and embarrass critics who thought that they had plumbed the hidden depths of his writing.  How many other authors thumb their noses at critics in the same way, I wonder?

Oh, and is no-one going to comment on my deeply insightful point about the Sith afterlife and glowy red spirits?  I am deeply, deeply offended...


----------



## dcas

Wayside said:
			
		

> And you realize, for example, that both Pearce and Shippey are academics?



Of course, I've never said nor implied that _all_ academics, or even a morally universal subset thereof, are Tolkien-haters. Nor do Pearce and Shippey.



> There is no "critical outrage"--which implies something widespread--just the occasional overzealous wahoo. If you collect the wahoos in one place you can certainly make it seem like academics are all a bunch of stuffy Tolkien haters, which I'm sure feeds the egos of a lot of Tolkien's fans inasmuch as it lets them believe they're sticking it to the man, but the whole issue is really a non-issue.



"Critical outrage" does not imply something widespread. It implies that there is outrage from the critics (and there was and is). The overzealous wahoos, and not the ones who pay little or no mind to the debate over Tolkien's place in literature, are the ones who are being quoted in the press (for better or worse as YMMV). It is the Germaine Greers who are cited by the media, not those indifferent to Tolkien and certainly not the Pearces and the Shippeys.


----------



## Storm Raven

Elfdart said:
			
		

> It doesn't assume anything. It backs up its claims with actual quotes from the films. Brin's hatchetjob is a pack of lies.




No, it doesn't. I assumes, for example (erroneously too), that "only the Sith believe that the special should rule". Viewing the movies cvlearly shows that the Jedi hold to this view too.



> _Really? Who voted Valorum out of office? Who voted Palpatine as his successor? Who voted to give emergency powers to Palpatine? Who stood and applauded as Palpatine proclaimed himself Emperor? A hint: NOT THE JEDI!_




Because they were opposed by another "superman". Every action taken by the "democratic" senate is a rubber stamp of the decisions made by one of the many "supermen" who appear in the movies. As Brin says, the denizens of the galaxy appear to be limited to a choice of which set of elites will rule.

You still don't have an argument that makes sense.


----------



## Flyspeck23

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> Oh, and is no-one going to comment on my deeply insightful point about the Sith afterlife and glowy red spirits?  I am deeply, deeply offended...




Don't be. I liked the idea. But it wasn't _your_ "deeply insightful point", it was your girlfriend's 

OTOH I merely wanted to read this thread as carnage unfolds... better not to post here, or else it might confuse the combatants...


----------



## dcas

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No, it doesn't. I assumes, for example (erroneously too), that "only the Sith believe that the special should rule". Viewing the movies cvlearly shows that the Jedi hold to this view too.



I don't believe that the Jedi hold this view. However, even if they do hold this view, _the Jedi are virtually destroyed_ in part because they are doing things (i.e., leading armies into battle to fight the Separatists) that they aren't supposed to be doing. So the movies themselves to not support the idea that only the elites should rule. By ROTJ, the elites are all destroyed, except for Luke and Leia, who do not seem poised to take over the galaxy.


----------



## Storm Raven

Elfdart said:
			
		

> Examples please.




For example, "only the Sith are interested in ruling the galaxy".



> _An outright lie. Name the scene where those who support the Republic or Rebellion make such a claim._




They don't _claim_ it, they are more subtle than that. They _act_ it. By their actions, the Republic and the Rebellion demonstrate their opinion that supermen are critical to have, and they should be deferred to.



> _Another lie. The Jedi don't rule the Galaxy._




You just don't want to see the Jedi for what they are: an elite oligarchy "benevolently" ruling over the lesser inhabitants of the galaxy.



> _Again, the Jedi don't rule the Galaxy. Give one example of the Senate rubber stamping a decision of the Jedi Council. There aren't any because the Jedi answer to the Republic and not the other way around. The only thing they control is internal Jedi matters and the rules of the order._




For example, making the clone army into the army of the republic, at Yoda's behest. However, for the most part, the Jedi don't even bother to ask the council. They just "do what is best" in their opinion.



> _And you base this on what, exactly?_




Well, I would base Tiger Wood's superiority on his superior record of accomplishment (numerous tournament titles, awards and so on), while Andre Ware was a backup quarterback with an entirely undistinguished record.

And to be quite precise here, the comparison of a golfer to a football player is not a good analogy overall. The comparison to Brin and Lucas would more aptly be a comparison between two football players who play different positions (i.e. they are in the same field, but do slightly different things).



> _If you can make an honest argument, make it. You have made several claims that are demonstrably false and simply repeat David Brin's lies. You offer no evidence for your other claims. That's very dishonest, but typical for Brin and his apologists._




Brin's observations are not lies, they are simply a view of the movie that is different than yours. Is it truly so important to you that Lucas, a second tier director and producer, and a third rate storyteller, be deified as having never made a misstep in his career? Brin takes his observations directly from the observed behaviour of the characters in the movies, and draws conclusions from them. That isn't lying, that is evaluating. I'm sorry that you disagree with him, but it doesn't make his evaluation "lies" (which seems to be your favorite word, as if repeating it _ad nauseum_ will make your flawed arguments gain traction).

And as long as we are talking about accuracy, I'm still waiting for you to show how, for example, Brin had anything to do with the production of the movie _The Postman_.


----------



## Mark Hope

Flyspeck23 said:
			
		

> Don't be. I liked the idea. But it wasn't _your_ "deeply insightful point", it was your girlfriend's



 
Well, the bit about the glowy red spirits was mine, but I didn't make that clear.  Oh well, my bad.  Serves me right from going against the words of She Who Must Be Obeyed, I guess, lol...



> OTOH I merely wanted to read this thread as carnage unfolds... better not to post here, or else it might confuse the combatants...



You can still throw peanuts from the gallery  .


----------



## dcas

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Well, I would base Tiger Wood's superiority on his superior record of accomplishment (numerous tournament titles, awards and so on), while Andre Ware was a backup quarterback with an entirely undistinguished record.



Then on what do you base Brin's superiority in the area of fiction? Yes, it is certainly the case that Tiger Woods is a better golfer than Andre Ware is a football player. But given that Lucas has as much accomplishment as a filmaker, or more, that Brin has as a writer of science fiction, what more evidence do you have to offer in favor of Brin's superiority except your own opinion?

Comparing Brin to Lucas is more like comparing Tiger Woods to Pete Sampras.


----------



## Storm Raven

dcas said:
			
		

> I don't believe that the Jedi hold this view. However, even if they do hold this view, _the Jedi are virtually destroyed_ in part because they are doing things (i.e., leading armies into battle to fight the Separatists) that they aren't supposed to be doing. So the movies themselves to not support the idea that only the elites should rule. By ROTJ, the elites are all destroyed, except for Luke and Leia, who do not seem poised to take over the galaxy.




The Jedi don't _say_ that they hold this view, but their actions demonstrate that they do. And the society they are part of does too. For example, when the army of the Republic is formed, do the Jedi take positions within the ranks as soldiers serving under commanders who are not Jedi? No, they immediately become an elite officer corps placed in charge of the war. They are granted this position as a result of their superman like abilities. They act without consulting the senate, and seem to act without accountability. While the Sith _say_ they are destined to rule, the Jedi _act_ like they are entitled to rule. At least the Sith get points for being honest about their views.


----------



## Gentlegamer

X-Rated Tolkien


----------



## Flyspeck23

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> You can still throw peanuts from the gallery  .




Huzzah!


----------



## Mark Hope

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> X-Rated Tolkien



Heh, interesting angle.  Although it calls Hurin an elf, when he's actually a man.  Otherwise a decent piece.


----------



## Storm Raven

dcas said:
			
		

> Then on what do you base Brin's superiority in the area of fiction? Yes, it is certainly the case that Tiger Woods is a better golfer than Andre Ware is a football player. But given that Lucas has as much accomplishment as a filmaker, or more, that Brin has as a writer of science fiction, what more evidence do you have to offer in favor of Brin's superiority except your own opinion?




Well, first off, there is my own opinion. The original comment that started this "football-golfer" thing was my statement that in my opinion Brin's fiction is superior to Lucas' fiction. So, really, at the outset, the question comes down to my preferences. I find the _Uplift_ universe, and the stories told relating to it, for example, to be much more interesting and enjoyable than the _Star Wars_ universe and the stories in it.

However, as far as an objective comparison is concerned, I would point to the fact that Brin has won mulitple Hugo and Nebula awards for his books, while the only Oscars or Golden Globes (reasonably comparable awards for his medium) Lucas has won have been for effects work, something that has little to do with the quality of the fiction in the movies. While Lucas has been nominated for awards, such as being nominated once as a best director nominee, he has also been nominated several more times as the worst director by the razzies.


----------



## dcas

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The Jedi don't _say_ that they hold this view, but their actions demonstrate that they do. And the society they are part of does too. For example, when the army of the Republic is formed, do the Jedi take positions within the ranks as soldiers serving under commanders who are not Jedi? No, they immediately become an elite officer corps placed in charge of the war. They are granted this position as a result of their superman like abilities. They act without consulting the senate, and seem to act without accountability. While the Sith _say_ they are destined to rule, the Jedi _act_ like they are entitled to rule. At least the Sith get points for being honest about their views.




Let us say that the Jedi do hold this view. The Jedi are all but destroyed and one can postulate (indeed, it is my view) that they are destroyed because they are doing things they shouldn't be doing (among them, being the supercops of the galaxy). So my point is that even if the Jedi believe that they are elites and this entitles them to rule the galaxy, the movies don't support this view because those who hold this view are ultimately destroyed.


----------



## Storm Raven

dcas said:
			
		

> Let us say that the Jedi do hold this view. The Jedi are all but destroyed and one can postulate (indeed, it is my view) that they are destroyed because they are doing things they shouldn't be doing (among them, being the supercops of the galaxy). So my point is that even if the Jedi believe that they are elites and this entitles them to rule the galaxy, the movies don't support this view because those who hold this view are ultimately destroyed.




Except that to succeed, the Rebellion, somehow, needs Luke. In other words, you have to have your own superman to counter the superman of the opposition. You still need the supermen, who are somehow "better" than everyone else and necessary for victory (no matter how silly and inconsequential their powers appear to be in an evironment involving a giant space battle). And Luke is stepped in the Jedi philosophy and training, which means that the Jedi side didn't "lose" after all. They overcame their Sith foes, and will continue.

The galaxy, in effect, seems to have the choice between lining up with Annakin, or his son. There is not really an option that is _neither_ Annakin or Luke, just one or the other. Choose which superman will lead you.


----------



## dcas

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Except that to succeed, the Rebellion, somehow, needs Luke.



Yes, but this still doesn't support the idea that elites rule the galaxy, since there is no sign from the movies that Luke intends to rule the galaxy. In fact Luke rejects ruling the galaxy at the end of _Empire_.


----------



## Storm Raven

dcas said:
			
		

> Yes, but this still doesn't support the idea that elites rule the galaxy, since there is no sign from the movies that Luke intends to rule the galaxy. In fact Luke rejects ruling the galaxy at the end of _Empire_.




He rejects ruling the Empire alongside Vader as father and son. That is different from rejecting ruling the Empire. Based on the information given in the _movies_ (leaving aside the numerous books written by people other than Lucas), we don't know what Luke does after the Rebellion succeeds (assuming that he and the rest of the Rebellion don't die as the debris from the destroyed Death Star makes the forest moon of Endor into a hellish radioactive wasteland). We do know that he is apparently to be guided by the ghosts of Annakin, Yoda, and Obi Wan Kenobi, and they seemed to think that the rightful place of those trained as Jedi was to be in control and manipulate others (right down to Yoda and Obi Wan's deception of Luke himself). I don't think it is too unexpected to see this as a message that the essential elite necessary to win will likely resume the role of the Jedi in the Republic of controlling things.


----------



## dcas

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I don't think it is too unexpected to see this as a message that the essential elite necessary to win will likely resume the role of the Jedi in the Republic of controlling things.



Why, if that was part of the reason that the Jedi were virtually destroyed in the first place?

As wrongheaded and naive as it might be, the movies _clearly_ favor modern-day democracy over any other political system.


----------



## Storm Raven

dcas said:
			
		

> Why, if that was part of the reason that the Jedi were virtually destroyed in the first place?




Because Obi Wan and Yoda, through their actions in the "second" trilogy (actually the first, the original ones) demonstrate that they still seem to adhere to the "old" way of thinking by manipulating people and exerting the same sort of control over everyone around them that the knights in the Republic period did.



> _As wrongheaded and naive as it might be, the movies clearly favor modern-day democracy over any other political system._




Not really. At best, one can say that they favor an aristocratically guided democracy. At worst one can say they favor a false democratic front used to hide a ruling oligarchy.


----------



## Gentlegamer

I think the "Jedi as Tyrants" discussion would make a better separate thread . . .


----------



## dcas

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Because Obi Wan and Yoda, through their actions in the "second" trilogy (actually the first, the original ones) demonstrate that they still seem to adhere to the "old" way of thinking by manipulating people and exerting the same sort of control over everyone around them that the knights in the Republic period did.



Even assuming that _this_ is true, Luke goes against their wishes (they wish for him to stay on Dagobah to complete his Jedi training), and the movie portrays this as an act of virtue. So Luke rejects this manipulation.



> Not really. At best, one can say that they favor an aristocratically guided democracy. At worst one can say they favor a false democratic front used to hide a ruling oligarchy.



I don't think so -- for the sole reason that the Jedi leading armies into battle is not portrayed as a good thing.


----------



## Vigilance

dcas said:
			
		

> Why, if that was part of the reason that the Jedi were virtually destroyed in the first place?




I dont think the Jedi are a dictatorial power in Lucas' eyes. They're the knights of the round table more than they are the samurai (though they are very eastern in many other respects- samurai were military dictators and the Jedi are not). 

I think the Jedi had become too calcified, too bound by tradition rather than something natural.

In Episode I we see Yoda living in a palace, surrounded by opulence, being carted around on hoverpads. The down to earth Jedi, Qui Gon, is not a leader of the Jedi because he speaks his mind too much.

Obi Wan's frustrated "but you'd be on the council already if only..." lets us know that politics has come to play a larger role in who leads the Jedi that knowledge of the force and wisdom.  There's a worm in the apple and that worm is one of the reasons why they don't see the dangers right in front of their eyes, both Anakin and Palpatine. 

Compare that to the rustic life he and Obi Wan are living in Episode IV- they are much simpler, much more down to earth. They are living like monks not kings. 

Remember that to the Jedi, Anakin bringing "balance" to the force was seen as a GOOD prophecy. They clearly speak of it that way throughout the films.

They don't realize that it IS a good thing but the balancing entails losing all the trappings of opulence. No thousands of super-men at the Jedi Council's beck and call.

The field has been burned so a new crop, planted by Luke can be planted.


----------



## Storm Raven

dcas said:
			
		

> Even assuming that _this_ is true, Luke goes against their wishes (they wish for him to stay on Dagobah to complete his Jedi training), and the movie portrays this as an act of virtue. So Luke rejects this manipulation.[/i]




And yet, still turns to them for advice and counsel, appearing to assume that their opinions matter. And, more disturbingly, when Luke rejects this manipulation, it is portrayed that this is because of, effectively, childish desires (his refusal to listen to Yoda concerning weapons in the tree, his disasterous attempt to confront Vader while unready, and so on). This portrays Luke as a headstrong, willful agent, not subject to good advice, or even guidance. How else would you describe the prototype of a tyrant?

I think the facts that these are protrayed as "good things" demonstrate Lucas' blind spot as to what his movies actually seem to promote. By harkening back to the myths and legends of epic heroes, Lucas tapped into a type of thinking that extolss those born to rule, and he plugged it into the story, not really considering the implications of what he was doing.



> _I don't think so -- for the sole reason that the Jedi leading armies into battle is not portrayed as a good thing._




And yet, the only alternative presented is the Sith. The denizens of the galaxy must line up with the Jedi or the Sith, deciding who gets to be the aristocratic elite.


----------



## Storm Raven

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I dont think the Jedi are a dictatorial power in Lucas' eyes. They're the knights of the round table more than they are the samurai (though they are very eastern in many other respects- samurai were military dictators and the Jedi are not).




And the Knights of the Round Table, for the most part, had their positions and power as a result of their birthright. Citing them as inspiration for the Jedi Council seems to me to reinforce Brin's point.


----------



## dcas

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I dont think the Jedi are a dictatorial power in Lucas' eyes. They're the knights of the round table more than they are the samurai (though they are very eastern in many other respects- samurai were military dictators and the Jedi are not).
> 
> I think the Jedi had become too calcified, too bound by tradition rather than something natural.
> 
> In Episode I we see Yoda living in a palace, surrounded by opulence, being carted around on hoverpads. The down to earth Jedi, Qui Gon, is not a leader of the Jedi because he speaks his mind too much.
> 
> Obi Wan's frustrated "but you'd be on the council already if only..." lets us know that politics has come to play a larger role in who leads the Jedi that knowledge of the force and wisdom.  There's a worm in the apple and that worm is one of the reasons why they don't see the dangers right in front of their eyes, both Anakin and Palpatine.
> 
> Compare that to the rustic life he and Obi Wan are living in Episode IV- they are much simpler, much more down to earth. They are living like monks not kings.
> 
> Remember that to the Jedi, Anakin bringing "balance" to the force was seen as a GOOD prophecy. They clearly speak of it that way throughout the films.
> 
> They don't realize that it IS a good thing but the balancing entails losing all the trappings of opulence. No thousands of super-men at the Jedi Council's beck and call.
> 
> The field has been burned so a new crop, planted by Luke can be planted.



Vigilance, I think you and I agree on the Star Wars. You have said it far more eloquently than I have, however.

I believe that the prophecy of 'balancing the Force' is fulfilled not only in the eventual destruction of the Sith (which seems to take place at the end of ROTJ), but also in the purgation of the Jedi order, as well (which takes place during ROTS).


----------



## Vigilance

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And the Knights of the Round Table, for the most part, had their positions and power as a result of their birthright. Citing them as inspiration for the Jedi Council seems to me to reinforce Brin's point.




Yep. There were even a few knights of the round table who started out farmers before their TRUE parentage was revealed. Once they were found to be of knightly stock (after proving themselves in battle) they were immediately knighted, sent on quests and in due course made knights of the Round Table themselves. 

There's a few direct analogues for Luke in Malory. 

I also agree with Brin totally that the Jedi, like Superman comics and the Greek heroes of the Iliad and the Knights of the Round Table are superheroes.

I also agree that superhero fiction is elitist by definition (just not in a perjorative way- the stories are about elites).

I just disagree with Brin that it's somehow pernicious (though I think he was just trying to make a point- he could only hold out a week before seeing the movies after all).


----------



## Aaron L

I remember reading that article about Star Wars before, and I thought it was as much bunk now as I did then.  When were the Jedi portrayed as ruling the Republic, or as anything other than glorified policemen?  I think people are injecting thier own prejudices into the story.


----------



## dcas

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> X-Rated Tolkien



What an inappropriately titillating title for that article.

I strongly doubt that 'The Children of Hurin' will ever be filmed.


----------



## Storm Raven

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I just disagree with Brin that it's somehow pernicious (though I think he was just trying to make a point- he could only hold out a week before seeing the movies after all).




I don't think a story involving supermen is in and of itself pernicious either. Otherwise, for example, one would find the _Iliad_ to be pernicious. I do, however,  think it is pernicious if people start taking it seriously, and the creator starts making political statements in the work.

When _Star Wars_ was about plucky rebel heroes fighting an evil empire with sword wielding wizards on either side, it was silly, but mostly harmless. When Lucas launched the second series and started making big political issues a key element of the story, it changed the tone of the works (and cast what had been reasonably innocent silliness in the earleri films into a more serious, and sinister light). When he began having characters debate (however woodenly and clumsily) the merits of dictatorship and democracy, he began to make the narrative not about pulp superheroes, but rather about the nature of government, and which is "good" and which is "evil". Consequently, when people began looking at the government he tagged as "good", many found some disturbing things there.

Now, I don't think this was the result of intentional deviousness on the part of Lucas. I don't think he advocates a society in which elite supermen chosen by birth rule over the masses. But that is what his movies appear to portray. I think this results from cluelessness on the part of Lucas as to the effect of mixing a traditional hero myth based on influences like the _Iliad_, the Arthurian cycle and so on, with a more modern political intrigue story. I think the anti-democratic message of the movies stems from Lucas' storytelling ineptitude, and not his conscious choice.


----------



## Mark Hope

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> When _Star Wars_ was about plucky rebel heroes fighting an evil empire with sword wielding wizards on either side, it was silly, but mostly harmless. When Lucas launched the second series and started making big political issues a key element of the story, it changed the tone of the works (and cast what had been reasonably innocent silliness in the earleri films into a more serious, and sinister light). When he began having characters debate (however woodenly and clumsily) the merits of dictatorship and democracy, he began to make the narrative not about pulp superheroes, but rather about the nature of government, and which is "good" and which is "evil". Consequently, when people began looking at the government he tagged as "good", many found some disturbing things there.



Agreed.  Most blatant of this was his "only the Sith deal in absolutes" sequence towards the end of RotS.  In that case, it happens to be a decent point, imho, but it does illustrate the larger issue of polticised content in the later movies.



> Now, I don't think this was the result of intentional deviousness on the part of Lucas. I don't think he advocates a society in which elite supermen chosen by birth rule over the masses. But that is what his movies appear to portray. I think this results from cluelessness on the part of Lucas as to the effect of mixing a traditional hero myth based on influences like the _Iliad_, the Arthurian cycle and so on, with a more modern political intrigue story. I think the anti-democratic message of the movies stems from Lucas' storytelling ineptitude, and not his conscious choice.



Yes, it certainly seems to be a classic example of Lucas' clumsiness than any political deviousness on his part.  Unless, of course, everything is transpiring according to his design, and only now, at the end, do we understand...


----------



## Mark Hope

dcas said:
			
		

> What an inappropriately titillating title for that article.
> 
> I strongly doubt that 'The Children of Hurin' will ever be filmed.



It would be kinda cool if it were, though.  It remains my favourite tale in the _Silmarillion_.  Battles, murder, swordplay and a kickass dragon.  Plus an intelligent black sword - what more can you ask for?

The only real way it could be improved, imho, is if they replace the sword's lines with something even cooler.  Say, something along the lines of "Farewell, friend.  I was a thousand times more evil than thou," might be pretty neat.  Y'think?


----------



## Darth Shoju

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> He rejects ruling the Empire alongside Vader as father and son. That is different from rejecting ruling the Empire. Based on the information given in the _movies_ (leaving aside the numerous books written by people other than Lucas), we don't know what Luke does after the Rebellion succeeds (assuming that he and the rest of the Rebellion don't die as the debris from the destroyed Death Star makes the forest moon of Endor into a hellish radioactive wasteland). We do know that he is apparently to be guided by the ghosts of Annakin, Yoda, and Obi Wan Kenobi, and they seemed to think that the rightful place of those trained as Jedi was to be in control and manipulate others (right down to Yoda and Obi Wan's deception of Luke himself). I don't think it is too unexpected to see this as a message that the essential elite necessary to win will likely resume the role of the Jedi in the Republic of controlling things.




Except that this is still just speculation. Considering the movies alone, we could also speculate that if Luke intended to rebuild the Jedi Order as it once was he would have been shown beginning to do so. One could compare the Jedi Order to the Knights Templar; an order of religious warriors/knights who used their power to become far too involved in politics and thus play a part in their own downfall.

I'd tend to agree that the Old Republic allows the Jedi Order too much autonomy. This could be due in part to their fear of the powers of the Jedi and in part to the convenience of having a super-powered police force to enforce the peace of a gigantic and cumbersome inter-planetary alliance and bloated bureaucracy. The Jedi seem to become used to having this authority and become arrogant and complacent. This allows for the rise of the Sith, the birth and fall of the Empire and the deaths of millions of innocents. 

Obi-wan and Yoda seem to display a profound regret over the role of the Jedi Order in the Old Republic throughout episodes IV-VI. They don't seem to be teaching from a position of divine mandate rather than experience and regret. One could say that Obi-wan, Yoda and Luke are on a mission to attone for the sins of the Order. By destroying Palpatine (and even more so Vader) they are destroying the monsters of their own creation. In fact Vader can be seen as the ultimate embodiment of the arrogance and elitism of the Jedi Order. Since Luke is prophesized as the one to "bring balance to the force", it can just as easily be speculated that he *won't* return the Jedi Order to the same role it once bungled. I can easily see Luke returning the Jedi to the role of religious order it once was. 

Ultimately it could be said that reliance on these "supermen" led to the fall of the Republic and the deaths of millions. Since Jedi are seen being killed by regular-old blasters by the dozens in RoTS and AoTC, they can hardly been seen as unassailable by regular joes. That being said, perhaps the New Republic learns from the mistakes of Old Republic and will not succumb to the will of the "cosmic supermen" again. 

But honestly, I'd say this level of analysis is going far deeper than the movies were intended. Much like the D&D alignment system in a Paladin morality thread.


----------



## dcas

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> The only real way it could be improved, imho, is if they replace the sword's lines with something even cooler.  Say, something along the lines of "Farewell, friend.  I was a thousand times more evil than thou," might be pretty neat.  Y'think?




Yeah, it would be teh awesome.  

I wonder if it will include Hurin and Morwen's meeting at the grave of Turin?


----------



## Storm Raven

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> Except that this is still just speculation. Considering the movies alone, we could also speculate that if Luke intended to rebuild the Jedi Order as it once was he would have been shown beginning to do so. One could compare the Jedi Order to the Knights Templar; an order of religious warriors/knights who used their power to become far too involved in politics and thus play a part in their own downfall.




I consider the most frightening element of the series the fact that Luke is portrayed as a headstrong and willful boy who refuses to listen to others and constantly places his own wants and desires above those of anyone else. Given that he is, presumably, the founder of the "new Jedi", this personality seems to me to be the germs of a superman tyrant.



> _I'd tend to agree that the Old Republic allows the Jedi Order too much autonomy. This could be due in part to their fear of the powers of the Jedi and in part to the convenience of having a super-powered police force to enforce the peace of a gigantic and cumbersome inter-planetary alliance and bloated bureaucracy. The Jedi seem to become used to having this authority and become arrogant and complacent. This allows for the rise of the Sith, the birth and fall of the Empire and the deaths of millions of innocents.
> 
> Obi-wan and Yoda seem to display a profound regret over the role of the Jedi Order in the Old Republic throughout episodes IV-VI. They don't seem to be teaching from a position of divine mandate rather than experience and regret. One could say that Obi-wan, Yoda and Luke are on a mission to attone for the sins of the Order. By destroying Palpatine (and even more so Vader) they are destroying the monsters of their own creation. In fact Vader can be seen as the ultimate embodiment of the arrogance and elitism of the Jedi Order. Since Luke is prophesized as the one to "bring balance to the force", it can just as easily be speculated that he *won't* return the Jedi Order to the same role it once bungled. I can easily see Luke returning the Jedi to the role of religious order it once was._




Well, their regret in IV-VI seems mostly to take the form of "we made mistakes training Vader and he turned against the Jedi". I don't recall an instance in which either Obi Wan or Yoda say something to the effect of "we, the Jedi, became arrogant and our involvement in running the galaxy led to the downfall of the Republic".

Actually, Obi Wan says a lot of things that seem to point in the opposite direction - the Republic _needed_ the knights to function, and once Vader slew them all, the Republic fell apart. The days of the Republic were good times, and if only things would go back to the way they were everything would be better. And so on.

Given that the two Jedi we know who survived took it upon themselves to hide Vader's twins, and then conceal the truth from those twins (and actively lie to them, as Obi Wan does concerning his parentage), it seems that they _didn't_ learn the lessons people want to ascribe to them, but rather seem to be comfortable trying to continue to control and manipulate events to suit their own desires.


----------



## Storm Raven

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> But honestly, I'd say this level of analysis is going far deeper than the movies were intended. Much like the D&D alignment system in a Paladin morality thread.




Of the orignal series, I'd say this is true. But the new series, with its focus on trade negotiations, political intrigue, and the nature of good government seems to invite such analysis. And frankly, it doesn't look very good when exposed to the light.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> I think the "Jedi as Tyrants" discussion would make a better separate thread . . .



Yes, please.


----------



## Raven Crowking

So, does anyone have an opinion concerning Moorcock and Tolkien?


----------



## Mark Hope

Well, something that I was wondering about the other day is their respective success on the silver screen.  The LotR movies have done staggeringly well - pulled loads at the box office and won plenty of Oscars to boot.  They are very popular films.

An Elric movie is in the works, covering the main events of the novels _Elric of Melnibone_ and _The Dreaming City_ (although its progress is somewhat stalled at present, it seems).  Assuming that it makes it to the silver screen and manages to be a decent representation of the material (Moorcock has said that the screenplay has been written to ensure an exciting movie, as opposed to a slavish reproduction of the novels), does anyone think that it will be as big a hit as LotR?

That's something of a rhetorical question, to a certain degree, because it seems pretty clear that it won't.  Even as dedicated an Elric fan as myself would have to admit that the story doesn't have the same mass appeal as LotR.  But to what degree might it hold its own?  Might an Elric movie (or series of movies, given that the plan is to film the main elements of the saga) be able to carve a respectable niche for themselves?  How might the Prince of Ruins fare as a movie star?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Well, if they have him played by Keanu Reeves....   

"Stormbringer...?  Woah!"


----------



## Mark Hope

"Stormbringer, no way dude!  You totally killed him!!  Bogus!"


----------



## WayneLigon

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> Ultimately it could be said that reliance on these "supermen" led to the fall of the Republic and the deaths of millions.




A lot of the confusion and silliness in this thread can be laid at the feet of taking Lucas at his word and treating his works as the absolute last word on canon. He's not the most _consistant _ writer in the world; he makes mistakes, he lays down the law of how certain abilities work and then changes his mind when it's not convenient. He says one thing, does another, and means something else. Y'all are assuming he thinks things through in a logical way, and that's been shown not to be the case. No wonder there are these dog-eat-dog arguements.


----------



## WayneLigon

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> That's something of a rhetorical question, to a certain degree, because it seems pretty clear that it won't.  Even as dedicated an Elric fan as myself would have to admit that the story doesn't have the same mass appeal as LotR.  But to what degree might it hold its own?  Might an Elric movie (or series of movies, given that the plan is to film the main elements of the saga) be able to carve a respectable niche for themselves?  How might the Prince of Ruins fare as a movie star?




I'm uncertain just how well the world of Elric would translate to the silver screen. Elric himself is certainly not a very likeable or identifiable  character from what I remember, and that would be key to any sort of film success. It's been a long time since I read the books, though. I could see it doing moderately well, simply because it is so different from most fantasy fare - I've usually seen it identified as a conscious reaction to and rejection of all the various fantasy genre tropes that came before it.


----------



## Rackhir

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I'm uncertain just how well the world of Elric would translate to the silver screen. Elric himself is certainly not a very likeable or identifiable  character from what I remember, and that would be key to any sort of film success. It's been a long time since I read the books, though. I could see it doing moderately well, simply because it is so different from most fantasy fare - I've usually seen it identified as a conscious reaction to and rejection of all the various fantasy genre tropes that came before it.




Likeability doesn't have a lot to do with success in films aside from trying to sell them to movie executives who adore that sort of thing. Nasty, mean and unpleasant characters have succeeded in a lot of films, IF the movie and the characters were well done. 

Unfortunately, quality is much harder to achieve than likeability and more difficult to determine as well, which is probably why Movie Executives tend to favor likeability over quality.


----------



## Mark Hope

Depending on how the films are put together, the mythic, tragic elements could come across quite well and counteract Elric's apparent unlikeability.  (Although, fwiw, I'm not sure that he is all that unlikeable.  There is a certain wry humour to his attitude that could come across quite well in combination with his more doom-laden maudlin moods).

If the first film combines the elements of _Elric of Melnibone_ and _The Dreaming City_, the film begins with the unsuccesful invasion of Imrryr and Yyrkoon's betrayal of Elric.  The hunt for Stormbringer and Moonblade (along with Rackhir's help) then follow, with the film climaxing with Elric's decision to lead a barbarian fleet against his own people and sack the Dreaming City.  

The film would, by necessity need to address (or compact) Elric's year of wandering and Yyrkoon's placing of Cymoril in her enchanted slumber, but with that consideration it makes for a pretty good arc.  It takes Elric from disenchanted emperor to vengeful destroyer and kinslayer, via a couple of runesword en route.  From that perspective, I'd think that the audience could very well buy in to sympathy for Elric and his predicament, as well as experience a vicarious thrill at his revenge and the subsequent tragic death of Cymoril.

_Stormbringer_ itself makes a natural finale for the series and would take a whole film to do justice.  If the studios take the tried-and-tested (if predictable) trilogy format, some serious work would need to be done with the middle of the story.  It is in those years that some of Elric's strangest adventures take place.  Moonglum's introduction would go some way to engaging the audience here (he isn't in the first film by all accounts) and presumably something could be made of Tanelorn.  The middle years, while some of the most revealing and enjoyable in the books, seem more problematic from a film perspective.


----------



## Darth Shoju

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I'm uncertain just how well the world of Elric would translate to the silver screen. Elric himself is certainly not a very likeable or identifiable  character from what I remember, and that would be key to any sort of film success. It's been a long time since I read the books, though. I could see it doing moderately well, simply because it is so different from most fantasy fare - I've usually seen it identified as a conscious reaction to and rejection of all the various fantasy genre tropes that came before it.




I'd have to agree with you, which is why I compared Star Wars to the D&D alignment system: neither one holds up under the rigors of close scrutiny. As has been pointed out in this thread, much of mythology is also difficult to analyse in this fashion. I'd say in many ways Tolkien's works have the same problem; not surprising since he was building a mythology of his own. While I'd argue that LoTR is much deeper than Star Wars, there's still a breaking point where you've taken it apart too much. 

Something else that has rankled me has been the assertation at some points in this thread that JRRT was a BAD writer. Certainly he was no Joyce or Shakespeare or Tolstoy, but he is far from being a *bad* writer. If you want to see bad writers there are plenty of those to go around. 

But one thing this thread has proven to me is that I must read more of Moorecock's work. I've really only ever read a Stormbringer comic by Darkhorse that I don't think did him justice. The movie sounds interesting. What details are there to go around? Is the script just in development or are there names attached to the film as well?


----------



## Mark Hope

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> Something else that has rankled me has been the assertation at some points in this thread that JRRT was a BAD writer. Certainly he was no Joyce or Shakespeare or Tolstoy, but he is far from being a *bad* writer. If you want to see bad writers there are plenty of those to go around.



Robert Vardeman - _War of Powers_ series!  The lizardman with two, er, "swords" gets my vote as iconic fantasy character of the millennium 



> But one thing this thread has proven to me is that I must read more of Moorecock's work. I've really only ever read a Stormbringer comic by Darkhorse that I don't think did him justice.



Well, you certainly have plenty to choose from, lol.  Del Rey are releasing a "definitive" series of Elric editions starting next year, so those would be worth a look.  I've read the Topps version of _Stormbringer_, which was not bad, but still doesn't compare to the book (which, as a purely personal opinion, is my favourite fantasy book evar).



> The movie sounds interesting. What details are there to go around? Is the script just in development or are there names attached to the film as well?



According to what Moorcock says, the screenplay has been completed and the film has been costed (so the studios, Universal iirc, know how much they will need to spend on it).  So far no casting has been done, but the Weitz brothers have been named as directors.  Moorcock wrote the screenplay with them (he has managed to retain a solid degree of creative control over the project) and has said that they are very passionate about the material and want it "done right".  They have a bit of a hit-miss track record, but as Peter Jackson has shown, respect and passion for the material goes a looong way in producing a quality end result.  The Weitz brothers are apparently busy with the movie version of Pullman's _His Dark Materials_ at the moment, though, so I dunno where the Elric movie is at in terms of further development.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Well, if they have him played by Keanu Reeves....
> 
> "Stormbringer...?  Woah!"




I'd like to see Paul Bettany in that role - considering his recent roles (including an albino killer) and his physique, I'd think he would be perfect!


----------



## Mark Hope

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'd like to see Paul Bettany in that role - considering his recent roles (including an albino killer) and his physique, I'd think he would be perfect!



I agree - after seeing _A Knight's Tale_, he seemed a fine choice.  But I did wonder if he could be persuaded to play another albino after the one he played in _DaVinci Code_.  It might work against the role - but then again, it might strengthen the image.  Not sure how it would come across.  Jude Law has also been mentioned as a possibility (along with dozens of others in a slew of Elric casting threads at multiverse.org - not quite as bad as the Dragonlance casting threads, but in a similar vein ).


----------



## Celtavian

comrade raoul said:
			
		

> The reason they do this is that in general, the political, moral, or emotional significance of an action does not _just_ depend on what I intend to do when I act. Suppose Jones is a sweet, lovely person who was nonetheless brought up in a racist society. Jones makes a movie--and lots of people see it--that depicts black people as lazy, stupid, frequently submissive, and in many cases sexually ravenous. Jones might have made the movie thinking that he was honestly and even sympathetically depicting his characters--he might not have even _thought_ of black people in racist terms. (Insofar as Jones is a racist at all, his racism, let's say, is _entirely subconscious_.) Shouldn't we at least criticize Jones' _movie_ as a racist movie, even though Jones didn't mean it as such?





Your supposition is baseless when applied to a fantasy tale. It shows that modern folk overly politicize stories that have no modern application. _Lord of the Rings_ is a fantasy tale, period.

If someone includes the material you stated, then that automatically politicizes the work. Anytime you depict a real group of people in a particular manner and do so with the idea that you truly believe all people of that type are that way, you politicize your own work.

Tolkien did nothing of the kind. There is no comparison. Your supposition is absurb, baseless, and indefensible in the context of Tolkien's work. Any attributions you make are baseless as Tolkien was well aware that his work did not apply to real life and explained this in the foreward to _Lord of the Rings_. 

Authors can, have, and continue to tell tales that have absolutely no political, social, or religious significance just to tell an entertaining tale. It is people like yourself who try to force into their stories a greater meaning than was intended. I myself, as a person who enjoys writing, find it irritating. If I write a story that includes elements that compare to real life, I do so for the sole purpose of telling a story that a real person can relate to. It for the most part isn't intended to adjust another person's worldview, it is intended as an element to drive the story.

I tire of pseudo-intellectuals in society attempting to attribute greater things to artistic works. They are artistic works, not all done to influence society. Most of them are in fact created for entertainment. If some foolish person wants to tie more into them than they should, that is due to their own short comings rather than the short comings of the author.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> Robert Vardeman - _War of Powers_ series!  The lizardman with two, er, "swords" gets my vote as iconic fantasy character of the millennium




LOL never heard of that one. There are a few D&D novels that I've read that have to fall into the category of bad though.



			
				Mark Hope said:
			
		

> According to what Moorcock says, the screenplay has been completed and the film has been costed (so the studios, Universal iirc, know how much they will need to spend on it).  So far no casting has been done, but the Weitz brothers have been named as directors.  Moorcock wrote the screenplay with them (he has managed to retain a solid degree of creative control over the project) and has said that they are very passionate about the material and want it "done right".  They have a bit of a hit-miss track record, but as Peter Jackson has shown, respect and passion for the material goes a looong way in producing a quality end result.  The Weitz brothers are apparently busy with the movie version of Pullman's _His Dark Materials_ at the moment, though, so I dunno where the Elric movie is at in terms of further development.




Cool. Sounds encouraging. Thanks! Now I'll have to make sure I've read some Elric before seeing it.

What stories would you guys recommend to a Moorcock n00b? A primer of his work if you will...Elric and otherwise?


----------



## Celtavian

*re*



			
				comrade raoul said:
			
		

> Yes. I think everything you say is absolutely right. But there's an intermediate position here. One can recognize that we should still read, appreciate, and study books with reprehensible politics, but one might also argue that we should still try to expose any political commitments latent in a text, and explicitly engage those commitments as part of our experience of reading. Doing this might be very important: one might argue that art can be very seductive, and a capable writer (I do think Tolkien is a capable writer in this sense) can make a reader sympathetic to certain political attitudes without the reader or even, in some cases, the writer, knowing exactly what's going on. If this argument is right, then doing this becomes _especially_ important for very prominent writers like Tolkien or Lewis, who reach a huge number of people, often on profound levels and when they are very young.




You would be a fool to allow a work of fiction to influence your politics. The entire idea is obnoxious and presupposes that human beings are that foolish. If works of fiction influenced politics, we wouldn't have the systems we have today.

What your idea presupposes is that a person can't imagine a different world, a fantastic world, with certain romantic ideas without himself believing in the politics of the world. That is a very ignorant idea to put forth that is easily proven wrong.


----------



## Celtavian

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I have the same feelings about Robert E. Howard and Edgar Rice Burroughs.  They were people of their times, and reading their work is both fun and instructional (both in D&D and writing terms), but there is a racist slant to both authors.  Sometimes, I think, Burroughs was aware of this slant and tried to fight it, but ultimately he was mired in it.
> 
> Still love the books, though.
> 
> OTOH, I don't think that the same can be said of Tolkein.  Or at least, not to the same degree.  It seems to me that Tolkein ascribed equal value to people, but that he didn't consider them to fit into the same roles in the world.  He seemed to think that, for example, some people were better suited by birth to be kings, but that kings themselves were of no greater worth (having only a different social role) than farmers.
> 
> RC




Tolkien himself did not necessarily believe that. Let me use myself as an example, I am writing a story that includes the idea of a particular bloodline ruling a particular kingdom as ordained by a single god. 

Reading this work, one might conclude that I a am a religious person who believes blood lineage is of great importance. When you actually found out that I am somewhat agnostic person who doesn't believe in any of the world religions and strongly disagrees with any idea that a person is born to greatness, what could you say then? Nothing.

Tolkien mined ideas from romantic mythology where such beliefs are prevalent. He did so because a part of his mind liked the idea, not because he believed in them politically. 

As a more extreme example, it would be like Quentin Tarantino believing that mass murder is cool because he makes some very violent movies. There are certain things he enjoys about such scenes, but he himself does not in anyway engage in his character's behaviors or encourage others to do so. He just likes to make cool movies. Though is sounds a bit rude to attribute such words to Tolkien, I would say Tolkien wanted to write a "cool" book.

Fiction, and art, does not drive the politics of the world. It never has. It is only relevant to a those who study such workds who enjoy discussing the political and cultural significance of certain works of art. To most humans, including myself, works of fiction, be it books, movies, or music are just to read, watch or listen to. I use reason to determine my course in politics and other areas that might require me to make a moral decision. I do so with as many of the facts in hand as I can obtain without opening my Tolkien book or any book for that matter other than one that might cover the situation in a non-fictional manner to make my decisions.


----------



## Flyspeck23

Celtavian said:
			
		

> If someone includes the material you stated, then that automatically politicizes the work. Anytime you depict a real group of people in a particular manner and do so with the idea that you truly believe all people of that type are that way, you politicize your own work.
> 
> Tolkien did nothing of the kind. There is no comparison. Your supposition is absurb, baseless, and indefensible in the context of Tolkien's work. Any attributions you make are baseless as Tolkien was well aware that his work did not apply to real life and explained this in the foreward to _Lord of the Rings_.



To quote Tolkien: "The dwarves of course are quite obviously - wouldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews?" (Link).




> I tire of pseudo-intellectuals in society attempting to attribute greater things to artistic works. They are artistic works, not all done to influence society. Most of them are in fact created for entertainment. If some foolish person wants to tie more into them than they should, that is due to their own short comings rather than the short comings of the author.



It all depends on what you consider "art".  And I'd say that even if a given object perceived as art was made for entertainment purpose _only_, that'd say alot about the art and the artist. Among other things it tells me that the artists is delusional about his/her work.

Isn't ever interaction in human society a way to influence society, however slightly? Even if I just want to entertain you, I'm still deciding _how_ (in which way, on what topics, in which words, ...) to entertain you, and _why_ (because I like you, I want to make money, I've got a point to make, I've got too much spare time, ...). Those decisions might be conscious or not.




			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> You would be a fool to allow a work of fiction to influence your politics. The entire idea is obnoxious and presupposes that human beings are that foolish. If works of fiction influenced politics, we wouldn't have the systems we have today.



But?

You'd be a fool to discard all literature as entertainment (only). Which of course you're not   




> What your idea presupposes is that a person can't imagine a different world, a fantastic world, with certain romantic ideas without himself believing in the politics of the world. That is a very ignorant idea to put forth that is easily proven wrong.



So those "romantic ideas" are coming out of thin air, and the author has no influence on which ideas to use, and how?

What you're saying is that art can't be held responsible for its content (if only it's fantasy). Frankly, I don't believe that.


----------



## Umbran

Celtavian said:
			
		

> You would be a fool to allow a work of fiction to influence your politics. The entire idea is obnoxious and presupposes that human beings are that foolish. If works of fiction influenced politics, we wouldn't have the systems we have today.
> 
> What your idea presupposes is that a person can't imagine a different world, a fantastic world, with certain romantic ideas without himself believing in the politics of the world. That is a very ignorant idea to put forth that is easily proven wrong.





After what has gone on in this thread, I would expect better than this.  Politics, and sidelong attempts to call another person foolish and ignorant for having ideas other than your own.

While there is still other good discussion going on here, it has been sufficiently shown that the people in it cannot avoid this creep.  I'm sorry, but it is time this thread closed.

If you have any questions, please take it to e-mail.  The mods addresses can be found in a post stickied to the top of the Meta Forum


----------

