Michael Moorcock interview in New Statesman (Epic Pooh Redux, now with extra Martin)

[The Marquis de Leech]

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2015/07/michael-moorcock-i-think-tolkien-was-crypto-fascist

 

“I think he’s a crypto-fascist,” says Moorcock, laughing. “In Tolkien, everyone’s in their place and happy to be there. We go there and back, to where we started. There’s no escape, nothing will ever change and nobody will ever break out of this well-­ordered world.”

 

I suspect Moorcock is trolling at this point (with usage of crypto, for extra sophistication). Suffice to say that neither Bilbo, nor Frodo, nor Sam, nor Merry, nor Pippin comes back the same. In Frodo's case, the change is such that he can no longer live in the Shire.

 

“To me, it’s simple,” he says. “Fantasy became as bland as everything else in entertainment. To be a bestseller, you’ve got to rub the corners off. The more you can predict the emotional arc of a book, the more successful it will become.

“I do understand that Game of Thrones is different. It has its political dimensions; I’m very fond of the dwarf and I’m very pleased that George [R R Martin], who’s a good friend, has had such a huge success. But ultimately it’s a soap opera. In order to have success on that scale, you have to obey certain rules. I’ve had conversations with fantasy writers who are ambitious for bestseller status and I’ve had to ask them, ‘Yes, but do you want to have to write those sorts of books in order to get there?’”

I wonder if Moorcock has read Bakker. Based off the above, I'd actually doubt it.

 

 

[ChillyPolly]

I read Epic Pooh long ago.  It is phony nonsense from beginning to end, with a heavy dose of ultracynicism.  Moorcock is a mediocrity who uses his ultracynicism as his claim to superiority.  His answer to the question "Why can't we have nice, pleasant, things" is because it is "childish" to like nice, pleasant, things!  His strategy towards people who like Tolkien is to insult them as people who never grew up.  Which is not very mature behavior.

[Darth Richard II]

Well, I've always held the opinion that Moorcock can't write and all his work is shit, so, this doesn't really upset me that much.

[Tears of Lys]

When one can't do one criticizes those who can.

Moorcock can fuck off, IMHO. Tolkien created a fantasy world so real that you want to be born there and/or die there. People who have done anything even approaching this accomplishment are truly few and far between.

I've read threads about this asshat over the years on this forum and have been silent on the subject. Now you know how I feel about Moorcock.

ETA: And another thing: I think he brings up Tolkien just to stay relevant. Tolkien's name will live through the ages. Moorcock is Salieri beside him.

[slant]

ow. I like Tolkein and Moorcock, and agree with what Moorcock said in Epic Pooh. 

Tolkein started with the languages, and the rest of the Legendarium came about to explain the evolution of the various languages.

Moorcock critiqued it as a fairy tale. 

 

GoT is a soap opera. 

[Howdyphillip]

 Ironically, the two writers that probably had the biggest influence on my young life was Tolkien and Moorcock. Both of these writers were able to tell me stories that set my young mind on fire with possibilities. Tolkien dealt with absolutes, while Moorcock wrote more on ambiguous lines. Both ideologies are solid ways to frame a story.  

[slant]

yes. Please compare On Fairy stories by Tolkein to Epic Pooh by Moorcock.

they are two totally different approaches. Tolkein is about worldbuilding and meticulous crafting, Moorcock is about human conflicts and resolving them. It explores what being a hero means under various circumstances. Tolkein is not concerned with a deeper meaning, other than total immersion and perfect accuracy. Moorcock explores various epic and heroic themes with his characters, with little concern about tying them all together in a consistent story.

GRRM with ASOIAF seems to have brought these two kinds of fantasy together 

[Jo498]

Tolkien is not a crypto-fascist, but an obvious and open (catholic) conservative. This might appear somewhat similar to a late 20th century cynic but is actually very different.

 

Here's a rather sympathetic "marxist" analysis, not all that deep either but more interesting than Moorcock

 

http://johnmolyneux.blogspot.co.at/2011/09/tolkiens-world-marxist-analysis.html

[Darth Richard II]

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2015/07/michael-moorcock-i-think-tolkien-was-crypto-fascist
 
 
I suspect Moorcock is trolling at this point (with usage of crypto, for extra sophistication). Suffice to say that neither Bilbo, nor Frodo, nor Sam, nor Merry, nor Pippin comes back the same. In Frodo's case, the change is such that he can no longer live in the Shire.
 
[font='Helvetica Neue']I wonder if Moorcock has read Bakker. Based off the above, I'd actually doubt it.[/font]
 
 

I've always suspected Moorcock of never having actually read any Tolkien, and just thus fuels my suspicion more so.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I'm also a bit puzzled by his comments on the likes of Arthur C. Clarke. Clarke's books (certainly the best ones) are about discovery and broadening your horizons to realise there's a whole other world out there. Moorcock seems to think he was about space wars and the military.

[slant]

^got a link?

 

Moorcock didn't care about rules. He just went out there and wrote the most dramatic, mind blowing, fantastic stuff possible. 

Everyone else were kind of trapped in one way or another by their own creations. They had to do the same thing, but follow rules of physics, or a made up cosmology, a fictional universe. 

 

In Moorcock's defense, the Tolkein Legendarium can be described as epic pooh. so what. Tolkein tried to fill in the gaps of known myths, to create a rich and consistent world that would explain the fairy tales and nursery rhymes we do know. And these were of simple, innocent people, stories that a child would understand. It was of a different time and age, by design. Now, these are important stories. 

[Hereward]

Tolkien is not a crypto-fascist, but an obvious and open (catholic) conservative. This might appear somewhat similar to a late 20th century cynic but is actually very different.

 

Here's a rather sympathetic "marxist" analysis, not all that deep either but more interesting than Moorcock

 

http://johnmolyneux.blogspot.co.at/2011/09/tolkiens-world-marxist-analysis.html

 

Good article.

[The Marquis de Leech]

^got a link?

 

Um, it's there in the article I linked to at the top? I only quoted a couple of bits in the OP.

[slant]

oh it's that one. I thought he had an essay for Clarke like Epic Pooh for Tolkein. 

eh that's too general, Asimov and Clarke in one stroke. He is talking about Space Operas, I guess. 

 

This does not encompass the breadth and scope of Asimov or Clarke's writings. Although, it is an understandable enough generalization from someone who invented a whole bunch of -punks. Moorcock's basic argument is ego is cool and all, but im superego. 

 

Asimov wrote so well, and wrote fantasy so well that no one else can do it as perfectly. Azazel. 

[sologdin]

are y'all really five-star avenging on moorcock?

http://johnmolyneux.....co.at/2011/09/tolkiens-world-marxist-analysis.html

kickass. thanks.

[ChillyPolly]

ow. I like Tolkein and Moorcock, and agree with what Moorcock said in Epic Pooh. 

 

Like what?  He barely said anything, in Epic Pooh, that was even intelligible.  

 

For reference, here is Epic Pooh:

 

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/undergraduate/modules/en361fantastika/bibliography/2.7moorcock_m.1978epic_pooh.pdf

 

Pick a statement, somewhere, anywhere, in that swamp of text, that you agree with, and that you consider a meaningful criticism of Tolkien.  Let me know.

 

One thing he will do is cite as passages from LOTR as proof of something, without saying what it proves or how, and then declare victory, daring you to admit you have no idea WTF he is talking about, but counting on the fact that you will be reluctant to admit you don't already know, for fear of being sneered at for cultural inferiority.  His tactics are the tactics of the phony tailors who made the Emperor's New Clothes.  He will cite perfectly adequate passages, and then say "Tolkien does, admittedly, rise above this sort of thing on occasions ..."  But WTF is he talking about???

[sologdin]

seems fairly intelligible to me. we might pick at some of his local conclusions, of course--but the principal thesis ("it is meant to soothe and console") is authorized by Tolkien's own stated purpose regarding faerie stories:

But the consolation of fairy-tales has another aspect than the imaginative satisfaction of ancient desires. Far more important is the Consolation of the Happy Ending. Almost I would venture to assert that all complete fairy-stories must have it. At least I would say that Tragedy is the true form of Drama, its highest function; but the opposite is true of Fairystory. Since we do not appear to possess a word that expresses this oppositeI will call it Eucatastrophe. The eucatastrophic tale is the true form of fairy-tale, and its highest function.

The consolation of fairy-stories, the joy of the happy ending: or more correctly of the good catastrophe, the sudden joyous turn (for there is no true end to any fairy-tale): this joy, which is one of the things which fairy-stories can produce supremely well, is not essentially escapist, nor fugitive. In its fairy-taleor otherworldsetting, it is a sudden and miraculous grace: never to be counted on to recur. It does not deny the existence of dyscatastrophe, of sorrow and failure: the possibility of these is necessary to the joy of deliverance; it denies (in the face of much evidence, if you will) universal final defeat and in so far is evangelium, giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief.

so, duh. eat it, moorcock haterz.

[ChillyPolly]

seems fairly intelligible to me. we might pick at some of his local conclusions, of course--but the principal thesis ("it is meant to soothe and console") is authorized by Tolkien's own stated purpose regarding faerie stories:

 

I'm sorry.  That may be intelligible, in some sense, but it is not an intelligible criticism.  Accusing a work of fiction of being consoling is like accusing food of containing vitamin C.  Sure, it may be true as a value-neutral statement, but as a criticism, it is not meaningful.

 

The one thing about "Epic Pooh" that is clear is that Moorcock means to trash Tolkien.  So try again.  

[ChillyPolly]

Also, Sologdin, reflect please that Tolkien's comments about the purpose of "fairy tales" are distinct from, and even contrasted with, his comments about the purpose of "tragedy".  THE LORD OF THE RINGS is neither pure "fairy tale" nor pure "tragedy", but is a long modern fantasy novel containing elements of both.

[C.T. Phipps]

From my own familiar with the man's works, posts, interviews, and blogs, my opinion of Moorcock.

 

1. One of the most single influential fantasy writers of the modern day who has had his ideas cribbed by Dungeons and Dragons and Warhammer, which lead to influencing two generations of fantasy writers who were gamers themselves as well as readers of his work.

 

2. A great lover of attention and controversy.

 

But, of course, I do think there's nothing wrong with challenging Tolkien's class and societal assumptions.

 

I just love it despite it.

 

:)

 

Besides, isn't this Moorcock's thing? Howard, Sapkowski, Tolkien, and who knows how many other guys he challenges?