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

[ChillyPolly]

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

 

Where in "Epic Pooh" does Moorcock "challenge Tolkien's class and societal assumptions" in a context amounting to a meaningful criticism of THE LORD OF THE RINGS as a work of fiction?

[C.T. Phipps]

 

Where in "Epic Pooh" does Moorcock "challenge Tolkien's class and societal assumptions" in a context amounting to a meaningful criticism of THE LORD OF THE RINGS as a work of fiction?

 

Nowhere but he's given more coherent critiques elsewhere.

[ChillyPolly]

 

Nowhere but he's given more coherent critiques elsewhere.

 

I doubt it.

[AUyushu]

GoT is a soap opera. 

 

GoT might have some soap opera elements, but it's laughable for Moorcock to accuse someone else of being soap opera. The Elric books are big soap operas, with Elric being one of the most emo drama queen protagonists of all time.

[ChillyPolly]

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. 

 

So what, indeed!

 

On the most basic level, Moorcock is just hurling insults.  "Epic Pooh" sounds like "Epic Poo", which is (I suspect) his way of calling THE LORD OF THE RINGS an epic piece of shit.  Of course, that extra "h" gives him plausible deniability, so lets proceed with the more literal approach.

 

More literally, he is comparing THE LORD OF THE RINGS to WINNIE THE POOH by A.A. Milne.  The point of contact is that both authors apparently had a love of nature, and included descriptions of nature in their writings.  Having made this connection, Moorcock seeks to convince the reader that since WINNIE THE POOH is a story for small children, then so is THE LORD OF THE RINGS.  Logical?  Or is it idiocy?

[C.T. Phipps]

Moorcock has a long and well-established history of being an individual who loves challenging the assumptions of other authors. The character of Elric, for example, is a character who was created in challenge to the assumption of the big muscular barbarian type of which I'm sure NO ONE HERE knows the origins of. Elric, is, after all, a sickly albino wizard nobleman who requires his magic sword and potions to function as well as comes from a decaying blighted civilization versus a wild and free barbarian society.

I know people are quick to want to defend Tolkien against Michael's insults but, honestly, does J.R.R Tolkien need defending? I think history has spoken on that matter. Moorcock's accusations of Tolkien more or less amount to the idea that, as a cynical London Englishman of the working class, his views on the perspective of fantasy are decidedly different from the romanticized pastoral pro-monarchy conservativism of South African born/Birmingham-raised Tolkien. Moorcock is a lover of science-fiction and constantly looking forward while Tolkien was ever looking to the glories of the past. Tolkien is classical music, Moorcock is heavy metal.

Neil Gaiman gave a significantly more polite but, essentially the same, rebuttal to Tolkien's contemporary and friend of Clive Staples Lewis. Neil Gaiman had a lot of issues with, essentially, the disguised Christianity (by C.S's own admission, likening it to sugar coating around medicine) as well as elements which he felt undermined the narrative. Phillip Pullman made it his author's life to wage war on the themes of Narnia with his own books.

But at the end of the day, neither Tolkien or Moorcock's views are harmed by those the latter liking the former as MASSIVE amounts of the fantasy world's fandom and authors clearly like both. On my end, I recognize their types of fantasy are wholly different but I'm also quite capable of liking chocolate and strawberry without believing one has to cancel the existence of the other.

I also happen to disagree with Moorcock.

While I'm not a terribly big fan of Tolkien romanticism of monarchy, the past, and so on, I think he's wrong to think of it as a conservative work. It's just it rebelled in its own way of reminding people that fantasy, however much Tolkien's Victorian predecessors tried to make it so, isn't just for kids. Likewise, while Tolkien INVOKED the wonders of the past, he didn't necessarily advocate a return to them.

And, for that, both he and Moorcock are on the same page.

 

Also, honestly, in politics (which I suspect would give Moorcock fits).

 

As John Ronald Reul said in one of his letters:

 

My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy. . . or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State. . . and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate!⁹

[ChillyPolly]

I know people are quick to want to defend Tolkien against Michael's insults but, honestly, does J.R.R Tolkien need defending? 

 

Are you suggesting that Tolkien's defenders shut up and go away?  Or are you suggesting that the thread be locked?

 

I say Moorcock's criticisms are nonsensical and have no merit.  I think that relates to the topic of this thread?  

[ChillyPolly]

 

Neil Gaiman gave a significantly more polite but, essentially the same, rebuttal to Tolkien's contemporary and friend of Clive Staples Lewis. 

 

Good Lord!  You're not referring to "The Problem of Susan", I hope?  I suppose what was "polite" about that hit piece was that Gaiman pretended to love CS Lewis and weep crocodile tears as he drove the knife into the author he supposedly loved.  And the kicker was, he was telling a pack of lies as he did so.   I think I like Moorcock better.

 

But maybe that's a topic for another thread ....  Maybe we should stay focused on the topic of this thread, which is Moorcock's criticisms of Tolkien and certain other writers.

[C.T. Phipps]

 

Are you suggesting that Tolkien's defenders shut up and go away?  Or are you suggesting that the thread be locked?

 

I say Moorcock's criticisms are nonsensical and have no merit.  I think that relates to the topic of this thread?  

 

I'm suggesting that Moorcock's opinion aren't something that should be taken as a great afront and can be taken as one man's opinion based on his background, preferences, and writing style.

 

But to each their own.

[alguien]

Bah. I found the Elric books overrated, whiny drek that reminded me of middle-school Drizzt fan fiction.

 

Bah, I say!

[alguien]

 

Good Lord!  You're not referring to "The Problem of Susan", I hope?  I suppose what was "polite" about that hit piece was that Gaiman pretended to love CS Lewis and weep crocodile tears as he drove the knife into the author he supposedly loved.  And the kicker was, he was telling a pack of lies as he did so.   I think I like Moorcock better.

 

But maybe that's a topic for another thread ....  Maybe we should stay focused on the topic of this thread, which is Moorcock's criticisms of Tolkien and certain other writers.

 

Hold on. Gaiman has quite a moving essay about his love for both Tolkein and CS Lewis.

 

I don't think writing "The Problem of Susan" (a story I like) counts as driving a knife into Lewis by any means.

 

One can critique things they love. I believe he even had Lewis's stepson's permission to write the story. 

[ChillyPolly]

 

I'm suggesting that Moorcock's opinion aren't something that should be taken as a great afront and can be taken as one man's opinion based on his background, preferences, and writing style.

 

And I'm saying Moorcock's essay is a swamp of meaningless gibberish that tries to cloak itself in a phony aura of adult sophistication.  If he had merely said "personally I don't care for Tolkien", I would have had no problem with it.   It is the phony, bullying, posturing that offends me.  I don't know if that is necessarily inconsistent with saying it cannot be taken as a "great affront".  I mean, if you refuse to be intimidated by the phony, bullying, pseudo-sophisticated posturing, then none of Moorcock's punches connect.  So yeah, ... no great affront. 

[ChillyPolly]

 

Hold on. Gaiman has quite a moving essay about his love for both Tolkein and CS Lewis.

 

I don't think writing "The Problem of Susan" (a story I like) counts as driving a knife into Lewis by any means.

 

One can critique things they love. I believe he even had Lewis's stepson's permission to write the story. 

 

I disagree strongly.  But again ... for another thread.

[Darth Richard II]

Bah. I found the Elric books overrated, whiny drek that reminded me of middle-school Drizzt fan fiction.
 
Bah, I say!

Not that I disagree, but you know Elric is about 20 years (at least) older than the Drizzt books right?

[alguien]

Not that I disagree, but you know Elric is about 20 years (at least) older than the Drizzt books right?

 

Yeah, I do. :) I was making a (poor) attempt to sound like a grumpy, misinformed old man.

 

I recall reading online somewhere that some of the books' style were deliberate satire--but I have trouble believing this. And even if that's true, they missed the mark for me. 

[alguien]

 

I disagree strongly.  But again ... for another thread.

 

Well, fair enough, but you're wrong.  :P

[Darth Richard II]

 
Yeah, I do. :) I was making a (poor) attempt to sound like a grumpy, misinformed old man.
 
I recall reading online somewhere that some of the books' style were deliberate satire--but I have trouble believing this. And if so, it missed the mark. 

I was pretty sure you were joking, but it's hard to tell lately. :p

[ChillyPolly]

Also, honestly, in politics (which I suspect would give Moorcock fits).

 

As John Ronald Reul said in one of his letters:

 

 

My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy. . . or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State. . . and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate!⁹

 

Tolkien is speaking of his love of freedom and opposition to the ideology of State Power - basically in support of the idea that government is best that governs least.  The comment about executing anyone who uses the word "State" is of course a joke; a bit of hyperbole used humorously in a private letter to his son, and not published till after his death.  Of course, one can hardly blame Chris Tolkien for publishing it.  He probably never dreamed that anyone would take the comment out of context in order to misunderstand it.

[The Marquis de Leech]

 

I'm suggesting that Moorcock's opinion aren't something that should be taken as a great afront and can be taken as one man's opinion based on his background, preferences, and writing style.

 

But to each their own.

 

Oh Moorcock is perfectly entitled to criticise Tolkien all he wants.

 

Just like we're perfectly entitled to point out Moorcock's arguments are full of shit. "Crypto-fascist" indeed.

[C.T. Phipps]

 

Tolkien is speaking of his love of freedom and opposition to the ideology of State Power - basically in support of the idea that government is best that governs least.  The comment about executing anyone who uses the word "State" is of course a joke; a bit of hyperbole used humorously in a private letter to his son, and not published till after his death.  Of course, one can hardly blame Chris Tolkien for publishing it.  He probably never dreamed that anyone would take the comment out of context in order to misunderstand it.

 

How in the world do you think I take it?