The Richard Morgan Thread II

[Richard]

Lightsnake, Arthmail - this is better; it's at least critical debate, which I'm always up for. Read The Steel Remains or don't. Like it or don't. Come here and bitch about what you don't like about it (or praise what you like for that matter). Sometimes I'll drop by and reply to any outstanding arguments that seem to need an answer. All entirely cool.

But start telling me to fuck off or accuse me of bizarre statements I've never made, and you're going to get a very different response. That's not honesty or openness - it is simply road rage on a keyboard, and it is unbecoming. Incidentally, when I spoke of communication cords, I was not invoking a moderator of any kind (I don't believe in that kind of censorship), I was talking about someone on the thread with a modicum of maturity weighing in and calling time on the abuse. No-one did.

Right, that said and out of the way, I [i]still[/i] think there's a serious issue here with reading for content. I'll try to address the major aspects of that.

1) [quote]i think what a great many found wrong with your piece, is that Tolkien's work is not simply relegated to the Lord of the Rings.[/quote]
Perhaps they did, but if that's the case then they were not reading with due care and attention. The essay was [i]specifically about[/i] Lord of the Rings. I wasn't writing about any of Tolkien's other work, and I made no mention of it. (For the record, here and now, I didn't like the Silmarillion all that much even back in my teens, but that's for a whole set of other reasons having not much to do with issues of Good and Evil. And maybe some day I'll write an essay about that and then people will be welcome to (politely) criticise my opinions on that subject. But right now, I haven't written that essay. Let's deal with what I [i]have[/i] written, please.

2) [quote]And LOTR is itsel frought with grim reality. I cannot in any way understand the criticism that it is all rosy and merry.[/quote]
Yes - read back through the essay and find the point where I make that criticism. You're going to have a hard time doing that because it isn't there. What I took issue with in LoTR was not a rosy, merry outlook, but a simplistic attitude to Good and Evil within (but not limited to) the specific context of war. And while I think "fraught" is a little generous as a term, I never disputed that LoTR was shot through with "traces of a bleak underlying human narrative" - in fact those were my exact words, and I spent most of the essay discussing one specific example of that grim reality you mention here. [i]You are taking umbrage at your own imagined slight, not anything I actually wrote. [/i]

3) [quote]there's really no need to say that people will enjoy Tolkien most when they're twelve or fourteen[/quote]
I didn't. I said [i]I[/i] enjoyed Tolkien most when I was that age, and I thought that it was probably the ideal age for the material. What people [i]will[/i] do is their own affair, and I have no control over it. But I'm entitled to my opinion on the subject - which I stand by - and certainly don't expect to get abused because someone disagrees with me about it.

4) [quote]or that fantasy like The Steel remains is for adults who wouldn't want to read him (Tolkien)[/quote]
I didn't say fantasy [i]like[/i] The Steel Remains is anything - I said The Steel Remains [i]itself[/i] is for adults who wouldn't (any longer) want to read stories about archetypal (and foregone in conclusion) clashes between Great Good and Great Evil. Which it is. Indisputably. I wrote it, like everything else I write, for myself. And I am an adult who doesn't want to read about archetypal (and foregone in conclusion) clashes between Great Good and Great Evil. And as with everything else I write, I'm just hoping there are others like me out there, and that they will also like the book.

5) [quote]you distinctly separate the readers of darker, grimmer fantasies from the Lord of the Rings types as if people who enjoy Martin, Abercrombie, Lynch and Bakker are the type who shun Lord of the Rings.[/quote]
I'm pretty certain I've never said anything of the sort - not least because with the exception of Lynch's first book, I haven't read anybody on that list. I really do not know enough about the many writers working in contemporary fantasy to make any attempt at the kind of line on the left, line on the right division you have imagined here. Once again, you are accusing me of something I haven't said or done, and then criticising me for it.

6)[quote]I am unsure as to the mention of China Mieville and Jeff VanderMeer though as nobody's ever accused China Mieville of anything short of dark, moral ambiguity and dysfunctional characters.[/quote]
The reason you're unsure is because that comment doesn't fit into the structure of what you [i]assume[/i] I'm saying about Tolkien, The Steel Remains and the fantasy genre in general. But you've assumed wrong. If you took the trouble to read and interpret, you'd see that what I'm [i]actually[/i] saying in that website post is that I don't want people to (mistakenly) think TSR is "like" some other fantasy work and then be disappointed when it isn't. I'm saying you won't find Tolkienesque moral certainties or upright heroic characters, and nor will you find Mieville's rather brilliant urban grotesquerie or VanderMeer's acid trip dreamscapes. What the post ultimately says is that I'm not interested in defining which fantasy niche (if any) TSR should occupy. It is quite simply the fantasy novel I wanted to write, and you have to take it on its own merits as such.

So here is the problem - I wrote a critical essay linking my adult disenchantment with Tolkien's Lord of the Rings (and the elements within it I still value) with the fantasy novel I have just published. It's promotional, yes, I was asked to do it by my publisher. Numerous fans of Tolkien leapt to the breach in defence of a perceived attack on either their "revered" (not my word) author or their own literary tastes, or both. And in their haste to take offence, they completely failed to actually read what I'd actually written. The fact that I was actually [i]praising[/i] elements of the book was ignored, the fact that I [i]dared[/i] - boo hiss - mention my own work in the same article was derided as cheap and cynical, and the overall tenor of regret in the article that Tolkien didn't incline more towards a modern and realistic tones in his fantasy was distorted into an ignoble personal attack on the man's character (perhaps because these are people whose favourite form of assault is the ad hominem attack, and they figured no-one could possibly say anything critical without resorting to one).

As far as I can see, there are only two possible explanations for all this. The first is that a substantial subsection of the fantasy readership are incapable of extracting complex meaning from written text. I'd hate to think that's true, but I'm beginning to wonder. And the second explanation is that the same substantial subsection don't [i]want[/i] to extract complex meaning from text, they just want to take sides, build a grievance and get in a fight.

Either way, it's a bad day for the genre.

[Yagathai]

[quote name='Richard' post='1704747' date='Mar 2 2009, 10.40']And the second explanation is that the same substantial subsection don't [i]want[/i] to extract complex meaning from text, they just want to take sides, build a grievance and get in a fight.[/quote]

So can I assume that you're new to the internet? ;)

[Lightsnake]

Ok, I had a big response typed out and my computer decides to screw it up. Sorry, I'll have it replicated later on.

[Richard]

With regard to the much mauled and derided plot changes to Lord of the Rings that I mentioned, I would hope we're all clear that this was a thought experiment ("off the top of my head" as i said), and that I don't seriously believe somebody should sit down and re-write the book. ( I'm just checking, because like everything else I've said, this seems to have been broadly misinterpreted). Yes, of course, Lightsnake, you can argue each and every one of those ideas back out the door by showing how they don't fit the book the way it was written, but that is exactly the point of the thought experiment in the first place. They don't fit the text because they have one very significant thing in common - [i]they blur the line between good guys and bad guys.[/i]

At the heart of LoTR, despite all the protestations to the contrary, there is in fact a remarkably simple calculus; a Great Evil arises (albeit with a couple of unforeseen awkward facets) and All are judged on how well they stand up to it. Everyone gets tempted or pressured, but the Cause is Just and if you adhere to it you are by definition A Good Guy. The quick and easy barometer for this is Gandalf - check how much a character gets in his way or supports him and you have a pretty good working index as to whether that character is a Good Guy or not. Theoden starts out impeding (while he's listening to Wormtongue), but once he cuts that shit out and starts doing what Gandalf thinks he should - wehey, he's back on side. Good Guy. Wormtongue - Bad Guy. Denethor rails against Gandalf, mistrusts him and won't accept his counsel, and guess what, serves ultimately as an impediment to the forces of light. And so forth. The general point is, you know at a glance who your good guys and bad guys are. If you meet an elf in this book, you know you don't have to worry; if you meet an orc, you know you'd better get ready to either run or fight. [i]There is no middle ground, and no-one changes sides.[/i]

That's what the list of modifications is intended to highlight - in each case, they break the simplistic assumptions of the text. That way, you get elves that want to kill you, and orcs who are your friends. People who disagree with Gandalf also turn out to have something admirable to offer. People who side with Gandalf are not necessarily well-intentioned. Gandalf must take his allies where he can find them, even if they're scum. Gandalf himself must manipulate and cheat to obtain the results he needs. And so forth.

Just like real - human - life.

Don't want to read something that messy - fine. Matter of taste. But I do. That's why I wrote TSR.

[Ouroboros]

I thought you were joking about the change to plot points, they just came off so close to parody it was hilarious.

EDIT: Also, what may be true for 'real life' isn't true in times of war. Having a group of Elves or orcs fighting for the opposite side makes as much sense as a regiment of Germans fighting for England, and a regiment of English soldiers fighting for Germany in World War One, stuff like that generally doesn't happen, at least in modern warfare. Usually when things like that happen, its in the form of Quislings, people like Wormtongue, on the individual scale. Now it certainly would have been interesting to have seen an equivalent to Wormtongue amongst Sauron's forces.

[Arthmail]

You know, several people found the same sort of problem with Bakker. They interpreted the text one way, and then he told us we weren't getting it, weren't reading the text thorougly enough. To be frank, i'm a little sick of this attitude. Any number of rational people, some who can't even stand Tolkien, looked at your article the way that some of us have. It doesn't necessarily mean that we didn't get it, it could mean that you didn't present it well enough. I would probably rather go for the simple fact that, bias or not, people read things differently. Please don't sound like Goodkind and start assuming that we don't understand. You are only insulting a reader base that is, to be honest, fairly in love with your work.
Personally i didn't read the LOTR until university because i couldn't get to Bree because i hate Hobbits.
And another thing that many people took umbrage with, is the idea that its more or less black and white because Tolkien simply wanted it that way. The man was a student of classic mythology, and i don't know about alot of the mythology that you might have read, but a great deal of it is drawn in very stark terms. Us and them, right and wrong. From Tolkiens notes one can see that he did indeed have a problem with this, that he was bothered by the idea of a race of evil beings. But ultimately he chose to go with the story as he did with the idea of creating a mythological narrative for an England that lost its own in 1066. The Sil addresses this desire even more.

There are quotes like this: "I only wonder why on earth anyone (adult) would want to read something like that."

"overwrought prose, the nauseous paeans to class-bound rural England, and the endless bloody elven singing that infests The Lord of the Rings, you can sometimes discern the traces of a bleak underlying human landscape which is completely at odds with the epic fantasy narrative for which the book is better known."

And from a comment you made following the original article: "Yeah, and every now and then the JRRT fan-base flinch and wince and knee-jerk blindly away from any critical assessment of their hero so they don't have to face the many and manifest flaws in the text, and I guess it's that time again too."

You basically started a flame war, and then were confused when people who did like the work (even those who don't necessarily like everything but certainly appreciate the piece - or even those that don't really like LOTR and still found fault with your piece) took umbrage. Going back to the idea that we just didn't get it, you are basically saying that we have to agree with you or we're childish. That might not have been your intention, but it sure as hell was the result for many readers. And you're right, you did mention a bleak underlying human landscape....but it gets lost in your desire to slash at the overwrought prose, etc.

What detractors fail to look at, and why many of the books detractions are ultimately derided by a larger than average group of readers (perhaps im wrong in that, but Moorock and China haven't had the best of luck either in this regards), is what i mentioned before. Its mythological for a reason. Tolkien had just suffered an unimaginable war, they didn't need to get into gritty reality, they had just fucking experienced it. As for the lasting power that the book has had, not only within the genre but within fiction in general, is that it truly is one of a kind. It evokes that idea of the mythological being possible, which is something that draws many people to fantasy in the first place. It does it well, and it doesn't need to be gritty.

Werthead (i think it was him), was also correct in that the detractors never look at his work in its entirity. They simply take the most well known, well read, and successful of his works, and bash it. None consider the Silmarillion, which as far as dark and gritty goes, is like reading an Elvin history book that all goes wrong.

Simply assuming that people who don't agree with you on this are knee-jerk Tolkien lovers unwilling to look a little more critically at their favorite author is insulting, and frankly, ill concieved. You are painting people with broad brushes, and even if you do have some good points to raise about the LOTR, its lost behind the us vs. them mentality that you create. You want open debate, then perhaps knee jerk Tolkien bashing is no longer the order of the day. You critisize Tolkien for writing in stark terms, and catagorize readers of the work in the same way.

Simply, its hard to want to even debate the issue when it appears you are so set in your ways that its not worth the time.

Also, for the record, i think its hypocritical of certain people to critisize your self-promotion when any given number of authors come on these boards all the time to do the same thing. If you don't promote yourself, who is going to? I personally have no problem with it, though by the time that many people reached the end of the piece they were so pissed at your inflammatory language that it honestly didn't matter what you did, you were going to be derided.

[Lightsnake]

[quote name='Richard' post='1704822' date='Mar 2 2009, 11.48']With regard to the much mauled and derided plot changes to Lord of the Rings that I mentioned, I would hope we're all clear that this was a thought experiment ("off the top of my head" as i said), and that I don't seriously believe somebody should sit down and re-write the book. ( I'm just checking, because like everything else I've said, this seems to have been broadly misinterpreted). Yes, of course, Lightsnake, you can argue each and every one of those ideas back out the door by showing how they don't fit the book the way it was written, but that is exactly the point of the thought experiment in the first place. They don't fit the text because they have one very significant thing in common - [i]they blur the line between good guys and bad guys.[/i][/quote]
Some of them hardly do that. Denethor being a 'handy motherfucker with a battle axe' serves nothing to that end and he already blurs the line between good and bad. A problem is most of them, far from working with the book at all, miss some plain facts from the books. It's hard to have a starving orc family when there are fertile fields right next door, for one.

[quote]At the heart of LoTR, despite all the protestations to the contrary, there is in fact a remarkably simple calculus; a Great Evil arises (albeit with a couple of unforeseen awkward facets) and All are judged on how well they stand up to it.[/quote]
With a 'couple of unforseen awkward facets?'
[quote]Everyone gets tempted or pressured, but the Cause is Just and if you adhere to it you are by definition A Good Guy.[/quote]
I'll say it again that Denethor and the entire nations of the Haradrim and Easterlings break this mold completely. Nobody is mentioned as being a good guy just by fighting Sauron.
[quote]The quick and easy barometer for this is Gandalf - check how much a character gets in his way or supports him and you have a pretty good working index as to whether that character is a Good Guy or not. Theoden starts out impeding (while he's listening to Wormtongue), but once he cuts that shit out and starts doing what Gandalf thinks he should - wehey, he's back on side. Good Guy. Wormtongue - Bad Guy. Denethor rails against Gandalf, mistrusts him and won't accept his counsel, and guess what, serves ultimately as an impediment to the forces of light. And so forth.[/quote]
This is a full misinterpretation of the character of Denethor because though Denethor is distrustful, grief stricken and a somewhat unstable individual, he is a good ruler and a good man whose crimes are being so broken down by hard decisions he's had to face time and time again in the hot seat and loving one son more than the other. Your complaint is that the characters are judged as good guy or bad guy, but Denethor comes across as an entirely human character. He doesn't serve an impediment to his forces in defense of Minas Tirith, but he thinks the fight is lost and harbors very little hope. He isn't the power hungry, emotionally abusive bastard he was in the movies.
And it's not just what Gandalf thinks: Theoden's lands are utterly under assault. Theoden's getting up to do something about that. I find little that's juvenile or immature about a king realizing one of his advisers was a treacherous snake and doing what a leader has to do.

[quote]The general point is, you know at a glance who your good guys and bad guys are. If you meet an elf in this book, you know you don't have to worry; if you meet an orc, you know you'd better get ready to either run or fight. [i]There is no middle ground, and no-one changes sides.[/i][/quote]
The Silmarillion blurs this line beautifully just for one as there are quite a few instances of the elves behaving as total bastards-I'm talking bringing brutal slaughter to their people for not giving up boats, waging war on humans, etc. And nobody changes sides? Saruman, Wormtongue, Gollum, Theoden and others would certainly disagree. The Nazgul are a living testament to people changing sides.


[quote]That's what the list of modifications is intended to highlight - in each case, they break the simplistic assumptions of the text. That way, you get elves that want to kill you, and orcs who are your friends. People who disagree with Gandalf also turn out to have something admirable to offer. People who side with Gandalf are not necessarily well-intentioned. Gandalf must take his allies where he can find them, even if they're scum. Gandalf himself must manipulate and cheat to obtain the results he needs. And so forth.[/quote]
Having villainous elves or heroic orcs would serve what in the end? It'd still fit into your mold of either good or evil as the elves are working for Sauron and the orcs aren't. It's just the barrier of species is broken. We know elves
And Gandalf does kind of manipulate to get things done. If you argue Denethor was the impediment, then Gandalf's basically undercut his power. Most of this wouldn't serve a narrative end either. Denethor does have admirable qualities, Gollum had plenty to offer, Frodo utterly fails, the heroes make glaring errors...there are gray areas in there and not everyone is defined as Good or Evil.


[quote]Just like real - human - life.[/quote]
I think Ouroboros made a good point to this.

[quote]Don't want to read something that messy - fine. Matter of taste. But I do. That's why I wrote TSR.[/quote]
Kindly don't mistake my enjoyment of Lord of the Rings as an indication that I'm an immature reader or don't want to read 'something messy.' The very forum we're on should undercut this because A Song of Ice and Fire is as messy as they come. Joe Abercrombie, Bakker, Lynch? Those are very messy.

As I've said before, Richard, I'm a great fan of your works. If you dislike Lord of the Rings, that is your opinion, that is fine and frankly, I can even agree on certain points. But when you write an open essay for all to see, we are free to criticize it, and I hope my criticisms have thus far been somewhat intelligent and courteous, with the previous nastiness forgotten.

I will respond to the earlier post when time allows, later today.

[polishgenius]

[quote name='Richard' post='1704822' date='Mar 2 2009, 16.48']People who disagree with Gandalf also turn out to have something admirable to offer. People who side with Gandalf are not necessarily well-intentioned. Gandalf must take his allies where he can find them, even if they're scum. Gandalf himself must manipulate and cheat to obtain the results he needs. And so forth.[/quote]


Heh. This part of the post, if you replace 'Gandalf' with 'Bayaz', you just described The First Law.
That's not a criticism or an argument or anything, just an observation that amused me.



Anyway, on the subject of the response to the essay, the reason you're getting such a strong reaction, I think, is because there's a certain redundancy about the argument. The "Don't want to read something that messy - fine. Matter of taste. But I do" line works equally pertinently the other way, and while I'm all for critical discussion of such a monolith in the genre - I find the mindless defense of Tolkien as irritating as the mindless criticism, and it gets both- the fact that Tolkien's work has an absoluteness about the morality has been pointed out countless times down the years, and it's got to the point where it's become accepted that this is a flaw, and not simply a matter of personal preference. I don't honestly think there's anything intrinsically wrong with LotR having the good guys and the bad guys - it's only when this conception takes over the entire genre that it gets stale and boring. But you can't blame Tolkien for that, even if it was ever the case that it did.
There's also the fact that you present your opinion in what comes across as a statement of objective facts. Of course, asking you to finish every sentence with 'in my opinion' would be excessive, childish and pretty redundant, since it's obviously your opinion, but lines like:

[quote]The great shame is, of course, that Tolkien was not able (or inclined) to mine this vein of experience for what it was really worth[/quote]

do make it seem as if you think a messy, in-depth war fantasy was Tolkien's duty to write from his experiences. What you see as simplistic and trite is precisely what I like most about Tolkien's work - I like the gleam of wonder in the world and the pall of dread that Sauron and the rest exude. I think the world would be worse of without writers like Tolkien and Lewis, the same as it'd be worse off without the likes of yourself, Mieville and Abercrombie.

As for the promotional aspect, I don't know about yourself but I'm fairly certain your publisher, or someone in there at least, knew what sort of reaction you were going to get- after all, a reasonable response over a cuppa wouldn't have got nearly as much attention.

[Calibandar]

Richard

[quote]But I think it's unlikely there'll be a broad contingent out there who really like both my work and Tolkien's because the two are so diametrically opposed in their style, themes and assumptions.[/quote]

I think you're wrong here in estimating your own readership for The Steel Remains. A vast majority of the people I have seen comment that they have read TSR are people who have read JRR Tolkien's books, and some have loved them.

Despite the claims of your book being different, it still falls within the category of epic high fantasy, which is the category many people who have read Tolkien still read. So readers flocking to your book will be those looking for something different and radical ( since it is billed as such) but you also get a lot of epic Fantasy afficionados reading your stuff.

It's interesting to see how in several ways, Tolkien's work has been instrumental in enabling you to bring The Steel Remains out at all.

[Jacen]

Mr. Morgan, I do think you are wrong about readers of [i]Steel[/i] being unable to also like Tolkien. Sometimes I'm in the mood for a modern, dark-dark-dark noir fantasy book dripping with "grey" characters and moral ambiguity. And other times I'm in the mood for a simpler adventure story where Good is mostly good and evil is mostly evil. There's room for both, it's possible to enjoy both types. Is the darker, grittier style of writing more intelligent, nuanced, more true to the real world? Yes, of course, but sometimes I don't want to read that.

To put it in movie terms:
Sometime's I want to watch [i]Citizen Kane[/i], other times I want to put the brain on autopilot and watch [i]Predator.[/i] :P

[Ouroboros]

[quote name='Jacen' post='1705122' date='Mar 2 2009, 16.09']Is the darker, grittier style of writing more intelligent, nuanced, more true to the real world? Yes, of course, but sometimes I don't want to read that.[/quote]
I disagree, darker and grittier doesn't necessarily imply it is more intelligent or nuanced, or even true of the real world.

If that were the case, Sword of Truth would be the most intelligent, well thought out piece of fiction ever written.

[Jacen]

Nitpicking, man. Fucking A, I don't know how to phrase it then. You've read Tolkien and GRRM, you know how they differ, they are very different beasts, but you can go enjoy both of them at the same time. That is my point.

[Zoë Sumra]

[quote name='Jacen' post='1705151' date='Mar 2 2009, 21.28']Nitpicking, man. Fucking A, I don't know how to phrase it then. You've read Tolkien and GRRM, you know how they differ, they are very different beasts, but you can go enjoy both of them at the same time. That is my point.[/quote]
Rock and opera. :)

[Ouroboros]

[quote name='Jacen' post='1705151' date='Mar 2 2009, 16.28']Nitpicking, man. Fucking A, I don't know how to phrase it then. You've read Tolkien and GRRM, you know how they differ, they are very different beasts, but you can go enjoy both of them at the same time. That is my point.[/quote]
Of course, it is hard to describe, and I agree with you.

Rock and opera works for me though, good analogy Eloisa.

Though now we must ask, which is Rock, and which is Opera?

[Joanna vander Poele]

[quote name='Richard' post='1704604' date='Mar 2 2009, 04.57']But I think it's unlikely there'll be a broad contingent out there who really like both my work and Tolkien's because the two are so diametrically opposed in their style, themes and assumptions. If I'm proven wrong there, hey, I won't complain - it's all royalties - but I don't think it's going to happen.[/quote]
Variety is the spice of life, and all that. And they're not [i]so[/i] radically different that someone could enjoy one and upon seeing the other go, "My mind, she is blown!"

I mean, I occasionally sing to the wretched Jonas Brothers. Does not mean I cannot appreciate Celtic Woman. Not that I'm saying you're like Nick Jonas... :uhoh:

[Happy Ent]

[quote name='Ouroboros' post='1705169' date='Mar 2 2009, 22.44']Though now we must ask, which is Rock, and which is Opera?[/quote]
Easy. Rock is mostly about romantic love and appeals to teenagers. Opera is about death, betrayal, war, passion, faith, politics, etc. and appeals to grown-ups.

[Ouroboros]

[quote name='Happy Ent' post='1705638' date='Mar 3 2009, 01.22']Easy. Rock is mostly about romantic love and appeals to teenagers. Opera is about death, betrayal, war, passion, faith, politics, etc. and appeals to grown-ups.[/quote]
You've been listening to the wrong Rock and Roll, and what about 'Rock Operas'?

And last I heard, teenagers loved death, betrayal, war, passion, and being a teenager, I can attest to the fact that many also love faith, politics and all manner of other myriad things.

[Lord of Rhinos]

Richard,

Your argument is largely nonsensical to me because you seem to believe that LoTR is a children's book and Tolkien meant it to be one. In which case what's the problem? I mean you loved it at 14, so Tolkien did his job. If LoTR is a children's book than why bother talking about the Somme? Yeah, Tolkien didn't want to tap into his brutal war experience and fill a children's book with that crap. That seems perfectly understandable to me. Why not critique the Father Christmas letter's for having friendly bears (for all the kids at home: Polar bears are not your friend, they want to eat you!), or Peter Pan for not having Wendy get gang raped by pirates, or the Wizard of Oz for portraying morality as being linked to beauty. Because of this I tend to view your critique as being actually centered on the LoTR fanbase and not on LOTR. It is about critiquing the fanbase's treatment of the LoTR as an adult text rather than the actual children's text that it is.

[Ser Barry]

I feel stupider for reading that LOTR would have been improved by Denethor being a 'battle axe wielding motherfucker'. So stupider that I actually used the word stupider. Three times.

I will throw out there that Denethor is a more nuanced and subtle character than anything I have read in a Richard Morgan book. The battleaxe wielding Denethor belongs in books best left to less mature readers while the more developed Tolkien characters are best left to the adults.

[Arthmail]

I would strongly dispute the notion that LOTR is kids literature, while books that have grey characters and shit loads of fighting and blood some how represent what grown ups are supposed to read.

As has been mentioned, Denethor is one of the most nuanced characters in literature, in my opinion. The layers to his character are far from juvinile, and to be honest, kids are unlikely to understand a great deal of the language involved in the book. It has a prose unlike anything you find in current literature, which is another thing that makes it unique.

I think this desire to bash Tolkien stems, honestly, from authors who are perhaps a little disgruntled. For what reason? Maybe that Tolkien will still be held as an example of the genre in another fifty years, and fellows such as Moorcock and Mievelle will not. I think Morgan's science fiction might achieve a lasting audience, but i'm not sure about the Steel Remains because i haven't read it yet.

Perhaps i don't pay enought attention to it, but you rarely see artists in other mediums (music, acting, directing, etc) taking the piss out of influential figures from their specific genres past. Denzel Washington is not talking shit about Sidney Poitier, Face to Face is not slagging the Sex Pistols, etc, etc. So why does it happen so much with authors? (Perhaps there is some fued i am not aware of.). Instead of embracing the influence, you have a number of authors who try to distinguish themselves by how much they chew out their predecessor. This might have to do with wave of copy cats that followed Tolkien, but that's hardly his fault, and in any case they don't possess the skill or the dedication to producing anything that approaches what he did. Following this piece i read the comments that followed, and of all people the site administrator or some such for Terry Brooks showed up. Basically to defend his guy, but to trash Tolkien at the same time.

Like come fucking on. You don't like it, thats fine. But the critical analysis is fairly weak, factually, and mostly ignored. So why bother. Write what you want to write and forget about pissing on the guy that came before you.