5 ms·

Interview with Michael Moorcock

35 points by aaronbrethorst 11y ago

ajuc 11y ago
> “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 don't see how that's fascist. Tolkien books are basicaly Catholic mythology in different clothes. It's very conservative, "reactionary", and old-fashioned, true. But fascist philosophy was all about superhumans making their own laws and morality. Doesn't exactly go well with conservatism. Also - after reading Moorcock books (runestaff cycle mostly) I don't think they were qualitatively different from other fantasy. I remember it as just regular pulp fantasy to be honest. Maybe I should reread it, last time I've read it I was a teenager.
- _0ffh 11y ago
  Aye, but that is not the heart of Moorcocks oeuvre! He also wrote lots of progressive and experimental stuff. He also edited the SF quarterly New Worlds. It published works in that vein, but was not very successful financially. I read that when the need for money would grow too great, Moorcock would lock himself in with a bottle of spirit and a typewriter, and hack out a pulp novel to get back into the black. He could be much wealthier now if he was in it just for the money, so it seems there is some real artistic claim here.
- simonh 11y ago
  I think it's just that Moorcock is a bit politically colour blind. He can't tell the difference between conservatism and fascism. Either that or he's perfectly well aware that Toklien was no kind of fascist and is using the term as a goad. If he said he thought that Tokien was a conservative, nobody would pay any attention and we wouldn't be having this debate. But now we are and I think that was probably his aim, to provoke people into thinking about the differences between their work.
  - Tloewald 11y ago
    Fascism has no perfect definition but the conflation of race, nation, and morality that is implicit throughout Tolkien is pretty much at the core of fascism (it's also responsible for many of the worst fantasy tropes). Calling Tolkien a crypto fascist is a bit much — I doubt Tolkien had a fascist agenda — but Tolkien's tacitly assumed worldview is pretty disturbing upon examination.
    - simonh 11y ago
      By those criteria Winston Churchill would be deemed a fascist.
- mhd 11y ago
  Nazi "philosophy" (mostly misinterpreted Nietzsche) isn't the sine qua non of fascism. And while I agree that the term might be a bit ill-used here, there's definitely a tie between reactionary conservatism (and fantastic romanticism) and some fascist regimes. So maybe one could call it "proto-fascism", although I'd generally try to avoid this particular f-word, as it does tend to Godwin discussions. And, yes, Moorcock was definitely writing in the pulp tradition. He might be quite political, but his worked isn't fully steeped in it. Quite often it's traditional "sword & sorcery" (a term Moorcock helped to coin), maybe with a single trait that differentiates it from other fantasy or that he wants to delve in. Elric was a counter-Conan, and the runestaff saga presented Great Britain as the evil empire. The "Nomad of the Time Streams" trilogy is probably one of the more obviously political of his works, but still, it's mostly about adventure.
  - conatus 11y ago
    Yup. Fascism, like all ideologies isn't completely neat. It contains those reactionary conservative elements (organic community, national tradition, criticism of modernity as shallow - i.e. very Tolkein but found in many fascist and even Nazi authors - i.e. Junger, Schmitt) alongside hyper modernist ones (eugenics, mass industry). Fascism contains criticisms of capitalism alongside praise for the most aggressive market competition. See Ishay Landa's work on this. Proto-fascism is probably the best term.
    - ajuc 11y ago
      I should know better than argue about definitions, but can't help myself :) How is proto-fascism different from conservatism?
      - mhd 11y ago
        Define "conservatism" first ;) That's usually a "I know it when I see it" thing, and there's a whole load of different strains when you look at the politicians espousing it as their primary value. Even within a single country, and once you cross borders it gets seriously confusing. We can go the lazy route and say that if you're "conservative" and your current system isn't fascist, than you can't really promote or encourage fascism, because that would by definition be a change and change is bad. But I thin we can agree that this would be a type of conservatism that could only exist in a Moorcock novel about other planes, the Lords of Order or such things... Also, one might not want to go too far back in the "inheritance" chain of fascism. I mean, to stay within the core topic, the Italian and German fascists certainly were quite "romantic" in the literary sense (a main point of Epic Poo), but I don't think we'd call Schiller or Byron proto-fascists... So it probably comes down to having views who would touch fascist views in a big blurry Venn diagram, whereas crypto-fascists actually overlap in a more significant way. But, again, this might be a fun topic for abstract discussion, but when it's tied to something more concrete it'll just prove to be needlessly divisive and incisive. I mean, just look up who popularized the term "crypto-fascist"... This seems a very common British trait, by the way. Plenty of movies, books etc. about how nationalist and authoritarian you can get before you cross over into straight-forward 20th century fascism. Starting with the post-WW2 era and achieving a new high during the reign of the Wicked Witch.
- duaneb 11y ago
  > But fascist philosophy was all about superhumans making their own laws and morality. This is kind of a weird comparison. Tolkien may not have been arguing for fascism in his world, but his world had a definite morality and order. A subset of the themes in this order—namely, hierarchical races—is uncomfortably close to the order espoused by Nazi-flavored fascist rhetoric. So long as it's not prescriptive (as it is CLEARLY not—it is an extremely violent world, and not one better than our own), Tolkien should not be labeled a fascist. However, I wouldn't blame anyone who avoided reading the series because it is uncomfortably close to romantic ideals that are similar to romantic ideals held by racist fascists. I might also point out that british and german culture weren't so terribly different than you might think, especially preceeding World War I. I would also argue that it's not Catholic mythology, it's British mythology, including subtle Christian flavors (divine hierarchies, christ patterns, prophets, rebel patterns) including racial mythology. There are deep, deep common roots of race in german culture. And let's not forget, one of the main characteristics of fascism is systematic oppression, something that Tolkien is careful to avoid with humans in everything I've read.
david_b 11y ago
> The Moorcocks now divide their time between Paris and Austin, Texas, It's alway good to know where people talking about fascism actually live - it gives a sense of perspective about their opinions (jodhpurs: nasty and evil / state run by nutcase defending dildo bans and religious commandments in front of state capitol: totally ok). > “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.” Has he even read the books? Nothing changes? I'll give him that the manichean world Tolkien created is certainly somewhat uncomfortable to anyone with a worldview that includes shades of gray (although I don't think that the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit are as black and white as they are made out to be) - but calling someone a crypto-fascist is really harsh. > Science fiction/fantasy author Michael Moorcock has suggested that the Gor novels should be placed on the top shelves of bookstores, saying, "I’m not for censorship but I am for strategies which marginalize stuff that works to objectify women and suggests women enjoy being beaten." I want to hear him on Fifty Shades of Grey...
- jib 11y ago
  Austin isn't Texas though. Austin and Paris sounds characteristic for who he wants to be? And nothing (or rather no one) really changes in Tolkiens books. I think that is a fair point. People ARE (good, evil, shadowy, treacherous, wise) they don't become or evolve and are not typically multifaceted.
  - david_b 11y ago
    Unless the people are humans or elfs (hence orcs) or dwarfs or hobbits - then they aren't influenced or changed at all by the power of the ring. The fact that the characters are somewhat like woodcuts might also be owed to two things: - Tolkien was a linguist, not necessarily well-versed in the craft of literature. Writing good believable characters is extremely hard; moving stick puppets around (Dan Brown comes to mind) is practicaly the default-state, entry-level of writing. - the books were his answer to the edda. I can't find a sources on this but I believe part of what he wanted was England to have a set of epic myths commensurable with those in the edda - this motivation certainly influenced the overall style of the stories. I wouldn't call the analysis necessarily wrong or completely unconvincing (the pdf linked here shows his ideas much better), but I would call tendentious in that it looks like everything that doesn't fit conveniently is left out.
Steko 11y ago
Here's a full essay from Moorcock of the Tolkien critique: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/undergraduate/modules/en361fantastika/bibliography/2.7moorcock_m.1978epic_pooh.pdf http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/u... While there is an argument for the reactionary nature of the books, they are certainly deeply conservative and strongly anti-urban, which is what leads some to associate them with a kind of Wagnerish hitlerism. I don't think these books are 'fascist', but they certainly don't exactly argue with the 18th century enlightened Toryism with which the English comfort themselves so frequently in these upsetting times. They don't ask any questions of white men in grey clothing who somehow have a handle on what's best for us. Google reveals a large number of people making similar points: I love JRR Tolkien's work, but it is racist and fairly fascistic. Most of the good guys are tall white men of the north and west, simple country farmers, and the dunedain who remain supermen even though their quality has diminished by mingling with the "blood of lesser men." The dwarves and elves are also good races. The enemies are various swarming slave races, the cowardly Easterlings, the savage elephant riding painted Haradrim, the literally subhuman orcs. Those counseling peace are perfidious fools, cowards or traitors. This won't keep me from rereading The Simirilian, The Hobbit, LOTR and the Children of Hurin. But Tolkien was a man of his time and place and we should appreciate his virtues without ignoring his vices. Calling Tolkien himself a fascist is quite a few bridges too far for me. {commenter at http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2006/06/tolkien-fascist.html http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2006/06/tolkien-fascist.html}
buserror 11y ago
I kinda agree with him on the 'nothing changes' in Tolkien; in fact, it won't be a popular opinion, but I had difficulty reading it; and in fact I'm also bored to death with the films. In other words, I'm not a fan... Moorcock on the other hand I really enjoyed, just because he throws his 'hero' around like a out of control puppet. It's really like a 'game of throne' before it was trendy. Poor hero will get to kill his favourite elf queen just because his sword is evil, AND will keep him alive because of it; twisted :-)
- julian55 11y ago
  I also agree about Tolkien. back in the 1970s I read a lot of sci-fi and fantasy and I was a big fan of Moorcock. I forced myself to read Lord of the Rings but it was difficult! I've subsequently watched some of the films but my opinion hasn't changed.
- panzagl 11y ago
  It's not that 'nothing changes' in Tolkien, but that nothing changes for the better.
- rayiner 11y ago
  It took me more than a year to slog through Fellowship of the Ring and I can usually binge read a novel in a day or two.
aikah 11y ago
Still waiting for a Stormbringer movie or a Hawkmoon movie... but maybe this guy's writings are too dark for hollywood...
- ourmandave 11y ago
  The Eternal Champion could have endless sequels.
cousin_it 11y ago
Tolkien is awesome and I don't care what Moorcock says. Anyone who insists that there's only one way for books to be good, instead of many different qualities that resonate with different readers, is much more of a "crypto-fascist" to me (whatever that means). When dealing with a book like LOTR, which obviously appeals deeply to many people, an honest critic shouldn't say more than "it doesn't appeal to me in the way I care about".
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
acheron 11y ago
"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." Apparently his copy of Return of the King had all the pages after Aragorn's coronation torn out? I wouldn't go as far as to say something along the lines of "you can't go home again" is the main theme of the book, but it's a pretty strong one (and based on Tolkien's experience in and after WWI). "Nothing ever changes" is about the opposite of what happens.
ousta 11y ago
While I do really like Moorcock particularly for Elric cycle, it is obvious that he isn't right about many things. First, he mistakes having a coherent universe and story with "bland". I prefer Moorcock than any Tolkiens in the world but make no mistake he is definitly a much inferior writer than Tolkien was. His universe is totally chaos, the narrative are erratic, it's like an open world that doesn't give much and pretend to be mysterious while the truth is that it just shows the lack of talent that has Moorcock as a storyteller. his heroes have pub philosophy and psychology 101 mindsets, his stories have no beginning no end and plus if he has never been adapted it is because overall his books make no sense at all. that does not mean he is not a much more imaginative writer than most other heroic fantasy writers. he is. also saying that heinlen (probably the only one who was a real facist) and asimov were wrong and k . dick right. they are not just the same kind of writers and i'll go as far to say that those three writers were all right and we re now leaving in worlds were their books have influenced not only the popular culture but mankind, envisionning where we are aiming at as a species. those things. Moorcock - a much much more inferior artist than asimov, dick, heinlein and tolkien - will never accomplish.
- debacle 11y ago
  Philip K Dick was right. Asimov may be right at some point in the future, but he's not right now. Heinlen had a bit of a crazy streak - he's mostly right, but when he's wrong, he's dead wrong. Philip K Dick, though, was right about so many aspects of modern culture - the changing perception towards rights, humanity, drugs, and classes. The massive shift from nationalism to corporatism (which we're continuing to see become more like Paycheck), and the alarming trend of humanity being more driven by a handful of people than any flavor of democracy. Moorcock is a good writer, but he is definitely much more of a Robert Jordan or RA Salvatore than a Tolkien or Asimov.
amoruso 11y ago
ahem: “My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) — or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inaminate real of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could go back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so to refer to people … The most improper job of any many, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity … There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamating factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as ‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not universal.” – J.R.R. Tolkien, letter to his son, 1943 (from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien). Not exactly what I would call fascist. source: http://rodbenson.com/2011/08/20/tolkien-on-anarchism/ http://rodbenson.com/2011/08/20/tolkien-on-anarchism/

ajuc 11y ago

> “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 don't see how that's fascist. Tolkien books are basicaly Catholic mythology in different clothes. It's very conservative, "reactionary", and old-fashioned, true. But fascist philosophy was all about superhumans making their own laws and morality. Doesn't exactly go well with conservatism. Also - after reading Moorcock books (runestaff cycle mostly) I don't think they were qualitatively different from other fantasy. I remember it as just regular pulp fantasy to be honest. Maybe I should reread it, last time I've read it I was a teenager.

_0ffh 11y ago
Aye, but that is not the heart of Moorcocks oeuvre! He also wrote lots of progressive and experimental stuff. He also edited the SF quarterly New Worlds. It published works in that vein, but was not very successful financially. I read that when the need for money would grow too great, Moorcock would lock himself in with a bottle of spirit and a typewriter, and hack out a pulp novel to get back into the black. He could be much wealthier now if he was in it just for the money, so it seems there is some real artistic claim here.
simonh 11y ago
I think it's just that Moorcock is a bit politically colour blind. He can't tell the difference between conservatism and fascism. Either that or he's perfectly well aware that Toklien was no kind of fascist and is using the term as a goad. If he said he thought that Tokien was a conservative, nobody would pay any attention and we wouldn't be having this debate. But now we are and I think that was probably his aim, to provoke people into thinking about the differences between their work.
- Tloewald 11y ago
  Fascism has no perfect definition but the conflation of race, nation, and morality that is implicit throughout Tolkien is pretty much at the core of fascism (it's also responsible for many of the worst fantasy tropes). Calling Tolkien a crypto fascist is a bit much — I doubt Tolkien had a fascist agenda — but Tolkien's tacitly assumed worldview is pretty disturbing upon examination.
  - simonh 11y ago
    By those criteria Winston Churchill would be deemed a fascist.
mhd 11y ago
Nazi "philosophy" (mostly misinterpreted Nietzsche) isn't the sine qua non of fascism. And while I agree that the term might be a bit ill-used here, there's definitely a tie between reactionary conservatism (and fantastic romanticism) and some fascist regimes. So maybe one could call it "proto-fascism", although I'd generally try to avoid this particular f-word, as it does tend to Godwin discussions. And, yes, Moorcock was definitely writing in the pulp tradition. He might be quite political, but his worked isn't fully steeped in it. Quite often it's traditional "sword & sorcery" (a term Moorcock helped to coin), maybe with a single trait that differentiates it from other fantasy or that he wants to delve in. Elric was a counter-Conan, and the runestaff saga presented Great Britain as the evil empire. The "Nomad of the Time Streams" trilogy is probably one of the more obviously political of his works, but still, it's mostly about adventure.
- conatus 11y ago
  Yup. Fascism, like all ideologies isn't completely neat. It contains those reactionary conservative elements (organic community, national tradition, criticism of modernity as shallow - i.e. very Tolkein but found in many fascist and even Nazi authors - i.e. Junger, Schmitt) alongside hyper modernist ones (eugenics, mass industry). Fascism contains criticisms of capitalism alongside praise for the most aggressive market competition. See Ishay Landa's work on this. Proto-fascism is probably the best term.
  - ajuc 11y ago
    I should know better than argue about definitions, but can't help myself :) How is proto-fascism different from conservatism?
    - mhd 11y ago
      Define "conservatism" first ;) That's usually a "I know it when I see it" thing, and there's a whole load of different strains when you look at the politicians espousing it as their primary value. Even within a single country, and once you cross borders it gets seriously confusing. We can go the lazy route and say that if you're "conservative" and your current system isn't fascist, than you can't really promote or encourage fascism, because that would by definition be a change and change is bad. But I thin we can agree that this would be a type of conservatism that could only exist in a Moorcock novel about other planes, the Lords of Order or such things... Also, one might not want to go too far back in the "inheritance" chain of fascism. I mean, to stay within the core topic, the Italian and German fascists certainly were quite "romantic" in the literary sense (a main point of Epic Poo), but I don't think we'd call Schiller or Byron proto-fascists... So it probably comes down to having views who would touch fascist views in a big blurry Venn diagram, whereas crypto-fascists actually overlap in a more significant way. But, again, this might be a fun topic for abstract discussion, but when it's tied to something more concrete it'll just prove to be needlessly divisive and incisive. I mean, just look up who popularized the term "crypto-fascist"... This seems a very common British trait, by the way. Plenty of movies, books etc. about how nationalist and authoritarian you can get before you cross over into straight-forward 20th century fascism. Starting with the post-WW2 era and achieving a new high during the reign of the Wicked Witch.
duaneb 11y ago
> But fascist philosophy was all about superhumans making their own laws and morality. This is kind of a weird comparison. Tolkien may not have been arguing for fascism in his world, but his world had a definite morality and order. A subset of the themes in this order—namely, hierarchical races—is uncomfortably close to the order espoused by Nazi-flavored fascist rhetoric. So long as it's not prescriptive (as it is CLEARLY not—it is an extremely violent world, and not one better than our own), Tolkien should not be labeled a fascist. However, I wouldn't blame anyone who avoided reading the series because it is uncomfortably close to romantic ideals that are similar to romantic ideals held by racist fascists. I might also point out that british and german culture weren't so terribly different than you might think, especially preceeding World War I. I would also argue that it's not Catholic mythology, it's British mythology, including subtle Christian flavors (divine hierarchies, christ patterns, prophets, rebel patterns) including racial mythology. There are deep, deep common roots of race in german culture. And let's not forget, one of the main characteristics of fascism is systematic oppression, something that Tolkien is careful to avoid with humans in everything I've read.

david_b 11y ago

> The Moorcocks now divide their time between Paris and Austin, Texas, It's alway good to know where people talking about fascism actually live - it gives a sense of perspective about their opinions (jodhpurs: nasty and evil / state run by nutcase defending dildo bans and religious commandments in front of state capitol: totally ok). > “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.” Has he even read the books? Nothing changes? I'll give him that the manichean world Tolkien created is certainly somewhat uncomfortable to anyone with a worldview that includes shades of gray (although I don't think that the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit are as black and white as they are made out to be) - but calling someone a crypto-fascist is really harsh. > Science fiction/fantasy author Michael Moorcock has suggested that the Gor novels should be placed on the top shelves of bookstores, saying, "I’m not for censorship but I am for strategies which marginalize stuff that works to objectify women and suggests women enjoy being beaten." I want to hear him on Fifty Shades of Grey...

jib 11y ago
Austin isn't Texas though. Austin and Paris sounds characteristic for who he wants to be? And nothing (or rather no one) really changes in Tolkiens books. I think that is a fair point. People ARE (good, evil, shadowy, treacherous, wise) they don't become or evolve and are not typically multifaceted.
- david_b 11y ago
  Unless the people are humans or elfs (hence orcs) or dwarfs or hobbits - then they aren't influenced or changed at all by the power of the ring. The fact that the characters are somewhat like woodcuts might also be owed to two things: - Tolkien was a linguist, not necessarily well-versed in the craft of literature. Writing good believable characters is extremely hard; moving stick puppets around (Dan Brown comes to mind) is practicaly the default-state, entry-level of writing. - the books were his answer to the edda. I can't find a sources on this but I believe part of what he wanted was England to have a set of epic myths commensurable with those in the edda - this motivation certainly influenced the overall style of the stories. I wouldn't call the analysis necessarily wrong or completely unconvincing (the pdf linked here shows his ideas much better), but I would call tendentious in that it looks like everything that doesn't fit conveniently is left out.

Steko 11y ago

Here's a full essay from Moorcock of the Tolkien critique: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/undergraduate/modules/en361fantastika/bibliography/2.7moorcock_m.1978epic_pooh.pdf http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/u... While there is an argument for the reactionary nature of the books, they are certainly deeply conservative and strongly anti-urban, which is what leads some to associate them with a kind of Wagnerish hitlerism. I don't think these books are 'fascist', but they certainly don't exactly argue with the 18th century enlightened Toryism with which the English comfort themselves so frequently in these upsetting times. They don't ask any questions of white men in grey clothing who somehow have a handle on what's best for us. Google reveals a large number of people making similar points: I love JRR Tolkien's work, but it is racist and fairly fascistic. Most of the good guys are tall white men of the north and west, simple country farmers, and the dunedain who remain supermen even though their quality has diminished by mingling with the "blood of lesser men." The dwarves and elves are also good races. The enemies are various swarming slave races, the cowardly Easterlings, the savage elephant riding painted Haradrim, the literally subhuman orcs. Those counseling peace are perfidious fools, cowards or traitors. This won't keep me from rereading The Simirilian, The Hobbit, LOTR and the Children of Hurin. But Tolkien was a man of his time and place and we should appreciate his virtues without ignoring his vices. Calling Tolkien himself a fascist is quite a few bridges too far for me. {commenter at http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2006/06/tolkien-fascist.html http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2006/06/tolkien-fascist.html}

buserror 11y ago

I kinda agree with him on the 'nothing changes' in Tolkien; in fact, it won't be a popular opinion, but I had difficulty reading it; and in fact I'm also bored to death with the films. In other words, I'm not a fan... Moorcock on the other hand I really enjoyed, just because he throws his 'hero' around like a out of control puppet. It's really like a 'game of throne' before it was trendy. Poor hero will get to kill his favourite elf queen just because his sword is evil, AND will keep him alive because of it; twisted :-)

julian55 11y ago
I also agree about Tolkien. back in the 1970s I read a lot of sci-fi and fantasy and I was a big fan of Moorcock. I forced myself to read Lord of the Rings but it was difficult! I've subsequently watched some of the films but my opinion hasn't changed.
panzagl 11y ago
It's not that 'nothing changes' in Tolkien, but that nothing changes for the better.
rayiner 11y ago
It took me more than a year to slog through Fellowship of the Ring and I can usually binge read a novel in a day or two.

aikah 11y ago

Still waiting for a Stormbringer movie or a Hawkmoon movie... but maybe this guy's writings are too dark for hollywood...

ourmandave 11y ago
The Eternal Champion could have endless sequels.

cousin_it 11y ago

Tolkien is awesome and I don't care what Moorcock says. Anyone who insists that there's only one way for books to be good, instead of many different qualities that resonate with different readers, is much more of a "crypto-fascist" to me (whatever that means). When dealing with a book like LOTR, which obviously appeals deeply to many people, an honest critic shouldn't say more than "it doesn't appeal to me in the way I care about".

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

acheron 11y ago

"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." Apparently his copy of Return of the King had all the pages after Aragorn's coronation torn out? I wouldn't go as far as to say something along the lines of "you can't go home again" is the main theme of the book, but it's a pretty strong one (and based on Tolkien's experience in and after WWI). "Nothing ever changes" is about the opposite of what happens.

ousta 11y ago

While I do really like Moorcock particularly for Elric cycle, it is obvious that he isn't right about many things. First, he mistakes having a coherent universe and story with "bland". I prefer Moorcock than any Tolkiens in the world but make no mistake he is definitly a much inferior writer than Tolkien was. His universe is totally chaos, the narrative are erratic, it's like an open world that doesn't give much and pretend to be mysterious while the truth is that it just shows the lack of talent that has Moorcock as a storyteller. his heroes have pub philosophy and psychology 101 mindsets, his stories have no beginning no end and plus if he has never been adapted it is because overall his books make no sense at all. that does not mean he is not a much more imaginative writer than most other heroic fantasy writers. he is. also saying that heinlen (probably the only one who was a real facist) and asimov were wrong and k . dick right. they are not just the same kind of writers and i'll go as far to say that those three writers were all right and we re now leaving in worlds were their books have influenced not only the popular culture but mankind, envisionning where we are aiming at as a species. those things. Moorcock - a much much more inferior artist than asimov, dick, heinlein and tolkien - will never accomplish.

debacle 11y ago
Philip K Dick was right. Asimov may be right at some point in the future, but he's not right now. Heinlen had a bit of a crazy streak - he's mostly right, but when he's wrong, he's dead wrong. Philip K Dick, though, was right about so many aspects of modern culture - the changing perception towards rights, humanity, drugs, and classes. The massive shift from nationalism to corporatism (which we're continuing to see become more like Paycheck), and the alarming trend of humanity being more driven by a handful of people than any flavor of democracy. Moorcock is a good writer, but he is definitely much more of a Robert Jordan or RA Salvatore than a Tolkien or Asimov.

amoruso 11y ago

ahem: “My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) — or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inaminate real of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could go back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so to refer to people … The most improper job of any many, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity … There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamating factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as ‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not universal.” – J.R.R. Tolkien, letter to his son, 1943 (from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien). Not exactly what I would call fascist. source: http://rodbenson.com/2011/08/20/tolkien-on-anarchism/ http://rodbenson.com/2011/08/20/tolkien-on-anarchism/