Log in

No account? Create an account
31 December 2014 @ 06:01 pm
The Anti-Tolkien  
The New Yorker notices Michael Moorcock
Fighting Crime with a Giant Dandelion Since 2013: Libellula juliapameladean on December 31st, 2014 11:30 pm (UTC)
Well, I got this far:

"But Moorcock, one of the most prolific living fantasists, sees Tolkien’s creation as little more than a conservative vision of the status quo, an adventure that brings its hero “There and Back Again,” rather than into a world where experience means you can’t go home again."

And I quit. People are allowed to hate Tolkien; I even sympathize with some of them. But why must they hate him stupidly? The entirety of Frodo's experience is precisely that you can't go home again. I roll my eyes.

Tom Jacksonjacksontom on January 1st, 2015 02:56 pm (UTC)
I don't care if Moorcock likes Tolkien, but why doe the New Yorker need to add, "Moorcock might be someone to trust in these matters." No, he's not. And why does this sword and sorcery hack get the New Yorker treatment, when there are literally dozens of SF and fantasy writers who really deserve the exposure.
El Coyote Gordo: starmakersupergee on January 1st, 2015 03:30 pm (UTC)
Moorcock is more than a sword & sorcery hack. His Colonel Pyat quartet is respected.
Tom Jacksonjacksontom on January 1st, 2015 07:19 pm (UTC)
I guess the key, then, is "more than." I read one of his sword and sorcery books in high school on the recommendation of a friend, and never felt much motivation to read anything else.
El Coyote Gordo: coy1supergee on January 2nd, 2015 12:33 am (UTC)
I thought of the Eternal Champion as an excuse to tell the same story over and over again, but he also did more interesting work.
jere7my: Glassesjere7my on January 1st, 2015 04:51 pm (UTC)
Sam does exactly that, however.
Fighting Crime with a Giant Dandelion Since 2013: Libellula juliapameladean on January 1st, 2015 08:43 pm (UTC)
In one sense, yes; certainly, compared to Frodo, he does. But he is changed and so is home. He likes the changes, but they are changes.

Kalimac: JRRTkalimac on January 1st, 2015 12:44 am (UTC)
Moorcook's deep and lasting misapprehensions of Tolkien are explained by his confession, which occurred in the course of a NYRSF review he wrote about ten years ago, that he finds it "a defeating struggle" to read LOTR at all. So no wonder he has no idea what it says or what it's about.

So, no, despite the article's claim he is not one to trust on these matters.
et in Arcadia egoboo: Sacred Chaoapostle_of_eris on January 2nd, 2015 12:26 am (UTC)
I would guess that for the New Yorker's self-image, Tolkien is a guilty pleasure. Elric is totally out of bounds.
Sure, there are fantasists like Tim Powers, but Moorcock has been seriously influential, and he's a good starting point for telling New Yorker-ers that there is a lot more out there than Tolkien and imitation Tolkien. Even if they can't help smarmy put-downs that this is not actually Good . . .
El Coyote Gordo: alchemysupergee on January 2nd, 2015 12:37 am (UTC)
They did an sf issue with China Mieville and Colston Whitehead,