Quote:
Originally Posted by pyan  Well, I'm starting with a blank sheet, so to speak: looking at my shelves, the only Moorcock I've there is The Ice Schooner....
Looking back, I think I tried Moorcock too early in my SF reading...at the time I was still reading my way for the first time through the likes of Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, Herbert, Niven, etc....good writers all, but a lot "easier" than Moorcock.
Time for a challenge, I think...and from your posts on the man's œuvre, I think that's just what I'll get.....  |
The thing is, some of his earliest novels in the field may seem a bit simplistic at times; yet he's exploring some very complex issues, but with perhaps a bit too much emphasis now and again on the allegorical aspect. Nonetheless, he is tackling very big ideas, and even at his wonkiest, if one reads him carefully (rather than quickly), he's extremely thought-provoking. And, of course, as he went along, both his ability to blend the two (storytelling and allegorical significance) and his style improved considerably, until he developed what is now an extremely impressive range of styles suited to different approaches, from very lush, textured prose to very lean, sparse text. Definitely a writer worth exploring; and yes, in many ways his work is definitely a challenge.
(As an aside... I can't help but wonder what, once you've accustomed yourself to him a bit, you would make of the Cornelius tales. Those tend to have very mixed reactions even among die-hard Moorcock fans....
)