Epic Pooh - Moorcock Review of Tolkein/Lewis

[iansales]

Originally Posted by GiantkillerJay

Two words - Tall Poppy.
I've never read any MM, but I'm a big fan of Tolkien, but for his world building, not necessarily his writing ability.
There are a few things that MM states that bewilder me, especially the part about Tolkien bein serious about language, not always passionate about it. That is just crasy talk. I doubt very much that Tolkien would have spent the vast majority of his life studying language if he didn't have a deep love for it.
It seems to me that the intention of this article is to perhaps promote MM as an authority on SF by naming a few respectable authors, thus making people consider him (and his writing) also respectable. Again, I've not read any MM, and have little desire to after reading that.

Moorcock is not a nobody. He was editor of New Worlds, and one of the driving forces behind the New Wave. He was also an author in his own right, a very prolific one. And many of his novels are considered fantasy classics -- he has three in the Fantasy Masterworks series: Gloriana, an Elric omnibus and a Corum omnibus.

While Tolkien is plainly much better known (and even more so since the films), he is also the root source of the identikit high fantasy series that now clog the shelves of book shops. Moorcock is railing against them as he is Tolkien's own works. Which is ironic, given that the article was originally written in 1976, and the situation is much much worse now...

[j. d. worthington]

Yes, iansales is quite correct... Moorcock has had an enormous influence on the field, is sometimes classed just below Tolkien in importance. He is indeed also quite knowledgeable about the field (albeit rather prickly about certain areas of it), has over 100 books to his credit, and many more than simply the ones listed above being considered classics in the field. (His Eternal Champion Cycle has gone through numerous different editions and lord knows how many printings, including a uniform omnibus edition for the UK and one for the US.) He has created several iconic characters, from Elric to Jerry Cornelius, and has gone from a very hasty and somewhat slipshod writer to someone who has quite an exceptional (and at times bewilderingly varied) prose style.

I'm a definite fan of Tolkien and his work; but Moorcock has a lot to offer, as well... it's best, when reading articles like this, to remember that they are polemics, they're intended to gig people into reacting; and to shift your frame of reference somewhat... enjoy the technique, and you may also find some stimulating thought in with the rhetorical ploys, too....

As I said in my earlier post, it's still a successful piece, because, more than quarter of a century after it was published, it still evokes this strong a reaction; the fact it is so successful so long after the fact says that Moorcock is rather good at what he does.....

[Lith]

Rather more amazing that the field is still very much what it was twenty years ago. Twenty-five years is still really a few drops in the bucket as far as literature goes, though. People are still arguing over much older stuff than that. Polemics seems to mean little more than a desire to argue and stick people in little boxes at extreme ends of a philosophical boxing ring, watching extremes duke it out rather than trying to arrive at any sort of truth.

Really, I think it's unfair at all to lump Tolkien in with his imitators. He was not only a more skilled writer, but was writing from a much more well-thought out and literate place than they were, and to his credit, his stories show a much better understanding of good and evil than his imitators. His imitators copied him in all the wrong ways, taking the superficial and leaving the deeper aspects of his work. Rip on them all you want, but leave Tolkien out of it.

[j. d. worthington]

Lith: what you say about his imitators is, unfortunately, all too true for nearly any original voice (which Tolkien certainly was). It happened with Lovecraft, Howard, Tolkien, Poe, Radcliffe, Doyle, Hemingway.... the list is nigh endless.

I've no problem with Moorcock's take on Tolkien: I find it both interesting and amusing, just as I do his comments on several other writers with whom he has fundamental philosophical differences. That's fine, and I think there's something worthwhile to take away from the essay. I don't agree with his conclusions, but I do think the essay is a very good example of its class, and rather enjoyable in its own way.

I know that Moorcock knew Tolkien himself, though how they got along is considerably less certain, I'd say. I also know that Moorcock was good friends with Mervyn Peake, and felt that he was a better writer than Tolkien. And a large part of that has to do with the idea of good and evil, of which (as such) Moorcock denies validity as being too simplistic,rather than dealing with the complexities of human beings, which he sees as (even within any individual) a much broader spectrum. Of course, Moorcock's approach in his fiction is that of an allegorist, so he is fundamentally at odds with Tolkien in his approach to the purposes of literature in the first place; but he also views nostalgia with a wary eye as well, as a dangerous thing, something all too easy to fall into, romanticizing the past rather than remembering it (and therefore failing to accept the present and try to build a better future from that, rather than yearning for a past which was seldom as rosy as our memories tend to paint it). It's a valid point, in some ways, I think; where I part company with him is in his view that this inherently makes for bad art -- it can, but it does not necessarily do so; if it honestly explores human emotions, longings, hopes and fears, and does so with a skilled hand, then I think that is what good art is, and Tolkien certainly accomplished that... as has Moorcock on no few occasions, I think.

I do think Moorcock is concerned with truth here, but he argues his perception of truth vigorously, and with the same sort of approach that many of the best essayists have used, including all the rhetorical tools he feels appropriate. It's not a scientific inquiry, but an impassioned and intelligent opinion; simply one which which many people strongly disagree.

[Lith]

Well, I took the time to do another read-through of the essay, and despite my own dislike of reading books in order to find things wrong with them, my curiosity about Moorcock and my desire to add him to my list of read authors overwhelmed me. What can I say? Part One of the Elric stories was laying around the house. And, with that said, Moorcock has a lot to answer for in that essay.

There's more than a little irony in his criticism of Tolkien's writing style. He's not a bad writer, but he's certainly not a great one, either (which makes criticizing other's writing a risky business). He has a bit of the tendency to use the right word in the wrong place (without enough regard for the sound/imagery he's conjuring), and tends to rush through things which ought to be important moments. He makes frequent reference to Elric's readings without explaining what those readings were teaching him, leaving us to presume that what he read was like what we've read. And later, he sacks his own city with hardly an explanation of why. Was he hoping to revitalize it? Had he given it up for good? If he had given it up, why bother sacking it? (His attack seemed ill-planned, that's for certain.)

But that's where my criticism has to end, since narrative style is so subjective. I honestly expected more, and better, from his writing, though I have to thank him because while I was reading this, I gained a few insights into what drives me crazy about so many contemporary authors. Their tendency to describe people as "figures", a sort of distancing of a character from their own body, and their throwing in of adjectives where they don't quite belong, such as little notes about beauty or physical appearance during a battle. There's nothing wrong with a paragraph here and there of pure exposition; no need to work it all into the text like little blenderized bits.

I think he more than objects to Tolkien; he mis-reads him. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but that opinion is useless if it's based on a misreading. As I said in my first post, Tolkien himself was critical of the Shire, of the complacent middle-class society around him, for as much as he may have liked it. The hobbits are fat, lazy things that don't like any "funny" business, don't like being reminded of the outside world. Tolkien both praises and criticizes them, and it's important to remember that the Shire was also affected directly by events of the story; they didn't want change but it came anyway. They couldn't just sit back and hope nothing would happen to them.

Nor does Tolkien end on nearly the high note Moorcock seems to think- most of the characters live, and most return home, but not everything is happy. This is a very basic dramatic structure- stability, instability, and stability. Frodo in particular seemed thereafter pretty unhappy, to the point at which, given the opportunity, he left the world entirely. Perhaps that's what Moorcock objects to- their going to a sort of Heaven at the end. I really don't see how that's an unjust end; it's certainly better than turning into oblivion. Frodo and a select few get a release. The others don't, and have to keep on living with their pain. On a more personal level I found LOTR much more tragic and melancholy than Elric. There's a more natural sense of weariness in Tolkien, possibly as a result of Tolkien's own war experiences.

His reading of Lewis is more accurate, but then Lewis was consciously writing allegory (and I agree about condescension towards children- unnecessary). Tolkien objects to an overt allegory, but leaves the door open for "applicability", a somewhat less defined thing which isn't entirely unrelated to allegory, but a sort of "open-weave" cousin. Tolkien himself was critical of the Narnia books, so Moorcock is also wrong in his estimation of the Inklings as just a self-congratulatory group of friends which necessarily results in sloppy writing.

Regarding Good and Evil- Tolkien's work does tend to be a little black-and-white, but not entirely, and this is important. There's a point at which Saruman says he was white, but is now many colored. Gandalf says he may be many colors, but in being many colors, he is no longer white. A simple, unavoidably logical statement. He does not say that these other colors are either right or wrong, only that they are not white. So there is in Tolkien more than a "one or the other". Neither are his good guys all good, nor his bad guys all bad. There's an ideal on one end, and an ideal on the other end, and everyone falls between the two. I find this much more realistic and meaningful than Moorcock's Law and Chaos, which both ring incredibly hollow. A lawful, orderly world is quite hollow, with less freedom than a simply Good one. Honestly the book seems to be a better rebuttal of its own philosophy than an endorsement. Elric's own lack of wisdom and unwillingness to commit to anything brings about most of the bad stuff that happens to him. He cancels himself out, and though Moorcock seems to be aware of this, he is unable to do anything about it, when all it takes is a little real heroism, which can't really take place unless Elric commits himself to some good. I can't help but think that if he had loved Cymoril with a little of that soul-giving love he rejected, he might have found the happiness he was missing, and might have also found that he couldn't live without her, and in so doing, would have been able to live with her. And from this vague "reading", he might well have learned that deals with devils are bad things. His own reluctance to indulge in sorcery suggests that, yet it is the first thing he does to get his lover back is to sell himself to the devil. But without knowing what he was reading, it's hard to say what he was up to. Only in doing what he believes right can he succeed at anything (other than by pure accident). An over-simplified Good and Evil is a bad thing, but even Christianity works against a simple Good/Evil axis.

There are some imaginative elements of the story, though. I'll give him that, though I've played enough video games (that have probably borrowed from him) that it doesn't seem as original as it must have when it came out. And for all this criticism, I do think that the fantasy field needs variety of thought and setting. Fantasy's broad a table to be confined to Tolkienesque high fantasy. It's so broad that hardly anyone can even write it well.

[j. d. worthington]

A very good post, that. As a fan of both writers, I'd like to reply to a few things, if I may:

I agree that Tolkien's vision isn't anywhere near as "black-and-white" as all that. There is ambiguity, and a broad spectrum. This is one of those areas on which I disagree with Moorcock myself. However, I think (based both on this essay and on other things he's said elsewhere) Moorcock's objection is to the idea of either good or evil as a force, rather than something that emerges from the human condition, made up of complex motivations, often self-contradictory, frequently unconscious as well as overt, and never pure in either case. For all he deals with mythic materials, his approach is that of a materialist or secular humanist, which makes for a fundamental difference in worldview between the two writers.

And, I must admit that the Elric stories (at least the earlier ones) are among the worst examples of his writing. Moorcock's early writing was done in haste for the magazines, and is sometimes lacking because of this. While Tolkien earned his bread otherwise, and his writing was something of an avocation, with Moorcock it was his bread-and-butter and, for many years, a near-starveling existence, where -- like the pulp writers before him -- he had to pound it out quickly (at one point finishing a trio of novels in one week) in order to survive. However, his later writing does indeed show a much more mature, assured, and polished use of the language, becoming quite eloquent, as well as very nicely textured. I'd suggest reading Mother London, The Brothel in Rosenstrasse, The Condition of Muzak (though that one's a bit difficult without the preceding books in the Cornelius tetralogy) or the Colonel Pyat novels for examples of his later work.

As for his differences with Tolkien mentioned above... I think that ties in with what you say about mis-reading Tolkien. This is something I've encountered with a great number of writers old and new who have a fundamentally opposing worldview to those whose work they are writing about (and Tolkien has some of this in connection with MacDonald, though not to so severe a degree, I think); it does seem to impose a certain blindspot here and there, even with conscientious and honest writers. (Heck, I see the same thing in Addison and Steele at times, not to mention Pope -- look what he did to poor Lewis Theobald, who was really a very good Shakespearean scholar; much better than Pope himself, certainly! And it's present in Aldiss's Billion/Trillion Year Spree, as well....) I don't think it's a deliberate misreading, but it is present. (He does the same with Lovecraft, as did a lot of the more "optimistic" writers of his generation, such as Colin Wilson, who never has got his facts right with HPL to this day, all because he has an emotional revulsion to Lovecraft's bleak vision.)

On the other hand, despite what I said above, Elric is both a much more simple and much more complex character than he at first appears, as are the things going on in those stories. I'm not sure this is the proper place to go into that, but... Essentially, Elric (and the rest of the cycle) are almost chapters in a tremendously long story of The Eternal Champion, and to see what Moorcock is doing there it is almost necessary to view the whole, as it really is a complexly structured cosmology. Law and Chaos are indeed too simplistic ... that's the point (or, rather, one of the points) being made: there is no black-and-white, it is all a struggle for a humane balance, and as the characters (or we) fall too much to one side or the other, no matter how good the intent, we become instruments of cruelty, rigidity, oppression, violence, dishonesty, etc. ourselves... yet such a thing is inevitable given our condition -- thus the war is ceaseless, with only brief lulls, which we must learn to appreciate, as one of his characters says elsewhere. Elric is neither a hero nor a villain, he is a being (not fully human, incidentally -- his race is pre-human, and his world is "the prelude before the play", as it were) who strives to impose rather simplistic answers on complex problems yet, because he is intelligent, is torn by the knowledge that the problems are complex and ambiguous; he longs for peace and simplicity, yet the more he strives to impose these things on reality, the more it resists because reality cannot be so reduced.

His destruction of Melnibone is one such instance, as is his taking up of sorcery to oppose Yrkoon, who isn't bothered by ambiguity but sees a very simplistic solution as the only workable thing, and rides roughshod over anything that resists that; whereas Elric has a conscience that will not allow him to do so... yet he is forced into such positions by opposing someone who does work on that level, and has no compunctions about doing anything whatsoever that will support that view of reality... even if it means destroying reality in the process. In fighting fire with fire, Elric sets himself on a path that will never again allow him the choice to do the humane thing unsullied by this distortion (or so he comes to feel), and while he performs these actions, he digs that hole ever deeper, driven both by guilt and by pride as well as his own heredity and his people's traditions -- all of which he questions and tries to resist (at times successfully, at others not). As for the specific reasons for his destruction of the city... that ties into his giving into those traditions; any Melnibonean ruler who had been so abandoned by his subjects would be likely to exact a terrible repayment; Elric's actions are also driven by his own ambivalence toward the weight of the past (represented by his nation) and its traditions imposed upon him by what has gone before. It is both his vengeance as a Melnibonean and his rejection of that very heritage, which drives him to such extremes... and the guilt of that (while it would be perfectly acceptable in a ruler by tradition) colors his actions forever after ... that and the accidental slaying of Cymoril, who was his only real hope of turning aside from this doomed path he fears, yet feels he is fated to... she represents the genuine human warmth and sympathy, the balance that he is both drawn to and rejects by these actions, and it is only when his pride and hate flicker for a moment that he realizes what the true cost of giving in to such simple feelings really is.

And that's really how the entire sub-series of Elric begins... a sub-series because it really is only one portion of a much, much longer epic, really; and one that has evolved in complexity and subtlety over the years as Moorcock himself has grown as a writer and as a person, for he does put a fair amount of himself into these things -- especially his passionate feelings about things. The early tales are those produced by a young man, the later ones reflect more maturity, as a result of this, plus the fact that he was having to write for a rather restrictive magazine format originally, and was rebelling against the ghosts of Robert E. Howard and H. Rider Haggard and company (writers he liked but whom he did not wish to imitate).

On the subject of the "happy ending" the "eucatastrophe" as Tolkien put it... yes, that's something Moorcock objects to... that view of an afterlife. But that, too, is where it's a difference in approach, I'd say, rather than either being better as an approach for art. And certainly Tolkien doesn't allow anyone to come off unchanged (and seldom unscathed) from their experience; and that is something Moorcock doesn't give credit to, I'm afraid; his objection to a "healing in another world" sort of idea (questionable, as even in the West there had been suffering and grief in Tolkien's world) is a part of his secular views... again, a blind spot toward Tolkien philosophically. (He is quite aware of it intellectually, but his emotional reaction tends to override that when writing such pieces as this essay.... a more balanced view is that included in the book Fantasy: The 100 Best Books, which he and James Cawthorn collaborated on.)

In the end, I think that's really what all the fuss is about: The two writers come from completely opposing epistemological models, and though there are actually a fair number of points within their work on which one could say they agree, because of that difference, they remain opposed ... though Moorcock expresses it much more vociferously than Tolkien, who was by nature much more reserved; and both can be, on occasion, equally acerbic, though Moorcock tended to air his while Tolkien's tended to be in private correspondence or conversation.

[Lith]

Geez, you are wide-read.

I have to keep this rather shorter than yesterday, as I've got other things to be doing. I also reserve the right not to read all of Moorcock in order to be able to talk of him. I haven't the stomach, and am not a fast reader.

Some of the problems I had with the writing style were the later-written parts of Elric (which would be the beginning, according to the publishing notes). There were also some minor consistency issues, but that's not uncommon with a series of short, hastily written stories, so I'm not complaining about that. I read somewhere that he was pounding out 15,000 words a day. That's really an incredible amount.

Elric is an internally consistent but chronically ineffective character as a hero, which of course he isn't anyway. I think Moorcock does a much better job of presenting the problems of life than he does of presenting answers, which I really feel is an obligation of someone that attempts to be philosophical, even if they are aware that what they suggest isn't perfect. It's like going down the highway in a car, and suddenly the passenger says "we're going the wrong way," but doesn't say which way they ought to be going. And I really saw an underdeveloped conscience in Elric, which I guess isn't surprising given the society he grew up in (which is also a bit unrealistic).

And I still think that Good and Evil pwns Law and Chaos. Sometimes I feel I'm in the minority in believing in greys without giving up on black and white.

I think your last paragraph sums up the situation pretty well- Moorcock really has more in common with Tolkien than he knows.

[EricD]

I think Moorcock is a hack personally. He comes across as snobbish, cynical, presumptous and bitter. I do not like the man. He criticizes the Lord of the Rings for infantilism and a lack of maturity. So what! The Lord of the Rings was not intended as a complex story of court intrigues and the like. It is a simple, epic adventure. A battle between Good and Evil. It doesn't need the cloak-and-dagger solliquoys. It stands on it's own merits, of heroic deeds and great sacrifice. Moorcock is just a bitter, misguided man.

In short, TO HELL WITH MICHAEL MOORCOCK!

[Sudo Nonimus]

IMO, Morcock's criticism is an attempt by an inferior writer to class himself with his superior. That's not going to happen, ever. Tolkien's work has stood the test of time and continues (and will continue) to be regarded as a masterpiece within it's genre. As for all the substandard Tolkien imitators of his original work: I believe this to be the sincerest form of flattery. Even Tolkien's detractors can make it all the way through his books; by personal experience this is not the case with morcock. Morcock seems bitter and envious of Tolkien. He will, quite obviously, never knock Tolkien off his pedestal and I hope he chokes on that as he inevitably fades from view.

[j. d. worthington]

I rather seriously doubt Moorcock is going to "fade from view" anytime soon. And I also find it very interesting when people throw unsubstantiated claims around concerning one writer being "bitter" or "jealous" or "envious", etc. of another. Personal likes and dislikes of a writer's work certainly have their place, but a reasoned critique they do not make.

On the subject of Moorcock being "bitter"... from the evidence, not only of his fiction and essays, but also of his various writings, his interaction with people online, etc., I find that an extremely dubious assertion. If anything, Moorcock -- while writing cautionary tales and essays -- is a rather optimistic man on the whole. As for his feelings anent Tolkien specifically -- the tone of his writing on that subject depends on what type of essay he's writing. In his earlier work, he was quite generous concerning Tolkien (whom he evidently knew, by the way). In books where the discussion is on books which are either important to or influential on the fantasy field, he not only gives Tolkien his full due, but does so with considerable humor as well. It is only when the issue is the worldview put forth in Tolkien's work that Moorcock turns to such polemical language -- and that is as it should be, as that is the purpose of such a polemic: "to aggressively attack or refute the principles or opinions of another". Moorcock has made no bones about the fact that they come from opposite ends of the spectrum on various issues, but he has also never held back the respect due to Tolkien as a scholar, writer, or influence on the field. Hardly the sort of response to come from a "bitter" or "jealous" man.

A man honestly putting forth his opinions on such matters, on the other hand....

[GOLLUM]

Yes as you say JD, it's quite amazing how this thread still throws up such passionate responses. All well and good I say as long as they can be backed up by rational argument.

For the record Moorcock is one of my favourite authors and I'm always interested to see what drops out of his mouth next. He generally knows very well what he's talking about and as such he's someone I like to keep an eye on. Getting back to Tolkien his influence is probably unparalleled in SFF, certainly fantasy. He isn't what I would consider to be a great writer but the sheer depth of worldbuilding is IMO not likely to be equaled or surpassed.

[Connavar]

I havent read enough of Tolkien or Moorcock to have definite views on their writing but when i first heard of Epic Pooh and saw some qoutes from it i thought it was a low thing for some reason.

Now that i know the fantasy genre more and have seen what Tolkien imitators has done to the genre i find it much more interesting. Not what he feels about Tolkien but that someone talks like that this about "Epic".

Instinctivly Moorcock is much more interesting writer to me than Tolkien. MM kind of fantasy and writing was much easier for me to enjoy than LOTR.


I like a good fantasy writer of the type REH,MM,Vance is much more than Tolkien and the rest of the good ones in his subgenre.

[Sudo Nonimus]

Originally Posted by GOLLUM

All well and good I say as long as they can be backed up by rational argument.

I didn't find MM's conclusions, or his arguments, 'rational'. Tolkien is a misanthrope? His work is?

Originally Posted by GOLLUM

He [Tolkien] isn't what I would consider to be a great writer but the sheer depth of worldbuilding is IMO not likely to be equaled or surpassed.

Just to gain some perspective here, would you consider MM a 'great writer'? Better than Tolkien? The same?

[High Eight]

Originally Posted by Sudo Nonimus

I didn't find MM's conclusions, or his arguments, 'rational'. Tolkien is a misanthrope? His work is?

Moorcock wrote:

Later, The Plague Dogs (1977) displayed an almost paranoid conservative misanthropism.

The Plague Dogs was written by Richard Adams (iirc, Tolkien was dead by 1977) so no, that's not what he was saying at all.