Just finished 'Breakfast In The Ruins'...

[stinking_dylan]

Another excellent read from Moorcock. Reminds me in style to Mother London, though a shorter, quicker read and tends to hold your attention longer (mostly due to the often harrowing imagery).

Has anybody read this? If so could you give me your opinions on what Moorcock was trying to say here?

The common thread in all the little flashbacks was regarding the suffering of innocents during war, strife and violence, mostly through human error. And at times, quite harrowing and moving too. Do you think he wanted to simply provide us with an interesting read of near real examples which have occured through recent history, or was he attempting to communicate something more?

Spoiler...
But, I have no idea what he was trying to say regarding Karls transformation from a nervous white man to a confident black man, and the subsequent transformation of his lover in the opposite direction. Was it simply they were switching roles, or is there some sort of racial slant to this?

[Fried Egg]

I must admit that this was my least favourite book I've ever read by him. I don't have much to say about it...

[Nesacat]

Behold The Man is one of my favourite Moorcock books and I read Breakfast In The Ruins because Karl Glogauer, the protagonost in Behold The Man, is in it.

For me it was even close to being as good as Behold The Man. Perhaps i did the book an injustice by reading it right after Behold The Man.

I like the idea of the book and the fantasies of past lives and the lives he could have led. I think my favourite parts of the books are the bits at the end. The short section entitled What would you do? and all the almost impossible choices that have to be made in a very short time.

[stinking_dylan]

I agree with Nesacat here. I enjoyed it as much as I did 'behold the man', maybe more so. What was your opinion on the ending?

[Nesacat]

Behold The Man is always going to be my favourite of the two but I liked the style of Ruins.

Felt like Moorcock was trying to lay his own demons with the 'what would you do' section.

I think it is the same with many of the experiences the protagonist goes through. They are things that he needs to come to terms with and work out and many of the situations or variations of them are ones we all find ourselves in at one point or another.

I don't think he's trying to teach anything per se or convey anything specific. I think it's more of a book that prompts thought.

[j. d. worthington]

Well, one of the things I'd say he was attempting to get across, judging from this and other writings (and interviews, etc.) is "there are no easy answers" -- hence the "What Would You Do?" sections become more and more difficult, until there simply is no alternative that isn't arguable. As a matter of fact, those sections are based on something Moorcock used to write when he was starting out -- a series of such puzzles (only with more easily definable solutions and moral boundaries) in the magazine Boy's Life (if I remember correctly).

I don't really think he was exorcizing his demons as such; a lot of the same themes run throughout much of his work (especially things such as the Cornelius stories, the Oswald Bastable books, etc.) As the subtitle says, it's "A Novel of Inhumanity" -- yet it has elements of hope and optimism running through it, nonetheless. But Karl being Karl (the particular aspect of the Eternal Champion he is), things are much darker, more morally and ethically ambiguous, and considerably more confusing.

On the "framing story" (if one can call it that)... I've seen different thoughts on this one. One is simply a parody of the "White Man's Burden" idea, though I'd say that's far too simplistic for this novel. Another is the symbolism of the character -- for example, considering Karl's fascination with Jung, this could be seen as his Shadow, in which case, Karl more or less becomes the Shadow -- he doesn't truly reach an assimilation, or a healthy balance, but he drains the Shadow, becomes it, while it becomes Karl (recall how many aspects of the Champion are vampiric in one form or another, from Elric to Jerry Cornelius -- who recharges using high-energy situations with others -- etc.). That one seems, perhaps, a bit closer to the mark. After all, the "black man" is the reverse of Karl himself; easy-going, sexually multivalent, bursting with self-confidence, etc., which all gradually changes as they exchange roles. Thus one can say that, though Karl doesn't reach a true "psychic wholeness", he does survive, becomes stronger ... though whether this is a "good" thing or not remains, in context, debatable....

There are lots of different things one can read into this situation, from the "black man" of the older traditions concerning witches (itself a form of the Shadow, I'd say), to the racial ambiguities of the 1960s and early 1970s.

At any rate, this remains one of my favorite Moorcock books, because it isn't an easy book in many ways; it's a challenging book that can bear several different types of readings....

[Dave]

I've just read 'Behold the Man'.

I'm interested in how Karl Glogauger could be in 'Breakfast in Ruins' given what happens at the end of 'Behold the Man'?

So, he is another aspect of the Eternal Champion?

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Dave

I've just read 'Behold the Man'.

I'm interested in how Karl Glogauger could be in 'Breakfast in Ruins' given what happens at the end of 'Behold the Man'?

So, he is another aspect of the Eternal Champion?

Yes, Glogauer is also an aspect of the Champion. And, given the sort of book that Breakfast in the Ruins is, his being there is quite understandable.... Working with Moorcock's Multiverse, you're dealing with infinite versions of any given reality, so if a character dies in one universe, this does not mean that person is dead in another, and so on. It allows Moorcock to continue to explore various themes using the most appropriate aspect of the Champion, without having to "start from scratch" or recreate the wheel, as it were....