Moorcock, the anti-Tolkien?

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Moorcock, the anti-Tolkien?

Post by azriel on Sat Apr 25, 2015 12:47 pm

Interesting ideas there, something to chew the gristle over. Ive just had some Jehovas Witnesses try to get in the building & as I was gently polite to them, I think Im still in that relaxed mood ?.......... give it a while Very Happy

_________________
"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. It's the job that's never started as takes longest to finish.”
"There are far, far, better things ahead than any we can leave behind"
If you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you always got



avatar
azriel
Grumpy cat, rub my tummy, hear me purr

Posts : 12707
Join date : 2012-10-07
Age : 57
Location : in a galaxy, far,far away, deep in my own imagination.

Back to top Go down

Re: Moorcock, the anti-Tolkien?

Post by Forest Shepherd on Sat Apr 25, 2015 8:52 pm

I think that's a fair comparison to make. Moorcock is basically the Jehovah's Witnesses of fantasy.

_________________
Boar is badger, named after wood,
Not after forest but trees.
Where did you play on a rainy day?
Where did I eat bread and cheese?
Search inside, stay indoors,
Look up and find the secret is yours.
Your castle your fort,
Or so you thought.
The way is in four trees.
The way is in Boar in Brockhall
Under ale, under bread, under cheese.

-Mossflower, by Brian Jacques.
avatar
Forest Shepherd
Adventurer

Posts : 3453
Join date : 2013-11-02
Age : 26
Location : Northern California

Back to top Go down

Re: Moorcock, the anti-Tolkien?

Post by Pettytyrant101 on Sun Apr 26, 2015 10:34 am

I didnt find his line of argument at all convincing, mainly because he only sites evidence which supports his conclusion and he quite deliberately just leaves aside and fails to mention anything which might cast any doubt on those conclusions. He doesn't challenge those other options either, he just pretends they aren't there.

One would for example argue that Sam is all about dislike for the class system, and that his going from a gardener who considers a bag of potatoes a worthy and generous gift, to Mayor of all the Shire and personal friend of the King of Angmar and Gondor, demonstrates Tolkiens belief that the class system is a myth imposed only from the outside, and that in fact the only difference between classes is circumstances not individuals.

And Tolkien's attacks class at all levels save the highest, because in Tolkien Highest equates with closer to God.
Tolkien clearly has an issue with alot of hobbit thinking too- demonstrated in characters like the Gaffer or Ted and his father. A know-it all certainty in how the world is, based n a very limited experience of a very small part of it.

For Tolkien its not what class you are its what your basic merits are and how you express them. Everyone is mix of good and bad stuff, those who strive to emphasis the good in themselves are those who succeed in Tolkien, those in whom the bad overcomes their personalities fail- Gollum, Boromir, Denethor ect
So Boromir can be upper class and nobility and yet still fail, and Sam can be lower class and humble and yet still succeed.

_________________
Pure Publications is Reasonably Proud to Present the first ever Forumshire novel!

Gingerlocks and the Three McTyrants

- get your copy here for a limited period- free*



*Pure Publications reserves the right to track your usage of this publication, snoop on your home address, go through your bins and sell personal information on to the highest bidder.
avatar
Pettytyrant101
Crabbitmeister

Posts : 39392
Join date : 2011-02-14
Age : 46
Location : Scotshobbitland

Back to top Go down

Re: Moorcock, the anti-Tolkien?

Post by Forest Shepherd on Sun Apr 26, 2015 11:15 am

I like that point about Sam. I was far more dismissive and didn't even bother to properly think through a response. Here is a few paragraphs of a diatribe I posted on another forum in response to a discussion of the expiration of Moorcock's literary licensing here in the U.S.

Forest Shepherd wrote: Ugh. Moorcock again. The Dark Side of the Force, as it were.

  The Lord of the Rings is a pernicious confirmation of the values of a declining nation with a morally bankrupt class whose cowardly self-protection is primarily responsible for the problems England answered with the ruthless logic of Thatcherism. Humanity was derided and marginalised. Sentimentality became the acceptable subsitute. So few people seem to be able to tell the difference.

  The Lord of the Rings is much more deep-rooted in its infantilism than a good many of the more obviously juvenile books it influenced. It is Winnie-the-Pooh posing as an epic.


Rolling Eyes  He sounds like a jaded post-modernist rejecting Tolkien and others of his style out of a frantic attempt to distance himself from the past out of a typically English self-loathing born of the singe unifying fact that the English have been insufferable idiots for the past few centuries. Defining oneself in terms of what one is not is, of course, his modus operandi here. Describing Tolkien's writing as being "short on wit but heavy on whimsy" is something I can never imagine myself agreeing with, and ignorant sounding stuff like the following just makes me bristly:

  The great epics dignified death, but they did not ignore it, and it is one of the reasons why they are superior to the artificial romances of which Lord of the Rings is merely one of the most recent.

One of the main themes of the Lord of the Rings is death. Moorcock argues that this theme is really just upper-class Thatcherism sentimentality, whatever the heck that is (I did not grow up during Thatcher's reign nor in England). I was going to go on a rant about how Tolkien was first and foremost a philologist and was primarily concerned with creating a "great epic" for England and went and borrowed quite heavily from Norse mythology and other sources in the pursuit of that aim (including much of Odin that can be found in Gandalf, who Moorcock dismisses as oppressively patriarchal in typically paranoid PC manner); but then I realized that Moorcock argues that all of this work is merely the attempts of a morally-bankrupt society to create a value system for itself that would assuage some of its own sense of pointlessness or some such bullcrap.

So I realized that any such rant would be pointless and stupid. Moorcock is smart, and a very talented author and, yes, his work in promoting the idea of the multiverse should be respected. However, just like the morons out there who define their musical tastes by avoiding whatever is popular (yeah, hipsters), Moorcock smells of contrarianism and self-satisfaction in the worst way.

It's probably this negative response that Tolkien fans have to Moorcock that is the main stumbling block to the purchasing of his rights by WotC. Or maybe they're just not interested, seeing as they have the gist of his work without having to access his controversial characters. By the by, what are we talking about here exactly? The creative rights to Moorcock's characters, or to his settings? Explain further please what you mean by the "Elric RPG license."

P.S. I can't help but be overly critical in my response to a discussion of Moorcock's contributions. As, for me (and this is not entirely justified), Moorcock symbolically represents all the shitty aspects of D&D that I dislike (evil characters, angsty settings like post-apocalyptic wastelands, moral ambiguity, neo-fantasy elements like Drow, and the incorporation of demons into the game), and Tolkien represents all the things about the game that appeal to me (wilderness exploration (love of nature), good vs. bad, epic questing, a love of wandering, the acquisition of jewels and weapons but a dismissal of the importance of said loot as an aim in itself, I could go on for a long time...).

_________________
Boar is badger, named after wood,
Not after forest but trees.
Where did you play on a rainy day?
Where did I eat bread and cheese?
Search inside, stay indoors,
Look up and find the secret is yours.
Your castle your fort,
Or so you thought.
The way is in four trees.
The way is in Boar in Brockhall
Under ale, under bread, under cheese.

-Mossflower, by Brian Jacques.
avatar
Forest Shepherd
Adventurer

Posts : 3453
Join date : 2013-11-02
Age : 26
Location : Northern California

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum