Keely's Reviews > Elric of Melniboné

Elric of Melniboné by Michael Moorcock

by
84023
's review
Dec 13, 11

bookshelves: fantasy, uk-and-ireland, reviewed, sword-and-sorcery
Read from December 10 to 13, 2011

I have spent a long time searching for a modern fantastical epic which is worth reading. It seems like there should be one, out there, somewhere. I have so enjoyed the battlefields of Troy, the dank cavern of Grendel's dam, Dido's lament, Ovid's hundred wild-spun tales, perfidious Odysseus, the madness of Orlando, Satan's twisted rhetoric, and Gilgamesh's sea-voyage to the forgotten lands of death. And so I seek some modern author to reinvent these tales with some sense of scholarship, poetry, character, and adventure.

There are many great modern fantasies, but the epic subgenre lacks luster. In reading the offerings--Martin, Jordan, Goodkind, Paolini, even much-lauded Wolfe--I have found them all wanting. They are all flawed in the same ways: their protagonists are dull caricatures of some universal 'badass' ideal, plot conflicts are glossed-over with magic or convenient deaths, the magic itself is not a mysterious force but a familiar tool, and women are made secondary or worse (though the authors often talk about how women are strong and independent, the women never actually act that way).

But then, they are all acolytes of Old Tolkien, who is as stodgy, unromantic, and methodical as a fantasist can be (without being C.S. Lewis). Though I respect Tolkien's work as a well-researched literary exercise, it is hard to forgive him for making it acceptable to write fantasy which is so dull, aimless, and self-absorbed. It is unfortunate that so many people think that fantasy began with Tolkien, because that is a great falsehood, and anyone who believes it does not really know fantasy at all. It nearly died with him.

Yet there are many who do think he started it. They like to comment on reviews, especially reviews of their favorite books--especially negative reviews of their favorite books--which have, lamentably, become a specialty of mine. And often, they end up asking me "Well, what fantasy do you like?" There are many I could name, numerous favorites which have shocked and overawed me, which have shaken me to my core, which have shown me worlds and magic I dared not dream. But none of them are epics.

I could mention Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, a powerfully self-possessed work and one of the only fantasies of the past twenty years that I consider worth reading--the other is China Mieville's Perdido Street Station--but these are a Victorian alternate history continuation of the British Fairy Tale tradition and a New Weird Urban Fantasy, respectively. I could mention Mervyn Peake's Titus books, which so powerfully inhabit my five-star rating that Mieville and Clarke must be relegated to four--but this is a work whose fantastical nature would probably not even be apparent to most fantasy enthusiasts.

Alas they are not good counter-examples. I can (and do) mention Robert E. Howard's Conan, and Fritz Leiber's Lankhmar series, but these are fast-paced adventure stories, and though their worlds may be vast, mysterious, and grand, the stories themselves lack the hyperopic arc at the heart of an epic work.

But there have been many suggestions, many readers who have come to my aid, and who have named authors I might look to next, in my quest: Guy Gavriel Kay, Ursula K. LeGuin, Jack Vance, Poul Anderson, Jeff VanderMeer, Michael De Larrabietti, John M. Harrison, Scott Lynch, Patricia McKillip, and John Crowley (Brandon Sanderson and Patrick Rothfuss have been both suggested and sneered at). It is my hope that, somewhere amongst them, I will find the exemplary epic fantasy I am looking for--but I haven't found it in Moorcock.

Moorecock is good, he has scope, depth, complexity, and long, twisting plots, but at their core, his stories are modern, metaphysical, and subversive. They are light and lilting, ironical and wry--too quick and twisting to be 'epic'. The characters are introspective and self-aware, and it is clear that it is they, and not the world, who will be at the forefront.

It is all so thoroughly modern, so reinvented, full of sprightly ideas and metaphysical brooding. But it is decidedly not modern in the accidental, self-defeating ways of all those pretenders to the 'epic' title. The characters are not merely the male-fantasy counterpart of a bodice ripper, with modern, familiar minds dressed thinly in Medieval costume. The world is not simply our world with an overlay of castles--dragons for jet fighters, spells for guns, with modern politics and sensibilities.

No, Moorcock's world and characters are alien and fantastical, but Moorcock does not achieve this by ripping them whole-cloth from history, but by extrapolating them from modern philosophical ideas. Fantasy stories have always been full of dreamscapes, of impossible places for the reader to inhabit. These places draw us in, somehow we recognize them, like our own dreams, because of what they represent.

Anthropomorphism is the human tendency to see people where there are none: to see smiling faces in wood grain, to assign complex emotional motivations to cats, and to curse at the storm that breaks our window. The 'Other World' of British Fairy Tales is based on the latter: the assigning of our luck--good and bad--to capricious spirits. The world of fairy has rules (as do storms), but those rules are mostly a mystery to man.

But Moorcock's world personifies the ideas of Kant and Nietzsche: his 'Other Worlds' (called 'Planes') are those of the human mind: they are places of morality, like heaven and hell, except he has updated the concept to existential morality. There is Chaos, and there is Law; Chaos is the selfish urge, Law the communal urge, and he arrays his magic, spirits, and dreamscapes along this axis.

Like Milton, he has infused his epic with the latest thoughts and notions, updating it for the modern age. Also like Milton, Moorcock's influence has been felt, far and wide, despite the fact that most people do not recognize it.

The Dungeons & Dragons game prominently used his Law/Chaos dichotomy, among other concepts, and his 'Wheel of Psychic Planes' is an influence on their most audacious and unusual publication, the philosophical 'Steampunk' setting, Planescape. And many of these tropes have filtered down into the grab-bag common to the modern voice of fantasy stories.

Reading Elric, one will invariably be reminded of a dozen other books and games, as Elric drinks endless potions to maintain his strength and vitality, slaying twisted demons on a plane of fire in search of a rune-sword, dressed in ornate black armor and a dragon-helm. Indeed, the central mythology (and much of the plot) of the Elder Scrolls games--in particular Oblivion--owe a vast debt to Elric and his world, and not simply for the land of 'Elwher'.

Clearly, Moorcock's odd vision has been transcribed onto the imaginations of fantasists, but as with those who were inspired by Tolkien, most of his followers have failed to recreate the weight of the original message. Except for a few outliers, like Planescape and Perdido Street Station, most authors have copied the outward appearance of Moorcock's alien world, but were not skilled or knowledgeable enough to take the substance along with the form--the existential ideas, the vital core of his dreamscapes, are most often missing, or at best, faded.

But while the ideas and the overall vision are strong--even compared to the ubiquitous attempts to recreate them--there are a number of flaws in Moorcock's presentation. The first and most damaging is a weakness in the voice. Moorcock has a lot to say, but must sometimes resort to explaining his ideas to us. He is not always able to deliver his world and characters through interactions, hints, tone, and actions. He is hardly an inexperienced enough author to explain to us that which is already self-evident, but it is a weakness in his delivery which sometimes takes us out of the flow of the story, so that we must step back from the world and listen to Moorcock talk about it, though he does do his best to veil it with Elric's thoughts.

Secondly, it can be difficult to get a strong impression of his characters, they are often difficult to sympathize with or to predict. It isn't that they aren't vivid and active, but that their actions are often based around ideas and concepts--the things Moorcock built his world on--which can create a sense of a top-down world, where the characters are there to fulfill a purpose, to explore various notions and philosophies.

The book is certainly not an allegory--there are no easy one-to-one correlations to be made between characters and ideas, but the world does not revolve around personalities--except, perhaps, for Elric's, but his thoughts and motivations are often the most difficult to reconcile. The personalities of all the other characters are, more or less, wholly dependent on him.

To some degree, the characters seem to operate on much older fantasy rules: their capricious yet repetitive acts becoming motifs for the larger ideas in the story, not unlike Tolkien's fantasy forefather, E.R. Eddison, whose characters seem half-mad with heroism for its own sake (another candidate for my favorite epic, if I didn't think his beautiful, deliberate archaism might prove too remote for many readers).

Part of the reason for this is that Elric's personality and world were created as an exercise, and with an explicit purpose: to portray the anti-Conan. He is sickly, weak, pale, effeminate, sorcerous, erudite, cruel, reluctant, intellectual, and hardly promiscuous. Conan becomes king by his own hand, while Elric begins as emperor and we witness the hardships of his downfall.

But this contrariness, while coloring the story, is hardly its center. Moorcock uses it as a springboard--an inspiration to drive him to something greater. It is one more example of the fact that genius is at its best when it has a lofty challenge before it. Moorcock is not interested in making a parody, but in exploring a little-trodden path, operating on the notion that if you start with something familiar and begin to move away from it, you are bound to end up somewhere else.

I must also mention an unbelievable incident involving a group of blind soldiers, which put dire strain to credulity. A bit of creative myth or capricious magic could have saved it, but as it stands in the book, it makes little sense.

But despite the subtle weaknesses in voice and characterization, Moorcock's idiomatic adventure story is eminently enjoyable. There are few fantasy books I could name which suggest such a playful intellect as this, and though it is not as wildly imaginative as his Gloriana, this philosophical exploration disguised as a pulp adventure is a delightful read that never gets bogged-down in indulging its own thoughtfulness.

My List of Suggested Fantasy Books

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Elric of Melniboné.
sign in »

Comments (showing 1-29 of 29) (29 new)

dateDown_arrow    newest »

message 1: by Rob (new) - rated it 4 stars

Rob I'm curious to see how you'll rate the successive books in the series. I'm a big fan of Moorcock, but to me his most notable weakness is that his series feel rushed towards the end. The first couple books in a series feature careful characterization and a well-developed setting. By the latter books, the plot careens to its conclusion in a blur. I suppose this is understandable, when you consider that Moorcock - the last of the prolific pulp writers - was writing 5-10 books a year at this point.

And for my money, the Corum books are better than Elric. The inspiration of Welsh myths gives them a more cohesive feel. And Corum isn't quite as brooding and self-pitying as Elric.


message 2: by Matt (new)

Matt I'm reading this printing of these stories: http://tinyurl.com/73mpr6m

I'm wondering if I should switch to the version of the series that you're reading. The one I'm reading has a lot of stories that don't even seem to have anything to do with Elric at all. Maybe I'm just missing something in the whole "Multiverse" thing.

Also, I have decided to go ahead and recommend a series by Andrzej Sapkowski to you. You may already be aware of it as the series of fantasy novels that inspired the "Witcher" series of computer games. As of now there are only two books in English, a collection of stories called "The Last Wish" and the first novel in the actual "series" called "Blood of the Elves". The problem is...I am capable of reading novels in Spanish. I have read them all in Spanish and I think they would interest you given what you have to say about fantasy so far, but I'm not sure the English translations are very strong or do it justice. There's also an entire second collection of stories that are apparently never going to be translated. I dunno how you feel about reading translated novels (a lot of subtlety can be lost) but as a work of fantasy I believe these books are superb.


Keely Yeah, the Amazon reviews of that version seem to suggest that it's best for people already familiar with Elric's story.

You know, I have heard of the Witcher novels, but I've never added them to my list. I shall have to rectify that. Thanks for the suggestion.

Rob wrote: "his most notable weakness is that his series feel rushed towards the end."

That's unfortunate, hopefully I will find something redeeming in them, but I know that's how some of my favorite series have dwindled off at the end, like the Lankhmar books.

I'll keep the Corum stories in mind, too.


message 4: by Jayaprakash (new)

Jayaprakash Satyamurthy The Corum books are probably closer to epic fantasy. Look up my review of the first Corum trilogy if you can, I used to classify it as minor Moorcock but a recent re-read made me revise that impression.


Keely Mmm, thank you. Duly noted.


message 6: by Colin (new) - added it

Colin Man, this sounds really interesting, but I can never find these books, despite having wanted to read them for a while. Sadly out of print I guess.


message 7: by Matt (new)

Matt It isn't hard to find recent printings of Elric stories on Amazon and such, the problem is finding the arrangement like the ones Keely is reading, which seems to be the better arrangement of the stories. They can be found pretty readily on Abebooks but the condition of a lot of the copies for sale sounds suspect...


Keely I just kept an eye out in book stores, particularly used bookstores and Goodwill.


message 9: by mark (new)

mark monday although i found your commentary on Tolkein to be odd and rather nonsensical... i really loved your excellent analysis of Moorcock & Elric. that part of the review was fantastic and a real pleasure to read. it's not often that i'm shown new ways to look at one of my favorite authors. if you haven't done so already, you may also want to check out Moorcock's Von Bek.

i don't think you'll find much in the way of 'epic fantasy' in John Crowley. although i do think he is excellent, and his The Deep does explore various epic fantasy themes & tropes.

good luck on Guy Gavriel Kay. i'm very interested in reading what you have to say about his Tigana, if you ever get around to reading it. although i fear you won't particularly enjoy it. same with Fionavar Tapestry, which i adore - but i can't really see you feeling the same way.


Keely "i found your commentary on Tolkein to be odd and rather nonsensical"

In any particular way? Was it that I didn't fully appreciate the gayness of Tolkienian romance? Did you read Moorcock's 'Epic Pooh' which I linked to in my review? In some ways, I think of my review as a continuation of those ideas. You could also look at this piece from Mieville, which is rather brief and caustic, but references some of the same problems that concerned me.

I'm glad you liked my analysis of Moorcock, though. Thanks. Thank you also for the observations on the different suggestions I've gotten for fantasy reading. Mostly, the factor that determines what book I read next is what I can find used locally--Elric seems pretty omnipresent, in that regard--of course, it helps if you know what you're looking for, so it's good to get titles.


message 11: by Keely (last edited Jan 22, 2012 04:57am) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Keely Originally a reply to a comment now deleted

Yeah, that is one of the certain benefits to reading a work that is flawed or falls short in very specific ways: it suddenly seems so easy to write something that would improve upon it. It seems like there are two types of influential works: the ones that are so cool that everyone tries to live up to them but fails, and the kind that are kind of interesting, but so flawed that they make every author feel like they could do better.


message 12: by mark (last edited Jan 21, 2012 01:58pm) (new)

mark monday Was it that I didn't fully appreciate the gayness of Tolkienian romance?

ha! that is funny. and so true... well, at least with the swooningly romantic gay melodrama of the film versions.

but no, the stuff i found to be odd & nonsensical were the "unromantic, dull, aimless, self-absorbed" comments.

your Moorcock link was quite interesting. there is a lot to consider there. but i also think a lot of it is off-base and nonsensical. particularly his commentary around Saurun being Tolkein's version of "The Mob". i also think he over-reaches a bit in his insistence that the Shire & hobbits are an example of Tolkein's tasteful bourgeois paradise. i see the kernel of truth in there of course, but Moorcock piles a lot on that feels like he is really reaching, and rather desperately. The Shire is tasteful? uh, what? if anything, Tolkein balances his 'perfect little world' view of hobbit life with an acerbic perspective that mocks and critiques that kind of English village life. sure, in the end, he obviously adores it overall. but he does not provide an unexamined view on the middle class. many of the critiques that Moorcock tosses Hobbit Life's way are actually already present in LOTR.

as far as the Mieville critique, well i actually found that to be pretty odd & nonsensical. and downright silly at times in its personal bias. reminded me of an undergrad student railing against Shakespeare and other supposedly Stodgy Classics - simply because that type of literature is not to his taste. he stacks the deck of his own argument. the basis of Mieville's entire argument appears to be that LOTR is not radical or challenging enough for him. i think it should go without saying that a work need not be radical to be of value... and Fantasy is certainly large enough to include both the radical and the conservative, the traditional and the variously challenging new schools - with both sorts of perspectives being potentially of interest or of value.

Howard Hawks & John Ford made some wonderful films, ones that often celebrate and reify 'traditional values'. John Huston & Anthony Mann also made many wonderful films within the same genres - films that often critiqued & deconstructed the traditions of those genres. i think both sets of filmmakers are obviously of interest and value. i just don't get the either/or mentality. seems so narrowly binary!


Keely ". . . at least with the swooningly romantic gay melodrama of the film versions."

Ah, I was referring to your top-voted Goodreads review--which I had sought out in hopes of better understanding your position on the issue. I didn't realize it was a movie review, though if you're thinking mainly of Tolkien's story in terms of the movies, that explains why Moorcock and Mieville's critiques don't make sense to you.

"the stuff i found to be odd & nonsensical were the "unromantic, dull, aimless, self-absorbed" comments."

I suppose, for me, the most symptomatic elements would be the endless, repetitive songs, long lists of troop movements, the novella-length digression that is Tom Bombadil, and the numerous references to an obscure history the original reader couldn't possibly understand. All of the books are full of things which do not contribute to the story or the characters, and which are only included because of a dry, studious whim of Tolkien's.

As for being unromantic, it's been said before, but how romantic can a story really be when it chiefly concerns a boys-day-out adventure and the principle love interests spend 95% of the book hundreds of miles apart?

". . . he obviously adores [The Shire] overall. but he does not provide an unexamined view on the middle class."

I have to wonder again if you aren't thinking more of the film portrayals, which I found more subtle and layered than Tolkien's originals. Certainly, he does give us some less scrupulous characters who inhabit The Shire, but this doesn't really provide an examination of The Shire, itself. His tone is, as Moorcock points out, not merely fond of The Shire, but sentimentally prepossessed with it.

His little obdurate comic figures don't actually comment on the drawbacks of the false dream of 'Merrie England', indeed, since they are presented as its worst parts, they end up supporting sentimentality, because they are such weak, foolish foils. Tolkien does not actually examine the origins or flaws of his British automyth, since he seems to implicitly support the social order of the proper lords and their happy yeomen, as represented Aragorn's noble ascension.

"Mieville's entire argument appears to be that LOTR is not radical or challenging enough . . ."

No, he's arguing that Tolkien's tone, his entire purpose is wrapped up in being consoling, in condescending to the reader, typified in characters who are not simplistic merely in a mythic, archetypal way--like Beowulf--but are simplistic morally. I think this is one of the main reasons that readers tend to want to read Tolkien allegorically, even though he rejects that interpretation: because his worldview is so sentimental and staid that it is easy to make it fit ideals.

To some degree, the critique is that to write a story which is centrally conservative, sentimental, and short-sighted is inimical to the fantastical, that this kind of small, compact thinking is the very opposite of magical, because it is so predictable and easily contained. Certainly, an author can work within tradition and do remarkable things, but Tolkien is not even presenting us with a whole tradition, but with the small piece that sheared off when he tried to force two traditions together.

His transplanted Christian morality is already much more simplistic than the great English example Milton set, because Tolkien's evil is not comprehensible or psychologically motivated, like Milton's is--it is merely convenient. Likewise, though he keeps the trappings of the dark self-will of the Norse epics, he naturally recoils from any Dionysian character, which becomes problematic as he tries to find another way to justify a violent warrior-king hero, producing the same central conflict of crusade apologists: how can Adam remain pious when he must fight like Satan?

It's not merely that he presents a conservative voice but that, in the end, his conservative ideal is not entirely justified, and it is undermined in a way which weakens the very fabric of his narrative, and of his world.

Hopefully some of that explanation will prove less inexplicable to you, but I admit that, having tried to clarify with two other views that you found it equally difficult to elaborate upon, perhaps there is some other, more fundamental barrier to mutual comprehension here.


message 14: by mark (new)

mark monday Ah, I was referring to your top-voted Goodreads review--which I had sought out in hopes of better understanding your position on the issue.

i thought your comment had a familiar ring to it! but obviously that review was written with tongue firmly planted in cheek. as far as serious LOTR reviews go, i choose to opt out, if only to avoid being repetitious. there is a surplus of excellent positive reviews out there and i doubt i can bring anything new to the table in that regard. except maybe some cheap humor. such as my Return of the King review.

I have to wonder again if you aren't thinking more of the film portrayals, which I found more subtle and layered than Tolkien's originals. Certainly, he does give us some less scrupulous characters who inhabit The Shire, but this doesn't really provide an examination of The Shire, itself. His tone is, as Moorcock points out, not merely fond of The Shire, but sentimentally prepossessed with it.

oh no, definitely disagree there. although i would be foolish to say that you should read it again - if you did, you would find much parody on english village life, from grasping relatives to ostentatiously rules-obsessed nonsense to small-minded ignorance to straightforward xenophobia. it is all there, right alongside the sentiment and affection. in the end, The Shire is no doubt Tolkein's vision of A Place That Should Be Protected, but he does not provide a ridiculously perfect portrait of that world.

how romantic can a story really be when it chiefly concerns a boys-day-out adventure and the principle love interests spend 95% of the book hundreds of miles apart?

ah, i think we are thinking of different versions of romantic. i wasn't particularly thinking of "romantic" as Romantic Love. but rather the romantic elements around celebrating & mourning a bygone & dying age, a quest, battles between good & evil, the various odes to loss, etc.

most symptomatic elements would be the endless, repetitive songs, long lists of troop movements, the novella-length digression that is Tom Bombadil, and the numerous references to an obscure history the original reader couldn't possibly understand.

i suppose that is all about what a person appreciates in a novel. personally, i don't mind the songs - i find them to be quite beautiful times. i respond positively to detailed description of war (including movement of troops) the same way i can positively respond to those elements in a straightforward military fantasy/scifi adventure. i don't mind digressions (and often those digressions will be what makes the book particularly enjoyable to me) and i certainly don't mind references to an obscure mythic history. the latter is another thing that i often find pleasing in epic fantasy.

and as far as the latter is concerned, wouldn't you say that is overwhelmingly present in Jonathan Strange?

No, he's arguing that...

well you make many interesting points about the Mieville article for me to consider. particularly around what Mieville considers to be the "opposite of magical". overall though, i do still think that Mieville is engaging in the same odd reductivism - that he accuses Tolkein of in the LOTR - when describing what he thinks constitutes quality fantasy. they come from two different schools of thought and personally i think both schools have much merit.

and is it really problematic that Tolkein recoils from the Dionysian and that he paints a black-and-white world of absolute good and absolute evil? all of his heroes are Apollonian constructs! when looking at LOTR from that perspective, how is his conservative ideal undermined? he is not aiming to challenge paradigms; if anything LOTR revivifies them. why should he be critiqued for not accomplishing something that he never set out to do in the first place?

if you're thinking mainly of Tolkien's story in terms of the movies, that explains why Moorcock and Mieville's critiques don't make sense to you.
...
two other views that you found it equally difficult to elaborate upon


ouch! well i suppose if i was nervy enough to dismiss some of your comments as 'rather nonsensical', i can take a few of your own barbs with good humor.


message 15: by Keely (last edited Jan 22, 2012 05:44am) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Keely Actually, the first wasn't meant to be a barb, I sometimes find it hard to separate the vision presented in the films with the actual book, and there are a lot of differences, particularly in plot, sentiment, character portrayal, and moral message--and I think the movie actually presents the more nuanced, psychologically insightful version.

As for the second remark, I was very disappointed that you seemed to gloss over Moorcock and Mieville's actual arguments, especially since I felt that you were calling on me to defend my position when you hadn't presented any solid counter-point. If you find something nonsensical, perhaps there is some specific clarification you could request?

"all of his heroes are Apollonian constructs! when looking at LOTR from that perspective, how is his conservative ideal undermined?"

And his villains are even more Apollonian, since they are all very structured, based around loyalty and hierarchy. We do have Saruman as a rebellious Satan figure, but after his rebellion, he just creates another very structured, ordered force, so it's obvious that he doesn't have a philosophical Dionysian streak.

I would argue that Tolkien's heroes are not that Apollonian, or at least his attempt to make them so is undermined by the fact that many of their actions are governed by the violent, selfish heroism of the Eddas. They primarily seem to be fighting for their own survival, not for some higher purpose. One might try to bring in the Maiar, but I don't think Tolkien ever bothers to explain how they fit in, at least, not in the confines of LOTR itself.

I think Tolkien wanted his heroes to come off as Apollonian, but for that, they would have to display a piety to some greater philosophy of structure, not merely self-preservation. As far as I could tell, his portrayal of 'good' and 'evil' rarely rose beyond an excuse for open conflict--that is to say, the psychology, purpose, and philosophy of good or evil were not vital to the story. It is difficult for characters to be Apollonian without a tradition they can attach themselves to.

The sense of 'tradition' Tolkien presents is such a loose thing that it is more of a sentimentality. Again, I agree that some of the figures in The Shire are meant to be comical and unpleasant, but in a funny, harmless way. He's not looking at the power structures of the peasant life, or at the real conflicts this structure would bring about.

I reiterate that the 'problem figures' he presents are so petty and silly that they do not constitute a deconstruction of the Merrie England ideal. By focusing entirely on such minor, inconsequential problems, he is implying that these are the only problems that would exist under his sentimental system.

". . . the romantic elements around celebrating & mourning a bygone & dying age, a quest, battles between good & evil, the various odes to loss, etc."

Ah, certainly, the other 'Romance'. I would have to say that Tolkien is romantic in that sense, but he romantic only about ideals, about ill-defined things which never actually existed, and to be romantic about an undefined ideal is to be merely sentimental. There can be no Great Romance without Great Ideas.

". . . i don't mind the songs . . . i respond positively to detailed description of war . . . i don't mind digressions . . . "

Well, you really are a Tolkien apologist. Old boy can do no wrong, eh? I agree that there is nothing inherently wrong about songs, troop movement, or digression if they are done well, but I don't think I have ever seen someone argue that these are strengths of Tolkien's. Certainly, he did have a purpose in including them, but that purpose was an affectation: he included them to make his book more like the Eddas. They rarely had a purpose for the characters or the story, and hence, these very long, very self-involved parts of the book were not digressions which, as in Jonathan Strange, revealed some curious detail or side story, but interrupted the tone and pacing of Tolkien's story without adding to the narrative.

You asked how anyone could find Tolkien dull, aimless, and self-absorbed, and I would say any author who fills their books with digressions that sideline the story for an extra-textual purpose are all three.

"he is not aiming to challenge paradigms; if anything LOTR revivifies them."

How does he do that? How does his epic in any way build upon the English Apollonianism defined by Milton? Certainly, he is not challenging paradigms--even when the wildness of the Eddas incidentally leaks into his work--but neither does he uphold the great tradition, because sentimental idealism is not a large enough vessel to bear any great tradition.


message 16: by mark (last edited Jan 22, 2012 01:26pm) (new)

mark monday If you find something nonsensical, perhaps there is some specific clarification you could request?

at this point, there is really no need. you have explained yourself exceedingly well! i would certainly be hard-pressed to dismiss your initial anti-Tolkein comments as "nonsense" now that i more thoroughly understand your perspective.

you really are a Tolkien apologist. Old boy can do no wrong, eh?

well... yes, actually! i suppose i am an apologist for all of my favorite authors.

The sense of 'tradition' Tolkien presents is such a loose thing that it is more of a sentimentality... to be romantic about an undefined ideal is to be merely sentimental. There can be no Great Romance without Great Ideas... How does his epic in any way build upon the English Apollonianism defined by Milton... sentimental idealism is not a large enough vessel

well that is certainly food for thought. and would require a bit more study from me on English Apollonianism defined by Milton before i feel comfortable replying. but a truly interesting point.
_______

as far as digressions go, i'm still quite curious to read your thoughts on the digressions within Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell (which is also a book that i greatly admired, digressions & all)

and just a general comment here... thank you for your lengthy response. many points to consider, particularly around your idea that Tolkein's heroes are faux-Apollonian.

i truly do appreciate the time & effort you put into your responses (here and elsewhere) - even if i don't end up answering them point by point. they are a pleasure to read and i'm not sure there is another GR reviewer who has given me so much food for thought from reviews, even though i often heartily disagree with your various stances. you are one of a kind Keely, never change!


Keely ". . . you have explained yourself exceedingly well!"

Oh, good, I was worried I was just confusing you even more with my long-winded attempts to explain myself.

"i suppose i am an apologist for all of my favorite authors. "

I suppose we all are, I was just surprised that your defense extended so far--I know a lot of fans who adore Tolkien but who still found his songs, troop movements, and vague references dull and self-absorbed. There are certainly authors I am fond of, and find myself defending, but each still has their flaws and caveats.

". . . and would require a bit more study from me on English Apollonianism defined by Milton before i feel comfortable replying."

Yeah, I know what you mean--I often feel that, to really perform due diligence when talking about books would require vastly more time than I have, returning to books and critics and trying to put together something worth writing instead of these half-formed snippets I usually produce.

"i'm still quite curious to read your thoughts on the digressions within Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell"

I think I briefly suggested before that I found her digressions did not break from the general tone or pacing of her book--they were not long-winded explanations, but amusing asides. In addition, even if they were sometimes extraneous to the plot, they tended to be humorous, providing tongue-in-cheek commentary on the world, characters, and narrator.

Contrast, for example, Tolkien's troop movements. I don't mind troop movements in general, I found them very exciting and interesting in Caesar's Conquest of Gaul and Eddison's Worm Ouroboros (which was one of Tolkien's inspirations). The problem, as I recall, with Tolkien's was that they broke in suddenly upon the narrative, went on for a while in a dry, encyclopedic fashion, and then went back to the main plot. As I recall, it didn't add to the general thrust of the conflict, because it did not end up being vital to the resolution, which focused instead on the characters.

I don't mean to harp on Tolkien, I just wanted to try to demonstrate some of the differences between how I think his digressions work compared to JS&MN.

I'm glad you enjoy trading comments, and I certainly don't blame you if you don't always do a point-by-point, I certainly don't expect that.

"you are one of a kind Keely, never change!"

You say that like I have a choice in the matter!


message 18: by Ian (new) - added it

Ian Graye Keely, this is a wonderful review. Not only was it a pleasure to read, it has what many reviews lack and that is an authority.

I want to start "Perdido Street Station" soon.

Would there be any sense in reading "Elric" beforehand?

Is there a cross-author continuum that might benefit my reading of Mieville?

I've read some of Moorcock's non-fantasy work, but no fantasy yet.

In fact, I'm pretty unskilled in the fantasy genre.


message 19: by Matt (new)

Matt I know this is directed at Keely, but I'm just curious. What do you mean by this?

"Is there a cross-author continuum that might benefit my reading of Mieville?"


message 20: by Ian (new) - added it

Ian Graye Matt, I started to feel during the review that Mieville might be standing on Moorcock's shoulders, only from an influence point of view. I've got some of the reissued Elric series and was wondering whether I might detect any influence if I read some Elric first. My question comes from a relative ignorance of both authors, although I've read The City and the City.


message 21: by Matt (new)

Matt Ahhh, ok.

I'd say there's no "need" to read any Moorcock first. A lot of authors have stood on the shoulders of Moorcock to varying degrees. I don't think it'll be necessary for your enjoyment of Perdido Street Station. Just understand it is in an alternate world with no real relation to ours and that Mieville will do a good job making sure you stay with him through the more unusual elements of that world.


message 22: by Ian (new) - added it

Ian Graye Thanks, Matt


Keely Well, there are definitely connections, in both style and content, but I wouldn't suggest Elric as a starting-point, since so many of the ideas in Elric were things Moorcock only explored fully in later books. The Elric series is very much a first draft of his multiversal fantasy vision.

Mieville, himself suggests Moorcock's 'Hawkmoon' as an influential book in this list, so that might serve you better.


message 24: by [deleted user] (new)

I'm peeving sorry, but on the seventh paragraph, I think you meant Brandon Sanderson?


Keely Thanks for the correction, much appreciated.


Rebecca Huston Back in the seventies, I was a huge fan of Moorcock and read everything that I could lay my hands on. I do think that Elric was my favourite of his heroes, just because he was so radically different than other Sword and Sorcery fantasy. Now I don't read as much as I used to in the fantasy genre, mostly finding it to be Tolkien or Arthurian copies, but I like what Lois McMaster Bujold and Julian May have done, if you're looking for new authors.


Keely Thanks for the suggestions. I've got Bujold's Chalion series on my list, and May's Pleistocene Saga, though I have that marked as sci fi. Are there any other suggestions you'd make for them?


Rebecca Huston Bujold's Sharing Knife series is very good, and so is her Vorkosigan Saga, which is SF, but some of the best writing I've ever come across. I've read May's Boreal Moon series, which is straight up fantasy that is smart, and her Pliocene Exile novels are what ruined most SF for me, as well as the Milieu Trilogy. Other fantasy that I've come to enjoy has been Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels, which veer onto the silly side at times, but it's such great satire that I can't help but like it.


Keely Thanks so much for the suggestions, I'll definitely have to add them to the pile. Though I have tried Pratchett on a couple occasions, since I know so many other reviewers and friend who love him, but I just didn't find him funny in the least, and couldn't understand how people could compare him to Douglas Adams. However, I have been told I may have started on 'the wrong books', so who knows, maybe I'll give him another try some day.


back to top