Jonathan Terrington’s Reviews > The Lord of the Rings > Status Update

I sometimes wonder if most of LotR critics even bother to reread the book before writing their opinions or just copy the same old complaints without any double-checking.

Helen wrote: "I sometimes wonder if most of LotR critics even bother to reread the book before writing their opinions or just copy the same old complaints without any double-checking."

I particular come back to Moorcock's complaints in Epic Pooh and often think they are borne out of a reaction to the popularity of the novel rather than bothering to research and read into the novel deeply.

A fair bit of what Moorcock says there is justified, but he does seem to present his case more intensely and aggressively because of the turn fantasy as a genre has taken in Tolkien's wake.

Yasiru wrote: "A fair bit of what Moorcock says there is justified, but he does seem to present his case more intensely and aggressively because of the turn fantasy as a genre has taken in Tolkien's wake."

I couldn't have put it better. His complaints are justified but are overly strong simply because he disliked the Tolkien clones and therefore dismisses them entire.

I think when a story forgoes ironies but still manages a broad appeal for that earnestness, there's an accretion effect that follows where admirers don't see the need to break the mould when they try their hand at emulation. Sadly, almost no one has tried to follow the general programme and write a similar story based on other mythical sources (Jordan comes closest, but his focus is different), and they're oblivious to this aspect of the project entirely (and so must be critics of the trend as a whole). Imagine a Lord of the Rings based on South American mythology!- or African, or Chinese!

Works like Moorcock's own might have some plot elements stolen, but the atmosphere is difficult to reproduce because there's more subversion which serves to temper the mythic archetypes.

Helen wrote: "I sometimes wonder if most of LotR critics even bother to reread the book before writing their opinions or just copy the same old complaints without any double-checking."

I don't think so. Most of the LotR-dislikers read the book (or a fraction of it), moan loudly about how looooooong it is, complain about "too much world building" and declare it to be a bad book. Only most, though. I've read a few well-justified harsh critiques of Tolkien. But they're rare.

Has anyone read any of Tolkein's other works, besides LOTR and The Hobbit?

Nadré wrote: "Has anyone read any of Tolkein's other works, besides LOTR and The Hobbit?"

I'm partly through the Silmarillion, but then I had to return it to the library and I haven't checked it out again since. That's the only one.

This is worth a look for anyone who is interested: Tree and Leaf; Smith of Wootton Major; The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth

The Silmarillion was brilliant! I really enjoyed it and it lent a lot to my understanding of LOTR. I recommend it to all Tolkein fans...

Why is Michael Moorcock criticising a beloved classic? Is he that upset that he's not Tolkien? That's not lit-crit, that's whingeing.

Alex wrote: "Why is Michael Moorcock criticising a beloved classic? Is he that upset that he's not Tolkien? That's not lit-crit, that's whingeing."

If we all uniformly decided on a work as a 'beloved classic' and subjected it solely to awed reverence, disallowing any contrary expression at all, think what a paltry, uncritical world we'd give rise to (and if the book has ill-considered, non-fictional aspirations, you'd be giving rise to dogmatic fundamentalist religion too!).
It's the divergence of opinions that spurs on criticism and counterpoint- which can be evaluated on their own merits. Ad hominem attacks are meant as I see it as a silencing cry at this divergence, robbing us of all that might have followed- both to improve our view of the work in question, and the lens it offers to view our own world through.

In the actual content of the essay, Moorcock presents examples and points to the characteristics which make for his impression when it comes to the charge against the cloying narrative style. It's also true that Tolkien is very grounded in the progression of ideas and cannot seem to bring himself to employ more subversive ways to explore them, and is entirely too black and white on politics- how the honest little man (literally) can but support the extant order to smite chaos (which is really a burgeoning concept trying desperately to contain any deviation at all from tradition and modes of life that has gone before on top of the evil proper). There's no ideological challenge- which is arguably better than not even circumstantial challenge in certain of today's (wish-fulfillment) fantasies (look at The Hunger Games for instance), but is still a clear lack.
That said, I don't agree with Moorcock on the verse. It may be a little reiterative and treading on bland on occasion, but the song-like flow and variety must be acknowledged even so (there's something of Kipling to it), and in fact, I think the story might have been better had Tolkien limited his earnest views mostly to the verse and been more daring in the prose sections.
The essay also does not consider the linguistic (this is acknowledged as I recall- and criticism offered on the story content and style in spite of it) and myth-making (or perhaps myth-working would be a better term, given how unlike Lord Dunsany say, Tolkien drew on his mythological sources rather directly) aspects of the story, so it's not a complete critical account by any means, and while it can exaggerate its case where it is a valid one in getting the above points through (if any of that is whinging, I say we can pick out what are relevant arguments and address those), a reader doesn't do herself much good being willfully oblivious about them entirely.

I sometimes wonder whether it's this 'fanboyism', with its hurling of some form of 'oh, they're just jealous, the bastards' at anyone who points out anything that's less than a solid commendation for a work like Lord of the Rings, which has kept science fiction and fantasy sidelined in the literary sphere.

I dunno, it just struck me as kinda boring. Yeah, people have been making those criticisms against Tolkien for years haven't they? He can't write good and he's a died-in-the wool Paternalistic Tory. Sure, we get that. If he said that in an interview or a diary entry then maybe an off the cuff jab would be amusing to read, but that article is far too much time devoted to the subject. It just didn't strike me as very illuminating - maybe it is to some but I'd thought these things myself years ago anyway. I don't see how it particularly helps the cause of epic fantasy any to take public knocks at an author that many already love and many already hate and I feel that Moorcock's own fiction situates him as opposed to Tolkien's ethos more convincingly without the need for such a direct attack. It's just literary sparring, really.

While he makes some solid points, his exagerration gets out of the hand to the point of misrepresenting the text. The one that stands out in my head is the part about happy endings. While the evil is defeated, there is not much of a sense of triupmh - it was on its last legs to begin with and this was more prevention of re-rising than the actual fight, some wounds will never heal, and Elves are still leaving. It's probably one of the best done "good" endings ever.

Likewise, not sure if Moorcock was the one who mentioned it, but I disagree about the oft-mentioned complaint about glorifying of "Merrie Old England". Isolationism is actually condemned in just about every work of his, and it's pretty clear Tolkien believes the change is necessary, even when it comes at a great cost. In the end, the Shire cannot afford to maintain status quo. Furthermore, I've always felt that descriptions of Hobbit life and customs were a satire (if a fond, self-deprecating one) and not an ode. His Hobbit heroes were oddballs and actually condemned by the traditional society.

Nadré wrote: "Has anyone read any of Tolkein's other works, besides LOTR and The Hobbit?"

The Silmarillion and Unfinished works. Also The Children of Hurin and his version of The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun. I've read some of the edited things by Christopher Tolkien which are not technically Tolkien.

Speaking of 'fanboyism' perhaps there is a level of that in how some of us approach Tolkien, yet it's hard to take seriously claims by people like Moorcock that Tolkien's work is not an important aspect of fantasy and see a level of perhaps, jealousy. And again there seems to be a level of Moorock not understanding Tolkien's aims when he seems to imply that Tolkien glorified war. Whereas people like Martin and Jordan (regardless of views on them) accepted Tolkien as an important part of fantasy in how he blended the epic and fairytale 'genres' if you will. I also find it difficult to take China Mieville seriously when he states that "Tolkien is the wen on the arse of fantasy literature. His oeuvre is massive and contagious—you can't ignore it, so don't even try. The best you can do is consciously try to lance the boil. And there's a lot to dislike—his cod-Wagnerian pomposity, his boys-own-adventure glorying in war, his small-minded and reactionary love for hierarchical status-quos, his belief in absolute morality that blurs moral and political complexity. Tolkien's clichés—elves 'n' dwarfs 'n' magic rings—have spread like viruses. He wrote that the function of fantasy was 'consolation', thereby making it an article of policy that a fantasy writer should mollycoddle the reader." There are good points in what he says (and indeed in another article he writes a strong defence of Tolkien) yet one cannot help but see the strong way in which he attacks Tolkien firstly. It's almost as if these particular authors dismiss Tolkien firstly because his perspective of fantasy differs to theirs (Moorcok - subversive ideas, Mieville - weird fantasy). They come across as dismissive simply because of their strong disagreement and it is that that I disagree with. I've only read one Mieville and did not like it (Kraken) and no Moorcock yet I wouldn't dismiss their work.

The value of it now, apart from as a standalone criticism of Lord of the Rings, is given the post-Tolkien uniformity in high fantasy. When we don't wish to face what's been said, we turn our attention instead on how it was said or where or when, but the substance of the criticism remains in spite of our shying eyes. Writing fiction and writing criticism on fiction are essentially different things, but in whatever form the latter might come, we can extract relevant points and address them according to measure just as we could sometimes tighten a loose story with a slight paraphrase.

But first off, the essay was published in 1978, and in it Moorcock doesn't quite say Tolkien 'can't write well', but that he employs a too-stout and comforting tone to tell his story. There is the odd compliment too: "But he could, at his best, produce prose much better than that of his Oxford contemporaries who perhaps lacked his respect for middle-English poetry."
(taken from the essay at http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.p...)

As for Tolkien's Toryism or seeming Luddite attitudes, these have bearing again given the traditionalist leanings apparent in the story. This is not to say such a tone isn't allowed or anything like that, but that if it's a default, there should be some challenge to it and then defence to provide some ideological tension, the lack of which makes for a certain instability in the story, especially early on. If you look over his biography, Tolkien's politics make him the kind of conservative who was keenly aware of responsibility and wasn't given to extremes, but his attitudes are too unconscious in the story to either be mistaken for sufficient range or to be convincing. On the other hand, despite the relative dearth of women playing involved parts in the story, or the ambiguities when it comes to relating race to the real world, I find Tolkien's outlook quite modern and balanced on these.

As for Tolkien's Toryism or seeming Luddite attitudes, these have bearing again given the traditionalist leanings apparent in the story. This is not to say such a tone isn't allowed or anything like that, but that if it's a default, there should be some challenge to it and then defence to provide some ideological tension, the lack of which makes for a certain instability in the story, especially early on.

It is this that I find most interesting in his article. Again, the idea comes into play that Moorcock is overly critical of an aspect of fantasy that he on a personal level disagrees with and appears to cover that insecurity with academic discourse. He makes out that it is a flaw of Tolkiens (at least in my view) to possess such conservatism and appears to be more drawn towards the radical or leftwards leaning political authors. Yet of course that is only an aspect of the essay. The core being that he passes Tolkien off as an epic version of Winnie the Pooh. (Thus also dismissing Winnie the Pooh which you simply cannot do in my eyes.) Which of course, misses the entire point of what Tolkien was aiming to achieve.

I found this article (though less beautifully written) to be an interesting response: http://www.thecimmerian.com/knocking-...
With the Moorcock essay here for any who are interested: http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.p...

His first point is to the nature of prose of the epic fantasy we now know:
"The sort of prose most often identified with "high" fantasy is the prose of the nursery-room. It is a lullaby; it is meant to soothe and console. It is mouth-music. It is frequently enjoyed not for its tensions but for its lack of tensions. It coddles; it makes friends with you; it tells you comforting lies." Does Lord of the Rings do this? In varying ways, yet at the same time Tolkien interjects elements that are meant to add horror, fear or thrill into the story. My father once commented that the scenes with the Ringwraiths was particularly chilling to him.

"The humour is often unconscious because, as with Tolkien, the authors take words seriously but without pleasure"

Everything that I have read about Tolkien or percieved in this novel indicates that Tolkien had a love of language (after all he created several of his own and learnt many others better than his translators). Not merely taking it seriously, but as a pastime, as a hobby as a passion. If you look at the names, the witticism and the humour of The Lord of the Rings (as with Ulysses, though Tolkien aims to attempt different romanticised things) there are many deliberate puns or linguistic jokes inserted into the story. Indeed the names of Samwise, Frodo and Bilbo are all linked to Old English meanings - hence wordplay.

"Tolkien does, admittedly, rise above this sort of thing on occasions, in some key scenes, but often such a scene will be ruined by ghastly verse and it is remarkable how frequently he will draw back from the implications of the subject matter. Like Chesterton, and other orthodox Christian writers who substituted faith for artistic rigour he sees the petit bourgeoisie, the honest artisans and peasants, as the bulwark against Chaos."

Here I see two elements. Firstly he indicates a dislike of the verses (of course a matter of taste, though I rather like the inserted poetry). And then secondly he makes it clear he dislikes the particular religious elements associated with Chesterton and Tolkien (The catholic background that links the bourgeoisie to the defence of land and country - again a bias against conservatism is somewhat revealed I believe.)

So my main argument and issue is that these authors take their own preconceptions of the text (as we all do) and then appear to use an academic perspective as justification for their claims without attempting to delve deeper or truly performing a proper analysis. It is dismissive because of perspective rather than truly analytical.

I, would have no problem if it had been a throw away comment or two (hence I find China Mieville's response more appealing). Yet the fact that Moorcock spent time writing an entire essay pushing his views as a proper analysis disgruntles me. I see it as duplicitous in many regards.

Helen wrote: "While he makes some solid points, his exagerration gets out of the hand to the point of misrepresenting the text. The one that stands out in my head is the part about happy endings. While the evil ..."

The charge is not that Tolkien is averse to change but that he bounds it (and its cost) in traditionalist terms and relegates everything else to the side of evil. I wouldn't call the Hobbits 'condemned' elsewhere; found odd certainly, but there was a distinct lack of challenge (let alone malice) everywhere they went. True that their isolation didn't last, but all it did was fit into an existing order whereas any true challenge was simply 'the evil' and the nostalgic glories of this old order secured.
'Happy ending' may be an oversimplification and I did personally like the ending very much, but what Moorcock says about an epic's need to dignify death rather than ignore it is a valid point.

Jonathan wrote: "Nadré wrote: "Has anyone read any of Tolkein's other works, besides LOTR and The Hobbit?"

The Silmarillion and Unfinished works. Also The Children of Hurin and his version of The Legend of Sigurd ..."

What Mieville says there may be advising caution, but I wouldn't call it 'dismissive' because he begins by saying exactly that you can't dismiss Tolkien's work. There's a strain of denigration (sometimes fair, sometimes not- for instance 'cod-Wagnerian' is not), but I think of the work and its influence rather than out of personal envy. Suppose there is that- but what's the point of picking at that in a rage instead of addressing those shots that do reach along reasonable lines?- either by mounting a defence or conceding but pointing out what else yet makes the work important.

You bring up a good point in favour of Tolkien about the fairy tale effect in Tolkien's work on the other hand. I think that lightness, that almost flighty sense of wonder in the air is missing from many of the works which carry forward the more cumbersome 'memes' from Lord of the Rings.

Yasiru wrote: I wouldn't call the Hobbits 'condemned' elsewhere; found odd certainly, but there was a distinct lack of challenge (let alone malice) everywhere they went.
I didn't say they were explicitly condemned, but their lifestyle gets heavily criticised, especially through the voice of Bilbo, who isn't exactly a traditionalist. The only difference is that Tolkien - unlike a lot of his critics - knows how to criticise without flinging mud at the subject of criticism.
"'Happy ending' may be an oversimplification and I did personally like the ending very much, but what Moorcock says about an epic's need to dignify death rather than ignore it is a valid point."
But Tolkien does - and I really wish more of his critics would read The Silmarillion. (Maybe that's why Jonathan and I defend Tolkien this much - it debunks a lot of common misconceptions. And keep in mind that it's the book he wanted to really write - LotR came about because it was the popular demand.) Even in The Hobbit, Thorin's death is given a large significance. It slips a little in LotR because of the scope. But it's still there, though not in the classic form - Frodo is dying, slowly. Elves are leaving because they are wasting away. Boromir, like Thorin, is another example of atoning for one's wrongs by death in an honourable cause. One could argue the same thing happens with Gollum. It's just the concept of death isn't treated the usual way. Tolkien actually argues it's a gift - not to be forced to suffer things you love go away like Elves do. There is also a lot of Tolkien's favourite, death of kings - which is not a small thing at all. He just doesn't go it detail about all the implications.

Furthermore, remember that one of main concepts Tolkien had in mind when writing was eucatastrophe - a good thing resulting out of a grand climax. Killing off everyone would have ruined that.

I agree with the sentiment that Tolkien copycats are not a good thing, particularly since they are missing the point - copying the idea of quest and monomyth without themes, knowledge of mythos or linguistics that Tolkien had. But critics would be better off focusing on them than on Tolkien, who did what he intended to - brought back the Fairy Tale to the adults.

Jonathan wrote:"It is this that I find most interesting in his article. Again, the idea comes into play that Moorcock is overly critical of an aspect of fantasy that he on a personal level disagrees with and appears to cover that insecurity with academic discourse. He makes out that it is a flaw of Tolkiens (at least in my view) to possess such conservatism and appears to be more drawn towards the radical or leftwards leaning political authors. Yet of course that is only an aspect of the essay. The core being that he passes Tolkien off as an epic version of Winnie the Pooh. (Thus also dismissing Winnie the Pooh which you simply cannot do in my eyes.) Which of course, misses the entire point of what Tolkien was aiming to achieve."

As I said however, the point seems not that this outlook is disallowed, but that there should be a basis for it (thus providing ideological tension) instead of having it as a seepage from the author's own unconscious leanings.

Whatever his intensity, this makes Moorcock's criticism very definitely more than something borne out of personal insecurity or jealousy (the speculation into which rather than addressing the points is again in my view, counter to a productive defence of the work).

On Winnie the Pooh, Moorcock dismisses it only in the context of what's required of an epic. I don't think Tolkien fails at all at creating an epic, but the Pooh-like consoling way he goes about it leaves a little something to be desired which seems quite important to Moorcock- something short of Homer say (well, a Norse or Germanic epic might fit better here, but I'm on an Odyssey reread).

"Does Lord of the Rings do this? In varying ways, yet at the same time Tolkien interjects elements that are meant to add horror, fear or thrill into the story."

Very true, but I think the comforting air reasserts itself too assuredly for there to be much reflection on these and their broader attendant fears. Whenever Tolkien dares a little, he pulls back too soon. But in The Return of the King the constant conflict alleviates this tendency well in my opinion, making it my favourite of the (sectioning as a) trilogy. The flight from the Shire up to Tom Bombadil's rescue from the barrow and Pippin and Merry's escape from the orcs during the night are also impressive in this regard.

I'm not entirely certain what Moorcock means on the language for pleasure count, but I'd guess it's again about subtext and ironies, which are conspicuously lacking in spite of the passionate way language is employed in other quarters (again especially in the varied forms of verse and care for linguistic detail).

"Here I see two elements. Firstly he indicates a dislike of the verses (of course a matter of taste, though I rather like the inserted poetry). And then secondly he makes it clear he dislikes the particular religious elements associated with Chesterton and Tolkien (The catholic background that links the bourgeoisie to the defence of land and country - again a bias against conservatism is somewhat revealed I believe.)

So my main argument and issue is that these authors take their own preconceptions of the text (as we all do) and then appear to use an academic perspective as justification for their claims without attempting to delve deeper or truly performing a proper analysis. It is dismissive because of perspective rather than truly analytical.

I, would have no problem if it had been a throw away comment or two (hence I find China Mieville's response more appealing). Yet the fact that Moorcock spent time writing an entire essay pushing his views as a proper analysis disgruntles me. I see it as duplicitous in many regards."

Given what Moorcock follows on with, it's to his credit that he doesn't dwell on this possible prejudice but notes how this traditionalist 'bourgeois' attitude romanticises (in rather a too sentimental way) the stout endurance of this honest rustic character.

On the verse I do think as I noted that taste may land you in favour or against more than anything.

There may well be a bias in perspective, but Moorcock's essay does contain honest analysis and is barred from much duplicity thanks to his own examples and concessions if this was indeed the intent.

Helen wrote: "Yasiru wrote: I wouldn't call the Hobbits 'condemned' elsewhere; found odd certainly, but there was a distinct lack of challenge (let alone malice) everywhere they went.
I didn't say they were exp..."

There is that problem of control, of restraint even there in criticism, not helped by the narrative voice Tolkien uses. There's more volatility in the authentic clash of cultures (Jordan is better at this, though he takes time getting there).

I read some of the Silmarillion, but I decided then to do a Lord of the Rings reread (yet ongoing, slowly with plentiful distractions) and left it. It was a little dry, but I liked the Dunsany-like programme he seemed to have set. But I'd say the criticism of Lord of the Rings, popular as it is, stands. The muddling of death as in characters like Gollum has no particular poignancy because the corruption theme against all manner of chances overpowers the character. Similarly with the death of kings, it doesn't have to be about implication, but the build-up and the moment's poignancy (see the Dunsany's Time and the Gods for instance, though this is arguably more philosophical). For Tolkien it often seems just a plot device. Even deaths like Boromir's, couched a little too sentimentally in honour, don't really let human fallibility surface for more than a bare instant. With the elves (and to a certain extent Frodo) too there's no true desperation by the end- the transformation is merely a displacement for them and it's only in the limited purview of Middle Earth (because that's where we've been- Tolkien is clever that way) this matters.

This isn't to say everyone needs to be killed off but that Tolkien couldn't bring himself to use it as a break of artifice as you see in historical epics, perhaps for fear of compromising his stout vision.

Looking at what's possibly wrong in Lord of the Rings can elucidate on its meme-like effect in the genre. Maybe this causes it to be judged too harshly, but under the spikes of intensity might be very real insights if only we could be open to them.

I fail to observe it as a truly critical analysis as it lacks balance and at least for me personally, each time I read it I see that it only indicates that The Lord of the Rings is nothing to waste ones' time on. I will admit, that I have read his essay multiple times with great scepticism. I feel he touches on areas that are not at all relevant to the text, but rather relevant to his own personal failings with the text. For instance he touches regularly on the idea of the novel being romantic or speaking of the glorious days of England in the past. And I won't deny that The Lord of the Rings is romantic in that regard yet it is a romance that is shown to be illusive and false, hence why I feel setting the story back in a war torn Shire is impressive as a final act. Yet he touches not on other failings such as the lack of main female protagonists (perhaps because he too may not feature many women in his own narratives?). It seems to me interesting that Moorcock apparently criticises the idea of the stout heroic character winning out in the end in contradiction to his own bias (as it appears to me) to rely upon the anti-hero in his novels. I see this again as Moorcock focusing on what appears to him as flaws in the novel rather than what the author intended as strengths or what is revealed as the solid aspects of the novel: the discussions of war, good and evil, heroism and in connection to the great Silmarillion, the idea of how evil continues on across the ages in lesser forms in some regard. Yet Moorcock criticises it as overly morally black and white without noting that there is plenty of grey.

Jonathan wrote: "I fail to observe it as a truly critical analysis as it lacks balance and at least for me personally, each time I read it I see that it only indicates that The Lord of the Rings is nothing to waste..."

Dismissing the criticism for the fact that it's not all perfectly fair seems to me analogous to what Moorcock himself is doing.

I'm not very convinced that Tolkien does show the reclaiming to be false- he certainly doesn't have any aversion to extending the calamity to the Shire as shown in that final episode, but this is all in line with a renewed old order as represented by Aragorn (men remain volatile but honourable, Hobbits go from stout and isolated to stout and supportive of their order).

Personally, I don't think Tolkien's lack of (involved) female characters is really a point against him (or anyone) in itself. At least women aren't occasionally sense or wit spouting objects for him as for Goodkind, and as I mentioned somewhere above, his attitudes towards women even in their limited screentime are far more commendable than those of his imitators often are. Similarly, I can't see the omission as a fault in what Moorcock says, but simply that- an omission, for whatever reasons.

It's also less about the stout rustic hero's triumph than the very impression we get- the Hobbits are idealised in a way that's too general and collusive to be anything but the perspective of a certain political worldview. (Whether intentionally or not, there was a South Park episode which played this for laughs; unfortunately I can't remember its name.)

Tolkien's morality isn't all black and white, it's true, but he does set a divide, and whether in lesser forms or not sweeps a great deal under the Enemy's banner.


Edit:

There's another aspect to this however. Orwell says in his essay about Kipling that Kipling's verse expresses common sentiments in catchy ways, but it seemed to me reading this that they would be valuable in an instructional capacity. In a rather like way maybe the imposed ideological stability in Lord of the Rings provides a first approach- you can reflect and perhaps become jaded later on, but here's a way, even a historical one.
At least Tolkien is cautious at this instead of dangerously assured as Paul Krugman's humorous quote comparing Atlas Shrugged and Lord of the Rings suggests:
"There's an age when boys read one of two books. Either they read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged or they read Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. One of these books leaves you with no grasp on reality and a deeply warped sense of fantasy in place of real life. The other one is of course about hobbits and orcs."

Also the lack of what I called 'circumstance security', unlike say in certain young adult novels, makes Lord of the Rings an actual adult work, whatever the presence of this grounding ideological stance which Moorcock thinks is a fatal shortcoming, and which I do not. Tolkien didn't so much 'bring back the fairy tale to adults' as combined it with the epic's ability to be a vehicle for serious moral concerns. The simple and consoling politics likely helped gain him the ensuing popularity, especially because times were volatile when he wrote (and in some ways continue to be).

There is no such thing as an objective criticism. There is, however, a distinction between criticism that tries to see the both sides of the coin and criticism with an agenda, and I'm partial to the former. Epic Pooh falls is the latter category.

Regarding death and such, Moorcock - and you- seem to expect more modern, humanistic take. Moorcock ignores the well-known fact that Tolkien was not aiming for a modern novel, but a fairytale for adults, reclaiming the fantasy world from nurseries and Disney. When have you read a fairytale where death is more than the plot device? Same with medieval Nordic and Anglo-Saxon literature, which was also a significant influence. Humanistic approach to death wouldn't fit the style and the atmosphere Tolkien angled for. For him, it's not about as much individuals as the changes of the world in general. This does ring odd to people used to the modern focus on the individuals. I'd go as far as to argue that the protagonist of Lord of the Rings isn't Frodo or Aragorn or Gandalf but Middle-earth itself. This goes a step further in The Silmarillion. After reading a great number of sagas, I definitely see where this comes from - they rarely stick to one individual either (even when his name is in the title), choosing instead to document all the relevant events. Deaths there are matter-of-fact as well.

Now, I can understand how this isn't everyone's cup of tea. However, this is not - for me - a valid reason to ignore examining possible reasons for writing that way and simply settling for Tolkien being immature. It's not an invalid approach, to be sure. A lot of writers have said some very extreme things about other writers. Twain was prone to slandering a good part of British literature and culture in general. I don't like it either; he, too, has some very good points, but they are overshadowed by his lack of research and obvious bitterness over British literature being, contemporarily, more influential than American.

While "he's just jealous" does sound like a crude dismissal, sadly, there is an obvious conflict of interest and one cannot help but take criticism of someone who is direct competition, and someone who never managed to reach fame the subject of criticsm did at that, without the grain of salt. I'm sorry, but it's unavoidable. While I'm not saying Epic Pooh shouldn't exist, I'd prefer it wasn't seen as be-all-end-all critical work regarding Tolkien. Surely some of many literary critics who aren't fantasy writers or, indeed, writers at all examined the subject, and hopefully did better research at that.

Helen wrote: "There is no such thing as an objective criticism. There is, however, a distinction between criticism that tries to see the both sides of the coin and criticism with an agenda, and I'm partial to th..."

Unfortunately, such a 'comforting' super-relativist statement is untrue. This tendency to use subjectivity as an excuse to avoid defending one's position is nothing if not harmful (in general I mean, since both you and Jonathan have certainly argued your points well). Of course we can make objective statements in our criticisms!- these are made so because we can make rigorous cases for them and open them to scrutiny and discussion. Subjectivity may be an ultimate deciding factor, but we can lay out merits and demerits enough prior to progressing there.
It's also troubling that bland balance is now apparently the ideal called for with anything and everything, whether this is a sensible course or not. When one side has an argument (presented however aggressively) and the other only cries foul about conflicted incentives without addressing the substance (either by opposing with counterargument- as you've done, or suggesting qualification- as I have), but both are to be heard out with some sense of 'equality', this is like the opinions of a medical doctor and a homeopathy 'expert' being given like weight. Surely we can weigh and measure by turns and extract the grain from the chaff when it comes to criticism?

The fairy tale defence doesn't hold water because I can think up an immediate counterexample (which I might have mentioned before)- Lord Dunsany (who was an influence on Tolkien and quite a few others). In his Pegana collections, which are some of the most wonderful myth-making exercises I've ever read, death is not treated in a 'modern, humanist' way but symbolically. Tolkien could well have done similarly. One of Tolkien's sources was the Nibelungenlied, which I haven't read, but was also a source for Wagner's Ring Cycle mentioned by Jonathan (quoting Mieville above). While a direct comparison is ill-advised (as I said there in response), Wagner allows for a certain gravity and meditation when it comes to death (it doesn't even have to be specific) which Tolkien often simply defers.
Epics like Homer's and Vyasa's also give a certain 'dignity' as Moorcock calls it to death (key deaths particularly, which should relieve formality, not strengthen it). It may be different in Germanic and Norse sagas, but I do think there was a certain sequence of presaging and then definite consequence to Baldr's death.
This doesn't have to be a drawn out or pompous affair you see, only a kind of quiet, meditative break or flagging of tension would do, but Tolkien's matter of fact way about it makes very little impression (making for an oddly sustained pitch to battle- and other aspects of war in the epic fashion Tolkien renders exceptionally well).
I can think of one exception actually (and on this one there is much rumination), but it's a cheat- Gandalf the Grey.

I've defended some of Moorcock's arguments with qualifications of my own, but let me say I do not conclude as he does. Tolkien is certainly not being immature, but his worldview in the story is rather uniformly idyllic and causes him to secure it at the cost of keeping too tight rein on the story's ideological aspects.

I don't know if Moorcock and Tolkien are in direct competition except very broadly, since the former's Elric Saga, while it contains epic elements, is more likely to appeal to a sword and sorcery reader, and since he's done science fiction too- but again I don't see why we can't say, 'Fine, so this may be a reason for why he's saying this, but let's look at what he has said and check against the thing his remarks are about'- just like we don't condemn Tolkien's own politics or worldview, but examine what effect it might have had on his story.

Whatever the motives behind it or its contemporary notoriety, there are at the least seeds of genuine critique of Tolkien's best known work in 'Epic Pooh' on almost all the main fronts you're likely to consider in order to judge it as a work of literature (as opposed to a philological or myth-making project).

Yasiru wrote: "Helen wrote: "There is no such thing as an objective criticism. There is, however, a distinction between criticism that tries to see the both sides of the coin and criticism with an agenda, and I'm..."

Regarding "competition", it's true it might not seem so when talking to someone who loves the genre, but what comes to mind when you mention "fantasy" to the average reader? When will Elric get visual interpretation?

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. It seems you prefer opinions with some "fire" in them. However, I find any biased criticism, particularly one where author of it picks and chooses which facts to include and which not, unpalatable, even when it's against a work I don't like. Bland as the alternative might seem to you, I find "but there is this one thing" more interesting than "this sucks".

Yet you seem to disagree with my opinion that criticism is ultimatively subjective. How can a critic go into extreme, fail to acknowledge merits of the work, and still achieve this "objectivity"?

I do agree there are seeds of genuine criticism in Epic Pooh, but it's nowhere as "objective" as I'd like, and I'd prefer if there was something more objective that had that much clout.

Helen wrote: "Yasiru wrote: "Helen wrote: "There is no such thing as an objective criticism. There is, however, a distinction between criticism that tries to see the both sides of the coin and criticism with an ..."

You're right of course on what the average reader may think, but as I argued, it shouldn't really matter because a disingenuous design will unravel the argument when others look at it. If some kind of envy is a factor at all, I'd say it shows itself mainly in Moorcock's general air of vehemence.

What I called bland was giving similar weight to comments about loudness and comments about substance.

I don't care either way about 'fire' in arguments, but I think we can still make something of unusually fired up cases if only we at least attempt it. When we read criticism, we're as much the critic as whoever wrote it, so we can say, 'This says it sucks, but let's see if it's making a valid point behind the general disgruntlement. And even if this assessment is true given what's considered, there are these concessions this fails to look at- but are these sufficient?'
We're better off for having read the extreme opinion just so long as we don't end up owning it (and we're under no obligation to). Our reading of a not so objective piece of criticism might yet be objective.

Yasiru wrote: "Helen wrote: "Yasiru wrote: "Helen wrote: "There is no such thing as an objective criticism. There is, however, a distinction between criticism that tries to see the both sides of the coin and crit..."

Fair enough. I actually enjoyed Epic Pooh at the start and thought it wasn't anywhere as unnerving for a Tolkien fan as it was made out to be until a couple of hurdles appeared - and then I was more annoyed because it seemed like Moorcock hasn't reread the book carefully before writing it rather than the tone he takes. Certainly nowhere as vitriolic as Mieville. (Likewise, the problem I have with him is not that he dislikes Tolkien, it's that he takes out his frustration with bad Tolkien copycats on Tolkien instead on the people who actually anger him.) That he is obviously measuring Tolkien according to his vision of what fantasy should be is obvious. But I've read the works of both writers and know what to take straight and what not. What troubles me is the idea of someone finding Epic Pooh before reading anything else Moorcock or Tolkien. There is negative criticism from which one can still judge whether the book is for them or not for themselves, but I didn't feel Epic Pooh was it.

Yasiru wrote: "Dismissing the criticism for the fact that it's not all perfectly fair seems to me analogous to what Moorcock himself is doing."

I am not dismissing his criticism. I've read it multiple times and see that he has some valid points in the essay (particularly as regards Tolkien writing in a particularly romantic vein), however I do believe, as Helen stated above that it is a criticism with an agenda and personally I dislike such criticism when compared to a more balanced expose`. When one looks at the authors Moorcock appears to prefer (as with Mieville) they tend to be modernist or post-modernist greats, and as such there appears to be a tendency for Moorcock to believe that most works of fiction should fit into a modernist or post-modernist mode. Yet I believe strongly that one must allow art to remain as it is rather than imposing a frame around which to view that art (impossible as that is). I perceive Moorcock as (in his conclusions) imposing his own set views about modernity upon this work, therefore criticising 'flaws' that may not even exist within the novel.

I will have to write up a full defence of Tolkien in my review in some aspects, attempting to address the ways in which I view Tolkien as true literature though he has come to be seen as writing a pulpy work of fiction by some.

Jonathan wrote: "Yasiru wrote: "Dismissing the criticism for the fact that it's not all perfectly fair seems to me analogous to what Moorcock himself is doing."

I am not dismissing his criticism. I've read it mult..."

All I will say is, it shouldn't matter what his intentions were. In turn I'd say it's unhelpful presumption to say personal preferences being of a certain mode means a critic will always judge every work he considers through that perspective- because we can see if this is the case easily enough in the substance of the criticism without first striking preemptively at their openness or critical faculties.
If anything, Moorcock in the essay compares Tolkien's writing to other authors of what are essentially fairy-tales with quite transparent examples of prose, and also contrasts the handling of some themes, like death as Helen and I were discussing, with historical epics. There's nothing at all to suggest in the actual content that Tolkien's work is being viewed through a narrowed modernist or postmodernist lens. To me, bias (for whatever reasons) shows mainly, and perhaps only in the intensity of the criticism, which is also about one facet (if a central one) of the work- its success as a story in itself.

Lord of the Rings is of course multi-faceted. I don't honestly think it's one of the greats when considering it to be an adventure story, or that it's as thought-provoking politically or socially or philosophically as either historical epics or symbolic fairy-tales like Dunsany's. It is however, satisfactory in these regards (an assessment which sets me apart from Moorcock). This simplicity, if I might call it that, is probably what has made it so popular (among fans of the films especially)- contrary to Tolkien's more general aim in producing the legendarium, with works like the Silmarillion. But this isn't all there is to it. What makes Lord of the Rings a great work in my mind is that it's such a careful myth-making endeavour. In many respects it very successfully combines the gravity and descriptive power of the epic with the light, lingering touch of earthly, humanist wisdom in the fairy-tale. It brings the peoples depicted, their myths and histories and language to life in a supremely impressive way (there's a certain containment to this picture because of the conservative tune of ideas in the novel, but it's a great feat regardless). This boosts my impression of it, but I can acknowledge that it's not a perfect work in each and every respect.

This boosts my impression of it, but I can acknowledge that it's not a perfect work in each and every respect.

No work of fiction is entirely perfect or entirely flawed, which is why I tend to prefer a balanced approach.

In turn I'd say it's unhelpful presumption to say personal preferences being of a certain mode means a critic will always judge every work he considers through that perspective- because we can see if this is the case easily enough in the substance of the criticism.

Again, though I raised this point and have had it used against me, my argument is not that Moorcock will always judge a work from a certain perspective but that he has a tendency to lean a certain way in his judgements. This being based on a number of different quotes and thoughts I've read on the man. As Helen has been discussing there is a bias (a subjectivity) that enters into all criticism and seems particularly strong in Moorcock's piece here. I'm arguing that Moorcock's worldview particularly influences him in his judgement here rather than detaching himself from that postmodern/modernist leaning. It is a similar worldview I've seen in those who defend the actions of G.R.R Martin with bringing fantasy a modernist sympathy.

I believe, to get to the core of my issue with Moorcock, that he attempts to derail the idea of Tolkien's work as quality. Which I have no issue with since again it is every reader's right to view a novel as they will. Yet, rather than delve into some of the 'true flaws' he attacks the surface ideologies. In other words I see him as attacking the author and the authorial intent rather than the work itself in many regards. I would rather that such a highly regarded (and discussed critique) feature more of a depth to its discussion, delving deeper to examine perhaps where Tolkien fails with his dialogue, his prose, his language use, his description, his pacing, his choices. Yet what I see is that Moorcock (like many following critics) attacks instead: ideology and the glorification of war (misguided though that is). The one true criticism I agree with is his discussion of coddling and his - brief - look into the prose. Yet I reach a different conclusion in this regard.

It is particularly the dismissal of the ideology that I find duplicitous as I find that he seems able to 'get away' with this kind of ideological attack yet were someone else to criticise his ideology I doubt there would be a similar leniency.

Jonathan wrote: "No work of fiction is entirely perfect or entirely flawed, which is why I tend to prefer a balanced approach."

This seems however to often be the impression of certain Tolkien fans when it comes to criticism of the work.

"Again, though I raised this point and have had it used against me, my argument is not that Moorcock will always judge a work from a certain perspective but that he has a tendency to lean a certain way in his judgements."

And in this particular case there is no evidence that this tendency, whatever its truth, leads him astray.

"I believe, to get to the core of my issue with Moorcock, that he attempts to derail the idea of Tolkien's work as quality. Which I have no issue with since again it is every reader's right to view a novel as they will. Yet, rather than delve into some of the 'true flaws' he attacks the surface ideologies."

The thing is, Moorcock does conclude as you say, and he does ascribe reasons why Tolkien's worldview in the novel might be the way it is. However, this doesn't disqualify his observations in the course of working towards this conclusion, and to me he touches on most of the important critical points to do with Lord of the Rings as a story. Moorcock uses a comparative approach to critique the prose and language (not linguistics- but the language of dialogues and thoughts), which seems a transparent gesture on his part given what side he comes down in his assessment. I suppose the point is that the work's worldview is not always neatly extricable from the details of its success as a narrative.

What part is pertinent as literary criticism in Epic Pooh's examination of Tolkien's ideology is Tolkien's consoling way of narration, which I think is fair game, if not as bad as Moorcock makes out.

This thread needs a like.

"This seems however to often be the impression of certain Tolkien fans when it comes to criticism of the work."

It is my impression in general as regards criticism. Even Ulysses had its flaws in my reading (with its bloated obtuse nature).

And in this particular case there is no evidence that this tendency, whatever its truth, leads him astray.

I see that it leads him astray in a small degree, in that he is led to be more harsh in his judgement of Tolkien's conservative nature. Indeed, I find that 'progressives' tend to have a dislike for the conservative and I see this tendency in Moorcock's work.

I suppose the point is that the work's worldview is not always neatly extricable from the details of its success as a narrative.

And it is that which I am trying to explain. I find that Moorcock gets caught up with the ideologies he clearly disagrees with rather than focusing on what is truly relevant and important in Tolkien's narrative. It is hardly as if Tolkien preaches (whereas C.S. Lewis and Chesterton do - and therefore Moorcock could be more forgiven if his analysis was for those two authors) to his reader, rather it seems that Moorcock skims for what he perceives as conservative catholocism at work and brings up an issue with that affecting the text. However, (and forgive my flippancy) I hardly see any hobbits walking around in habits or bearing crosses and other religious paraphernalia.

I certainly find Moorcock's analysis interesting and it leads me to want to read some of his work. I agree with Helen that I have an issue if one were to stumble on the essay before attempting Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit or The Silmarillion due to how harsh Moorcock comes across in the body of his essay.

Jonathan wrote: "It is my impression in general as regards criticism. Even Ulysses had its flaws in my reading (with its bloated obtuse nature)."

I'm not averse to 'fire' as Helen called it (about Moorcock in something of a reversal), given there's something to extract in the passion.

"I see that it leads him astray in a small degree, in that he is led to be more harsh in his judgement of Tolkien's conservative nature. Indeed, I find that 'progressives' tend to have a dislike for the conservative and I see this tendency in Moorcock's work."

It does put his conclusion off as I see it, but the observations and comparisons are generally solid enough.

"I find that Moorcock gets caught up with the ideologies he clearly disagrees with rather than focusing on what is truly relevant and important in Tolkien's narrative."

This is my point though. Moorcock does perhaps get a little carried away in this regard, but his broaching of ideology as it pertains to the narrative's outlook isn't in itself something to reproach because this outlook affects everything else. The significant part, as Moorcock may or may not see (I'm not exactly defending him here, not in this regard) but we can make an attempt to, is that the critique touches on whether this worldview (come about through conservatism or Catholicism or whatever else it doesn't matter) is too uniform and thus sets limits on the narrative. After all, Paradise does need the intrusion of Satan for Milton to pen Paradise Lost.

I agree wholeheartedly that Epic Pooh should probably not be read before attempting to read Tolkien but rather as a reflection after the fact.

Jocelyn wrote: "This thread needs a like."

I linked it as my review, which is close enough I think.

The significant part, as Moorcock may or may not see (I'm not exactly defending him here, not in this regard) but we can make an attempt to, is that the critique touches on whether this worldview (come about through conservatism or Catholicism or whatever else it doesn't matter) is too uniform and thus sets limits on the narrative.

I'm not quite sure whether I see enough discussion in Moorcock's critique of this idea but I see where you're getting. In this regard it can, I believe, come down to the approach towards the text.

In set areas there are cases where (because of worldview etc.) that Tolkien resorts to categorising into 'good' and 'evil' but I think that he balances everything enough on the whole to observe that even the very good can be twisted by the allure of power and strength. Gandalf and Galadriel are indicators of this fact. Frodo himself in the end (view spoiler)[with how he finally succumbs to the temptation of the ring (hide spoiler)] proves a fine example of this. So yes, there are limits to the narrative (for instance are the orcs mere minions, as with Trollocs, or are they intelligent thinking creatures - is Tolkien trying to inform us that there are some beings with such twisted natures as to not be good?)

There is also the perspective of looking at Tolkien's work (within what he was aiming to write) as an entire metaphor for death, heroism and of course the struggle between good and evil. Perhaps this impacts upon the overall narrative yet I do not find it hampers it into as simplistic a tale as that of Winnie the Pooh or a consolation for the masses. Though sadly it has been transformed into such and clearly Tolkien did believe in the idea of works being escapist from pain and reality, though ironically creating a work that, touched by his experience, reflects intriguingly upon reality.

Helen wrote: "Certainly nowhere as vitriolic as Mieville. (Likewise, the problem I have with him is not that he dislikes Tolkien, it's that he takes out his frustration with bad Tolkien copycats on Tolkien instead on the people who actually anger him.)"

http://www.omnivoracious.com/2009/06/...

I completely agree. Denouncing Tolkien because of inferior works that spawned afterwards is like blaming Marx for Stalin's purges, or God for slavery. However, Mieville isn't completely biased (as the link above will display). He shows a clear understanding of his works, and has a lot of good to say on the matter. I guess it's the case of his overzealous demeanor, and a passionate dissension (both in his opinions and works) that he can come off as a modernist vitriol.

In his defense, his criticisms are valid, in that particular point of view at least. Yet, if we look at the big picture, it would seem that arguing against Tolkien seems a lot more beneficial to his own image than that of Terry Brooks. If he began to dissect the works of Brooks or Jordan publicly, no one would take notice. They'd shrug it off and say it's one man's opinion. Really, all I see in his Tolkien criticisms are either embellished reiterations of Moorcock's Epic Pooh or the amount of works that emanated from his legendarium. I think his works of subversive fantastic speak for themselves. Though with no less verisimilitude, making unoriginal adjudications on Tolkien is redundant. I don't say that to advocate censorship, not at all, but they do diminish the reputation his works have all ready given him by making him more of a whiny-modernist than a subversive innovator.

"In his defense, his criticisms are valid, in that particular point of view at least. Yet, if we look at the big picture, it would seem that arguing against Tolkien seems a lot more beneficial to his own image than that of Terry Brooks. If he began to dissect the works of Brooks or Jordan publicly, no one would take notice. They'd shrug it off and say it's one man's opinion."

Good points. Not to mention that one could argue that it would be seen as far easier to engage with and to cut down Brooks or Jordan in many regards as they are another step down the line in terms of continuing to 'copy' some of the memes and tropes utilised by Tolkien.

I think Tolkien represents a stark enough turning point in fantasy that you might almost expect an author in the genre to comment on his work one way or another. We'd do well to compartmentalise when taking these remarks into account however- no one's own work in fiction is diminished for whatever criticism he has to offer about someone else's elsewhere. (For Mieville more than even with Moorcock, within the genre of fantasy you couldn't say he's in competition with Tolkien.)
I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be better if authors were faceless, and in a sense 'nameless' creatures entirely when it comes to their own fiction. I can see why some adopt a nom de plume or become reclusive.

I suppose we're using 'modernist' here in the broadest sense too. Luckily, I'm confident all I've said in that regard still holds.

Yasiru wrote: "I think Tolkien represents a stark enough turning point in fantasy that you might almost expect an author in the genre to comment on his work one way or another. We'd do well to compartmentalise wh..."

Just to clarify, I never said his works were diminished by his statements. I said the strong image that his works have all ready given him had diminished because of his sententious, unoriginal creed on fantastic literature. Nevertheless I still agree with him on many points. I believe all authors should be looking to subvert the norm, and create a new dominating force in the genre as he has.

And if I were to base my opinion on novels by the author's personality, I wouldn't even consider reading Moorcock's Elric (which I consider to be a masterpiece). And don't even get me started on Terry Goodkind's legendary pretension. However, I enjoyed Wizard's First Rule.

Sometime near 2000 - I forget when - The BBC conducted a Nationwide poll to discover the favourite 100 books. It was a massive event in England and got an extraordinary amount of publicity. The Lord of the Rings came out top, which you think would be quite geek-empowering but actually it was quite the opposite. What the BBC did was assemble a bunch of faux lit-snobs talking in the Michael Moorcock tone to go on TV and chastise the work. They mentioned, of course, how much people loved it, but mostly they spoke with disdain and scorn about what a childish piece of frippery it was, emphasising over aver how this wasn't great literature.

It was rather an anti-climax to a massive campaign to find the nation's favourite book and I figured that they were rather hoping it would be something else. What, I don't know. I felt somewhat pleased that the majority of readers who voted were Tolkien geeks, even though I hardly think LOTR the greatest work of literature ever written.

My point is, I don't find Moorcock's essay to be clever or empowering. He's not making a great stand for great literature here, he's attempting to disempower geek culture by calling it childish, which is what most of society and culture tend to do because they find it somewhat alien and threatening. From within it seems a no-brainer that "Tolkien is much loved and great" but from without to like Tolkien is still an act of social rebellion, to lose oneself in a silly world of elves and dwarves when one ought to be consuming something high-minded and intelligent that digs deep and uncovers the mysteries of the human condition, and so on.

I rather like the idea that we can criticise Tolkien even though the book had a fundamental impact on my own reading. What I'm less keen is pseudo-criticism that tries to discuss a work by attempting to displace that work from its influence i.e "you think that work is great, well I'm here to tell you that it isn't..." There's lots you can say about Tolkien, or fantasy literature in general without resorting to that mode. Fantasy literature is still sorely in need of positive affirmation, not childish condemnation.

Oh, here's the Big Read thing. It was 2003, apparently.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/bigread/top...

Alex wrote: "Sometime near 2000 - I forget when - The BBC conducted a Nationwide poll to discover the favourite 100 books. It was a massive event in England and got an extraordinary amount of publicity. The L..."

Wow, The Big Read is actually the very foundation of my late teen reading. That list is where I first began to read novels like The Pillars of the Earth and The Golden Compass, both of which are a some of my all time favourite novels. I also remember seeing Iain Banks for the first time, and One Hundred Years of Solitude.

I have to agree, though the Lord of the Rings definitely isn't the greatest of all literature, it's unfairly generalizing to call it childish. Though Michael Moorcock was one of the few true innovators of the genre, his argument comes off as more malicious than challenging. He gripes on concepts that so many readers love, therefore only making opinionated attacks which he ignorantly brushes off as facts. He makes foolish notions that the story is meant to comfort. Well I for one found The Harrowing of the Shire miles from comforting, it was extremely unpleasant and upsetting.

Uncommon Sellsword wrote: "Wow, The Big Read is actually the very foundation of my late teen reading. That list is where I first began to read novels like The Pillars of the Earth and The Golden Compass, both of which are a some of my all time favourite novels. I also remember seeing Iain Banks for the first time, and One Hundred Years of Solitude."

There are a lot of good books on there, of course and it's quite cool to know that it did it's job and sparked a love of reading and exploration of literature in someone :D At the time I remember thinking "Oh, I wonder why so many people love Magician, it must be good" and was quite sorry for choosing that to read!!! (Ok, I enjoyed it superficially for a few hundred pages).

He makes foolish notions that the story is meant to comfort. Well I for one found The Harrowing of the Shire miles from comforting, it was extremely unpleasant and upsetting.

Well, I think Moorcock is hinting at a comforting mode of fantasy in which everything resolves itself as it ought. That is, it's nice to think of the little guy who can save the world and subsequently that's been turned into David Eddings/Brooks/Feist style fantasy epics in which we take consolation that the young orphan boy born with a prophecy can develop his potential to save the world etc etc I agree with you that this reading ignores what's disturbing about LOTR, both in scene i.e the Black riders, especially the Riders at Bree is quite disturbing and scary), as is the Scouring of the Shire, and in story i.e the "metaphor" of the ring as power and what it drives people to do and how to behave, particularly Smeagol.

There is definitely ideological comfort in epic fantasy but I'm failing to see the problem in that. I think it's fair to describe and elucidate how Tolkien's story works and maybe even use it to ideologically criticise, or elucidate, but to simply say "and that's childish" is pretty crass and stupid. It's certainly not a childish work, even though it's one that one can settle down to cosily.

Oh, I also think it's pretty cool to say "You like Tolkien, well try Eddison or Dunsany or *cough* Moorcock if you like fantasy for some work that really pushes fantasy ideas in some radical directions and that you might find more complex and rewarding" Again, why the need to overtly bash Tolkien and make it sound like a 1* star book? If it were genuinely written like Stephanie Meyer or David Eddings then that attitude would make sense to me, but it isn't, LOTR is self-evidently competent to the extent that criticism of this nature looks a lot like a politically motivated attack. But then I suppose that's what criticism is all about, so I shouldn't complain. Maybe it's more that Moorcock doesn't express himself in a particularly convincing or interesting way...

I'd say Goodkind may well be an exception in that the man from what I've heard isn't a bad measure of the work (which I've read), especially at its more, shall we say, didactic turns.

Of Moorcock, I don't think he's 'disempowering' anything. What he's against isn't any crucial staple of fantasy or 'geek culture' but a sort of consoling naivety he points out which has afflicted it since Tolkien. It should neither be a 'no-brainer' to love Tolkien by going along with within culture tastes nor an affectation in line with the disdain from outside the culture that determines our judgement of his books. If you read his work and like Tolkien then fine, you may like other fantasy also, and call yourself part of that culture- but this doesn't make it an obligation to turn tribal and love everything fantasy (not even Tolkien) while seeing anyone with criticism to offer as snobs who are thought to understand nothing without first hearing them out or seeing if your defences to their arguments hold up. The culture is always a concern after the fact, else we'd have a profusion of substandard works staunchly defended not on their own merits but simply because they label themselves fantasy.

I'm all for affirmation of fantasy literature, but let's not be overzealous about it and do so without qualification. In fact, if fantasy were not so closely huddled and rabidly averse to any kind of criticism, mythical and fantastic elements might again become widespread in all of fiction without general prejudice and there would be no 'snobbishness' to contend with.

For me criticism isn't saying "this work sucks" or "this is terrible writing". That kind of stuff is outside criticism as far as I'm concerned. Good criticism should seek to highlight, elucidate, confront, explain, challenge conceptions, understand. It should be about helping us to understand the culture we live in and the impact of the things that we produce. Bad criticism is saying "I don't like this" Good criticism is saying "this is interesting"

Fantasy has only recently become "mainstream". Even at its 80s peak it was an underground fad. Stupid books written by nerdy D&D enthusiasts. Moorcock is desperately trying to shake that image of himself by proclaiming his own work as art in opposition to Tolkien (which is also what Mieville is trying to do) which is the childish fantasy mode. That's disempowering, I think in a similar way to slamming "romance" as a genre is an attempt to disempower women as a group of readers (oh, it's not important literature like Thomas Pynhcon... it's a frivolity!)

Taking all that to account, I'd rather say 'This is [this way] (good or bad) because-' is good criticism. What people write can be a mixed fare and this might be unavoidable- as with Epic Pooh perhaps, but if any part contains good criticism (as I've pointed out above this essay frequently enough does) it can be extracted and discussed and dissected, leaving the rest be.

Whatever personal motivations we'd like to ascribe these authors commenting on Tolkien, the real issue is that fantasy needn't be insular and so it shouldn't matter what they say beyond the pertinent matter of their criticism (rather than just broad vague impressions of the 'I don't like this' type). The 'empowerment' view doesn't help at all in the long run though it seems a natural reaction, and may in fact be damaging.
Romance is a genre which has fewer insecurities in comparison I think, because many women tend to know what kind of fiction they're reading and for what (comfort, dare I say?- the name of the genre tells you it has a particular emphasis and might ride roughshod over other things to get at that; similarly good fantasy doesn't strive for the fantastical at the cost of ideas replaced by fancies), whereas in fantasy there's more of a blending. Romance stories and find themselves in the running as 'important literature' almost always frame this romance within an interesting context and might supply true dilemmas concerning life and possibly bigger things to relieve what might become gratifying melodrama. Women don't read romance because they are women and therefore somehow must, but because they choose to. They might try to defend it if they wish against works considered better outside the genre, and if their arguments stick, that's that. There's no need for special 'empowerment' as with fantasy.

Yasiru wrote: "I'd say Goodkind may well be an exception in that the man from what I've heard isn't a bad measure of the work (which I've read), especially at its more, shall we say, didactic turns.

Of Moorcock,..."

What people see in fantasy is mostly opinionated. Sure there is a lot of affirmation, but to damn the concept of fantasy that is meant to comfort is by no means an expedient of verisimilitude but an opinion. Denouncing works inspired by Tolkien is no different. Eye of the World for one is actually a very intelligent novel. It holds a fine balance between realized creationism and myth, yet there will always be a biased thesis on the subject because the work was inspired by Tolkien. This isn't much different in the subject of fantasy works that are meant to comfort. To condemn the novel as a whole because of that one aspect, he completely ignores better and more important aspects like his creationism. If Robert Jordan takes some aesthetic values, that really doesn't effect the story for me. Neither does the aspect of a convenient resolution, if it assists in telling an intelligent and well-made story than I see no reason to generalize and condemn.

I agree with you however. If someone associates themselves with a culture like the fantasy genre they shouldn't feel the need to avoid an unpopular opinion. Not only does it educate those willing to hear it out, but it gives the individual a chance to expand their outlook and to avert the naivety of seeing everything in black and white.

Uncommon Sellsword wrote: "Yasiru wrote: "I'd say Goodkind may well be an exception in that the man from what I've heard isn't a bad measure of the work (which I've read), especially at its more, shall we say, didactic turns..."

As I see it, the problem is not with the kind of comforting fantasy Lord of the Rings is said to be, but whether this tone maintains itself too uniformly by coddling you down a narrow, soft track. I think that to an extent it does- there is little ideological challenge though characters face pressing enough dangers and suffer through numerous hardships. This limited purview might even be unconscious, and there's an element of what kind of previous exposure a reader has had to different systems of political thought here as well, but I think it makes LotR less and somewhat blander than it might have been in this particular regard (though Moorcock seems to think the flaw fatal).

It's also not a particular work, but the cobbling of Tolkien tropes around unremarkable, perhaps generic adventure tales that is the matter with works inspired by Tolkien. I'm a fan of Jordan's Wheel of Time series, and I do think many do it a disservice by lumping it colourlessly with Lord of the Rings. But I wouldn't say it's for the same reasons. Jordan gives many conscious nods to Tolkien's creation in tEotW especially, but his series, while possessing a similarly gentle prose and exposition style (as you say 'aesthetic values'- at times more gentle than even Tolkien, to the point that some find the descriptions cumbersome though less lyrical), is much more politically neutral and thus achieves a very decent variation in ideological perspectives (which is in crucial to Jordan's aim of depicting culture clash, whereas with Tolkien good tends to mingle with good and evil with evil).
There is certainly the sense that Tolkien's work is denigrated or condemned in the remarks of some of these writers, but where this is only in conclusion, maybe there have been interesting observations preceding which tell us more about the work itself.

What he's against isn't any crucial staple of fantasy or 'geek culture' but a sort of consoling naivety he points out which has afflicted it since Tolkien.

Yet, it seems a curious fallacy (and one I've noted) to lump Tolkien with his 'copiers' and proclaim his work as immature and lesser. From what I know of Tolkien I believe he would have strongly disliked how fantasy transformed into a mainstream genre after his creation. His intention was never to become a popular writer but to create a work of fiction that mythologised in an academic and creative way (whereas in comparison most fantasy authors nowadays set out merely to write an adventure story with a handful of the best creating stronger works of art). Further, to criticise one individual for inspiring others is childish and lacks insight. It would be like if I blamed Anne Rice or Bram Stoker for 'creating' Twilight through their own original novels. It is instead the authors (and the readers) who must shelter the 'blame' for the publication of the lesser and trashier novels which give genres poor reputations.

Whatever personal motivations we'd like to ascribe these authors commenting on Tolkien, the real issue is that fantasy needn't be insular and so it shouldn't matter what they say beyond the pertinent matter of their criticism (rather than just broad vague impressions of the 'I don't like this' type).

Yet much of their criticism (at least initially) comes across as 'I dislike this' criticism simply because it is not their type of fantasy. Again this type of criticism seems particularly apparent in the repetitive 'attack' upon Tolkien's conservatism. Would they have so readily written similarly if he had leant politically in the opposite direction?

I conclude that Tolkien's work is not the greatest form of literature ever created. Yet much of the criticism seems ignorant of what Tolkien was aiming to achieve and what he achieved and focuses more on the ideology or the results of literature. Indeed, though Mieville wrote a fascinating article about why he liked Tolkien he also commented that Tolkien's work was a boil to be lanced in fantasy. Again, too much criticism is directed at Tolkien rather than looking at the poor commercial creations and observing that they came from a higher quality origin.