[The Saucepan Man]

Didn't get a chance to read the interview with Moorcock earlier, as it was blocked by office system (Adult/Sexually Explicit! ). It suffers in comparison with his article posted earlier, most likely because of its relative brevity which stifles the development of his argument.

No sense of tragedy, of mankind's impemanence? That is the central theme of Tolkien's work! You could perhaps argue (if you wanted to be negative) that he does that particular theme to death, but to state it is not there can hardly be called 'opinion' - it is just not true.

Read in conjunction with the article, I think that it perfectly possible to understand what Moorcock is saying. He views Tolkien as reactionary, as someone who rejected development and change and was more comfortable with a rural, pre/part-industrialised society. In that sense, Tolkien's vision of mankind (in the real world, as opposed to his created world) is one "fixed" within a permanent order. It is certainly clear to me how Moorcock comes to that conclusion, particularly in Tolkien's depiction of The Shire and Aragorn's "right to rule" (and even the Elves). And we know that Tolkien was not at all comfortable with industrial development. In other words, while Man may be impermament (ie mortal) in Middle-earth, Moorcock is saying that Tolkien's vision does not reflect mankind's (society's) development, and therefore impermamence, in the real world. I rather agree with him, although that, for me, is part of Tolkien's charm.

To be honest, I highly doubt that Moorcock has read much more of Tolkien than LotR and, perhaps The Hobbit, and so probably has little understanding of the depth of history behind those two works. And, if he dislikes Tolkien's style, why should he read any more? It is perfectly acceptable to critique one particular work produced by an author, provided that it is taken as just that - a critique of that work, rather than the author's entire body of work.

I am not sure what he means when he says that LotR lacks tragedy. Again, this probably reflects his lack of knowledge of the entire "Legendarium", and also his approach that fantasy works should embrace "real life" issues rather than fantasy ones. When Moorcock describes LotR as "lacking weight" and Pullman describes it as "thin" and trivial, they do not mean that the characters and events described are under-developed within the context of the story. They mean that such characters and events do not reflect "real life", but are restricted in what they say about the human condition to the fantasy world which Tolkien created. In their view, therefore, characters such as Gandalf and Frodo, their reactions, motives and ambitions, lack real world applicabilty. I disagree with them on this, for I regard matters such as the friendship and loyalty between the Hobbits as perfectly relevant and applicable to real world relationships. Similarly, Tolkien's characters face temptations similar to Lyra's "seduction" by Mrs Coulter and the bright lights of London society life, even though the latter is perhaps more directly applicable to our daily lives. We may not struggle with a One Ring ourselves, but we can find the character's struggle with its seductive nature applicable to other things in our lives.

Nevertheless, while I do not subscribe to these opinions expressed by Pullman and Moorcock, I can understand where they are coming from.

Originally Posted by davem

The comment that he feels 'contempt & disgust' for those who voted for Tolkien as author of the century is hardly 'reasoned argument' or even 'opinion' - it is a nasty, petty insult.

I agree that Moorcock oversteps the bounds of what I would regard as acceptable criticism here. It is a shame that he does so, given the eloquence he shows elsewhere. That said, I do rather agree with him about the nature of "popularity contests". I am sure that we can all agree that popularity is not necessarily an indicator of quality (even though it may be a factor). That is the point Moorcock was seeking to make, although he makes it rather badly.

Elsewhere in the interview, though, he expresses a rather more positive on Tolkien (the man).

Originally Posted by Michael Moorcock

I knew and liked Tolkien who in a bufferish sort of way was very kind to me and encouraging. I looked forward to those books coming out. I was deeply disappointed by their lack of weight and their lack of ambitious language.

It is Tolkien's work (specifically LotR) that Moorcock dislikes, not the man himself. Although, given his clear left-wing leanings, I doubt that he was particularly appreciative of the "reactionary establishment" with which he would have associated Tolkien (mistakenly, I believe, if Tolkien's Letters are anything to go by). And, disliking the work as he does, he is no doubt frustrated by its enduring popularity (and, again, I disagree with him that such popularity will not continue to endure - but who can know for sure?).

Originally Posted by Moorcock

Finally, its 'proto-Nazi'. Again, this is a man who either knows nothing about 'Nazism' or is just hurling an insult in order to be nasty.

Again, Moorcock, unnecessarily I think, goes over the top in seeking to make his point. He clearly does not regard Tolkien as a Nazi, nor is he labelling LotR a fascist work. He is stating that, for him, the reactionary nature which he perceives in the work is akin to some aspects of fascist philosophy. Again, I can understand what he is trying to say, but I think that he is mistaken. Just because the Nazis made the trains run on time, it does not make punctual trains a purely fascist phenomenum.

Originally Posted by Child

It would be so much more honest to say this: "I personally don't like X, and since Tolkien shows X in his writings, I simply don't like his approach." I could accept that statement of personal preference. Instead we are all asked to subscribe to a particular philosophy or point of view as if that was the only legitimate one in the entire universe.

That was my intitial reaction too, as I stated earler when I said that both Pullman and Moorcock seemed to be making the mistake of advocating that there was only one correct approach to fantasy writing. Having read what they have to say in more detail, however, I do not think that is what they are actually saying. I suspect that both would fully accept that they are stating opinion, rather than seeking to lay down "factual" principles of general application. That said, they are both rather dogmatic in expressing their views, which can be off-putting and is (perhaps purposely) prone to "putting noses out of joint" ...