Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mister Underhill
Moorcock is an interesting character. He obviously has a lot of ambivalence about the genre that he's most well known for working in -- most of his fantasy work seems to be a satire of, a reaction to, or an attempt to reinvent the work of the genre's stalwarts.
|
Interesting, isn't it, this attempt to reinvent the genre? Actually, I have a fair bit of sympathy for writers who are curious enough to want to seek alternate applications of the desire for fairey. If fairey is 'grounded' in human psychology, as Tolkien argued in OFS, then it is quite legitimate to try to seek how many ways this can be satisfied. I don't have to agree with an author in order to appreciate an honest and legitimate attempt to explore aspects which have not previously been explored. And I can also understand the frustration if writers feel that one aspect gets more attention. I suppose the real answer is to write stories with such readerly appeal that they succeed despite the new perspective.
And really, I don't think the point is the message or ideology per se. Or that there even has to be a message. Again, I go back to the idea that Moorcock is putting epic romance in a historical or cultural context and asking if that is the only form possible for fantasy. Tolkien operated within his own philosophical or theological beliefs--all writers do. Some simply foreground them while others prefer to let them colour the background, so to speak.
I go back to a question I asked earlier. Why was Tolkien unable to write stories for the fourth age and later? What inhibited his imagination? Was he merely tired, was it old age? I don't ask this as a criticism, but as a way to understand his writing better. I know people who say they would attend church if their church was a beautiful old gothic style. But what does it say if belief is so completely carved in stone? Is this feeling applicable to Tolkien?