It seems to me that both Pullman & Moorcock are criticising LotR for an absence of any 'message'. Pullman's comment that it is 'spun candy' that it is trivial, that it has nothing to say to us implies that he feels it should be saying something. Moorcock seems to feel that what it has to say is either trivial or reactionary. Moorcock seems so desperate for it to say anything that he will impose a meaning on it & then criticise that meaning.
Pullman stated in an interview on BBC radio (hosted by Germaine Greer) that he was 'using fantasy to undermine fantasy'. Greer, with her well known dislike of fantasy was having none of it & adopted a sneering tone all the way through & Pullman went off with his tail between his legs. Whatever. Pullman has also stated that he wishes he could write 'serious' novels but hasn't the ability (interview with Brian Sibley on Radio 4). Pullman clearly feels that fantasy as a genre is for children & inadequate adults & needs a damn good thrashing & putting in its place. Moorcock seems to feel that fantasy is all well & good as a vehicle for his politics & must subvert the status quo if it is to be acceptable. Both want to be accepted by the literati (Moorcock has even gone so far as to re-write the ending of one of his novels - Gloriana - to make it more 'PC' in response to a criticism by Andrea Dworkin:
http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/fantas...n/gloriana.htm )
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bb
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?
|
I'm not sure this is all that complicated. The idea for The New Shadow wasnot reallly one that could be taken anywhere. Personally, when I read it, with its villain a young man questioning authority & indulging in 'Orcish' behaviour on the sly, I couldn't help feeling that Tolkien was having a bit of a rant about 'the youth of today'. I don't think there was much potential there. As to why he couldn't write anything about later ages, I suspect he had taken the story to its logical conclusion in the departure of the Elves at the end of LotR. The LKegendarium is the story of the Elves principally. Any sequel would either have had to be greater & more spectacular than LotR (which would have undermined the impact of LotR, made it just one more story in the Legendarium), or it would have been merely another minor tale that went nowhere.
Of course, one could argue that Smith is also set in a later age of M-e...