'Spun Candy' anyone?

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

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.

I don't see that 'not being at all comfortable with industrial development' makes one a bad person - one could even argue it makes one a good person. I prefer wild countryside to urban sprawl - shoot me.

It seems to me that what Pullman & Moorcock are complaining about is that Tolkien didn't tell them what to think. He refused to write 'allegory' - what he did set down was his own vision of 'life, the universe & everything', 'seen through enchanted eyes' which is not to say that he wrote 'fairy stories' or produced 'spun candy' in any way. Horror, pain, loss, sacrifice, are all there, along with love, friendship, honour & beauty, but they are mythologised in order to bring out their timeless & universal aspect so that they become applicable to us & our everyday lives (to the extent that we want them to be).

Its as if Pullman & Moorcock are listenening to Tolkien read LotR. At the end they ask Tolkien what the message was. He says, 'No message. Its a story, what did you think?' They respond 'But what were you trying to say to us? We have to know what the 'message' is before we can know whether we can allow ourselves to like the story. If the message is a bad one we will have to dislike the story'. And Tolkien replies, 'No, its a story set a long time ago, full of heroism & sacrifice, loss & love, beauty & ugliness - a great tale. Did you like it, did it move you, has it affected you in any way?' Moorcock & Pullman look at each other in exasperation & speak to Tolkien as if to a child 'But how are we supposed to know whether we were moved by it, or if so, how we were moved, whether it was good or bad, until you tell us what it means?'

Finally they decide that if there is a message it must be a bad one or Tolkien would be open about it, or that if there isn't a 'message' which they can either agree, or argue with, the story is worthless.