Fantasy suggestion: Michael Moorcock's ELRIC

I saw a post in the "Surprise" thread in which Cronshaw stated that "the Fantasy genre and Game of Thrones don't appeal to me at all."

I'm split with regard to that statement. Fantasy as a genre appeals to me quite a lot, but Game of Thrones (the books) not so much. I do enjoy the show quite a bit (although there were a couple of times that I almost had to stop watching, due to the utterly horrible things that transpired). Even so, upon seeing the very impressive Folio offering I was tempted... until I recalled the few passages that I've read. At least two of the maybe four paragraphs that I chose at random to sample were full of... well, I guess the best way to put it is unnecessary vulgarity.

Now, I ain't no prude, believe me. But I don't like my fantasy to be so grim and gritty, nor to use such language so wantonly. So, while sorely tempted to take the plunge, I'm passing on the FS Game of Thrones books.

Anyway, I don't know if anyone here is a fan of the Elric stories, but they're about as dark as I want to go when it comes to fantasy. I would love to see the Folio Society give these stories the Folio treatment. They could do it in two volumes, if they stuck to the original six (it gets a bit confusing, due to revisions, etc.) books: Elric of Melnibone, The Sailor on the Seas of Fate, The Weird of the White Wolf, The Vanishing Tower, The Bane of the Black Sword, and Stormbringer.

For those of you who are fantasy fans, and haven't read them, I highly recommend them. I read these back in the mid-'80s (ahh, those halcyon days of yore... :) ), and I don't think that I have ever, in all my years of reading, been so shocked at the closing lines of a book more than I was upon reading the end of Stormbringer.

I may have to pull out my old DAW paperbacks and give old Elric a reread later this year. Existential fantasy at its best.

The Elric stories by Michael Moorcock are quite wonderful (and, yes, dark). Centipede Press is publishing what will eventually be the complete Elric material in what Centipede represents to be chronological order. I have the first three volumes (of a projected seven) and they are very high quality. Rather more material than I see FS taking on, however. And, yes, I fell for the FS Game of Thrones but would not have but for the apparent commitment to do the entire Song of Ice and Fire, if it is ever complete. Waiting patiently (not really that patiently) for what they will do with Gene Wolfe.

Another Fantasy novel...

According to J. R. R. Tolkien’s son, Christopher, an Oxford contemporary Hugo Dyson decided he had had quite enough of TLOR, thank you, even though Tolkien was considered the most fun-loving of the Inklings.

As another newly-written passage of The Lord of the Rings was read aloud by its author, Dyson was “lying on the couch, and lolling and shouting and saying, ‘Oh f***, not another elf!’”

Other versions of the incident are even more colourful. Dyson was not the only one, and so Tolkien eventually stopped reading the updates in the pub.

Yes, but was Tolkien capable of the deep critical insights of a Martin?
“Gandalf COULD kick Dumbledore’s ass. I mean, duh. He’s a Maia, folks. Next best thing to a demigod,” wrote Martin, diving deep into Silmarillion levels of Tolkien knowledge with his “maia” reference. According to the Tolkien Gateway: “The Maiar (singular Maia) were those spirits which descended to Arda to help the Valar shape the World.”
Martin wrote: “Gandalf dies and come back. Dumbledore dies and stays dead. But if it will calm down all the Potterites out there, let me say that Gandalf could kick Melisandre’s ass, too.”
From the Guardian article cited in another thread.
I'm with Dyson. It's all escapist fluff. with or without a patina of esoteric lore.

>1 betaraybill: Unfortunately while I love fantasy I've always found Moorcock a poor writer. The sort of thing I could read at 15 and think was amazing but coming back to it as an adult I wonder how I could ever have thought this was good. Give me a Robin Hobb or her ilk any day. Saying that, my favorite series that I've read of any type is The Dresden Files... So I don't know if I lose all credibility for that. Can't help it though!

>4 Jayked: I'd argue that all fiction is escapist fluff. Fantasy has as much social commentary to make as regular fiction it's just that the mechanism of that commentary is slightly different. In some cases it's built into the very fabric and design of the world bring written about. Exceptions abound of course.

>3 Chawton:

"Another Fantasy novel..."

Say what?

I'd read that about Hugo Dyson. It's quite funny. I would love to read those other, more colorful versions.

>4 Jayked:

I just heard about that statement from Martin about Gandalf vs Dumbledore. Silly stuff for sure.

But, do you actually believe that all fantasy is escapist fluff, be it with or without a patina of esoteric lore?

What about various bodies of myth, and works by authors such as Malory and Chretien de Troyes, etc? That could all be considered fantasy.

>5 Sorion:

Well, it's been many a year since I read Moorcock, so I'm sure that my recollection is colored by nostalgia.

But then again, that's where a lot of enjoyment comes from. :)

On another note, except for you and narbgr01, a bunch of you are coming across as curmudgeonly knaves. I may have to shed my professional demeanor and Hulk Up as I used to do when I would defend my championship wrestling belt in high school and college. ;)

I read as much of Moorcock's Eternal Champion cycle I could get my hands on (Elric being part of same) back in the ancient days and thoroughly enjoyed all of them. Have a couple of the White Wolf omnibus volumes from ca. 1995 (Hawkmoon and Elric: Song of the Black Sword) here in the house and packed away are all the paperbacks and scattered hardcovers acquired over the years.

Re-read last year the Elric story The Vanishing Tower (Archival Press edn in slipcase also here in the house) and it reminded me how fantasy story-telling has changed over the years. Before Tolkien became such a big influence on fantasy, the tales were normally in short books, with occasional multi-volume series; Jack Vance's Dying Earth stories come immediately to mind.

Most Elric stories as I remember them were really quite short, and Moorcock's style was rather terse with limited description. He gave you enough to set the scene, then let your mind fill in the blanks. The tone was, as should be expected with a tragic hero, moody and dark and Elric tended to wallow in self-pity from time to time, but, dang! The boy could kick some serious ass with that nasty sword-thing of his!

I would potentially be interested in an FS series of Elric only, but it would STRONGLY depend on the illustrator & design, as I already have the texts in various other editions.

Just be sure to include the story Elric at the End of Time. Yeah, that would do it.

>7 betaraybill:
Dyson's remarks were confined to Tolkien and his habit of spoiling adult meetings with kiddylit. My endorsement of him was meant for writers of that ilk. Malory was putting into print a long oral tradition that was presumably believed at some level by a segment of society, and embodied an ideal code of conduct. It also passed the time in prison. De Troyes too had proposed an ideal (and impractical) code of conduct in courtly love. One suspects that Martin's ideal is TV ratings and big bucks.

>9 Glacierman:

Glacierman receives this month's Mournblade award for demonstrating excellent taste in dark fantasy.

>10 Jayked:

Are you suggesting that Tolkien's work - at least that which he read to his fellow Inklings - was kiddylit? If so, fie on thee. Or is that your perception of Dyson's take?

I don't know much about Martin, other than his infamously interminable writing process. But I suspect you're not far from the truth.

>11 betaraybill:
Tolkien did begin with The Hobbit, which is clearly aimed at the young. I was in high school when LOTR started appearing, and it was touted to us as suitable fodder for an idle moment, but not many took it up. It wasn't that the concepts were above our heads, it was just too wordy.
I was once pressganged into teaching a university course on Forms of Fantasy. It was elective, so those who took it had only themselves to blame; and LOTR was always early in the schedule. The most frequently asked question was always "Do we have to read all of it?' Well, yes. I had to read all of it.
There were ways of cutting the verbiage. Skip the "poetry" and the purple patches. Nobody has thought of an edition where the latter are highlighted in the manner of Cold Comfort Farm, the better to avoid them, but they're identifiable enough. Tolkien throws his syntax into reverse when the urge comes upon him. For "the night was dark and stormy as the elves marched down the valley," he offers "dark was the night and stormy as down the valley marched the elves." You're usually good for three pages after that before something actually happens.

>11 betaraybill: Glacierman receives this month's Mournblade award for demonstrating excellent taste in dark fantasy.

Why thank you! Souls! Souls for my Lord, Arioch!

>11 betaraybill:

That was tremendous! Thanks for that. And, I do see where you're coming from.

>13 Glacierman:

No need for thanks; your obviously unwavering devotion to Chaos is deserving of recognition.

I will now play Blue Oyster Cult's "Black Blade" in your honor. :)

>12 Jayked: As a die-hard fantasy lover I actually agree with you. I find them so terribly dull and difficult to get through. Though that is not uncommon for me with books written around this time.

>8 betaraybill: FSD is overrun with curmudgeons and I proudly count myself among their number ;)

What's wrong with escapist fluff?? I LIKE escapist fluff. Been reading and enjoying it for years. If I want heavy, philosophic literary food for the intellect, I'd read Steppenwolf. Oh, wait. I already have.

There's no fluff about Tolkien. Most fantasy fails the Westworld test. Remove the batteries and the characters collapse, taking the façade with them and leaving empty scenery. Scratch Tolkien and there's always more behind it - ultimately tracing its origins to our own civilization, philosophy, belief systems, languages and history. It took Christopher Tolkien twelve substantial volumes just to cover the development of the thought and substance behind Middle Earth. Other writers have enlarged on the multifarious layers in Tolkien's "sub-created" world, e.g. the underlying religious ideas or how the history supports not just the created languages, but also accounts for the vowel-shifts, dialects, and other changes in the supposed development of those languages. Rarefied? Yes. Escapist? Hardly. Westworld is escapist. The "poetry" and the "style" of The Lord of the Rings are just the most accessible part of a much more substantial whole. I wish I could have spent my spare time in something half as creative and thought-provoking.

>12 Jayked:

There were ways of cutting the verbiage. Skip the "poetry" and the purple patches.

Ha, this brings back memories. Good advice, but being the type that finds it easier to abandon hundreds of read pages than skim, I just said "uncle" around the time Tom Bombadil appeared on the scene and the hobbits or he or they and he launched into the umpteenth song.

>16 Sorion:

Hmm... Sorion... As I recall, that name is a loose translation of - wait a second -Ha! You have been found out, Sauron the Deceiver!

;)

>17 Glacierman:

Stand strong, Glacierman!

>18 boldface:

boldface receives this month's Lord of Elvendom Award for such a noble defense of Professor Tolkien's mythopoeic masterpiece.

It's made of solid mithril, by the way, so treasure it always. :)

>19 LolaWalser:

So I take it you DON'T want to accept the charter membership (free of charge) in the Tom Bombadil Fan Club?

Alas, Lola... Goldberry'll miss ye, though she hardly knew ye.

>1 betaraybill:

'I would love to see the Folio Society give the Elric stories the Folio treatment'

I haven't read Elric in years so I'm not sure if it would be my first choice for a Folio Moorcock volume but he has written at least one introduction for Folio (Gormenghast) and it would be nice to see some of his own work get the Folio treatment.

>5 Sorion:

'Unfortunately while I love fantasy I've always found Moorcock a poor writer.'

I know where you're coming from and I did wonder if Moorcock would stand rereading but, as I posted elsewhere, I recently reread Dancers at the End of Time and really enjoyed it. As for Elric, I don’t know. I would have to reread some to see if it stands up as well.

He is a prolific author and the quality of the work is variable but, at his best, I think he is up there with many authors who have already been published by Folio.

'I'd argue that all fiction is escapist fluff.'

I would suggest that all fiction is fantasy :-)

Fiction is about walking that mile in another's shoes or, to put it another way, inhabiting someone else's head. Whether that someone else is Hamlet or Lucifer or Frodo is incidental. The point is that we are experiencing the world from another point of view and, hopefully, learning something. And while fantastical creatures like ents and griffons might not be real, they are a useful way of representing, for example, environmental concerns by letting the things around us speak for themselves.

>12 Jayked:

'dark was the night and stormy'

A bit off-topic but I am currently traversing the complete Peanuts (all 50 years or so) and hungrily anticipating the very first: 'It was a dark and stormy night.'

It's the little things that make life worthwhile :-)

>18 boldface:

'There's no fluff about Tolkien'

Well, the Hobbit might be a bit fluffy and I sympathise with Lola about Tom Bombadil but The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion are full of loss and longing and deep tragedy.

Ah well, back to the Psychic Wars.

Truth be told, while I love JRRT, I must admit that the LoTR could have used a good editor, especially the first part. The Tom Bombadill material along with the Barrow Downs sequence could easily be removed without significantly harming the narrative. And those sections do not really add much to the overall world he constructed. Bombadill was, at best, a pleasant side jaunt, but it has always seemed to me to be greatly out of place. The Barrow Downs is similar: an interesting cul-de-sac serving no significant purpose.

Back to Moorcock. Writers whose work was influential to him include Fletcher Pratt (Well of the Unicorn), Poul Anderson (The Broken Sword, Three Hearts and Three Lions) and Fritz Leiber. The latter's stories of Fahfrd and the Grey Mouser Moorcock considers to be fantasy that is not escapist. If you haven't read any of these authors/stories, I suggest you do so at the earliest opportunity.

If FS were to do Elric, I would suggest they follow up with the six Corum books which were published as two trilogies. No need for me to explicate further on them, as Wikipedia covers them well.

Prince Corum shares the stage with Elric in The Vanishing Tower, Sailor on the Seas of Fate and one or two others. The bibliography and chronology of the Eternal Champion can be very confusing and it was a very long time ago that I read these things.

So, FS should do Elric first, then Prince Corum, the Dorian Hawkmoon, then .......

:--D

I've been mulling over the comments made here for days since they definitely resonate in many ways with how I think about literature and reading enjoyment. It seems to me there are stories and storytellers, or in this case stories and writers. A story can be good and that might carry it through writing that is not up to par with what we demand as readers, especially as we become more refined over time and reading experience . On the flip side, the writing could be wonderful but the story weak. When a great story comes together with a great writer, magic occurs. But magic can still occur in the other cases. That is certainly the case with Tolkien and Moorcock. I might not give them kudos for the craft of writing but I will reread them until I sail from the Grey Havens or Elric blows that horn of his to end the world. I will notice many things about the writing now that I might not have noticed when I first read them as a kid, both good and bad. But I still love them. And I still will want to buy any nice edition I can get my hands on. I definitely don't need any more editions but...

With both of these writers, I'm super impressed with the amount of creativity and thought that went into them. It's also interesting to think that their "poor" writing came from two places that aren't necessarily known for elegance in writing: academia (Tolkien) and pulp (Moorcock). Now we have MFA programs to crank out great writers but the publishing industry doesn't really want to spend money on editors and copy-editors, so we still often get massive tomes that cry out for an old school editor even if the 1000 pages is well written.

Tolkien melded Norse and Anglo-Saxon and other myth and legend with his own fancy into a complex world with a genesis and a history. He created languages and geneologies. He spent his lifetime puzzling and plotting how to fit it all in. So Tom Bombadil might seem out of place in the LotR but I loved him as a kid and tried to figure out how he fit into that world. Was he Maia? Elven? Ainur? What? And I didn't find the Hobbit too child-like, rather Tolkien's sly way of taking a part of his opus and making it palatable to his publisher. The success of which then allowed him to publish the LotR, and then the Silmarillion, and then provide a career for his son. Seems amazing, actually.

With regards to Moorcock, I'm in the middle of an Elric re-read because the Centipede Press' editions are slowly making their way to my house. I have the complete White Wolf omnibus editions of The Tale of the Eternal Champion, which includes all the Elric, Corum, Hawkmoon, and Count Brass stories as well as all the other incarnations of the Eternal Champion. I'm not sure I have space for another edition.

>12 Jayked: As far as skipping whole sections, I've never been able to do that (with one exception). I just keep slogging. I don't abandon books once I start. That's not necessarily a good thing.

>22 Glacierman: Corum would be my preference of all his Eternal Champion works. It’s been a long time but that avatar has always stuck out. Current feelings aside if they published the Eternal Champion saga I would totally buy it. As I did LOTR, The Hobbit and the Silmarillion. I want to encourage FS to publish fantasy/sci-fi and the only thing they listen to is the dollar/pound etc.

>23 jveezer: Well said.

>24 Sorion: Well. It seems we have something in common: Corum. He's always been my secret indulgence. I found Elric first and went bonkers over him, but Prince Corum? Well, that guy has something extra going for him: a bit o' the Irish. That was a sucker punch for me. OK, I agree: Corum first then Elric.

>1 betaraybill: Sorry for dumping the albino for Silver-hand, but I really can't help it.

>12 Jayked: There were ways of cutting the verbiage

But.... that verbiage is the point. Good fiction is as much about the story as it is about the language. It may not be for everyone but asking all books to cut the pieces that do not move the story is like asking all books to be published only as paperbacks - what is the point of the hard covers and nice illustrations after all - they do not move the story.

I also own the first three Centipede Press volumes of the Elric series, which I managed to get in mint condition via Ebay. The seller transferred the "first refusal rights" on the same number of the remaining six volumes to me via an email to Jared in Centipede Press, and I would recommend other buyers interested in these editions to do the same.

These are the first Centipede Press books I have purchased and I am very impressed with the quality: the graphics, type-faces, and especially the illustrations are beautiful. They have given me confidence to order the Frank Herbert Dune series from them, given that I have given up on Folio ever printing the remainder of that series.

Finally for the stories themselves, I have halfway through the second volume already and loving the crisp, terse writing style of Moorcock (he seems to always move the plot forward), and the flawed "fallen hero" that is Elric. Can't wait for the rest of the series to be printed!

>26 AnnieMod:

I expect some of us are not taken with Tolkien's language and style for other reasons than fondness for propulsive action. :)

Incidentally, it might interest some to read what Moorcock had to say about Tolkien.

The Anti-Tolkien

Note that his criticism is long-standing: "In 1978, Moorcock did a more thorough takedown in an essay called “Epic Pooh,” in which he compares Tolkien and his hobbits to A. A. Milne and his bear."

>28 LolaWalser:

It seems a bit silly, this Moorcock's concern with bashing Tolkien. I assume numerous comparisons of his 150 page essays, on what seems the 'same old' could be made as well. But no sense bashing him for cliche', when he and every other bearded fantasy writer with a cane are busy writing real stories for the real world.

>28 LolaWalser:

True. I am not a huge fan of the story itself but I like the language - and I vastly prefer the Silmarillion and the Unfinished tales and so on to the Rings :) I was just saying that asking for a work of fiction to drop all its poetry and descriptions is counter-intuitive. :)

As for the bashing and what's not - Tolkien read at the time the books were published is a different thing from being read now. People have the right to say whatever they want and if we accept that imitation is the highest form of flattery, there is a lot more flattery than bashing towards Tolkien's creation :) Anyone writing fantasy today that claims that they had not been influenced by Tolkien (one way or another), probably needs to think again. Which does not make him a great writer - just the guy that started it all. But I digress :)

+1 For this series as i missed out the CP editions .. it would be hard to beat the illustrations of the CP though .. i dare you

This is a very interesting discussion. My two cents (if I may):

There comes a point where, I think, being dismissive of something other educated, well-read folks find tremendous value in says more about the person doing the dismissing than anyone else. It is possible for something to be good, but also to not be your cup of tea. I actively dislike the Bronte's, but too many people find them essential for me to be able to dismiss them.

As for the wordiness - forgive me, but I find that the most amusing criticism on this board, where people frequently debate which of the 9,856 Folio printings of Dickens is their favorite. Tolkien has nothing on Dickens when it comes to wordiness. (We could also talk about Dickens and plots that would make many fantasy novelists blush for their implausibility and overly heavy symbolism. I LIKE Dickens, mind you, but come on with this "kiddy lit" nonsense.)

What IS interesting is that literature has, I think, a fairly sharp dividing line in the early 20th century. Thanks largely to Hemingway. I've always found it interesting that he was contemporary with Wharton but she - stylistically - had much more in common with Dickens or Austen than Hemingway. And ever since then, in terms of prose, there's been the lean and the verbose. I like some of each depending on my mood, but any writing after, say, 1930 or so that chooses to be verbose is making a conscious choice and not merely doing what everyone else does.

Anyway, many books are good and some books are good that I don't like and some books are good that you don't like. And some books, also, are just terrible (I suspect we all agree about James Patterson, for instance).

>32 Jason461: And some books, also, are just terrible (I suspect we all agree about James Patterson, for instance).

Oh how I wish my wife would agree with that so I no longer have to pay for them.

>32 Jason461:

To me "verbose" doesn't mean simply "a lot of words". Literature doesn't compare kilo to kilo like produce, word count to word count. There are extremely boring short books, exciting long ones etc. Rich language where every word counts, and "lean" language that is clumsily overwritten etc. Verbosity is a problem of taste and judgement, of word choice, in short a problem of style. Purple prose is horrible not because some threshold for numbers of words used is passed, but because it's vacuous and false.

And if we're still speaking of criticism of Tolkien, Moorcock plainly shows there's far more to it than "too many notes, dear Mozart, too many notes!" One might use your argument about not being "dismissive" about "educated" people and point out that it also doesn't do to dismiss the criticism of educated people with such trivial strawman arguments. As if anyone who dislikes Tolkien does so because they lack "real reader" stamina. Ha! :)

>34 LolaWalser: I don't believe I've created a straw man here. I find Tolkien's prose quite enjoyable. It has stretches here and there, for sure. But so does Dickens (which was a big part of my point). David Copperfield could lose 150 pages and I wouldn't complain.

As to being dismissive. Hemingway hated Faulkner. That doesn't mean we toss Faulkner aside, however valid Hemingway's criticism were. I quite like Faulkner, but I also get where Hemingway is coming from. Nor did I say anyone disliked Tolkien because they lacked stamina (that's a strawman, right there). It's a matter of aesthetic preference at this point. A great many people - educated and otherwise - find Tolkien brilliant. Others don't.

When I speak of that which is verbose and that which isn't I'm speaking of books and authors that we would all generally consider notable. I don't need the term defined for me. I'm not talking about Twilight here. Among the notable authors, we all have a our preferences. That's how it goes. To restate a point, I dislike the Brontes. I find Jane Eyre, in particular, ridiculous. Other people love them. It doesn't make either of us wrong, and I would never dismiss them with phrases like "kiddy lit" or whatever. I just accept that I don't get it in the way other people get it. It's art and we all experience it differently and in forums such as this, it's reasonable to assume none of us are neophytes when it comes to literature.

>35 Jason461:

It wasn't just you, but that's all that was picked up on here since Jayked posted--"verbose", and it got interpreted in the shallowest, "word count" way. As far as I can see, you didn't refine that. You said Dickens was as wordy as Tolkien. That's still imputing that people are struggling with the mere amount of words on the paper, and not objecting to something deeper, regarding style, the message, whatever.

As I said, and won't repeat again, Moorcock's critique is different and goes far beyond such a trivial point. It isn't surprising that fans are reluctant to engage, for instance, with a sociopolitical criticism of Tolkien's outlook, given that in most cases (I'm guessing) it's a matter of sympathy formed relatively early in life. We tend to want old affections to stay long affections.

I don't know where you got "kiddy lit", but I didn't say that. If that's your paraphrase of Moorcock's quote in my post, I hope you read the article. Personally, I rate Pooh rather higher than I do Tolkien. :)

And yes, of course, we all have preferences and whatnot etc. and it's all OK. Good night!

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter what other people think. Just read the stuff you like and enjoy what you enjoy!

>36 LolaWalser: I don't get the impression you read this entire thread. I was clearly referencing earlier comments. Also, I pointed more out in Dickens who has - frankly - all the stylistic foibles people criticize Tolkien for.

I used the term "Kiddylit" to paraphrase Nunn's reaction to Tolkien's readings of his work in progress. You won't find many Children's Lit. courses without The Hobbit or some of his shorter works for children, and LOR was originally envisioned as for children, as the presence of hobbits attests.
The comparison with Dickens makes no sense. He lived in an era when publishers demanded serialisation, which necessitated plot features and character names that would remain with readers over an extended period. The demand by lending libraries for 3-deckers dictated final length, and readers who had few other forms of entertainment welcomed it. Compared to some of his peers, Dickens was not particularly verbose.

>39 Jayked:
It makes sense NOW if we are talking about our perceived quality of these works to us now. Obviously, Dickens wrote in a different literary time. But people are perfectly happy to overlook in "classic" authors flaws that they deride in modern authors and this bothers me because classics are often praised without qualification. People almost never say that Dickens or Austen or whomever were "great for their time."

I'll take it out further. Let's talk about Beowulf. By modern standards Beowulf is not "good." It's a straightforward adventure story with very little depth. You will never ever find modern stories like Beowulf considered to be of substantial literary merit (I'm not talking about the magical aspects, I'm talking about the lack of character development and so forth).

All of this depends on the lens you use. My point is, and has continued to be that there comes a point with nearly all literature when people just disagree. I wonder how many books there are that all of us on this message board would agree are truly great. My five favorite books ever are: Anna Karenina, Moby-Dick, If on a Winter's Night a Traveler, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, and Winesburg, Ohio. Those are all widely regarded as great works, but I'm certain, if you looked, you could find someone important who thinks one or the other of them is trash (with the possible exception of Anna, which seems to be the most universally esteemed work of fiction ever, but I'm sure there's SOMEONE important out there who hates it).

We can talk about something based on it's merits, and have a very interesting discussion, but when we dismiss an entire genre as fluff or whatever, it's lazy critique that's meant to cut off discussion. THAT'S what bugs me. I'm fine with Moorcock's social critique of Tolkien and find it somewhat valid. I never claimed that everyone had to love Tolkien or that his work was without flaws. My issue in entering this discussion is that - as it's clearly a work that's been taken seriously by many people, we should perhaps avoid dismissing it with offhand comments.

It's impossible to hold a literary discussion of any depth or merit on a board like this without alienating other members by taking up acres of space, and I'm not going to try, except to say that on the subject of Beowulf JRRT himself would disagree with you.

>36 LolaWalser: I don't know where you got "kiddy lit", but I didn't say that. If that's your paraphrase of Moorcock's quote in my post, I hope you read the article. Personally, I rate Pooh rather higher than I do Tolkien. :)

Ah, and I concur! I like Tolkien, and previews of Moorcock seem cheese filled to me, but Pooh is great writing!

Ever since LoTR became a major phenom, fantasy fans' tastes tended more towards long, highly descriptive multi-volume works. Among more recent such works, Song of Ice and Fire comes immediately to mind, but there have been many more before and will be more to come. It has become the de facto standard for today's fantasy.

Moorcock and his predecessors tended to shorter works with minimal description. Each volume in Moorcock's Eternal Champion cycle can stand alone to a great extent, even though it is part of a "series." It certainly helps if you read them in chronological order, but it isn't necessary. I read Elric books as I found them back in the day and enjoyed them quite as well as if I had read them in order. The Prince Corum books (6 of them), I read as they were published which was in chronological order. I like the terse style of the Elric books; I also like reading about the world Tolkien built.

The point here is that some folk like long, rambling, intensely descriptive multi-volume works best read in proper sequence and others don't; they prefer shorter works, whether in a series or as a stand-alone. As for the quality of writing, poor writing can be found in everywhere. Sometimes the description is over-blown, description for description's sake. I can think of at least one work where I found myself skipping past loooong sections of overly detailed description; 3/4 of a chapter given over to an intensely detailed description of a royal banquet room including details of the dinnerware, table settings, floor, walls, lighting, guests and their costumes, etc. is a bit much, I should say.

So, as was said above, read what you like and worry not about what others may think of it.

Cheers!

As for The Hundred Acre Wood or Middle Earth, why not both? :)

>21 Cat_of_Ulthar:

Be sure to have Blue Oyster Cult resonating in the background while you traipse about the multiverse. Veteran of the Psychic Wars and Black Blade make for fitting background music. Intersperse reading a couple of chapters with a few sets of benching and curling. It's nigh cosmic. ;)

>25 Glacierman:

No problem, Glacierman. I never read Corum. Perhaps one day.

>31 Pellias:

Sir Pellias the Bold chimes in. Nice!

>40 Jason461:

Jason461 is awarded this month's DFPP (Dauntlessness in the Face of Pedantic Poltroonery) trophy for his staunch defense of the most esteemed Professor's magical myth making. :)

... Although to be honest, I've only read two of the five books on your Top 5 list: Moby-Dick and Kavalier and Clay. If on a Winter's Night a Traveler sounds intriguing. Winesburg Ohio not so much. And as for Anna Karenina, although I enjoyed several notable works of Russian lit as an undergrad (Fyodor's Brothers K, Bolgokov's Master and Margaritaville, etc.), I'm not really into that scene.

>43 Glacierman:

In general I agree, but one note...

Ever since LoTR became a major phenom, fantasy fans' tastes tended more towards long, highly descriptive multi-volume works. ... Moorcock and his predecessors tended to shorter works with minimal description.

Er, the phrasing here inadvertently makes it sound as if Tolkien were "newer" than Moorcock. I don't know when the LOTR became a "major phenom" but I'm fairly sure that Moorcock--48 years younger than Tolkien, as you know--was writing in reaction to Tolkien-type fantasy from the start. And not just Moorcock, of course--other writers of his generation representing the New Wave in science fiction and related genres were consciously trying to make sf and fantasy more complex, more adult--more worthy as literature. (I haven't read Moorcock's fantasy so make no claims as to whether this shows there, in comparison to the LOTR. In the two books of his I did read, I'd say it definitely does.)

On a general note, I don't know that successful (detailed, engrossing) world-building depends on length and wouldn't see that as a distinguishing factor between long and short books. From Ballard to Priest, Aldiss to Le Guin, I can think of dozens of novels with vividly conjured worlds at a fraction of the length of fantasy chunksters.

>45 LolaWalser: Apparently I didn't phrase that well. Mea culpa They were contemporaries as far as published work goes. Moorcock's first paperback (he'd had magazine appearances earlier) was in 1965 with The Sundered Worlds (pub. in the US in 1966).

In my own memory, JRRT got "discovered" about that same time in the mid-60's or so. LoTR was just coming out in mass market paperback about that time. I remember seeing them on the bookracks at the grocery store where I worked (Spring 1963-Fall 1966). In fact, the first ones I saw were the unauthorized Ace editions. The authorized Ballantine edition came out soon after. I didn't actually read one until my senior year (1965-66) when a friend of mine handed me a Ballantine "Fellowship" (pub 1965) and said, "Read this, or I'll kill you." And that is a direct quote. I read it and begged for more. He told me to buy my own. The fiend. By the Fall of 1966 I was a freshman at the U. of Wyoming and just about every dorm room had a LoTR poster or two on its walls. The most popular was a pseudo-travel poster "Welcome to Middle Earth." And, yes, I had one, too.

Thus was I introduced to fantasy. I was an especial fan of Ballantine's Adult Fantasy Series (i. e. not kiddie stuff) edited by Lin Carter. Those works were not thick, heavy tomes. The worlds described therein were well done, but it was done with skill, using a modicum of descriptive prose. Moorcock was very good at that. Of course, some of the things Carter picked were rather a ponderous read for many (William Morris' pseudo-medieval prose romances come to mind), but overall, the series published some very good and very old stuff. It was here I came to know and appreciate the works of James Branch Cabell, Lord Dunsany, Joy Chant, H. P. Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith, Jack Vance, Ernest Bramah and so many others. I even enjoyed Morris' works which were, in fact, the doorway that eventually led me to the world of fine printing. These were stand-alone works or collections of short stories.

It's just that LoTR created a market for multi-volume series that pretty much had to be read in the proper sequence to be fully appreciated, and the longer each volume was, the better. And the publishers were more than ready to tap into that market. An early entry into that realm was the Shannara series (Terry Brooks), beginning with Sword of Shannara (1977). I remember that one all too well. We were still selling LoTR like hotcakes, and the Ring crowd jumped on Brooks' work like duck on a junebug. Couldn't keep the thing in stock. The trend continues today.

As an exercise, how many recent stand-alone, one-shot fantasy novels can you think of? And how many series?

I'm not talking about a series of stories (novels, novellas, short stories) that feature the same protagonist (Conan, Elric, etc.), but full-blown series with immersive world-building.

There are, of course, exceptions. Anyone for Stardust?

Suggestion for all who have a like for mythology: check out the work of Thomas Burnett Swann.

This marks the official end of my participation in this subject as I've blathered on enough. One can always PM me should one wish to continue in this vein.

I love LT!

Now go read all the Elric and Corum books. *wink*

I wonder how different it may have been in the US vs. UK. I imagine Moorcock et al., being British, may have been more familiar with the British fantastic tradition--Tolkien, but also Lewis, Eddison (I just ditched a huge brick of his, Zimiamvia), Macdonald... and of course all sorts of Arthuriana and folklore.

One recent (well, from the last ten years, say) stand-alone fantasy I've liked was China Miéville's Un Lun Dun. Definitely a "complete" world in it, although it would be easy to picture sequels.

Not that anyone would dispute the prevalence of long, multi-volume fantasy these days in particular. And not just fantasy.

*double post*

Well, so it's not a complete waste, yes to Thomas Burnett Swann, he came up once already in the sf long read I'm doing--Weirwoods. Elves and fairies in Etruscan/Greek setting, quite nicely done.

>36 LolaWalser:
"it's a matter of sympathy formed relatively early in life."

I think you're onto something, but I see it from a different angle.

"I don't know where you got "kiddy lit", but I didn't say that."

And this is where I see a problem. I think your take on LOTR/Tolkien formed because you both first read it later in life AND don't treat it as "kiddy lit"/YA fantasy, which it is. Hence you're taking it way too seriously, going as far as demanding LOTR readers to engage in "sociopolitical criticism of Tolkien's outlook" - eh... what??? No, thanks. Not everything is/should be about politics.

Incidentally, I did run into sociopolitical criticism of LoTR and The Hobbit in one curios Guardian article. Quite honestly, I'm not sure what to think of Damien Walter's Weird things column. He (or Guardian editors) describe it as "weird ideas worth thinking about from the world of science fiction, fantasy and beyond." The article could have been funny if it were an intentional parody of the looney SJWs of the far left, but as it seems that he actually does believe in the underlining thesis it's just... weird.

A few jewels:

"Tolkien’s myths are profoundly conservative. Both The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings turn on the “return of the king” to his rightful throne. In both cases this “victory” means the reassertion of a feudal social structure which had been disrupted by “evil”. Both books are one-sided recollections made the Baggins family, members of the landed gentry..." - I almost spilled my tea here - "... A balanced telling might well have shown Smaug to be much more of a reforming force in the valley of Dale"

"And of course Sauron doesn’t even get to appear on the page in The Lord of the Rings, at least not in any form more substantial than a huge burning eye, exactly the kind of treatment one would expect in a work of propaganda."

"We’re left to take on trust from Gandalf, a manipulative spin doctor, and the Elves, immortal elitists who kill humans and hobbits for even entering their territory, when they say that the maker of the one ring is evil. Isn’t it more likely that the orcs, who live in dire poverty, actually support Sauron because he represents the liberal forces of science and industrialisation, in the face of a brutally oppressive conservative social order?"

And some boring stuff:

"The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings aren’t fantasies because they feature dragons, elves and talking trees. They’re fantasies because they mythologise human history, ignoring the brutality and oppression that were part and parcel of a world ruled by men with swords. But we shouldn’t be surprised that the wish to return to a more conservative society, one where people knew their place is so popular. It’s the same myth that conservative political parties such as Ukip have always played on: the myth of a better world that has been lost, but can be reclaimed by turning back the clock."

Yawn.

Oh, and I tried reading Moorcock's Epic Pooh, but as he had a gigantic and particularly stiff stick firmly stuck up his bottom while he was writing it, I gave up quicker than you gave up on The LoTR. Way too uptight and serious. And besides, what exactly is wrong with being called "Epic Pooh"? The Hobbit is exactly that, and as Pooh is good stuff, I don't see how it's supposed to be offensive. LoTR is not quite that, other than some exceptions like the beginning scenes in the Shire or your favorite Tom Bombadil episode, but nevertheless - why is Pooh of epic sweep a bad thing?

>49 elladan0891:

Sorry, I can't speak for Moorcock. He's a good writer and has shared his views on Tolkien many times in different venues; I can't imagine how a second-hand presentation of those views would be better than his own words.

Regarding "epic Pooh" I will say this much--I don't think it means Pooh is "bad", but that Tolkien is simplistic.

the looney SJWs of the far left

Sad to see you using this as a slur. Social justice is a fine thing in my view, well worth fighting for. I wouldn't personally call myself a "warrior" (too lofty, I think) but neither would I bother to fight the label, given the usual sources. It says more about those who use it than anyone else.

I agree that I might have enjoyed Tolkien more as a child, although that's far from certain--my preference for more or less "reality-based" adventure and sf manifested pretty early... But funny you should think I take LOTR "too seriously". If I appear to do so, it's only because of people who keep praising it as adults to other adults. Surely if anyone takes Tolkien "too seriously", it's people who manage to read him dozens of times... as adults? :)

But hey, whatever floats whoever's boats...

As for that chap's critique, it doesn't sound new or surprising. You seem to think it's preposterous that Tolkien (or his saga) is seen as conservative? Well, the fan base is wide enough, but I think it's not difficult to show the strong appeal of Tolkienesque fantasy to conservatives. Arguably, medieval fantasy IS a conservative's genre--predominantly, especially historically. I don't mean particularly to start a discussion, just noting these ideas are not new nor extravagant--nor somehow exclusive to the left. Before the US "hippies" (re)discovered him, Tolkien was supported and liked by his circle of conservative, backward-looking, modernity-fearing, misogynistic, predominantly Catholic (often converted, the worst kind) friends. Nor was he, to my knowledge, shy about his social biases, political predilection, and faith.

It's not some tremendous notion unless one makes it so. Look, his appeal is wide. It doesn't mean his work doesn't have a special meaning for one side of the political divide. I enjoyed reading the metaphysical fantasies of another of Tolkien's circle, Charles Williams. It doesn't make Williams any less a conservative religious writer who resonates very differently to a like-minded god-fearing reader than to someone like me.

>49 elladan0891: Hahaha! Your edited highlights make it sound like a nailed-on parody: surely the tongue must be firmly in cheek with that line which makes Smaug the Magnificent sound like Gregory VII or Feargus O'Connor. Upon reading the whole thing, however, I'm now just confused about the aims and the tone of the article...

This thread has awakened a very strong desire to own this Elric set - both Moorcock and Tolkien were huge parts of my adolescence and Elric in particular was my gateway drug to much darker and weirder plots & places than anything I'd hitherto experienced. I read them all in one binge (these were pre-Netflix times) in the summer of '88 and was completely blown away. I read them out of chronological order, but that doesn't matter so much with Moorcock anyway. I haven't revisited them since, but I can still recall vivid images even now - the Dragon Caves under Imrryr, the fleet of Jagreen Lern and the Lords of Chaos, the peripatetic wanderings of Elric and Moonglum which at a distance have a dreamlike otherworldly quality like the adventures of Gilgamesh and Enkidu

It seems that everyone on this forum fetishises beautiful books to some degree or other, but I reckon for me the titles that had the biggest impact on my formative years have become the most coveted objects later in life. So thanks again FSD, yet another thing I now need to have that I didn't previously know existed...!

I can understand that people do not like Tolkien and others like him. What I don't understand is why some feel it necessary to attack those who do, with gross generalisations and stereotypes.
I firmly believe that it betrays an unhealthy revolutionary and modernist tendency for a contempt of the past by severing cultural contact with the wisdom of the ages.

>50 LolaWalser:
Sad to see you using this as a slur. Social justice is a fine thing in my view, well worth fighting for.

Why? I agree, there is plenty well worth fighting for. Women's rights in the Middle East, Central Asia and Muslim immigrant communities in the West is one such example. And the very brave women leading the struggle in those places are not SJWs. I'm sure you're aware of that. The term has a pretty narrow meaning.

It always surprises me how many people treat political spectrum as a binary - left or right, my way or highway. If I despise the far left (which happens to be packed with looneys and fascists), it doesn't mean I'm a conservative or reactionary or misogynic or whatever. I'm not a conservative. I consider myself a liberal. It's particularly amusing when the very people who insist on treating certain things as non-binary reduce to binary treatment of politics, while it really is a very diverse spectrum. If I consider myself a liberal I don't have to identify with everyone and every idea on the left, and I certainly don't have to align myself with the psychos at the fringes. Just like I don't have to disagree with every single view that happens to be common somewhere on the right side of the spectrum.

Surely if anyone takes Tolkien "too seriously", it's people who manage to read him dozens of times... as adults? :)

No, not necessarily. As long as they don't take it seriously, it doesn't matter how often they read it. And sure, for folks who read it that often it might very well be escapist stuff, as >4 Jayked: noted sneerily. I just don't see anything to sneer about.

You seem to think it's preposterous that Tolkien (or his saga) is seen as conservative?

Absolutely. Anyone who treats it as some kind of conservative pamphlet is effing nuts. Whether folks like Moorcock who criticize it, or hypothetical conservatives who allegedly see LoTR as preaching conservatism, although I haven't seen such folks. But if they do exist, they're just as equally nuts as Moorcock and that Guardian chap. THAT is taking LoTR too seriously.

And it doesn't matter what views Tolkien had and whether he was conservative (not a given, actually), Catholic, etc. Look, Tolkien was writing fairy tales/fantasy basing off Northern European legends, myths, and tales. In the 30s and 40s. What the hell did people expect? Aragorn abdicating to convert Gondor to a parliamentary republic? Sam and Frodo coming out of the closet at the end and getting wed by Gandalf?

On a scale of 1 to 10, how likely do you think that our dear Folio would go all the way and publish the series?

Elric? 0.

>55 SolerSystem: Why?

>56 RATBAG.: mostly because Centipede Press is already doing the Elric series. While the limitation is too low to appease all fans of Elric, I don't think there are enough fans to make it worthwhile for FS to go through the process of commissioning all new artists (who will have quite a job of creating artwork distinct from the CP editions but still true to the novels and stories) and intros, not to mention committing to a run of 6+ novels which, in the end, simply won't be as nice as what Jerad is doing. It doesn't even seem likely that FS will publish the remainder of the Dune series, which has far more of an obsessive fan base behind it who would certainly be eager to buy the entire series (and you just know there won't be enough of the coming Centipede edition for all of them). And with their sights on the Game of Thrones books, it seems unlikely that FS would commit to a concurrent fantasy series.

FS, to me, largely plays it safe with their fantasy and science fiction choices- le Guin, Bradbury, Heinlein, Dune... Nothing about this most recent release indicates (to me at least) that the direction they're headed in includes 1960s counterculture fantasy about an albino prince with a bloodthirsty sword. People on here have been clamoring for A Canticle for Leibowitz for years to no avail, and that one was a best-seller that's still grouped with 1984 and A Brave New World as one of the greatest dystopian novels.

Personally speaking, if FS did have more Moorcock in mind, I'd prefer they do some of his...better stuff. How about a 3 volume collection of The Dancers at the End of Time (his best work imo)? Or give Fay Dalton a break from Bond so she could illustrate the Jerry Cornelius adventure The Final Programme. Orrrr a fine press edition of the novella version of Behold the Man? All books I would love to own, but I don't think Folio is the publisher that will make it a reality.

I do think Moorcock may be on the docket though, he has been recently writing intros.

>57 SolerSystem: A painful yet logical analysis. *sigh*

But what if they do it a-la Book of The New Sun? That would be something, I imagine.

>58 Cubby.R.S.: That is exactly why I have revived this thread. I still have some hope. :)

>59 RATBAG.: if you’re still bummed about missing the CP Elric books, keep an eye out for the Nifft the Lean book coming soon. The Nifft stories are fantastic- very surreal takes on Jack Vance style dying earth tales. If you’re familiar with Michael Shea’s take on Lovecraftian weird horror, you should be fairly well prepared for his take on Vance/ Leiber/ Howard style sword and sorcery. I just messaged Jerad, and he will be doing all 3 collections in the series.

>60 SolerSystem: Thanks for the recommendation! I haven't read it before, hope it's the same caliber as Elric. :)

Reviving an old thread that I happened to start…

Someone with whom I work told me that the optioned Elric television series got nixed due to the physical similarity between Elric and the Witcher character.

After looking into this, I saw this from Moorcock:

"Heard today that some companies are turning down Elric project because it reminds them too much of GOT and The Witcher. A pretty irony. So much for “homages”...."

I’m now thinking that the last Emperor of Melniboné ain’t going to be getting Folio’d.

It might at some point, but definitely not soon. The results of the top 3 requested fantasy series for FS's survey recently were: 1) Stephen King's Dark Tower 2) Philip Pullman's The Book of Dust and 3) Ursula K. Le Guin's Earthsea.

Elric was on the survey. He just didn't make the top 3. :(

>63 whytewolf1: Those were the top three?

Dork Tower… The Book of Dead Skin and Carpet Fiber… The Borefest of Earthsea…

OK. Time to invoke Arioch. ;)

And to fans of those three works, I’m just teasing.

Sort of. :)

>64 betaraybill: Those were the top three. *shrug* And they seemed to imply those were the "winners" (i.e. that they would be published). So, maybe next time?

>62 betaraybill:

It's a really bad joke when the original gets refused because it's too similar to homages / derivative works.

Meanwhile, somewhere in Cimmeria, Conan the Barbarian narrows his smouldering volcanic blue eyes and swears vengeance ...

>65 whytewolf1: Here’s hoping!

>66 SF-72: My thoughts exactly.

>67 red_guy: … And Roland the Gunslinger, Ged, and Lyra Belacqua all fell before the blades - one ebon black, the other dull steel - of the Melnibonean and the Cimmerian. ;)

>67 red_guy: Yes, scandalous they leapfrogged REH and Moorcock when treating the S&S genre

>69 DanielOC: did they leapfrog REH and Moorcock though? What swords & sorcery fiction has Folio published? I can't think of any.

70> you're right, strictly, FS 20th c genre titles with swords and sorcery have been epic or high fantasy not S&S.

The works of Robert E Howard (Conan, etc) were already produced in an exquisite format by Wandering Star Press. I need to update my thread, but I started this back last year
https://www.librarything.com/topic/326168#n7311804
Apart from Wandering Star Press, Donald M. Grant also published some gorgeous collector's editions - which again I mean to include in my REH thread as noted above. I'm not saying the FS could not do justice to REH, but in many ways I don't see the purpose considering highly beautiful and collectible editions of REH already exist.

>69 DanielOC:, >68 betaraybill:, It was more the idea that Elric was in any way the original was the thing which tickled me!

I don't think Folio is the right fit for early Moorcock. Better to attempt one of the stand alone novels like Gloriana, Mother London etc. or maybe a small set like the first Cornelius trilogy or Dancers at the End of Time?

If you are doing high-end pulp, you need to commit to it in bulk - all those trilogies , sets and sequences which make the impressive shelfscapes that make a fantasy fan's heart beat faster. Folio seem to be prepared to do this for Christie et al., but with Elric, I expect you'd just get Stormbringer, and that would be it. Also, there are so many well drawn Elric graphic novels etc right the way from the '70s and I wouldn't trust Folio to be on the right wavelength to be able to get it right. Quite likely to come up with static Rob Roy - style illustrations which would please nobody..

Tolkien was the master as far as I’m concerned. However, I won’t repeat what I have said at length in defending Tolkien against Moorcock, Mielville and his detractors on other threads. Suffice it to say that Tolkien’s critics seem unable to forgive him for being born in the 1890’s.

As for Moorcock, I like his science fiction work even though I often find his criticism of other writers pretty insufferable. Moorcock’s critiques are basically- left wing writers good, conservative writers bad.

However, I’m intrigued by Elric and it sounds good fun. I’ve preordered the three hardback Elric books being published in the UK later this year by Saga Press. They look like a good alternative to the Centipede Press books.

>74 Quicksilver66: I took a look at Saga Press, it's apparently an imprint of Gallery Books and Simon & Schuster. So, basically just niche books from a big publisher. Nothing wrong with that of course if you are looking for cheap alternatives. However, it's definitely nothing like the quality you get from Centipede Press. It's also a tiny fraction of the cost, so there's that :)

>75 astropi: I’m sure that’s right Astropi. I love Centipede Press books and the ones I have are great quality. But as Elric is a bit of an unknown quantity for me I thought the Saga Press books a better bet for me.

>74 Quicksilver66: for a number of reasons, I think Elric will be Moorcock's legacy. Elric is the prototype of a certain kind of suffering gloomy but glamorous hero.

It is notable that the character began with a few short stories, probably with no plans for more ambitious novels, and those early stories are rougher, more psychedelic, and in many ways more satisfying than the novels. These stories were first published in magazines, and then collected in paperback form in the early 1960s.

Through the Eternal Champion stories (which came to include Elric) he also helped crystallize a particular form of law versus chaos metaphysics which bubbles up often now in many later stories by other writers.

>77 abysswalker: I look forward to reading Elric all the more, abysswalker. I personally love the pulp magazine aesthetic which obviously influenced Moorcock.

Moorcock is an intriguing writer and one I would like to get to know better. I have read some of his Sci-Fi and I loved Behold the Man. I have also just ordered the SF Masterworks copy of Dancers at the End of Time, which I have been meaning to read for years.

Moorcock was of course instrumental in the New Wave of British Sci-Fi through his editorship of New Worlds. He also wrote for British comics and the rock band, Hawkwind. A bit of a prototype Alan Moore, right down to the bushy beard.