tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post6327710660053228837..comments2024-03-28T15:30:09.903-04:00Comments on GROGNARDIA: More Cimmerian GoodnessJames Maliszewskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-43979767050789768242009-12-02T16:08:21.191-05:002009-12-02T16:08:21.191-05:00Chris T: I disagree about your interpretation of d...<b>Chris T:</b> I disagree about your interpretation of death in Middle Earth. Only the elves (and as you mentioned, Maiar like Gandalf) return to the Undying Lands. Men do not; their fate is uncertain. This is the great tragedy as told in the Appendices of the tale of Arwen and Aragorn. Not to mention that elven "deathlessness" brings with it a host of problems, and it is hinted that humans, with their finite lifespans, are the luckier. So yes, complex, at least in my opinion as supported by the text.<br /><br />When MM says that Tolkien is guilty of contributing to the myth of sacrifice, adapting the "sentimental myths that make war bearable," and that he doesn't ask any questions of "white men in grey clothing who have a handle on what's best for us" (i.e., politicians, generals, etc.),the implication is that Tolkien is guilty of glorifying war. <br /><br />You can ascribe any motivations to the orcs/other destroyers that you like (Tolkien consciously avoided doing that; whether he did so unconsciously is another issue). They could be imperialistic, aggressive nations like WWII Japan or Germany. Who knows? There are extremists today who are opposed to the free thinking and exchange of ideas expressed on this internet and this very blog.<br /><br />Michael Moorcock may think that the actions of all nations are morally equivalent and that every war is equally reprehensible, but I think most sensible people do not.<br /><br />Regarding "cowardly self-protection," I do think you're right that Moorcock's target with that statement was the middle class, though I note that I stated in my essay that I suspect that Moorcock has a problem with the social organization of the Shire to which the hobbits return, not necessarily their bravery in defending it.Brian Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05563309422791320114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-53075591144560830542009-12-01T14:05:03.921-05:002009-12-01T14:05:03.921-05:00I sometimes assume that Moorcock simply never got ...I sometimes assume that Moorcock simply never got farther than Book 1 of TLOTR, and that that, as much as his own ideological preconceptions, is where the problem lies. If one never gets farther than Farmer Maggot's mushroom farm, I can understand readers of a certain temperament growing fed up and stopping. While there's (obviously!) much great set-up in the early chapters, it's really the second half of <i>The Fellowship of the Ring</i> that turns TLOTR into a very different sort of work. If Moorcock never actually got there and simply assumes the whole story is written in the same vein, I can see how he might get to the view he presents in "Epic Pooh," even if I dont agree with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-24480611254711110082009-12-01T05:16:46.895-05:002009-12-01T05:16:46.895-05:00Chris T:
"As others have said above, I really...Chris T:<br />"As others have said above, I really doubt Moorcock is a Marxist. Although that certain people think he is speaks volumes"<br /><br />He is, or was, a New Left Marxist, like most of his peers. I know in the US that (cultural) Marxists tend to not call themselves Marxists, since using other terms like 'Progressive' is seen as better for advancing Marxism in US society.<br /><br />Here in the UK and Europe it's pretty much 'respectable' to be Marxist. Most of my academic colleagues are either New Left/cultural Marxists, or classical economic Marxists. They like the Marxist fantasy writer China Mieville a lot, he spoke once at the staff seminar but unfortunately I couldn't attend that week.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173759805310975320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-36519183098548749212009-12-01T05:06:37.782-05:002009-12-01T05:06:37.782-05:00Korgoth:
"I've enjoyed Moorcock's stu...Korgoth:<br />"I've enjoyed Moorcock's stuff as popcorn, but it isn't especially deep (there's a bit of Frankfurt School in there, but that's about as far as it goes)"<br /><br />Moorcock makes good use of Jung and Freud, as well as Campbell of course. I haven't enjoyed his recent works though, I never finished the last Elric sequel.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173759805310975320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-86271100841297395572009-12-01T05:02:44.013-05:002009-12-01T05:02:44.013-05:00groakes:
"Talking of what is "Right"...groakes:<br />"Talking of what is "Right" and "Wrong" seems to me a very fundamentalist position..."<br /><br />You're disrespecting my opinion! Fascist! >:)<br /><br />word verify: Czygoda - sounds like something from the Lost City of Cthuloid demon-gods.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173759805310975320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-15734116446233944932009-12-01T05:00:31.207-05:002009-12-01T05:00:31.207-05:00groakes:
"@S'mon - I would be interested ...groakes:<br />"@S'mon - I would be interested to know what you find morally reprehensible about the authors you listed, given that I would hold most of them (I haven't read any Pat Mills) to be humanists with a passionate love of humanity."<br /><br />Pat Mills is/was the main writer/editor for the comic 2000AD, notable for Nemesis the Warlock, Slaine, Finn etc.<br /><br />They are Humanists who don't understand Humanity. They're like the Anarchist academic who gave a talk at my Law School last week - "We must have total Autonomy and Equality! The masses must be mobilised to destroy the State!" Whenever the Left's vision is actually implemented it is disastrous for actual humans. Often it has created Hell on Earth.<br /><br />Actual human flourishing requires a dynamic interaction between liberal and conservative principles - which is in accordance with Moorcock's literary Cosmic Balance between Law and Chaos, but not his non-fictional political stance. Mills, Moore and Pullman by contrast only want absolute Autonomy. Which only results in enslavement anyway, as in His Dark Materials where the protagonist rebels fight against the antagonist Catholics, but are written as even more unquestioning of *their* authority figures and the rightness of their cause than the supposedly villainous Magisterium! When Lucifer says jump, they ask "How high?" Moorcock to his credit is much more subtle, and doesn't present unquestioning obedience to the 'right' (ie Left, or Chaotic) side as desirable, his Law is generally shown as preferable to his Chaos, although he dislikes writers like Tolkien who have the inner aspect on Lawfulness.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173759805310975320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-22816227621428201522009-12-01T01:42:02.779-05:002009-12-01T01:42:02.779-05:00James, that's cool - it's your blog. Just ...James, that's cool - it's your blog. Just saying...<br /><br />Brian M., no, you didn't mention politics and yes, it is fair game to counter-critique. Bring it. :)<br /><br />You are right in arguing that it doesn't have a "happy" ending, it is bittersweet one. But it is hardly a complex one. The Shire is saved, evil defeated, king restored and everyone except Sam goes to the *magical* Western Lands. In a sense Fordo "dies" (and "magic/elves") by having to leave the Shire but being part Took he wasn't destined for it anyway. So no great loss really. Death comes to all, but if you're one of the goodies, ie. "decent" "self-sacrificing types" as per MM, it comes later and in a magical way...<br /><br />I'm afraid I can't see where MM says that Tolkein glorifies war. A greater proportion of his article is comparisons and quotes of other writers' styles with JRRT's. <br /><br />But when you say Tolkein's attitude to war thus: "War is necessary when “destroyers” like Sauron or Hitler would impose their will on the free peoples of the world, but it is a duty to be carried out, not glorified,' you imply that Tolkein has an extremely simplistic attitude to the nature of war, a Manichaean world view as noted by many a commentator. Who are these Destroyers? Where do they come from? Those orcs are nasty, eh?<br /><br />I think you're taking his use of the term "cowardly self protection" a little out of context there. I don't think he was talking about War but rather the British middle class and how JRRT reflects its concerns (eg. as I note, his depiction of Sam constantly bowing and scraping): "One should perhaps feel some sympathy for the nervousness occasionally revealed beneath their thick layers of stuffy self-satisfaction... but sympathy is hard to sustain in the teeth of their hidden aggression which is so often accompanied by a deep-rooted hypocrisy."<br /><br />Maybe it's difficult for American readers to understand what Moorcock is talking about.Chris Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11064988977152302364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-70655555829428407962009-11-30T20:20:11.404-05:002009-11-30T20:20:11.404-05:00Chris T:
Why on earth was Murphy's trolling ...<b>Chris T:</b> <br /><br /><i>Why on earth was Murphy's trolling post put on the Cimmerian, of all places? Aren't there Tolkein sites that would have taken it?</i><br /><br />You might want to read the large tagline at the top of The Cimmerian as to why I'd chose to defend Tolkien there. <br /><br />Secondly, what on earth was "trolling" about my post? Moorcock's essay is commonly cited by Tolkien's critics. Moorcock has returned to the essay and updated it over the years (see the new Pullman references), which means he obviously stands behind it. I think it's fair game for a counter-critique, no? Or is MM above criticism?<br /><br />You'll note that I chose to stay away from politics in my rebuttal of the essay. I simply pointed out that think Moorcock's reading of the themes and ideas expressed in <i>The Lord of the Rings</i> is quite flawed. Tolkien demonstrably does not glorify war, does not preach "cowardly self-protection," does not avoid the subject of death, and certainly does not force a happy ending upon the reader.Brian Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05563309422791320114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-88357848956763765692009-11-30T20:03:13.899-05:002009-11-30T20:03:13.899-05:00I am also very disappointed because it provides fu...<i>I am also very disappointed because it provides further fuel to the old school doubters, the 3.5 munchkins and all the rest, that really deep down this movement, as represented by this particular blog at least, is not really about good gaming but a certain kind of nostalgia and hero worship.</i><br /><br>I don't write this blog for anyone but myself. That other people find anything I write here to be of use to them is gratifying, but it's not for that reason that keep posting each day. So if my traditionalism, "hero worship," and general stick in the mud nature scare some people away, so be it.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-46954713567987777792009-11-30T18:56:57.436-05:002009-11-30T18:56:57.436-05:00@S'mon - I would be interested to know what yo...@S'mon - I would be interested to know what you find morally reprehensible about the authors you listed, given that I would hold most of them (I haven't read any Pat Mills) to be humanists with a passionate love of humanity.groakeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06036495334605477234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-65188998899372373762009-11-30T18:47:46.253-05:002009-11-30T18:47:46.253-05:00Talking of what is "Right" and "Wro...Talking of what is "Right" and "Wrong" seems to me a very fundamentalist position. You may not like, or agree, with a given author - but that hardly makes them "Wrong" and someone else you like better, "Right". In my opinion, absolute Right and Wrong exist at the very limits of human experience - in between there is a lot of grey (and literary criticism).<br /><br />What you like - it all comes down to a matter of taste. Like music, there is only two types of book - ones that you like and ones that you don't.groakeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06036495334605477234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-54245392102295107732009-11-30T18:41:22.848-05:002009-11-30T18:41:22.848-05:00"So, putting to one side the gross generalisa..."So, putting to one side the gross generalisation in that statement, it's not about mastering the craft of writing or good story-telling but being "right", whatever the hell that is."<br /><br />Yup. The ones I listed are all good storytellers, but some of them are morally reprehensible - IMO it's the left-wingers (although unlike eg Pat Mills, there's not much objectionable in Moorcock's actual fiction, which often shows a sneaking regard for conservatism at odds with his non-fiction statements). Obviously YMWV.<br /><br />This article was influential in my recent appreciation of Tolkien, who I used to find rather boring:<br /><br />http://www.amconmag.com/article/2007/sep/10/00013/Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173759805310975320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-22936200032638642482009-11-30T18:20:44.952-05:002009-11-30T18:20:44.952-05:00James:
I appreciate his description of the country...James:<br /><i>I appreciate his description of the countryside -- they are among some of the most moving passages in all his work.</i><br /><br />Q.E.D.<br /><br /><br />Groakes:<br /><i>And then there is Tolkien's innate conservatism.</i><br /><br />I'm afraid this innate conservatism is exactly what many in this thread find so attractive... It's a way of demarcating tribal divisions.<br /><br />Why on earth was Murphy's trolling post put on the <i>Cimmerian</i>, of all places? Aren't there Tolkein sites that would have taken it?<br /><br />I am also very disappointed because it provides further fuel to the old school doubters, the 3.5 munchkins and all the rest, that really deep down this movement, as represented by this particular blog at least, is not really about good gaming but a certain kind of nostalgia and hero worship.<br /><br />That it's not about bringing all us old school players together but only a certain narrow subset that subscribes to a particular <a href="http://stuffgeekslove.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/the-status-quo/" rel="nofollow">status quo</a>.<br /><br /><br />S'mon:<br /><i>Now I can see that the Moorcock/Pullman/Pat Mills/Alan Moore side is wrong, and the Tolkien/CS Lewis side is a lot closer to being right, that has changed my appreciation of the merits of their work</i><br /><br />So, putting to one side the gross generalisation in that statement, it's not about mastering the craft of writing or good story-telling but being "right", whatever the hell that is.Chris Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11064988977152302364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-6200607908286995382009-11-30T05:46:07.957-05:002009-11-30T05:46:07.957-05:00On politics, I don't think you can separate it...On politics, I don't think you can separate it out the way the Cimmerian claims to. I guess when I was young I was a silly liberal humanist, not as far left as Moorcock perhaps, but his approach sat well with me. Now I can see that the Moorcock/Pullman/Pat Mills/Alan Moore side is wrong, and the Tolkien/CS Lewis side is a lot closer to being right, that has changed my appreciation of the merits of their work. Reading the third book of Pullman's execrable trilogy really confirmed that for me. You don't have to be Christian to see that the Luciferians are worse.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173759805310975320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-4893575595463396422009-11-30T05:31:01.863-05:002009-11-30T05:31:01.863-05:00I think Moorcock may have changed somewhat from th...I think Moorcock may have changed somewhat from the youngish Trotskyite urbanite who wrote Epic Pooh. He did go off to live in small-town Texas, after all.<br /><br />Personally, I'm from the kind of rootless academic background and long had the adolescent sensibility that made Moorcock's work much easier to identify with. I hold Tolkien in high regard without enjoying reading him much. But I see the gleam in the eyes of my middle to upper-middle English half-cousins when they disuss Tolkien. For them his work is soul food, they have a visceral connection to it that I lack, but appreciate the value of.<br /><br />Another point - I think spiritually and politically we live in a dark time, post 9/11, and Tolkien's themes of endurance, resistance and rebirth seem much more meaningful to me now than in the '80s. Maybe that's just me getting older, though.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173759805310975320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-61534091090135309552009-11-29T18:07:50.917-05:002009-11-29T18:07:50.917-05:00I guess my problems with Tolkien stem from the fac...I guess my problems with Tolkien stem from the fact that his characters seem to live ON the world, rather than IN it. you never get a good sense of how these "People" live - apart from the Wurzel Gummidge hobbits, of how they interact with "real" world. Now don't get me wrong - I enjoyed the books and read them near continuously for a good number of years when I was in my teens. I can even put aside the clumsy structure. But while the landscape decriptions are all very nice, to me they come across as descriptions of pictures of places, not the places themselves.<br /><br />And then there is Tolkien's innate conservatism. The novels seem to want to preserve an idyllic past rather than move to a dynamic future. The Elf aristocracy abdicate in favour of the Middle Class men, with the agrarian hobbit workers still defending there passive agrarian ways. And what of the Dwarven engineers? IS there no place for advancement in Middle Earth. The returning hobbit war hereoes, after saving the Shire retire to happy squiredom...<br /><br />Moorcock has written some great, and some not so great, works. But you can never say that he was content to comfort. He always tries to challenge the reader. To think that you can't "get" Moorcock without "getting" Elric is a simplification. If you don't get Elric, there are plenty of different avenues to choose: the post apocalyptic science fantasy of Hawkmoon; the Celtic reimaginings of Corum, the quantum anarchy of Jerry Cornelius; or the majestic, complex and magnificent picaresque of Pyat (possibly, IMHO, the best "literature" since the war...)groakeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06036495334605477234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-36824724612989410622009-11-28T23:54:04.499-05:002009-11-28T23:54:04.499-05:00I have written about at least one of the Kane nove...I have written about at least one of the Kane novels, but I haven't posted anything by Leiber since the series began. I will certainly correct that in the future.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-57058535729575451702009-11-28T23:53:29.706-05:002009-11-28T23:53:29.706-05:00I actually prefer authors who have somewhat of an ...<i>I actually prefer authors who have somewhat of an education in literary theory, and who don't spend entire chapters describing the idyllic country side--get to the action already!</i><br /><br>We shall have to disagree then. I both find Tolkien a fine author without his having been a literary theorist and I appreciate his description of the countryside -- they are among some of the most moving passages in all his work.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-80262611884830353862009-11-28T20:15:46.668-05:002009-11-28T20:15:46.668-05:00On another note, I wanted to see if you had ever c...On another note, I wanted to see if you had ever considered doing a retrospective of Karl Edward Wagner's Kane Novels/Stories, or of the Lankhmar material pf Fritz Lieber (or did you do one and I missed it?)Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17988373305532657192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-46918574028730677062009-11-28T19:51:06.936-05:002009-11-28T19:51:06.936-05:00My mention of the One True King was intended merel...<i>My mention of the One True King was intended merely as an example of something in Tolkien that, in my opinion, can't be criticized by recourse to post-Enlightenment thought, since Middle-earth is a mythical, pre-Enlightenment world. </i><br /><br />James, I have to say that this bit seems very non-sequitor-ish to me. While it is true that Middle Earth is mythical and pre-enlightenment, Tolkien was not. An artist's creations cannot be divorced from the context of the artist themselves. That is one of the most fundamental lessons of studying literary theory. Honestly, for all of the people who claim that Tolkien is some kind of master artisan, I have to disagree. I actually prefer authors who have somewhat of an education in literary theory, and who don't spend entire chapters describing the idyllic country side--get to the action already! It took me almost two months to read The Fellowship--that is far, far too long. The only reason I stuck with it afterwards was so I would know what (vaguely) to expect from the other two movies (which, were, imho, far better because they actually had pacing). Anyway, I just wanted to say that, while MM's criticism may have been (slightly) off target, I think the criticism I am reading of his criticism is even moreso.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17988373305532657192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-82635086676830844042009-11-28T19:18:03.977-05:002009-11-28T19:18:03.977-05:00So what do you suggest we do? Give in to our desir...<i>So what do you suggest we do? Give in to our desire for a "One True King" uncritically?</i><br /><br>Not at all. I have no beef with anyone who dislikes Tolkien's style or finds his tales unmoving or engaging. What I do take issue with are critics whose criticisms stem primarily from attempting to apply categories (particularly politically derived ones) that simply don't apply. My mention of the One True King was intended merely as an example of something in Tolkien that, in my opinion, can't be criticized by recourse to post-Enlightenment thought, since Middle-earth is a mythical, pre-Enlightenment world. The character of Aragorn isn't intended to be representative of a political platform, philosophy, or ideology but is rather an archetype within a large myth cycle. I think it unfair to Tolkien to lambaste him for sticking to archetypal characters and relationships when that was part of his intention.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-76084132606665807752009-11-28T18:42:47.017-05:002009-11-28T18:42:47.017-05:00@Korgoth: Yes, that Sam! I appreciate the intent b...@Korgoth: Yes, that Sam! I appreciate the intent behind the character - but Tolkein's execution is tone-deaf. He should be the hero of the novel as you say but by the time Sam gets to do anything remotely interesting, however, 700 pages later, people like me have gone way past caring.<br /><br />He *should* be everyone's favourite. But for the most part he just simpers his way through the magical world of his betters. Yes, he has a pivotal role in the story but so does the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_negro" rel="nofollow">magical negro archetype</a> in many a patronising Hollywood film.<br /><br />Your comparison of Sam with Tom is an interesting one. But perhaps I just don't find that level of humility particularly virtuous.<br /><br />James:<br /><i>I don't think the resonance many feel for the notion of a One True King says anything about one's commitment to notions of equality or democracy, for example, and Brin doesn't seem to want to give that line of thought any credence, unless I am badly misreading him.</i><br /><br />and later:<br /><i>To make peace with Tolkien would, I think, undermine his "rebel" image. Tolkien is the eternal father against whom up and coming fantasists have to rebel to prove their own independence from him.</i><br /><br />So what do you suggest we do? Give in to our desire for a "One True King" uncritically? Should we suspend our critical faculties lest we be imputed Wally-fashion as having some half-baked Freudian oedipal complex?<br /><br />Should we pay our token respects to all the works of our forebears lest we be marked as "rebels" or "image conscious"?<br /><br />What would Tolkein say? One True King sounds a lot like One True Ring... ;)<br /><br />Tolkein's style is very much a bed-side fairy-tale one though and it suits The Hobbit perfectly. I may read it again today. But for some of us over a thousand pages of it palls, esp. if those thousand pages feel like he's trying to recapture the lightning in a bottle that he got with The Hobbit and make it more "mature".<br /><br />There is a sense of fun and adventure in The Hobbit. Bilbo is a great character. He is adventurous and resourceful. He's a bit of a rascal...<br /><br />In The Hobbit Gandalf is just a wizard and not some quasi-religious avatar.Chris Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11064988977152302364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-84556578405306152802009-11-28T17:04:53.098-05:002009-11-28T17:04:53.098-05:00Then I see what you mean. I don't agree with y...Then I see what you mean. I don't agree with your conclusion, but it makes sense when I understand how you were thinking. <br /><br />But, I also don't agree with Moorcock! :)<br /><br />LotR sure is an amazing book, it do generate interesting conversations.AndreasDavourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17170806742393291962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-80808321535753103692009-11-28T16:41:17.643-05:002009-11-28T16:41:17.643-05:00Moorcock understands Tolkien far better than most,...<i>Moorcock understands Tolkien far better than most, but he feels it is contrary to all his ideals and thus don't give LotR any value, or calls it childish or "comforting" as denigrating adjectives.</i><br /><br>It seems clear to me that anyone who could, in all seriousness, call <i>The Lord of the Rings</i> "childish," let alone "comforting" doesn't understand it. The novel is many things but "comforting" it is not.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-89292426582416954132009-11-28T16:28:05.580-05:002009-11-28T16:28:05.580-05:00I'd still say you have far from proved that Mo...I'd still say you have far from proved that Moorcock don't understand Tolkien, James.<br /><br />I don't agree that his "anti attitude" or the anti-establishment ideology of Mike is a hindrance for understanding. The reverse is closer to the truth, I think! Moorcock understands Tolkien far better than most, but he feels it is contrary to all his ideals and thus don't give LotR any value, or calls it childish or "comforting" as denigrating adjectives. <br /><br />That Moorcock perhaps is, consciously, avoiding admitting the values LotR have is another matter, upon which I agree.AndreasDavourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17170806742393291962noreply@blogger.com