Wizardry and Wild Romance - by Kainja on 20:48 15 Feb 2005
Has anyone here read Michael Moorcock's "Wizardry and Wild Romance?" If not, I'd recommend it. I originally read it several years ago but it has recently been released in a slightly updated version. I think it's worth the read, although if you're like me there are elements of it that will probably piss you off. Below are a few of his main points, as nearly as I can determine.
1. Tolkien sucks. He embodies all that is worst in epic fantasy. His characters are cutesy (Poohesque) and his outlook is relentlessly status quo. He is completely lacking in irony.
2. Irony and humor are the saving graces of epic fantasy. Only those elements can lift the field above the level of hackwork.
3. Talking animal characters used as surrogates for humans in fantasy, suck.
There's a lot more of course, including a lot of discussion of authors who Moorcock admires and some who he doesn't. I found myself occassionally getting angry about some of the things he said, but I kind of enjoyed that. It's good to have something affect you.
Has anyone here read Michael Moorcock's "Wizardry and Wild Romance?" If not, I'd recommend it. I originally read it several years ago but it has recently been released in a slightly updated version. I think it's worth the read, although if you're like me there are elements of it that will probably piss you off. Below are a few of his main points, as nearly as I can determine.
1. Tolkien sucks. He embodies all that is worst in epic fantasy. His characters are cutesy (Poohesque) and his outlook is relentlessly status quo. He is completely lacking in irony.
2. Irony and humor are the saving graces of epic fantasy. Only those elements can lift the field above the level of hackwork.
3. Talking animal characters used as surrogates for humans in fantasy, suck.
There's a lot more of course, including a lot of discussion of authors who Moorcock admires and some who he doesn't. I found myself occassionally getting angry about some of the things he said, but I kind of enjoyed that. It's good to have something affect you.
Wizardry and Wild Romance - by Brad on 08:39 16 Feb 2005
I've added this one to my list of books to buy. It sounds like a thought provoking book.
I've added this one to my list of books to buy. It sounds like a thought provoking book.
Wizardry and Wild Romance - by Arislyn on 13:06 16 Feb 2005
Interesting. Now, it's been a long time since I've read the Elric saga, but I don't remember much in the way of humor in that. In fact, I think I kept trying to slit my wrists with a spoon, it was so depressing.
Luckily, spoons are very, very dull so all I managed to do was irritate myself.
Interesting. Now, it's been a long time since I've read the Elric saga, but I don't remember much in the way of humor in that. In fact, I think I kept trying to slit my wrists with a spoon, it was so depressing.
Luckily, spoons are very, very dull so all I managed to do was irritate myself.
Wizardry and Wild Romance - by Brad on 13:36 16 Feb 2005
This strikes me as a very 1970's, post-Summer of Love/post Vietnam War sort of attitude. Of course I say this without having read the book.
Elric - never could get into it. However I did like Moorcock's Dorian Hawkmoon and Castle Brass series.
| Quote |
| 1. Tolkien sucks. He embodies all that is worst in epic fantasy. His characters are cutesy (Poohesque) and his outlook is relentlessly status quo. He is completely lacking in irony. |
This strikes me as a very 1970's, post-Summer of Love/post Vietnam War sort of attitude. Of course I say this without having read the book.
Elric - never could get into it. However I did like Moorcock's Dorian Hawkmoon and Castle Brass series.
Wizardry and Wild Romance - by Kainja on 16:39 16 Feb 2005
The Elric books WERE depressing, all full of angst and troubled brow sorts of stuff. Like Brad, I liked the Castle Brass and Hawkmoon stuff much better myself. This book is a provocative read, though. I think Moorcock was originally writing it directly out of those seventies that you mention. It cetainly has that feel.
I tend to find much of the humor in modern fantasy to be trite and cutesy, but I don't think this was true of Tolkien. I certainly think Tolkien understood and used irony. I also think that what comes out of an emphasis on humor and irony as the ultimate element in fantasy is the incessant "winking at the audience" stuff that fills so much movie and TV fantasy. There's no reason why fantasy can't be taken seriously.
The Elric books WERE depressing, all full of angst and troubled brow sorts of stuff. Like Brad, I liked the Castle Brass and Hawkmoon stuff much better myself. This book is a provocative read, though. I think Moorcock was originally writing it directly out of those seventies that you mention. It cetainly has that feel.
I tend to find much of the humor in modern fantasy to be trite and cutesy, but I don't think this was true of Tolkien. I certainly think Tolkien understood and used irony. I also think that what comes out of an emphasis on humor and irony as the ultimate element in fantasy is the incessant "winking at the audience" stuff that fills so much movie and TV fantasy. There's no reason why fantasy can't be taken seriously.
Wizardry and Wild Romance - by Brad on 17:00 16 Feb 2005
Yeah I never applied cutesy with Tolkien. I do apply it to much of the recent fantasy. I kind of quit reading a lot of fantasy for just this reason it was either cutsey, written for 12 year olds or a romance novel in fantasy drag. I'm not sure that dry spell is over yet either.
| Quote |
| I tend to find much of the humor in modern fantasy to be trite and cutesy, but I don't think this was true of Tolkien. |
Yeah I never applied cutesy with Tolkien. I do apply it to much of the recent fantasy. I kind of quit reading a lot of fantasy for just this reason it was either cutsey, written for 12 year olds or a romance novel in fantasy drag.
I'm not sure that dry spell is over yet either.Wizardry and Wild Romance - by Arislyn on 17:12 16 Feb 2005
I don't know...I've read a lot of stuff that I would not place in the "trite and cutesy" category: Robin Hobb's Farseer series, George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series, The Black Company, Friedman's Black Sun Rising...and others.
But, you are right in that a lot of fantasy is.
Piers Anthony's Xanth: Cute? You're soaking in it!
I feel it's a tad unfair to label all (or even the majority of) recent fantasy as cute. I'd say it's probably about even.
I don't know...I've read a lot of stuff that I would not place in the "trite and cutesy" category: Robin Hobb's Farseer series, George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series, The Black Company, Friedman's Black Sun Rising...and others.
But, you are right in that a lot of fantasy is.
Piers Anthony's Xanth: Cute? You're soaking in it!
I feel it's a tad unfair to label all (or even the majority of) recent fantasy as cute. I'd say it's probably about even.
Wizardry and Wild Romance - by Brad on 17:27 16 Feb 2005
You are right Ari, not all, but it was getting way to expensive to separate the wheat from the chaff - at one point I had a big stack of fantasy books, bought new, that I had either read 1 - 160 pages and then gave up on or I read the whole thing but felt I was just sorta reading them to kill time not because I was satisfied.
When I did find a good author I burned through their books, but finding those authors I have found to be a chore particularly in fantasy. That is why recommendations from you folks here at the boards go a long way towards getting me to try something new.
You are right Ari, not all, but it was getting way to expensive to separate the wheat from the chaff - at one point I had a big stack of fantasy books, bought new, that I had either read 1 - 160 pages and then gave up on or I read the whole thing but felt I was just sorta reading them to kill time not because I was satisfied.
When I did find a good author I burned through their books, but finding those authors I have found to be a chore particularly in fantasy. That is why recommendations from you folks here at the boards go a long way towards getting me to try something new.
Wizardry and Wild Romance - by Arislyn on 17:37 16 Feb 2005
Very true. *chuckles* I do the same thing...find an author I like and then suck 'em down like sweet, sweet literary candy.
Hey! At least you are finding out that you don't like the books early. What I hate is when you read a book and like it right up until the end, where you find out that the author devised the lamest cop-out ever to wrap up the story....or the author doesn't really end anything, leaving you with more questions than answers and no indication of there being another novel forthcoming. Bleh! That's the suxxor!
Very true. *chuckles* I do the same thing...find an author I like and then suck 'em down like sweet, sweet literary candy.
Hey! At least you are finding out that you don't like the books early. What I hate is when you read a book and like it right up until the end, where you find out that the author devised the lamest cop-out ever to wrap up the story....or the author doesn't really end anything, leaving you with more questions than answers and no indication of there being another novel forthcoming. Bleh! That's the suxxor!
Wizardry and Wild Romance - by Brad on 17:53 16 Feb 2005
There is another reason I have for avoiding some fantasy books - punishing publishers!
Back in the late 80's and early 90's (it might still be happening) I would find a fantasy book, buy it and then find out it was book 2 or 3 of a trilogy - but the book gave almost no indication that it was part of a series not a stand alone and if it did that info was buried somewhere. I used to get very frosted about that. Or the other scenario: I find a book that looks really good, but it says book 3 of the X and so trilogy. Then I find out that book two of the trilogy is not in stock so I have to special order and book one is out of print! feh! Publishers are stinkers! 
But anyway that is another reason I might pass on buying a fantasy novel or series of them.
There is another reason I have for avoiding some fantasy books - punishing publishers!
Back in the late 80's and early 90's (it might still be happening) I would find a fantasy book, buy it and then find out it was book 2 or 3 of a trilogy - but the book gave almost no indication that it was part of a series not a stand alone and if it did that info was buried somewhere. I used to get very frosted about that. Or the other scenario: I find a book that looks really good, but it says book 3 of the X and so trilogy. Then I find out that book two of the trilogy is not in stock so I have to special order and book one is out of print! feh! Publishers are stinkers! But anyway that is another reason I might pass on buying a fantasy novel or series of them.
Wizardry and Wild Romance - by Kainja on 19:36 16 Feb 2005
I actually think that a little of the stuff coming out in the past few years, particularly George Martin's stuff, is growing darker in reaction to the excess of humorous fantasy that came before. Of course, there were always some good stuff, particularly like Glen Cook, but I grew tired of the Piers anthony pun series and the endless Brian Jaques heroic mice stories. And there were plenty of others that were like them.
I actually think that a little of the stuff coming out in the past few years, particularly George Martin's stuff, is growing darker in reaction to the excess of humorous fantasy that came before. Of course, there were always some good stuff, particularly like Glen Cook, but I grew tired of the Piers anthony pun series and the endless Brian Jaques heroic mice stories. And there were plenty of others that were like them.
Wizardry and Wild Romance - by Brad on 19:56 16 Feb 2005
What I always liked about fantasy was the character and world building. Of course it still has to have a plot but those elements if done well can make up for some borderline bad writing. As an example, take Moorcock. I don't consider him to be the best writer, but his characters and worlds in the Hawkmoon ans Castle Brass series were very good and so I ended up enjoying them even though the prose was not very artful. IMO.
What I always liked about fantasy was the character and world building. Of course it still has to have a plot but those elements if done well can make up for some borderline bad writing. As an example, take Moorcock. I don't consider him to be the best writer, but his characters and worlds in the Hawkmoon ans Castle Brass series were very good and so I ended up enjoying them even though the prose was not very artful. IMO.
Wizardry and Wild Romance - by Arislyn on 08:11 17 Feb 2005
Oh, I hate that, Brad! I've run into that more times that I can count. Grrrr...it was especially frustrating when I worked at a book store and still couldn't find a way to get my hands on a particularly hard-to-find part of a trilogy, or whatever.
Oh, I hate that, Brad! I've run into that more times that I can count. Grrrr...it was especially frustrating when I worked at a book store and still couldn't find a way to get my hands on a particularly hard-to-find part of a trilogy, or whatever.
Wizardry and Wild Romance - by Kainja on 16:35 17 Feb 2005
I agree that it's pretty irritating when one has the thrid book in a series and can't find the first two. And some authors had/have mulitple series and I don't know which two goes with which three. It got to be so confusing that it's part of the reason I'm not reading much modern fantasy. I shouldn't have to work so hard to figure out what goes with what.
I remember when Kenneth Flint's first book came out, and then it seemed like within a couple of years he had a dozen books in three or four different series.
I agree that it's pretty irritating when one has the thrid book in a series and can't find the first two. And some authors had/have mulitple series and I don't know which two goes with which three. It got to be so confusing that it's part of the reason I'm not reading much modern fantasy. I shouldn't have to work so hard to figure out what goes with what.
I remember when Kenneth Flint's first book came out, and then it seemed like within a couple of years he had a dozen books in three or four different series.
Wizardry and Wild Romance - by Brad on 16:52 17 Feb 2005
Raymond Feist reminds me of that, lots of different series. Before I even started the "SerpentWar Saga" I made sure all four books were available first.
Raymond Feist reminds me of that, lots of different series. Before I even started the "SerpentWar Saga" I made sure all four books were available first.
Wizardry and Wild Romance - by holsfisher on 11:37 04 Mar 2005
I agree, it is infuriating. Like Robin Hobb - shes written three related trilogys, that could be read alone, but really need to be read in order to make sense, and for the world to make sense, but the second and third trilogys don't even say anywhere on the book that they are set in the same world, never mind that theyare a follow up. Even though the main character in the first and third series' is the same!
I agree, it is infuriating. Like Robin Hobb - shes written three related trilogys, that could be read alone, but really need to be read in order to make sense, and for the world to make sense, but the second and third trilogys don't even say anywhere on the book that they are set in the same world, never mind that theyare a follow up. Even though the main character in the first and third series' is the same!
Wizardry and Wild Romance - by draconknight on 03:47 29 Mar 2005
I'd have to buy this book to check it out it sounds very intresting
I'd have to buy this book to check it out it sounds very intresting
Wizardry and Wild Romance - by frightlever on 06:48 29 Mar 2005
I loved Elric but barely tolerated Tolkien and only read the complete trilogy because everyone else was reading it. I knew people who read and re-read his books. I glanced at a copy of the Silmarillion(sp) and fled in horror. Never took to the bible much either so maybe I just rejected it as mainstream socially acceptable fantasy for the masses. I did like the Hobbit though but I was 12 when I read it so who wouldn't.
As mentioned it's funny Moorcock would complain about a lack of humor in fantasy. His Cornelius stuff attempted to be funny I guess but about the only fantasy stuff of his that I ever read that was funny was The Stone Thing...
I loved Elric but barely tolerated Tolkien and only read the complete trilogy because everyone else was reading it. I knew people who read and re-read his books. I glanced at a copy of the Silmarillion(sp) and fled in horror. Never took to the bible much either so maybe I just rejected it as mainstream socially acceptable fantasy for the masses. I did like the Hobbit though but I was 12 when I read it so who wouldn't.
As mentioned it's funny Moorcock would complain about a lack of humor in fantasy. His Cornelius stuff attempted to be funny I guess but about the only fantasy stuff of his that I ever read that was funny was The Stone Thing...
Wizardry and Wild Romance - by NoonChild on 08:05 29 Mar 2005
I was about to agree wholeheartedly with how rubbish talking animal characters are, but then I actually remembered books where it worked well. THESE ARE RARE THOUGH. I remember reading a book called Mossflower which was from a series of books (Red Abbey series or something like that) and the entire fantasy world was made up of mice, otters, hedgehogs, weasels, birds etc. It was a present from someone and I thought "Oh no, not talking animals dressed in leather jerkins, yeuch!" However when I got round to reading it, it really didn't matter that they were animals, you forgot the Beatrix potter idea of them and they became real "people". I guess that it was supposed to appeal to young people but the prose was not simple and in places it got really quite dark (for a 13yr old or whatever)
I was about to agree wholeheartedly with how rubbish talking animal characters are, but then I actually remembered books where it worked well. THESE ARE RARE THOUGH. I remember reading a book called Mossflower which was from a series of books (Red Abbey series or something like that) and the entire fantasy world was made up of mice, otters, hedgehogs, weasels, birds etc. It was a present from someone and I thought "Oh no, not talking animals dressed in leather jerkins, yeuch!" However when I got round to reading it, it really didn't matter that they were animals, you forgot the Beatrix potter idea of them and they became real "people". I guess that it was supposed to appeal to young people but the prose was not simple and in places it got really quite dark (for a 13yr old or whatever)