This month, the author Michael Moorcock celebrated his seventy-fifth birthday, which, as fate would have it, fell in the same month that Peter Jackson closed out his hexology of films that began with Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship the Ring and ended with The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies. The latter is the third part of Jacksons The Hobbit sequence, a book once considered a delightful fable that has been torn asunder to make its story fit in with the vast continuity of the earlier films, while also trying to honor every one of J. R. R. Tolkiens footnotes, appendices, and letters. The films are astonishing Hollywood spectacles, and for those of us who grew up reading the books and playing elves in Dungeons & Dragons, it was a thrill seeing those characters realized on screen. Gollum and Sauron and Aragorn were drawn from mythic tropes but are now so integral to science-fiction and fantasy culture that they have become tropes themselves. But Moorcock, one of the most prolific living fantasists, sees Tolkiens creation as little more than a conservative vision of the status quo, an adventure that brings its hero There and Back Again, rather than into a world where experience means you cant go home again. Moorcock thinks Tolkiens vast catalogue of names, places, magic rings, and dwarven kings is, as he told Hari Kunzru in a 2011 piece for The Guardian, a pernicious confirmation of the values of a morally bankrupt middle class.
Nevertheless, Moorcock might be someone to trust in these matters. From his first job, editing a Tarzan fan magazine at the age of seventeen, to his seventieth novel, which will be released in January, he has essentially written the other style guide for modern fantasy. Moorcock is the author of an almost uncountable number of short stories; hes edited anthologies, written critical books of nonfiction and had his novel Mother London shortlisted for the Whitbread Prize. With that output, Moorcock is likely to have written some duds, but he is quick to acknowledge his own limitations. He once wrote, I think of myself as a bad writer with big ideas, but Id rather be that than a big writer with bad ideas
It is also a lovely irony that it was fifty years ago this year that Moorcock, then twenty-four years old, was offered the editorial helm of the British magazine New Worlds. It was there that the young editor called foul on the old guard of science fiction and fantasy by publishing writers whowith a counterculture fire under their feetchanged the very course of science fiction and fantasy: J. G. Ballard, Roger Zelazny, and Samuel R. Delany, to name a few. It was also here that Moorcock gave a platform for some of the most insightful critiques of Tolkiens vast influence.
Moorcock and his peers had become tired of the dominant science-fiction landscape: vast fields of time travel, machismo, and spaceships, as well as the beefcake heroes of the fantasy subgenre Sword and Sorcery. The Golden Age of Science Fiction, held aloft by authors like Frederik Phol, John W. Campbell, and Robert Heinlein had, by the nineteen-sixties, sputtered out into a recycling of the same ideas. Within the pages of New Worlds, Moorcock created a literary revolution, one that would have science fiction fans calling for his head. It would be termed New Wave, and it was characterized by an insistence that speculative fiction doesnt need to rely on laser blasters, one-eyed Martians, and sub-light engines to expand its imagination. The stories in New Worlds under Moorcock were often experimental, sometimes pushing the boundaries of what some considered good taste. His first editorial, titled A New Literature for the Space Age, set the bar high:
More and more people are turning away from the fast-stagnating pool of the conventional novel and they are turning to science fiction (or speculative fantasy). This is a sign, among others, that a popular literary renaissance is around the corner. Together, we can accelerate that renaissance.
Not even Tolkiens vast philological scholarship, his deep knowledge of mythology, and his world-building skills could impress what Moorcock and company saw as a troublesome infantilism inherent in Tolkiens work. In a 1971 essay in New Worlds, the writer M. John Harrison acknowledges Tolkiens position as the first and last word in fantastic fiction, but begs readers to look more closely, where they will see not the beautiful chaos of reality, but stability and comfort and safe catharsis. 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.
But the message was not getting through. In 1973, long before Tolkiens characters would become internet memes and Lego figures, the British don died and left behind a pop culture landscape that was quickly being populated by elves, orcs, and hobbits. Tolkien could be found in songs, Harvard Lampoon parodies, and hippie slogans (Frodo Lives!). By the early nineteen-eighties, The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy had spawned not only adaptations in the form of cartoons and animated motion pictures, but had established the dominant flavor of fantasy books, games, and films.
Because Moorcock is a fiction writer, it was only fitting that he would offer a critique of Tolkien through his own work. In the nineteen-seventies, swimming in the shadows like a remora alongside Tolkiens legacy, was a hero of sorts with a slightly darker nature than that of Bilbo or Gandalf. His name is Elric, a frail, drug-addicted albino and the reluctant ruler of the kingdom of Melniboné, where revenge and hedonism are abiding characteristics, and human beings are enslaved. The inhabitants of Melniboné are not the spiritual, almost angelic elves of Lothlórien, but a race of decadent autocrats whose magical gifts are bestowed by demons. While Elric loves his people, he despises their selfishness, and the stories and novels follow Elric across strange lands and times as he tries to come to terms with his own internal struggle with his companion, Stormbringer, a sentient sword that feeds off the souls of those Elric kills.
Moorcocks influence is nothing like Tolkiens, at least on the surface, but his vision of a speculative-fiction genre that can be psychologically complex is evident in how very sophisticated some of it has becomefrom True Detective to Jeff VanderMeer, from David Mitchell to Under the Skin. But Moorcock also embraces the joy of pulp, and, like Tolkien, his creations are namedropped and sourced high and low.
Rock and roll has proved to be one of the more potent vehicles for enshrining both Tolkien and Moorcocks characters in pop culture. For all the claims of devil worship lobbed at Led Zeppelin, Satan doesnt make a single appearance in their lyrics. Tolkien is where their real allegiance lies, with references to Gollum, Mordor, the Misty Mountains, and Ringwraiths. Moorcock, however, came of age during rocks ascension and understood rocks power to give electrified life to his creations. Moorcock worked directly with bands like Hawkwind and Blue Öyster Cult as both a spiritual and literary guru. And, like Tolkiens characters, Moorcocks heroes and anti-heroes appear in comic books and role-playing games. But more often his presence is seen the form of loving nods as, when, in the Game of Thrones television series, someone yells out Stormbringer when King Joffrey asks for possible names for his sword.
Moorcocks literary agitation shook the fantasy and science-fiction establishment and made it possible for writers to step outside the long shadow of Tolkien and other fantasy devices. And frail Elric, dependent on a soul-stealing sword to keep his kingdom from utter dissolution, is a necessary corrective to the bloat of something like the Hobbit movie trilogy. Elric is not high art by any means, but is as rich and complex as anything calling itself fantasy. And the Elric stories are terrific fun. But, more importantly, Elric is not about abstract ideas of good and evil, with faceless powers looking to strip the world of its trees and its hobbit holes. Elric is about law and chaos, and how, sometimes, choosing one over the other is no more or less just.
_/¯
