Oh yeah, Michael Moorcock wrote many fantasy series, but he is also very political and writes in many other genre. I read one of his fantasy books years ago and I remember I really liked it at that time...so I got the sequels to that. If they turn out to be too geek and unimpressive, I swear I will give up fantasy for good and just re-read LotR forever! And I mean it this time! ^^;;;

Oh your dad, haha!! Has he read the books?

seat | October 22, 2004 07:27 PM

I think he just really looks down on "snobbery and escapism", which exist in LotR - the elf is the ultimate snobby race, that you can't deny, and it is a escapist fiction, which is exactly what we love about LotR, that is to escape from reality. And I actually agree on "the lack of a sense of tragedy, of reality, of mankind's impermanence". I mean Frodo's end is tragic, but not in a realistic way, like he died of his wounds or simply died old and alone, he went to the undying land with all those beautiful elves! ^^;;; And Boromir and Denethor died because they did something bad, somehow you don't feel unjust in their deaths and so not that tragic. And with all those long-living elves, wizards around, you get surprisingly little of the sadness of "mankind's impermanence", don't you think? The tragic romance between Aragorn and Liv Tyler(oh shit I forgot the princess name...^^;;;) is only emphasized in the movie but not in the original.

I think what Michael Mockcook says is true, in the sense that all the stuff he doesn't like exist in Tolkien's books, but it is only a matter of personal taste!! I like the stuff he critisizes on! And I get very annoyed that he says harsh stuff like "I really do feel contempt for Tolkien and a certain disgust for those adults who voted him writer of the century" or "I was deeply disappointed by their lack of weight and their lack of ambitious language", which shows that if the genre is not his cup of tea, he thinks it is trash. HE IS THE SNOBBY ONE. Oh well, interesting interview though.

seat | October 22, 2004 06:40 PM

If LOTR were written back in those days, Hitler would have twist it into Nazi propaganda material (which is like totally 'perfect' if you think about it...so Moorcock was right about how 'scary' it would have been), like how Hitler did for Wagner's "Ring of Nibelungen". I remember my dad comment the first time he saw LOTR how it totally reminded him of Ring of Nibelung too. BTW my dad is like total LOTR addicted, he has rewatched FOTR and TTT so many times (like every 2 weeks) that I've lost count...

Freda | October 22, 2004 12:37 PM

geez Michael Moorcock was harsh, especially his slamming the books's highly regard literary status (and slam people who agree with that). I don't get his sneering at the fairytale and mythic quality in Tolkien's writings, as if escapism and fairytale quality is something 'bad". I mean that's the enduring and appealing power of mythologies and Tolkien's books. And this I just don't agree with this: "What I found lacking in Tolkien was a sense of tragedy, of reality, of mankind's impermanence." But this is like THE traits of mythological tales...like what about Frodo's end? downfall of Boromir, Denethor..etc??

Freda | October 22, 2004 12:26 PM

Hey doesn't that Michael Moorcock write really geeky fantasy stuffs too? When I was reading his comment on LOTR, I was reminded of those Nazi idealogy (since I recently watch "Occult History of the Third Reich") ^^;;;, the whole thing with against industrailism, wanna back to nordic root...haha! then he actually said "It has the same discomfort with cities, the same 'volkishness' you get in proto-Nazi stuff" ^^;;

Joan | October 22, 2004 11:28 AM

btw, just read an (not very new) interview with this famous British fantasy writer Michael Moorcock(just got two of his books) and he mentioned about LotR....oh no...

***************
CM: Elric's roots in Norse mythology brings to mind another writer who was influenced by Norse and Germanic mythology, J.R.R. Tolkien. As a result of Peter Jackson's upcoming movies, a whole lot of attention has been paid to Tolkien's work recently. Some are seeing The Lord of the Rings less as escapist fiction, and more as a "serious," quintessentially postmodern work that draws on a mythic past for a categorical rejection of modernity. In fact, some are even calling the Ring saga the "book of the century." I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the reasons for Tolkien's popularity, and your interpretation of what ways in which your views are in harmony or opposed to his.

MM: What I found lacking in Tolkien which I had found in, for instance, the Elder Edda, was a sense of tragedy, of reality, of mankind's impermanence. Tolkien really did set out to write a fairy tale and in my view that's exactly what he did—provide a perfect escape plan, which had the added attractions of having been written by an Oxford don. I knew and liked Tolkien who in a bufferish sort of way was very kind to me and encouraging. I looked forward to those books coming out. I was deeply disappointed by their lack of weight and their lack of ambitious language. They are about as likely to last as “the book of the century” as Ouida, Hall Caine or Marie Corelli, all of whom were judged the greatest writers of their day by a contemporary audience. Thomas Hardy hardly got a mention and well into the twenties people were still wondering if George Eliot was going to last. . . You can just hope nobody puts a curse like that on your own work!

Those polls remind me of what happened after Melody Maker stopped being a professional musicians' paper and became a pop music paper. They still ran the votes for best musicians. In the old days the winner would have been someone like Louis Armstrong. By the time the pop fans were voting, the best guitarist would tend to be whoever was guitarist with the teeny fave band—I remember the guitarist of the Bay City Rollers won one year. I am against popularity contests on principle (they always result in some people feeling less popular) as I am against literary prizes. They are only good to stimulate interest in the trade or professional organization that puts them out. Otherwise they are divisive. I grew up in an England that actually thought high-profile literary prizes were bad for literature. That all stopped after the Triumph of the Market (or the Marketer, actually).

Tolkien has the right elements of snobbery and escapism to make it a huge success. John Buchan for teenagers. A compendium of disguised bigotry and English high church snobbery. I hate it for exactly those qualities which made it so popular. It's a lullaby. Not sure we need lullabies at the moment. Unless we're all just going to give up, go to sleep and wake up dead. I really do feel contempt for Tolkien and a certain disgust for those adults who voted him writer of the century. This has nothing to do with why I decided to be a writer.

CM: What you said about Tolkien—"A compendium of disguised bigotry and English high church snobbery" put me in mind of Benjy at the end of Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury," bawling his head off because the horse-cart was taking him on other than the accustomed route. Could one see "The Lord of the Rings" as the last gasp of the former order, crying out for the way things used to be? Similarly, can you see American conservatism as some sort of grasping at the myth of Norman Rockwell's America?

MM: I think the appeal of Lord of the Rings, like certain quasi-dystopian science fiction stories which clean the world of all complication, is the escape it offers from the industrialized world. Such work (including mine) sells very well in highly industrialized societies but does not sell well at all in non-industrial countries. The Gothic was a clear response to the Industrial Revolution and Tolkien is a clear response, in my view, to the post-Industrial Revolution. It has the same discomfort with cities, the same 'volkishness' you get in proto-Nazi stuff. It scares me a bit, but not that much because times have changed. It would have scared me more if it had been published the year it was conceived.

seat | October 21, 2004 07:17 PM

When I saw "seen it yet" I just knew what it was...^^;; Such a torture to wait...ahhhhh....

Ring 2 looks(more like sounds) really scary!! Did you see the Japanese one??(I dare not...)

Not so sure about Old boy and Undertow(where has that cute boy gone??!! -_-;). But definitely want to watch Bad education.

seat | October 21, 2004 05:59 PM

oh...the 'Welcome to Glaringly' website doesn't have the video...basically about this guy get mistakenly accused of molesting a little boy (hilariously) and the media/mob frenzy over it, there's a baby in the cart (drawn in that pixel style) join along the mob protesting, so cute~~ ^^;;

Here's a longer trailier to Bad education.

Freda | October 21, 2004 05:41 AM

haha no that's not him.

The Psyop anthem song grows on me. I know it so well that I can sing it! :D (it's suppose to be cheesy cartoony "School house rock"-ish sounding I think)

Seat, seen this yet?? AHHH~~~ can't wwait!!

Some movies to watch out for:
The much hype Korean filmOldboy, winner of this year Cannes Film Festival Grand Prix. Heard that it's really good, stylish and good direction, very violence (urgh), mind-blowing story with shocking twist and turn (I'm spoiled already though). It's based on a JP manga actually. Here's the JP website.

Pedro Almodovar's Bad Education. Just a teaser though. But it has the usual cross dressing, gay and all.

That cute "Billy Elliot" all grown up now, in Undertow. Perhaps has good brotherly love? ^^;;

Teaser for US version of The Ring 2. Scared me ^^;;;;; A nicely done teaser, great graphics!

Joan | October 21, 2004 05:06 AM

Is the astronaut in "1961" your friend?? ^^;;

"Eyes" is so nice! Love it!

What protesting baby? I didn't see? I clicked
"West St" and he just went inside the door and never came out. ^^;;;; It is nice but I wish it paces up a little though...no patience to wait...

Psyop Anthem is great too! But...err, the music needs to be worked on a bit more...^^;;;

seat | October 20, 2004 08:04 PM