What do you think?
Rate this book
Epic Pooh
http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.p...
ebook
First published January 1, 1978
1 person is currently reading
51 people want to read
About the author
Michael Moorcock
1,209 books3,766 followersMichael John Moorcock is an English writer primarily of science fiction and fantasy who has also published a number of literary novels.
Moorcock has mentioned The Gods of Mars by Edgar Rice Burroughs, The Apple Cart by George Bernard Shaw and The Constable of St. Nicholas by Edward Lester Arnold as the first three books which captured his imagination. He became editor of Tarzan Adventures in 1956, at the age of sixteen, and later moved on to edit Sexton Blake Library. As editor of the controversial British science fiction magazine New Worlds, from May 1964 until March 1971 and then again from 1976 to 1996, Moorcock fostered the development of the science fiction "New Wave" in the UK and indirectly in the United States. His serialization of Norman Spinrad's Bug Jack Barron was notorious for causing British MPs to condemn in Parliament the Arts Council's funding of the magazine.
During this time, he occasionally wrote under the pseudonym of "James Colvin," a "house pseudonym" used by other critics on New Worlds. A spoof obituary of Colvin appeared in New Worlds #197 (January 1970), written by "William Barclay" (another Moorcock pseudonym). Moorcock, indeed, makes much use of the initials "JC", and not entirely coincidentally these are also the initials of Jesus Christ, the subject of his 1967 Nebula award-winning novella Behold the Man, which tells the story of Karl Glogauer, a time-traveller who takes on the role of Christ. They are also the initials of various "Eternal Champion" Moorcock characters such as Jerry Cornelius, Jerry Cornell and Jherek Carnelian. In more recent years, Moorcock has taken to using "Warwick Colvin, Jr." as yet another pseudonym, particularly in his Second Ether fiction.
Moorcock has mentioned The Gods of Mars by Edgar Rice Burroughs, The Apple Cart by George Bernard Shaw and The Constable of St. Nicholas by Edward Lester Arnold as the first three books which captured his imagination. He became editor of Tarzan Adventures in 1956, at the age of sixteen, and later moved on to edit Sexton Blake Library. As editor of the controversial British science fiction magazine New Worlds, from May 1964 until March 1971 and then again from 1976 to 1996, Moorcock fostered the development of the science fiction "New Wave" in the UK and indirectly in the United States. His serialization of Norman Spinrad's Bug Jack Barron was notorious for causing British MPs to condemn in Parliament the Arts Council's funding of the magazine.
During this time, he occasionally wrote under the pseudonym of "James Colvin," a "house pseudonym" used by other critics on New Worlds. A spoof obituary of Colvin appeared in New Worlds #197 (January 1970), written by "William Barclay" (another Moorcock pseudonym). Moorcock, indeed, makes much use of the initials "JC", and not entirely coincidentally these are also the initials of Jesus Christ, the subject of his 1967 Nebula award-winning novella Behold the Man, which tells the story of Karl Glogauer, a time-traveller who takes on the role of Christ. They are also the initials of various "Eternal Champion" Moorcock characters such as Jerry Cornelius, Jerry Cornell and Jherek Carnelian. In more recent years, Moorcock has taken to using "Warwick Colvin, Jr." as yet another pseudonym, particularly in his Second Ether fiction.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
August 19, 2021
He might expect readers not to be familiar with the authors he holds up as alternatives to C. S. Lewis and Tolkien, however, saying Susan Cooper and Frank Baum are superior would make me choke on my tea if I was drinking any. I suppose they don't have the particular tone he hates, but their work doesn't exactly attempt to be anything grand or consistent. Ursula Le Guin is alright, but she had deep respect for Tolkien (her most interesting work, in my opinion, are the essays she wrote about him, and fell short for not following more of his conventions).
When he mentions J. K. Rowling, I'm even more confused. Her greatest strengths are similar to the authors he doesn't like, and more archetypically religious than he might care to admit (intended or not). The difference between good and evil are the crux of the story, which is first and foremost about slaying snakes. Hogwarts is more escapist than anything; "the worst kind of muggles" aren't people the reader would prefer to live in a society with. How is this different and better than Tolkien romanticizing the countryside over the city, or supposedly the past over the present? It’s prioritizing the beautiful over the ugly, and convoluted, politically charged labels like neophobia or xenophobia don’t mean he was actually afraid of anything new or foreign.
Another burning point here: an epic adventure about Winnie the Pooh actually sounds stupendous. I did, after all, watch Pooh's Grand Adventure multiple times every day when I was a kid, so I don't quite see how this is an insult. I know an artist who made an enjoyable comic parody of this as well. Sure, it's a type of lens he might not prefer, but being gritty is equally as dependent on superficial, subjective taste and doesn’t make a story better. What he really takes issue with are the worldviews underneath: black and white morality, and sees the archetypes as rubbing salt in the wound.
For that matter, what’s bad about the type of people he calls “rabbits?” (It’s not the first time this term has been used as an insult where I have taken it as a compliment).
Tolkien fought in a war, and after reading World War II memoirs by relatives, I can see it’s these type of “ordinary” people who lean on their faith, who are often the ones facing the dragons and surviving them.
Stories about these kinds of people, by these kinds of people, seem to be the only ones that really include real dragon slaying as far as I can see. And rabbits themselves are wonderful. Next is he going to criticize chickens or frogs? I hope this isn't to imply his own avatar is much more than a jackass.
What’s wrong with a lullaby? What’s wrong with happy endings? Are they really all unrealistic or does it depend on the amount of hope in your heart? Your philosophy on life? An ultimate triumph isn’t something he believes in. All I can say is: too bad for you.
He's also against romanticizing nonexistent good old days, and ironically claims that the good old myths and epics weren't told with this frivolous, newfangled black and white morality. Sigh. Is he just talking about Milton again? If you cherry pick Greek Myths, maybe you could make the argument that the gods weren't the epitome of morality, but even there the hero archetype was alive and strong, to say nothing of fairy tales, the Bible or work from other cultures he doesn't like.
Also no mention of Gollum at all, the ultimate literary depiction of the struggle between good and evil in an individual?
This essay is bitter and biased, but the giants will stand despite.
When he mentions J. K. Rowling, I'm even more confused. Her greatest strengths are similar to the authors he doesn't like, and more archetypically religious than he might care to admit (intended or not). The difference between good and evil are the crux of the story, which is first and foremost about slaying snakes. Hogwarts is more escapist than anything; "the worst kind of muggles" aren't people the reader would prefer to live in a society with. How is this different and better than Tolkien romanticizing the countryside over the city, or supposedly the past over the present? It’s prioritizing the beautiful over the ugly, and convoluted, politically charged labels like neophobia or xenophobia don’t mean he was actually afraid of anything new or foreign.
Another burning point here: an epic adventure about Winnie the Pooh actually sounds stupendous. I did, after all, watch Pooh's Grand Adventure multiple times every day when I was a kid, so I don't quite see how this is an insult. I know an artist who made an enjoyable comic parody of this as well. Sure, it's a type of lens he might not prefer, but being gritty is equally as dependent on superficial, subjective taste and doesn’t make a story better. What he really takes issue with are the worldviews underneath: black and white morality, and sees the archetypes as rubbing salt in the wound.
For that matter, what’s bad about the type of people he calls “rabbits?” (It’s not the first time this term has been used as an insult where I have taken it as a compliment).
Tolkien fought in a war, and after reading World War II memoirs by relatives, I can see it’s these type of “ordinary” people who lean on their faith, who are often the ones facing the dragons and surviving them.
Stories about these kinds of people, by these kinds of people, seem to be the only ones that really include real dragon slaying as far as I can see. And rabbits themselves are wonderful. Next is he going to criticize chickens or frogs? I hope this isn't to imply his own avatar is much more than a jackass.
What’s wrong with a lullaby? What’s wrong with happy endings? Are they really all unrealistic or does it depend on the amount of hope in your heart? Your philosophy on life? An ultimate triumph isn’t something he believes in. All I can say is: too bad for you.
He's also against romanticizing nonexistent good old days, and ironically claims that the good old myths and epics weren't told with this frivolous, newfangled black and white morality. Sigh. Is he just talking about Milton again? If you cherry pick Greek Myths, maybe you could make the argument that the gods weren't the epitome of morality, but even there the hero archetype was alive and strong, to say nothing of fairy tales, the Bible or work from other cultures he doesn't like.
Also no mention of Gollum at all, the ultimate literary depiction of the struggle between good and evil in an individual?
This essay is bitter and biased, but the giants will stand despite.
March 13, 2021
The problem of arrested development.
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/englis...
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/englis...
October 14, 2017
Michael Moorcock's (in)famous essay "Epic Pooh" criticizes J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and Richard Adam's published works for tainting the epic fantasy genre with lackluster writing, religious proselytizing, irrational disgust with the modern age, and the use of fiction primarily as comforting escapism; whereas Moorcock feels fictions purpose should be to challenge readers.
I find myself having similar mixed feelings about "Epic Pooh" as I did another critical essay by Harlan Ellison titled, "Luke Skywalker is a Nerd and Darth Vader Sucks Runny Eggs". Ellison's essay criticizes "Star Wars" for becoming the face of science fiction even though the film is more fantasy with Sci-Fi trappings and for making morality as black and white as possible.
As I mentioned before I have mixed feelings towards both essays because while I don't completely agree with either author, both writers make good points. While I can get behind less bad writing, proselytizing, and waxing nostalgically for a past that never existed, I don't see fictional escapism as an inherently bad thing. The literary world is big enough for escapist fiction, fiction that challenges, and on the odd occasion fiction that does both.
I find myself having similar mixed feelings about "Epic Pooh" as I did another critical essay by Harlan Ellison titled, "Luke Skywalker is a Nerd and Darth Vader Sucks Runny Eggs". Ellison's essay criticizes "Star Wars" for becoming the face of science fiction even though the film is more fantasy with Sci-Fi trappings and for making morality as black and white as possible.
As I mentioned before I have mixed feelings towards both essays because while I don't completely agree with either author, both writers make good points. While I can get behind less bad writing, proselytizing, and waxing nostalgically for a past that never existed, I don't see fictional escapism as an inherently bad thing. The literary world is big enough for escapist fiction, fiction that challenges, and on the odd occasion fiction that does both.
February 19, 2022
И Толкина, и Муркока нежно люблю и считаю Писателями с большой буквы. Умные, эрудированные, талантивые. Но да, идейно они абсолютно разные и стоят по разные стороны идеологической баррикады. Поэтому данное эссе - не столько критика одного писателя другим (критики в обычном понимании здесь почти нет), сколько столкновение мировоззрений.
Муркок с рождения был левацким бунтарем-анархистом с огнем революции в крови, и умиротворяющий, инфантильный эскапизм Профессора его бесит. Точнее даже, БЕСИТ. Муркока во "Властелине колец" раздражает все: и наивная романтизация сельского образа жизни, и гротескная британская консервативность, переходящая в иррациональный страх перед всем новым и непривычным, и демонизация технического прогресса и урбанизма, и христианская дидактика (куда более тонкая, чем у дуболомного Льюиса, но все же отчетливая), и чрезмерная сентиментальность, и тяга персонажей к помпезной стихотворной декламации. Все это он высмеивает довольно остроумно, хотя местами скатывается в анальный юмор, глумясь над фразами типа Mr. Frodo was selling his beautiful hole, которые Толкин имел неосторожность обронить, не видя в них своим неиспорченным взглядом ничего "такого".
Под конец Муркока совсем заносит, и он обрушивается на "скверную манеру письма" оппонента. Ну, тут можно только руками развести... критиковать лингвиста Толкина за корявый слог и вставки "чудовищно плохой поэзии" - это явно уже Муркок на чистых эмоциях писал, не от ума.
P.S. Жаль, Профессор не дожил - я бы с огромным удовольствием почитал ответное письмо, где он назвал бы оппонента "зарвавшимся юнцом с глупыми и опасными бунтарскими замашками", сослался бы на десяток никому не известных литературных авторитетов XVII века и в конце напомнил бы читателю, что перманентная революция штука неплохая, но в конечном итоге людьми нас делает не она, а Любовь.
Муркок с рождения был левацким бунтарем-анархистом с огнем революции в крови, и умиротворяющий, инфантильный эскапизм Профессора его бесит. Точнее даже, БЕСИТ. Муркока во "Властелине колец" раздражает все: и наивная романтизация сельского образа жизни, и гротескная британская консервативность, переходящая в иррациональный страх перед всем новым и непривычным, и демонизация технического прогресса и урбанизма, и христианская дидактика (куда более тонкая, чем у дуболомного Льюиса, но все же отчетливая), и чрезмерная сентиментальность, и тяга персонажей к помпезной стихотворной декламации. Все это он высмеивает довольно остроумно, хотя местами скатывается в анальный юмор, глумясь над фразами типа Mr. Frodo was selling his beautiful hole, которые Толкин имел неосторожность обронить, не видя в них своим неиспорченным взглядом ничего "такого".
Под конец Муркока совсем заносит, и он обрушивается на "скверную манеру письма" оппонента. Ну, тут можно только руками развести... критиковать лингвиста Толкина за корявый слог и вставки "чудовищно плохой поэзии" - это явно уже Муркок на чистых эмоциях писал, не от ума.
P.S. Жаль, Профессор не дожил - я бы с огромным удовольствием почитал ответное письмо, где он назвал бы оппонента "зарвавшимся юнцом с глупыми и опасными бунтарскими замашками", сослался бы на десяток никому не известных литературных авторитетов XVII века и в конце напомнил бы читателю, что перманентная революция штука неплохая, но в конечном итоге людьми нас делает не она, а Любовь.
October 8, 2022
Interesting PoV or perhaps more of a rant. Moorcock does some fly-bys of more well known works written by authors whose storytelling is clearly not something he appreciates. Not to say he doesn't have some good points, though at times he drills down a bit too much and context is lost.
I realize that he has more macro level points to make and uses the authors and their works as examples of what is wrong with what some call "epic fantasy", but his PoV might have been more effectively communicated had he been more economical.
While I agree that the literary quality of much that is out there is lacking, I would ask, if some of these books encourage a greater interest in reading, can they be all that bad?
I realize that he has more macro level points to make and uses the authors and their works as examples of what is wrong with what some call "epic fantasy", but his PoV might have been more effectively communicated had he been more economical.
While I agree that the literary quality of much that is out there is lacking, I would ask, if some of these books encourage a greater interest in reading, can they be all that bad?
February 22, 2022
Moorcock’s critique of Tolkien and other fantasy author’s he dislikes mostly due to their theology and politics.
September 5, 2019
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/englis...
"I sometimes think that as Britain declines, dreaming of a sweeter past, entertaining few hopes for a finer future, her middle-classes turn increasingly to the fantasy of rural life and talking animals, the safety of the woods that are the pattern of the paper on the nursery room wall. Old hippies, housewives, civil servants, share in this wistful trance; eating nothing as dangerous or exotic as the lotus, but chewing instead on a form of mildly anaesthetic British cabbage. If the bulk of American sf could be said to be written by robots, about robots, for robots, then the bulk of English fantasy seems to be written by rabbits, about rabbits and for rabbits."
"I sometimes think that as Britain declines, dreaming of a sweeter past, entertaining few hopes for a finer future, her middle-classes turn increasingly to the fantasy of rural life and talking animals, the safety of the woods that are the pattern of the paper on the nursery room wall. Old hippies, housewives, civil servants, share in this wistful trance; eating nothing as dangerous or exotic as the lotus, but chewing instead on a form of mildly anaesthetic British cabbage. If the bulk of American sf could be said to be written by robots, about robots, for robots, then the bulk of English fantasy seems to be written by rabbits, about rabbits and for rabbits."
Read
January 14, 2021This review will be edited later on.
May 18, 2020
Absolutely brutal take down that was also fun to read and doesn't really feel overly long or under-developed.
February 7, 2026
Interesting essay. A lot of the criticisms, especially those regarding prose and writing style are valid I feel, Tolkein’s prose could definitely use some work, I have read little of C.S. Lewis apart from the passage provided in the essay to come to a fair opinion on my own.
A lot of the main criticism however is ideological in nature and this where my disagreements lie. Mr Moorcock tends to find fault with Tolkein and his ilk due to condescension to their readers, rampant neophobia towards society and harkening back to an imagined past, encouraging escapism, as well as encouraging a black and white worldview when it comes to good and evil.
I guess my disagreement is that while some of things are definitely bad I don’t think all of those things are bad. Yes, having a black and white worldview is generally not good, but it is fiction at the end of the day, I don’t think that these things are bad as long as one remembers that.
Also, as an essay, it ironically could’ve been structured better. He makes good points but the entire essay is structured more as a ramble, with spelling errors, committed to paper than a thoughtful criticism of Tolkein.
A lot of the main criticism however is ideological in nature and this where my disagreements lie. Mr Moorcock tends to find fault with Tolkein and his ilk due to condescension to their readers, rampant neophobia towards society and harkening back to an imagined past, encouraging escapism, as well as encouraging a black and white worldview when it comes to good and evil.
I guess my disagreement is that while some of things are definitely bad I don’t think all of those things are bad. Yes, having a black and white worldview is generally not good, but it is fiction at the end of the day, I don’t think that these things are bad as long as one remembers that.
Also, as an essay, it ironically could’ve been structured better. He makes good points but the entire essay is structured more as a ramble, with spelling errors, committed to paper than a thoughtful criticism of Tolkein.
October 29, 2024
it's not even that i disagree with him on most points, and sometimes he catches a good argument and wrings it dry, but more often than not the way Moorcock writes this reads like an disorganized rant, like the notes for an actual essay and he unintentionally handed in the wrong page :(
i like his little aside on escapism, and i did enjoy some of the jokes on Tolkien's expense, as well as - like i said - agreeing with a lot of the underlying points against some sf/fantasy tropes and the writers who use them without second thought. he just didn't do a good job at writing them out i'm afraid.
i like his little aside on escapism, and i did enjoy some of the jokes on Tolkien's expense, as well as - like i said - agreeing with a lot of the underlying points against some sf/fantasy tropes and the writers who use them without second thought. he just didn't do a good job at writing them out i'm afraid.
September 28, 2023
The cinematic repercussions of this are the most depressive of all. I always had a visceral rejection of Tolkien and his pastiches since my childhood and Moorcock pretty much nails the reasons behind this which I would only consciously realize recently. I never liked fantasy and medieval books as such but people like Moorcock or Ursula K Le Guin might be promising.
March 21, 2022
This essay is a banger
November 6, 2022
It is one way of critizing Tolkien. One perspective.
If you always had the feeling that something's "off" with Tolkien's work, but never could put your finger on it: Try this.
If you always had the feeling that something's "off" with Tolkien's work, but never could put your finger on it: Try this.
January 5, 2023
Interesting work by the author or Elric about the difference between "romantic" fantasy and "realistic" fantasy.
December 22, 2020
Right for all wrong reasons. And boring.
Read
September 23, 2024I found this almost disgustingly cynical. At the beginning I thought it was too negative but he gave lots of examples of what he thinks is good children's writing. It's well thought out and I can't disagree with everything. He seems to have a disdain for casual reading which I disagree with. It did give me something to think about and I will read again though.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews