What do you think?
Rate this book
Wizardry and Wild Romance: A Study of Epic Fantasy
Newly revised and expanded by the author, this study of epic fantasy analyzes the genre from its earliest beginnings in Medieval romances, on through practitioners like Tolkien, up to today's brightest lights.
206 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1987
12 people are currently reading
845 people want to read
About the author
Michael Moorcock
1,209 books3,764 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 - 30 of 55 reviews
April 13, 2019
Moorcock, master of fantasy—and self-described pragmatist and anarchist—offers his opinionated and passionate observations on the genre and its practitioners. He derides J.R.R. Tolkien's world—and C.S.Lewis' as well—as a kind of “epic Pooh,” a privileged and nostalgic vision of England, fearful of social change, defensive in its conservative Christianity and profoundly uninterested in the subtlety and ambiguity of evil. He prefers the nuanced and and ironic works of E.R. Eddison, Mervyn Peake, Fritz Leiber, and—among his own contemporaries—Gene Wolfe and M. John Harrison, whom Moorcock argues are all better stylists than the two hallowed "masters" of the genre. He is quick to praise--and to condemn--other authors as well, having particularly harsh words for the sexist S&M indulgences of John Norman's series, the Chronicles of Gor.
This collection of observations can be both infuriating and illuminating. Moorcock's essay “Epic Pooh” is particularly fine, and central to a mature understanding of fantasy fiction.
(Note: this review refers to the 1987 edition, not the expansion and revision of 2004.)
March 27, 2024
Suppose I skimmed this more than read it thoroughly, I hate reading from PDFs these days.
Think the big takeaway is the importance of landscape/setting on fantastic fiction, a conclusion I've been coming to myself recently. Maybe more important than in any other genre. Some interesting thoughts on the nature of fantasy heroism and humour as well, but otherwise mostly a survey of the genre used to heap scorn on Tolkien and the canon, and to uphold a few books that have seemingly slipped through the cracks. Actually the books he praises here would make for a great "NYRB but for fantasy" publishing program. The stuff that's not quite at household name status, but still very worthy of the attention of the connoisseur.
Oh and Epic Pooh is of course an important essay in its own right.
Think the big takeaway is the importance of landscape/setting on fantastic fiction, a conclusion I've been coming to myself recently. Maybe more important than in any other genre. Some interesting thoughts on the nature of fantasy heroism and humour as well, but otherwise mostly a survey of the genre used to heap scorn on Tolkien and the canon, and to uphold a few books that have seemingly slipped through the cracks. Actually the books he praises here would make for a great "NYRB but for fantasy" publishing program. The stuff that's not quite at household name status, but still very worthy of the attention of the connoisseur.
Oh and Epic Pooh is of course an important essay in its own right.
March 13, 2012
This is a hard book to rate. It’s a choppy read, and for good reason. Basically it’s a collection of essays, necessary essays I would argue, on Fantasy literature. Moorcock, as sure a guide as you can find, is also strong in this opinions. If you’re a big fan of Lord of the Rings, you may not want to read this book. Moorcock has problems with Tolkien, which are captured best in this quote:
Writers like Tolkien take you to the Abyss and point out the excellent tea-garden at the bottom, showing you the steps carved into the cliff and reminding you to be a bit careful because the hand-rails are a trifle shaky as you go down; they haven’t got the approval yet to put a new one in. (pg. 129)
There are specific criticisms of Lord of the Rings, but that “be a bit careful” line scored with me. Have you ever noticed how no one who really matters or who you care about in Lord of the Rings, ever dies? I’m not pushing for a body count, but if you read some of the older sagas and such that Tolkien used as source material, you know that major characters die like flies in those books. In counterpoint, a modern example that Moorcock is very high on (as am I), is Poul Anderson’s The Broken Sword, which has more tragedy and action in its few hundred pages than The Lord of the Rings has in its thousand plus. In fairness to Tolkien however, there is no analysis of The Silmarillon, a work I feel does have the epic sweep – and tragedy, of the sagas of old. But I’m in a distinct minority with that sentiment.
But Moorcock’s book is not just about Tolkien (he’s also not a fan of Robert E. Howard or Lovecraft ). It’s about what he thinks works in Fantasy, and what doesn’t. He names names, at least up to a certain point. If you’re looking for titles and books to read this is a good book, but one that needs to be updated every 5 or 10 years or so. I suppose we should thankful for what we do have.
Writers like Tolkien take you to the Abyss and point out the excellent tea-garden at the bottom, showing you the steps carved into the cliff and reminding you to be a bit careful because the hand-rails are a trifle shaky as you go down; they haven’t got the approval yet to put a new one in. (pg. 129)
There are specific criticisms of Lord of the Rings, but that “be a bit careful” line scored with me. Have you ever noticed how no one who really matters or who you care about in Lord of the Rings, ever dies? I’m not pushing for a body count, but if you read some of the older sagas and such that Tolkien used as source material, you know that major characters die like flies in those books. In counterpoint, a modern example that Moorcock is very high on (as am I), is Poul Anderson’s The Broken Sword, which has more tragedy and action in its few hundred pages than The Lord of the Rings has in its thousand plus. In fairness to Tolkien however, there is no analysis of The Silmarillon, a work I feel does have the epic sweep – and tragedy, of the sagas of old. But I’m in a distinct minority with that sentiment.
But Moorcock’s book is not just about Tolkien (he’s also not a fan of Robert E. Howard or Lovecraft ). It’s about what he thinks works in Fantasy, and what doesn’t. He names names, at least up to a certain point. If you’re looking for titles and books to read this is a good book, but one that needs to be updated every 5 or 10 years or so. I suppose we should thankful for what we do have.
March 19, 2024
Scatty, chatty; slight but often incisive; I am in sympathy on the major points, while I laughed through 'Epic Pooh' although he cannot prise from me the rabbit book.
As usual I am warmed when he begs fantasts to read outside the field, and am touched near in the case of the widely-read M. John Harrison who owes to Turgenev. Honestly? Turgenev's short, perplexity-driven novels would make killer fantasy. Moorcock is enthusiastic and apt on Viriconium, even unto its author's incipient faults.
Forty years later, I am impressed by Moorcock's attention to women authors and associated issues of sexist fantasy. He was always New Edge :)
Moorcock wants well-crafted writing and engagement with the world, within escapist fantasy. He has my sword.
-- Now I must chase up George Meredith's The Amazing Marriage, which Moorcock mentions more than once, incongruously -- a Victorian realist novel -- and believes a feminist masterpiece; it seems to have 3 reviews on Goodreads, so let's see what obscurity it is he champions.
As usual I am warmed when he begs fantasts to read outside the field, and am touched near in the case of the widely-read M. John Harrison who owes to Turgenev. Honestly? Turgenev's short, perplexity-driven novels would make killer fantasy. Moorcock is enthusiastic and apt on Viriconium, even unto its author's incipient faults.
Forty years later, I am impressed by Moorcock's attention to women authors and associated issues of sexist fantasy. He was always New Edge :)
Moorcock wants well-crafted writing and engagement with the world, within escapist fantasy. He has my sword.
-- Now I must chase up George Meredith's The Amazing Marriage, which Moorcock mentions more than once, incongruously -- a Victorian realist novel -- and believes a feminist masterpiece; it seems to have 3 reviews on Goodreads, so let's see what obscurity it is he champions.
January 22, 2008
Michael Moorcock, Wizardry and Wild Romance (Gollancz, 1987)
Michel Moorcock would be, it seems, the obvious choice to produce a critical work on epic fantasy. After all, he's written more of it than jut about any living author, or he had at the time this book was commissioned, ten years before its release, after the publication of his article "Epic Pooh" in 1977. ("Epic Pooh," revised, appears as chapter five here, and is one of the true gems of this book.) Still an excellent choice, as most of the similarly prolific writers who have emerged in the shadow of Moorcock lack the wit and originality he displays in novel after novel.
Interestingly, this is one of his main criticisms of the fantasy genre overall, not just in the moderns but going back to the earliest days of epic fantasy. The book, which is far more a survey than a critical analysis, strikes a Paul DeMan-esque note in its willingness (perhaps too much willingness) to turn many of fantasy's sacred cows into shish kebab. What is refreshing about Moorcock is that, unlike most critics, he is always willing to suggest a good number of alternatives for each piece of overwrought, mindless fluff the public is willing to take to heart. (Moorcock seems to have a special circle in Hell reserved for the Inklings, the chief fantasists of which were J. R. R. Tolkein and C. S. Lewis, both of whom Moorcock roundly despises; he spends more column inches disparaging Narnia and Middle Earth than all the other writers he castigates combined.)
One wonders, idly, why a survey draws as much money as it does these days. I could probably pay a month's rent auctioning off my copy of this, a first edition/first printing. Odd, since the volume barely gets a few lines into page one hundred fifty before it reaches its conclusion. But mine is not to reason why. It's not worth the incredible sums it fetches from booksellers these days, but as a jumping-off point for readers of fantasy who are looking for ways to branch out into wider genre-specific reading, it's a pretty darned fine piece of work.
Most of Moorcock's jaundiced views on epic fantasy could apply to all types of literature, which is at the same time both the book's main strength and its weakness. One expects, when reading a survey, to see the ways that the subject's lineage relates to what has come before and what has come after (see Eliade's wonderful Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy for perhaps the finest extant example of how to write a survey on a particular subject), but Moorcock seems to have the underlying belief that writing in a particular genre should have the same strengths and weaknesses as writing in any other, or in writing that is genreless or transcends its genre. To some extent this is true; the best fantasy writers, like the best writers of most genres, do transcend what the hacks are doing and make their work into literature. Where Moorcock goes slightly wrong, though, is in not delineating the transcendent from the more satisfying genre tales. He gives equal weight to, for example, Terry Pratchett (whose work, while parodic, is still very much genre fiction) and Ursula K. LeGuin (who is the very definition of an author who transcends any genre in which she chooses to apply herself). Perhaps he is expecting the reader to be able to discern which is which. Not an unreasonable expectation, if you assume your audience is as widely read in the genre as you are. I doubt many fantasy readers, or for that matter many academics, are as widely-read in their chosen fields as Moorcock, who tosses out the names and critical overviews of fantasy works going back to the pre-Romantic period that have been out of print for a few hundred years as if he'd assigned them the week before while teaching a class on fantasy literature, and we are all expected to go down to the University bookstore and pick up copies of them. Would that we could.
Still, as an overview of what's out there, where both the aspiring fantasy reader and the aspiring fantasy writer should be looking to find the stuff that really is worth being influenced by, despite its age Wizardry and Wild Romance is still the definitive survey on epic fantasy. It'd be nice to see a second edition. I, for one, would love to see what Moorcock thinks of, say, Philip Pullman, Terry Goodkind, or Neil Gaiman. But the recommendations in here should be enough to keep me hunting down obscure titles for the next decade, and the approach he takes to epic fantasy is a witty and readable one. ****
Michel Moorcock would be, it seems, the obvious choice to produce a critical work on epic fantasy. After all, he's written more of it than jut about any living author, or he had at the time this book was commissioned, ten years before its release, after the publication of his article "Epic Pooh" in 1977. ("Epic Pooh," revised, appears as chapter five here, and is one of the true gems of this book.) Still an excellent choice, as most of the similarly prolific writers who have emerged in the shadow of Moorcock lack the wit and originality he displays in novel after novel.
Interestingly, this is one of his main criticisms of the fantasy genre overall, not just in the moderns but going back to the earliest days of epic fantasy. The book, which is far more a survey than a critical analysis, strikes a Paul DeMan-esque note in its willingness (perhaps too much willingness) to turn many of fantasy's sacred cows into shish kebab. What is refreshing about Moorcock is that, unlike most critics, he is always willing to suggest a good number of alternatives for each piece of overwrought, mindless fluff the public is willing to take to heart. (Moorcock seems to have a special circle in Hell reserved for the Inklings, the chief fantasists of which were J. R. R. Tolkein and C. S. Lewis, both of whom Moorcock roundly despises; he spends more column inches disparaging Narnia and Middle Earth than all the other writers he castigates combined.)
One wonders, idly, why a survey draws as much money as it does these days. I could probably pay a month's rent auctioning off my copy of this, a first edition/first printing. Odd, since the volume barely gets a few lines into page one hundred fifty before it reaches its conclusion. But mine is not to reason why. It's not worth the incredible sums it fetches from booksellers these days, but as a jumping-off point for readers of fantasy who are looking for ways to branch out into wider genre-specific reading, it's a pretty darned fine piece of work.
Most of Moorcock's jaundiced views on epic fantasy could apply to all types of literature, which is at the same time both the book's main strength and its weakness. One expects, when reading a survey, to see the ways that the subject's lineage relates to what has come before and what has come after (see Eliade's wonderful Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy for perhaps the finest extant example of how to write a survey on a particular subject), but Moorcock seems to have the underlying belief that writing in a particular genre should have the same strengths and weaknesses as writing in any other, or in writing that is genreless or transcends its genre. To some extent this is true; the best fantasy writers, like the best writers of most genres, do transcend what the hacks are doing and make their work into literature. Where Moorcock goes slightly wrong, though, is in not delineating the transcendent from the more satisfying genre tales. He gives equal weight to, for example, Terry Pratchett (whose work, while parodic, is still very much genre fiction) and Ursula K. LeGuin (who is the very definition of an author who transcends any genre in which she chooses to apply herself). Perhaps he is expecting the reader to be able to discern which is which. Not an unreasonable expectation, if you assume your audience is as widely read in the genre as you are. I doubt many fantasy readers, or for that matter many academics, are as widely-read in their chosen fields as Moorcock, who tosses out the names and critical overviews of fantasy works going back to the pre-Romantic period that have been out of print for a few hundred years as if he'd assigned them the week before while teaching a class on fantasy literature, and we are all expected to go down to the University bookstore and pick up copies of them. Would that we could.
Still, as an overview of what's out there, where both the aspiring fantasy reader and the aspiring fantasy writer should be looking to find the stuff that really is worth being influenced by, despite its age Wizardry and Wild Romance is still the definitive survey on epic fantasy. It'd be nice to see a second edition. I, for one, would love to see what Moorcock thinks of, say, Philip Pullman, Terry Goodkind, or Neil Gaiman. But the recommendations in here should be enough to keep me hunting down obscure titles for the next decade, and the approach he takes to epic fantasy is a witty and readable one. ****
July 10, 2020
I should say more about this, and perhaps will someday. For now: parts might make you angry as he puts down sacred cows such as HPL, JRRT and 1982’s Conan the Barbarian movie; and yet, even as I at times disagree with Moorcock, I found myself entertained with his opinions and as a result of, adding too many books to my “to-read” list than I can possibly hope to scratch off in three lifetimes.
October 9, 2024
A short collection of essays on epic fantasy--written in the late 1980s and lightly revised in 2003--by the inimitable Michael Moorcock. Equal parts passion, cutting wit and analytic depth.
This MonkeyBrain edition includes six iconoclastic essays, front and end matter from China Miéville and Jeff VanderMeer respectively, and eight book reviews by Moorcock that advance and specificy his arguments.
I thought I knew a little about the genre's history. Moorcock disabused me of this notion, but rather than being discouraged, I'm now even more motivated to continue reading epic fantasy. Read after the genre's 2000s resurgence, Wizardry and Wild Romance revives a barrow-full of fallen fiction.
Unfortunately, the infamous "Epic Pooh" was somewhat of a letdown--rather than sustained critique of LoTR, its a broad attack on complacency and poor writing by Tolkien and his peers. Expect a similar structure from the rest of it. Moorcock doesn't always have a singular arguement, but whether he was praising forgotten classics or calling for hack writers to be castrated(!), I was always both entertained and stimulated.
While he might not love all of its practioners, Moorcock indeniably loves the genre and wants us all to think about it more deeply. I know I will.
This MonkeyBrain edition includes six iconoclastic essays, front and end matter from China Miéville and Jeff VanderMeer respectively, and eight book reviews by Moorcock that advance and specificy his arguments.
I thought I knew a little about the genre's history. Moorcock disabused me of this notion, but rather than being discouraged, I'm now even more motivated to continue reading epic fantasy. Read after the genre's 2000s resurgence, Wizardry and Wild Romance revives a barrow-full of fallen fiction.
Unfortunately, the infamous "Epic Pooh" was somewhat of a letdown--rather than sustained critique of LoTR, its a broad attack on complacency and poor writing by Tolkien and his peers. Expect a similar structure from the rest of it. Moorcock doesn't always have a singular arguement, but whether he was praising forgotten classics or calling for hack writers to be castrated(!), I was always both entertained and stimulated.
While he might not love all of its practioners, Moorcock indeniably loves the genre and wants us all to think about it more deeply. I know I will.
August 28, 2021
The perfect example of being able to appreciate a well-crafted argument while not necessarily sharing the same opinions. While Moorcock’s…shall we say, passionate, arguments can border on scathing, I didn’t get the impression that he was ever trying to sensationalize. He was, rather, championing an art form that he believes can (and does) rise above the romanticized generic. Even if you’re an unabashed fan of the classic tropes and authors (which I am), this is a must-read for anyone who wishes to expand their knowledge of fantasy’s seminal works. Moorcock is exceedingly well-read, and will provide you with the type of TBR fodder that can only enhance your understanding and appreciation of the genre.
June 8, 2009
Moorcock deserves to have his say about Heroic fantasy but there were quite a few sections of this that really irritated me. I often find myself disagreeing with Moorcock on many issues where Heroic Fantasy is concerned.
January 22, 2011
I ran across this book at work and decided to take it out to brush up a bit on the history of fantasy, in this case epic fantasy. It took me a while to finally pick it up - I think I renewed the loan about 4 times - and once I did the experience was a mixed one, to be honest. Partly, that is due to the age of the book, it was published in 1987, and partly, it was due to the tone of the author's writing. But it did give me plenty of food for thought and gave a very interesting overview of the evolution of (epic) fantasy. It certainly gave me a list of seminal and classic works to check out!
The book is over 24 years old and it shows its age in some of the statements found in the book. It should be noted however that a new and revised edition of this book was published in 2004 by MonkeyBrain Books, so these statements might have changed in this newer edition. To me though, they gave gave an added sense of interest to they book, as they show how much has changed in 24 years, both in the genre and in the world at large.
Wizardry and Wild Romance gave me a lot to think about and I plan on checking out some of the classic authors Mr Moorcock mentions. Additionally, I plan on searching our library catalogue for more titles on the subject of speculative fiction.
The book is over 24 years old and it shows its age in some of the statements found in the book. It should be noted however that a new and revised edition of this book was published in 2004 by MonkeyBrain Books, so these statements might have changed in this newer edition. To me though, they gave gave an added sense of interest to they book, as they show how much has changed in 24 years, both in the genre and in the world at large.
Wizardry and Wild Romance gave me a lot to think about and I plan on checking out some of the classic authors Mr Moorcock mentions. Additionally, I plan on searching our library catalogue for more titles on the subject of speculative fiction.
September 19, 2011
This is the book of criticism where Moorcock slags off Tolkien, and all other fantasy writers who are not his own proteges. Reading this was when I realised that his arrogance had overtaken his critical abilities, and that he would never again write anything to match the standard of the original Elric stories.
I've only given it one star, but it is still worth a read "for a laugh" if you can pick it up second-hand...
I've only given it one star, but it is still worth a read "for a laugh" if you can pick it up second-hand...
February 7, 2022
3/10 stars
Ugh, this was bad - like a mouldy old piece of bread that aspired to be artisan, but turned out to be just cheap white toast: angry fluff without substance.
I actually agree with general sentiment of this book, which is quite Copernican (or, precisely, of Copernicus-Gresham provenience): bad money drives out good, i.e. there will always be way more bad fiction than good fiction, and we should cherish and share whatever good fiction there is. But Moorcock chose a very roundabout way to deliver this statement, focusing on bad instead of good, naming obscure names with relish and spewing out enough vitriol to last a lifetime.
I was never a Moorcock fan, and maybe that's why I'm not willing to cut him any slack. Had he written any better novels than the clunky Elric of Melnibone I'd probably more appreciate what theoretical knowldge he has; but as it is, this theoretical knowledge doesn't translate into practical skill, and thus all his angry criticism of other writers comes off more like jealousy than objective critique. A pity, truly; there are some sentences that are worth remembering, but they drown amidst all the pompous self-importance.
Lastly, if I wasn't clear in the first sentence, this book has aged. Oh, it did so, painfully. I don't know half of the new (for 1987) names Moorcock alternatively praises or scoffs at. But this fact drives home the point that, after all, time separates wheat from the chaff.
You might have guessed I'm not feeling very generous toward the author after finishing this book ;)
Ugh, this was bad - like a mouldy old piece of bread that aspired to be artisan, but turned out to be just cheap white toast: angry fluff without substance.
I actually agree with general sentiment of this book, which is quite Copernican (or, precisely, of Copernicus-Gresham provenience): bad money drives out good, i.e. there will always be way more bad fiction than good fiction, and we should cherish and share whatever good fiction there is. But Moorcock chose a very roundabout way to deliver this statement, focusing on bad instead of good, naming obscure names with relish and spewing out enough vitriol to last a lifetime.
I was never a Moorcock fan, and maybe that's why I'm not willing to cut him any slack. Had he written any better novels than the clunky Elric of Melnibone I'd probably more appreciate what theoretical knowldge he has; but as it is, this theoretical knowledge doesn't translate into practical skill, and thus all his angry criticism of other writers comes off more like jealousy than objective critique. A pity, truly; there are some sentences that are worth remembering, but they drown amidst all the pompous self-importance.
Lastly, if I wasn't clear in the first sentence, this book has aged. Oh, it did so, painfully. I don't know half of the new (for 1987) names Moorcock alternatively praises or scoffs at. But this fact drives home the point that, after all, time separates wheat from the chaff.
You might have guessed I'm not feeling very generous toward the author after finishing this book ;)
March 29, 2009
A politically-tinged analysis of fantasy. Fairly disappointing as it opts to be a somewhat shallow polemic at critical moments rather than a more thoughtful piece of writing. The criticism of ironic fantasy is particularly specious; modern fantasy wishes it had an author as good as James Branch Cabell.
January 16, 2011
In brief: Wonderful, full of great observations and a distinctive grasp of the history of Romantic and fantastic literature. He's even fun to disagree with!
March 19, 2017
Michael Moorcock isn't your typical fantasy writer, turning genre-based fiction and elevating it to something more. More than a few fantasy readers would say they get a feeling that he is someone who looks down on the genre as a whole and to those readers who just want to enjoy a good hack and slash trip to an alternative world.
Literary criticism usually has more of a nose-up-in-the-air attitude, so the combination of a seemingly snooty Moorcock writing a literary analysis of epic fantasy seems to steamroll toward a finished product that is unreadable. Talking in class with intelligent people about books and reading and history is one thing, there is a back and forth to the conversation, but reading an intelligent person's one specific view of an entire genre is more like choking down medicine than something enjoyable.
But I have been rooting through the roots of genre fiction over the past couple of years, going back into the past to find how horror and fantasy and science fiction found their way from writings in the early 1900's to where we are today. Who did Lovecraft and Howard and Asimov read when they were young to push them into expanding these areas of fiction into new heights?
With Wizardry and Wild Romance, Moorcock is successful in some aspects but gets bogged down in his own particular opinions to give the reader a broad overview or history of the fantasy genre. And that is okay, but it left me with a sense that he could do more. His knowledge of literature and fiction overall and how fantasy evolved off of more traditional genres is vast, but in these essays he seems more intent on showing the reader what is good and what is bad versus educating the reader and allowing them to decide for themselves. More of a lecture than a conversation or a history presented for readers to further explore.
And I am sure that is what Moorcock has in mind with these essays. Only read the good stuff, let the drivel be forgotten and lost in time. But to me this type of thinking inhibits the growth of fantasy fiction rather than enhances it. He may not like Tolkien or Lin Carter, and his critiques of them are valid, but tell us more about how Tolkien came to be and trace the chains of his influence to modern day fantasy. That investigation and study and more similar analysis from someone as insightful and learned as Moorcock I would pay a lot more than a couple of bucks to read.
Literary criticism usually has more of a nose-up-in-the-air attitude, so the combination of a seemingly snooty Moorcock writing a literary analysis of epic fantasy seems to steamroll toward a finished product that is unreadable. Talking in class with intelligent people about books and reading and history is one thing, there is a back and forth to the conversation, but reading an intelligent person's one specific view of an entire genre is more like choking down medicine than something enjoyable.
But I have been rooting through the roots of genre fiction over the past couple of years, going back into the past to find how horror and fantasy and science fiction found their way from writings in the early 1900's to where we are today. Who did Lovecraft and Howard and Asimov read when they were young to push them into expanding these areas of fiction into new heights?
With Wizardry and Wild Romance, Moorcock is successful in some aspects but gets bogged down in his own particular opinions to give the reader a broad overview or history of the fantasy genre. And that is okay, but it left me with a sense that he could do more. His knowledge of literature and fiction overall and how fantasy evolved off of more traditional genres is vast, but in these essays he seems more intent on showing the reader what is good and what is bad versus educating the reader and allowing them to decide for themselves. More of a lecture than a conversation or a history presented for readers to further explore.
And I am sure that is what Moorcock has in mind with these essays. Only read the good stuff, let the drivel be forgotten and lost in time. But to me this type of thinking inhibits the growth of fantasy fiction rather than enhances it. He may not like Tolkien or Lin Carter, and his critiques of them are valid, but tell us more about how Tolkien came to be and trace the chains of his influence to modern day fantasy. That investigation and study and more similar analysis from someone as insightful and learned as Moorcock I would pay a lot more than a couple of bucks to read.
March 29, 2016
A writing masterclass from a fantasy master
When it comes to Fantasy writing, there are few better than Moorcock, and its often been pointed out, that Moorcock has written most of it!
So there are few more qualified than Moorcock to guide us through literary labyrinth.
In this collection of essays, Moorcock casts a critical, no holds barred, eye over the genre. The result is an insightful, and sometimes frustrating look at the evolution of the fantasy genre.
Moorcock's critique of Tolkien's works is a welcome antidote to the persistent and lingering notion that modern fantasy started with the LOTR. As much as I've enjoyed the LOTR, there are aspects of it that do not stand up to critical scrutiny. Moorcock's championing of Fritz Lieber and Mervyn Peake, as giants of the genre, is long overdue, and introduced me to criminally overlooked novels. For that, I'm grateful.
The role of women in the genre ( criticised for being often two dimensional or the stereotypical maiden in distress) and the use of evocative imagery (landscapes) are discussed, and yield up insights that no aspiring fantasy author should do without. There is an element of Jung philosophy here when dealing with environment: how does one affect the landscape, and how does the landscape affect us. A simple question as Moorcock points out, but also one that yields works such as Mythago Wood
On the negative side, the random insertion of obscure authors, and the structure of this book (random essays thrown together) did make me gnash my teeth at times. On the other hand, if you have time, then many of these obscure works can be traced through Goodreads, and thanks to the wonders of ebay, hard to find books can be purchased such as this hidden gem: The Blue Sword
As a critique of the genre or as a primer in fantasy writing, I have yet to come across a comparable book. Well worth a look.
When it comes to Fantasy writing, there are few better than Moorcock, and its often been pointed out, that Moorcock has written most of it!
So there are few more qualified than Moorcock to guide us through literary labyrinth.
In this collection of essays, Moorcock casts a critical, no holds barred, eye over the genre. The result is an insightful, and sometimes frustrating look at the evolution of the fantasy genre.
Moorcock's critique of Tolkien's works is a welcome antidote to the persistent and lingering notion that modern fantasy started with the LOTR. As much as I've enjoyed the LOTR, there are aspects of it that do not stand up to critical scrutiny. Moorcock's championing of Fritz Lieber and Mervyn Peake, as giants of the genre, is long overdue, and introduced me to criminally overlooked novels. For that, I'm grateful.
The role of women in the genre ( criticised for being often two dimensional or the stereotypical maiden in distress) and the use of evocative imagery (landscapes) are discussed, and yield up insights that no aspiring fantasy author should do without. There is an element of Jung philosophy here when dealing with environment: how does one affect the landscape, and how does the landscape affect us. A simple question as Moorcock points out, but also one that yields works such as Mythago Wood
On the negative side, the random insertion of obscure authors, and the structure of this book (random essays thrown together) did make me gnash my teeth at times. On the other hand, if you have time, then many of these obscure works can be traced through Goodreads, and thanks to the wonders of ebay, hard to find books can be purchased such as this hidden gem: The Blue Sword
As a critique of the genre or as a primer in fantasy writing, I have yet to come across a comparable book. Well worth a look.
January 26, 2026
I don't know how to explain it to you. This book of literary criticism from sci-fi/fantasy giant Michael Moorcock has flaws so great you could see them from the moon. Nevertheless, I found it utterly addicting.
As a critic, Moorcock is lacking. His (many) complaints against the A-listers of fantasy fiction don't often amount to much other than "they're bad." In the famous anti-Inklings essay "Epic Pooh," he liberally quotes Tolkien and Lewis, showing off page-length samples of their writing as if it's self-evidently crap of the finest vintage. Moorcock lays especially into Tolkien for the dry, informational, bloodless and condescending tone of his plunkety-plunk, pseudo-historical writing. He proffers you with passages like this, and, sure enough, they're pretty damn boring:
So, sure, Tolkien definitely had it in him to write a ponderous or ineffective sentence. You can open The Lord of the Rings to any page and find an example of one. But he was also perfectly capable of fine and handsome prose, in registers either earthy and humorous, or high and divine, depending on the needs of the chapter.
This quote, taken essentially at random, is full of rustic character, and is perfectly suited to the naiveté of the early chapters of Fellowship. It's also exactly the kind of writing that Moorcock accused Tolkien of being addicted to, all harmless and rumpled and one step away from featuring a talking rabbit. Yet there is no better voice to narrate the early chapters in the Shire. Tolkien was sneakily chameleonic in his prose, always subtly shifting into his characters' perspectives. That's how you end up with that passage of Bilbo lording over the material comforts of his country home, or, indeed, suffering with little Pippin through Gandalf's interminable lecture on the history of Gondor...
And then, of course, Tolkien was always ready to employ dynamic and Shakespearean soliloquy when the moment called for it. The Witch-King's threats to Éowyn have always been among my favorite pieces of Tolkien dialogue.
It's not quite Macbeth, but it's close.
In the end, Moorcock's complaint against Tolkien is partly stylistic and partly political. I can't argue with Moorcock that Tolkien was essentially conservative, but this frustrates me only rarely, and mostly only when it comes to his general disinterest in his villainous characters. Arguments against Tolkien's style, however, don't go very far with me, especially since, truth be told, I never found Moorcock's style to be one of his virtues...
His personal taste aside, there is no doubt that Moorcock is a true expert on fantasy literature, especially in terms of tracing 20th century fantasy literature back to its antecedents in classical and Romantic literature. As he connects the dots from Fritz Leiber's wicked Sheelba of the Eyeless Face to Charles Maturin's demonic Melmoth the Wanderer, or from Lord Dunsany's exotic, imagined landscapes to Thomas de Quincey's of a century before, one feels that they're in the presence of a virtuoso intellect.
So, Moorcock presents himself here as supremely knowledgeable and supremely cantankerous expert. Even when you disagree with him, it's great fun to go toe-to-toe with him in subjective arguments of taste and relative canonical worthiness. He'd savage me if we had arguments of this kind in person, I'm sure, but he's like all good teachers in that he enlightens you until you feel able to refute and contradict him. Then, he puts you to shame, and you and your newfound knowledge hit the road.
As a critic, Moorcock is lacking. His (many) complaints against the A-listers of fantasy fiction don't often amount to much other than "they're bad." In the famous anti-Inklings essay "Epic Pooh," he liberally quotes Tolkien and Lewis, showing off page-length samples of their writing as if it's self-evidently crap of the finest vintage. Moorcock lays especially into Tolkien for the dry, informational, bloodless and condescending tone of his plunkety-plunk, pseudo-historical writing. He proffers you with passages like this, and, sure enough, they're pretty damn boring:
"Pippin became drowsy again and paid little attention to Gandalf telling him of the customs of Gondor, and how the Lord of the City had beacons built on the tops of outlying hills along both borders of the great range, and maintained posts at these points where fresh horses were always in readiness to bear his errand-riders to Rohan in the North, or to Belfalas in the South..." (The Return of the King)
So, sure, Tolkien definitely had it in him to write a ponderous or ineffective sentence. You can open The Lord of the Rings to any page and find an example of one. But he was also perfectly capable of fine and handsome prose, in registers either earthy and humorous, or high and divine, depending on the needs of the chapter.
"He walked briskly back to his hole, and stood for a moment listening with a smile to the din in the pavilion, and to the sounds of merrymaking in other parts of the field. Then he went in. He took off his party clothes, folded up and wrapped in tissue-paper his embroidered silk waistcoat, and put it away. Then he put on quickly some old untidy garments, and fastened round his waist a worn leather belt. On it he hung a short sword in a battered black-leather scabbard. From a locked drawer, smelling of moth-balls, he took out an old cloak and hood. They had been locked up as if they were very precious, but they were so patched and weatherstained that their original colour could hardly be guessed: it might have been dark green." (The Fellowship of the Ring)
This quote, taken essentially at random, is full of rustic character, and is perfectly suited to the naiveté of the early chapters of Fellowship. It's also exactly the kind of writing that Moorcock accused Tolkien of being addicted to, all harmless and rumpled and one step away from featuring a talking rabbit. Yet there is no better voice to narrate the early chapters in the Shire. Tolkien was sneakily chameleonic in his prose, always subtly shifting into his characters' perspectives. That's how you end up with that passage of Bilbo lording over the material comforts of his country home, or, indeed, suffering with little Pippin through Gandalf's interminable lecture on the history of Gondor...
And then, of course, Tolkien was always ready to employ dynamic and Shakespearean soliloquy when the moment called for it. The Witch-King's threats to Éowyn have always been among my favorite pieces of Tolkien dialogue.
"Come not between the Nazgûl and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye." (The Return of the King)
It's not quite Macbeth, but it's close.
In the end, Moorcock's complaint against Tolkien is partly stylistic and partly political. I can't argue with Moorcock that Tolkien was essentially conservative, but this frustrates me only rarely, and mostly only when it comes to his general disinterest in his villainous characters. Arguments against Tolkien's style, however, don't go very far with me, especially since, truth be told, I never found Moorcock's style to be one of his virtues...
His personal taste aside, there is no doubt that Moorcock is a true expert on fantasy literature, especially in terms of tracing 20th century fantasy literature back to its antecedents in classical and Romantic literature. As he connects the dots from Fritz Leiber's wicked Sheelba of the Eyeless Face to Charles Maturin's demonic Melmoth the Wanderer, or from Lord Dunsany's exotic, imagined landscapes to Thomas de Quincey's of a century before, one feels that they're in the presence of a virtuoso intellect.
So, Moorcock presents himself here as supremely knowledgeable and supremely cantankerous expert. Even when you disagree with him, it's great fun to go toe-to-toe with him in subjective arguments of taste and relative canonical worthiness. He'd savage me if we had arguments of this kind in person, I'm sure, but he's like all good teachers in that he enlightens you until you feel able to refute and contradict him. Then, he puts you to shame, and you and your newfound knowledge hit the road.
May 19, 2011
Check out my review at Wandering around the Words
favorite quotes:
"Writers like Tolkien take you to the edge of the Abyss and point out the excellent tea-garden at the bottom, showing you the steps carved into the cliff and reminding you to be a bit careful because the hand-rails are a trifle shaky as you go down; they haven't got the approval yet to put a new one in." (Epic Pooh, 129)
"Jokes are not Comedy and stories which contain jokes are not comic stories." (Wit and Humor, 110)
favorite quotes:
"Writers like Tolkien take you to the edge of the Abyss and point out the excellent tea-garden at the bottom, showing you the steps carved into the cliff and reminding you to be a bit careful because the hand-rails are a trifle shaky as you go down; they haven't got the approval yet to put a new one in." (Epic Pooh, 129)
"Jokes are not Comedy and stories which contain jokes are not comic stories." (Wit and Humor, 110)
March 24, 2009
I read the new expanded edition for a work related project, I'm glad Mike has revised this as a lot has happened in the realm of fantasy since it was originally published. The strange thing is I still find after all these years I still agree with his opinions on Tolkien and the Inklings, Lovecraft and Lieber.
A lot of fantasy fans will have a hard time with Mike's opinion on Tolkien, but I found it quite refresing that someone was able to take a tilt at such an institution.
A lot of fantasy fans will have a hard time with Mike's opinion on Tolkien, but I found it quite refresing that someone was able to take a tilt at such an institution.
September 30, 2009
This is one of my favorite books of literary criticism. I actually particularly enjoy the attack on that sacred Lord of the Rings, even though I still like LotR.
December 17, 2023
It aged very well.
September 23, 2024
In the spirit of fairness, having read that collection of Tolkien tie-in essays a little earlier in the year, I thought I'd allow the forces of Chaos to balance those of Law. Thus Wizardry and Wild Romance, wherein Britain's greatest living fantasist (sorry, Adrian!) examines the ancestry of Epic Fantasy, from Celtic and Gothic Romances, through the pulp eras, and into (what was then, the book having been published in 1987) the modern era.
And it's reasonable to say that Moorcock is not one of Tolkien's biggest fans. In fact Moorcock struggles to even be *neutral* about Tolkien and his writing. Moorcock's guide to the great and good on the long and winding road of fantasy is highly opinionated, to the point of being the literary equivalent of Bill Grundy's infamous interview with the Sex Pistols - except with far fewer F-bombs.
From this distance it's tempting to view Moorcock's opinions as those of an old man shouting at clouds. There are moments where what he says still resonates today (even a stopped clock...) and his recommendations, when they come, are definitely worth following up. But inevitably the genre as a whole has moved on since 1987, when let's face it, there was a heck of a lot of sub-Conan dross and Epic Pooh. A follow-up book would have a lot to take into account, but you can certainly use this one to build a collection of Romantic, Gothic, and Pulp fantasies.
And it's reasonable to say that Moorcock is not one of Tolkien's biggest fans. In fact Moorcock struggles to even be *neutral* about Tolkien and his writing. Moorcock's guide to the great and good on the long and winding road of fantasy is highly opinionated, to the point of being the literary equivalent of Bill Grundy's infamous interview with the Sex Pistols - except with far fewer F-bombs.
From this distance it's tempting to view Moorcock's opinions as those of an old man shouting at clouds. There are moments where what he says still resonates today (even a stopped clock...) and his recommendations, when they come, are definitely worth following up. But inevitably the genre as a whole has moved on since 1987, when let's face it, there was a heck of a lot of sub-Conan dross and Epic Pooh. A follow-up book would have a lot to take into account, but you can certainly use this one to build a collection of Romantic, Gothic, and Pulp fantasies.
January 6, 2024
This guy hates Lovecraft and Tolkien 😂
Very interesting book, can highly recommend it for aspiring fantasy and scifi writers! Organised by themes like "Landscape," and "Characters," these essays are essentially Moorcock's views on various aspects on fantasy writing. Don't expect particularly persuasive rhetoric, it's more of a 'take it or leave it' kinda deal. I enjoyed it thoroughly though, and learned a lot!
P.S. He gets an extra point for the title of the essay about Tolkien: "Epic Pooh"
Very interesting book, can highly recommend it for aspiring fantasy and scifi writers! Organised by themes like "Landscape," and "Characters," these essays are essentially Moorcock's views on various aspects on fantasy writing. Don't expect particularly persuasive rhetoric, it's more of a 'take it or leave it' kinda deal. I enjoyed it thoroughly though, and learned a lot!
P.S. He gets an extra point for the title of the essay about Tolkien: "Epic Pooh"
November 24, 2020
I am glad to have Moorcock's recommendations for fantasy reading, but I was hoping for more political analysis alongside his literary taste. I think comparing Middle Earth to the Hundred Acre Wood is an insult to A. A. Milne. This was a good read but it was a real struggle to get a copy.
February 28, 2024
A survey of epic fantasy through the lenses of the author's biases, stated in various places. He is scathing about the Inklings: Tolkien, C S Lewis and Charles Williams. One of the things he dislikes about Tolkien is the latter's supposedly small minded environmental concerns and yet this is one of the aspects that probably appeals the most to modern readers given the ongoing loss of habitat and biodiversity. He views them as Oxford snobs. As someone who obsessively re-read Lewis ' Narnia series as a child, despite being working class myself, that all went over my head at the time and I just enjoyed the stories and characters. I've yet to re-read them but doubt I'll develop the antipathy towards them that the author demonstrates.
He highly rates the late Fitz Leiber, as do I, having discovered his work when at high school, and he points out the male dominated nature of the genre and the good work being done by women at the time of publication (my copy is the first edition). But a singular omission in his discussion of women fantasy writers of the period is Tanith Lee who was very prolific at the time although her early work was published in the States since she couldn't get UK publishers interested. I found it odd - she wasn't even mentioned in passing, unlike Katherine Kurtz who at least had her surname included, though frustratingly nothing more. Another odd omission is that despite discussing some of the work of André Norton, he fails to even mention her Witch World series, her biggest contribution to the genre.
A lot of the book consists of quotes from various works but with not much critical input. He also states up front that he has excluded his own writing so anyone hoping for insights into the development of the Eternal Champion canon will be disappointed. Given the uneven nature of the book, for me it rates an OK 2 stars
He highly rates the late Fitz Leiber, as do I, having discovered his work when at high school, and he points out the male dominated nature of the genre and the good work being done by women at the time of publication (my copy is the first edition). But a singular omission in his discussion of women fantasy writers of the period is Tanith Lee who was very prolific at the time although her early work was published in the States since she couldn't get UK publishers interested. I found it odd - she wasn't even mentioned in passing, unlike Katherine Kurtz who at least had her surname included, though frustratingly nothing more. Another odd omission is that despite discussing some of the work of André Norton, he fails to even mention her Witch World series, her biggest contribution to the genre.
A lot of the book consists of quotes from various works but with not much critical input. He also states up front that he has excluded his own writing so anyone hoping for insights into the development of the Eternal Champion canon will be disappointed. Given the uneven nature of the book, for me it rates an OK 2 stars
March 10, 2023
An entertaining polemic on the state of 1980s epic fantasy. A blurb on the back calls it "the perfect gift for any Tolkien fan you want to annoy", and I did enjoy this passage:
"Like Chesterton, and other markedly Christian writers who substituted faith for artistic rigour, [Tolkien] sees the petit bourgeoisie, the honest artisans and peasants, as the bulwark against Chaos. These people are always sentimentalized in such fiction because, traditionally, they are always the last to complain about any deficiencies in the social status quo."
Moorcock calls out misogyny in fantasy and also implores its writers to strive for something better than an adventure story: "It should have at its source some fundamental concern for human beings, some ambition to show, by means of image, metaphor, elements of allegory, what human life is actually about".
Recommended reading for anyone who has so much as glanced at the Gor novels.
"Like Chesterton, and other markedly Christian writers who substituted faith for artistic rigour, [Tolkien] sees the petit bourgeoisie, the honest artisans and peasants, as the bulwark against Chaos. These people are always sentimentalized in such fiction because, traditionally, they are always the last to complain about any deficiencies in the social status quo."
Moorcock calls out misogyny in fantasy and also implores its writers to strive for something better than an adventure story: "It should have at its source some fundamental concern for human beings, some ambition to show, by means of image, metaphor, elements of allegory, what human life is actually about".
Recommended reading for anyone who has so much as glanced at the Gor novels.
July 14, 2012
This is an interesting and erudite overview of epic fantasy by one of the genre's living masters. The breadth of Moorcock's knowledge is impressive, particularly when it comes to pre-Tolkien fantasy and it's roots in gothic literature. It's also incredibly opinionated; there's something in here to irritate any serious fantasy fan. I delighted in his notorious portrayal of Lord of the Rings as safe and bland "Epic Pooh", but I thought he gave Robert E. Howard short shrift in places, especially since he appeared to be working from one of the inferior products resulting from L. Sprague deCamp and Lin Carter's tampering. For the most part everything is well-argued, however. This is a worthwhile read for serious fantasy fans.
March 6, 2012
A short but extensive and very idiosyncratic overview of 'heroic fantasy' fiction by a pretty able practitioner of the form hissown bad self - as a teenager I DEVOURED Moorcock's books, as can be seen by my Goodreads shelf dedicated to his work (it certainly helped that his novels were short and sharp). His flying leaps at Tolkien and, by extension A.A. Milne, seem a little unjustified but I see it as exaggeration for effect. It also doesn't hurt that he rates quite highly one of my other favorite writers of sword & sorcery - Fritz Leiber. And 'Wizardry and Wild Romance' - whatta title!
November 13, 2015
Recommended for all fantasy genre lovers.
This edition features an introduction by China Mieville, a foreword by Moorcock, 6 essays, various book reviews done by Moorcock including a very good forward about Peake, and an afterword by Jeff VanderMeer.
5 stars for Moorcock's anti-tolkien essay, "Epic Pooh." - An argument about everything that is wrong with The Rings, which I whole-heartedly agree with.
The essays are good, as well as his book reviews; he would be a good GR friend to have as I have already further lengthened my To-Read pile on his recommendations.
This edition features an introduction by China Mieville, a foreword by Moorcock, 6 essays, various book reviews done by Moorcock including a very good forward about Peake, and an afterword by Jeff VanderMeer.
5 stars for Moorcock's anti-tolkien essay, "Epic Pooh." - An argument about everything that is wrong with The Rings, which I whole-heartedly agree with.
The essays are good, as well as his book reviews; he would be a good GR friend to have as I have already further lengthened my To-Read pile on his recommendations.
July 3, 2012
An absolute MUST read for any fan or budding writer of British fantasy. You don't have to agree with him, but Moorcock both educates and entertains. I've actually lost this book over a decade ago, but many of tge passages stay in my mind.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews