'Spun Candy' anyone?

[drigel]

hi bb

I didnt say they were hacks. I do stand corrected with regards to Pullman. I have read Moorecock. Not. a. big. fan. Profit in sales was the point being made as to motivation of craft. Everyone has an opinion, and if one gets their opinion published, then I certainly will have my opinion on it, and its subject. And having a good idea of craft, and a good idea of Moorecock's product, I think my point is valid especially in regards to the second quote of mine you put up. Not only is he not in the same ballpark, he isnt in the same country of the same ballpark. And so thus (like SPM I do appreciate all views positive and negative), I continue to wait. But I also consider the source - as in the craft, and the resulting work.

They are all credible writers.

I didnt say the werent.
LOTR isnt the greatest work ever written, nor is it the most important. It is important to me, and of course I have my opinion. In the field of fantasy, half of SF, and fiction overall - yes - top 5 in my opinion. But the guy who brought us Elric (and whose market for that was, and is, a direct result of JRRT *insert applause from accountants here*) is critical of LOTR.... I am sorry if I am coming across as snipy. But that is an opening (self inflicted at that) that is far, far to easy to walk into. cmon - Elric???

Reading is highly subjective. Without denigrating Tolkien, it surely must be possible to enjoy other writers.

I agree with the former, but as to the latter - (I wouldnt use the word denigrate - but the terms critical, or petulant, as M Underhill succinctly put works well for me) isnt exactly what this thread is about: A couple of authors publishing treatises or opinions that IMO go beyond the above approved terms into the realm of demeaning, trite and - worse of all - disregarded due to lack of depth. Spun Candy after all. humph

What causes this great divide?

you either get it or you dont, much like other works that offer insights into the human condition. This isnt about the red pill or the blue pill. Nor is it about the experience of society and science.

Umm, my understanding is that Tolkien wanted to depict a world prior to divine revelation. Perhaps I am not understanding what you mean?

Isnt that what I said? Umm well the point being that given that, one cannot exercise what I was refering to in Davem's quote:

However for all the 'freedom' inherent in the Mannish approach there is a downside which both Pullman & Moorcock in their idealism of it cannot see.

in regards to religion in LOTR. They are forcing a round peg into a square hole. And the bad result of that (according to them) is the author's fault.

Again sorry to come across as a grump. And apologies to all the Moorecock fans out there