
Interview with Michael Moorcock - aaronbrethorst
http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2015/07/michael-moorcock-i-think-tolkien-was-crypto-fascist
======
Steko
Here's a full essay from Moorcock of the Tolkien critique:

[http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/u...](http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/undergraduate/modules/en361fantastika/bibliography/2.7moorcock_m.1978epic_pooh.pdf)

 _While there is an argument for the reactionary nature of the books, they are
certainly deeply conservative and strongly anti-urban, which is what leads
some to associate them with a kind of Wagnerish hitlerism. I don 't think
these books are 'fascist', but they certainly don't exactly argue with the
18th century enlightened Toryism with which the English comfort themselves so
frequently in these upsetting times. They don't ask any questions of white men
in grey clothing who somehow have a handle on what's best for us._

Google reveals a large number of people making similar points:

 _I love JRR Tolkien 's work, but it is racist and fairly fascistic. Most of
the good guys are tall white men of the north and west, simple country
farmers, and the dunedain who remain supermen even though their quality has
diminished by mingling with the "blood of lesser men." The dwarves and elves
are also good races. The enemies are various swarming slave races, the
cowardly Easterlings, the savage elephant riding painted Haradrim, the
literally subhuman orcs. Those counseling peace are perfidious fools, cowards
or traitors.

This won't keep me from rereading The Simirilian, The Hobbit, LOTR and the
Children of Hurin. But Tolkien was a man of his time and place and we should
appreciate his virtues without ignoring his vices.

Calling Tolkien himself a fascist is quite a few bridges too far for me._

{commenter at [http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2006/06/tolkien-
fascist.html](http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2006/06/tolkien-fascist.html)}

------
ajuc
> “I think he’s a crypto-fascist,” says Moorcock, laughing. “In Tolkien,
> everyone’s in their place and happy to be there. We go there and back, to
> where we started. There’s no escape, nothing will ever change and nobody
> will ever break out of this well-­ordered world.”

I don't see how that's fascist. Tolkien books are basicaly Catholic mythology
in different clothes. It's very conservative, "reactionary", and old-
fashioned, true. But fascist philosophy was all about superhumans making their
own laws and morality. Doesn't exactly go well with conservatism.

Also - after reading Moorcock books (runestaff cycle mostly) I don't think
they were qualitatively different from other fantasy. I remember it as just
regular pulp fantasy to be honest. Maybe I should reread it, last time I've
read it I was a teenager.

~~~
mhd
Nazi "philosophy" (mostly misinterpreted Nietzsche) isn't the sine qua non of
fascism.

And while I agree that the term might be a bit ill-used here, there's
definitely a tie between reactionary conservatism (and fantastic romanticism)
and some fascist regimes. So maybe one could call it "proto-fascism", although
I'd generally try to avoid this particular f-word, as it does tend to Godwin
discussions.

And, yes, Moorcock was definitely writing in the pulp tradition. He might be
quite political, but his worked isn't fully steeped in it. Quite often it's
traditional "sword & sorcery" (a term Moorcock helped to coin), maybe with a
single trait that differentiates it from other fantasy or that he wants to
delve in. Elric was a counter-Conan, and the runestaff saga presented Great
Britain as the evil empire.

The "Nomad of the Time Streams" trilogy is probably one of the more obviously
political of his works, but still, it's mostly about adventure.

~~~
conatus
Yup. Fascism, like all ideologies isn't completely neat.

It contains those reactionary conservative elements (organic community,
national tradition, criticism of modernity as shallow - i.e. very Tolkein but
found in many fascist and even Nazi authors - i.e. Junger, Schmitt) alongside
hyper modernist ones (eugenics, mass industry). Fascism contains criticisms of
capitalism alongside praise for the most aggressive market competition. See
Ishay Landa's work on this.

Proto-fascism is probably the best term.

~~~
ajuc
I should know better than argue about definitions, but can't help myself :)

How is proto-fascism different from conservatism?

~~~
mhd
Define "conservatism" first ;) That's usually a "I know it when I see it"
thing, and there's a whole load of different strains when you look at the
politicians espousing it as their primary value. Even within a single country,
and once you cross borders it gets seriously confusing.

We can go the lazy route and say that if you're "conservative" and your
current system isn't fascist, than you can't really promote or encourage
fascism, because that would by definition be a change and change is bad. But I
thin we can agree that this would be a type of conservatism that could only
exist in a Moorcock novel about other planes, the Lords of Order or such
things...

Also, one might not want to go too far back in the "inheritance" chain of
fascism. I mean, to stay within the core topic, the Italian and German
fascists certainly were quite "romantic" in the literary sense (a main point
of Epic Poo), but I don't think we'd call Schiller or Byron proto-fascists...

So it probably comes down to having views who would touch fascist views in a
big blurry Venn diagram, whereas crypto-fascists actually overlap in a more
significant way.

But, again, this might be a fun topic for abstract discussion, but when it's
tied to something more concrete it'll just prove to be needlessly divisive and
incisive. I mean, just look up who popularized the term "crypto-fascist"...

This seems a very common British trait, by the way. Plenty of movies, books
etc. about how nationalist and authoritarian you can get before you cross over
into straight-forward 20th century fascism. Starting with the post-WW2 era and
achieving a new high during the reign of the Wicked Witch.

------
amoruso
ahem:

“My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically
understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) —
or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word
State (in any sense other than the inaminate real of England and its
inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a
chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could go
back to personal names, it would do a lot of good.

Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it
should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so to refer to people …
The most improper job of any many, even saints (who at any rate were at least
unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit
for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity …

There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men
of dynamating factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as
‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not
universal.”

– J.R.R. Tolkien, letter to his son, 1943 (from The Letters of J.R.R.
Tolkien).

Not exactly what I would call fascist.

source:

[http://rodbenson.com/2011/08/20/tolkien-on-
anarchism/](http://rodbenson.com/2011/08/20/tolkien-on-anarchism/)

------
acheron
_" In Tolkien, everyone’s in their place and happy to be there. We go there
and back, to where we started. There’s no escape, nothing will ever change and
nobody will ever break out of this well-­ordered world."_

Apparently his copy of _Return of the King_ had all the pages after Aragorn's
coronation torn out? I wouldn't go as far as to say something along the lines
of "you can't go home again" is the _main_ theme of the book, but it's a
pretty strong one (and based on Tolkien's experience in and after WWI).
"Nothing ever changes" is about the opposite of what happens.

------
ousta
While I do really like Moorcock particularly for Elric cycle, it is obvious
that he isn't right about many things.

First, he mistakes having a coherent universe and story with "bland".

I prefer Moorcock than any Tolkiens in the world but make no mistake he is
definitly a much inferior writer than Tolkien was. His universe is totally
chaos, the narrative are erratic, it's like an open world that doesn't give
much and pretend to be mysterious while the truth is that it just shows the
lack of talent that has Moorcock as a storyteller. his heroes have pub
philosophy and psychology 101 mindsets, his stories have no beginning no end
and plus if he has never been adapted it is because overall his books make no
sense at all. that does not mean he is not a much more imaginative writer than
most other heroic fantasy writers. he is.

also saying that heinlen (probably the only one who was a real facist) and
asimov were wrong and k . dick right. they are not just the same kind of
writers and i'll go as far to say that those three writers were all right and
we re now leaving in worlds were their books have influenced not only the
popular culture but mankind, envisionning where we are aiming at as a species.
those things. Moorcock - a much much more inferior artist than asimov, dick,
heinlein and tolkien - will never accomplish.

~~~
debacle
Philip K Dick was right. Asimov may be right at some point in the future, but
he's not right now. Heinlen had a bit of a crazy streak - he's mostly right,
but when he's wrong, he's dead wrong.

Philip K Dick, though, was right about _so_ many aspects of modern culture -
the changing perception towards rights, humanity, drugs, and classes. The
massive shift from nationalism to corporatism (which we're continuing to see
become more like Paycheck), and the alarming trend of humanity being more
driven by a handful of people than any flavor of democracy.

Moorcock is a good writer, but he is definitely much more of a Robert Jordan
or RA Salvatore than a Tolkien or Asimov.

------
aikah
Still waiting for a Stormbringer movie or a Hawkmoon movie... but maybe this
guy's writings are too dark for hollywood...

~~~
ourmandave
The Eternal Champion could have endless sequels.

------
buserror
I kinda agree with him on the 'nothing changes' in Tolkien; in fact, it won't
be a popular opinion, but I had difficulty reading it; and in fact I'm also
bored to death with the films. In other words, I'm not a fan...

Moorcock on the other hand I really enjoyed, just because he throws his 'hero'
around like a out of control puppet. It's really like a 'game of throne'
before it was trendy. Poor hero will get to kill his favourite elf queen just
because his sword is evil, AND will keep him alive because of it; twisted :-)

~~~
julian55
I also agree about Tolkien. back in the 1970s I read a lot of sci-fi and
fantasy and I was a big fan of Moorcock. I forced myself to read Lord of the
Rings but it was difficult! I've subsequently watched some of the films but my
opinion hasn't changed.

------
cousin_it
Tolkien is awesome and I don't care what Moorcock says. Anyone who insists
that there's only one way for books to be good, instead of many different
qualities that resonate with different readers, is much more of a "crypto-
fascist" to me (whatever that means). When dealing with a book like LOTR,
which obviously appeals deeply to many people, an honest critic shouldn't say
more than "it doesn't appeal to me in the way I care about".

------
david_b
> The Moorcocks now divide their time between Paris and Austin, Texas,

It's alway good to know where people talking about fascism actually live - it
gives a sense of perspective about their opinions (jodhpurs: nasty and evil /
state run by nutcase defending dildo bans and religious commandments in front
of state capitol: totally ok).

> “In Tolkien, everyone’s in their place and happy to be there. We go there
> and back, to where we started. There’s no escape, nothing will ever change
> and nobody will ever break out of this well-­ordered world.”

Has he even read the books? Nothing changes? I'll give him that the manichean
world Tolkien created is certainly somewhat uncomfortable to anyone with a
worldview that includes shades of gray (although I don't think that the Lord
of the Rings and the Hobbit are as black and white as they are made out to be)
- but calling someone a crypto-fascist is really harsh.

> Science fiction/fantasy author Michael Moorcock has suggested that the Gor
> novels should be placed on the top shelves of bookstores, saying, "I’m not
> for censorship but I am for strategies which marginalize stuff that works to
> objectify women and suggests women enjoy being beaten."

I want to hear him on Fifty Shades of Grey...

~~~
jib
Austin isn't Texas though. Austin and Paris sounds characteristic for who he
wants to be?

And nothing (or rather no one) really changes in Tolkiens books. I think that
is a fair point. People ARE (good, evil, shadowy, treacherous, wise) they
don't become or evolve and are not typically multifaceted.

~~~
david_b
Unless the people are humans or elfs (hence orcs) or dwarfs or hobbits - then
they aren't influenced or changed at all by the power of the ring. The fact
that the characters are somewhat like woodcuts might also be owed to two
things:

\- Tolkien was a linguist, not necessarily well-versed in the craft of
literature. Writing good believable characters is extremely hard; moving stick
puppets around (Dan Brown comes to mind) is practicaly the default-state,
entry-level of writing.

\- the books were his answer to the edda. I can't find a sources on this but I
believe part of what he wanted was England to have a set of epic myths
commensurable with those in the edda - this motivation certainly influenced
the overall style of the stories.

I wouldn't call the analysis necessarily wrong or completely unconvincing (the
pdf linked here shows his ideas much better), but I would call tendentious in
that it looks like everything that doesn't fit conveniently is left out.

