Thorondor of Manwe
January 25th,2003, 06:28 AM
I'm responding to Dawn's News Post on the article in The Guardian by Michael Moorcock on Poul Anderson's "The Broken Sword."
I guess I'm not quite sure what Moorcock is saying. But, he seems to be saying that The Broken Sword is a better book because it stays closer to its source material - i.e., Nordic mythology.
Anderson wrote two books that were expositions, of sorts, of his interest in Norse myth. One was The Broken Sword (1954). In 1973, he returned to Nordic themes with Hrolf Kraki's Saga.
I read both books in the late 70s. Based on the success of LOTR, Ballintine Books - the American paperback publisher of LOTR - published a line of Adult Fantasy books throughout the mid to late 70s. Lin Carter was the editor of the series. The books were classics and many were written long before LOTR. Essentially, the criteria of an "adult fantasy' was the setting for a story had to be set in imaginary, mythical worlds that were connected to the mythos of various cultures. Some books did contain characters that were elves and/or dwarves - but this was not neccessarily the criteria. The other criteria was the fantasy had to contain elements of magical powers. Most importantly, these books differed from the genre of adult fantasy called "Sword and Sorcery."
In some of these books, the imaginary world was superimposed over the real world- that is, the imaginary world co-existed with the real world. Hence, Anderson's two books fit the bill (especially The Broken Sword) and, therefore, were published by Ballintine.
I don't agree with Moorcock's assessment that The Broken Sword was a better book simply because it stayed closer to its source material. Anderson's idea of trying to make the Nordic world of myth come to life by superimposing it onto the real world, to me, didn't really work.
By the time I read Anderson's two Nordic works, I had already read the Prose Edda and the Elder Edda, in addition to the Icelandic sagas. So, I was very familiar with the source material for LOTR - and, Anderson's works.
In my opinion, Anderson's books were not well written. They lacked a sense of believablity - unlike LOTR, which one believed in. Trying to make a myth real - like Anderson tried to do - just didn't work. Certainly, Anderson's books are an interesting read - but, I think, in general, most LOTR fans will be disappointed.
I also think that Moorcock is missing an important point. Tolkien was not writing a book composed exclusively of Nordic myth. Although Nordic mythos formed the dominant source material for The Hobbit and LOTR, Tolkien used various other mythologies - e.g., Celtic mythos for the culture and language of the elves.
I don't know, but perhaps Moorcock chose to write a controversial article to create interest in his own fantasy books (which I have also read) - Eric of Melnibone. His Eric sagas, at least the first several in the series, were fairly good, but he stretched it way too far with subsequent stories. However, If I want to read Sword and Sorcery genre, I'll take Robert E. Howard's original Conan series. Eric can't hold a candle to the old Cimmerian.
In a contest between Tolkien and Anderson, JRR wins hands down. The Professor wrote LITERATURE - Anderson simply wrote genre fiction.
I guess I'm not quite sure what Moorcock is saying. But, he seems to be saying that The Broken Sword is a better book because it stays closer to its source material - i.e., Nordic mythology.
Anderson wrote two books that were expositions, of sorts, of his interest in Norse myth. One was The Broken Sword (1954). In 1973, he returned to Nordic themes with Hrolf Kraki's Saga.
I read both books in the late 70s. Based on the success of LOTR, Ballintine Books - the American paperback publisher of LOTR - published a line of Adult Fantasy books throughout the mid to late 70s. Lin Carter was the editor of the series. The books were classics and many were written long before LOTR. Essentially, the criteria of an "adult fantasy' was the setting for a story had to be set in imaginary, mythical worlds that were connected to the mythos of various cultures. Some books did contain characters that were elves and/or dwarves - but this was not neccessarily the criteria. The other criteria was the fantasy had to contain elements of magical powers. Most importantly, these books differed from the genre of adult fantasy called "Sword and Sorcery."
In some of these books, the imaginary world was superimposed over the real world- that is, the imaginary world co-existed with the real world. Hence, Anderson's two books fit the bill (especially The Broken Sword) and, therefore, were published by Ballintine.
I don't agree with Moorcock's assessment that The Broken Sword was a better book simply because it stayed closer to its source material. Anderson's idea of trying to make the Nordic world of myth come to life by superimposing it onto the real world, to me, didn't really work.
By the time I read Anderson's two Nordic works, I had already read the Prose Edda and the Elder Edda, in addition to the Icelandic sagas. So, I was very familiar with the source material for LOTR - and, Anderson's works.
In my opinion, Anderson's books were not well written. They lacked a sense of believablity - unlike LOTR, which one believed in. Trying to make a myth real - like Anderson tried to do - just didn't work. Certainly, Anderson's books are an interesting read - but, I think, in general, most LOTR fans will be disappointed.
I also think that Moorcock is missing an important point. Tolkien was not writing a book composed exclusively of Nordic myth. Although Nordic mythos formed the dominant source material for The Hobbit and LOTR, Tolkien used various other mythologies - e.g., Celtic mythos for the culture and language of the elves.
I don't know, but perhaps Moorcock chose to write a controversial article to create interest in his own fantasy books (which I have also read) - Eric of Melnibone. His Eric sagas, at least the first several in the series, were fairly good, but he stretched it way too far with subsequent stories. However, If I want to read Sword and Sorcery genre, I'll take Robert E. Howard's original Conan series. Eric can't hold a candle to the old Cimmerian.
In a contest between Tolkien and Anderson, JRR wins hands down. The Professor wrote LITERATURE - Anderson simply wrote genre fiction.