This question is especially for Mr. P, but anyone else with input is welcome to join in.I mentioned this before, but the question still vexxes me a little. I've been hearing a lot about Michael Moorcock the last several years, and I don't quite get the hype. I've read two books by Moorcock -- "Elric of Melnibone" and "The War Hound and the Worlds Pain" -- but I still don't get the appeal. I'd just move on and forget it all, except that Moorcock's reputation seems to be dogging my heels. A lot of writers and artists I respect drop his name on a regular basis. I'm beginning to think that I'm missing something, that I've failed to appreciate something rather subtle in the Moorcock books I've read so far. So I'm looking for a little help. Can someone tell me what they find so appealing in Moorcock's books? What satisfies you most in reading them?

Since you seem to be off the mark as it regard all these people you mention, you should first explain what it is you do NOT like about his work?One thing I like about him...it is not individual books, but how he ties all his characters and stories together - the scope of his endeavor, especially with the Eternal Champion/Multiverse scenario - that make me appreciate what he does.Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

I also started reading other stories by Moorcock...his earlier work in Sci-Fi as opposed to fantasy...I suggest you read maybe one or both of these and let me know what you think...they are novella size, so should not take up too much of your time."Behold the Man" & "Rituals of Infinity" (Alternate title - "The Wrecks of Time"). These two works have opened up another avenue of appreciation I have for Moorcock's work.The "Corum" Series is the first I ever read by him and I loved it.Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

misterpessimistic: Since you seem to be off the mark as it regard all these people you mention, you should first explain what it is you do NOT like about his work?Well, I didn't want this to turn into some sort of debate over the merit of Moorcock's work. I just wanted to get as much input as I could about why other people like him, to see if I could understand it from their perspective.I'll say this: I wasn't terribly impressed with his style. He has a style, which is more than I can say for a lot of writers, but sometimes it strikes me as a little too high-minded for his subject matter, as though he were trying to make something grandiose out of something I would have admired if he had been more tongue-in-cheek about it.I think it may be more productive, though, to focus on what I did like about the Moorcock books I've read so far. He's inventive, and I admire that. He knows how to take an idea and twist it. Sometimes that leads him down some pretty questionable roads, but those are the hazards you run when you're willing to play loosely with ideas.One thing I like about him...it is not individual books, but how he ties all his characters and stories together - the scope of his endeavor, especially with the Eternal Champion/Multiverse scenario - that make me appreciate what he does.That's something I can appreciate, but the tendency to drag every story out into an epic series of three, five, ten, twelve books and so on is one of the things that I find really tiresome about contemporary fantasy. Most of the fantasy books I really admire are stand-alone works that manage to suggest a larger world outside themselves -- Lord Dunsany's "The Charwoman's Shadow", for instance. Or, on the far end of the spectrum, short fiction that does not require further reading but may be seen in the broader perspective if you continue reading work by that author, like the stories of Robert Howard. Which isn't to say that I dislike series novels -- "The Lord of the Rings" is one of my favorite modern works -- just that I so rarely feel that it's worth the effort. I'm looking for a decent copy of the second Elric book now, though, so I am willing to give it a shot. And I've actually been thinking about giving the first Corum book a go.I may take up your suggestion of reading one of his sci-fi works. I did see a copy of "Behold the Man" in a used bookstore the other day, and thought about buying it, but I'm a little burned out on novels that radically re-interpret the Jesus story. That could be a genre unto itself. I'll try to keep "Rituals of Infinity" in mind next time I'm there.Let me know if you think of anything else you'd like to say about Moorcock.

Maybe Moorcock is like Brittany Spears. He simply was in the right place at the right time, had a great marketing manager...and nice tits too. I've never read anything by him so I'm not passing judgment, but plenty of people seem to be idolized when they have only mediocre skills.Chris

I like Lord of the Rings...very good stories and an excellent effort on Tolkien's part...but there is no comparison between that and Moorcock. I am not saying one is better than the other, but they are just in different categories.LoTR is a great childrens story...very basic in it's plot and meaning. Very black and white. You know who is good and who is evil. Again, dont get me wrong, Tolkien spent his efforts to create a detailed world, extremely detailed, but to me his plot is basic. I grant that he is instrumental to the legitimacy of the modern fantasy epic.Moorcock high-minded? I agree...and that appeals to me. But there is more meaning in his words and structure than simply the obvious plot. His is a multiverse where every story intersects with another. And I love series novels...I like being able to follow a great character or concept, Elric for example, over the years. What I like about Moorcock is that you can never be sure of who is 'good' and who is 'evil' (or the extent of the combination for that matter) and it really does not matter anyway. Moorcock's stories give me a more accurate impression of the human condition because he shows the true nature of a person; it is not about dichotomies but a mesh of a variety of ethical positions that may be all wrapped up in one character (which may just be a particular version of one main character/concept. He shows the frailty and weakness of human existence: many of his protagonists are deficient in some way. They are really misfits that excel and in no way disguise their shortcomings and reliance on external means to succeed. This is not necessarily a virtuous thing in his characters: Elric's reliance on his sword and herbal remedies to sustain his strength have been likened to Moorcock's alcoholism and dependency in general. But Elric also was the moral shift in his society, for his ancestor's, the Melniboneans, had a history of evil and contemptuous domination over the lands of the humans. The dealt freely with the Lords of Chaos, making pacts and selling their souls for the power they had. Elric also was 'in bed' with the Chaos Lords, but he broke with the inherent evil of his society and used the traditional means to destroy the decadence. But I am not here to offer a synopsis of the Saga....The concepts are more important with Moorcock's works than the details. And I love his style. He is dark, honest and uncompromising. Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy PiperEdited by: misterpessimistic  at: 12/2/05 2:26 pm

Chris OConnor: Maybe Moorcock is like Brittany Spears. He simply was in the right place at the right time, had a great marketing manager...and nice tits too.I'd like to think that he's just a flash in the pan, and that I'm not missing anything by not reading him. But he's been writing for well on thirty years now, and he's admired by some people whom I consider to know what they're talking about when it comes to genre fiction. So that's probably not the case. I'm just not sure what it is I'm missing.misterpessimistic: I am not saying one is better than the other, but they are just in different categories.They're different takes on fantasy, I agree. I only brought up the comparison because they're both writing extended series in a large, imagined world.LoTR is a great childrens story...very basic in it's plot and meaning. Very black and white.I don't think that's the case at all. "The Lord of the Rings" is very much about the permeability of the categories of good and evil. There are certain figures that are clearly evil, but there are also a broad range of character who represent the varying levels of corruption and the different kinds of evil that can arise even from good intentions. There are very few characters in the work who are all good."The Hobbit" is a great children's story. The books that follow are either the high end of young adult literature or full-on adult stories.They are really misfits that excel and in no way disguise their shortcomings and reliance on external means to succeed.Hmm. Now this makes a lot of sense to me. I'm not saying that it's the only appeal to Moorcock's works, but perhaps part of the appeal for a great many people is that Moorcock favors characters who radically repudiate notions of normality. I can definitely see that in the Elric character. Of course, a lot of authors write underdog characters, but Elric, at least, is so far from normal that he's practically grotesque. And I wonder if there's not some subversive appeal to that.Elric also reminded me of the sort of character Nietzche might of favored. That whole "philosophizing with a hammer" kind of thing. Maybe Moorcock is writing fantasy novels for Nietzchians.But Elric also was the moral shift in his society, for his ancestor's, the Melniboneans, had a history of evil and contemptuous domination over the lands of the humans.I did find that interesting at the beginning of "Elric of Melnibone" -- probably the most interesting thing about the whole novel. But there was a shift away from that in the second third, and from there on out it didn't seem terribly different from most fantasy romps. I might have liked the whole thing more if Moorcock had focussed on Melnibone undergoing the crisis of having its old values challenged by its new emperor. But maybe he goes into that more in the later books.