Pondering the future of Pug and " The Enemy" ... *SPOILER ALERT* if you haven't read many of the works.
Randy D. Goodman
Macros returning as Pug's final enemy? Macros did create Pug. Macros
coerced Pug's growth for a variety of reasons. Perhaps to help
eliminate all competition for the future Macros? Pug DID intervene in
Macro's attempt to gain godhood and Miranda also witnessed the demise
of her father at the the hands of Maarg ... or did she? Perhaps Macros
defeated Maarg in order to leave him on the Saaur homeworld to
eventually starve so that HE instead could take Maarg's place and
begin again his rise to godhood? Perhaps Magnus will intervene with
his father, in order to do what Pug (because of his compassion) could
never do ... that is to destroy Macros when he returns. Macros is the
enemy.
Hypotheticals are always fascinating ... especially this one. So many
holes in my hypothesis it seems.
Bah! Therapeutic ramblings.
Randy
BaJoRi
"Randy D. Goodman" <rdong...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:893c732c-d9ac-44e5...@y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
There is a question I always wondered, and I am fairly certain I am right
(or at least some intellectual arrogance is making that presumption for me):
The original Controller Gods, what happened to them? It was said that they
"fled", not that they were thrown down, or defeated, or similar. Nalar is a
God of Evil, not Chaos. He wouldn't want to destroy everything, he would
want to dominate and control and enslave. But a Being of Chaos, that's
another story entirely.
Rathar would weave together the fabric of time-space and Mythar would tear
them apart. Is that not what is happening, time-space being torn apart?
My guess is that with the re-ordering of the universe that was described,
Mythar went in to hiding and is now moving to emerge. He has taken the place
of Maarg, the Demon King, and is looking to use the demons to destroy
everything, and follow his nature.
Now, the big flaw in my brilliant supposition, where is Rathar in all this?
My only thought there is that the Controller Gods are actually aspects of
Rathar.
I am anxious to see how close to the mark I am. Obviously, if I am right, I
can brag about it (not that anyone would really care). If I am wrong, I can
enjoy being surprised.
Raymond Feist
"BaJoRi" <baron...@aol.com> wrote:
You're not far off. It's an evolution of sorts, with each epoch
creating a more complex set of aspects of (for lack of a better term)
"the Ultimate."
As for Chaos and Law, that's Mike Moorecock's thing and even though it
was part of the game environment, for the literature I leave it alone,
save for the two blind gods of the beginning.
Best, R.E.F.
--
Never attribute to malice what can
satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity.
BaJoRi
"guig" <gu...@yerawathame.com> wrote in message
news:2009070822525977923-guig@yerawathamecom...
> On 2009-07-08 22:14:24 +0100, Raymond Feist <ray...@nospam.bittersea.com>
>
>>
>> As for Chaos and Law, that's Mike Moorecock's thing and even though it
>> was part of the game environment, for the literature I leave it alone,
>> save for the two blind gods of the beginning.
>>
>> Best, R.E.F.
>
> went to charity in a major clearout years back ... I still miss them. I
> sometimes find myself yearning for Arioch and Xiombarg. Sad I know.
>
I always loved how in the Chronicles of Corum, and what I found very
interesting about that whole setup, is that in the Law vs. Chaos interaction
he wove within the story, no matter how far the pendulum swung towards Chaos
there was still an order to things that could swing the balance back towards
Law. By eliminating at the end, after the Conjunction, both the Lords of Law
and Chaos, in some ways the lack of guiding force and the total sublimation
of creation to the Free Will of living creatures is even MORE chaotic than
when Arioch and company controlled the cosmos.
Raymond Feist
"BaJoRi" <baron...@aol.com> wrote:
Moorecock chose the Law v. Chaos trope because he rejected the
traditional fantasy narrative of good v. evil. He particularly disliked
Tolkein on that subject.
BaJoRi
"Raymond Feist" <ray...@nospam.bittersea.com> wrote in message
news:raymond-7F97FE...@news.giganews.com...
Well, history is written by the victors, who will always portray themselves
as doing "good", or God's work while the other side is always portrayed as
evil bad guys.
I find it odd that he would take Tolkien to task on that idea so much more
than he would others, as Tolkien was very open about his sourcing, and what
he was looking to accomplish with his narrative, unless it was Tolkien's
role as the father of the modern fantasy genre that really burned Moorcock.
If anything, I would think that Moorcock would be much more indignant about
those that followed in Tolkien's footsteps, including yourself.
BaJoRi
> enjoyed the Celtic mythology being used, possibly because I'm a Celt
> myself.
>
I have just started readiong Moorcock. When I first tried him, I was twelve
years old, recovering from a mangled shoulder. At that time, I thought he
was boring. So I switched to Mr. Feist, who was a much more palatable read.
It's just recently that I have started to give them another shot, and what I
found boring when I was 12 now comes across as very nuanced, if a bit
pretentious.
I still find Pug and company a more fun read, but I expect to find some
interesting diversions thorugh Moorcock in the future. For whatever reason I
bought the entire Eternal Champion series, even though I didn't read him
even through college.
Raymond Feist
> Well, history is written by the victors, who will always portray themselves
> as doing "good", or God's work while the other side is always portrayed as
> evil bad guys.
>
> I find it odd that he would take Tolkien to task on that idea so much more
> than he would others, as Tolkien was very open about his sourcing, and what
> he was looking to accomplish with his narrative, unless it was Tolkien's
> role as the father of the modern fantasy genre that really burned Moorcock.
> If anything, I would think that Moorcock would be much more indignant about
> those that followed in Tolkien's footsteps, including yourself.
Mike Moorecock has a long history of antipathy towards Tolkein. I'm
sure you can find some of that stuff on the net if you google it. As
for his contemporaries, he's never taken a shot at another writer I can
think of.
BaJoRi
Possibly because they could fight back.
Raymond Feist
"BaJoRi" <baron...@aol.com> wrote:
Hardly. Moorecock is hardly the shy type. No, I think it's more to do
with a scholarship sort of thing, his view of Tolkein as being a
particular world view with which Moorecock doesn't agree.
BaJoRi
To me that is more of a generational influence than anything else. Correctly
or incorrectly, the world was much more homogenized in the early 20th
Century, where Us v. Them (good v. evil) was a much more prevalent
world-view. That is the world that shaped Tolkien, whereas Moorcock was more
of the Vietnam generation where there was much more gray area as to right
and wrong.
It is an interesting conjecture as to how much antipathy is directed towards
Tolken, owing to just the generational differences.
Raymond Feist
"BaJoRi" <baron...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> To me that is more of a generational influence than anything else. Correctly
> or incorrectly, the world was much more homogenized in the early 20th
> Century, where Us v. Them (good v. evil) was a much more prevalent
> world-view. That is the world that shaped Tolkien, whereas Moorcock was more
> of the Vietnam generation where there was much more gray area as to right
> and wrong.
>
> It is an interesting conjecture as to how much antipathy is directed towards
> Tolken, owing to just the generational differences.
Well, Tolkein was the product of a late 19th Century education, really,
given his age and who his instructors were. He graduated from Exerter
College at Oxford in 1911. He was already an Oxford Don before World
War II.
But the publicly stated reasons for Moorecock's dislike was present
years back in an essay, which if I remember correctly was titled "Epic
Pooh."
If I recall, his complaints were that the prose was terrible, reading
like nursery rhymes, which may be nothing more than the generational
thing you're talking about. Tokein reads more like Sir Walter Scott
than he does modern fantasy writers. He also called the stories without
humor and joy and says that the characters are two dimensional; he says
Tolkein describes action but never develops his character. And he says
the underlying themes are deeply conservative, which may be true. He
also hates the "fairy tale happy ending" which he accuses Tolkein of
employing.
I would be surprised if you couldn't find it online somewhere.
Best, R.E.F.
BaJoRi
I would love to read it, as Moorcock's insights may certainly be of a nature
that I hadn't considered previously. But I do believe that he makes a
mistake as regards Tolkien in that the Professor's acknowledged goal was to
create, or recreate depending on your view, a classic British mythology. And
stylistically, as you point out, the prose matches that with which Tolkien
was familiar, adn trying in many ways to emulate.
I do agree that Tokien in some ways two-dimensionalized his characters. But
I view it as part of Tolkiens' effort to move the entire mythology ahead.
It's a basic difference between characters driving the story and the story
driving the characters.
Raymond Feist
"BaJoRi" <baron...@aol.com> wrote:
> I would love to read it, as Moorcock's insights may certainly be of a nature
> that I hadn't considered previously. But I do believe that he makes a
> mistake as regards Tolkien in that the Professor's acknowledged goal was to
> create, or recreate depending on your view, a classic British mythology. And
> stylistically, as you point out, the prose matches that with which Tolkien
> was familiar, adn trying in many ways to emulate.
>
> I do agree that Tokien in some ways two-dimensionalized his characters. But
> I view it as part of Tolkiens' effort to move the entire mythology ahead.
> It's a basic difference between characters driving the story and the story
> driving the characters.
>
From my point of view, the hobbits are the only multi-dimensional
characters in the LotR. Sam, Frodo, Pippin, and Merry are changed by
the events they experience; in the cleansing of the shire, they are
hardened vets returning home, not wide-eye kids as they left.
Otherwise, everyone else is pretty much the same character despite
Gandalf's return from death, Aragorn taking the crown, etc.
I always thought his ambition to create a "Myth for Britain" to rival
the saga of Charlemagne (The Matter of France) and the Greek myths (The
Matter of the Greeks) was fascinating. What was wrong with Arthur?
Mostly because the written sources were Welsh and French, I guess. But
even if he didn't create a "Matter of Britain" he sure wrote some
popular books.
Best, R.E.F.
--
BaJoRi
> In article <r546m.355227$Tp1.3...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com>,
> "BaJoRi" <baron...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I would love to read it, as Moorcock's insights may certainly be of a
>> nature
>> that I hadn't considered previously. But I do believe that he makes a
>> mistake as regards Tolkien in that the Professor's acknowledged goal was
>> to
>> create, or recreate depending on your view, a classic British mythology.
>> And
>> stylistically, as you point out, the prose matches that with which
>> Tolkien
>> was familiar, adn trying in many ways to emulate.
>>
>> I do agree that Tokien in some ways two-dimensionalized his characters.
>> But
>> I view it as part of Tolkiens' effort to move the entire mythology ahead.
>> It's a basic difference between characters driving the story and the
>> story
>> driving the characters.
>>
>
> From my point of view, the hobbits are the only multi-dimensional
> characters in the LotR. Sam, Frodo, Pippin, and Merry are changed by
> the events they experience; in the cleansing of the shire, they are
> hardened vets returning home, not wide-eye kids as they left.
For whatever reason I always believed Boromir was the most changed, and I
believe that was directly related to his interaction with the hobbits, where
they helped to draw out his natural strength in order to fight the
insinuations of the ring; a strength that he certainly believed he had, but
only demostrated at the end. .
>
> Otherwise, everyone else is pretty much the same character despite
> Gandalf's return from death, Aragorn taking the crown, etc.
>
> I always thought his ambition to create a "Myth for Britain" to rival
> the saga of Charlemagne (The Matter of France) and the Greek myths (The
> Matter of the Greeks) was fascinating. What was wrong with Arthur?
> Mostly because the written sources were Welsh and French, I guess.
I was thinking the same thing, especially concerns the Welsh and French. It
is interesting how Tolkien didn't seem to mind the Germanic influences so
much, possibly because of the rise of Old English from Germanic languages.
In his heart, he most certainly had a social arrogance where Britain was
concerned, which was quite common in England, especially during Victorian
times and the years following right after
Sort of like the French now, only with more bathing.
> But even if he didn't create a "Matter of Britain" he sure wrote some
> popular books.
I have heard that the first 20 years of their published history didn't
really set the world on fire, and it was only their discovery by the hippies
in the 60s that it all started to take off. I wonder if that is true.
Raymond Feist
>
> I have heard that the first 20 years of their published history didn't
> really set the world on fire, and it was only their discovery by the hippies
> in the 60s that it all started to take off. I wonder if that is true.
>
Sort of. Having lived through it, here's what happened.
When Don Wolheim was running Ace (before he started DAW), he noticed a
particuarl oddity, that Houghten-Mifflen had screwed up the copyright on
LotR and that it was in public domain in the US. So, he started to
print it for Ace. The Tolkein people and Ballentine Books in the US
screamed, but to no avail. This was about 1966 if memory serves.
Pressure from Science Fiction Writers of American and competing editions
from Ballentine with a note from Tolkein on the back urging readers to
only by the "authorized editions" shamed Don into ceasing publication.
But the flap caused the book to be noticed. So the paperbacks started
to fly off the shelves.
It wasn't just hippies, but everyone. It was kind of like Harry Potter
in that it was a series of books that lots of people who didn't have
much in common enjoyed. So jokes and geeks in school had something to
talk about. While the hippies [and I use the term reluctantly--having
been in college in the mid-1960s I can tell you it is as misused a term
as "right" and "left," "conservative" and "liberal" are today] enjoyed
the implied mysticism [again, ironic because it's pretty conservative
Catholic in foundation] most people just loved the action/adventure
little guy as hero trope.
While I'm not as scathing as Moorecock about the prose, it's old
fashioned. Certainly it would have a hard time making it into print
today if it had never been published before. The modern reader would
cringe at the pages of description and scant dialogue. And I don't
know any editor who would have let Tom Bombadil get through uncut.
Best,R.E.F.
BaJoRi
It always made me laugh that the biggest complaint that the fanboys had
about the Jackson adaptations was that Bombadil had been cut.
As for the prose, I always figured, especially with the Silmarillion, that
Tolkien purposely mimicked the tone and character of religious scripture,
and at other points the style of Beowulf, A Knight's Tale, and similar. You
just cannot write the quintessential British mythology using common parlance
and terminology, is how Tolkien's thought processes work.
Oliver Nowak
<snip>
>
> While I'm not as scathing as Moorecock about the prose, it's old
> fashioned. Certainly it would have a hard time making it into print
> today if it had never been published before. The modern reader would
> cringe at the pages of description and scant dialogue. And I don't
> know any editor who would have let Tom Bombadil get through uncut.
>
> Best,R.E.F.
Well, it's strange, but for me it's kind of reversed: When reading Lord
of the Rings it seem to be a timeless classic that doesn't really age
over time.
When, OTOH, reading Moorcock it always has that distinct 60s/70s feel
to it that always seems to be there - like one of those weird pieces of
furniture with unbearable colors from that time period. Don't know what
the exact reason for this is, maybe it's the tendendcy to mix science
fiction with fantasy. I also found the prose from that time to be
rather dry or distant - it mostly doesn't move me emotionally.
--
O.
Raymond Feist
Oliver Nowak <oliver_and...@yahoo.de> wrote:
Well, as we say, that's why they make more than one flavor of ice cream.
There are some very popular authors whom I can not read, while there are
others I sit in amazement at how good they are.
Best, R.E.F.
BaJoRi
"Oliver Nowak" <oliver_and...@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:mn.74917d97b...@yahoo.de...
> Raymond Feist wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> While I'm not as scathing as Moorecock about the prose, it's old
>> fashioned. Certainly it would have a hard time making it into print
>> today if it had never been published before. The modern reader would
>> cringe at the pages of description and scant dialogue. And I don't know
>> any editor who would have let Tom Bombadil get through uncut.
>>
>> Best,R.E.F.
>
> Well, it's strange, but for me it's kind of reversed: When reading Lord of
> the Rings it seem to be a timeless classic that doesn't really age over
> time.
>
Tolkien didn't write in the style of the time. He went back in time and
mimicked the styles and cues from classic literature. So you have that type
of feel to it, jsut as if you were reading Beowulf or something similar.
> When, OTOH, reading Moorcock it always has that distinct 60s/70s feel to
> it that always seems to be there - like one of those weird pieces of
> furniture with unbearable colors from that time period. Don't know what
> the exact reason for this is, maybe it's the tendendcy to mix science
> fiction with fantasy. I also found the prose from that time to be rather
> dry or distant - it mostly doesn't move me emotionally.
I find Moorcock and others to be as you say, where you can sort of time them
by their styles, themes, and influences, but if that message is something
that also pertains to the here and now, then you should be able to get the
same sort of enjoyment out of them as those people did when they were first
published.
>
> --
> O.
>
>