From: "Allan Lloyd" 
Subject: (urth) Re Other Authers
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 07:33:55 +0100

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C3057C.DE31E000
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I would agree with much of what Blattid said about Moorcock, and plead =
guilty to oversimplifying with that "serious non-Elric" tag. But I =
disagree concerning Moorcock's "moral vacuity". He has admitted that if =
he wrote "Gloriana" again he would not have included the rape scene and =
has written extensively on Feminism, against pornography, and in favour =
of his own brand of radical anarchy. In fact, as Blattid mentions, he =
has written extensively on just about everything. He holds a discussion =
forum at www.multiverse.org where he shares his views on almost any =
subject you care to bring up, and his deep moral concerns, especially =
with world politics, are expounded with passion.

These views are embedded in his books to varying degrees, but I would =
again recommend "King of the City" as showing his deepest moral sense. =
This is particularly impressive because the main character is someone =
who works as a papparazzi (is that right?) photographer, does serious =
quantities of drugs, and  claims to have no morals at all, but by the =
end of the book attains a moving redemptiom by political action.

Moorcock's multiverse can be infuriating, but is mostly a game that he =
plays. Most of his various series can be read alone, with the recurring =
characters playing very different roles. Mike would be deeply insulted =
to be compared in any way to Heinlein, whose politics are anathema to =
him. The motives of the two writers in bringing in repeated characters =
is very different, Heinlein seeming to do it just to say "Look, all =
these heroic guys with amazing sex-lives are really good old RAH". (As =
an aside, did anyone ever write worse about sex than Heinlein. My wife =
still won't believe that anyone could call nipples "those twin spiggots =
of desire" or claim that one woman's "nipples went spung").

But  you may be right about Moorcock not being suitable for =
recommendation to Wolfe fans. This is really the point I was making, =
trying to work out why two very different writers appeal to me.

                     Allan


-- 
------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C3057C.DE31E000
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








I would agree with much of what Blattid =
said about=20
Moorcock, and plead guilty to oversimplifying with that "serious =
non-Elric" tag.=20
But I disagree concerning Moorcock's "moral vacuity". He has admitted =
that if he=20
wrote "Gloriana" again he would not have included the rape scene and has =
written=20
extensively on Feminism, against pornography, and in favour of his own =
brand of=20
radical anarchy. In fact, as Blattid mentions, he has written=20
extensively on just about everything. He holds a discussion forum =
at www.multiverse.org where he =
shares his=20
views on almost any subject you care to bring up, and his deep moral =
concerns,=20
especially with world politics, are expounded with passion.
 
These views are embedded in his books =
to varying=20
degrees, but I would again recommend "King of the City" as showing his =
deepest=20
moral sense. This is particularly impressive because the main character =
is=20
someone who works as a papparazzi (is that right?) photographer, does =
serious=20
quantities of drugs, and  claims to have no morals at all, but =
by the=20
end of the book attains a moving redemptiom by political =
action.
 
Moorcock's multiverse can be =
infuriating,=20
but is mostly a game that he =
plays. Most of=20
his various series can be read alone, with the recurring characters =
playing very=20
different roles. Mike would be deeply insulted to be compared in any way =
to=20
Heinlein, whose politics are anathema to him. The motives of the two =
writers in=20
bringing in repeated characters is very different, Heinlein seeming to =
do it=20
just to say "Look, all these heroic guys with amazing sex-lives are =
really good=20
old RAH". (As an aside, did anyone ever write worse about sex than =
Heinlein. My=20
wife still won't believe that anyone could call nipples "those twin =
spiggots of=20
desire" or claim that one woman's "nipples went =
spung").
 
But  you may be right about =
Moorcock not being=20
suitable for recommendation to Wolfe fans. This is really the point I =
was=20
making, trying to work out why two very different writers appeal to=20
me.
 
          &nbs=
p;         =20
Allan

------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C3057C.DE31E000--