David Gemmell cites Mike has a fav author

[Whiskers]

Gemmell told me that, as a kid, he used to be a big fan of Michael
Moorcock. He used to wait with baited breath for the next Moorcock
novel. One day he bought one, took it home and started reading it.
Instead of fabulous sword and sorcery with characters like Elric and
Dorian Hawkblood [?] there was a tale of a cross dressing transexual
named Jerry somebody, and there wasnt a sword or a wizard in sight.
Gemmell says he never forgot the disappointment, and, when he decided
to write a thriller based on his experiences in East London, he didnt
want any of his fantasy fans to suffer the same disappointment.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.b...6841d65af3b336

[Mikey_C]

Re: David Gemmell cites Mike has a fav author

Instead of fabulous sword and sorcery there was a tale of a cross dressing transexual named Jerry somebody, and there wasnt a sword or a wizard in sight.Gemmell says he never forgot the disappointment, and, when he decided to write a thriller based on his experiences in East London, he didnt want any of his fantasy fans to suffer the same disappointment.

That's made my day! I wonder if he needed therapy? This reminds me why I love Michael Moorcock!

[Doc]

I'm not sure I understand why someone would be disappointed to discover Jerry Cornelius. Seriously.

[Marca]

I don't like seeing books passed off as something they're not (e.g. non-sf or fantasy with a misleading cover or copy), but I think an author should be able to write whatever they like. It's one of the reasons I would like to see Mike tackle more non-fantasy stuff in the future.

I was actually led in to Mike's works by JC. I didn't get them at first (I was 15 or so), but was sufficiently intrigued to seek out his other books and come back to them later.

[Mikey_C]

"a cross dressing transexual". That's like a double negative, isn't? A transexual who dresses according to the gender they changed from. Funnily enough, I know someone like that!

Why do some people think all fantasy has to be "swords and wizards"? I mean, why not just read the same book over and over again, then?

[devilchicken]

Re: David Gemmell cites Mike has a fav author

Gemmell told me that, as a kid, he used to be a big fan of Michael
Moorcock. He used to wait with baited breath for the next Moorcock
novel. One day he bought one, took it home and started reading it.
Instead of fabulous sword and sorcery with characters like Elric and
Dorian Hawkblood [?] there was a tale of a cross dressing transexual
named Jerry somebody, and there wasnt a sword or a wizard in sight.
Gemmell says he never forgot the disappointment, and, when he decided
to write a thriller based on his experiences in East London, he didnt
want any of his fantasy fans to suffer the same disappointment.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.b...6841d65af3b336

I guess David Gemmell doesn't think that literary experimentation is particularly 'manly'. From the one or two books of his that I've read, I can't say I found them particularly memorable, with the possible exception of Wolf In Shadow (the first Jon Shannow novel - albeit that was little more than a westernised rip-off of Solomon Kane and Stephen Kings Dark Tower novels). When you confine yourself to such a small range of a particular genre, I have to ask how long can a writer maintain their interest in what they are writing?

Surely experimentation leads to better art...?

[Whiskers]

Re: David Gemmell cites Mike has a fav author

Surely experimentation leads to better art...?

Should it? Does it? Every case? Can you quantify successful experimentation? Was JC a successful experiement or was the reader faulty? :-) Such loaded rhetorical questions. :-)

[Mikey_C]

Re: David Gemmell cites Mike has a fav author

When you confine yourself to such a small range of a particular genre, I have to ask how long can a writer maintain their interest in what they are writing?

Well, Gemmell must have got bored with it, or he wouldn't be writing thrillers. I suppose, for him, that is 'experimentation'. I've never read his stuff, so maybe I shouldn't diss him. But his comments do sound a bit lumpen*, If 'swords and wizards' aren't mentioned on the cover of a book, why would you expect to find them within? It's not as if Mike has ever set out to mislead people.



*As it's reported in the third person, this could just be someone else's spin on what he had to say.

[GuyLawley]

Isn't David Gemmell liking your books a bit like Elton John being fond of your records?

[Mikey_C]

It's no sacrifice...

[Michael Moorcock]

Yup. That's how I see it, Guy. What's more, I have the weird feeling of being stalked by him. I do a story initially called Ravenbrand, he comes up with something similar. And most recently he seems to have been doing quite a lot of stuff with White Wolf in the title. I hope fans of Elric aren't as disappointed as he was by Jerry C.... :)

[Michael Moorcock]

I meant to add that my own feeling of commitment to readers is to try to come up with as much that's original as possible. That's the sort of demanding reader I am, though I enjoy familiar characters as much as anyone (witness Zenith or, indeed, my current Balzac jag) but I like to see them in as many different aspects as possible. Mind you, if you want to keep making tons of money, the secret is to keep writing more or less the same book over and over again. As Edgar Rice Burroughs, to his own disappointment, found. Not to mention Conan Doyle. Some of us do it because that's all we CAN write; some of us because that's what readers keep demanding. Some of us are just bloody minded and are going to write as originally as possible no matter what. I think I've already mentioned that I felt a strong fellow feeling for Dylan, writing in Chronicle Vol 1, where it's clear he made a decision to remain true to himself and, as he sees it, to his audience by doing new stuff. It's what I love about Dylan, even though his later work gives me an entirely different buzz to his earlier stuff. It's also a commercial decision. You make a lot more dosh by putting yourself on Rpt. A sad irony. But given the kind of dosh you DO make, anyway, it seems more like 'giving back' to try to come up with original ways of doing what you do. I'm writing against a whistling kettle. Time to make the Darjeeling and sort out the crumpets. It's that kind of weather here in N. California at last!!

[David Mosley]

It's what I love about Dylan, even though his later work gives me an entirely different buzz to his earlier stuff. It's also a commercial decision. You make a lot more dosh by putting yourself on Rpt. A sad irony. But given the kind of dosh you DO make, anyway, it seems more like 'giving back' to try to come up with original ways of doing what you do.

Coincidentally, Mike, there was a report on today's (or yesterday's as I type) edition of 'Today' on Radio 4 discussing Dylan's recent UK live concerts. Apparently, some Dylan fans have been complaining that his new stuff isn't as good as the old, but he seems disinclined to regurgitate his classic songs. You should be able to hear Mark Ellen, editor of the Word Magazine, and Radio Three's Andy Kershaw's discussion > here < if you haven't already.

[Michael Moorcock]

Thanks, demos. I'll check that out when I'm done here.

[Michael Moorcock]

Another afterthought.
What would people think if I sat down and wrote the Hawkmoon books all over again ? It seems strange they should want me to do that, given that they can always reread them. The same goes for Dylan listeners. Can't they sit at home, lay back and play the old records (as I do sometimes) while trying to find out what the guy's doing with the new stuff. Don't they have any more respect for him than that. What is he ? A sucked thumb ? I must admit I DO feel a little nostalgic myself. John Lennon and I had 'Stop Knocking Dylan' letters in the same issue of the Melody Maker the first time Dylan went electric... :)