Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Can these tales be read out of order?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Can these tales be read out of order?

    I'm refering to Blood, Fabulous Harbors, and The War Amongst Angels.

    I'm asking because I just finished The White Wolf's Son, and just recieved Fabulous Harbors in the mail today. The others should be ariving in a day or so, but I did not wish to start on one if they are to be read in order.

  • #2
    If course, you can read them in any order you choose, but I suggest reading them in order.

    FH is a collection of linked short stories that fill in some blanks in the larger story arc of Blood and War, which are novels. Although not exactly traditional novels. In a good way.

    Comment


    • #3
      Blood and War? This is the first hearing of that.
      Is this a Moorcock story as well?

      I didn't realize those stories were linked.
      I suppose I can read something else until Blood arrives: Damn it!

      Comment


      • #4
        That would be Blood and The War Amongst the Angels - the two 'book ends' of the 'Second Ether' trilogy that Doc would be referring to.
        _"For an eternity Allard was alone in an icy limbo where all the colours were bright and sharp and comfortless.
        _For another eternity Allard swam through seas without end, all green and cool and deep, where distorted creatures drifted, sometimes attacking him.
        _And then, at last, he had reached the real world – the world he had created, where he was God and could create or destroy whatever he wished.
        _He was supremely powerful. He told planets to destroy themselves, and they did. He created suns. Beautiful women flocked to be his. Of all men, he was the mightiest. Of all gods, he was the greatest."

        Comment


        • #5
          You could certainly dip into FH while waiting for Blood to arrive. On the other hand, the "confusion" that is produced by reading Blood first is not to be missed. Hmm. Yeah, read them in order.

          In the meantime Architecture of the Jumping Universe by Charles Jencks is good companion material as well.

          Um, you might also read some Blake: Marriage of Heaven and Hell (Plate 11, I think it is), and also the Book of Urizen, and the long epicsMilton, and Jerusalem. Milton's Paradise Lost also has some useful second ether bits.

          Comment


          • #6
            Ah, gotcha. Those two are enroute as I right this.

            Comment


            • #7
              The ancient Poets animated all sensible objects with Gods or Ge-
              niuses, calling them by the names and adorning them with the prop-
              erties of woods, rivers, mountains, lakes, cities, nations, and whatever
              their enlarged & numerous senses could percieve.

              And particularly they studied the genius of each city & country.
              placing it under its mental deity.

              Till a system was formed, which some took advantage of & enslav'd
              the vulgar by attempting to realize or abstract the mental dieties from
              their objects: thus began Priesthood.

              Choosing forms of worship from poetic tales.

              And at length they pronounced that the Gods had orderd such
              things.

              Thus men forgot that All deities reside in the human breast.

              --Blake, Marriage of Heaven and Hell

              Comment


              • #8
                Carter has it right. Blake and Milton. Maybe a little Campbell. And (sorry Carter, I know this will make you cringe) Baudrillard.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Doc
                  And (sorry Carter, I know this will make you cringe) Baudrillard.
                  Not at all, good doctor. The more the merrier. Baudrillard is an excellent poet who is not shy to essay the azure rarifications of the stratosphere itself, and is pleasing to critics with ears so tuned, to be sure. I humbly show my leg to Baudrillard's musical achievements, and bow. My reservation, such as it is, is prosaic and philosophical; and how can philosophy judge poetry? But I am happy, however, to ornament my posture regarding Baudrillard by comparing it to Hawthorne regarding Emerson--which is colorfully expressed in the following passage from Hawthorne's introduction to Mosses From an Old Manse:

                  Uncertain, troubled, earnest wanderers through the midnight of
                  the moral world beheld his [Emerson's] intellectual fire as a beacon burning on a hill-top, and, climbing the difficult ascent, looked forth into the surrounding obscurity more hopefully than hitherto. The light
                  revealed objects unseen before--mountains, gleaming lakes, glimpses
                  of a creation among the chaos; but also, as was unavoidable, it
                  attracted bats and owls and the whole host of night birds, which
                  flapped their dusky wings against the gazer's eyes, and sometimes were
                  mistaken for fowls of angelic feather. Such delusions always hover
                  nigh whenever a beacon-fire of truth is kindled.

                  For myself, there had been epochs of my life when I, too, might have
                  asked of this prophet the master word that should solve me the riddle
                  of the universe; but now, being happy, I felt as if there were no
                  question to be put, and therefore admired Emerson as a poet, of deep
                  beauty and austere tenderness, but sought nothing from him as a
                  philosopher.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Carter Kaplan
                    Baudrillard is an excellent poet who is not shy to essay the azure rarifications of the stratosphere itself, and is pleasing to critics with ears so tuned, to be sure. I humbly show my leg to Baudrillard's musical achievements, and bow. My reservation, such as it is, is prosaic and philosophical; and how can philosophy judge poetry?
                    This is spot on (apart from the inability of philosophy to judge poetry, obviously ). I've always enjoyed Baudrillard's writings, but am constantly amazed that people take his theories seriously when he plainly does not do so himself.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Carter's thoughts raise a question for me. How difficult is it to ignore the philosopy and/ or politics of an artist in the art itself? I'm reminded of Calweti's (I think) ideas on reading into art. Some people read a message in the art that isn't there, simply because they are reading the artist, instead.

                      Somewhere, McLuhan is laughing at me right now.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Doc
                        Carter's thoughts raise a question for me. How difficult is it to ignore the philosopy and/ or politics of an artist in the art itself?
                        I don't think that it's particularly difficult; people do it all the time. Notably, of course, when they don't know anythng about the artist. Even when they are aware of the artist's politics, the art can always be detached from it, for example in the way that Left Wing Abstract Expressionists such as Pollock had their work co-opted by the State as an example of 'American Values'.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          How about those people ignore the message and the artist, such as the tragic comedy of Reagan co-opting Springsteen.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The way Guthrie has been sentimentalised by American media presumably with no idea of what a furious, outspoken critic of the US political establishment he was. Hearing people singing a cut version of This Land is My Land is almost more than I can bear sometimes. Anyone else catch the Springsteen Hammersmith Odeon concert from 76 when he really could rock all night with the tightest band in the universe ? PBS has been airing in recently.

                            Pre-order or Buy my latest titles in Europe:
                            The Whispering Swarm: Book One of the Sanctuary of the White Friars - The Laughter of Carthage - Byzantium Endures - London Peculiar and Other Nonfiction
                            Doctor Who: The Coming of the Terraphiles - Kizuna: Fiction for Japan - Modem Times 2.0 - The Sunday Books - The Sundered Worlds


                            Pre-order or Buy my latest titles in the USA:
                            The Laughter of Carthage - Byzantium Endures - London Peculiar and Other Nonfiction - The Sunday Books - Doctor Who: The Coming of the Terraphiles
                            Kizuna: Fiction for Japan - The Sundered Worlds - The Winds of Limbo - Modem Times 2.0 - Elric: Swords and Roses

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I watched that sucker in it's entirety.
                              What a great performance he put on!!

                              When I was a youngin my family had Springstein's The River playing till you were almost drunk on it.
                              That and Born to Run were always my favorites.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X