小说与文学2015newyorker.com
反托尔金者
The Anti-Tolkien
导读
《纽约客》这篇书评介绍迈克尔·摩尔科克对托尔金的批评：他认为《魔戒》是一种保守、维护现状的逃避主义奇幻。评论区围绕“谁才真正配得上‘反托尔金’的称号”展开，讨论善恶二元与多方冲突、英雄“去了又回”的叙事结构，以及创作者批评与实践的自相矛盾——对写奇幻乃至任何叙事的人都很有启发。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
把冲突写成多方利益与视角的碰撞，而不是善与恶的二元对立，故事会更立体、更耐读。
- 02
结局选“去了又回”还是“无法回家”，直接决定作品的主题分量：前者恢复秩序，后者让人物被经历永久改变。
- 03
让角色在善恶之间真实挣扎（如咕噜、波罗莫），比安排纯粹的正邪阵营更有张力。
- 04
宏大世界观不能替代人物与对话的立体感——设定再丰富，人物单薄也会削弱主题。
HN 评论精选
真正“反托尔金”的是把冲突写成多方利益与视角、而非善恶二元对立的作家，如萨普科夫斯基的《猎魔人》短篇。
我少年时喜欢摩尔科克，尤其是《符文杖》系列，但最近重读觉得有点浅薄，也许是因为此后读了更成熟的奇幻作品。艾尔瑞克系列稍好，但仍显得“倒退”。我认为有几位作家更配得上“反托尔金”的称号：显然是写《权力的游戏》的马丁，以及较少人知的萨普科夫斯基和他的《猎魔人》短篇（两本短篇集只有《最后的愿望》译成英文）。它仅凭对奇幻结构的清新原创视角就值得一读：用短篇形式，每个故事都呈现不同的、有趣而原创的多方冲突；写的是人物与利益（和视角）的冲突，而不是善与恶、混沌与秩序。它之于普通奇幻，就像莱姆的《机器人大师》之于普通科幻。萨普科夫斯基的长篇稍逊，但短篇极为出色。顺带一提，摩尔科克曾指责萨普科夫斯基抄袭，因为杰洛特是年老的白化病战士反英雄；但我总觉得摩尔科克该去读读这些书——相似只是表面，杰洛特与艾尔瑞克非常不同（而且我认为更有趣）。
ajuc查看英文原文
I liked Moorcock books as a teenager, especially the Runestaff cycle, but they felt a little shallow to me when I reread them recently. Maybe it's because of the new more sophisticated fantasy books I've read since then. Elric cycle was a little better in that respect, but still felt "backward". I think there are a few writers more deserving to be called "Anti-Tolkiens": obviously George R. R. Martin for Game of Thrones, and less known Andrzej Sapkowski with his short stories cycle about The Witcher (only 1 out of 2 short stories collections - The Last Wish - is translated to English, but it is worth reading just for the fresh and original view on fantasy book structure - it's short stories, nicely packed with interesting and original multi-sided conflicts, each short story shows different conflicts, and it's about characters and conflicting interests (and points of view), not about Good and Evil, Chaos and Law or anything like that. It's different from regular fantasy in the way that Stanisław Lem Cyberiad is different from regular sci-fi. Highly recommended. Novels by Andrzej Sapkowski are a little worse, but in the short stories he's brilliant. BTW Moorcook accused Sapkowski of copying his character, because Geralt (the Witcher) is old albino fighter anti-hero. It always felt to me like Moorcook should actually read the books - the similarities are just apperances - Geralt is very different (and more intersting IMHO) character than Elric. Good short review of The Last Wish with most points that make this a great book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP1cMitE530
摩尔科克批评逃避主义，自己的作品同样是逃避主义——批评标准与创作实践自相矛盾。
是啊，这位以鄙视逃避主义奇幻著称的人，最受欢迎、作品最多的角色却是个白化精灵王子：拥有世上最酷的魔法剑，谁惹他就杀谁，想嗑药就嗑，冒险酷炫，装作什么都不在乎，但可怕而悲惨的事总降临在他所爱之人身上，浪漫得让人受不了。哥特式的逃避主义仍是逃避主义，两者其实都没问题。托尔金很棒，摩尔科克也很棒。
PhasmaFelis查看英文原文
Right, yes, the guy who famously despises escapist fantasy, and whose most popular and prolific character is an albino elf-prince who has the most awesome magical sword in the world, and totally kills anyone who fucks with him, and takes drugs any time he wants, and has bitchin' magical adventures, and totally acts like he doesn't give a fuck about anything, but horribly tragic things keep happening to the people he loves and it's so romantic you could just die. Escapism for goths is still escapism, and there's nothing wrong with it either way. Tolkien is great. Moorcock is great. It's all good.
托尔金的人物并不扁平——《魔戒》是探讨权力与恶之模糊性的载体，而非幼稚的善恶对立。
我怀疑摩尔科克是否真读过托尔金。年纪渐长，《魔戒》的光彩确实褪去了一些，部分原因是电影把托尔金丰富的世界和史诗主题降格成消费主义垃圾：弹簧腿莱戈拉斯玩具、好莱坞式电子游戏。是的，托尔金的世界有时很扁平天真，人物和对话有时简单得可笑，但我更愿意把《魔戒》看作探讨权力与恶的更大主题的载体。它写于希特勒、斯大林、墨索里尼的阴影下，那是个善恶看似并不模糊的世界，可想想这种模糊性出现了多少次：咕噜，善还是恶？萨鲁曼？波罗莫？这些人物一点也不幼稚，而是与善恶非常真实、非常激烈的对峙。连比尔博和佛罗多自己也在挣扎。我们假定魔戒有腐蚀之力，但究竟是魔戒在腐蚀，还是对权力的贪欲本就内在于人、魔戒只是加以利用？什么才是真正的力量？是两个最小种族的成员佛罗多和山姆，凭勇气和做正确之事的愿望，扳倒了最强大的敌人，而强大的人类却在彼此争吵。
bollockitis查看英文原文
It makes me wonder if Moorcock has ever actually read Tolkien. As I've gotten older, some of the shine of Lord of the Rings has worn off, no doubt precipitated by the movies which relegated Tolkien's rich world and epic themes to consumerist junk pocked with spring-action Legolas toys and Hollywood-inspired video games. So, yes, Tolkien's world was sometimes very two-dimensional and naive. His characters and dialogue were sometimes laughably simplistic, but I prefer to think of LOTR as a vehicle for exploring larger themes of power and evil. LOTR was written against the backdrop of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and a world where good and evil didn't seem very ambiguous, yet think about how many times this ambiguity comes up: Gollum. Good or evil? Saruman? Boromir? There is nothing childish or "Pooh-like" about these characters. They are very real, very intense confrontations with good and evil. Even Bilbo and Frodo themselves struggle with this. We assume the ring has the power to corrupt, but is the ring truly doing the corrupting, or is this lust for power something innate within that the ring simply exploits for its own purposes? And what defines true power? Is it the ring itself? Is it the one who carries it? Frodo and Sam, two of the smallest of the races of Middle-Earth manage to bring down the most powerful of enemies with little more than courage and a desire to do what's right, while the powerful (the humans of Rohan and Gondor) quibble amongst themselves and their leaders are easily manipulated or go mad with sorrow and fear. Long story short, I think Moorcock is wrong. I find the idea of a drug-addicted elf more ridiculous than anything Tolkien ever wrote. It's as though Moorcock defines fantasy as merely a setting through which he can play out his literary amibitions. That isn't to say there's anything wrong with a drug-addicted elf, it's just that drug addiction -- a so-called "real" problem to Tolkien's alleged "Pooh" problems -- does not alone elevate one's work to higher stature, nor should it be used a bludgeon to demote the work of others. I have learned far more about life and human nature from Tolkien than I have from Moorcock, and Tolkien's work was more entertaining too. EDIT: Oh, and if you want to read some incredibly clever and unique sci-fi/fantasy, check out anything by Gene Wolfe or Jack Vance. Wolfe's Book of the New Sun is brilliant, and Vance's Lyonesse trilogy is amazing.
“英雄去了又回”的批评站不住脚：比尔博和佛罗多的归乡都伴随不可逆的改变。
“但摩尔科克这位当今最多产的奇幻作家之一，认为托尔金的创造不过是保守的现状想象，一场让英雄‘去了又回来’的冒险，而不是进入一个‘经历让你无法回家’的世界……”有人能给我解释一下吗？比尔博确实回家了，但他知道这是暂时的，家对他已不是从前的样子；佛罗多的故事线更是明说，他正经历一种无法回去的改变。如果摩尔科克真这么想，我看不出来。
mipapage查看英文原文
"But Moorcock, one of the most prolific living fantasists, sees Tolkien’s creation as little more than a conservative vision of the status quo, an adventure that brings its hero “There and Back Again,” rather than into a world where experience means you can’t go home again...”" Can someone explain this to me? Well Bilbo does go home, he knows it is temporary and home - to/for him - is not what it once was, and Frodo's story line out-and-out states that he is going thru a change where he cannot go back. If this is truly what Moorcock thinks, I don't see it.
同类还值得读
乔治·奥威尔1940年对《我的奋斗》的书评
George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf
这是奥威尔 1940 年对《我的奋斗》的书评，他没有简单谴责，而是认真分析希特勒的宣传手法为何奏效、又暴露了哪些思维特征。
小说与文学2022 · 499 分 · 545 评4 条写作要点编辑精选我们都是极客：尼尔·斯蒂芬森的文学作品
We are all nerds: The literary works of Neal Stephenson
这是一篇讨论 Neal Stephenson 科幻小说的文章，评论区读者围绕《Anathem》《钻石年代》《Snow Crash》等作品，聊世界构建、结尾处理和写作风格的变化。
小说与文学2022 · 307 分 · 220 评4 条写作要点编辑精选又一部我不会再去写的小说
Yet another novel I will no longer write
科幻作家 Charles Stross 讲述自己为何放弃一部已经构思好的小说：COVID-19 疫情让他的病毒灾难设定显得多余，现实给所有人上了一堂生动的疫情应对课。
小说与文学2020 · 304 分 · 169 评4 条写作要点编辑精选用图画写作：理查德·斯卡里与儿童文学的艺术
Writing in Pictures: Richard Scarry and the art of children's literature
这是《耶鲁评论》上漫画家 Chris Ware 写的文章，分析童书作家 Richard Scarry 如何用图画而不是文字来讲故事。
小说与文学2024 · 297 分 · 131 评4 条写作要点编辑精选如何写一部小说
How to Write a Novel
这篇来自 The Millions 的文章讨论写小说的两种路径——“计划派”（planners）与“即兴派”（pantsers，即“跟着感觉走、边写边编”）。
小说与文学2016 · 238 分 · 112 评4 条写作要点编辑精选