A survey of epic fantasy through the lenses of the author's biases, stated in various places. He is scathing about the Inklings: Tolkien, C S Lewis and Charles Williams. One of the things he dislikes about Tolkien is the latter's supposedly small minded environmental concerns and yet this is one of the aspects that probably appeals the most to modern readers given the ongoing loss of habitat and biodiversity. He views them as Oxford snobs. As someone who obsessively re-read Lewis ' Narnia series as a child, despite being working class myself, that all went over my head at the time and I just enjoyed the stories and characters. I've yet to re-read them but doubt I'll develop the antipathy towards them that the author demonstrates.

He highly rates the late Fitz Leiber, as do I, having discovered his work when at high school, and he points out the male dominated nature of the genre and the good work being done by women at the time of publication (my copy is the first edition). But a singular omission in his discussion of women fantasy writers of the period is Tanith Lee who was very prolific at the time although her early work was published in the States since she couldn't get UK publishers interested. I found it odd - she wasn't even mentioned in passing, unlike Katherine Kurtz who at least had her surname included, though frustratingly nothing more. Another odd omission is that despite discussing some of the work of André Norton, he fails to even mention her Witch World series, her biggest contribution to the genre.

A lot of the book consists of quotes from various works but with not much critical input. He also states up front that he has excluded his own writing so anyone hoping for insights into the development of the Eternal Champion canon will be disappointed. Given the uneven nature of the book, for me it rates an OK 2 stars

Since the long gone days of me reading Elric and Corum I always thought Michael Moorcock is some kind of pulp writer but actually he is very clever - which also explains why I loved Corum and Elric ;). So I read through his little journey into the world of fantasy and enjoyed it quite much. Besides pointing out some nice reading recommendations (Broken sword) I am was also impressed about his thoughts about the future of the genre which isn´t repeating old stereotpyes and cliches but about writing better fantasy that doesnt treat women as subject and features heroes that never really grow up. Worth reading! ( )

Ultimately unsatisfying... Moorcock's argument against Tolkien and his ilk is unconvincing when it is on the basis of writing and immaterial when on the basis of politics. Many of the more recent fantasy fictions influenced by the British left have been equally silly. Also, dismissing Cabell and Vonnegut as contrived? I shouldn't really bring up Moorcock's own writing, but... dude shouldn't front. ( )

http://www.sfreader.com/read_review.asp?ID=658 ( )