>I read the works of E.R.J Eddison, long after they appeared; and I once met him. I heard him in Mr. Lewis's room in Magdalen College read aloud some parts of his own works – from the Mistress of Mistresses, as far as I remember. He did it extremely well. I read his works with great enjoyment for their sheer literary merit. My opinion of them is almost the same as that expressed by Mr. Lewis on p. 104 of the Essays presented to Charles Williams. Except that I disliked his characters (always excepting the Lord Gro) and despised what he appeared to admire more intensely than Mr. Lewis at any rate saw fit to say of himself. Eddison thought what I admire 'soft' (his word: one of complete condemnation, I gathered); I thought that, corrupted by an evil and indeed silly 'philosophy', he was coming to admire, more and more, arrogance and cruelty. Incidentally, I thought his nomenclature slipshod and often inept. In spite of all of which, I still think of him as the greatest and most convincing writer of 'invented worlds' that I have read. But he was certainly not an 'influence'.
Why did Eddison make Tolkien seethe so greatly?

Keely's review of Ouroboros (1/2):

Though now largely forgotten, Eddison's early works of Fantasy inspired both Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, who never surpassed him in imagination, verbal beauty, or philosophy. In terms of morality, both later authors painted their worlds in broad strokes of black and white, excepting a traitor here or a redemption there. Like in the nationalistic epic 'Song of Roland', evil and good are tangible effects, borne in the blood.

Though similar on the surface, Eddison's is much more subtle. Though he depicts grand heroism and grand treachery, both are acts motivated by social codes and by need. Neither goes unquestioned, so that even when honesty is lauded and treachery is condemned, there is a certain self-awareness and irony in play.

In Fantasy, as in the Epic before it, there is an inherent conflict between the hyperbole of the high action and the need for sympathetic characters. A character without flaws cannot be sympathetic, for such a character has no humanity. A flawless hero in a world of simple morality can only be a farce, expressed either as satire or propaganda.

>>24558643
Eddison's characters and philosophies are too complex for propaganda, which is unsurprising since he takes his cues from Shakespeare. Like The Bard, Eddison does give us some overblown cliches, and occasionally lets them ride, but the setting and the supporting cast balance them by opposition. In no way does Eddison give up on the action or melodrama of the Epic tradition, but he tempers it with undertones of existentialism and realism.

Breadth of character complexity is not all Eddison borrows from Shakespeare, however. 'The Worm Ouroboros' is a whimsical exploration of the imagination, and is unapologetically stylized. The language is purposefully archaic and evocative of the Metaphysical poets, the Nordic Sagas, and Chaucer.

As a linguist and translator, Eddison's language is seasoned and playful. Some have expressed discontent at trying to read it, but it is usually more simple than Shakespeare's, and rarely as difficult as Chaucer's.

There are some truly lovely, almost alien passages in the book, but they are not Tolkien's wooden reconstruction of epic language, they are truly a language of their own. This is especially true of the scenes of war and the emotionally fraught interplay between characters. Though much of the interaction plays out along the lines of chivalry, nobility, and duty, there is often a subtext of unspoken, conflicting desires and thoughts. As with any formal social system, chivalry may be the mode of interaction, but it is rarely the content.

Like the Metaphysical poetry of Donne, Sydney, and Shakespeare, though the surface may be grand or lovely or innocent, the underlying meanings subvert. Unlike Tolkien, this underlying meaning is not a stodgy allegorical moral but an exploration of human thought and desire.

Also unlike Tolkien, Eddison is not afraid of women. His women are mightily present, and may be manipulative, vengeful, honorable, powerful, and self-sacrificing as the men. The women are often defined by their sexuality, meaning their beauty and availability. The book neither praises not condemns this social control, as it is the form which chivalry takes, but these ideals entrap the men just as strictly. Though he doesn't create female knights like Ariosto, neither are his women Tolkien's objects of distant and uneasy worship.

>>24558644
However, one can see in Eddison's Queen Sophonisba a prototype for Galadriel. Likewise the destruction at Krothering is reminiscent of the industrialization of Isengard and The Shire. The 'seeing stones' prefigure both the palantir and Galadriel's mirror. Gorice XII working magic in his black tower could be Saruman, nor are these the end of the parallels between the books.

It is a shame that modern fantasy authors did not take more from Eddison than his striking imagery. We could do with more subtle character interaction, more sympathetic foes, characters remarkable not for their prowess, but for their philosophies, and a well-studied depiction of arms, armor, war, ships, architecture, art, food, hunting, and culture.

The depth and detail of each table or boot or sea battle truly shows the mastery of the author, and the supremacy of his knowledge. The world is full and rich and alien and yet remains sympathetic. The play of language is complex and studied, and second in force only to a master like Mervyn Peake.

Rare is the author who has picked up the resonance of the early fantasy works of Morris, MacDonald, Dunsany, and Eddison, but there are some, such as Fritz Leiber and Michael Moorcock, and though they are sadly few, they represent remarkably unique visions within the tradition. Eddison's own vision remains without peer to this day, as no author has been able to combine studied archaism so effortlessly with childlike enthusiasm. Perhaps no one ever will.

bump

Eddison makes Tolkien seethe because he's very amoral. The heroes do what they want because they are the kings and nobility and therefore anything they do is right and honorable. The Demon lords are never concerned with their men or their land, just their quest. Tolkien is a deep moralfag and cant stand heroes to be high handed beings of pure will, he wants them humanised or able to relate to the common man.

>>24559566
I know its a popular criticism/comment but honestly the Demons never really came off to me as amoral. They're very moral, more moral than (some of) the Witches, its just a premodern, sort of chivalric pre-Christian morality. Honestly I went into reading The Worm Ouroboros expecting them to act like the Achaeans during the Iliad but they come off as being in the defensive from Witch incursion, who unlike the Demons invade all their neighboring kingdoms to conquer the entire world and have historically committed for as long as the Gorices have been in power. Even when they turn the tides on the Witches they regularly act merciful towards their enemies like Gro and Laxus and go as for as to offer Gorice XII peace so long as he handed over Corinius and Corsus (a demand he'd never accept but a demand nonetheless). I'd argue too that they do care about their subjects at least a bit, as they seem to have a personal vendetta towards Corsus and Corinius after they rape and pillage Demonland, but I could also see their offense more as a slight towards their honor than a killing of innocents. Anyway, I guess my whole point falls apart when they decide to bring Carce back in the end to fight again, but I still think coping and sneeding over Medieval Heroic Figures acting like Medieval Heroic Figures is a bit silly, especially for a scholar like Tolkein who would've habitually read the same kind of epic literature that Eddison was taking from