[blantyr]

Hmmm…

I'm not sure it is fair to compare most commercial authors and Tolkien. Tolkien was an academic, deeply involved in linguistics and the ancient epics. His First Age stuff wasn't written for publication, with deadlines considered, with a need to sell or starve. It was a very elaborate daydream written for himself and perhaps a few friends. The realities of being a professional story teller for hire were several degrees removed. Thus, there is a degree of complexity and intellectual playfulness which one will not find elsewhere.

This can result in intellectual snobbishness among Tolkien's fans. Tolkien's stuff is more complex and rich than a lot of other writings. I too can appreciate the richness and complexity. At the same time, I wouldn't measure other authors by Tolkien's standards.

I'll nitpick a bit on Moorcock. A long time ago I read several of his novels before overdosing on it and moving on to the next author. At this point, the primary thing I remember from his works is the final scene of Stormbringer. The sword, after killing Elric and morphing into a demon, laughs while Fate's Scales showing the balance between Law and Chaos restores itself to Balance. I'm not sure Moorcock's world is "devoid of any moral certainties whatsoever." The themes of Law, Chaos and Balance are there, and distinct enough from Tolkien's Good and Evil.

To some extent, many authors who aren't writing genera boilerplate will let their own moral perspectives leak into their work. Morcock's moral perspective is real enough, even if it is not comfortable. I prefer James Schmitz's dealing between law and chaos from The Demon Breed. The Overgovernment deliberately encourages enough chaos that anti predators living among the population are ready to enforce order. I've also enjoyed the Dreams Made Flesh perspective from Anne Bishop's Black Jewels trilogy.

Many an author, and not just in the genera of fantasy, can create a mythos with a strong dash of morality. The object ought not to be to preach. Tolkien himself was clear enough on that. However, a strong moral perspective can present a stage upon which a story can be told. If one wants to tell an uplifting story, the author's values will often be confirmed by the story's climax.

Heinlein. You start with a touch of vaguely libertarian philosophy, assume infinite energy, an infinite frontier, an adequate supply of hot women, and that one can acquire a private spaceship without too much trouble. Nice stage for a story. Can one really assume infinite energy and infinite frontiers these days, when Earth is resource stressed and the problem of getting Man from Earth to Mars without a significant chance of lethal radiation damage is non-trivial? Can one still enjoy Heinlein as a story teller even if one thinks his optimism about infinitely developing science and a resource rich universe is problematic?

I don't know. The old phrase is 'suspension of disbelief.' One must be able to create a plausible enough sub-creation for the reader to be willing to come along for the ride. Tolkien achieved that. Many other writers also achieved that. Many also brought along personal and moralistic perspectives that might be applied to our own world. If the author's moralistic world view clashes too much with the world view of the reader, the reader isn't apt to enjoy the book much.

I'd just be careful of judging one author's work too much through the prism of another's work, or through one's own prism. When a christian critic or fan writes about Tolkien's works, one is apt to learn more about the critic or fan's world view as Tolkien's. Tolkien might still be properly talked about through the lens of the old epics or christian values, but many another author should be examined from other perspectives. I would be careful, when comparing Tolkien with another writer, about using the old epics or christian values to examine the other author.