From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: The Worm Ouroboros
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:20:13 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <MATT.92Aug25200518@physics16.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.172504.1115@gvl.unisys.com> schrey@oak.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Timothy M. Schreyer) writes:

>>    "The Worm Ouroboros" has a definitely dated feel to it that would strike
>>    boredom into most modern fantasy readers, but it does a whole lot with
>>    with its imagery and the huge Romantic feeling it constructs.  I loved
...
>In one sense, of course, it is true that there is a "dated" feel to
>this book---the language is very archaic.  This is surely deliberate,
>though: Eddison was using language that was evocative of the 17th or
>18th century, not of the early 20th century, which was when this book
>was written.  In fact, I think that this very archaic language is the
>best aspect of this book.

I agree--I love the language in _The Worm Ouroboros_ much as I love the
language when I hear Shakespeare--the deliberately archaic language is one
of the great charms of this book. The thing I dislike most about this book
is quickly gotten over--it's the beginning. Eddison thinks he has to have
an introduction to the action (perhaps because this was a convention of the
times), so he starts out with the premise that his world is really Mercury,
and that the narrator goes there in a dream.  Fortuitously, the narrator is
quickly forgotten by Eddison, and drops from sight, never to be heard from
again.

The only other thing that annoys me about the book is the terminology that
Eddison uses for his creatures--the bad fellows are called "witches", and
the good guys are "demons". It's best if the reader keeps in mind that this
terminology means nothing--Eddison's "witches" and "demons" (and his
"goblins" too) have nothing to do with what we ordinarily think when we
hear these names. Perhaps Eddison felt obliged to put witches, goblins, and
demons in a fantasy--perhaps he thought readers would expect this. 

I love the complex characters--though it seems that the best of them are
not the ostensible heroes (who, with the notable exception of Brandoch
Daha, are actually rather dull) but the wonderfully wicked King Gorice, and
the mercurial Lord Gro. I rather suspect Eddison liked them best also.

Incidentally, I'd like to find the source for some of the rhymes that
Eddison uses in this book and that in the bibliography are attributed to a
1661 source called "An Antidote for Melancholy". Does anyone know where I
can find a copy of this?

>I agree that you need an open mind to read this book, and you need
>something else as well: a willingness to overlook flaws.  There are
>several glaring inadequacies in this book; I could list a few, but why
>bother?  Anyone who has read it could do so just as easily as I, and
>the list would probably be much the same as mine.  It would have been
>nice if Eddison had had a good editor, but he didn't, so we have to
>live with what he wrote.  I believe that the virtues of this book are
>sufficiently great that it is worth making the effort.

Truly, if you like fantasy and have not read this book, you owe it to
yourself to give it a try. As C.S. Lewis said about it, it is "good beyond
hope". I've just dug out my edition, and I'm going to read it again.
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd