Well, the Moorcock subforum has been a bit moribund of late, so I'll throw one out there: Who here is up to a discussion of some of Moorcock's "Great Themes" -- by which I mean those things which have been themes examined in his work throughout his career. For example: "Romance" vs. Reality; our tendency to mistake ritual for substance; the fact that humanity is the first (so far as we know) species capable of not only adapting to the environment, but making our environment adapt to us, and whether this is true or not; how far we can adopt to our environment (I'm thinking in particular of some of the points he makes in The Blood Red Game and elsewhere); Law (Order) vs. Misrule (Chaos) -- the strengths and weaknesses of both, how they are each a part of our nature, the tendency to strive for a balance between them and how that struggle is what ensures we remain a dynamic species (with a proliferation of possibilities) while an extreme on either end leads to stultification and extinction; our ability (and need?) to create the myths we then live by -- and why we create particular myths at particular times -- and the benefits and dangers inherent in doing so (such as holding onto particular myths once they have outlived their usefulness, becoming straitjacketed by them; or contrariwise having such a confusion of myths that they conflict and therefore cause conflict rather than providing structure); etc., etc., etc. Now, it seems to me, as someone who has read the majority of his work from the Sojan stories onward, that he has had many of these themes at the core of his work from the beginning, sometimes emphasizing one more than the others, but usually with all present in one form or another; and that he argues different sides of each of these questions at different times -- this being one of the strengths of his metaphor of the Eternal War, with the different aspects of the Champion being exemplars of different positions taken on these issues. My question is: is anyone here interested in discussing any of this, or is this simply getting too abstract or esoteric for it to be interesting? Along with that: what other themes do others see in his work? Do you feel he uses these themes well or not? How do you feel he's grown as a writer in dealing with these ideas (some of which -- the ability/need for creating myths to live by, for instance -- he shares with, say, Ballard)? And does anyone have other, similar points, they'd like to throw out for discussion? Any thoughts?