Maybe it's because I'm a belligerent warrior in the genre wars, but the historical inspiration for this fantasy didn't appeal to me. I liked it better when the core of Moorcock's work was science fiction and/or fantasy.
Also, the depiction of rape is intolerable. My edition has the original ending and the rewritten, supposedly toned down ending. It reminded me of a sleazy old Russ Meyer film, or those compilations of horrific violence against women in "classic" old movies where big name male stars are shown sickeningly, endlessly slapping women.
So overall, I think this is the worst Moorcock book I've ever read and I think it should just fade into obscurity.
Review of "Gloriana, or, The unfulfill'd queen" on 'Goodreads'
2 stars
It's impossible to discuss this book in anything but the most superficial manner without talking in detail about its highly controvercial ending, so spoilers for the conclusion of the book immediately ahead:
Glorianna is Queen of Albion, a possibly fantastical alternative British Empire of distinctly Elizabethan tone and culture. She's the firgurehead and symbol of a Golden Age of peace. She also can't have an orgasm, no matter what, or whom, she tries. Until, with global war and personal disaster looming, she is raped by a former lover, that is. So there you have it. I think Moorcock wanted this crisis and the bizarre upshot that saves Albion and the world from war to feel supremely ironical and show that the whole concept of a living symbol of an entirely unrealistic, illusory, Golden Age is absurd and doomed to failure. Instead, many just felt extreme outrage. I am told that, …
It's impossible to discuss this book in anything but the most superficial manner without talking in detail about its highly controvercial ending, so spoilers for the conclusion of the book immediately ahead:
Glorianna is Queen of Albion, a possibly fantastical alternative British Empire of distinctly Elizabethan tone and culture. She's the firgurehead and symbol of a Golden Age of peace. She also can't have an orgasm, no matter what, or whom, she tries. Until, with global war and personal disaster looming, she is raped by a former lover, that is. So there you have it. I think Moorcock wanted this crisis and the bizarre upshot that saves Albion and the world from war to feel supremely ironical and show that the whole concept of a living symbol of an entirely unrealistic, illusory, Golden Age is absurd and doomed to failure. Instead, many just felt extreme outrage. I am told that, to his (limited) credit, at some point he altered the ending to remove the astoundingly unempathetic rape/orgasm. Alarmingly, I can name two other SF&F authors of the same era (60s-70s) on the record with similarly disgusting and unsympathetic attitudes to rape: Brian Aldiss and James Blish. Never meet your heroes. Just how common was this attitude, then? Is it actually better now or are people just silent because they know they will be villified and likely suffer personal consequences if they betray their real attitudes?
When I first read this, I was expecting another in Moorcock's seemingly endless sequence of Sword and Sorcery adventures and was too young for what I got, a distinctly more adult and demanding book, with themes I only really understood in retrospect. I wanted to re-read it in order to ensure my grasp of the book was not weakened by distant memory and initial incomprehension. I don't know exactly when the altered ending replaced the original and was, through-out my re-reading, curious as to which ending my copy had. I read the hardback 1st Edition back in the day. This appears to be the first paperback printing - and it has the original ending. I still don't know how the 2nd version's ending plays out, other than knowing it eliminates the horrific error of judgement that angered so many. I am strongly tempted to try to obtain a later copy that will have the altered text, to find out. Because as it stands, the original text tackles some interesting themes about global and national politics, "statecraft", deception, cult of personality and democracy and monarchy that are worth the effort to get through the initially slow scene setting and placing of all the pieces on the board, ruined by a horrendous failure to understand women's desire for autonomy and authority over their bodies, as clearly expressed at least as far back in literary history as Chaucer. Good grief, man! What were you thinking?!
Perhaps the altered version saves the book's many interesting discussions from being lost in the (entirely justified) outrage - I won't know unless I read it.
